Talk:Abortion/Archive 12

Abortion related to the disabled community
Reverted this addition which referred to a disabled women's experience with a forced abortion:


 * Throughout history, disabled women have been forced &mdash; at times &mdash; to have abortions or to be sterilized. To this day, even in countries that specifically outlaw sterilization, disabled women are coerced into abortions.

While this subject is certainly notable, the addition needs to be toned down a bit. - RoyBoy 800 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but how so? I could use a little more direction. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty much remove the personal experience, which I have done above along with tweaks in the formatting. Is this acceptable to you? If you want to go into personal experiences and periods in history you can start a sub-section in History of abortion, preferably after Post-industrial. If done well and in detail it could become its own article in due course. - RoyBoy 800 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Roy -- this has been extremely helpful. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I would like to thank you for bringing up disability rights; which is a hidden and troubling aspect to abortion that is rarely discussed and usually overlooked. It is an outstanding example of what makes Wikipedia great... so upon reflection I will give you a Wikithanks and copy this to your talk page for others to see. - RoyBoy 800 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Either we should move this next to sex selected infanticide, or vice versa. Also, claim removed until backed up with some sort of source or refrence. Its a strong ambigious claim and we need to avoid those like the plague.--Tznkai 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It originally had a source, which somehow disappeared in the edit: http://www.newint.org/issue233/fruit.htm

--Jacquelyn Marie 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The article this links to is so powerful, that I think the paragraph should be expanded slightly and made more specific -- not "some countries" but name names. Rick Norwood 15:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But which country would you out? China? As I understand it doesn't outlaw sterilization; and to use anecdotal evidence to point the finger at a country would be unfair and unencyclopedic unless we could provide solid evidence it is a more widespread problem than elsewhere. Yes, China comes to mind... and I guess that would be okay; but I'm concerned it would lead to further countries being added... and it could be a significant list when all said and done. - RoyBoy 800 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an op-ed piece with a few anecdotes about sexuality and disability. The only direct reference to an abortion — specifically a forced abortion — is in a quotation from a poem and some insufficiently substantiated claims about China. It's a legitimate, noteworthy issue; but is this an appropriate source? --Kyd 15:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope Jacquelyn Marie can come up with some specifics. Rick Norwood 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Forced abortion: Coercive Birth Control in Tibet, has some information as well as a list of sources which we could track down at end of page. CNN. Forced abortion of the disabled: Human Rights Watch (main disability article), Human Rights Violations Related to Women’s Sexual Autonomy and Reproductive Choices on Human Rights Watch, UN Disability Convention (see under "Family/privacy rights" where is stated " In particular, disabled women are often victims of forced sterilization and forced abortion." Towards a Gender Sensitive Disability Rights Convention under "Right to protection against all forms of violence" and "Right to protection against eugenic health programs and practices" where forced abortion is specifically mentioned. Is this what was wanted, or did you need anything else? KillerChihuahua 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice work KC! I thought this had turned into a dead issue.--Tznkai 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks. :) KillerChihuahua 18:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

External links.
I have removed all the external links. I personally am sick and tired of the bloating that one side or the other gets. I propose we only add statistics, and additional information that is reasonable neutral and sterile. No diatribes, no declarations. Only external links to laws, statements by governments, statistics, medical journal definitions, etc.

No more advocacy groups. Leave that to the abortion subpages (debate, morality, pro choice, pro life, abortion in _____, etc.)

This is ridiculous. I think most of you will agree with me.--Tznkai 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your view, but the links have been present for ages and to simply remove them one day is capricious. I think it was good to thin them (which we did long ago), but I don't favor removal. 214.13.4.151 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be ideal if only neutral, fact-based links were listed, but POV external links provide an opportunity to those who are interested in getting more information from either side without having to accomodate long-winded, often rambling, statements of principle in the main article. As long as the selected sites are kept within the mainstream (no shock pictures, etc.), I don't have any major issues with their inclusion, per se. However, I've noticed that some things that wouldn't necessarily fall into a POV get sorted there, like embryolgy information listed under pro-life or an article debunking fetal pain under pro-choice, which is somewhat misleading. Here's some purely informational links most of us would agree are neutral: Abortion Statistics, Abortion Laws of the World, Abortion Policies: A Global Review. --Kyd 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good'ol justfacts link moving back again. - RoyBoy 800 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Choice"
I thought this was settled. I have re-removed the choice as an ambigious term from the Abortion Terminology section. The question of choices at stake, and choice as a euphimism in the context of "pro-choice" are dealt with in the debate section. The terminilogy section is for terms that have ambigious and implicit meaning. Life and Human are ambigious, because they are sometimes confused with personhood and person. This is not a statement of belief, merely that the words have implicit meanings. When someone says "human" they do not always mean person, but frequently they do. This is a fact. When people say choice, they almost always mean "something having to do with a decision being made".

