Talk:Abortion/Archive 46

Observations
The WP:RS that editors have cited confirm several things, which are not actually in opposition to one another but seem to be needlessly confusing the discussion because they are not being addressed as a whole, but rather as individual elements. This is an attempt to walk through these issues and then propose a lead sentence that factors them in and gives the most significant ones due weight.
 * 1. Spontaneous Abortion always involves a non-viable fetus.
 * 2. Induced Abortion usually involves a non-viable fetus, but sometimes involves a viable fetus.
 * Background (this is offered to explain why there is so much confusion among our pool of editors, not as proof of anything): Until the last 4 decades, the primary meaning of abortion was the spontaneous kind. Thus, the traditional standard definition of the naked word "abortion" included "before viability" because it always referred to miscarriage. At the same time, English speakers would often use "illegal abortion" if they meant "induced abortion", and we can see remnants of that in some dictionary/encyclopedia definitions.  Of course, now this has reversed, and the naked word "abortion" normally means induced abortion. Meanwhile, even as abortion was legalized, the definitions for abortion continued to refer to "viability" because until recently, it was typically illegal to abort a viable fetus. Such definitions could give a broad definition that encompassed spontaneous and induced abortion because in both cases the fetus was not viable (and assuming these definitions did not attempt to define a then-illegal post-viability abortion). Some of the problem we have today is that the laws have changed and some definitions contain archaic formulations that used to be true, but which have been superseded as the medical profession and the law have embraced late term abortion as a licit procedure.
 * 3. "Before viability" and "not viable" are not necessarily the same thing: a fetus of viable age can be spontaneously expelled (thus naturally not viable), and a viable fetus can be rendered non-viable via induced feticide.
 * 4. Abortion always involves the death of a fetus/embryo. Spontaneous death can trigger a spontaneous abortion. And an induced abortion can begin with an induced feticide. Often the fetus is literally dismembered as it is removed from the uterus piece by piece, which of course kills the fetus. This is basic modern medicine. In any event, a pregnancy either continues to develop and results in live birth, or else a pregnancy does not continue to develop and the fetus stops developing and dies and exits the uterus. Sometimes these events are spontaneous and sometimes they are induced. But in every pregnancy, the fetus either lives and is born, or dies and is an abortion. The word death as used in obstetrics, fetology or biology does NOT confer personhood status to the fetus. Post mortems {autopsies) are conducted on fetuses from induced abortions; such exams are only done on dead bodies, but this also does not confer personhood status. The use of the pronoun "it" is indicative that the death involved is not being afforded the weight given to a person, as a person would be referred to as "him or her".
 * 5. Pregnancy very often terminates in live birth. "Termination of pregnancy" is not limited to induced or spontaneous abortion.
 * 6. Pregnancy does not always terminate when a fetus is aborted. This is becoming more and more common as women carrying multiple fetuses will frequently abort one or more of them in order to increase the chances that the surviving fetus will be healthy.

The following definition factors in these objective facts, and I invite people to state precisely what they think is good or bad about it:

Abortion is termination of gestation by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, caused by or resulting in its death, typically when it is not viable.

74.5.176.81 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another version: Abortion is a gestation that results in a dead fetus; typically an abortion involves a non-viable fetus and ends a pregnancy.74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I support your first version. The second version's wording is a bit ambiguous: "typicaly an abortion... ends a pregnancy". So sometimes the woman is still pregnant after the abortion?--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, read #6. Still, I prefer the first one.--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify, what is "first one" and why the preference? Thanks. - RoyBoy 21:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Give readers the full picture
The first sentence of the article is important, so it's worthwhile getting it right. Instead of fighting about which set of reliable sources to use, why not just give to the readers a full picture, without trying to filter it for them?

From 2006 to 2011 the lead sentence said: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, caused by or resulting in its death." I propose changing it to: "Abortion is the intentional or unintentional loss of a pregnancy, although some sources do not characterize such a loss as an abortion if the fetus was viable, i.e. sufficiently developed to have survived after birth." ""Abortion is the induced or spontaneous loss of a pregnancy, although abortion may be distinguished from loss of a fetus that was sufficiently developed to have survived after birth."
 * Support as proposer. Please do not install this sentence without consensus to change the 2006-2011 version (including consensus how to change it)..Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral it might be possible to work with this...I am open-minded. It reads a bit awkwardly as phrased. Would a link to Fetal viability be enough to replace the "i.e...." part? JJL (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence probably should be self-explanatory, without making the reader go somewhere else to figure out what the heck it means. But, maybe we could use a piped link: "Abortion is the intentional or unintentional loss of a pregnancy, although some sources do not characterize such a loss as an abortion if the fetus was sufficiently developed to have survived after birth."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Needs work Acceptable . Unless there's a third option, "intentional or unintentional" adds no semantic value to the statement. I would either just delete the clause or else, if the desired is to enumerate the possibilities, say it plainly as "induced or spontaneous". I would prefer just deleting the clause. Similarly, rather than pronounce on "viability", I think we should exercise similar wisdom, perhaps along the lines of "although [some/many/a few/certain] [sources/authorities/jurisdictions] distinguish abortion from loss of a fetus which was was sufficiently developed to have survived after birth." LeadSongDog  come howl!  17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Without "induced" it sounds very passive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better. Of course Abortion should be bolded. Might also want to wikilink induced and spontaneous, or that could be left for later in the lede.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now preferable to the earlier non-consensus-"consensus" versions, despite minor residual issues.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs work. Leaves open the question of what the termination of a viable fetus is called by these sources. Also a bit long winded.  Is not "Abortion is the loss of a pregnancy or just the loss of a fetus that was sufficiently developed to have survived after birth." semantically equivalent?  Never a fan of padding such as "characterised". -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Characterised" is already gone. Would you prefer to formulate an explicit distinction of feticide? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fetal death and stillbirth can all occur after viability (or before viability) without feticide (which likewise can occur before or after viability).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I find it concise and well-worded without being overly vague. It is far better than the preceding alternatives, or the crossed-out text. As noted, what constitutes "viable" is left open. It might be better to explicitly state what it is distinguished from (i.e. miscarriage or stillbirth) in a subordinate clause or omit it entirely. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Giving readers the whole picture is indeed a good idea. Well written.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support give readers the whole picture. However "...loss of a pregnancy..." is not the best phraseology, it seems to my mind to assume non-intentionality, which is fine in reference to spontaneous abortion, but not induced. It might perhaps be better not to define Abortion primarily in reference to pregnancy, but rather termination of pregnancy as the result of an abortion which is the expulsion or removal of the embryo/fetus from the womb/uterus, either spontaneous (Miscarriage), or artificially induced. Reference to viability is not necessary to a formal definition, which is why there was nothing strictly wrong with the earlier version (of 8 June 2011). What I find more objectionable is the manner in which advancing a new consensus has been undertaken. How for instance will any new consensus withstand a simple majority vote to overturn it?. If that is how a new consensus is established what is to stop us having this same discussion 2 months from now? Issues with the lede should be addressed but not by ignoring previous discussion. DMSBel (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't anyone actually remember having read wp:CONSENSUS anymore? Votes have little to nothing to do with it. A workable result should so far as possible address all cogently expressed policy based issues.LeadSongDog come howl!  01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, I agree re. votes per se. However I didn't ask for a vote, but a RFC. An interesting issue arose (re internet filters/bubbles). Also no one is proposing a version of lede first sentence (LFS from now on in my posts) be based on the result of this in isolation. It is a way of facilitating discussion. Things do tend to turn into votes on wikipedia rather easily. Perhaps you will revert to previous consensus once protection is lifted, addressing the policy based issue of a non-consensus (straw poll based) version of the LFS. A {disputed - discuss} inline tag should have been added before protection too. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that happening, as the revert cycle is pointless at this stage, now that we're actually talking. I'll continue trying to find a wording on which we can agree here on the talkpage instead. As to adding that tag, it just sounds like a way to get wp:Too many cooks. Let's try and keep our eyes on the ball. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Needs work. The sentence says that abortion "may be distinguished from" termination of a viable fetus, but doesn't say how. It just leaves the reader hanging without an explanation. Is this referring to stillbirth, miscarriage, infanticide? And why does it say "may be"? Are there cases where it is not distinguished? What's wrong with the current wording which seems more clear and concise: "Abortion is ... the termination of a pregnancy ... before it is viable." Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many cases where it is not distinguished. For example, the Roe v. Wade decision stated: "After viability, the State may regulate, and even prohibit, abortion...." That's inconsistent with the present edit-locked lead sentence, which is the result of edit-warring more than anything else.  Numerous reliable sources define and use the term "abortion" with reference to abortions both before and after viability (e.g. see sources cited in the preceding RFC).  Yes, lead sentences often leave unanswered questions, and the rest of the article can help answer them.  In fact, the more inquisitive a lead sentence makes the reader, the better the lead sentence is, I think.  Anyway, the present edit-locked lead sentence also leaves the reader wondering what to call fetal loss after viability, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anythingyouwant. Basically my view is that we are not restricted to a one sentence definition, and that an extended defn. will serve the reader better. The lede has to introduce and disambiguate. Initially between spontaneous and induced then further in disambiguation of induced (elective without therapeutic factors / elective with therapeutic factors). Neither expulsion/removal of the fetus from the uterus, nor termination of pregnancy is abortion, any definition has to include the sine qua non which differentiates an abortion from a delivery/live birth, and that is fetal death. DMSBel (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is this section titled "Give readers the full picture" if you're wanting to give them a confusing partial picture? If we're not going to explain the distinction until later in the article, why are we mentioning it in the lead at all? Why not "Abortion is the induced or spontaneous loss of a pregnancy, caused by or resulting in the death of the fetus."? Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Me? I did not start the section. I have no problem, except with "loss", with that as a basic defn. It seems straightforward. But I wasn't arguing there was anything wrong with the earlier lede with the wording "...caused or resulting in its death". What I was saying but perhaps did not make clear enough is that expulsion or removal of the fetus in itself is not the sine qua non not that it was never part of an abortion. Loss of pregnancy might end in resorption of the embryo I am told. So spontaneous abortion sometimes ends in fetal death and resorption. Both delivery and abortion involve the expulsion or removal of the fetus from the womb. Both delivery and abortion bring the pregnancy to an end - a woman is no longer pregnant after she gives birth. Only abortion results in or is caused by the death of the fetus. To my knowledge nobody was saying the lede doesn't mention resorption. Nobody had a issue with that. "...caused by or resulting in its death" is logically contingent and therefore has to be part of the definition. Right? DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has to start with something, and our house style puts the article's topic in that place. We can and should adopt the middle ground so this article can move ahead instead of remaining perpetually debating one sentence. The first sentence is not the entire lede. A subsequent sentence, even one within the lede, can serve to invite the reader into more detailled discussion in the article body. How about we start a separate discussion of what such a "subsequent lede part" might need to address so that it doesn't muddle the initial sentence discussion?LeadSongDog come howl!  20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help if someone explained what two sides we're trying to find the "middle ground" for. Sorry I haven't been following the full debate previously. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kaldari. You asked why not "Abortion is the induced or spontaneous loss of a pregnancy, caused by or resulting in the death of the fetus."?  That would be fine with me, except that many editors seem to want the lead sentence to mention that there is no such thing as abortion after viability.  I emphatically do not want to give anyone a confusing or partial picture.  Sometimes a word has more than one meaning.  Hence dictionaries often list more than one meaning for a single word. Outside the medical profession, the word "abortion" is often used without regard to whether the fetus is viable (which is how you seem to be using the word "abortion" Kaldari).  The current edit-locked lead is entirely partial to the technical viability-related medical definition, and is frequently disregarded even in medical literature, which often discusses "late term abortion" after viability. Medical definitions are sometimes revised for non-medical reasons; e.g. see Beginning of pregnancy controversy for a definitional change to make the word "abortion" apply to fewer procedures.  In any event, the partial and confusing thing to do here would be to exclude and demote the definition used in the legal profession and in the layman's context. I would have no objection if you want to explain later in the article which contexts favor the pre-viability limitation, and also no objection to inserting your proposed lead sentence.  I do not know why the lead sentence now mentions that viability limitation without explaining anywhere in the article why that definitional limitation was adopted, or by whom, or when. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to your last statement: Do you have sources that talk about that issue? I can give you an answer if you want, but I would be talking out of my ass. So would, I suspect, basically everyone else here. NW ( Talk ) 20:33, 14 July 2011
 * I said, "I do not know why the lead sentence now mentions that viability limitation without explaining anywhere in the article why that definitional limitation was adopted, or by whom, or when." In other words, if this viability-definition-of-abortion were really so notable or prominent as to completely eclipse every other definition of the word "abortion", wouldn't you be able to cite a source that explains the rationale for it?  For example, why make the Roe v. Wade decision's use of the word "abortion" sound like ignorant gibberish, without referring to any sources that explain why doing so is important or desirable?  Or explaining why the usual definition in non-medical sources is undesirable, or explaining why all of the medical sources that discuss late term abortions (after viability) are somehow incorrect when they use the word "abortion"?  Why are some editors insisting that this article take such a narrow approach when we can instead be more inclusive and informative?  No one has cited any sources that explain why, nor does this article explain anywhere what the various words are that we're supposed to use for fetal loss after viability (e.g. stillbirth versus feticide, et cetera).  People seem to want to just jam this word "viable" into the lead sentence of the article without being able to explain in the article why the longstanding definition is no longer politically correct and should be discarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend
Due to persistent and wilful block evasion our anonymous friend may consider himself banned. This page is semiprotected for one week and that can be reimposed as necessary, or anyone here is free to revert on sight edits by the anon after semiprotection expires. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to post this, before Guy made his post above, and deleted content from the page. I don't see anyone questioning his (NWs) integrity. However viability simply has no bearing on a definition of abortion, because abortions are performed well into viability, as well as before. I am rather surprised some editors do not grasp this. You can define abortion without reference to viability at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with numbers or percentages before and after when we are talking about a definition. The only thing that can prevent someone from understanding this is a cognitive bias of some sort. When it comes to the actual article, numbers/ percentages etc have a place. The procedure which results in the termination of a pregnancy and, to use Williams Obstetrics definition: "..destroys a fetus", is an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, first, second, third trimester. If fetal death was not induced in advance, or a result of the procedure of removal, the fetus would still be alive. For thought: consider that medicine has moved away from a cardio-respiratory diagnosis of death to a neuro-centric one. Does that indicate life is currently associated with brain activity rather than heart beat or breathing? DMSBel (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People are entirely welcome to discuss things here and come to whatever decision they please, but the anon has forfeit his right to have his voice heard due to the disruptive way he has conducted himself, followed by serial block-evasion. Frankly, his input had pretty much descended to trolling anyway - "anything as long as it says  DEATH   . Guy (Help!) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Posting comments and sources is being disruptive? How exactly? DMSBel (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So we have two, maybe three IPs arguing along the same line as several editors here. And those IPs are connected through EMBARQ. That means across 18 US States, there are at least 3 people with the same view regarding fetal life, and abortion. Shock! How did they escape. Do they not have a television? Do they not read newspapers? Yikes, what else do they know! Wikipedia Hive Mind Status Yellow: Unassimilatable editors blocked. Returning to normal function! DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are clearly IPs belonging to one editor. Aside from the shared ISP, the content/tone of their posts is consistent and unmistakable. There's both a policy basis and established precedent to treat these as a single editor, and to be honest, I think anyone arguing otherwise is really grasping at straws. MastCell Talk 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an established precedent to treat these as a single editor? No there isn't! You ran a WHOIS I take it? Has any of the IPs stated the other IPs are different editors? If not then they have not evaded scrutiny, or been deceptive. If they have it still has to be proven it is not two different editors. That takes a lot more evidence than "they sound the same to me" or "they both use EMBARQ". There is nothing wrong with logging in under more than one IP. You can't be blocked for using two computers. Its not a crime. If this is one editor why should they tell you or me they use two different IPs? Perphaps if it is one editor they think its obvious and there is no need to even say. I think its better to say of course. But deception means more than just using two accounts. It means saying another account is not yours when it is. DMSBel (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deskana said it best many a time ago: Two different, totally unique people with virtually identical views and virtually identical names editing the same article at the same time, and backing each other up? I started to run a checkuser, but then gave up when I realised that I could see a thousand dancing hamsters on the checkuser results and still think they were sockpuppets, or at the very least, meatpuppets. The user was not blocked for using more than one IP, at least not initially. They were blocked for disruptive editing. And then they evaded their block. That's automatic grounds for resetting and lengthening the block. NW ( Talk ) 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since being reminded not to open new talk sections the IP had been compliant. The semiprotection is therefore unneeded and should be lifted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree if there was actually any disruptive editing in the first place, it was opening a few new sections in a row. As the IP did not repeat that, I fail to see what the blocks were placed in regard to. The semi-protection is not needed and was far too drastic a measure. Also the block / ban placed on this IP has no duration or extent mentioned. How are they to know how long it is for, what it covers. This was an improper sanction. There should be oversight/supervision on the Admin who made it. DMSBel (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This account(s) was disruptive and I am pleased to see that we can now have a less disjointed conversation. As an aside, I'm traveling and will have difficulty replying until Monday evening. JJL (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming for the moment the account holder is one editor who caused some minor annoyance by opening a few new sections in a row, that is not disruption. Oh! they also disagreed with a couple of other editors in the course of the discussion. I would not speak in defence of an editor who engaged in deliberately disruptive editing. The IP/IPs has a POV, so do most editors here. Having a POV is not having an agenda. Even having a strong POV is not having an agenda. Disagreement need not be disruptive in a discussion, in fact it can be quite helpful. However some articles simply have to accomodate those different views, in the best way possible if they are supported by reliable, verifiable sourcing, cf CarolMooreDCs comment earlier in the RFC. The semi-protection of the talk page is more disruptive than anything the IP did. Some editors are simply going to have to either work on other articles or learn to collaborate with other editors. Unless there is advocacy in the lede, I am not sure what it is we are discussing. Unfortunately I have not been able to ascertain what was being advocated by inclusion of the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death", and why we are having such a protracted discussion on this. I welcome the IP/IPs back to the discussion once their block is lifted - has the duration/scope been clarified yet? DMSBel (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * DMSBel, you say that some editors should either leave or learn to collaborate with others. So how can it be that after all this time you still "have not been able to ascertain what was being advocated by inclusion of the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death", and why we are having such a protracted discussion on this."  I was apparently able to express your POV, how can it be that after all this time you still have no idea what mine is?  Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I was refering to you Gandydancer. I asked the editor who made the advocacy claim about it several times. They have not given a plain answer. Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense. DMSBel (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible that your requests were buried in the numerous threads and dozens of edits added to this talk page every day. Whom are you asking, and what is the question? MastCell Talk 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can answer that. He was asking JJL and the question is why is he advocating against the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death".  (Ignoring, of course, the fact that all those on "our side" are "advocating" against it as well.) Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did ask JJL, you are correct up to that point in your comment. What I asked him is "what is being advocated?". I really cannot work out what JJL is saying at times, the same with you Gandydancer.
 * So I will again ask DMSBel, how can it be that after all this time you still do not have any idea why JJL, and I, and the others are arguing against using the term death in the definition when I, and I assume the others since they did not post to the contrary, seem to understand your point of view? Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes little sense, repeating it won't make it any clearer, if you understand my comments then I assume I have made them clear enough for you to understand. Are you saying that your ability to understand me means your own comments and POV is equally clear to me? How would that follow, especially when you said at one point in the discussion you had "changed your mind, for now". DMSBel (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were really reading my posts rather than skimming them for something to argue about you would know that in that post when I said, "...changed my mind...for now..." I was discussing my suggestion re the definition I had suggested which was, "Most major medical texts define abortion as...".  Well, clearly there is a problem when you and several others still have no idea why those that object to using the word death in the definition are objecting to it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, please quit with the assumptions of stupidity on everybody elses' part. We all know what your POV is and where you're coming from, since you're admitted that you don't like to say the fetus is alive prior to, and dies during, an abortion purely because some on the "christian right" use the same language. IOW your refusal to accept the death of an aborted fetus is, contrary to the science (i.e. the facts), purely due to advocating a position. Which is, of course, prohibited. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well of course you could provide my post where I made that statement, but knowing that it is not available I would say that you just proved my point. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you just proved my point about POV pushing. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose death I believe that Wikipedia policy obliges editors to avoid personal opinions and use information from only the best available sources. For a small group of editors to stray so far from the references and completely change the definition of abortion to one that endorses the belief that life begins at conception should not be acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Our references chose to avoid using the term death in their definition because it suggests life begins at the moment of conception, a concept not held by all. Should Wikipedia decide to ignore their wisdom and rather use a minority definition preferred by only a segment of society, most notably the Christian Right in the U.S., we are entering the dangerous waters of political bias. Gandydancer (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They seem to avoid death not because of suggesting life, or some manufactured bio-ethical quandary, but because viable simply fits their context/setting better. As a result, it doesn't make them the "best" sources for an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 20:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What are the "best" sources? Gandydancer (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * None of them are best, they all have their good and bad aspects. JJL has a good bead on it, though I would strike "professional" from it, as it implies medical defs should always take precedent. I concur they should (and do) mostly take precedent, but its not universally applicable. Simplistic to see it that way, as many of us did in the early 2000's. - RoyBoy 22:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For defintions - dictionaries are best IMHO. Also can someone explain to me the difference between "best" sources and best sources Are the quotes just meant to indicate there is not unanimous agreement which are best?. DMSBel (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Professional, peer-reviewed, widely used secondary sources are generally best. Those sources are near-unanimous in their use of 'viability' in the defn. JJL (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why for a definition they are better than medical dictionaries? DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See RS for more information on this. JJL (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see from that and some other sections that secondary and to a lesser extent tertiary sources are prefered over primary sources for detailed discussion. It doesn't indicate whether dictionaries are less preferable for definitions. DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Williams Obstetrics does not use viability in its defn.[] Yet I am told it is regarded by at least one other editor as a gold standard reference work. DMSBel (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. JJL (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If 'viable' fits the context/setting in which abortions are performed--the medical context/setting--then that make a pretty strong case for using it. An encyclopedia should be accurate. Using 'viable' accurately reflects what this technical term's technical meaning is. That doesn't limit our ability to discuss social/cultural/religious reaction to it later. Some people still think mental illness is occasionally caused by demonic possession and should be treated by exorcism--but I'd still use what the DSM says rather than putting it in a broader context. JJL (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought we are to avoid overly-technical terms, if we can use plain language? But the issue is still not with viable, its with "before it is viable". Abortions take place both before and after viability therefore we can define abortion without necessary reference to viability.DMSBel (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because we know better than virtually the entire medical community? JJL (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Because abortions take place both before and after viability.[] DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

