Category talk:Abortifacients

Categorization
This category should be listed directly under Category:Abortion, not under Category:Methods of abortion. Simply because a substance induces abortion does not make it a medically recognized "method of abortion".


 * Ergot, for instance, is listed in Category:Abortifacients. Ergot can cause seizures, and unconsciousness, or death.  It is psychoactive and is used to synthesize LSD.  No medical professional would refer to ergot as an "abortion method".


 * Silphium, also listed, was harvested to extinction in the first century, and since it no longer exists, it cannot be considered an "abortion method".


 * Mifepristone and Misoprostol are indeed included in Category:Abortifacients, but these are already listed individually under Category:Methods of abortion.

All of the medically recognized methods of abortion are already listed under Category:Methods of abortion. Editors are free to argue that certain abortifacient substances should be added to the category, on an individual basis. However, Category:Abortifacients as a whole, which includes toxic substances such as ergot, should not be added to Category:Methods of abortion, any more than Feticide should be considered a "method of abortion" and added to the category. Joie de Vivre 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any way of inducing an abortion is a "method of abortion." Modern practice has never been the gold standard of what is to be judged an abortion method and what is not. Historical methods are still considered methods, even if they are not standard, safe, modern medical practice, or else there would be very little content in the "Forms of abortion" section at Abortion or at History of abortion. Claiming that silphium cannot be considered as having been an abortion method because it is now extinct would be like claiming that the dodo cannot be considered as having been a species of bird. I urge you to consider either my proposal or Andrew c's proposal at Category talk:Methods of abortion. Either one of these would address both of our concerns. It would separate non-standard, historical practices from standard, modern ones, while preserving the functionality of the WikiProject Abortion categorization system. It's the best of both worlds, really. -Severa (!!!) 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, why haven't you added Feticide to Category:Methods of abortion? A purposeful blow to the abdomen can induce an abortion.  And if, as you said "any way of inducing an abortion is a 'method of abortion'", why should Feticide be excluded?  Hell, why don't we add Car accident while we're at it? Joie de Vivre 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's time to stop splitting hairs and going back-and-forth. I went ahead and implemented a blend of Andrew c's and my proposals from Category talk:Methods of abortion. Wikipedia does not operate in terms of all-or-nothing; it is always preferrable to seek a solution that would be agreeble to all the involved parties (so long as that solution is reasonable). I can see nothing unreasonable with our solution. It is perfect, in that it addresses the concerns you had over distinguishing the standard practices of today from "everything else," while at the same time preserving the specificity and navigational functionality of the category system which I find important. You don't think that herbal abortions should be counted as a "methods of abortion?" Fine. Category:Abortifacients is listed in Category:Induced abortion instead. You can't argue that an abortion brought about by a herb isn't an "induced abortion," because it's certainly not a spontaneous abortion. Late-term abortion, selective reduction, and self-induced abortion aren't specific "methods of abortion?" Fine. But you can't refute the fact that all of these things are induced abortion. Category:Abortion by kind was Andrew c's idea and "X by Y" categories are in keeping with WP:NCCAT. As for categorizing things like car accident, staircase, or clothes hanger under Category:Methods of abortion, have I ever suggested something of that nature? It would be unencyclopaedic and terribly POINT-ish — fodder for WP:BJAODN. -Severa (!!!) 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, I hadn't read your post on my Talk page yet. You'd misplaced the link to Category talk:Methods of abortion so I'm sorry if my edit summary about the "compromise proposals" gave the wrong impression. -Severa (!!!) 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)