I understand the point being made. That point can be made in the abortion debate section. Its useful there. Not useful in an attempt to warn the reader that we're trying our best to NOT make implications beyond strict definition.--Tznkai 16:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not settled at all. Your explanation explains your desire and viewpoint, but is in adequate as a reason to remove (from the language section) a very controversial term that is ambiguous and hides the choice being made since that choice is so very controversial. Linguistics are important, and using a term that can be applied to what one elects to eat for breakfast in place of the term "abortion" is as linguistically slick as it can ever get! 214.13.4.151 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your explanation suits your desire too, so lets Assume good faith here, 214. Tznkai is right that it is both redundant and out-of-place at this specific point in the article.  We could have the entire debate rolled up into the terminology section, but it is better addressed in the debate section, IMHO.  --Quasipalm 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A dose of your own medicine (Assume good faith) is in order when you describe my edits as childish. 214.13.4.151 18:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, to assume good faith with you is nonsensical given your vast history of ignoring consensus and acting unilaterally. Yet still I do AGF with you, 214, most of the tmie.  I, for the most part, really believe that you mean well.  But rewriting a paragraph so that "life" always precedes "choice" -- it is childish and silly.  You can only break long-held consensus so much before I start to think that you look at wikipedia as a chance for advocacy and proselytization. It doesn't help that you repeatedly try and add "his holiness" into pope articles even though wikipedia came to a compromise and reached consensus on that months ago.  You're not exactly what I would call a "team player."  --Quasipalm 18:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not going to try to "fix" this, but here I would like to point out the way in which the word "choice" is ambiguous. To most people who are "pro choice", "pro choice" means that the question of what choices a woman makes during her pregnancy should be between her and her doctor.  To some people who are "pro life", "pro choice" means either that abortion is the favored alternative, or that the choice of abortion is value neutral.  This confusion of the word is so fixed in the minds of many that I feel the need to explain further.  I am pro-choice but anti-abortion -- at least in the late stages of pregnancy.  By being anti-abortion, I mean that if a friend asked me if she should have an abortion I would advise against it.  By being pro-choice, I mean that the government should not pass laws on this intensely private subject.  When the government tries to pass laws to "fix" the lives of private citizens, it is like someone trying to pull a splinter using a fork lift. Rick Norwood 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If 214 didn't constantly keep forcing us to revisit settled matters, then perhaps we could actually move onto something else, like internationalizing the public opinion section or finding research to support the medical side of the article. The article's organic, sure, it's in a constant process of evolution, but this neverending game of tit-for-tat that we're forced to waste time on is both silly and counterproductive. --Kyd 18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Calm, Kyd. You've written a sentence that, if read literally, says the punishment of women is not addressed as a right.  I think a shorter sentence is in order.  Rick Norwood 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that the previous version wasn't clearly phrased. However, 214 feels the need to continually wedge these qualifications into the text, again, and again, and again, and I can't help feeling it's an attempt to lead readers around by the hand. Just when you think it's all been settled, it gets brought up once more. It's become frustrating. --Kyd 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I share your frustration. I suggest you revert changes that are not discussed here. Rick Norwood 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidently some people really do believe that not punishing women is an "extreme point of view"! Rick Norwood 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reattempted the compromise we arranged the last time. I understand the point trying to be made, and I agree that it is a common criticism. There are better places to do it. If we can't all agree to come to respect some sort of compromise, I suggest we set up a straw poll. --Tznkai 15:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Kyd, now we have "9% of thought", which is what happens when you get half a dozen rewrites on the same day. I'm out of here until things calm down. Rick Norwood 21:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, regarding the language games surrounding abortion: "choice" is vague and means nothing, just as many think "life" vague and means nothing. Women are not in danger of losing any other choices other than the one to have an abortion. The only choice at issue is the one to abort, the laws and the political issue do not touch on any other issues. "Choice" will be in this linguistic section. The only basis to keep it out is a POV so extreme as to deny that choice is used interchangably to mean abortion precisely so that people do not have to utter such a distasteful word (the vaguer the better, in the eyes of one who advocates "choice"). The fact is that no one likes abortion, and even advocates think it is a necessary evil - so evil that being specific about what right is at stake makes right-to-abortion advocates nervous. How sad that some are so oblivious to this linguistic controversy. 214.13.4.151 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The more one thinks about the issue the more obvious it is that "choice" definitely belongs in the lingusitic pitfalls section of this article. The oponents of any law that effectively outlaws a certain behavior could, under the silly argument being advanced on this talk page, call themselves "pro-choice", and discuss the isseu in terms of "choice". And the point is this: the word means anything (and thus nothing) unless the choice that is potentially being banned or hindered is identified. 214.13.4.151 08:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you realize that such is true about "life." If I loose a skin cell the size of a zygot, I'm certainly not going to hold a funeral.  Nor

I agree with you that both "choice" and "life" belong in the section on "linguistic pitfalls". The question is, how to get that paragraph in a shape that won't be instantly reverted. When things calm down a little bit, maybe that can be accomplished, but right now I see much heat and little light. Rick Norwood 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems I see here is that this is a top-tier article about abortion, so there need not be mentions of every arcane issue about the debate here in the states. Right now, I see two sections of the article that talk about "choice" and "life" being vague (the terminology and the debate sections). I think that's too much -- this needs to be a general article that someone can read and get quick facts about abortion as a whole without redundancies, not just induced abortion, not just the U.S. debate, etc., etc. I know that's a pie in the sky at this point, but I think it should be what we're focused on. Perhaps we should only breifly mention the terms in the debate section, and leave the rest of it up to Abortion debate? --Quasipalm 14:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. At the very least, the Department of Redundency Department should give it a once over.  Rick Norwood 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
I see that my two edits were removed.