induced abortion "either" therapeutic or elective
Is this still disputed, by whom exactly? - RoyBoy 23:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you expand on this question--I remember some discussion of it but not the whole context. JJL (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes on the grounds that therapeutic refers to factors, and the source article entitled Elective Abortion[] subsumes those abortions done in view of medical indications under elective abortion and states abortions performed for medical indications (ie therapeutic factors) are considered to be elective by abortion providers. It also states that therapeutic abortion for maternal indications is difficult to define:


 * The ability to define therapeutic abortion performed for maternal indications is difficult because of the subjective nature of decisions made about potential morbidity and mortality in pregnant women.


 * Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself. There are medical factors both maternal and fetal that contribute to the decision. These factors have been termed therapeutic abortion...


 * Stating induced abortions are either therapeutic or elective, basically means an abortion performed for medical indications is not elective (volitional), which contradicts the source. Elective abortions however may be with or without medical indications. There are factors influencing the decision, and these factors may or may not be therapeutic. DMSBel (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion may be suffering from wp:ENGVAR culture-clash. "Elective surgery" seems to be used in some places only to indicate volition on whether to do it, but elsewhere it is more used for when to do it (as contrasted to "Urgent surgery" or "Emergency surgery"). LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No this is about elective in the sense of volitional/chosen, not in a surgical sense.DMSBel (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is a bit muddled. In the US, all medical procedures are voluntary; regardless of need. The final decision is always made by the patient (assuming the patient is not incapacitated). Adding the source used in Abortion:Induced might help...
 * "Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health... An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons."
 * - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the source is to blame. "reasons ... are typically charactised as therapeutic or non-therapeutic" might perhaps be better wording, but regardless of the reasons for an induced abortion, the decision is made by the patient. For that reason I think it is clearer to disambiguate induced abortion as either elective without medical indications, or elective with medical indications, instead of refering two catagories of abortion - therapeutic or elective, when therapeutic properly refers to factorsDMSBel (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of this discussion, is the question whether or not to use both the terms 'therapeutic' and 'elective'? They seem to be widely enough used that we should indicate how they are typically used at some point in the article. JJL (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not "usually"?
There's too much activity between long-involved users for me to get involved in the discussions already here, but what's the problem with saying "usually before it is viable"? Viability comes around the end of the second trimester or early third trimester. Abortions can occur in the third trimester right up until the moment of birth. To say all abortions happen before viability is a blatant falsehood. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why the lead should refer to death, not viability.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, "death" only occurs after "live birth" by definition. Perhaps you meant "fetal death"? In any case it ought to be obvious by now that neither wording will gain consensus for use in the lede. We have very reliable sources which manage to define the term without reference to "death", or "fetal death", or "viability". We can keep this very simple, as in "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth." Leave the whole discussion of viability, induced/spontaneous, premature birth, and all the other complications for the article body. They are ancilliary to the fundamental idea. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Leadsong, you are wrong: forensic pathologists conduct post mortem exams (autopsies) on fetuses who were killed during induced-feticide abortion procedures.74.5.176.81 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But pregnancies can end with spontaneous absorptions, which are not abortions. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted MCP,s edit since only 1 reference of the 24 we offer uses the word death in their definition. Gandydancer (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Gandydancer's revert, for the following reason: There are no MEDRS which refute either the earlier medico-legal source used which states: "At conception (the union of a sperm and an egg), a new individual is created" [Gynaecology for Lawyers - Medico-Legal Practitioner Series (1998 Routledge/Cavendish)] page 19.
 * or Merriam Webster Medical dictionary definition : : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a): spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage   b): induced expulsion of a human fetus [], they therefore more than meet WP:RS and MEDRS. DMSBel (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even assuming all that were true, the 'death' phrasing does not have consensus--indeed, consensus is clearly against using it. Even if all that were it wouldn't mean it must go in the lede. It also fails on the WP:WEIGHT consideration. JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, consensus is not clearly against using it. Either give this up or ask a neutral uninvolved editor to run an RFC. DMSBel (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL, your stock sinks lower everytime you claim consensus for your view, just the IP's does when they open a new talk page section. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My stock hit bottom as soon as I edited your precious consensus, didn't it? JJL (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a serious issue in regard to a mere new consensus assertion versus actual established (by neutral Admin) new consensus, which would require an RFC, so far I see only JJL and a couple of other editors even arguing that there is no-consensus. Who in their right mind wants to get involved in a game of consensus ping-pong. "Now we have it", "now you don't" scored by individual players or each side bringing their own umpire!. I agree the FAQ should not set any current wording in stone, but it should address what has been asked in regard to particular terms.DMSBel (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't require an RFC. The consensus here is clearly against the 'death' version. Can we move forward from there? JJL (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LeadSong, if death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat and brain function, isn't life defined by the presence of a heartbeat and brain function? The fetus has a heartbeat and brain function, and abortion ceases these, therefore abortion is the death of the fetus. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When the cells, tissues, other are cultured for research, stem cells or otherwise, or other uses (i.e. not killed, destroyed, etc) is it still an abortion? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it causes the death of the embryo, yes, though it's not referred to as an abortion - it's referred to as death. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this is supported by even a substantial minority of the professional-quality sources we have, though. As has been discussed here in great detail, the 'life' issue is very complicated at the least, with many conflicting views. I don't agree with yours, for example. JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, the medical definitions are not relevant. The issue is about clarity (and accuracy), not some mealy-mouthed surgeon's euphemism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe you actually wrote "the medical definitions are not relevant". Medical opinions on a medical and/or surgical procedure (or medical event in the case of miscarriage) aren't relevant? Abortion is first and foremost a medical matter--indeed, it's only a medical matter, but one that happens to elicit commentary from a wide variety of non-medical communities. The reaction to it is surely an important topic to cover but we are talking about an aspect of medicine and the cultural/religious response to it. As to accuracy, we've established that the medical community--not just one lone surgeon--thinks it's based on viability. JJL (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't the medical textbooks say that, then? JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a good question and this page has already provided some answers. Did you miss that? There are various rational reasons that these "textbooks" use imprecise legalisms and sophistry. The bottom line is that most basic abortion descriptions written for abortion practitioners employ imprecise language and euphemism - and some simply defy the unassailable biological facts verified by reams of RS (as has been shown here since 2005 with endless MEDRS and other RS). One does have to ask: "Why would some "textbook" authors writing for certain audiences contradict known biological and medical facts?" Such a lack of integrity by such authors has got you bogged down in defending such defiance of unassailable fact. Word-smithing of the definition for abortion so as to hide any unpleasant science seems to be Orwellian newspeak (and would seemingly be against wikipedia policy, no?). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People keep saying that it's a conspiracy among all major medical textbook authors but I don't see any verifiable sourcing of that--just that it's obvious to so many of you who prefer 'death' in the description. Since virtually all major sources use 'viable', I'd think you could source the claim of such a conspiracy. If not, it's just your own personal opinion--and that's WP:OR, however common-sense it is to you. Let's see the sources that support the claim that physicians are knowingly writing false things in the texts used to train the next generation of physicians. It isn't enough that it's clear to you that that's so--it must be sourced. Otherwise, you're arguing against an avalanche of first-rate secondary sources on the matter. JJL (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An IVF embryo in a test-tube is not a "pregnancy". If the life/development/growth of the embryo is aborted, it is not an "abortion" in the mainstream sense of the word, which is always related to pregnancy (seems I agree with NYyankee's view of the basic science). Any removal of tissues or stem cells from a living embryo is an embryonic vivisection, which (I suggest) necessarily ends the life of that organism, which is a human offspring (offspring is a widely used technical term for an embryo or fetus), regardless of whether one sees that offspring as a person or not. The point is, the embryo was alive and then dies due to the vivisection. If I donated blood (or a kidney) one day, and died a day later, I am dead even if my blood (or kidney) is alive inside another person. Of course if the vivisection does not kill the embryo (I suppose that might be possible) and it still maintains the normal life function of an embryo such that it could implant inside a uterus and continue its human development cycle, then it would still be a living offspring, so there is no abortion. But if its truly a clump of dismembered and mangled living cells that do not resemble an intact embryonic offspring, then it seems that it would no longer be an offspring, though the cells that remain would be "alive". 74.5.176.81 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For those who might not know (and I have encountered many who don't know, but think they do), the only time an embryo is destroyed (killed) as part of embryonic stem cell research is when a new embryonic stem cell line is created. The extracted cell is then replicated in labs - an almost infinite replication. The people who do most of the "embryonic stem cell research" use these replicated cells, which are not embryos, and never were in any embryos. The vast majority of these researchers never even get near any embryos, let alone destroy them. When a researcher uses such a cell line, she does not destroy (kill) any embryos. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question NYyankees51. If we rely on "usually viable" to define abortion in of itself, it doesn't accomplish what we wish it to; to encompass and define the abortion topic -- medical texts do not define the topic, rather the surgical procedure, to gloss over this is intellectually deficient. I've asked users to clarify if an abortion makes a fetus defacto (automatically) non-viable. I haven't received an answer. It is also a weasel word we try to avoid at Wikipedia... biologically that may not be possible, but we should try. - RoyBoy 06:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article says that abortion happens before the embryo or fetus is viable. It implies that it is always the case which is simply not true. A very large number of abortions are performed when the fetus is indeed viable, during the second and the third trimester. Abortions performed late in pregnancy are very common in countries like China. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322601/China-forces-woman-abortion-EIGHT-months-breaching-child-policy.html