Item #1: The first study in the mental health discussion. We discussed this about a month ago, which is that the first study was redundant with the third one (i.e. gave no new information) and in addition had no source. Tsukai asked if anyone had an objection to the removal, and no one responded. You had a month to object!

Item #2: The just facts website is not in fact non partisan. They specifically state that they are a conservative site. It has an AGENDA and therefore is a pro-life site.

I'll give you all time to respond before I delete them again. Lepidoptera 18:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We've had a reversion war here the past couple of days. I don't know if your stuff was changed intentionally or just caught up in a bunch of hasty people reverting each other.  There is some work to be done on the article, but it can't start until the reversion war settles down. Rick Norwood 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They were both reverted by the same user, who doesn't have an account- just an IP. Actually if you look at his talk page it's littered with people complaining about his abuse of reverts.  But I figured I should bring this to the discussion page and see what other people have to say. Lepidoptera 19:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've looked around at The Pump for a discussion of these problems but haven't found it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. The number of people who know about Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and there are too many of them who think they are being funny when they delete an entire article and type "Your a fag!". (None of them know how to spell, "you're".) I think sooner or later Wiki is going to have to require registration. Rick Norwood 20:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Lepidoptera is right about the 'Just Facts' link. Case in point, quoting from the website:
 * "The term chosen by Just Facts is 'preborn human.' This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in simple unemotional language."

"Preborn human" is a neologism used exclusively by the right-to-life movement. Do a Google search, if you don't believe me, and see what kind of hits you return. "Preborn" or (pre-born) were listed at neither Dictionary.com nor Wiktionary; a Google search for the term, individually, returned 90% pro-life sites. I don't understand how anyone can use a politically-charged term while claiming it "unemotional language" (especially when it rejects "unborn baby" because it "tends to evoke a warm sentiment"). "Human" herein is deliberately ambiguous in context: "homo sapiens," i.e. "something that is biologically human," or "person, individual." Emotionalization, anyone?

This site definitely belongs under pro-life, because, in the organization of links, we are forced to consider the site's "agenda" (thus, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for all its wonderful charts and graphs, is "pro-choice"). Tznkai suggests that the the partisan link sections be done away with entirely. I understand, and also agree, with this idea, but believe that the section should remain, if only to prevent the ideologies presented on such sites from spilling over into the main article. The informational section was designed to be a third, neutral category, not an opportunity and an invitation for mole links. --Kyd 11:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, what about issue #1? I'm inclined to just fix it now since the discussion has already been had, but I'd feel better if someone commented! Lepidoptera 04:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. I think, invariably, we're going to have to streamline the article. If two studies asked the same questions, and returned the same results, it would seem logical to favour the newest one (or else the one with the broadest geographical sample). I think this is also going to come into play in the Public Opinion section; the number of American studies is going to have to be trimmed down if we're also to include some international examples. --Kyd 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It was reverted again. 128.253.240.212 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

terminology
OK to archive Ok, scanning through the talk page, it seems we have several problems with the terminology and debate sections. Since I originally rewrote and layed out the organization for them, let me explain what the original intent was. The terminology section was designed to inform the reader of the problematic nature of discussing abortion. Certain words have inherently vague definitions. Life, for example, can be used in science to simply refer to "having life defining conditions" (cells), or it can mean a number of other things. A future, a family, personhood, having a "life". The idea was to get all of those out of the way as soon as possible. The debate section was then cut as much as possible to get only the bare facts. As has been mentioned, we are the top tier summary article. Redudancy and fluff is nearly as a bad as POV slants. The new subsection in the debate section was an attempt at a compromise to deal with two slightly diffrent issues. Rhetoric and genuine confusion. Before we get into the nitty gritty of what specificly is flawed, we have several choices.


 * 1) We can remove the terminology section
 * 2) We can remove the terminology discussion from the debate section.
 * 3) Both
 * 4) Neither
 * 5) Something brilliant.

Thoughts?--Tznkai 18:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal in the Abortion article that really belongs in the Abortion debate article or the Abortion in the United States article. In fact, there is a lot here that is duplicated in those articles, and so does not belong here.  My thinking is that anything more than a sentence or two that is about either the dabate or the US should be moved.  I use the following steps -- don't know if they are the wiki way since I made them up.  First, cut the section from page X with a note "moved to Y".  Second, paste the section in the Y discussion page, with a note that this is moved from page X and that someone may want to incorporate it into page Y.


 * As for the particular problem with the terminology section, I agree that the only real purpose of that section is to inform the reader. How about something like this:


 * Emotions run high on the subject of abortion and many people use loaded language to try to influence opinion. Those who believe that pregnancy is a private matter call themselves "pro choice".  Those who believe that the public should have a say on abortion call themselves "pro life".  Both terms were chosen for their positive connotations, but neutral language is impossible -- the use of those terms here is a reflection of common usage and should not be taken as favoring one view over the other.  Rick Norwood 22:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution would be to leave the terminology section (and maybe rework it again after the 214 edit war of last week) -- and to completely remove the "Abortion debate" text replace it with a few "See also" links:
 * Abortion debate
 * Religion and abortion
 * Category:Abortion by country
 * Maybe this is just giving up -- but it may not be possible to sum up the gamut of world-wide political / religious / ethical arguments in a small space. Since we can't fit the debate onto this page, maybe we need to break it up into managable chunks.  --Quasipalm 03:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The simplest solution to the terminology section issue would be to excise what isn't relevant. Perhaps we should merely lay down practical ground rules for editors in the article to follow and avoid anything that approachs a discussion of abortion semantics. It is practical to state that the article will use medical terms to refer to the various stages of fetal development ("zygote," "blastocyst," "embryo," "fetus," "unborn") and that it will apply the self-styled monikers of either side of the movement ("pro-choice" and "pro-life"). Generally, in the absence of such a foundation editors would take such liberties as they saw fit; soon, the article would be replete with terms like "anti-women,""pro-murder," "glob of tissue," and "preborn human being." It is thus practical to enforce the use of "fetus," "pro-choice," and "pro-life." Unfortunately, however, the use of "choice" and "life" in the article is unavoidable; there are no clear substitutions for either of these terms. Discussion of semantics herein is thus both impratical and tautological (although, granted, I agree with Tznkai's distinctions of "life" and "human). If the terminology section is to be viewed as a list of rules, these serve no purpose. Move it to the debate. And then prune the debate section after it doubles in length. --Kyd 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that those who do not share there opinion in this section, give a tacit vote to accept the conclusions of those who do discuss. I think we should give it another week. After that, we come to the decision for the best article, and all agree to remove on sight contributions that are counter to this convention and undiscussed.--Tznkai 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Attempting to fix this mess. Feel free to comment, but don't just RV kids.--Tznkai 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

Public Opinion
I divided the public opinion information by country and added information on Australia. Also, the text of the first poll on the American list originally read as such:


 * "One 2005 poll, which asked a sample of Americans to choose between two undefined labels ("pro-choice" and pro-life"), found that a majority (54%) prefer the label "pro-choice", while 38% prefer "pro-life". In the same poll, 30% said that they would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned; 42% said abortion should be harder to obtain; 9% thought abortions should be easier to obtain, and 47% said ease or difficulty should remain the same."

The source listed is Polling Report. This site appears to be aggregate of many polls from many sources; it is not one long, comprehensive poll, as the original editor seems to have confused it. I attempted to correlate the numbers and questions provided with individual polls listed on the site. It was thus that I discovered that the original editor had mistakenly incorporated at least three polls into one. The origin of the "38% pro-life/54% pro-choice" statistic is a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll; the "42% harder/9% easier/47% same" statistic came from a ABC News/Washington Post. I couldn't find a poll that said 30% of Americans wanted Roe overturned, so I used the Pew Research poll which had numbers for both people who wanted it overturned and who didn't (incidentally, an outdated version of the Pew poll listed on the site says 30% want Roe overturned).

We still need to find a source for the Ireland claim, and, also, I would like to rework the presentation of the remaining American polls to counteract the obvious pro-life bias:


 * "A similar 2004 poll revealed that a majority of Americans (53%) think that "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." A majority (58%) said they thought abortion was morally unacceptable "when the mother's life is not in danger". [10] A 2003 poll indicated a majority (57%) of Americans support legal abortion only in limited circumstances, such as "when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest" or "when the woman's physical health is endangered."

No opposite number on whether "Abortion destroys a human life"? What percentage thought that abortion was acceptable in broader circumstances? It's something akin to the fallacy of the enumeration of favourable circumstances, isn't it?

Anyone know where to begin with other countries? Perhaps some that aren't English-speaking G8 members? --Kyd 15:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Subjectivity, anyone?
The fact that religion beliefs are not exacerbated in this country, definitely help people to keep a clear and logical view about this matter.

This does not belong in an encyclopedia unless there is a viable citation available. Salva 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * can't find this passage anywhere--Tznkai 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's convenient--WwJd 04:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, is it? I don't get it.  --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion serious. The sentence was there for a moment, part of a series of really bad edits, but it was quickly removed (by me, I think) after the initial post by Salva. Hence you can't find it. Str1977 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First line
An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus which is removed from the uterus.

I'm curious about the word "removed" -- isn't that specific to induced abortion? How might we change that word to include spontaneous abortion? --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Quasi. I restored the original wording. Someone had included removal into the first sentence and then someone else deleted it from the second sentence for redundancy. Str1977 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Termination of pregnancy sentance.
OK to archive There is a problem with the sentance as it stands:
 * "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus."