I vote that the lead is changed and no longer mentions viability. Israell (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede says that that's the medical definition of it, which is inarguably true. JJL (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More about definitions
There are a lot of dictionary definitions out there. (I wish I could access this: .) This page has lots of cited examples. From the State of Georgia : "How does the law define “abortion?” “Abortion” means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant." The CDC says : "How does CDC define abortion? For surveillance purposes, legal abortion is defined as a procedure                  performed by a licensed physician, or a licensed advanced practice clinician                   acting under the supervision of a licensed physician, to induce the                   termination of a pregnancy." From Gutmacher : "In fact, of the 18 states that have some definition of pregnancy as beginning at fertilization or conception, 12 define abortion as the termination of a "known" pregnancy. Furthermore, two of these states (Arizona and Texas) specifically exclude contraceptives from their definitions of abortion, even though they use fertilization as the starting point for pregnancy elsewhere in their statutes." Here's an expended version from Williams Gynecology : "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability. Because the widespread use of sonography and serum measurement of human chorionic gonadotropin levels allows identification of an extremely early pregnancy, a number of other names have come into common use. These include, for example, early pregnancy loss or early pregnancy failure. The National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) define abortion as pregnancy termination prior to 20 weeks' gestation or a fetus born weighing less than 500 g. Despite this, definitions vary widely according to state laws....". From this 2010 article : "(Clayton and Newton, 1976) define abortion as the expulsion of the conceptus before the 28th week of pregnancy; a view that is still held by the British law up to this moment." From a 2000 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics: : "Following US jurisprudence, American commentators often define abortion as the “expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable”." Once again--as always--the key determining factor is usually given as 'viable' or a variant; and the purpose is given is generally to terminate a pregnancy (not to cause a death). JJL (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The williams gynecology reference is from a chapter about first trimester abortions.DMSBel (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ...but it defines the term in general before going into first- vs. second-trimester issues. JJL (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Two old sources, to contradict the claim that has been made here that somehow the treatment of the term 'abortion' has changed from what it was 50 years ago: From 1924, "THE MANAGEMENT OF ABORTION",ONSLOW A. GORDON Jr., M.D., JAMA 1924;82(13):1021-1023 : "We define abortion as any interrupted gestation prior to the period of viability." (The context appears to be spontaneous abortion here.) From 1902, "Report on Progress in Obstetrics", Frank A. Higgins, M.D., Boston Med Surg J 1902; 147:352-355 : "[Stuver] would, therefore, define abortion as the deliberate and intentional interruption of pregnancy before viability of the fetus has been attained. " (This journal is now the The New England Journal of Medicine.) More detail on this can be found here. The viability definition is by no means new. JJL (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that spontaneous abortion of a viable fetus is impossible, AFAIK. There are a million reliable sources out there that define abortion, and maybe it would be best if everyone go and take a look, rather than relying on the ones picked out to support one side or another in this talk page discussion.  (I won't comment on the phonetic accuracy of the header for this talk page section.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We already tried the non-cherry-picking approach--that was what made the viability-based defn. so clearly the right choice. (See the archives.) I would say that the CDC and Williams are not at all cherry-picked sources; they're highly authoritative in this matter. I did change the section title--I hadn't intended the pun and hadn't seen it. JJL (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Once sources are brought to light if they are reliable they have to be taken into consideration along with what we already have, we have far too many (around fifty) for a footnote (even the current footnote is heavy). I didn't get an explantion from you why tertiary sources are not prefered, the link you gave said secondary and to a lesser extent tertiary sources are preferable over primary sources for detailed discussion. It didn't say secondary sources are preferable over tertiary, in matters of definition.DMSBel (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also dictionaries and encyclopedia may also be secondary sources[]DMSBel (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL, you are arguing in circles. No one disputes that you have identified some highly authoritative sources that correctly identify a particular medical definition of the word "abortion".  But sometimes words have more than one definition, either in different specialty fields, or the same specialty field, and sometimes in general speech. Here the issue is how to properly weight the definitions.  Highly authoritative sources attest to more than one particular definition.  One of the definitions (the one you have emphasized) is not as broad as the other definition (that was in the article from 2006-2011).  Which do you think would be better for the start of this article, given Wikipedia policy?  "A good definition is not ... over broad or over narrow...." The definition must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not leave anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply). The broad abortion definition would not leave anything out. The narrow medical definition would.  Also note this guideline: "Texts should be written for everyday readers...."  Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given policy, I still think the medical defn. is best. (Are you sure your second link points where you wanted it to point?) The medical defn. is sourced, accurate, and easily understandable. The previous consensus version appears to me to have been synthesized from a variety of sources via arguments made here, and that is a significant policy violation. Let me ask this: Where else on WP is a medical defn. superceded by a non-medical defn.? Look at (male) Circumcision, for example. This is controversial, but the defn. given simply defines the medical procedure, then links (in the fourth sentence) to Religious male circumcision and later on to Circumcision controversies. This is similar to how I feel the Abortion article should proceed: Define the medical issue and point to discussions of non-medical issues elsewhere, or later in the article. That's WP style, as far as I can see. JJL (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some versions asserted for the abortion lead are not complete, because of politics (non-medical issues). "Death" and negative connotations (my/our acknowledgement of controversy) was not to the exclusion of completeness, or put another way, we sought/seek a definition that is broad enough to cover all abortions. The circumcision lead covers all of them (for males), so it is complete and correct. - RoyBoy 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could provide an example to buttress your point (that non-medical defns. are useful for defining medical terms). I've shown an example where a controversial medical procedure is still defined medically. I think that's WP style. JJL (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot offhand. If the foreskin is kept alive, it remains a circumcision. Are you clear on this? WP style is more nuanced than you perceive. A medical text presumes "non-viability" and a specific context, doctor in a clinical setting, patient consent etc. A soldier kicking a stomach of a gravida of a minority to abort the fetus, doesn't consider viability; yet it remains an abortion. Do you disagree, do you want to mind read the gravida again JJL? A similar situation with circumcision can still be correctly defined (encompassed) by a purely medical definition. It is my well considered and tested judgment, abortion isn't so fortunate. - RoyBoy 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent) JJL, I'm not aware that circumcision has a non-medical definition that's broader than the medical definition, so that word doesn't really seem like a good example. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but that doesn't stop us from looking at other articles. You might want to take a look at allergy, addiction, and idiot. In the allergy article, the strict medical definition ("Strictly, allergy is one of four forms of hypersensitivity and is called type I....") is not in the lead sentence. In the addiction article, the narrow definition is given in the first sentence, and the general definition in the second sentence. In the idiot article, the narrow definition is only mentioned much later ("In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.").Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well those articles are interesting! Idiot is bad enough, but addiction is just terrible.  When they say "historically..." they must be speaking of ancient history.  That article could sure use some work. Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am speaking to an issue of WP style so examples from WP are on-topic. 'Idiot' is no longer in use as a medical term so I'd discount that but 'allergy' and 'addiction' are, and 'addiction' does handle a controversial matter. The Allergy article seems to me to lead with the biomedical defn.--it says it's a hypersensitivity disorder in the lede sentence and then specifies which type(s) it is in the third sentence. I don't see anything beyond the biomedical in that. But the Addiction article is trying to handle both addiction to traditionally addictive agents and the notion of addiction to behaviors together and leads with a historical defn. before addressing competing ideas. It's a short article for such an important topic but does point to other articles that offer more detail. I'm not sure I'd agree it's an issue there of narrow vs. general as much as traditional vs. expansive. This is the kind of example I was hoping to see, though it seems a weak article on its subject. JJL (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another relevant article is embryo. Not until deep in that article do we get this narrow definition: "The embryo of a placental mammal is defined as the organism between the first division of the zygote (a fertilized ovum) until it becomes a fetus. In humans, the embryo is defined as the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development." Here, the medical definition of a human embryo was modified for non-medical reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should never use complicated technical definitions in article leads. The lead definition should be a simple "common man's" definition that even a child can understand. The technical aspects (and exceptions) can be explained afterwards. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said many times above, we should try to avoid technical words... some subjects cannot avoid them. "termination" is okay, but is a complicated way of saying "ending". "Viable" isn't necessarily "child" friendly. Britannica goes to the trouble of defining it immediately, yes we can link to it, but that undermines its perceived simplicity. - RoyBoy 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A further mention of viability goes to 1880:


 * Following Edward B. Stevens' reading of a paper "Remarks on the management of abortion" a discussion followed, reported in Transactions of the Obstetrical Society of Cincinnati (June 10, 1880) p.16 "Dr. Thad. A. Reamy said: In teaching, he classed all cases of miscarriage occurring prior to the period of viability as abortions." LeadSongDog come howl!  20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, "No one disputes that spontaneous abortion of a viable fetus is impossible, AFAIK." In other words, it would be kind of a contradiction in terms to say that a viable fetus spontaneously miscarries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These sources go to the earlier claim that the viability defn. was new in the past 50 or so years. JJL (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed picture
Why has the disputed fetus picture been put back to the article? This was already discussed two months ago and and there were many who agreed it doesn't belong here. It isn't neutral and there were concerns about the medical ethics of using that picture in this article. The article is currently under protection because of the edit warring over the lead and it actually looks like things may be close to finding a solution on that front. So why go and open another can of worms that's already been closed? Surely there are other things that need to get done in this article so why keep going over the same issue? Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The image was hidden using standard wiki-code, then an editor put an NPOV tag on the section, at which point another editor un-hid the image. The section is tagged, so showing the image does not seem like any problem at all.  It's merely a factual image that shows what's aborted in a typical induced abortion.  Please see the huge RFC on this matter in 2009.  A deletion discussion closed yesterday at Wikimedia Commons as a "keep".  This image was in this article for over a year, and there was no consensus to remove it.  We don't have to argue about it until after the lead sentence controversy is settled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like the current priority is to come to some sort of agreement on the lead sentence. Re-opening the debate about the disputed image is likely to distract attention and participation from that effort. I think the image issue needs to be hashed out, but I feel pretty strongly that the only hope of real progress is to tackle one major issue at a time and see it through. On that basis, I think it's a good idea to table the disputed image until there's some sort of movement (or at least stability) to the lead sentence. I also think that the intensity of the current lead-sentence dispute has largely scared away or silenced "moderate" editors and those with less investment, and I'd like to see those folks participate in any discussion of the image issue. The Commons deletion decision has, of course, no bearing on whether the image is appropriate for this article. Today's events - one editor adds back the image, but "hides" it, another editor tags the section because of the hidden image, and a third editor says "if you're going to tag it, I'm going to un-hide the image" - seems deeply mired in gamesmanship and rather unproductive. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 22:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded at your user talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Let's at least finish the first major thing and hopefully let things settle down. JJL (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Using a special code to hide the picture from view does not make it ok to readd disputed material to this article without discussion or agreement. Frankly it seems like trying to fly under the radar.

This article already has a diagram that does a decent job showing what a "typical abortion" involves. Why do we need another picture to do the same thing?

I also don't see what the Wikipedia Commons deletion request has to do with this article. They decided not to delete it on there but that doesn't automatically mean that picture is fine to use in this article. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The longstanding image was removed without consensus by JJL who said in his edit summary that it was up for deletion at Commons. You can ask JJL about the relevance of the deletion debate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the image being up for deletion on the commons isn't a good enough reason to take the picture out of the article in your judgment then why would you think the image being kept on commons would be a valid reason for putting it back? That's inconsistent logic. Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. The page of the user who launched the call to have a fetus picture in the article in 2009 redirects to the page of the user who put a fetus picture back in the article today. Is this a mistake or is someone really so personally invested in there being a fetus picture in this article they'd work at that goal for two years? Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just address the merits of the issue, will you? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed it on merit, today and when it was brought up two months ago. But now I've learned the reason the whole fetus picture issue keeps getting brought up is apparently because a single editor wishes this article to contain a fetus picture and won't let things rest until that wish is met. And that seems relevant to me because two years of axe grinding can't be beneficial to this article. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a psychological phenomenon called the false consensus effect, when people mistakenly say that their positions are supported by consensus, and mistakenly say that the opposing position is not supported by consensus. But to say that a position held by dozens of wikipedia editors is only held by one of them seems like a rather severe case.   Anyway, there was no consensus in May to remove this longstanding image. And in 2009, a majority of editors favored inclusion of such an image. If one desired to hide and conceal facts, while hiding and concealing that desire itself, one might talk about axe-grinding and so forth.  But this is simply about giving readers a full picture, and that's all;  I'm sorry if that's difficult to believe.  The image was carefully selected many months ago (not by me) and inserted (not by me)  to avoid being bloody or shocking or offensive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be called an example of confirmation bias to see overwhelming support when there is an equal amount of opposition and to put forward the same question repeatedly until the preferred response is received. Friend of the Facts (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC) This is not a good time to present arguments for and against the image, because the lead sentence is not resolved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are we not allowed to discuss this?