The problem is: what about twins? Tripplets? There is more than one embryo or fetus. If a pregnant woman gets into a car accident, and was carrying twins, and one fetus dies, is it an abortion?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, just havn't figured out a way around this.--Tznkai 00:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a proposed rewrite. This answers the issue of how many embryos or fetuses are involved. The paragraph below listed trauma as a cause for spontaneous abortion. This is obviously a contentious topic. Keeping things bare bone and informative is the way to go. Debates on ethical and religious controversies are covered in separate articles.
 * "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy.This can occur spontaneously or be brought about by either medical or mechanical means. A pregnancy that ends early, but results in childbirth is instead a premature birth. In medicine, the following terms are used to define an abortion:"

&mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Gaff, but this won't do. Firstly, this doesn't help Tznkai's problem in any way. Secondly, it again restores the POV edit trying to block out that a (or more) death(s) occur (as you have done before).

Tznkai, I don't know whether your "problem" isn't too obvious to merit explanation. If one dies, it is obvious an abortion (though spontaneous) in regard to that one. Str1977 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that I don't think Tznkai's objection is a problem because if a mother-to-be has complications while bearing twins and loses both fetuses, that could be two abortions, not a single abortion. Also, if a mother-to-be decides to end her pregnancy and haves an abortion, I think it makes sense that while there was only a single operation, it could be considered two abortions.  Is this correct?  Well, there are many definitions online and I see that some call an abortion an end of pregnancy, while others call an abortion the loss of a fetus; so it seems either is fine.
 * Lastly, I don't think you can call ever removal of the word "death" in the first sentence a POV edit, Str1977. The truth is the death of a group of cells, or even a single cell, may technically be a death, the the implication of that sentence is that is the death of a sentient human life, which of course is POV.  I'm not going to fret over it because, well, I simply don't care that much, but when  you call everyone else's edits POV, I have to point out that the way it currently stands isn't perfect either.  --Quasipalm 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see Tznkai's objection, but I think it's a relatively minor one. The problem is that the English language allows for the word abortion, when referring to the deliberate ending of a pregnancy and when referring to a miscarriage. I imagine that in the case of one twin being deliberately aborted (and it does happen) we would say that one of the twins was aborted. In the case of a pregnant woman having an accident and losing one of twins, we'd say that she miscarried one of the twins. Technically the word "abortion" could be used for both scenarios, but in English we tend to avoid the word "abortion" for something that wasn't deliberate; it's a medical term, but hasn't passed into common usage. In the case of twins, if one dies and the other survives, then the one who died was aborted; it is an abortion even if one survives. So I don't see any real need to change the article.


 * And I think it is important to leave the bit about "death" in the article. After all, if you could remove the baby/child/fetus/clump of cells/etc. and put it into some incubator for six months, it wouldn't be an abortion, would it? There have been various attempts to remove references to death. I think that would be suppressing information. We can argue (though we shouldn't waste Wikipedia server space by doing so) on the talk page about whether the thing that dies is a human being created in the image and likeness of God or a clump of cells, but the fact remains – it dies. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the death issue. Tried to phrase the sentances to make that clear that death is a neccessary consequence of an abortion.--Tznkai 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bloodcells that leave the body also die -- so do millions of my skin cells everyday. Mastectomy ends with the death of a part of a woman's body also.  I wonder if you are all so interested in adding a note about death to these articles?  My personal opinion is that "death" is specifically being defended here in order to personify the fetus.  I don't think that you are all being completely forthcoming about your intentions in wanting "death" in the first sentence strictly on a factual basis.  I don't mean to be rude in questioning your motives, but I think it's subtle POV.  (The POV being: all fetuses and even the zygot are people.)  But, again, I'm not really that excited about abortion either way, so I'm not going to get in an edit war over it.  --Quasipalm 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for the others but I have declared my intrest in the use of the word death as well as my POV at various points along here.
 * So what? Our agenda's and POVs aren't at stake here. Even ignoring WP:AGF, it doesn't matter if I'm a Nazi and a murderer, as long as the edits I produce are accurate, neutral and informative.--Tznkai 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty clear to me that your edits aren't NPOV, at least from my perspective, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I'm not making any ad hominem attacks here -- I'm simply saying that I think subtle biases are creeping into the articles because people are looking the other way when the POV in the article happens to be their own.  --Quasipalm 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, an encyclopaedia is supposed to present the facts. And the fact is that something – whatever this something is – dies. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks that this "thing" doesn't die. Whether it's a baby or a clump of cells is open to discussion: there are various POVs. Wikiepedia is not meant to take sides, so the article should report fairly that some people think it's a human being and should have equal rights, while others disagree. But it has already been agreed on this page by both sides that cells dies, dogs die, etc. So saying that it dies does not confer personhood on it; saying that it's a baby does. I would agree that a sentence saying that it is a baby (rather than that some people believe it to be a baby) would be POV. Saying that it dies is not POV. And the removal of this fact on the grounds that it might make it seem as if it's a human being would definitely be POV, in my view. Wikipedia is not into the suppression of facts. Ann Heneghan (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm arguing with a wall here. The point is: The choice of which facts to include can be biased as well.  If your only concern is with puting facts in wikipedia, then why aren't you fighting to make the death of a breast (a much larger death in terms of cellular, biological death than most abortions) the first sentence of mastectomy?  It's 100% factual, no?  Well, the reason is,  the use of the word "death" in the abortion article confers personhood, which is your POV, which is why you're fighting so hard to keep it here.  To claim that you only care about facts is a fig leaf.  --Quasipalm 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're actually both right. The use of "death" in this context could be construed as POV for precisely the reasons Quasipalm stated; on the other hand, of course, the use of alternatives could be considered as POV for Ann's reasons. I think that "loss" and "removal" infer fetal/embryological death: premature removal from the uterus, especially before viability, is not exactly compatible with continued life/survival/development/etc. "Death," if not directly POV, is at least redundant, while "loss" and "removal" seem awkward. I wouldn't know where to begin in an attempt to write a simple, elegant compromise. --Kyd 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a fact and not POV that as a result of an abortion the fetus/embryo/zygote dies.
 * This fact is a basic piece of information to this article. If there weren't no death involved, many issue would not be raised and we wouldn't discuss this again.
 * (And if someone wants to include "death of a breast" than go ahead. That has not meaning to the this article.)
 * Your comparison, Quasi, are absurd, I'm afraid to say. No matter how you view a fetus, it is (again) a fact that it is genetically distinct from the body of the mother.
 * You say, "death" confers personhood. I don't think that follows necessarily. There is still room for the "personhood" debate if "death is included - however: if "death" is not included there is actually no room for any personhood debate, as you cannot debate the philosophical and ethical implications and ramifications of something that isn't there.
 * Hence "resulting in the death" must be included.
 * Str1977 20:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that Kyd, Str, Ann and myself do NOT share POV on this article, for the record. Secondly, removal does not infer death. For example: The womb is opened via an incision through the abdomen and then the uterus. This is followed by the removal of the fetus.


 * For those of you keeping score at home, I'm describing a caesarean section.
 * Furthermore an abortion is a deliberate attempt to produce a dead fetus as opposed to a live infant. Death is extremly relevant. The removal of a fetus and its subseequence implantation in a test tube (should this procedure ever actually be viable) is not an abortion, because the fetus didn't die. Its dead It is a unique genetic entity.
 * And quasi, go through my history with this article before you start guesssing at what my POV is.--Tznkai 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Termination" of pregnancy is the word used by nearly all medical professionals. It does not confer nor restrict personhood for the embryo/zygot/child.  It also clearly means biological death -- the end of the pregnancy.  Why is wikipedia above that standard?  And no, I'm not saying "death" should be banned from the article -- I simply question the use of it in the first sentence when more NPOV words are available.  And, Tznkai, I didn't mean to say your edits were POV, that was directed at Str1977, who reverts any attempts at fixing the first line.  For the record, I know everyone here has a legitimate POV, my concern is making the article balanced, not discrediting any particular personal POV.  (I am pretty moderate myself personally, I hate the idea of abortion, but believe it should be between a doctor and a mother.)
 * "if "death" is not included there is actually no room for any personhood debate, as you cannot debate the philosophical and ethical implications and ramifications of something that isn't there." Utter nonsense.  Simply because you don't say "death" in the first sentence doesn't mean you can't say that some believe abortion is the death of a individual's life.  It in no way hinders the debate later in the article to use another term.
 * "Your comparison, Quasi, are absurd, I'm afraid to say. No matter how you view a fetus, it is (again) a fact that it is genetically distinct from the body of the mother." Please read what I was responding to.  Ann stated that it should be included as "death" because it is factual and that was her only concern.  I was simply showing that this wasn't the case by pointing out that she is not equally interested in preserving the word "death" in other articles where it is also factual.  And frankly, I think your arguments are absurd too, Str1977, but let's keep the discourse civil and treat each other respectfully.  (And lastly, it doesn't matter about the embryo having the DNA of the mother, take for example bacteria living in our bodies and the effect of anti-biotics.)
 * I'm willing to drop this at any point, I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, I'm just trying to convey why I think "death" in sentence one is less than optimal. But I'm willing to admit that I seem to be the only one at this point.  --Quasipalm 00:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Clever, Tznkai. :) But, even vaginal birth by could be considered "removal of the fetus." I, however, stand by my logic, although I'll admit I didn't clarify it properly. The crucial words, to me, are "premature termination." The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester (i.e. "premature"), when the survival rate is nil, so in this case it could be argued that "removal" equals "death." Of course, some abortions are late-term, and we're seeking to summarize all abortions in a single sentence.
 * You're not alone, Quasi. I understand the implications of "death." I acknowledge the sort of thing that some people might read into it.  If something has died, even in a biological sense, then something has been killed: "abortion is murder." "Death" is appropriate, sure, but there's a potentiality for POV in how it's read. But, how are we to avoid constructions that could even be interpreted as being POV? (BTW, your breast cancer contention is entirely valid). --Kyd 03:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Major problem with the breast example is that a woman's breast will never ever even possibly (short of an AI and some robot legs in some creepy sci fi horror flick >.<) be able to sustain its own life, nor be independantly operational like a cancer.--Tznkai 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Revenge of the She-Borg." Heh. The breast thing is valid on a grammatical level. "Mastectomy is the surgical removal of diseased breast tissue resulting in cellular death," etc., would be an entirely accurate, but needlessly complicated, description. Which is why no one's tried it. It'd almost be like 214's insistence that we use the word "gravida" in conjuction with "fetus." --Kyd 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo(s) or fetus(es)." Gramatically inelegant, perhaps, but the structure works for singleton, twin, triplet, and dodecaplet pregnacies. --Kyd 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kyd is right that that is both more accurate and unelgant. Remember, in a world where some girls think they can get pregnant by performing oral sex on a guy ( I kid you not that was an actual question at a safe sex panel >.<), theres no reason to accidently imply that pregnancies in humans always carry one single always viable fetus.--Tznkai 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That first sentence is a disaster. Claims above about my POV editing are absurd. I am trying to bring this article to a place where it would be of some use to lets say...a young woman who finds herself impregnated under very unfortunate circumstances, knows little about what abortion entails, and needs information in order to make a decision (to keep her child, opt for adoption, etc). As it stands, however, with the current climate of editing on this page, I will not be a participant in writing this.&mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  22:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Gaff, Wikipedia is not in the buisness of giving advice, but cataloguing and summarizing information. Either fix it, propose concrete steps, or say nothing, but complaints do nothing useful.--Tznkai 00:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My goodness, Tznkai, its as if you had not even read what I wrote. You say not in the business of giving advice.  How does that realte at all to what I wrote?  This sort of bizarre reply is exactly why I am reluctant to attempt any editing on this page.  Although I have a medical degree and some knowledge of the topic that could assist in "cataloguing and summarizing information," I am going to stay out of it.  (Information...funny word.  Thats what I stated was my goal, but you interpret that as "advice"). &mdash; Gaff   ταλκ  21:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