Lead sentence discussed at NPOV Noticeboard
Here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest editors here to refrain from commenting on the NPOV noticeboard since we are already involved. We don't need it rehashed on the noticeboard. We need outside advice.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a highly POV way to frame the question at the NPOV Noticeboard. JJL (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We now have an IP who began editing today and edits exclusively on abortion.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes--more whack-a-mole with this same editor, I'm sure. JJL (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL, your edits have been 99% on abortion. Pot calling the kettle black. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How far back have you looked? I'm mired in this now and only have so much time to dedicate to WP. JJL (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you opened this today and then went ahead and made wholesale changes to the lede on the same day? That's absolutely unhelpful. Those who favor 'death' ask for an RFC and don't even ask for a close of it; ask for mediation and don't all agree to it; go to a noticeboard then completely change things immediately. This doesn't add up to a good-faith attempt at resolution. The garbled sentence you put in has no support at all, anywhere on this page; and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that writing "The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human" (emphasis added) would be highly contentious. JJL (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, JJL, find us a scientific source that says the developing fetus is not alive. Being human follows from the species of the parents, of course! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had the living tissue vs. living organism discussion before, haven't we? Surely at the very least you'd agree it's contentious? JJL (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We did and I asked you there for such a ref. None has been supplied. (BTW the fetus is an organism. Period.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)JJL, I recently edited this article to try language unlike anything that had been previously tried, in an attempt to follow the advice received at the NPOV Noticeboard. Unlike your many reverts that restored non-consensus language, I will not boldly re-edit the article to re-propose this language I tried today. I attempted to ask you the following question at your user talk page, but you referred me here. Do you believe there has been consensus regarding how to change the 2006-2011 lead sentence? If not, how could that be consistent with WP:Consensus? Would it be justified by some other Wikipedia policy? What policy would that be? If it's WP:NPOV, then how do you regard it as neutral to have a narrow medical POV in the lead sentence while excluding from the lead sentence a broader POV found in reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary? The present debacle seems due in large part to inattention to Wikipedia policies, and that's why I'm trying to focus with you on those policies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the discussion at and immediately after the straw poll you'll see that consensus was against the use of 'death'. There was more support for the viability approach than any other but there wasn't clear consensus for it. After further discussion, and as some of those who opposed 'viable' were blocked, it became increasingly clear that the best support was for the viability-based defn. (This was not solely my opinion.) Attempts to progress have been stonewalled. An RFC was repeatedly demanded, then ignored, for just one example. Looking forward--I'm unclear between your messages at my user talk page and here as to what extent you're seeking history, so if it's not relevant to you then never mind--the greatest support has still been for the viability-based defn., and I believe we should continue to center discussion about that at this point. It accords with policy and style. It is well-supported and comes from the best sources: Professional-quality, academic, peer-reviewed, secondary sources. These are to be preferred (Identifying_reliable_sources, WP:SOURCES). Most of the other defns. proffered have been, in my opinion, in violation of WP:SYNTH and to a lesser extent WP:UNDUE, and in that regard I do agree with you about the present debacle being largely caused by an unwillingness to conform to policies and guidelines (to which WP:OWN and in some cases WP:NPOV could surely be added). Synthesis and undue weight have been the biggest problems I have seen. No one has opposed discussing the various issues raised in this discussion later in the body of the article, but the defn. should be clear, accurate, and in accordance with the meaning of the term as used in its context: Medicine. There are many non-medical aspects to the subject of abortion, but abortion itself remains a medical matter. JJL (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus says: "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes". Changing the lead sentence of Wikipedia's most controversial article --- a sentence which has been stable for five years --- qualifies as a major change, I think.  Even were a simple majority enough generally speaking, a simple majority against the word "death" was not enough to change that word in this instance  if there was no consensus what that word should be changed to.  I support changing "death" to a less loaded word (e.g. sources use words like "terminate").  You say there was consensus to change the "death" phraseology by using the word "viable", but you're dead wrong about that.  People like me support adding a phrase saying that medical sources often use "viability" to define abortion, but that kind of added phrase is vastly different from an exclusively viability-related definition in the lead sentence.  JJL, if you would please tell me the date when you think there was consensus to replace "death" with some viability phraseology, then I would be able to prove you're mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, you are correct that there was no consensus to change the "death" phraseology by using the word "viable", but you never get JJL to admit that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 04:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you've already decided that I'm mistaken, it seems pointless to debate the matter with you. I've made my points about this above as clearly as I know how. Do you have a forward-looking proposal, or do you just want to re-hash what's in the archives? JJL (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want you to tell me a date when you think there was consensus to replace "death" with some viability phraseology, in the 2006-2011 lead sentence. This is not "re" hashing because you've never once answered the question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Implies everything is answered in the archives. Several topics are not: aborting a viable fetus is done/possible; not all gravidas want to end their pregnancies; not always done by a doctor/surgeon in a clinical setting. Did you already make up your mind? The lead can change, perhaps it should incorporate "viability", doesn't mean pushing aside a consensus was appropriate. One outstanding question to JzG: "Can you clarify the two meanings of death, I'd assert death is perfectly defined once." Then NW told me using potentially emotive language was nonsensical, which I'd agree with if "death" was/is inaccurate, and is always (automatically) emotive. (at the time I was concerned with the Holocaust comparison) I will add my support to the original 2006 consensus until this can be clarified. I think I understand the meme/dialogue of the two meanings, but I need to discuss it thoroughly again to see if we miscalculated in 2006. - RoyBoy 18:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead changes
Today the definition in the lead was changed to "the ending of a pregnancy together with the ending of an embryo or fetus." First off this change not put forward for discussion or agreed on on this page. Wasn't the whole point of starting that Lead Sentence Options discussion to get away from the edit warring and try to find a definition that can be agreed on? Second the change is problematic on several levels. A fetus is a part of a pregnancy so defining abortion as "the ending of a pregnancy together with the ending of an embryo or fetus" is redundant and confusing. How is a fetus "ended?" Birth "ends" the fetus in the sense that from then on it is called infant. So is this an attempt to say "death" without saying "death?" "Death" is highly problematic and not used in the majority of other references to define abortion. Substituting "death" with a euphemism doesn't change that. Friend of the Facts (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead presently doesn't mention a fetus or an embryo, much less say that it is ended or terminated or destroyed or what have you. Is that how you like the lead?  Do you think it's representative of reliable sources for the lead to pretend that the embryo or fetus does not exist or is so trivially insignificant as to not warrant any mention?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It mentions pregnancy (as well as fetal viability). What do you think readers will think a woman is pregnant with, a cactus? NW ( Talk ) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is now no mention of "fetus" or "embryo" in the lead (much less wlinks), and that is extremely unrepresentative of reliable sources that define abortion. It's also extremely unhelpful to readers (some of whom may be pregnant) as they try to seek information on this subject.  While such a reader would be aware that a cactus is not involved, they might have very little understanding about what is involved.  (Hint: maybe the nuclear approach is not the best approach to discussion at this particular article talk page.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a medical guide, and a pregnant woman should not rely on it for medical advice. I don't know which version of the lede is meant by 'cureent' here but the best-supported version has been (some variant of, as people make edits) "Abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable." That includes the desired references. JJL (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we add this line to the lead: The embryo or fetus ceases to exist after abortion., so the lead reads: "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth.[note 1] The embryo or fetus ceases to exist after abortion. An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy, or can be induced, in humans and in other species. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human rather than non-human pregnancy; spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages." Israell (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gets my support. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 04:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the opposition to terms like "dies". An egg dies if not fertilized and is rejected by the body. Therefore, saying: "The embryo or fetus dies after the abortion.", is scientifically correct. "ceases to exist" is good compromise, however. I'm glad that the lead now makes people understand that abortion can occur at all stages of pregnancy, including the third trimester. Israell (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposition is explained, in a sourced manner, in the recent archives. There isn't opposition to discussing this in the body of the article. Why do you feel it's essential to address this contentious issue in the lede paragraph? JJL (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since abortion is defined as "termination of pregnancy" it is pretty much a given the outcome is that all products of conception involved in a pregnancy including the fetus/embryo and placenta stop developing. Why is it important that this be spelled out? I think it's redundant and unnecessary plus it's assuming readers lack basic comprehension skills. It'd be like saying "demolition is the organized destruction of a building and all the rooms inside that building." As for '"the embryo or fetus ceases to exist after abortion" this is not only unnecessary but inaccurate. Abortion does not mean the fetus instantly disappears into nothingness. The fetus/embryo continues to exist until decays or is disposed of medically. If we have to mention the fetus/embryo then I support the "removal or expulsion" language from earlier because it's most accurate in that it covers both miscarriage and induced abortion. Friend of the Facts (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's unnecessary; it's talking-down to readers; "ceases to exist" is metaphysically inaccurate; and insisting that it go in the lede when it's not commonly part of the defn. seems like POV-pushing to me. JJL (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "death" is much more accurate than "ceases to exist". -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The current version ("Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth.") is something that could be worked with, in principle, but all attempts to work toward a compromise have been scuttled by the pro-'death' lobby, so this observation is probably not helpful. JJL (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Extremely unhelpful, but not unusual. The vast majority of editors is fine with modifying "death" in the 2006-2012 lead sentence.  The difficulty is figuring out what to change it to.  You've repeatedly relentlessly asserted that at some point there was consensus to change "death" to some technical medical statement about viability, but you've declined to say when exactly that consensus ever existed.  Instead of inventing some "pro-death" lobby, you might acknowledge that many editors who oppose your unilateralism have supported changing "death" to termination, ending, demise, and so forth.  I've suppotted all of those and more.  I'd even support "termination of development".  What I don't support is an anarchic and politicized campaign to turn this article into propaganda.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The medical defn. is propaganda? That's nonsensical. But if you have a specific proposal that might bring compromise, why not start a section suggesting it? JJL (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, putting the narrow technical medical definition into this article is not propaganda, but doing so to the exclusion of the more common broader definition, and thereby denying that abortion ever exists after viability, qualifies as propaganda, particularly when done repeatedly and without consensus. Just like excluding the words embryo and fetus (and wikilinks) from the lead without consensus is propagandistic, given that reliable sources overwhelmingly define abortion using those two words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How is trying to stick to the kind of definition used by most other references "propaganda?" I don't see where you're coming from there. Sticking to what the reliable sources say isn't "propaganda" it's how to write a good Wikipedia article.

When "death" is unnecessary language not used by the majority of other references to define abortion suggesting we need to replace it with a euphemism/synonym of "death" instead of just taking "death" out is creating a false dichotomy. If you found a boat with wheels on it you would just take the wheels off not replace them with wings. You don't have to trade one unnecessary thing for another.

Personally I'd support "technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before viability" but the current version wins some points with me for being succinct. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Stability in the lede
The old version with 'death' in it no longer enjoys consensus; consensus is squarely against the use of 'death'. We do need to get some stability in the lede, however. An RFC has been suggested but to be perfectly frank I fear it'd be just another drawn-out process after which the lede would be still subject to edit-warring if the 'death' version did not prevail, given the tenacious clinging to the old version I've seen here. Some editors are emotionally invested in it. For the sake of stability, would re-inserting "usually" before "before it is viable" be enough to keep a version in place while discussion continues? JJL (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Says you. But you have not done an RFC. The straw poll did not reach any consensus, and you are proving to everyone watching the page how tendentious you can be. Needless to say I won't get into an edit war on this. DMSBel (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

JJL, if there is truly consensus to remove "death" from the lead, then simply remove "death" from the lead. Anything further than that requires consensus as well. I and several other editors do not support "viable" in the lead, for several reasons. My own reasons include that most non-technical definitions do not have anything to do with viability, and furthermore we could say with equal accuracy that most abortions are performed before quickening, which occurs before viability. Why are you insisting on jamming "viability" into the lead sentence when there is no consensus to do so? It's very disruptive, IMHO. For more info about how the editorial process is supposed to work, please see WP:BRD, which unfortunately is frequently ignored at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that what we have is a consensus to remove 'death' but that the support for inserting 'viable' is not as strong. With 'death' gone it seems that something else needs to be in its place and the usual defn. involves viability. I am happy to work on the matter of the lede--indeed, I suggested we give consideration to the "use neither word" suggestion from DRN. The current version is acceptable to me in the name of stability as we continue to discuss the matter. JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL, does the current lede (rev by Anythingyouwant) work for you? For what it's worth I'm OK with it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant I have no problem with what you are saying, but it needs said that JJL is sidestepping holding an RFC and won't say why. As the article is of interest and importance to multiple projects and the lede first sentence was stable until 8 June 2011, nothing less in my view is sufficient. If we don't set a proper example here, new editors may think they can set up a new consensus by merely questioning an old one, and presenting no new reasoning. We all know that a single involved editor cannot assert consensus or lack of it. Current definition is essentially the same as that for a live birth. Would you mind running a RFC?DMSBel (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact I just said why in the opening paragraph of this section. I've said the same previously...and that I don't object to someone else starting one JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a reasonable compromise while the discussion continues. If this is what it takes to get stability, I'm OK with that as a stopgap measure. JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL your only problem has been the word "death" even when we had sources and found more sources verifying it, that strikes me as POV, and you ignored the suggestion from the DRN to use both terms. And what does "as a stop-gap measure" mean?. Am I the only one who finds JJL hard to understand. I have asked you how it is advocacy, and what is being advocated but you won't answer. Advocacy seems to me to be more about affirming as correct statements made by advocacy groups. Saying something like the "The Guttmacher Institute is correct when they state..." is advocacy, using a medical dictionary definition isn't.DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There were a number of suggestions at DRN. I brought what I thought was the most promising one here. Others could've brought their own. Your complaint is, in essence, that I tried to do something to help achieve a stable consensus. JJL (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DMS, as you know we do not have more and more sources that use the word death. We have 23 sources for our definition and only 1 uses the word death. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another editor has stated that ENCARTA used "death" in its definition. Surely you are not arguing that the fetus doesn't die in an abortion? There is no question anymore as to when life begins - science knows the answer - at conception, ask any high school biology student. If an abortion doesn't result in the death of the fetus, its not an abortion.


 * Going by this guide to writing definitions[], I see nothing wrong with including "...caused by or resulting in its death". I cannot see how we have a definition without that. DMSBel (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You still have not been able to explain how you know when life begins when even the U.S. Supreme Court does not. Again, to quote them from Roe v. Wade:  We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate.


 * Check out the very recent Indiana ruling: Federal court decides life does begin at conception. []DMSBel (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly sounds like the matter of death in abortion is controversial and contested, then. JJL (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The court did not DECIDE life begins at conception. The court DENIED a preliminary motion for injunctive relief...
 * The full document is here. Good reading. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the denial of biology in there. Typical legalese. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "legalese" says that the case would have to go to a full trial--it isn't so clearly one-sided that a decision can be made without one. That's why they declined to issue the injunction. JJL (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, yes interesting reading. PPIN (Planned Parenthood Int.) have been denied the injunction against the earlier ruling in regard having to telling women human physical life begins at conception, from my reading of it, correct me if I am wrong:


 * “In order to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words, courts may properly consult English language dictionaries.” Id. (quoting Redden, 850 N.E.2d at 463). Here, the words “human,” “physical,” and “life”11 are all used frequently in common parlance... When read together, the language crafted by the legislature in this provision supports a finding that the mandated statement refers exclusively to a growing organism that is a member of the Homo sapiens species. Although the Court recognizes that the term “human being” may refer to a theological, ideological designation relating to the metaphysical characteristics of life, that is not the language found before the Court today. Rather, the inclusion of the biology-based word “physical” is significant, narrowing this statement to biological characteristics. The adjectives “human” and “physical” reveal that the legislature mandated only that the Practitioner inform the woman that at conception, a living organism of the species Homo sapiens is created. When the statement is read as a whole” it does not require a physician to address whether the embryo or fetus is a “human life” in the metaphysical sense. Further, this Court finds that Ind. Code Section 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E)’s mandated statement is not misleading. In Casey, the controlling opinion held that an informed consent requirement in the abortion context was “no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure.” Casey, 505 U.S., at 884; see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163 (2007). Informed consent provisions serve not only to communicate information that would not necessarily be known to the patient, but also help the woman to make a fully informed decision. “Requiring that the woman be informed of the availability of information relating to fetal development … is a reasonable measure to ensure an informed choice.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 883. Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient.


 * Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know. Spar v. Cha, 907 N.E.2d 974, 984 (Ind. 2009); see also Weinberg v. Bess, 717 N.E.2d 584, 588 n.5 (Ind. 1999). In Casey, the Supreme Court recognized that mandated statements need not be restricted to information related to the medical procedure, or materials concerning carrying the fetus to term. Casey, U.S. at 882. (“We also see no reason why the State may not require doctors to inform a woman seeking an abortion of the availability of materials relating to the consequences to the fetus, even when those consequences have no direct relation to her health.”). The overarching consideration was “to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision,” and through this, “the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.” Id. “If the information the State requires to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible.” Id. The Court’s ruling is reinforced by the deference owed the Indiana legislature. The Supreme Court has articulated that “[a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (quoting Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652, 104 S.Ct. 3262, 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984)). Because Ind. Code § 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E)’s mandated statement reflects only the moment, biologically speaking, a living organism of the human species is formed, the Court is not persuaded that PPIN has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.
 * 10 The Court will not delve deeply into the Commissioner’s contention that a living organism is formed at successful fertilization. This point is undisputed by Plaintiffs. The issue presently before the Court is whether “physical human life” is a consummation of these undisputed medical facts regarding fertilization and the resulting living organism. Further, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb.


 * 11 Compare Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2008) which defines “human” as 1) of, relating to, or characteristic of humans, 2) homo sapiens; “physical” as of or relating to natural science, having material existence, of or relating to the body; and “life” as 1) the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body, a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings, an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction, and 2) the period from birth to death, a specific phase of earthly existence with The American Heritage Dictionary which defines “human” as of, relating to, or characteristic of human beings; “physical”’ as ‘of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit’; and “life” as 1) the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism, 2) the characteristic state or condition of a living organism, 3) a living being, especially a person, 4) the physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence, 5) the interval of time between birth and death.''[]


 * Interesting that the court used a Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary for comparison. Even more interesting PPIN did not dispute that "a living organism is formed at successful fertilization". DMSBel (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would read the order... knew you would like the the dictionary reference :) It will interesting to see how the two sides present as the case goes forward. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, it has repeatedly been suggested that the word viable is too hard to understand while death is easy.  I have now asked 5 kids between the ages of 12 and 15 if they understand and not only do they understand what viable means, they are stumped as to why the adults that are posting here do not understand. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly reliable sources. Anyway, viable is simply WRONG. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the entire medical community is wrong...assuming you're right. JJL (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should know by now the "medical community" isn't writing an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 04:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making excuses for why we could give the wrong defn. That isn't encyclopedic either. We don't define otehr medical procedures by the social reaction. This isn't the only controversial one. JJL (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Social reaction cuts both both ways, consciously avoiding death is simply another reaction. Did you have controversial examples in mind? - RoyBoy 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Circumcision (e.g., look at what's happening in S.F.), euthanasia, body modifications, gender reassignment surgery, extreme plastic/cosmetic surgery, ... JJL (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to tell me the goal of male circumcision is to kill (cause the death) of the foreskin? For females, indeed that's a different story. Euthanasia comes from the latin "good death" (Wikipedia reminded me), so death isn't exactly shoved out of the lead sentence... I could go on, but I fail to see your angle. Where death is applicable it can be used; where it isn't, its not. - RoyBoy 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not paying attention--you're just posting on automatic, and it's completely non-sequiter. I'll walk you back through what happened. I wrote "We don't define otehr medical procedures by the social reaction". You wrote "Did you have controversial examples in mind?" I listed "Circumcision (e.g., look at what's happening in S.F.), euthanasia, body modifications, gender reassignment surgery, extreme plastic/cosmetic surgery". You started going on about "death". That wasn't the question. These are other socially controversial surgeries that are not defined by what people think about them but rather by what they are. JJL (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're missing the point. The ending/destruction of the foreskin is not a defining part of circumcision. If the abortus remains alive in some way after the abortion, then it isn't an abortion; it becomes a stillbirth or etc. Culturing/maintaining the detached foreskin, the male is still circumcised. Ending of the abortus is part of what an abortion is. Ending a pregnancy is only part of the story; the part of the story focused on because of how "people think about" it, or more precisely how people don't want to think about it. Doesn't make it disappear, regardless of how many sources imply otherwise. - RoyBoy 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What was their answer, maybe they should edit this! The issue is that "death" and "viable" are not alternatives, can't be played against each other. You can't replace "...caused by or resulting in its death" with "before its viable", the latter is simply half-factual. Abortions are performed before and after viability.DMSBel (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @JJL, Thanks. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the lede back to include death, since it is only accurate, plain-English definition around. Without death, the definition was including live births. And "viable" is simply wrong. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those supporting 'viable' say it's well-supported by the a clear preponderance of the sources. In supporting 'death' you and some other editors make unsupported claims about what is "accurate" or "wrong". That isn't helpful. I support 'viable' because the sources do. JJL (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why, JJL, do you ignore the sources that say otherwise? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't. I look at the WP:WEIGHT of sources; which are primary, secondary, or tertiary; and from whence they come. Primarily on grounds of weight, 'viable' is the right choice. By proceeding in this way, in accordance with policy, I don't need to invent reasons to make up my own personal defn. JJL (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you can't even tally up a vote, I don't think you can apply WP:WEIGHT to sources. (And please note the new sources provided recently.)-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, I provided an explicit list of whom I counted on each side so anyone else could challenge my results, but from the other side came just a bald assertion of numbers with no explanation that could be vetted. In any event, I gave you a straight answer to your question above and you replied with an ad hominem attack. JJL (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the Term Destruction in the Lead
I vote that the lead of the article is changed to reflect this: "Abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo as well as its destruction."

Readers need to immediately understand and comprehend that the act of abortion does destroy the embryo or fetus. Nothing in the lead explains that. Israell (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please support the lead version(s) above you would prefer. We have been discussing the disposition of the lead for months. - RoyBoy 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What sources support that statement? (And are we voting on this?) JJL (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note, that is not how 'abortion' is medically defined. JJL (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Agree that Readers need to immediately understand and comprehend that the act of abortion does destroy the embryo or fetus.   If death is such a no-no word, "destruction" will have to do. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is that so important to you? It's not clear to me why it'd be important for readers to see your favored term (in one disguise or another). That it is terminating the pregnancy seems to convey pretty clearly what is happening. JJL (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since any 12 year old understands that an aborted fetus still too immature to survive on its own and removed from the mother's body will die or has already died, it seems clear to me that the extensive discussion around the inclusion of the words death and destruction is related to an effort to make an emotional impact on the readers of Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with giving the reader information. Please, let's avoid turning this Wikipedia article into an anti-abortion propaganda piece. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Gandy' still presumes that anyone with a differing POV has an evil agenda, whilst his own motives are whiter than white. Cognitive bias anyone?-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no need to state this--it's what 'viability' means. Furthermore, 'destruction' also can be interpreted to mean that the abortus is dissected, which isn't always the case. In many cases of early, spontaneous abortion the only destruction comes from the inevitable decay of the aborted material. I don't think that saying as well as its destruction makes that clear. It suggests an agent of destruction--an intentional act. JJL (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The primary reason why it wasn't selected in 2006. - RoyBoy 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Gandydancer is correct. It would be redundant, simply because that is what "before viability" has already conveyed: that the foetus is not yet mature enough to survive on its own outside the womb. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that "before viability" isn't in the proposal at the start of this talk page section, is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LeadSongDog, with the caveat that it is spelled fetus. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a synthesized defn. We don't need it--the actual defn. is well-sourced. JJL (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does the article start with a technical definition when abortion has other very common definitions (such as the plain, old dictionary definition, as well as the political, legal, and philosophical definitions, as well as bilogical and veterinary definitions? Why would the medical definition be favored? Especially when the medical definition is at odds with all of these other definitions? It could even be said that the medical definition is not even scientifically or legally accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a medical event or procedure. Why would we not use the medical defn.? Anything else would be misleading. Differing viewpoints can be accommodated in the article's body. JJL (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would a definition from a regular dictionary be misleading? Or how would a biological or legal definition be misleading? Your answer does not address why wikipedia would use a definition that is (1) at odds with the definitions used by other professions and ordinary people for this very commonly used word, and (2) factually inaccurate. Why limit abortion to encompass only the medical event or treatment, when the word in its every day usage is NOT limited to that narrow definition? Why use a definition that is incomplete and does not encompass many events that most people (including people in medical and other professions) consider to be abortion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above was not signed nor made by me. Wasn't "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo, or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.", the definition given by Wikipedia at one point in the lead of this article? It is the truth, so why conceal it? I approve of the term "death" or "destruction" or even extinction.

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo, or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its extinction." In all cases, I oppose any term that refers to viability 'cause a large number of abortions are performed when the fetus is viable. Israell (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While pertinent, this has already been discussed at length, "large number" is unspecific and dubious; if you can clarify with a reliable source go ahead... but we have gone over some of those as well. Viability indeed isn't a requirement of abortion, but it is built into its application in a medical context. Acknowledging that can be accurate, so long as the primary "general" definition is sufficiently broad. - RoyBoy 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as JJL has alluded to, abortion isn't always an "act". (ie. spontaneous abortion) - RoyBoy 22:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "spontaneous abortions" are called miscarriages. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's called both, and is differentiated from medical abortions or surgical abortions. I do not currently see how or why miscarriage would be delineated from the first sentence. - 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is often more than one way to define something. And Israell, here is the first biology dictionary I found: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Abortion "The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception of the embryo or of a nonviable foetus." And here is dictionary.com's definition: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. " Neither mentions death, destruction, or extinction. Also, extinction is less preferable (in comparison to death), because it can be misleading. When the average reader hears "extinction", they think of some species disappearing.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream English definitions for abortion often refer to death or destruction and often do not refer to viability. Same for some important medical resources. I found this list above, but am putting it here because it is on point and the sources are so solid and the formatting so readable (but I removed any bold text since that seems superfluous). I am not very familiar with wikipedia formatting, but use similar markup langauge elsewhere and am trying my best):

69.136.29.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC).
 * IP, anyone can cherrypick sources. As I stated above, there is more than one way to define abortion. The two definitions I found above took about 2 minutes to find. There are plenty of definitions with the term viable in it. --EdwardZhao (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing well-known authoritative dictionaries is not cherry-picking. The definitions cited are from the dictionaries that most English speakers would name as the most reliable sources for word definitions. Your comments are far from objective. 69.136.29.94 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." Take a look at the discussions above and in the archives before commenting on how "objective" I am.--EdwardZhao (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

From Williams Obstetrics:

69.136.29.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

More from Williams Obstetrics, chapter 9:

More from Williams Obstetrics, chapter 1:

69.136.29.94 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, on the issue of 'life' that we have discussed before, the NY Times has this to say : "Biologists do not agree on what the definition of life should be or whether it is even useful to have one." JJL (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that a joke? I like jokes, breaks the tension of a fierce discussion. What does "simple forms of life" and astrobiology have to do with this discussion? (side note, for "astrobiology" I didn't even need to see the article to know it was there, I'm actively interested in the topic/discussion) - RoyBoy 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't a joke. It's a reminder that while some here think the defn. of 'life' (and 'death') is very simple and obvious, scientists don't. JJL (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, then this is a reminder the context is literally out of this world; and scientists have no qualms with an embryo being life. - RoyBoy 06:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
I have filed a request for formal mediation of this dispute. I have listed the users who have been involved over the last 14 days or so, who should be notified by a bot sometime today. If you are not on the list here and would like to be, let me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the RFC hasn't been closed this seems premature...and all the more so since the Lead sentence options section seems to be progressing in a potentially fruitful way, and the article itself has been relatively stable. JJL (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is only stable because we've given up debating with you, and are too polite to endlessly revert. Patience has been exhausted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No new comments in the RfC and the debate here is endless. You don't have to participate in mediation if you don't want, I suppose. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that it might have been better to wait until the RfC closed. The lede first sentence has had very little if any stability since June 8 though, and the page was protected up to one week ago. DMSBel (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You started the RFC, and didn't even wait until it was closed before going to mediation? Why not just ask for a close first? JJL (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been no new comments in the RfC for weeks and it only got us new input from four people. We're going in circles. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfC got little outside input because it was used as a forum for previously involved editors to restate and argue their positions at length. That's usually the fastest way to sabotage an RfC, and unless previously involved editors are capable of some minimal restraint, you're not going to get much outside input. MastCell Talk 22:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejection
Mediation is not going forward, since it relies on all participants' willingness to engage. Since the RfC has not resolved anything, that leaves us with abitration. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And if it does come to that, one side is not going to like the results of arbitration since they are binding. So I suggest we work together on mediation. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you guys understand how Arbitration works. The Arbitration Committee isn't going to tell you which version is "right", nor are they going to make "binding" decisions about the content of the article. What they will do, if a case is accepted, is to look at the conduct of the editors involved in this dispute. That may be useful, but it will still be up to editors to hash out a version of the lead which is acceptable, or at least stable. MastCell Talk 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ...or working together. JJL (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the mediation request rejection: Requests_for_mediation/Abortion. JJL (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. JJL (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's about the proposed formal mediation of the dispute over the titles of pro-life and pro-choice. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection
Why has the page been indefinatley semi-protected?, could someone give me a full explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PP. The explanation doesn't get more full than that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the lead sentence say that abortion occurs before the fetus is viable? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC) NOTE: THIS RFC IS A SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING PROCEEDING OF THE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

 * No, because abortions don't always occur before viability. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Basically for the same reason above per Michael C Price DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes As this is the wording the best sources use. They do not use the term death for reasons previously discussed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the overwhelming majority of professional secondary sources (see the collapsed Extended content section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42) use the 'viable' defn. and most of the others do not use 'death'. JJL (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Our references chose to avoid using the term death in their definition because it suggests life begins at the moment of conception, a concept not held by all. Should Wikipedia decide to ignore their wisdom and rather use a minority definition preferred by only a segment of society, most notably the Christian Right in the U.S., we are  entering the dangerous waters of political bias. Gandydancer (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't let that go by. Gandydancer, all biologists hold that life begins at conception. Please stop all this "right-wing" bullshit. (If you dispute this, then find one biologist who explicitly says the developing fetus is not alive.) It is simply a matter of science, and nothing to do with politics or religion.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael C Price, please note that we are speaking of the definition, not the body of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, what has that to do with your outrageous smearing-by-association? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please argue my opinion elsewhere. Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. So you're allowed to make your smears here, and we are not counter them? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagreement is not a 'smear'. Let's stick to the facts. Certainly you're not really going to dispute that the Pro-Life movement pushes the view that life (whatever that may mean) begins at conception? JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you chose not understand what the "smear" refers to. Very clever. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a schockingly false statement--esp. in light of all the sources to the contrary that have been produced. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, while I appreciate your support, I beg that you both take this discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the two major statements at discussion. Uninvolved editors may also be interested to read the sources currently in the article. NW ( Talk ) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since some editors have a problem with actually listing what we are discussing:
 * Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo usually? before it is viable.
 * Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, caused by or resulting in its death.
 * I support the first one by the way, but I also don't think it makes any sense for positions to be rehashed. We had this conversation a few days ago; I think it's safe to say no one changed their mind. Let's just wait for the second subsection to be filled out. NW ( Talk ) 23:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For anyone that wonders how the references break down to numbers that use/do not use viable or death, this is pretty close: Nine use the term viable. Of the others, 2 use age of gestation, 3 use "survive" and 1 somewhat uses that term, 2 use destroy or destruction, 1 uses death, and the rest use something other. Also, it should be noted that the definition did include the word "usually" at one time to include the fact that in a small percent of abortions the fetus is viable at the time it is aborted. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Without the word "usually", inserting "viable" would deny what millions of reliable sources say: late term abortions do rarely occur after viability, e.g. to save the life of the mother.  But if we insert the word "usually" then the sentence becomes misleading because it would be just as accurate to say that most abortions occur before the second trimester; plus the sentence would not say what it is about abortion that makes it different from live birth.  More generally, I could support changing "death" to "demise" but would oppose doing that without consensus.  Everyone hating an aspect of an article (e.g. the word "death" or the entire lead sentence) sometimes doesn't justify changing it. Even if every editor at an article unanimously hates an aspect of the article, changing that aspect of the article may nevertheless be disruptive if there is no consensus about how to change it. Some editors may want to completely delete that aspect, whereas other editors might oppose deletion but disagree among themselves about what modification would improve the article. In such a circumstance, discuss rather than edit, at least if the hated aspect has been a stable or prominent feature of the article for a long time, or was previously supported by consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both work: I was actually okay with "viable" in the lead if its clear this is a medical definition. But of course, my position is Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia, not a medical text, so this makes death preferential despite its negative emotional dynamic. - RoyBoy 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a possible compromise, which I believe you brought up before but ultimately ignored for some reason: Abortion is medically defined as ...viable. I could certainly live with that, and if enough people here are willing to set aside their the-article-must-be-100%-"right" position, we might to get this dispute resolved for now. NW ( Talk ) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add doing this glosses over what viability is legally, a bit of a "no no" for an encyclopedia seeking global scope. - RoyBoy 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would support this aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is livable. JJL (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's an excellent idea and I would strongly support it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. None of these 24 WP:RS define abortion as only before viability and some give accounts of third trimester post-viability abortions [emphasis added]:
 * Please note that these are tertiary sources (and see also the discussion of dictionary defns. at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42), and that many take pains to avoid the term 'death' that is in contention. The crux of the professional-quality secondary sources that turned the discussion to 'viable' may be found in the collapsed Extended content section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42. JJL (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL: You mislead. First, the list of 9 sources you point us to includes 2 tertiary sources. Of these 9, only 4 mention viability in the definition for induced abortion. Of these four, 2 are tertiary sources. That means you have pointed us to only 2 secondary sources that define induced abortion as always before viability. Such deception makes your stock keep going down. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more in the archives, but i didn't think it a fruitful activity to hunt them all down and link to them. As was pointed out earlier, the Notes section of the main article has more. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't think an actual viewing, analysis and discussion of all of the sources is fruitful, preciesly because the fruit of such objective inquiry is not to your liking. Your habit has been to state your opinion and then claim that you have no interest in the opinion of your fellow editors. Wikipedia policy is not (contrary to what you keep incorrectly insisting) to avoid discussion. You keep seeking to avoid any analysis of what you assert. Your stock just keeps going down. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 74, Would you mind collapsing your evidence section? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You serious? :-)DMSBel (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should give the IP his due, if he can source like this on unrelated topics too, he will be a useful contributor to Wikipedia generally. DMSBel (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would mind. It is important to keep it expanded so objective information is available to juxtapose against some of the misinformation about sources in this section. Please let me know if any of the citations I have posted in this section are not accurate. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK if we added a citations sub-heading in this section and place them there? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't want my contribution to the conversation changed or edited. Thanks. What is important to me, and will be to fair-minded editors who have not been involved, is to reckon with the avalanche of sources that DO NOT define induced abortion in terms of viability (and that DO define it terms of death/destruction). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @DMSBel I was only asking if they could be collapsed in-place for thread flow and readability. I was not asking that they be removed. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, can the sections be separated? If it can be moved to new section just above with link from the IPs comment here then I have no objection, its not my contrib. though. Up to the IP. DMSBel (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to collapse an informative contribution. In fact I suggest we copy these into "note 1". -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, the discussion on sourcing need de-politicised. For definitional purposes limit all sources to those unassociated with political-advocacy groups or groups that have advocacy in their scope of mission. That would leave Medico-Legal, Medical, Philosophic, Legal and Encyclopedia/Dictionary. Anything else, or is that wide enough? DMSBel (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, sourcing needs de-polarised so to speak, we don't have to pick between death and viable, unless there are political factors driving the discussion, which seems at times to be the case. If we could refrain from breaking up into camps, it might help. I apologise if any of my comments have tended to polarise the discussion. I don't object to the lede saying that "spontaneous abortions mostly occur before viability" if that is factually correct. It would not be intellectually honest though to deny that there are induced abortions performed right up to full term, and that abortions do result in the death of the fetus. For that reason my No above is in reference to any wording which suggests induced abortions occur only before viability. JJL might have had a point after all in regard to quantifiers, but I think that can be surmounted and both terms retained without advocacy. Not by definition strictly but by description. A formal definition can't possibly be sufficient. An extended defintion is needed, but it need not all be in one sentence. I need to give the matter more thought.62.254.133.139 (talk) User:DMSBel 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it would be a flat out lie to claim all abortions occur before viability. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Grace Medical Care is a private medical practice that performs late second and third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy procedures when fetal anomalies and/or genetic defects are found or to protect the health of the woman. Therapeutic abortion procedures end pregnancies that were originally wanted, but cannot be continued due to problems with the fetus or to protect the health of the woman."
 * Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Yes, in some states, termination of pregnancy is allowed at any time during a woman's pregnancy] to protect her health or when the fetus is affected by a genetic defect or abnormality."
 * Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Third Trimester Abortion. Four day outpatient procedure. Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. The first step for third trimester patients is the same as for second trimester patients at 20 weeks or more. One of the main differences for third trimester patients having a pregnancy terminated for fetal anomaly is that they may wish to have an intact fetus that they can examine and hold as part of the grief process. For many of these patients, it is not a fetus - it's a baby. The woman and her family may request special procedures such as special religious ceremonies, genetic studies, formal autopsy, private cremation, or private burial."
 * 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first two citations are to "Grace Medical Care", which is a highly questionable operation run by a rogue physician (see Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News). The National Abortion Federation has repeatedly tried to shut down Grace's operator, saying: "His record is the most egregious one I know of in the field." . So to present these sites as if they represent anything other than a gross deviation from accepted practice is either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. I haven't looked at the third source, but given the IP's track record and approach to sourcing, I'm not sure it's worth my time. But obviously, it describes third-trimester abortions as almost always performed for serious fetal anomalies, and thus presumably in cases where the fetus would not necessarily be viable. I guess it bothers me that every single assertion from this IP turns out to be misleading (at best) when subjected to a minute's worth of scrutiny, but whatever. MastCell Talk 18:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the slain George Tiller, whose dedication to providing late-term abortions (including third trimester abortions on viable fetuses according to his own public statements on record) earned him praise and respect far and wide among abortion advocatcy groups such as NARAL? 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are Tiller's own words: "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about not changing the subject every time someone calls you out for deceptive use of sources? How about trying to find and represent the best available sources instead of treating this like a political rapid-response operation or a high-school debate club? How about being honest with your fellow editors? Where did you come up with the three sources listed above? Do you think your presentation of them was misleading in any way? MastCell Talk 18:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Masty: Please stop changing the subject every time I post verifiable information that undermines your editorial desires. Thanks.71.3.232.238 (talk)!
 * Masty: First, I will note that I very deliberately did not list these links as WP:RS that could be used to verify article content. If you notice, I have compiled a numbered list of WP:RS in the box above, and these links are not in it. Neverthless, these links are anecdotal support for the notion (of NYy51) that it is quite absurd to claim that there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion because we have clinics advertising them (and as many of us have noted repeatedly, more importanty as to the article content, we have WP:RS that has verified the practice of aborting viable fetuses). 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Masty: If you do a simple google search and then ignore the opinion pieces and pro-life advocacy hits (as I always do), you find Grace Abortion Clinic on the first page of results. It is sad that some licensed abortion clinics are no better than back alley operations (such as Gosnell's fully licensed clinic in Philadelphia that turned out to be a butcher shop of horrors). You seem to know more about the misdeeds of Grace Abortion Clinic than I do (my view is that a licensed clinic is a licensed clinic and the reputation of such a clinic is not something I have to worry about when noting the existence of clinics that advertise third-trimester abortions). Thanks for bringing this wayward abortion provider to the attention of all of us editing this article. If you continue to the second page of google results, you find the site for Dr. Hern's clinic in Colorado, which is the third link I listed above. Do you have a problem with Dr. Hern? I think he enjoys a good reputation. Of course I haven't even mentioned the celebrated work of Dr. Carhart and Dr. Haskell. They also are on record in public statements about their commitment to continue providing post-viability abortions to women who want them. I am puzzled that this evidence of women's freedom to choose abortion disturb's you. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Masty: I think my conduct has been fair and honest and helpful to editors who are encountering new information that can assist in editing this article. Now, can you explain why your own refusal to acknowledge the avalanche of sources that undermine the notion that abortions only happen before viability is fair? Is that fair to your fellow editors? And is it fair to accuse an editor who has accurately posted over a hundred WP:RS on this topic of lacking integrity because you pick an alleged nit (that is not even a nit once subjected to scrutiny) from one or two of them? 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't get the same Google search results you're claiming, but then I suspect you're in a different filter bubble than I. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree. You seem to think I care about the wording of the lead sentence, which I don't. I do care about the general editing environment of this article, and I think you've been largely, if not solely, responsible for its complete degeneration into a mishmash of misleading arguments, cherry-picked sources, and agenda pushing. I take it you see nothing wrong with your approach to sourcing, so thank you for confirming that. MastCell Talk 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on MastCell, it doesn't matter how "reputable" these 3rd Trimester clinics are, they exist, that's the point. Perfectly valid to cite them as evidence that post viability abortions occur. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, Price! We should note in the main article that freedom to choose abortion has advanced to such a degree that there are abortion providers who actually advertise thrid-trimester abortion services on the internet. The clinic webpages themsleves are WP:RS for the fact that such advertisements exist. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Give an agenda account an inch... MastCell Talk 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This Talk page desperately needs a referee, ruling comments (and editors) out as needed. JJL (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "...out as needed" - interesting comment. A facilitator is needed, not a referee. But this is an RFC, so comments as such are not ruled out generally, except if they are abusive or personal attacks. Lets try to not polarise this again by talking about religious right, etc. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes: The vast majority of medical and professional sourcing indicates this should be the lede description of the article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your article edit that jammed "viable" back into the lead sentence, while falsely asserting in your edit summary that there is consensus here to do so. Your preferred outcome may prevail, but wouldn't it be best to prevail honestly, without tendentious editing and without trying to short-circuit the consensus-building process?  Millions of reliable and professional sources (many of them cited above) refer to abortion after viability.  Additionally, the Roe v. Wade decision stated: "After viability, the State may regulate, and even prohibit, abortion...." It's not our business here at at Wikipedia to push a definition that makes the US Supreme Court decision sound like ignorant gibberish (even if it imay in fact be ignorant gibberish).  There's no reason why our lead cannot give both the usual definition and the viability-based definition.  We can even replace "death" with "demise".  But what we really should stop doing is changing the lonstanding consensus version before we form a new consensus about how to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "usual" definition is the one with 'viable' in it. JJL (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've commented once or twice before, but again, I'll state that I support the version of the lead with viable in it. However, overall, I find this dispute to be rather trivial and it would be better for both sides to move on, instead of getting gridlocked over one sentence. Better sources use "viable".--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record "medical" sources use viable, this doesn't make them "better" / "best" for an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, it should be noted that if one looks at our sources, 2 out of 3 encyclopedias do use the word "viable" and the third uses "capable of independent survival", which is the meaning of viable. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia should be accurate and reflective of the most common professional opinions. 'Viable' does that. JJL (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gandydancer encyclopedias use it awkwardly, its not that simple! "usually" is to be avoided in an article (as good practice), and is frankly unacceptable IMNSHO in a lead. Death is common JJL, it ain't popular, but its common; there's a difference. We don't use "usually" yet, but to properly define the topic we are suppose to, viability exceptions / ambiguity seems to force it ... assuming intellectual honesty. LOLz... made myself laugh on that one. - RoyBoy 01:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly does "awkwardly" mean?NW ( Talk ) 02:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this circumstance, that viable has no hope (by itself) of correctly defining the abortion topic. To do so, it needs ambiguity inserted to be correct and honest. I usually deem ambiguity in a lead, especially for a controversial lead, to be awkward (grammatically and intellectually)... however, biology seems to require it. But using a purely medical definition for an article that is much broader than a medical procedure is awkward (and dishonest) editorially. The IP's version below is decent: "Abortion is termination of gestation by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, caused by or resulting in its death, typically when it is not viable." It incorporates the goal of abortion (termination of the fetus) with the common (but not absolute) constraint of viability. That is an improved version in my view, perhaps is the true compromise we were seeking in 2006. - RoyBoy 21:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very far from clear to me that "the goal of abortion [is] termination of the fetus". I believe--and the medical sources agree--that the goal is termination of the pregnancy. These are different goals. Certainly in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy, the woman may well desire a live delivery but choose to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life. An abortion ends a pregnancy. That's why it's done--so that the woman will no longer be pregnant. You think it kills the would-be child and as a by-product ends the state of pregnancy. I think it ends the pregnancy and that for a nonviable fetus this results in there not being a live birth. JJL (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on now! Why bother participating here if the goal isn't clear? Does political correctness require redefining the obvious, again (like with viable, or organism)? Don't tell me what I think -- unless you get it so wrong I get a chuckle after a long humid day -- thanks for that. I stick with reality: "I understand it ends a (one or more) fetus/embryo/blastocyst, this results in there not being a live birth for the abortus." Are you unclear on selective reduction, or just forgot about them?
 * As to your pro-life version... not bad, less editing to make it accurate: could-be child. I make no assumption that the fetus will be carried to term, viability, or even that the mother gravida wants it. That's her choice, not mine. "Kill" is technically okay (as a "living thing" dies), but less desirable than death; as "thing" can be interpreted as a detached object "being". I would find that more interesting to discuss (elsewhere), as living has been settled here dozens of times before we joined Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good section with a lot of helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