Edits by 4.238.136.248
OK to archive Why were these edits removed completly? Even if you disagree or think there is a policy violation, don't just remove, improve. Or atleas C&P to the talk page.

Restoring some of the edits now.--Tznkai 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These edits have been twice reverted as POV. Not innacurate, but pov. This won't do, considering the amount of information. If you insist that it is a violation of our NPOV policy, FIX IT! Don't remove it!--Tznkai 23:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

First paragraph
After last weekend's discussion about the beginning text, I thought I'd propose what I think is a better version. Also, note that the current text misspells "performed" so that should be fixed either way. --Quasipalm 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Current
An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es). In medicine, the following terms are used to define an abortion: In common parlance, the term "abortion" is used exclusively for induced abortion.
 * Spontaneous abortion: An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Also known as a miscarriage.
 * Induced abortion: Deliberate (human induced) abortion. Induced abortions are further subcategorized into therapeutic abortions and elective abortions.
 * Therapeutic abortion: An abortion perfomed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman (gravida).
 * Elective abortion: An abortion perfomed for any other reason.

Proposed
An abortion is the termination or loss of an embryo or fetus that results in the premature cessation of pregnancy. In medical practice, the following terms are used to define an abortion: In common parlance, the term "abortion" is used exclusively for induced abortion.
 * Spontaneous abortion: An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Commonly known as a miscarriage.
 * Induced abortion: A deliberate abortion. Induced abortions are further subcategorized into therapeutic abortions and elective abortions.
 * Therapeutic abortion: An abortion performed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman.
 * Elective abortion: An abortion performed for any other reason.

discussion
Oiyoyoi. I'm more than tired of this argument. Here are some facts:


 * WP:NPOV does not allow us to be innacurate.
 * Abortion when induced, is a deliberate attempt to cease the life of the fetus, unborn, or controlled cancer, depending on what you call it.
 * Abortion, when spontaneus, is diffrent from premature birth only by the life/death of the fetus to infancy.

Imagining we give a bunch of little green men a working understanding of english, they do not neccessarly know that an abortion always ends in the death of the seperate genetic entity. Death does not imply personhood. In common parlance we sometimes talk about "killing" cancer or a disease. This does not mean that saying that the fetus dies is the same as implying that the fetus is a cancer.

Yes some people do look at the fetus that way.