 * Yes - if the lead makes it clear this is the way "vast majority of medical and professional sourcing." It also might mention the minority view, covering all the bases. I personally never thought much about distinction despite 40 year obsession with topic and think it's better to be inclusive to avoid discussions ad nauseum like this evidently has been. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not uninvolved, but may I ask if your Yes is to including "before viability"? Its just that at this point in the RFC it has become difficult to tell what people are supporting.DMSBel (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes We're not explicitly saying every aborted foetus is in-viable (e.g. the above-mentioned late abortion to save a mother's life) but with due weight, it is generally a true statement <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No I think it is misleading, essentially what a reader of the lead is left with is that an abortion that occurs once the fetus is viable is by definition not an abortion. It needs some type of qualifier, "usually before viability" "generally before viability" "in most cases before viability", but without the qualifier the statement is clearly wrong. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly would be shocked if anyone came away with that idea <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how it reads, why there is an issue to be resolved, and why Britannica used "usually" in their definition. Unlike a medical text, we as a generalist encyclopedia do not have the luxury of presuming our readers are versed in what viability is biologically and legally, and that there is ambiguity from 21 weeks 6 days to 28 weeks gestation. - RoyBoy 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...but unlike a physical textbook, we have the ability to internally link to Fetal viability for those few who may not be familiar with the concept. JJL (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly we can link death to its clear and easier to understand definition. Linking viable is good, but it remains too narrow of a definition for Wikipedia's purpose IMO. It's completely acceptable with "medically defined", but my preference is to define abortion clearly and inclusively. - RoyBoy 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * yes with the caveat that there are some procedures which are controversially done otherwise and the article lede should note its scope. The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed in this way.  HominidMachinae (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Deliberate, induced removal of a fetus doesn't stop being an abortion if the fetus is viable at the time. In fact, our article at Late termination of pregnancy directly says that LTOPs are still abortions, and that they are sometimes performed on viable fetuses.  Viability is only a factor when you're dealing with spontaneous abortions.  I recommend omitting any mention of viability in the lead, and handling it in the Abortion section, which needs to make these points:
 * Induced (e.g., surgical) termination of a pregnancy at any time is called an abortion.
 * Spontaneous termination (i.e., "miscarriage") is called an "abortion" pre-viability and a "stillbirth" post-viability. I want to add that I'm disappointed by some of the folks who have pushed the "medical" definitions as the One True™ definition, while "accidentally" forgetting the context of those definitions. Most of these viability-based definitions often go on directly to talk about the distinction between a spontaneous abortion and a stillbirth, and that none of them say anything about this mythical idea that surgically killing a fetus is somehow an abortion pre-viability and the very same procedure is magically becomes a birth (the only other option in the medical statistics system!) if post-procedure path reports find a fetus older or larger than expected.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No: The box above with all the definitions seems pretty conclusive. –CWenger (<font face="Webdings"> ^  • <font face="Webdings"> @  ) 08:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No: "before viability" is unsourced. The entire definition in that sentence is unsourced, but I think we have consensus and can assume good faith on the bulk of it.  The only contentious aspect of that definition is the inclusion of "before viability".  Even with sourcing, I would lean away from including "before viability"; without sourcing, there should be no question that those two words should be removed.  Come on guys, we are not conservapedia!  --Bertrc (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom
FYI, the RFC above is now one of the subjects of an ArbCom proceeding. See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to cover a wide-ranging set of topics and it's not clear to me how big a part of the picture the lede here is yet--they seem concentrating primarily on the pro-life/pro-choice labels. I'm waiting to see the question(s) brought into sharper focus. Getting resolution here would certainly not be a bad thing if that's what they decide to do. JJL (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromise on lede?
In the interest of compromise, I'd be willing to settle on this version: "Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes used more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." JJL (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping we can discuss variants of this and reach a consensus on something like this rather than having a slow-motion edit-war. JJL (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am willing to settle on that as well.Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly opposed to this proposal. As a proposed compromise, how about if we restore the most recent consensus version?  That would be the version that existed from 2006 to 2011.  Then we could make changes to it as consensus and Wikipedia policy allow.  For example, I would support changing the word "death" to another term.  The proposal suggested here by JJL has many problems that have already been discussed previously (but not addressed here by JJL).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant this as a slight variation of NW's proposal that was more to my liking. I was hoping for a counterproposal other than dropping the last 5 years of conversations and going back to the version that we know lacks consensus. Is the current version simply unacceptable to you? JJL (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What changed from two days ago, when you said "But I myself don't have very strong objections to it"? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. I was not commenting about the version JJL now proposes.  I was commenting about the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact this article has admittedly scrambled my brain, but it seems to me that you just said above "restore the most recent consensus version? That would be the version that existed from 2006 to 2011".  As I have said right from the start, the important thing for me is that in a situation such as this there is an answer and the answer is Wikipedia policy of using references rather than my wish or your wish.  Death and destruction are in only a very few references, so that is OUT.  Most references use viable or a form of it, so we are bound by policy to choose that definition.  As a compromise I will accept "however, the term is sometimes used more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." even though IMO the refs do not back this addition.  However, some editors find it extremely important to include the fact that a certain number of abortions (in truth a very small number though that is not their conclusion) are done after the fetus is viable, and I will accept this as a compromise even though I do not like it.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you find acceptable, in the interests of bringing this discussion to a close via consensus? The version from NW was "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth." This is acceptable to me, though I would much prefer medically to technically. But I would accept this version if that would let us achieve consensus. Is it acceptable to you? If so we can try putting it in and leaving it in and see what other editors think about it. JJL (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(Oudent) Wikipedia policy, per WP:Lead, says, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." So, as I've said, it's not appropriate to give the specialized terminology top billing, and relegate the common Oxford English Dictionary definition to an afterthought. But, in the interest of peace and compromise, I do not intend to revert the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", aside from making the obvious clarification that birth does not happen after abortion. But I will do everything I can to revert further efforts to get farther and farther from Wikipedia policy, as I believe JJL's proposal in this talk page sectuon would do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand your position. You would find "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy other than birth." acceptable. Is that so? I find "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth." acceptable. If this is correct then we may be close to achieving a workable consensus. JJL (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not so. You have not quoted the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", and which I said I did not strongly oppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * NW's def was: ""Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." Am I wrong? Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I believe that's the version about which you (GandyDancer) said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", and which I said I did not strongly oppose. And what's the harm in changing "before" to "other than"; that ought to be completely uncontroversial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that and in fact I believe it seems to "sound" better. But that's all I can say - "it sounds better" - since I have no references to check for what might be the correct wording. Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a good article in which to assume that something will be uncontroversial because it suits your viewpoint. I was repeatedly told that 'death' was completely neutral and uncontroversial. To me "other than" sounds like yet another attempt to sneak "therefore, dead" in through the back door. And since it's poorly sourced, there's little reason to prefer it at this point. JJL (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think "other than" is synonymous with or implies "therefore dead", then there is no use trying to reason with you. Ditto about it being poorly sourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This works better if you tell me what version you're thinking of as I did for you. I copied it from NW's most recent edit of the lede--it may not have been the original one. Simply saying "No, that is not so. You have not quoted the [right] version" doesn't make for a constructive discussion. Are you trying to forestall discussion? JJL (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * GandyDancer just quoted the pertinent version in this talk page section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that Anythingyouwant would much prefer "other than" to "before" birth. I would agree to that, however I feel that using "medically" rather than "technically" defined as..." would be more accurate.  Are there any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * GandyDancer, that's been discussed above. For example, I said: "The presently-used word 'technically' is much better than 'medically' because many medical sources include the broader definition. For example, among the sources now in this article's 'Note', see TeLinde's Operative Gynecology, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, and Dictionary of Medical Terms. There are many other medical sources that include the broad definition, e.g. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, and WebMD/MedicineNet." Nuclear Warfare responded: "I'm good with how it is now, including using technically instead of medically, which I think is appropriate because even medical sources refer to post-viability terminations of pregnancy as abortions.". The present lead sentence is already the result of a great deal of compromise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the result of a great deal of compromise on all sides, don't you think? Not everything that was discussed above was resolved above...and I assume other editors who have not been posting (much here) this past week will want to weigh in when we ask if there is truly consensus. JJL (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I support "other than". I feel it is neutral and does not imply death (sorry JJL).  Also, I think it avoids confusion with C-Section (which occurs before birth, but is not considered other than birth).  Just my two cents. Wow, these threads are like watching C-Span during the debt ceiling debates.  --Bertrc (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For a C-section, the pregnancy itself terminates with birth--just not by vaginal delivery. JJL (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence options
I wanted to gauge interest in the options we have available, and see if any progress has been made. You are encouraged to support multiple options (with tweaks you specify), please don't oppose in the support sub-section. Reserve detailed comments for the comment sub-section. Versions are in approximate chronological order, if I missed a contender go ahead and add it. - RoyBoy 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

2006-2011 death consensus
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.

Support
 * Support but only if there is no consensus for any other proposal. Per WP:Consensus this version should not have been, and should not be, changed without consensus how to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support this version in the main, but wonder if the following would be an improvement: "Abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, during pregnancy, resulting in or caused by its death."DMSBel (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to submit the following which I believe answers an earlier question "can an embryo die?" - "Progesterone produces its effects by stimulating progesterone receptors in the womb, ovaries and elsewhere. Mifepristone reversibly competes with progesterone at these progesterone receptors and blocks its effects. This results in the death of the embryo because its nutrition is cut off and its attachment to the lining of the womb is loosened. The blocking of progesterone receptors also causes a profound fall in chorionic gonadotrophin produced in the womb by the developing embryo. This causes the corpus lureum in the ovary to shrink and cut off the supply of progesterone, thus adding to the direct anti-progesterone effects of mifepristone. The changes triggered in the lining of the womb (endometrium) result in the release of prostaglandins which further add to the effects of mifepristone, resulting in the expulsion of the embryo through its loosening from the endometrium, increased contractions of the womb and softening and opening of the neck of the womb (cervix). In other words, it causes an abortion." emphasis mine (Mifepristone) Medicines - A Guide for Everyone : Peter Parish, page 495 DMSBel (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Most accurate. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support pending a discussion on death's dual meaning/emotive dynamic being appropriate for the lead. We decided it was in 2006, perhaps we were incorrect. - RoyBoy 18:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

viable version
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable.

Support
 * Support as this is the definition of the term. JJL (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support however, I have no problem including the phrase "usually before it is viable". Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

current viable version
Abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo usually before it is viable.

Support
 * Support but it should be without either 'medically' or 'usually' as 'usually' doesn't generally occur in the medical defns. JJL (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have updated this option to reflect the current version. - RoyBoy 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing what people have voted on after they've voted on it is extremely unhelpful. JJL (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, just thought I'd match the option with its heading. Ironically trying to be helpful. I've reverted. - RoyBoy 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

death/viable combination
Abortion is the termination of gestation by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, caused by or resulting in its death, typically when it is not viable.

Support
 * RoyBoy 01:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

destroy/viable combination
Abortion is the termination of gestation by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, caused by or resulting in its destruction, typically when it is not viable.

Support

the two major definitions
Abortion is the induced or spontaneous loss of a pregnancy, although abortion may be distinguished from loss of a fetus that was sufficiently developed to have survived after birth.

Support
 * Support though not preferred. JJL (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

loss with medical clarification
Abortion is a loss of a pregnancy, involving destruction of a fetus or embryo, although medically the term "abortion" does not usually apply if the fetus has become viable.

Support
 * This would also be okay if "loss" is changed to "termination" or "ending". Likewise, "destruction" could be changed to "demise" or "cessation of development".  The word "demise" is not always synonymous with "death".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)   Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this could be worked with. JJL (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with JJL. (moved my support from destroy/viable to here) - RoyBoy 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if the word loss is replaced (in elective abortion women choose to have the pregnancy ended and the fetus destroyed, often because they don't want either one - losses are not deli berate, yet the choice to abort is frequentlydeliberate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.144 (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So which is better folks, "loss" or "termination" or "ending". - RoyBoy 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence that doesn't sound like the result of a tortured debate
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before it is viable.

Support
 * All the exceptions and clarifications can be explained afterwards. We don't need to make the reader run away screaming before they've even finished the first paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if "before it is viable" is replaced with "other than live birth". Why deny that there's such a thing as abortion of a viable fetus?  Many reliable sources do not include this viability exception, and this exception can be discussed later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. I'll take pretty much any sentence that has less than 5 commas in it :) Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "it" refering to - "a pregnancy"?. That is the only way to read it. How does a pregnancy survive outside the womb? Simply atrocious english. If anything would marginalise wikipedia as a resource this sort of writing would, more than any pov. What is an induced "termination of a pregnancy" after a fetus is viable called? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ip, I'm sure it was just a human error on Kaldari's part. This issue can be fixed rather easily.--EdwardZhao (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but agree on the grammatical issue. JJL (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as grammar is fixed.--EdwardZhao (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, no changes Friend of the Facts (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "We don't need to make the reader run away screaming before they've even finished the first paragraph." Agreed. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Yes of course as this is the definition. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Short and simple
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before birth.

Support
 * Support. Excuse my late entrance into this debate. I suggest the above sentence as it is concise and undeniably accurate. We can expand upon the various nuances later in the lead, so let's stick with the vital information first. The viability clause is undeniably false, as everybody knows some abortions happen in the third trimester. The so-called is the next best option, but I am concerned it is not entirely accurate either, as I don't believe it covers cases like intact dilation and extraction. –CWenger (<font face="Webdings"> ^   • <font face="Webdings"> @  ) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that definition includes birth. What would you think of this though? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right you are! I guess you could fix it by simply adding "before birth" to the end. But the version you linked is pretty good as well—I am puzzled by why this alternative wasn't part of this discussion. –CWenger (<font face="Webdings"> ^  • <font face="Webdings"> @  ) 18:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My immediate concern is it may push the details to be debated to another sentence. As to being part of the discussion, a variation was presented in 2006. Talk:Abortion/Lead_2006. Can you please comment on this in a section below? - RoyBoy 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, though I'm unsure if it resolves anything. - RoyBoy 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments
"desmise" as a noun is defined as: "A person's death." Not exactly avoiding the pitfalls some see in death. - RoyBoy 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, the connotations are different. But "destruction" would be fine instead.  You're okay with using the word "destruction", right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, works as well as death. Passed over in 2006, because of violent connotations? Unsure. - RoyBoy 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "two major definitions" option, by using "birth", appears to define abortion by what its not. - RoyBoy 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any definition that says the fetus is not yet viable defines abortion by what it's not. That's how a lot of reliable sources do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and they get it wrong (for an encyclopedia) to boot. :") RoyBoy 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not define something by what it is not, this was firmly established in 2006 and is noted several times in Wikipolicy. "Medically" is needed (in my view) because this definition is narrowly situated in medical sources and context. If you want a broader definition (to encompass the abortion topic), you may need to support another option. - RoyBoy 03:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying the fetus is not viable ("before it is viable") defines abortion by what it is not. Please link the Wikipolicy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. - RoyBoy 04:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the part about "circular" definitions? That would be like "Abortion is what an abortionist does", IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You got me there, I was convinced it was in Fallacies sub-page, but I'd maintain it's misleading to primarily define it with a negative. - RoyBoy 04:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing to me that you didn't include the main version that has been discussed recently and that was initially edited in after the straw poll and resulting discussion: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable. That's the version that has the greatest support from me and which has also received significant support from a number of others, and is by far the modal defn. from medical sources. Your suggestion here has already been weasel-worded toward your desired result. JJL (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From an encyclopedic perspective, its simply inaccurate (too narrow). I'll understand if you add it as an option, but accuracy trumps weaselly. - RoyBoy 23:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, just so it's clear that we're being asked to decide which of the options that you personally deem acceptable is the best, rather than which option is best overall. Given that the medical defn., which has already received wide support here from a number of editors, is excluded, I'm not sure what you hope this exercise will prove. JJL (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite, I've already said (twice) you may add another option. This "exercise" is about forming a new consensus, though perhaps it'll also demonstrate the selective illiteracy of some of you. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The last time we had something like this and you it edited after it had started, DMSBel declared the whole thing invalid because something was changed after the start and reminded us constantly of that during every following discussion. It'd be no different this time, I imagine, esp. if it were I who added it back in. Furthermore, some people who have already expressed an opinion may not come back and notice that the most popular lede suggestion had been re-added. This exercise isn't about forming a new consensus: It's part of the continued attempt to remove 'viable' from the lede. Not listing the single best-supported option in your poll is a fatal flaw in your design. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * RoyBoy has an odd idea that a handful of Wikipedia editors has the authority to pronounce the editors of just about every dictionary and the editors of every encyclopedia inaccurate. By his standards, lets go straight to the evolution article and insist that the planet is only 8 thousand years old - after all we need only produce a dozen Wikipedia editors to show that all those scientists are simply inaccurate.  Easy as eating pie! Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If a definition is lacking what is necessary, it only takes one editor. I missed your response to my question above, does having an abortion "make a fetus defacto non-viable"? We could waste more time trying to define a fetus to not be "life" again. Evolution... I created the original misconception section that became objections to evolution. I've shut down more than one creationist engineer, explaining in detail how biology doesn't conform to their rigid preconceptions. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it's not uncommon that biology doesn't conform to one's rigid preconceptions. 'Abortion' is well-defined by the medical community. 'Life' (and hence 'death') is not well-defined by the biological community. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going ignore this, makes me angry and is a waste of my fracking time. - RoyBoy 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's very bothersome to me that the most commonly occurring defn. in medical texts is being dismissed out-of-hand as not even being worthy of discussion and not everyone here is up in arms about it. Wikipedia will never be fully respected until there's some means of enforcing a minimal standard of accuracy. JJL (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. However, when you say accuracy; what I hear is conformity. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would argue that an encyclopedia conforming with the state of the art in a technical area is a good thing. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, I have made pretty clear that it's okay with me to have both the narrower medical definition and also the more general definition in the lead sentence. You appear not to be bothered by omitting the latter (more general) definition.  Why?  If I had to choose between the two for the lead sentence, I'd go with the more general definition, and not just because this is a general encyclopedia. A lead sentence establishes the scope of the article, and that scope would be the same if we use the general definition compared to using both.  The scope would be reduced, however, by using the narrower definition in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but when you refer to the general definition, what definition do you mean, and backed by what sources? If you mean the 2006 version, that's effectively citing Wikipedia as a source. I understand the medical definition but not the general definition--in fact, I don't think there is one widely-accepted non-medical definition (with comparable unanimity to the medical 'viable' version). JJL (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I refer to the general definition, I mean the definition prevalent in non-medical (e.g. legal and general-purpose) sources that do not say there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you state the defn. you're thinking of so we both are clear as to what we're talking about? JJL (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The most common English-language definition of abortion is loss of a pregnancy other than by live birth, or in other words the definition that was in this article from 2006-2011. That is also the legal definition.  Thus, for example, the US Supreme Court said in the case of Roe v. Wade:  "After viability, the State may regulate, and even prohibit, abortion...." Neither the most common English definition nor the legal definition say that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus.  I have made pretty clear that it's okay with me to have both the narrower medical definition and also the more general definition in the lead sentence.  You appear not to be bothered by omitting the latter (more general) definition.  Why?  If I had to choose between the two for the lead sentence, I'd go with the more general definition, and not just because this is a general encyclopedia. A lead sentence establishes the scope of the article, and that scope would be the same if we use the general definition compared to using both.  The scope would be reduced, however, by using only the narrower definition in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. How was it determined that this was the most common? I am not as antagonistic to this defn. as I think you think I am. It is decidedly not what was in there before. "Not a live birth" and "dead" are not opposites if the fetus is not clearly alive. Being not born live just continues that status--it doesn't alter it to death. I prefer the medical defn. because I feel it's clearly sourced, consistent with WP style for similar matters, and appropriately technical for what the subject is, and many other suggestions are synthesized, but I don't see this one as being objectionable in the way that the 'death' version was. JJL (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RoyBoy, myself, and other editors have indicated that it would be okay to change "death" to "destruction" in the 2006-2011 version, and there may be consensus to do that. What there has never been consensus for is turning the lead sentence into a statement that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus, and that the only definitions that count are medical ones.  Do you understand that such changes require consensus?  This article won't ever be stable if editors continuously try to impose their own POV.  You appear to think that medical dictionaries are more valid and reliable than general-purpose dictionaries, or legal dictionaries, and I disagree.  In any event, if you want to identify what sorts of non-medical sources you would find persuasive on this point, then I'm all ears.  Incidentally, I don't think there's consensus (yet) for my two-definition solution (this is starting to sound like Middle East negotiations).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a scientific fact that two people can see and hear the same event and yet come away with an opposite picture of what was seen and heard. You can see and hear anything you want, but please do not tell me that your assessment is correct and mine is false. As editors we are obliged to keep our personal opinions out of our edits and use our sources to produce our "facts".  Anyone that feels otherwise should spend their time writing a personal blog rather than editing Wikipedia articles. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't find "before viable" false, I find it (my understanding/opinion) inaccurate (perhaps I should say incomplete instead) and inappropriate for Wikipedia; there is a distinction, no wonder you're annoyed. Personal, JJL said that before, it was hilarious. So I'm on a personal quest -- while others reinforce the bastion of neutrality by skipping over that viability can be ambiguous, fetus = organism = can die, not conceding abortion's goal is to end the fetus, etc. I skipped definition(s), it was plain they can be added. - RoyBoy 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Abortion doesn't have a goal, but it does have an intended purpose. You seem to think women walk into a medical office saying "Kill it" (the fetus) rather than "End it" (the pregnancy). I believe it's the latter--they don't want to be pregnant any more. If they wanted to kill something they could wait and give birth and then kill it. If that sounds unreasonable, so is the assumption that they want to kill the fetus earlier. They want to not be pregnant any longer. That's why abortions are performed. That's what they do. JJL (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you/they wish to focus on that, your prerogative, and its your bias. An abortion is about ending a pregnancy and fetus, if just about ending the pregnancy (and transplanting the fetus), we would call it something else and it would be a different article/talk. If you want to teleport "kill" into an inappropriate context, take it to a forum. Oh yeah, don't try to guess what all gravidas want; once again the norm does not accurately define the plurality of reality -- and simplifies it at a cost to us all. - RoyBoy 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is they say neither "kill it" nor "end it". But that is beside the point. What is being pregnant? The state of carrying an embryo or fetus within the female body, right? If there is no fertilized ovum there is no pregnancy. There is no way other than birth to end a pregnancy that doesn't also end the life of the fetus. Are you saying they want a baby, but don't want to be pregnant? Excepting rape, there are ways to avoid becoming pregnant. So except in the case of a failure of contraception, a woman does not have to become pregnant. What if methods used to avoid becoming pregnant fail? Continuing with the pregnancy or abortion are the only two options. The latter will result in the death of the fetus. That simply has to be faced - there is no way to end an unwanted pregnancy without ending the life of the fetus. Pregnancy is a physical dependency relationship between the mother and fetus. Terminating a pregnancy results in the death of the fetus. DMSBel (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)




 * DMSBel, since there is no such thing as "degree of death" you believe that the death of an embryo, a non-viable fetus, a viable fetus, and a newborn baby are all the same, if I understand you correctly. Since we have laws that forbid the taking of life, how do you justify that a woman who has an abortion should not be charged with murder? Gandydancer (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely you know that there are degrees of culpability in law? Taking of another human life is not automatically murder, and guilt is not presumed, but has to be established. Typical "pro-choice" way of turning the thing back to front - ask the other person to justify something they don't agree with or that is not so straightforward. As I have told you I don't live in the US, and UK passed its abortion act five years before I was born. I didn't open the door to abortion on request. As soon as I was old enough to understand some of the issues, I was against abortion on request. At some points I have been weak pro-choice in my thinking. But as I thought the matter through I realised I agreed with the practice of preventing self-harm in mental institutions, so it was inconsisent to argue for the right to an abortion. And because for a time I didn't think through some of the rationalisations (pseudo-rationales) for abortion, specifically those related to medical indications as though it is not generally possible to try to save the life of mother and her fetus. There are some things that cannot be justified - expending more time, money and research on making abortion "safer" than on making childbirth safer for one.DMSBel (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also Gandydancer your question would only have validity if I had a say in law-making. But as I understand it in America the pro abortion rights lobby didn't go to the People and still don't go to the People to find out what they want. Instead they have used the courts in America to set policy, because the courts are not subject to the People.[] DMSBel (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a lie. Any law found in violation of the Constitution is void. If "the people" don't like the Constitution they can change it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have misunderstood. How are Supreme court justices appointed? DMSBel (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they not appointed by the President and serve for life? How is what I said a lie? I am willing to be shown if I am in error. But saying it is a lie implies I knew that what I was saying was incorrect. DMSBel (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Taking of another human life is not automatically murder" What then, justifiable homicide? Manslaughter? Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for an answer... Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And what has your question got to do with the article? DMSBel (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)'


 * Everything. And why are you so reluctant to answer? Gandydancer (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't given the matter enough thought to give a considered answer. Its a complex issue. DMSBel (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that you and several others here should give it some thought since you may be calling several of my best friends and my two beloved daughters, who have dedicated more than 20 years of their life to raising their beloved children, murderers. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to your talk page, Gandydancer. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me what to do. If there are elephants in the room I believe that somebody should mention it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then mention it on your own talk page. This isn't a forum. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So are you saying I and others must regard a fetus as non-human and ignore evidence to the contrary in deference to your friends who have had abortions. If so then that calls into question whether you are able edit this article objectively. DMSBel (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you insist on discussing this here, Gandydancer, I agree with DMS. Are you editing to try to justify your family and friends' abortions? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't need to justify the decisions made by my family or my friends since, according to our present abortion laws, abortion is not murder. Please have a look at the murder article which states: "The elements of common law murder are: Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought"

and: "...of a human being—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath."

To move the point that life begins to the moment of conception, one has no choice but to discuss its murder, which was caused by the woman who aborted it, and that is the elephant in the room that some of you do not seem to want to discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about justifying it to your own conscience. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment makes my point very clear, indeed. I doubt that you would be speaking of conscience if it was their tonsils they had removed.  The selection for the definition of abortion in this article should not be about religious morality, and as long as I have a say-so, it won't be. Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about religious morality, I'm talking about your COI. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What is COI? Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, got it WP:COI Well, I certainly would not want to edit this article if I have a COI.  Please point out exactly what my COI may be.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone has an opinion on this. Gandydancer is speaking against a religious POV in the article. The use of the medical defn. is clearly neutral--that's the way to go. JJL (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not a religious point of view it is a scientific point of view that life begins at conception, not birth. Point me to one religious source that has been used in the discussion, in support of that. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That isn't how COI works, and NYyankees51, you of all people should a) know that very well and b) be the last person to argue that having an opinion on the subject disqualifies a user from editing an article. What a shameful way to behave. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to his ability to edit the article objectively as questioned above. I thought that and COI were the same thing, my mistake. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, this whole discussion is off topic anyway and should be closed, as I tried to do before I was reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, then let's just stick with my ability to edit this article objectively. Why exactly do you believe that I am unable to objectively edit this article?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that this subject is off topic, quite the opposite really. Please do not "hide" this discussion without good reason. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor behaviour is never a legitimate topic for discussion on an article talkpage. Stick to discussion of the article, please, or take the discussion elsewhere. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Further lead sentence options
FYI, people who supported one or more lead sentence options may want to make sure that you didn't skip over any options, especially options that were written and inserted after the initial set (as RoyBoy indicated might happen when he presented the initial set of options).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you guys trying to come up with a list of the worst possible sentences in the English language? FWIW, I added yet another option, which is about half as long as all the other ones. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure of the options acknowledges the complexity of the issue. Your option avoids it entirely. It's intellectual cowardice, inaccurate... but the main problem I see, is it appears to move the debate to the 2nd sentence. But perhaps I'm wrong on something, Kaldari, is an abortion of a viable fetus possible? Does it matter? If not, why?- RoyBoy 23:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the grammar is crap. Please fix. (you can go ahead now) - RoyBoy 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose "destruction"

 * Oppose. "Destruction" is problematic because while it might apply to D&C it doesn't apply to miscarriages or RU486. Those expel the fetus but don't damage it. Not to mention the tone is inappropriate. You wouldn't describe mastectomy as "involving the destruction of a breast." Friend of the Facts (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, the first paragraph of this section says, "please don't oppose". Anyway, a mastectomy involves removing a breast that has been destroyed by disease.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't oppose was only for the options section. - RoyBoy 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that notice because this section is quite long so I moved the comment down here. Mastectomy is not just done because of breast cancer. It's usually part of ftm transitioning and in that case the mammary tissue probably doesn't have anything wrong with it health wise. Define mastectomy as "destruction of a breast" and it's basically making a value judgment about what a person going through ftm transition is doing. And that value judgement tone is why we shouldn't use language like "destruction" to describe medical procedures. Not to mention that it carries an implication of intent which certainly doesn't apply to a random "act of nature" (for lack of a better term) like miscarriage. Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mammary tissue has something wrong with it health wise after a mastectomy, if not before. Anyway, biological processes of a fetus or embryo are nonexistent after an abortion, which seems like something worth mentioning in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When abortion is defined as "termination of a pregnancy" it's pretty much a given that in an abortion the processes involved in a pregnancy stop. We could break pregnancy down into a very minute level of detail -- all the hormonal changes etc. -- and describe how abortion effects everything but spelling everything out like that really wouldn't be necessary to allow the average reader to understand what abortion is. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt you're correct that there are hormonal and other effects of abortion. But in terms of WP:Undue weight, the demise of the embryo or fetus is much more prominent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a subjective assessment some hold, but Wikipedia can't treat it like it's an objective fact. Does Wikipedia have to go into great detail about pregnancy -- hormonal changes, the placenta and its connection to the woman's circulatory system, fetal development etc. -- to explain abortion? Probably not. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I already agreed with you that details about pregnancy are already covered in the pregnancy article; those effects occur due to pregnancy regardless of whether there's an abortion, plus those effects lack prominence compared to effects on the embryo/fetus. What facts are important is often subjective, and we should follow reliable sources in that regard, plus standard Wikipedia practice and policy, along with editorial consensus and common sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin likes you, I currently don't, your account name is almost as presumptuous as OrangeMarlin. So abortion of a viable fetus is not possible? Explain please. - RoyBoy 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's one thing to tell me you think my suggestions or edits are off base/incorrect/unneutral/etc. That's fair. But to just come out of the blue and say "I don't like you" is extremely rude and a personal attack. As I understand it OrangeMarlin's name was a reference to the Florida Marlins team so how is that any more "presumptuous" than NYYankees51? And for what it's worth when I signed up for this site I thought "friend of the facts" was a good name for using on a website that's an encyclopedia -- ie a repository of facts -- but in hindsight maybe it does sound kind of like I think I'm a know everything. Frankly I've been avoiding commenting on this page for a while because the atmosphere seemed hostile back then. Looks like it hasn't improved if I can't even chip in and say what I think about a proposal without being personally attacked. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nailed me/us good. Sorry for confusion -- OrangeMarlin himself is more presumptuous, not his name. I have an issue with a chip in, after dozens of discussions, hundreds of contributions; that the ending of the abortus is a "detail" for abortion. If I misinterpreted, my mistake. I'm rather on edge for any indication of backward movement. - RoyBoy 03:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it is just because some people here agreed to use "death" in the definition of abortion five years ago doesn't mean it's case closed forever. When the way Wikipedia defines abortion is way off from how most other references define abortion then it definitely deserves to be looked at again. It's not trying to stir the pot or anything like that but to make sure what Wikipedia articles say is in line with what the reliable sources say. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I support use of the term "destruction" 'cause the fetus, in all abortion cases, induced or not, ends up dying and decomposing, which means destruction. Israell (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose "destruction" = biased, inflammatory, unnecessary. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)