--Tznkai 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I find either version to be acceptable. However, if we want to avoid using the word "death," while saying essentially the same thing, I would recommend: "An abortion is the premature interruption of pregnancy that terminates the development of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es)." --Kyd 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Any version that ommits the fact that there is some "death" involved (quite apart from the question what it is that's dying) is inherently POV and inaccurate. Tznkai has said it all. Kyd, "Interruption" is totally off the mark, as it suggests that it could be continued. Str1977 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Thesaurus.com, "interruption" is synonymous with "termination" -- and I didn't want to use "termination" twice in a sentence. Excuse me for considering the manner in which a sentence is constructed. --Kyd 16:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A thersaurus does not claim that two words mean exactly the same thing. For example, if you look up "smile" in Thesaurus.com, you'll find "beam", and "grin", and "simper" and "smirk". They have some overlap in meaning, but they are not completely interchangeable. Also, that thersaurus doesn't list "termination" as an alternative word for "interruption", or "interruption" as an alternative word for "termination". Both words are listed as possible substitutes for "cessation". I agree with Str1977 that the word "interruption" carries an implication that the process which is interrupted can be resumed at a later stage. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Kyd, if I came across a bit too harsh on your suggestion. The trouble is that I always even when I was pro-choice, detested the wording "interruption of pregnancy" - for the reason I gave above. Str1977

Supreme Court Nominations
The debate about the current Supreme Court justices is fueled in large part by abortion. The article on Miers goes into good detail on this, but would perhaps it be worthwhile to add a bit of information about this to the abortion article or history of abortion/abortion law, etc? -Cookiemobsta 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep it out of the top tier for now since the news will probably be best linked in a more detailed article.--Tznkai 01:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it belongs on Abortion in the United States, but not the top-level article abortion. We've already had a hard time making the article international.  --Quasipalm 01:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Precisely. It's far too limited of an issue to be mentioned in the main article. The debate is largely American and seems to be relatively short-term (and, unfortunately, there is simply isn't space for a blow-by-blow account of the debate's proceedings here). I'd recommend Abortion in the United States, or, like you said, History of abortion. --Kyd 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Public Opinion, Again
I've added information from an Irish Times survey. Sadly, it's a little older than I'd have liked it to be, but frankly it's better than nothing at all. As for Northern Ireland, however, I only managed to find references to polls at a pro-life site and in a Belfast Telegraph article, which can only be accessed by those with a subscription. Ann, you're Irish, aren't you? If you could help out with this any further it'd be really great!

I removed the globalization tag because I feel that the section is now international. If anyone could help contribute information for other countries, please do! I may attempt to gather information for a paragraph on the United Kingdom soon.

I have also removed the following paragraph pending further discussion: "In most of the other countries in Europe (France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Czech Republic,...) there is little debate about abortion, since many consider it a private matter." Claims of this nature, obviously, are far too broad to be made without a source. --Kyd 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Self reference to Wikipedia

 * As repeated and hopefully redundant reminder, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy prohibits biased usage of terminology. The reader is reminded to assume good faith in part of the editors, and that there are no deliberate allusions or colloquial meanings applied to seemingly controversial terms.

This has been removed. We do not refer to ourselves in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Small Map Legend
The map legend for abortion laws around the world is to small to read. Leon Trotsky 9:39 30 October 2005


 * How big would you want it? Is there a standard? The current font, I believe, is Arial size 9. I've added a text-based version of the legend to the map page for now. It should, I assume, adjust itself according to the user's browser preferences. --Kyd 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ABC hypothesis= crap
I found out more about this from my biology class- it's actually really interesting. There is a correlation between higher rates of breast cancer and abortions, but abortions do not CAUSE breast cancer- they simply make you have 4 more years of periods. The reason for the correlation is simply that having your period causes breast cancer.

The rise in breast cancer is due to two factors: our periods come earlier- at 12 or 13, as opposed to 15. We also get pregnant far later- sometimes not until our 30's, when historically it would be at 16 or 17. Since breast feeding prevents your period, the typical 15 year old years ago would have about a year of periods, followed by a pregancy and then 2-3 years of breast feeding, a few more periods, and then another pregancy, and so on. Thus, historically women would have very few periods in their lifetime while modern women have many many periods because of delayed child bearing AS WELL as the decline in breast feeding.

Thus, a woman who has an abortion is merely adding on about 3-4 years of periods to her life by not bringing it to term and breastfeeding it. That's a lot of periods, and a lot of cell damaging hormones. The average female many years ago would have about a total of 150 periods, whereas today's woman averages 400. If you don't have kids and don't breastfeed, that ends up being even more.

Is there a way to integrate this information into the entry? Lepidoptera 19:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Get us a source that isn't a textbook. Your text book should have linked a study.--Tznkai 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Those are confounding factors well understood and accounted for as a matter of course in scientific studies. Hence, this doesn't really impact the ABC results, and periods involve hormones, the very same mechanism proposed in the ABC hypothesis. - RoyBoy 800 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

External Links overhaul.
OK to archive I have culled the links and instituted a new structure (being bold and hopefully with a clue). Sites with information on abortion itself, and tbe processes, medical effects, and consueling and so on, are kept, everything else is either removed or earmarked for another sub article.

--Tznkai 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad that someone had the gumption to seize the bull by the horns. For all its usefulness, the link section was unfortunately fraught with abuse. Anwayway,  I moved the two abortion law links back, as both supplement the law summary, and the average reader probably won't check out the abortion law sub-article. --Kyd 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive