Talk:Abortion/Archive 48

Re-order of dicdefs
I'm not seeing where consensus was reached on this talk page regarding this edit. The title may reflect common useage, but the topic is primarily a medical topic. Not seeing this as an improvement; seeing this as a move in the direction of lowest common denominator rather than standard of excellence. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote above: "I intend to move up the general dictionary definitions in the Note, given that we are required to have a title that reflects common usage." No one objected, and this edit is per WP:NOT, which states that article titles are to reflect common usage.  So, common usage definitions should come first in the Note.  Is the Oxford English Dictionary now an unreliable source?
 * Unlike other editors at this article, I have consistently supported presenting both the general definition and then the specialized definition, in the first sentence or two of this article, rather than only presenting the specialized POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not see that, or I would have objected then and we would have had this discussion befåore you took the trouble to make the edit; sorry I missed it and we're having this a bit later.
 * The article title was not changed or affected by your edit. I do not draw the same conclusion you have that guidelines on article titles also dictate sourcing. In fact, while we have several medical articles under the more common title - we have Chickenpox and not Varicella disease, for example - medical sources take preeminence on those articles and not common usage dictionaries. Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience specifically finds that in scientific articles, " there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." - I suggest to you that if you replace the word "scientific" with the word "medical" then you have an applicable finding for the situation here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a common usage of "chicken pox" that is broader than the medical usage? Moreover, there is no scientific theory that dictates one meaning of a word over another.  The meaning of words is not determined by any empirical process, so your conclusions are inapposite.  I must add that it's refreshing to see an administrator at this article rely upon WP:BRD; it's a great pity that that principle is applied so inconsistently and haphazardly at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to have been unclear; I didn't mean there was a common usage of "chicken pox" that is broader than the medical usage; I meant that "chicken pox" is the common term for the medical label of "Varicella disease" so our article is there; it was merely a starting point regarding article titles and common terms vs. content and sourcing. The in the first (titles), common terms are preferred; in the second (content and sourcing), expert sourcing is preferred. It was meant as a counter argument to your (apparent) argument that WP:COMMONNAME also applies, or should apply, to sourcing. (disclaimer: argument meant in the collegiate debate sense, etc etc. no offense intended.) And thanks, BRD is a good approach, if used correctly. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the article about “Abortion” should be about this word’s primary meaning. Lots of Wikipedia articles work that way, e.g. bridge.  There is no obligation to instead make that article solely about dental bridges.
 * See here: “If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article....then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept....” Maybe this present case is a bit different from “bridge” because the narrower technical meaning of abortion is a subset of the primary meaning, so it’s appropriate to include the narrower meaning in this article.  But the idea of having the narrower technical meaning of "abortion" supersede and exclude the primary meaning seems just as silly as making the bridge article solely about dental bridges.  Surely, you're not saying that the bridge article should cite only technical sources about dental bridges, instead of more general non-technical sources about bridges that support roads.  But that's where your logic seems to lead.  I come back to WP:NOT: "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible."  You don't write a text for everyday readers by citing only specialized definitions of the article title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the word's primary meaning; its not about aborting a rocket launch, for example. Its about the medical procedure. I'm not getting your point, sorry. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the medical procedure only if it occurs before viability. The first sentence says so.  There is presently no Wikipedia article with coverage coextensive with the primary meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary. As far as I know, this is the only article at Wikipedia where a medical usage totally supersedes other usages.  Just sticking to words that start with "Ab", see ablation for example, which accommodates non-medical usages, instead of giving readers the false impression that they do not exist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-medical uses? Ablation should probably be a dab page. Do you really want this page to cover aborted rocket launches, computer programs, etc.? Would that be helpful? Make Abortion a dab, or a lengthy list of the least likely things a Wikipedia user is looking for when they type 'abortion' in the search bar? JJL (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are other uses of the term 'abortion' that are not of a medical, or even biological, nature. Software programs abort. The term 'abortion' can refer to "a person or thing that is deformed". This article refers to its most common meaning--the medical one. That there are many issues associated with this meaning--medical, social, legal, religious, etc.--doesn't change that the meaning of the word is what it is. This is just a back-door attempt to get around policy on this matter. JJL (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I want this article to cover aborted rocketed launches? You must know the answer to that question, because you know that aborted rocket launches are not covered by the primary general definition,  such as the primary definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary.  You've worn me out JJL.  We'll see what ArbCom says.  At RoyBoy's suggestion, I've not started an RFC, but maybe there will be one after the ArbCom decision.  Until then, I've got more enjoyable things to do (though it's hard to imagine what wouldn't be).  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Third trimester
I guess if this article is going to have a lead sentence that says abortion occurs before viability (which has not yet been resolved), then we will have to remove any material in this article about third trimester abortions (even though viability used to occur weeks after the third trimester begins). But for now, I think it's best to just leave that material as-is, pending resolution of the lead sentence issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Surgical abortion section
Anythingyouwant: Could you please elaborate with regards to this edit?  NW  ( Talk ) 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. The talk page section immediately above was meant to expand on my edit summary.  I reverted a bold edit that was made without talk page discussion, for reasons explained in my edit summary.  Also, the sentence I restored immediately followed a discussion of third trimester abortion in this Wikipedia article, and is applicable (at least) to third trimester abortion.  That's why the talk page section immediately above discusses third trimester abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason given in the edit summary was that the material "seems worth mentioning", which is more a statement of opinion than a reason. A lack of prior talkpage discussion isn't grounds for reverting an edit (otherwise we may as well delete WP:BOLD). Why do you think this particular detail is relevant and worth mentioning? Personally, I'm on the fence about it, but if it's retained then it should be clarified - at present, it sounds like an injection is always used with surgical abortion, but in fact RCOG only recommends it for late terminations of pregnancy. MastCell Talk 22:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a recommended aspect of any late term abortion, and as such seems noteworthy. The source seems reliable, and the fact is interesting. No reason for deleting it was given at this talk page.  If the reason is that this article ought to take the position that there is no such thing as third trimester abortion, then I think that position is premature. The first sentence of this article implies there is no such thing as third trimester abortion, but that sentence is under dispute, and is also before ArbCom.  I think it's premature to begin cleansing this article of any hint that abortions can occur in the third trimester, at least in the general sense of the word "abortion".  I have no objection if someone wants to clarify the sentence in question, for example by indicating whether that procedure is ever used before viability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no intentions of "cleansing this article of any hint that abortions can occur in the third trimester". I have also combined two sections about unsafe abortions today, drastically reducing the amount of information we present on the topic. Am I also trying to cleanse information on how dangerous the procedure can be? I would appreciate it if you could strike your comments in that regard.
 * What I am trying to do is making this article an appropriate summary style article. This means that information that is trivial, or lesser in importance than other more improtant factors, should not be given equal prominence in the sections. While the fact may be interesting, it more properly belongs in a surgical abortion article, along with the other numerous parts of the procedure that happen but are not mentioned.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) NW's edit wasn't motivated by a desire to "cleanse the article of any hint that abortions can occur in the third trimester". He argued that it was excessive detail for a top-level summary article . Let's try to engage the arguments others are making, rather than trying to turn everything into a bargaining chip in the Great Viability Dispute. MastCell Talk 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the previous talk page section, "we will have to remove" everything in this article pertaining to third trimester abortion if the lead sentence remains. So, we will have to cleanse that material away, and I would support cleansing it away if the lead sentence remains as it is.  That's the only circumstance under which I support removing the sentence that NW deleted, because I do not agree that it is a trivial detail.  If surgical abortions begin by injecting the fetus with something that stops the biological processes of the fetus, then that seems like a core part of the procedure.  I didn't accuse NW of having any particular motives, and it's clear now that his edit was not meant to be related to the lead sentence.  I don't feel that I've said or done anything inappropriate here, and I'll not strike anything out until someone shows me why I should.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "trying to turn everything into a bargaining chip in the Great Viability Dispute"--yes, that captures it succinctly. Everything is about having the 2005 version restored to the top. It's playing King of the Hill as King of the Lede, as someone mentioned elsewhere. By the way, do we truly expect ArbCom to issue a specific ruling on what the lede should be rather than just a "play nice" ruling? JJL (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

← As a separate matter, the sentence seems to be incorrect. Feticide via injection is not recommended before late surgical abortions in the U.K., because it's unnecessary. If we're going to quote RCOG, then we should cite the relevant guidelines. Under the heading "Feticide prior to late abortions", they state: ''When the method of abortion chosen is surgical (D&E) by a specialist practitioner, the nature of the procedure ensures that there is no risk of a live birth. When medical abortion is chosen, then special steps are required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion.'' MastCell Talk 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I should deny today's accusations by MastCell and JJL, given that I disagree with them. As I've said about a hundred thousand times now, I support edits to the lede sentence as it existed up until this year, including removing the word "death", and I've also said that I was willing to go along with the version that JJL most recently reverted that was nothing like the version that existed up until this year.    There are all kinds of euphemisms for the kind of comment that JJL just made above, and I'll use one of the more polite ones: counterfactual.  My edits at this talk page today have been in good faith, but I am not surprised at all to see them characterized otherwise.  How anyone could read my comments today and see "bargaining chips" or the like is beyond me.  Anyway, perhaps ArbCom will stamp its blessings on major article changes without consensus.  That's what I predict, anyway.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't want to talk about the lead here. You're the one who brought it up, and the one who won't let it die. Do you have any comment on the actual content at hand in this thread? I just expressed a concern about its accuracy, which you seem to have completely ignored. MastCell Talk 02:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not expressed any opinion about the deleted sentence's accuracy. I don't feel like I can say anything here at this talk page without being attacked.  If the sentence is inaccurate then it should be corrected or removed.  That's all I have to say about it.  It's not worth my time to try and improve this article.  The atmosphere is toxic, and I have non-toxic alternatives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the intended scope of this article, calling out procedures recommended in certain cases in the U.K. seems a bit specific. JJL (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added the [Keep Calm] banner to the top of the talk page. Indeed the discussion does tend to become toxic from time to time. It would be a loss if an editor who has spent substantial time and has knowledge of the history of the discussion, and who I see to be civil in discussion feels like it is impossible to continue. A few editors here may need to re-read WP:AGF. DMSBel (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing the article without discussion
Most of us who have been here for a while know what the controversal aspects of this article are. Several significant edits have taken place in the article over the last year without adequate discussion of the those edits on the talk page, or on the back ignorance of the subject. Once again, editing on this article is not taking place currently under the same conditions as most other articles as is made fairly clear at the top of the talk page. It's therefore concerning to see so many edits being made without discussion (and sometime without edit summaries, refering to changes to the article not talk page) Merely having a couple of other editors in agreeance is not how consensus is established. DMSBel (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Prohibition
According to Nancy Bonivillian, in "Women and Men: Cultural Constructs of Gender," abortion was mildly acceptable in colonial and pre-industrial America. She says that early opponents of abortion expressed fears of "racial suicide" when decent-wage-earning White women started having less kids than their non-White neighbor women. They feared White people would become a minority. page 187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.44.64 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Adverse effects of Mifepristerone with Gemeprost
The article frequently mentions safety (in terms of risk to life of the woman) while under-stating non-fatal adverse effects for the woman. The following from (Medicines - Peter Parish, page 495) : "The combined treatment with mifepristone by mouth (a single dose of 600 mg) and gemeprost by vaginal pessary (a single dose of 1 mg) 31 -48 hours later may cause two major problems: excessive bleeding and pain. The blood loss may be so severe that the woman has to be given a blood transfusion and the womb scraped (curettage). The pain is often so severe that about one in three women will need a morphine-like drug to relieve the pain." Could this imbalance and undue weighting be corrected, before it become necessary to tag the article.DMSBel (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is a safety issue, unless mifepristone and gemeprost are generally given together. Could you please find a reliable source that indicates that the use of both drugs is common practice? Otherwise, I think that's more of an example of the physician failing his duty to be informed of things like this rather than abortion being unsafe. The removal of dead skin is unsafe if the physician decides to use 18M sulfuric acid to dissolve it instead of doing it by hand.  NW  ( Talk ) 17:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These are two sources that came up in a quick search, apologies, I had to forgo other sources that require subscription.
 * http://dtb.bmj.com/content/31/2/5.abstract
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2198917?dopt=AbstractDMSBel (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mifepristone is commonly used in combination with a prostaglandin (such as gemeprost) to induce medical abortion. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with DMSBel's presentation of the concern. Simply listing the most serious complications of a procedure without giving any indication of their incidence isn't really a good way to convey information. Does the source (Medicines by Peter Parish) provide any additional context? In the meantime, let's look at available sources. Early studies of medical abortion with mifepristone & prostaglandin, covering 25,907 women, found that 38 of them suffered blood loss requiring a transfusion. That's about 0.1% (see NEJM 2000, ). The actual rate is probably significantly lower with modern usage, where medical abortion is limited to early gestation (the risk of severe bleeding increases with increasing gestational age). As of April 2011, U.S. FDA postmarketing surveillance identified 339 cases of blood loss requiring transfusion after mifepristone, of an estimated 1.52 million women who have received the drug. That's more like 0.02% (see FDA postmarketing summary of mifepristone). So we are dealing with an exceptionally rare complication here. I don't think we're understating anything; it would be unbalanced to describe bleeding in terms that make it sound like women commonly (or even uncommonly) require blood transfusions when the actual risk is extremely small. I'd welcome a fuller description of potential side effects of medical abortion, but that discussion needs to be based on an overview of the best available sources and we need to avoid scare-mongering and excerpting individual sources which are unrepresentative of the actual medical literature.  Regarding pain, abdominal pain is a common if not universal side effect and one which we appropriately already outline in our article. Opioid medications are sometimes used, as they are after many minor surgical procedures and dental work. As a side note, NSAIDs like ibuprofen, naproxen, etc are sometimes avoided after medical abortion since they are antiprostaglandins and might theoretically interfere with the efficacy of the medical abortion regimen (although this doesn't seem to hold true in practice; see ). Thus, the options for treating pain may be seen as limited, prompting a greater reliance on opioids. MastCell Talk 20:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That about covers it, I would think. DMSBel, you cited two sources from the early 1990s. For a medical topic, WP:MEDRS recommends trying to stick within the past five years. This might be unrealistic in some instances, but using just post-2001 evidence is easily within the realm of possibility for most circumstances.  NW  ( Talk ) 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well as I said it was a quick search but it confirms that the combination have had these side effects. The FDA study you refer to MastCell does not indicate what combinations or if used singularly, therefore the percentage is not really representative, the source Medicines is recommended by Journal of Medical Ethics ...for doctor, patient and waiting room as such it is mostly in layman's language. Surely there are two extremes to avoid though, scaremongering on the one hand and minimising on the other. But I don't see that the information on Mifepristone with Gemeprost in Medicines is shown to be incorrect. DMSBel (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we get a little more info on the full entry/context from "Medicines" and the ISBN? Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The entry is specifically about Mifepristone, each entry describes action, adverse effects, and precautions. Seventh Edition (1992) ISBN 0-14-051256 DMSBel (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should get a look at the 9th Revised edition (28 Aug 2003) ISBN-13: 978-0140515077 amazon link. I'd grab a copy but there seems to be no electronic version and I'm trapped on a boat, in a dry dock, in Spain, for the next two weeks.
 * Regardless, in the light of WP:MEDRS and the other sources provided, I'm not sure what you are proposing. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If the book was published in 1992, then it pre-dates most of the significant medical literature on medical abortion. If you look at the major studies listed in Table 2 of the NEJM article, you'll see most if not all were published after 1992, including the landmark 1993 French paper (NEJM 1993, ). As for the Medicines book, there seems to be a 2003 edition (ISBN 0140515070), which is the most recent I can find. We've already gotten in trouble by relying on outdated editions of the OED and Black's Law Dictionary, so if we decide to cite this book, we need to use the most current edition at the very, very least. MastCell Talk 23:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "...most current at the very, very least", were does that leave things in regard to other references? DMSBel (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, it's only my references I suppose that are scrutinised to this degree? DMSBel (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By all means go with the most recent edition, maybe Artifex will grab a copy when he gets out of dry dock!DMSBel (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * However looking at the price of a used copy on Amazon I'd say there probably are cheaper copies around.DMSBel (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maternal mortality
It it seems to be incorrect to contrast maternal deaths related to abortion with deaths related to pregnancy. The latter shows a decline and the figure of 12.5 times safer is rather dubious at best, what are we talking about here? Deaths during pregnancy are not always directly related to the pregnancy, even though included in maternal mortality figures. Why the comparison? What purpose does it serve?DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The comparison is made because it is a common one made in the literature. Just off the top of my head: see and . It's a very common comparison, likely the most common one made.  NW  ( Talk ) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of that and more importantly the US stats cannot yield a general comparison. It is not possible to say abortion generally is 12.5 time safer based on the data of one country, especially when maternal mortality is higher in the US than 40 other countries []. This "times safer" figure is false and should be removed.DMSBel (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We clearly identify the numbers in question as U.S.-specific. The comparison to live birth is nearly universal in reputable scholarly sources, which is why we present it. Also, the maternal mortality statistics you're quoting include deaths following abortion - maternal mortality is generally defined as any death "while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy". So you can't employ that statistic in the way you're attempting. MastCell Talk 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't clearly identify it as US specific, it moves from US stats to what might be taken as a general figure regarding safety in comparison with childbirth. Its a very dubious figure. DMSBel (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the 0.567 per 100,000 stat? 0.576 what exactly? deaths, percent?DMSBel (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also what is the percentage of these maternal deaths (the 7 per 100,000) figure related to the combined Oestrogen/Progestogen Oral Contraceptive Pill, and thromboembolism?. DMSBel (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question begins: "In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion in 1999 was 0.567 per 100,000 procedures..." It thus addresses your first two concerns: it specifically calls out the U.S. as the source of the statistics, and it clarifies their meaning. If the risk of death is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, then for every 100,000 abortion procedures, there will be 0.567 deaths. I thought this was clear, and clearly not a percentage, but if you'd like to propose different wording please do. Regarding your final point, I think a dynamic is developing where you raise question after question. Then I or another editor tracks down a bunch of reliable sources (which takes work), and you immediately move on to more questions or try to shoot holes in the sources provided because you personally disagree with their content. To break this cycle, I'd like to ask that you make an attempt to find statistics on mortality associated with oral contraceptives. You have access to the same toolset that I do, and it would benefit the article if we all get in the habit of identifying reliable sources. MastCell Talk 00:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a tactic. It's hard to imagine that the question--why compare the risks of having an induced abortion to those of not having an induced abortion--is anything but disingenuous. The recent spate of scattershot postings here by DMSBel do not seem to have improving the article as their primary purpose. JJL (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been looking for the report on the internet MastCell (but have only found abstracts so far), along with looking for reliable up-to-date research. Not having found anything as yet does not preclude me from raising the matter on the talk page. If we could work collaboratively here, (and stop insinuating "tactics") it would be a step forward. After a break from editing the article (I thought I'd give the current ARBCOM case an opportunity to address some of the issues) I came back only to see another editor has moved away complaining of a toxic editing environment.


 * That be as it may I'd like (if I am allowed) to address the "times safer" sentence. It's clear the figure can't speak of safety in regard to individual abortions, as a multitude of other factor specific to the woman would need to be taken into consideration.


 * The sentence quotes a risk figure in regard to deaths from abortion whereas it quotes an actual death rate per 100,000 in regard to "pregnancy related" deaths (for the period 1990 - 1999). I think it should be left at that as I am not sure that the risk figure refers to actual deaths. A better way to approach if it is appropriate to use a comparison is to find two compariable figures for a more recent period of time. DMSBel (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to accurately convey the comparisons found in reliable sources, rather than picking disparate numbers from various sources and juxtaposing them to create our own preferred presentation. That's a very fundamental aspect of Wikipedia editing, summarized in WP:NOR. The risk figures for both abortion and live birth are given as a rate of deaths per 100,000 outcomes, both in the original source and in our article. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw between a "risk figure" and an "actual death rate" - certainly there doesn't seem to be any such distinction in the source. MastCell Talk 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Juxtaposing unrelated figures and then performing some very dubious maths on them is precising what the article seems to be currently doing. Please quote the context and relevant sections of the source so other editors can see what you are talking about, all there is in the article is a link to an abstract. Other studies (a Finnish one for instance) have found a very different picture.[] DMSBel (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, can we please commit to citing high-quality sources, as defined by the relevant sourcing guideline? The deVeber Institute is an obscure pro-life organization which promotes dubious and discredited claims like the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. I think we've all been here long enough to recognize the need for high-quality, scholarly sources, and the need to avoid citing dubious partisan lobbying organizations as sources for medical or scientific claims. The comparison is not unique to Grimes 2006, but we can discuss that source. It contains a table listing mortality by pregnancy outcome, using deaths per 100,000 outcomes. The outcomes are categorized as: legal abortion, miscarriage, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, and fetal death. The numbers in our article are drawn directly from that table. The article goes on to state:
 * "Abortion (legal or spontaneous) had the lowest risk of death among the outcomes studied. Using the mortality risk associated with legal abortion (0.567 deaths per 100,000 outcomes) as the index rate, the relative risk of death with miscarriage was 2.1 times higher. The relative risk associated with live birth was 12.4 times higher. The relative risks of death with ectopic pregnancy (56.3) and fetal death (169.8) were much higher. When pregnancies ending in live birth and fetal death are combined, the risk of maternal death was 7.76 deaths per 100,000 outcomes... Although crude, the estimates depict a hierarchy of risks. Abortions (legally induced or spontaneous) appear safest and ectopic pregnancies and fetal deaths the most dangerous for women; live births are intermediate."
 * While the article is not freely available online, it should be readily available for free from any local lending library. MastCell Talk 01:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Look MastCell, if you'd like other editors who are working on the article but don't share your POV to read your posts please have the courtesy to avoid statements like "obscure pro-life organisation" "dubious partisan lobby organisation" there is already as you well know an ARBCOM on-going in relation this sort of pejorative use of terms "pro-life" "pro-choice" etc. There are other organisations quoted in the article that would be by some considered partisan or advocacy groups. Refer to the organisation by its name without seeking to impose your view of its ideology if you please, beginning your post the way you have is the logical fallacy of poisioning the well, and it tends to generate more heat than light. In spite of that thankyou for quoting the relevant section. DMSBel (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's appropriate to point out potential biases in sources here on the Talk page. There are plentry of neutral sources on the subject of death risk for abortion vs. no abortion--there's no need to use one that takes an advocacy position. JJL (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then, should we not drop Guttmacher also?, as it is considered an advocacy group by some. "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If however we are to take organisations at face value in accord with their own statements of purpose the deVerbe Institute is perfectably acceptable as an organisation to quote from on this subject.DMSBel (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly some organisations will favor the Grimes US centric study and others will quote the Finnish study. I am not proposing we drop ref to Grimes, only that we not cite in exclusion of other studies with disparate conclusions. US studies are prone to inaccuracy as noted earlier, due to poor recording and probable under-reporting of overall maternal mortality. That makes any calculus based on comparisons dubious. Its not in Wikipedia's scope to adjudicate on a definitive "times safer" figure, that would be original research. With respect to MastCell's request for higher quality sources the following would be more satisfactory than Grimes study and more recent I suggest it represents a better source to include and to remove the misleading US based "times safer" figure. []


 * In any event I am tagging it as dubious, ample explanation has been already given for why.DMSBel (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am completely baffled by your charge of "original research". We're presenting the comparison exactly as it appears in reliable secondary sources. Nor do I understand why you think the WHO source contradicts the Grimes article. I'm afraid none of this is making sense to me on any level, and we seem to be jumping rapidly from one misconception to another without actually talking any of them through. Perhaps you could clarify the OR concern, with more specific reference to policy, and elaborate on why you think the WHO source contradicts Grimes? MastCell Talk 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I see no "ample" explanation and no sources that cast question Grimes. (and no Deveber does not count). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Artifex, really!!!DMSBel (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Really. After six years it looks like sources are now required. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry can't figure you out. I presented a reliable source. Best to you, no time to argue further about what you do and don't like. DMSBel (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry yes MastCell I looked at your quote again and he did give his figure. But why would I need to eleaborate on the WHo source contradicting Grimes? I said it was more recent, and you were quite concerned yesterday about up-to-date sources, if you recall. So can you give me a reason for not including the WHO source as well as Grimes? DMSBel (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that means we're done with the "original research" concern. The WHO source and the Grimes paper address very different questions. The WHO is an excellent source in general, but the paper you cited says next to nothing about abortion. Its conclusions do not in any way dispute, or even address, those of the Grimes paper, as best I can tell. I'm not clear what sort of content you intend to draw from it. MastCell Talk 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am content to let that figure stay for now (I don't agree with it, but you won't change my mind on that), provided the current wording stays. The WHO source inclusion would help set Grimes study in a better context, specifically that there are limitations, and under-reporting of both abortion and non-abortion related maternal deaths. Citing Grimes by itself doesn't place it in a world-wide context in terms of maternal mortality, and I've explained that others sources indicate a poor system of reporting maternal deaths in the US, thats why I think it should be included. I am not going to make any further changes at moment. DMSBel (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should really read the Grimes article; it outlines a range of potential over- and under-reporting biases and their possible effect on the findings. If you're concerned about U.S.-centrism, then you might want to do some legwork to see what non-U.S. sources say on the subject. I'll help. The U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline on abortion emphasizes the need for accurate information, specifically that "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon." (, p. 29). Note that this is not in any way controversial among experts in the field; it is considered a matter of basic professional competence for a physician to know that abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term. I think it is therefore reasonable to convey this fact to the reader. MastCell Talk 06:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What would some of the over or under reporting biases be that Grimes mentions? Does Grimes base his research on CDC data?DMSBel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ireland which has restrictive abortion laws also has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world according to 2009 report from the World Economic Forum. DMSBel (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also MastCell could you indicate on what grounds if any you might speak authoratively on this subject, or have knowledge of what is or is not considered controversial "amongst experts in the field"? Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Debate the points, not the person. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Sorry hope I didn't touch on a sore point. Back to the discussion - Regarding Ireland having lowest maternal mortality, Binksternet perhaps you'd like to discuss how the article could be improved to indicate that liberal abortion laws do not correspond to improved maternal mortality as the US having higher maternal mortality than 40 other countries indicates.DMSBel (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also Grimes states the estimates are "crude" (see above excerpt) while depicting a heirarchy of risks, yet says fetal deaths along with ectopic pregnancies are the most dangerous for women. I think it would be uncontroversial except perhaps to any agenda-driven editors (if there are any here) to change "making" abortion N times safer to "suggests abortion...", or perhaps "estimates abortion..." Again Grimes is refering to relative risks not absolutes - and the current wording of the article misconstrues the more nuanced tone of Grimes study (this is not giving opinion on its reliability).DMSBel (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to footnoting the excerpt MastCell gave above, it would help to provide the needed qualification currently missing.DMSBel (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're missing any necessary qualifications, nor do I think the RCOG guideline qualifies our current text in any way (rather, it supports our text). I'm not sure you're understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk. These are two different statistical measures of the same relationship. Relative risk is not somehow "weaker" or less definitive than absolute risk, so it makes no sense to water down the language on the basis that we're talking about "relative" risk. In fact, our article currently cites both relative and absolute risks, which seems appropriate. When I spoke of information which is widely accepted among experts in the field, I was simply referring to the RCOG guidelines. They clearly state an expectation that any competent physician should know that abortion is safer than childbirth in terms of maternal risk. That is not controversial, although there seems to be a determined effort to make it controversial on this talkpage.  Regarding Ireland, one could also find countries with nominally "liberal" abortion law but which have high maternal mortality. As I think the analyses make clear, the question is not so much the letter of the law, but the practical ability to access abortion services. It is extremely common for Irish women to travel to Great Britain to obtain abortions; it's estimated than somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 Irish women do this every year (e.g. ). MastCell Talk 05:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats interesting but the number of women travelling outside of Ireland is completely irrelevant here. Also I was refering to foot-noting all of your excerpt above from Grimes so as to give context and provide his qualifying remarks. What is relevant here is the Finland study:[]

''The age-adjusted mortality rate for women during pregnancy and within 1 year of pregnancy termination was 36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, which was significantly lower than the mortality rate among nonpregnant women, 57.0 per 100,000 person-years (relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.71). The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000).''

Finland has more rigorous recording system than the US, which would make that study more reliable, right? DMSBel (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding relative risks in contrast to absolute risks, I'll wait for someone with expert understanding of these matters and un-involved here to confirm whether or not you are in fact correct in what you say. But in the meantime there is a not so small matter of a study carried within a more rigorously monitored environment giving a different hierarchy of risk to Grimes. Also Grimes presents fetal death as highest in his hierarchy of risk above ectopic pregnancy. What does he mean? DMSBel (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relative risk and Absolute risk are different ways of reporting the same numbers, akin to Relative error and Absolute error. JJL (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @DMSBel: You're twisting the literature to say something that it doesn't actually say, and cherry-picking material from the Finnish study without accurately representing its context. You seem unwilling to accept the obvious and uncontroversial medical view that abortion is less hazardous to the mother than a live birth, and are now digging into the primary literature to try to rebut expert opinion. It's not our role as Wikipedia editors to correct what we perceive as errors in scholarly opinion.
 * But since a more in-depth discussion of the Finnish paper seems unavoidable... fine. The authors note that the "induced abortion" cohort includes women whose pregnancies were terminated because they weren't healthy enough to safely give birth. This usually means that the woman has serious medical problems which make pregnancy unacceptably high-risk. It's obvious, then, that the higher observed mortality in the "abortion" cohort is driven in part by the inclusion of women with medical illnesses serious enough to warrant pregnancy termination. Such women might be expected to have a high mortality rate in the year after pregnancy, especially compared to the generally healthier-than-average women who proceed to live birth.
 * And the authors, being responsible researchers, address this. They write:
 * "After excluding all terminations for medical reasons, the pregnancy-associated mortality rate from all natural causes declined from 22.3 to 15.9 per 100,000 induced abortions, a rate lower than the mortality rate after a birth."
 * So in the Finnish analysis, if you exclude women whose abortions were driven by serious underlying medical problems and restrict the analysis to a more apples-to-apples comparison between live birth and elective abortion, once again the risk is lower with abortion than with live birth. This is a consistent finding - even in the Finnish study you cite to the exclusion of the remainder of the medical literature - and one which we're obligated to convey to the reader even if we personally find it unacceptable. MastCell Talk 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * MastCell I can't really make sense of your comment. There is a flourish of words, but little coherence. If there is no objective (ie independent of editor preference) grounds for selecting any study over any other, then the ground being subjective is you like it. Which you should acknowledge. But as you know that is not an acceptable ground for inclusion of research and you don't like it is not a ground for exclusion of other research. It logically follows that we don't like it or we like it does not represent consensus either. I have given objective grounds why the Finland study is superior - the country has a register of abortions. Results are not the ground for choosing one study or another. Set your POV aside for a moment please. My preference is based on:


 * Poor recording in the US of the cause of maternal mortality, meaning the Grimes study (which I am not saying should be excluded entirely) has a dubious data set. The Finnish study is recognised by professionals as being drawn from a system of recording maternal deaths that is more accurate. The reasons for deaths during or following pregnancy can't be deduced from maternal mortality figures alone, or whether those deaths are directly related to pregnancy. With me? Therefore any times "safer figure" will be completely misleading.


 * So lets not twist anything or lose context and simply footnote all the excerpt above from Grimes, and link the Finnish study also. DMSBel (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a scholarly source criticizing the Grimes data set? What is the source for claiming "the Grimes study (which I am not saying should be excluded entirely) has a dubious data set. The Finnish study is recognised by professionals as being drawn from a system of recording maternal deaths that is more accurate"? (Which professionals?) You're coming across as very desperate here. You're engaging in original research in criticizing these studies yourself. When you write "The reasons for deaths during or following pregnancy can't be deduced from maternal mortality figures alone, or whether those deaths are directly related to pregnancy. With me? Therefore any times "safer figure" will be completely misleading." you seem to be fully missing the point: Over the whole population of pregnant women, abortion is significantly safer than childbirth. Just how much safer it is might vary between subgroups of that population, but this is what's true for the population of women who actually tend to get pregnant. The figures aren't misleading...it's a trivial instance of simple descriptive statistics that merely reports the facts as they are.


 * You're really adrift here. You're trying to undermine the article with frivolous objections since you haven't been able to get your way on the issues of true importance to you (where the sources were once again against you). This is not collegial editing. JJL (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, I think you are incorrect. If there is a spectrum of risk from abortion in comparison to pregnancy - it ranges according to studies done by sub-group from less safe in comparison with either pregnancy or spontaneous abortion (as in Finland where it is legal, and there is systematic registering) to Grimes figure based on US data where there is poor recording of causes of maternal death. The only thing induced abortion is uniformly safer than across all sub-groups is ectopic pregnancy. That can be seen by simply looking at Grimes study and the Finland Study.DMSBel (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, the questions you ask you could have found answers to by following the earlier discussion. And why should I read a comment that is little more than a personal attack. Why should I be desperate? If we are seeking to write an article which is non-partisan and as far as possible neutral, for what would I be desperate. If you say I am not engaged in that task, then I have to ask how that is not bad faith on your part, because I have presented sources of equal if not higher quality as any in the article and engaged in as much discussion as any other editor here. If you would like others to agree with you without question or debate I suggest Wikipedia is not the place for you and you'd be better to find another outlet for your talents. If you want to work on the this article then be prepared for some lengthy discussions. Editors no matter how long they have been here don't own articles, neither do groups of editors. DMSBel (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you examine the excerpt from Grimes yourself JJL, and see if it makes sense. For instance he says the relative risk of maternal mortality from fetal death is approx double that from ectopic pregnancy. I asked above and I'll ask again what does he mean? And how does he conclude lower relative risk from abortions. The Finnish study concludes that Pregnancy is healthy, even if not ending in live birth (which means in the event of spontaneous abortion) as its figures indicate. So why this reluctance to incorporate that study into the article?DMSBel (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And please explain how you are contributing to a collegial editing environment by insinuating agendas, tactics etc. and when yours and others comments result in another editor leaving because of a toxic editing environment. DMSBel (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What I can't understand is why editors are so easily co-opted by the arguments of pro-choice apologists and research (could it be that trying to be so guarded against anything resembling a pro-life view, they are reactionary against what is merely factual, and prone to fall prey to those with pro-choice agendas?). Neutral editors I can work with because I seek to be neutral myself here.DMSBel (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to you working neutrally on this topic. That would be refreshing. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JJL asked for a scholarly source to support my contention that the data Grimes worked with does not permit a reliable "times safer" figure to be arrived at. Though I had already provided a source earlier, I'll link it again: [] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 1998 that more than half of these deaths could have been prevented (Johnson & Rutledge, 1998)—surely, a conservative estimate. In that same publication, the CDC admitted that not only had there been no improvement in the maternal death ratio since 1982, but also the officially reported ratio was a substantial underestimate because there are so many classification errors in the system... How can we prevent those deaths that are preventable when we don't really know why all of these women are dying?

In case you are curious about how such an error rate in data-gathering can be perpetuated year after year in our country, you should know that, unlike neonatal and infant mortality, maternal mortality is far from easy to count accurately and completely. Women of childbearing age die of a variety of causes that may or may not have any direct link to a pregnancy or birth. Car accidents, domestic violence, and illness all take a toll. There has to be a way to distinguish these deaths from those, which were actually directly caused by the pregnancy, birth, or its aftermath and the care that the woman received (or failed to receive). [bold mine] DMSBel (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone actually cares about neutrality make some changes to remove the misleading "times safer" figure. It is simply groundless.DMSBel (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are now citing a paper which doesn't even mention the word abortion. You're going very far afield in your attempt to construct a rebuttal to figures taken directly from a reliable source. Please re-read WP:SYN for an explanation of why your approach is inappropriate. MastCell Talk 05:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I am citing a MEDRS paper. Are the maternal deaths it refers to inclusive of those related to abortion? DMSBel (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also JJL, I think you may be incorrect in your inference that legal abortion is uniformly safer. If there is a spectrum of risk from abortion in comparison to other pregnancy outcomes - it ranges according to studies done by sub-group from less safe in comparison with either spontaneous abortion or ectopic pregnancy (as in Finland where it is legal, and there is systematic registering) to Grimes figure based on US data, but where there is poor recording of causes of maternal death. The only thing the studies suggest induced abortion is uniformly safer than across the two sub-groups under discussion is ectopic pregnancy. That can be seen by simply looking at Grimes US study and the Finland study. DMSBel (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you meant to address this to me? I was primarily addressing your misunderstanding of the statistical techniques being used, not your agenda-driven editing--I don't believe I said that "legal abortion is uniformly safer" and indeed what is safer may vary from individual to individual. (It is an accurate assessment over the whole population, though, and almost surely true in any particular case--pregnancy and childbirth places higher demands on the body and exposes it to greater risks. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be safer, but I am not a physician.) In any event, this is synthesis. You're claiming that if something is difficult to do in general then no specific study could have made the necessary efforts to overcome those difficulties--but perhaps Grimes did. You need a criticism of Grimes or at the very least a source criticizing all attempts to quantify this. JJL (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, I know what I need to provide by way of sources and have provided the sources needed. If they are MEDRS they pass the mustard. We are not here debating which single source should be used. You say it is difficult for you to imagine a scenario where abortion would not be safer than childbirth? Do I understand you? What has being able to imagine something got to do with objective criteria for assessing studies. There is no doubt according to study that in Finland childbirth is safer. You or anyone elses being able to imagine it is neither here nor there, we don't need to rely on imaginations thankfully when things are recorded accurately. It leaves me wondering about your objectivity and neutrality after reading such a remark. As you said population sub-groups vary. But in at least one of those sub-groups (Finland) childbirth is safer. I find it hard to believe I am having to debate this, when it's there in black and white. Neither does it seem counter-intuitive as proper maternal care during pregnancy is preventative of most maternal deaths directly related to pregnancy or childbearing. DMSBel (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't get lost in this or that primary source, trying to find the needle in the haystack. Take a step back and look at the haystack! The breadth of secondary sources is in agreement that normal pregnancy combined with standard childbirth practices in first world countries is not as safe as medical abortion in the first trimester. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the two studies we are discussing it ranges from less safe where there is register based systematic recording (Finland) to safer, where there is acknowledged to be poor recording, and a high degree of preventable maternal deaths (US). You are quite correct and I agree with you Binksternet one study cited in isolation is inadequate. Neither can we cite multiple sources that draw from one single study. Again I agree it makes more sense to cite both studies and indicate there is spectrum of risk across sub-groups. DMSBel (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on this--did you just say that in Finland childbirth is more safe than abortion? I know the chapter you cited earlier says "A recent authoritative Scandinavian study has established that women who undergo induced abortion experience, over the following twelve months, a death rate nearly four times greater than women who give birth to their children." but do we really believe that? JJL (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think you are mixing me up with someone else could you link to that particular chapter. Which study was it refering to. I cited the Finnish study, and also the Journal of PeriNatal Education. Thanks. DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But with regard to believing or not believing, does that have anything to do with it? The issue is with maternal deaths overall being a higher ratio in the US, and no systematic manner the same across all states of recording causes, unlike Finland. So yes its quite possible. We can't weigh-up one study by comparing it with another from a completely different population group, and asking do we believe this, without asking it the other way round - do we believe the US study. That would be like comparing cases of malnutritian in country that has experienced a drought and famine with our own and saying "do we believe this?", because we are not starving, it might be a surprise at first but just because only a particular area of the globe is more prone to extreme heat, do we say "Nah. Not happening, raining here." That's what asking do we believe this amounts to. I have less trouble accepting the Finnish study because of they monitor the matter more carefully. DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't attribute to me any kind of agreement that we can dig into the haystack and cite two studies out of the great mass. No, I think we should cite secondary assessments, the entirety of which say that abortion is safer. Dude, abortion has been safer in the U.S. since the 1930s! The matter is settled. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok Binksternet, stay calm, if not two then how many studies out of "the great mass" would you care to cite?DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Either we are approaching this neutrally with no preconceived notion of whether abortion is safer or not, or we are approaching it with our own POV and trying to find sources to support it, if the latter is the case then I firmly oppose that approach. That is why I suggest both studies be incorporated in a manner to indicate variation across sub-groups. If it appears safer in the US it may be due to higher percentage of preventable maternal deaths, unfortunately the US data is not gathered in as systematic a manner as Finland and that results in a degree of probable mis-recording (see above) which in turn is why having both the Finnish and US studies gives readers a better picture (not the big picture of course). Don't let one study confuse you into thinking you see the bigger picture because none of us can. These studies are still limited at present, but the Finnish one is not to be dismissed, just because it casts a different light on the question of safety. DMSBel (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, we do not cherrypick primary sources to contradict secondary ones. That selection is clearly wp:OR. This is basic to wp:RS and especially clear in wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Which is the primary source and which is the secondary (in your view)? JJL asked for a source that would explain why the US data was a less robust set of data (due to less robust methods of recording maternal mortality). The Finnish study is a primary source, so is Grimes. DMSBel (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why prefer one study over another when they both are based on different population sub-groups. And if neutral why assume something is safer, when we don't know. We just cite the studies. DMSBel (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I realise you are not saying one study is better than the other and that we should not cite for example the Finnish one as the only study in the article. But currently it is unduely weighted towards one set of data which is from the US, and presents that as somehow representative when it is in fact rather unrepresentative for example 39 countries have lower maternal mortality ratios than the US, and the country with lowest maternal mortality is Ireland where abortion is restricted. Even though there are women travelling outside Ireland for abortions, women giving birth don't normally go outside Ireland. Unless maternal mortality is high amongst those travelling outside of Ireland there would not be a big increase overall in maternal mortality (sorry to talk like this one preventable death is too many). But if there are sources which indicate higher maternal mortality in that group they indicate also an increase in maternal mortality indirectly associated with abortion. DMSBel (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting lost in the vast sea of your posts. Can you give me the citation for the Finnish study that claims childbirth is safer than abortion? Is it the Chapter 6 .pdf linked above? JJL (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes apologies for that. The source was already provided, here it is again: []. I hope this repeated asking for sources already given is not stonewalling.DMSBel (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This might be the stat. you are looking for:


 * The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000).DMSBel (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Women with serious medical problems were overrepresented in the abortion cohort, because they often undergo therapeutic abortion. The authors noted that "after excluding all terminations for medical reasons, the pregnancy-associated mortality rate from all natural causes declined from 22.3 to 15.9 per 100,000 induced abortions, a rate lower than the mortality rate after a birth." So this Finnish study is in fact (yet more) evidence that elective abortion carries a lower mortality rate than live birth. The risk of mortality associated with therapeutic abortions is higher, but that is presumably due to the serious underlying medical conditions which necessitate a therapeutic abortion. MastCell Talk 22:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK--now we're back in reality. Elective abortion is safer than childbirth, but being so ill that an abortion is medically necessary isn't. The underlying disorder presumably causes the majority of the mortalities (measured a year later in the Finnish study). It appears that DMSBel is cherry-picking statistics within his cherry-picked sources. JJL (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JJL, could you please not post comments directly between those of two editors with your own post because it reads in such a way that I am replying to you, when the below post (which I had to refactor) was in reply to MastCell's comment just above yours. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It was clear and correct as I entered it. You're over-indenting, but I matched your over-indentation for it was clear who was addressing whom. There may be multiple follow-ups to a single comment--it's not all about you. JJL (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes MastCell I was aware of that, and in the article we have a different study, and it does not distinguish there whether it is a reference to abortions with medical indication, or those without. It's just talking about the safety of induced abortion. So does it matter how safe it is if you are ill, and need an abortion? Do we only measure the safety of medical or surgical procedures carried out on the healthy. Anyone who has a heart transplant has it for medical indications, do we only pay attention to a safety figure for those who decided they'd like a transplant but were well enough otherwise? Of course not. But you seem to be saying the same thing basically MastCell, think about it.DMSBel (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. Cardiac transplantation is performed only in cases of medical necessity. Abortion, on the other hand, is sometimes performed out of medical necessity and sometimes as an elective procedure. MastCell Talk 00:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence (or assertion on behalf of the authors, even) that the induction of abortion causes these deaths? That's what's relevant to its safety. Cardiac transplantation is also associated with death, but the cardiac transplantation itself prolongs life, on average--it's just that this group of patients is very sick to begin with. Even there, cardiac transplantation is a risky procedure with a nontrivial rate of deaths during and immediately post-procedure. Is the same true of induced abortion in developed countries? JJL (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say look for the results of studies from countries with uniform systematic way of recording these things to get an answer.DMSBel (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When is DMSBel getting banned from this topic? Not soon enough for me. Dude, stop saying you agree with me and then put words in my mouth. I do not agree that citing two studies is the way forward. We should only cite secondary works that summarize the studies regarding mortality. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Take it to an ANI Binksternet if you have something to moan about.DMSBel (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In any event I am not going to keep arguing if I cannot advance consensus. Without a RFC or a breakthrough to understanding we are stuck for the time being unfortunately.DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed--secondary sources are clearly best for this (as usual), and those are uniform in stating that elective abortion is safer than other alternatives. JJL (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "...other alternatives" Such as? Don't see how birth could be refered to as an "alternative" - its the normal outcome of a pregnancy. And ectopic or spontaneous abortions are not chosen. DMSBel (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Proceeding with the pregnancy is one alternative, assuming no medical contraindications. Waiting for an expected spontaneous abortion or injury to the mother is the other, if there are medical contraindications. JJL (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Spontaneous abortion (even if threatened) and injury are accidental though, it doesn't make sense to refer to them as "alternatives", other outcomes you mean?


 * Refering to "alternatives" tends to make it sound like "elective abortion" is the norm though, when it isn't - carrying to term, and giving birth is the norm.DMSBel (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that being a problem. I don't think our readers are drawing that conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok no problem it seems to be secondary to the issue of maternal mortality here which has not resulted in any new consensus amongst editors involved in the discussion at this time. Anyone want to keep this section open or time to close it?62.254.133.139 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Assuming the IP is DMSBel): Actually, there is a clear consensus. You raised a concern, and all 6 editors who responded felt your concern was off-base. That's a consensus. MastCell Talk 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes my IP, very sorry, no harm intended. DMSBel (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread has established a solid consensus against any of DMSBel's maternal risk proposals. I think there's no particular need to 'close' the thread as it will grow stale naturally if nobody replies to it, and it will be archived in due course. Also, because of Arbitration proceedings, DMSBel and quite possibly all IP editors will soon be unable to take part here on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean their points should be disregarded. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think don't think DMSBel's points have been disregarded; they've been heard and discussed exhaustively on this page. MastCell Talk 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in Medical section
Our medical section includes two contradictory claims: Strangely, both claims are cited to the same WHO paper, and even stranger, the WHO paper actually does make both claims (in very similar language). In the WHO paper, claim #1 is cited to a 3rd source, while claim #2 is not. Since claim #1 is tracable to the original academic source, and since a procedure cannot simultaneously be more effective and have no difference in efficacy compared to another procedure, I would suggest we change claim #2 to remove "and efficacy". Otherwise this section is confusing and contradictory. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "In very early abortions, up to 7 weeks gestation, medical abortion using a mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimen is considered to be more effective than surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration)..."
 * 2) "There is little, if any, difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation."
 * I have done as you have suggested, but I'm actually not seeing where 9 weeks (63 days) is even mentioned in the reference besides in the introduction. Is there somewhere else that I am missing?  NW  ( Talk ) 05:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, the WHO source doesn't say 9 weeks. I think we added that part. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is another mention of the matter in Abortion: "Medical abortion is generally considered as safe as surgical abortion in the first trimester, but is associated with more pain and a lower success rate (requiring surgical abortion)", sourced to to the WHO. I might be misunderstanding, but this appears to be contradicted by the source, which mentions that there is an increased risk of vaginal bleeding for <9 weeks and a whole host of additional issues for 10-13 weeks.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit:
 * 23:36, 22 November 2011 Bobigny (talk | contribs) ( → Safety: clarify that 2006 WHO RHL commentary says medical abortion using misoprostol alone is less effective and more painful than surgical abortion)"replaced this inaccurate Safety section statement: Medical abortion is generally considered as safe as surgical abortion in the first trimester, but is associated with more pain and a lower success rate (requiring surgical abortion)."with:"There is little, if any, difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation. Medical abortion using the prostaglandin analog misoprostol alone is less effective and more painful than medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol or surgical abortion."
 * but a subsequent edit conflict and its attempted correction reinstated the original inaccurate Safety section statement and moved its replacement to the Medical section (where it overwrote a paragraph about second trimester medical abortions):
 * 23:44, 22 November 2011 Citation bot (talk | contribs) m ( [ 394 ] Add: doi_inactivedate, editor1-last, editor1-first, volume. Tweak: volume, editor1-last, editor1-first. | NuclearWarfare)
 * 23:48, 22 November 2011 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) (fix e/c)
 * There is not any real contradiction between this Safety section statement:"There is little, if any, difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation."
 * and this Medical section statement:"In very early abortions, up to 7 weeks gestation, medical abortion using a mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimen is considered to be more effective than surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration), especially when clinical practice does not include detailed inspection of aspirated tissue."
 * which as Kaldari noted, cite the same source.
 * The source does not redundantly append the qualifier "in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation" to every sentence because as NuclearWarfare noted, the source's Introduction says the source only deals with early medical abortion up to 9 weeks (63 days) gestation.
 * The qualifier "in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation" was appended to the statement in this Wikipedia article because this article does not only deal with early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation.
 * WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research (November 23, 2006).  Frequently asked clinical questions about medical abortion.  Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 9241594845."p. 3: The recommendations on medical abortion given here are restricted to early first trimester (up to 63 days since the first day of the last menstrual period – LMP). Although administration of mifepristone followed by a prostaglandin will terminate pregnancy at any stage (and in some countries is licensed for abortion up to 24 weeks), termination of pregnancy when gestational age is > 63 days is less common, requires an inpatient setting, and raises separate medical, legal and service issues."
 * The two methods (medical abortion and vacuum aspiration) can differ a little in efficacy at various gestational ages up to 9 weeks gestation and still have little difference in efficacy up to 9 weeks gestation.
 * Medical abortion and vacuum aspiration abortion are both highly effective in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation—within this range medical abortion becomes somewhat less effective while vacuum aspiration abortion becomes somewhat more effective at later gestational ages—somewhere between 7 and 9 weeks gestation the two methods’ efficacies cross over and are the same.
 * See also:
 * Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (November 23, 2011).  The care of women requesting induced abortion. Evidence-based clinical guideline number 7. 3rd rev. ed.  London: RCOG Press:"p. 60: Figure 7.1. Summary of abortion methods appropriate for use in abortion services in Great Britain by gestational age.pp. 61–62: Recommendation 7.3. Vacuum aspiration under 7 weeks of gestation should be performed with appropriate safeguards to ensure complete abortion, including inspection of aspirated tissue."
 * Bobigny (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning that up... I think your edits are definite improvements. MastCell Talk 04:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the mistaken attempted fix. Thank you very much for your clarification and for your cleanup; both are much appreciated.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Common?
I'm puzzled how anyone can contend that there is substantial agreement on what "abortion" means in common usage, unless they are incapable of noting that the public debate on the topic is highly polarized. Common usage varies across a wide range, from a minor medical treatment at one extreme to murder of an unborn baby at the other. There is no common usage for this word, we should just admit it and move on.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're inadvertently confusing the issue. "Common usage" means the generally accepted primary meaning of a term as described in general-purpose dictionaries.  It does not mean the implications of a term.  Of course many people think that "Republican Party (United States)" means lower taxes and more jobs, whereas others think the same term means foolishness, racism, homophobia, et cetera but none of that is relevant to the meaning according to common usage, which is a U.S. political party.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No common usage? If not then we can never arrive at a definition in the lede surely. What I think is the case is not that there is no common usage, there is, but that definitions are selective, not all are completely factually inclusive. The actual thing that takes place is the same in every case of what is termed an "induced abortion" - a living embryo or fetus dies, resulting in a premature end to a pregnancy (understood as the dependent intrauterine relationship existing between developing fetus and mother) The omission of reference to fetal death in some definitions is not because there is any doubt about fetal life signs being absent following an abortion. Induced abortion refers to the same thing/event wherever or whenever it is carried out, the only variation is in the method by which the abortion, is carried out, and "induced abortion" in general usage covers those variations. Polarisation in the debate it seems to me is not over whether an abortion results in fetal death but at what point personhood begins.DMSBel (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum to last post: The event (OED :thing that happens or takes place) for which the term "induced abortion" has become common medical parlance basically involves the induced demise or death of an fetus or unborn baby. In a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) this is accidental, in an induced abortion intentional. A pregnant human female if she wants a baby cannot bypass the pregnancy, that seems clear. We get nowhere by confusing fetus (unborn baby), with pregnancy (the state of carrying an unborn) - Pregnant (adjective) - having a child or young developing in the womb (Oxford English Dictionary). Pregnancy (noun) - the condition or period of being pregnant. The only reason for not stating that the abortion results in the death or destruction of the fetus (when medical sources (which meet MEDRS), as well as dictionary and philosophic sources do state this), is to make the article more favorable to a "pro-choice" audience it seems to me. Certainly I could accept an appropriately written lede in which "death" was not in the first sentence - but in the first paragraph. This would probably satisfy most objections to the earlier consensus lede as the objection was only with regard to the first sentence, though it has never been established that the consensus was overturned, agreement here might help us move on. DMSBel (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Failing to respond but not conceding the point doesn't help move things on LeadSongDog. I don't think we can wait much longer. Either there is no common usage and no definition or we stop digging our heels in and accept a compromise. DMSBel (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good way of putting it, however at both extremes from a truly minor blastocyst (pill) to a grotesque third trimester (eg. war crime) there is a common element. I think viability is "overly specific" for the lead as it cannot encompass the extremes of the topic, which goes beyond a clinical setting, as I've detailed previously. - RoyBoy 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. A definition of anything is based on an objective (ie. independent of the definition) signified, or an extra-linguistic actual event or state of affairs (sorry for so philosophical a way of stating it. Hope I am making sense). While there is an objection to the term "aborting" on the grounds that the term is a euphemism, I agree with RoyBoy that the issue currently is about a definition that encompasses the topic, and which acknowledges the common elements in all abortions. DMSBel (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone else? - RoyBoy 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, there was wp:NODEADLINE, but it does appear that I dropped the ball on this discussion thread. As RoyBoy says there is an objective event associated with the term. Unfortunately those entrenched in one position or the other act as if they were incapable of recognizing the objective physical meaning, instead donning their own philosophic blinders on any use of the word. Each thinks of their own subjective meaning. Hence the use of the word carries no capacity for "commmon" usage, it is lost in the "us" vs. "them". LeadSongDog come howl! 06:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in no rush. Death does have common usage as outlined by Wikipedia. Moreover, you see "death" as creating an adversarial definition, while "viable" does not? My view (post 2006) is that "viable" has blinders of its own, just happens to be politically correct. Being pro-choice should be about a woman's right to self-determination, not dependent on a fetus' viability (hard to determine, not inclusive) / humanity (sure I guess) / being life or alive or organism (it is). If an encyclopedic definition doesn't work well, we should avoid it; Britannica's definition contorting with "usually about" indicates it doesn't work.


 * Separately, DMSBel pointed out to me a sentence that could be helpful in including "death" in the lead while maintaining (even solidifying) viable as the primary definition. "Many people believe a fetus to be a distinct human being, and elective abortion a process that causes its death, while others disagree, noting that the developing fetus is dependent on the woman until viability." It's very abortion debate oriented, but it could be Wikipedia's "usually about" definition caveat and can help balance out the lead.


 * Despite various opinions, I'm here to ensure Wikipedia's intellectual vigor and stability with a definition that is broad, inclusive and accurate. The current version doesn't quite get there, Britannica knows it -- so should we. (yes Wikipedia links to viable, but that's poor form, a lead should stand on its own if possible) - RoyBoy 01:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been established here that there's consensus against 'death' in the lede, before the ArbCom case came up, and that 'viable' is medically correct. (I don't know if it's politically correct or not.) Having you act as a conduit for a topic-banned user is unhelpful and doesn't seem to me to be within the spirit of the decision.


 * I'm unclear why a link to 'viable' is problematic--are you implying a policy, guideline, or style against having any internal links in the lede sentence? What I see at Lead_section and Guide_to_writing_better_articles shows just the opposite--without exception, every example of a good lede sentence given there contains multiple internal links, including to specialized terms (e.g. IUPAC, subatomic particle, electrical impedance) In fact, look at CONTEXTLINK: "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that define the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Furthermore, it says: "Do not, however, add contextual links that don't relate directly to the topic's definition or reason for notability." It appears that adding links related to the definition and the context--and surely viability is related to the context of the medical, legal, and ethical aspects of abortion, as well as to its definition--is encouraged. When you say "that's poor form, a lead should stand on its own if possible" you're entirely out of step with what is actually good form on Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. But let us not substitute our judgement for that of reliable secondary ones. If the sole objection were to having to follow the wikilink, a parenthetic could serve while respecting policy, e.g. "..viable (mature enough to survive birth)..." or similar. The "broad, inclusive and accurate" definition is absolutely attainable, but not in a single sentence. If it were, we'd have gotten there long ago. For the lede we must rely on the best sources available. The more inclusive elaboration of the various POVs can and should (must?) follow, further down the page. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding context is good form, relying on a sub-article to precisely define the key term is not. I concur with you viable is widely understood, just doesn't seem a practical measure in all abortion circumstances, especially as viability is fluid and can change from one hospital to another. - RoyBoy 04:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's the rub. Is it OR to note abortions do occur on viable fetus'? Also, for a war crime where a past 24 weeks mother gravida is attacked and she loses the pregnancy, is that a stillbirth or abortion? - RoyBoy 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the definition doesn't hinge on the war crime bit (with a war crime you're in deep sneakers regardless)....
 * In non-medical circles, the term 'abortion' is usually used to refer to the termination of an early pregnancy by artificial means whereas 'miscarriage' is used for those pregnancy losses occurring because of natural events. The medical term for both of these is an 'abortion', the definition of which is the termination of a pregnancy before 28 weeks (note that there is no mention of the cause); 'miscarriage' has no medical definition. This difference in the use of the same word may give rise to confusion. A woman who is already distressed by the loss of a wanted pregnancy may be angered to discover that the medical records describe her as having had an abortion and she may, incorrectly, assume that this implies that she chose to rid herself of the pregnancy. Her anger may cause her to seek legal advice and it is important that her advisers are able to explain the true interpretation. —
 * Generally (depending on jurisdiction, etc.) before ~20 to 28 weeks that would be an abortion with the possibility of confusion as stated above. On your first, gotta reference? Not exactly sure where you're coming from (not in a bad way just need a place to start from). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Deep sneakers" hehehe, awesome. Excellent reference again ArtifexMayhem. As to the confusion, indeed I chose the middle of 20 to 28 weeks as viability isn't really a consideration for a induced miscarriage from an attack, which is known as an abortion. - RoyBoy 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't seem practical"? Please tell me there's a platinum-plated source to back that assessment up. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh... why is a source necessary to maintain the practicality of "viable" is suspect? Viability being unverifiable is the reality (ie. backstreet abortion), but I bring up Britannica's / Encarta's handling of the lead sentence as diamond encyclopedic standards; even though "usually" has made me cringe in the past ... actually it still does, so I'll reduce that one to gold. - RoyBoy 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Current NEJM article
The current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contains a review article on induced abortion: It might be a useful source for our article. In particular, the review contrasts medical and surgical abortion, outlines the current understanding of associated health risks, and briefly describes areas of uncertainty in the medical literature. MastCell Talk 00:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, you beat me to it. Good for an overview of medical vs. surgical abortion, and the latest statistics. And it's a free article. --Nbauman (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * David A. Grimes again? Seems like we're citing him quite a lot. Not that that's a bad thing of course.  NW  ( Talk ) 03:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Open Directory
I don't think the Open Directory is a good link. Most of its links wouldn't meet WP standards, like this and this page which leads to this ("LIMITED TIME SPECIAL! PRINT THIS PAGE AND BRING IT IN FOR $40 SAVINGS!"). Using the Open Directory as a substitute for our own external links was a good idea once, but it's not a good idea any more. Certainly not in this case. --Nbauman (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

180 Movie
Hello,

I wanted to include a section about the 180 Movie ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_(2011_American_film) ) in the Arts/Films in the Abortion article.

The movie compares abortion to the holocaust and has been highly controversial.

A few minutes after my addition, it was removed.

Is there a way to get it back in the Abortion article?

Thanks!

brambmanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambmanu (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The topic of abortion is central to the movie, no question. However, the movie is trivial to the topic of abortion. Here on the abortion topic page, we only put things that are of major importance. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One more attempt
Since the lead's inline discussion tag is still there, I've came up with two versions to somehow address the related concerns above: Both proposals seek to summarize and reconcile all definitions given in the note. The dropped "prior to viability" may be added in the form of "before it is considered viable". Thoughts? -- Brand meister t   02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo"
 * "Abortion may be defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo", where "generally" may be inserted before "defined".
 * I was planning on reopening this discussion too, but I decided to wait a bit. Can we hold off until Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion is closed before having this discussion?  NW  ( Talk ) 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While definitions like these deftly side-step issues, it fails to specify what happens to the abortus and how this differs from other pregnancy endings. - RoyBoy 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes--"prior to viability" is indeed highly relevant here. JJL (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relevant yes. Encompassing? I'd maintain no. - RoyBoy 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You guys seriously need some outside eyes. Tell me how expulsion is different from removal, and how a reader is supposed to interpret that sentence?  Perhaps you could also explain why  it includes an obvious untruth later contradicted in the article? Please don't write for someone who already knows the subject, and please at least make the article consistent.   Be— —Critical  06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So, what do you think of this version:


 * Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.


 * "Removal" and "expulsion" are the same thing, the same result. This also removes the contradiction.  The Intact dilation and extraction article says "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a procedure done in late term abortion," and thus abortions do occur after viability, unless that article is wrong which I very much doubt.  It's not Wikipedia's call to redefine terminology in both common and legal usage.  You have to cite that abortion does not include IDX.  This, according to the notes in the article, has not been done, because several of the sources merely say something like "usually before fetal viability," or they simply say nothing about viability, as "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo."  The sources do not justify an absolute statement as in the current lead sentence.  We should not be taking sides in this debate, as a matter of NPOV.  "Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it."  I would personally argue that given that the usage of IDX may not be an abortion, then partial birth abortion is the only term specifically used for late term abortion, and we are dealing with an anomaly in terminology and taking sides in a debate in the process. I would also argue that you would have to source that IDX is not an abortion procedure: the burden is on that side of the debate.   Be— —Critical  06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version is extremely well-sourced by the top medical texts. The term partial birth abortion is more a political term than a medical one, isn't it? There may well be some inconsistency in how WP is describing things--as happens with many editors--but what you propose sounds dangerously close to OR to me: Parsing the phrases partial birth abortion/late term abortion and insisting that they follow some consistent logic, some hierarchy, that may not reflect how their usage has actually evolved. The lede is backed by extensive sources and I'm more inclined to bring less well-sourced material into line with it than the other way around. JJL (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm fine with that, if you can have a source which says that Late termination of pregnancy is not abortion, or that IDX is not abortion. We could bring all the articles into line with that, and decide that whereas prior to 20 weeks it is abortion, after that it's termination of pregnancy or having an IDX procedure on a living fetus, or some such.  But you know that won't fly.  What's really OR is what is there now, which is a statement that takes sides among the various sources.  But here is a source that looks good to me, as it's JAMA calling IDX "abortion"  Be— —Critical  23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that source isn't exactly the "JAMA calling...", but rather three authors who wrote a "special communication" published in JAMA thirteen years ago (Aug 1998), in the aftermath of Clinton's veto. The same issue carried Grimes' paper (and, for a variety of controversies, a book review of Shapiro & Shapiro's The Powerful Placebo : From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician). Something more current and more authoritative would be desirable. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good source too. I don't see the problem here, we have sources calling it "late term abortion," and the sources in the article disagree.  Thus, we do not take sides.  Further, Wikipedia ought to have some common sense to it.  It's blatantly obvious that late term abortions are "abortions."  So change the text.  Here's another source though Thus, late-term abortion, defined as abortion after twenty weeks, is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.1 percent of all abortions, and this is interesting. But the sources you've already gathered necessitate changing our text.   Be— —Critical  04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources stating "late term" includes post-viability? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I've already seen, we have sources saying IDX is abortion, and IDX includes post viability, viability is as young as 21 weeks and IDX is performed as late as 26 weeks . That's just what I found in a few minutes, but it's pretty obvious.  I suspect there is considerable secrecy here.  We should ask some other editors who would know more.  Also the sources already in the article pretty much sew up the case, just for example "[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen...[T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250." 28 weeks is well after viability.  This is what I mean about taking sides with the sources.  Several sources say 28 weeks, and viability of 90% is 26 weeks.   Be— —Critical  07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Viability' refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. This is well-defined but poorly measurable. The guidelines on numbers of weeks are attempts to estimate when viability will have occurred. There's no question in principle about the definition of the term but many issues in practice of ascertaining whether it has occurred without actually performing a procedure to remove the fetus. JJL (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are a broad range of acceptable lead sentences, and these include both what we have now as well as the very long and wordy one that we had a few months ago that gave both the definition from common parlance and the one from medical textbooks. We could also change the footnote to say something like "The definition of abortion, as with many words, varies from source to source. The following is a partial list of definitions as stated by obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) textbooks, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Some abortion procedures, such as intact dilation and extraction, may occur even after the fetus is viable."  NW  ( Talk ) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, would "usually prior to viability" be acceptable? Because that's both true and not taking sides per NPOV. Also it doesn't raise a question with the lay reader who knows viable fetuses are sometimes aborted. Be— —Critical 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's there now is what the medical sources say--I understand your objection but it is precisely what's in the appropriate WP:MEDRS. Changing those sources to fit what seem like inconsistencies in our personal, lay opinion would be WP:SYNTH, wouldn't it? JJL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're factually wrong about the sources, see the above discussion.  Be— —Critical  19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that wp:MEDRS has still not been read and understood. The NYTimes, Salon.com, and CTV are not reliable publishers for medical assertions. Nor are "original research", "commentary", "letters", "special communications" or other non-review contributions considered to be MEDRS, even if they are published in Lancet, JAMA, CMAJ, or NEJM. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are unreliable sources in the article, you should take them out. The argument is based on the sources already in the article, and all other links are only peripheral to the discussion.   Be— —Critical  21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We require MEDRS for assertions of medical facts, not for every fact in the article. Non-medical assertions can be backed up by generic wp:RS. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the sources used to back up the current lead sentence are not MEDRS? If there are any non-MEDRS there, they should be removed.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede sentence is fully supported, and reflects, WP:MEDRS, per a discussion taking place since about June of this year. (See the Talk archives.) Some have added other sources to the lengthy note on this in the article as an attempt to undercut the lede sentence. I think I don't fully understand your objection to the sources for the lede sentence. JJL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would request that you remove any sources you don't think meet MEDRS. But the sources there now contradict each other on the viability issue.  They give a figure in weeks which is beyond the age of viability, yet say that "abortion" is only prior to viability.  But the Wikipedia text takes sides in this contradiction.  I think per NPOV we should not take sides.  BTW, I do not know how some would react relative to any POV about the abortion debate(s), this comes purely from the seeming inaccuracy of the text, and I looked at the sources and saw they contradict.  I also do not fully understand the objection to the JAMA source I found.  (In case you think this is OR, the Churchill’s Medical Dictionary source says "usually before fetal viability."
 * BTW, I'm sorry for not digging through the archives, but I suspect that this issue would have been resolved if people weren't POV pushing, not that I understand how this plays into POV, I'm just guessing. I'm guessing ArbCom has now made this a safer jungle.....  I'm reading a bit of the RfC here, and I see people reacting to POV or not POV, but not reacting much to being reasonable or referring much to sources.  Also, I note that some of the quotes of the sources are cherry picked, for example: The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. which is what's in the note, but it goes on to say "The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state. Some premature neonates of fewer than 24 weeks or 500 g are viable,"  and thus it is not nearly as cut and dried as the WP text.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "usually" was a point of discussion prior as Britannica used it and this was of importance to me. I definitely welcome your continued rigor on this topic. - RoyBoy 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should ask others here whether they dispute that there have been abortions subsequent to viability?  If not, then there is no original research involved in opting for caution in representing the ambiguous sources (for example, inserting the word "usually").  There may also be the option of a sentence explaining that IDX is commonly but not properly called abortion, and may take place subsequent to viability; if that can be sourced well.  I very much like LeadSongDog's suggestion in that discussion "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth."  We can either decide to discuss the contradictions, or to leave them out of the lead.  We could also say that purposely terminating a pregnancy subsequent to viability is called X or that there is no term for it.  Whatever the sources say, but we can't just leave it as it is.  It's probably much wiser to avoid the issue.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * BeCritical, from memory I believe that no one disputes the fact that a viable fetus is sometimes aborted. In fact our article states that 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, the undisputed earliest age of viability.  However, looking at the definitions that we have to choose from for our references, how many times do you see the word "usually"?    Thoughts?  As for my thoughts, as I have said all along, while Wikipedia may aim to tell the Truth, Wikipedia does not always tell the truth.  We have no choice, NONE, to decide that we may alter references to suit our fancy.  This policy was wisely put in place to prevent a small group of perhaps well meaning but biased editors from providing politically biased articles for our readers.  That said, all those lofty words, and yet I did agree to using the word "usually". If I remember correctly, there was only one hold-out on the word, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.   Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Reading the thread I see that I said that the CDC's earliest gestation week (21 wks) before viability is achieved is undisputed.  Since I am well-aware that other sources give a later date, what I should have said is that no source uses a date prior to 21 wks gestation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put. NPOV does say "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."  That's what I'm arguing here.  The majority of RS say "before viability," and some RS say something like "usually."  There is also the problem of legal and some medical sources calling IDX abortion.  All in all something like avoiding the issue or using the word "usually" seem justified.  The CDC speaks of abortion occurring at "≥21 weeks".


 * Re the sources: there is a contradiction in the specific weeks given, for example CDC above saying "≥21 weeks", and these quotes: "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation" "definitions vary widely according to state laws" "loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy" "Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion" "Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom up to the 24th week of pregnancy" "...especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced" (this last would include any age, and is one of the major textbooks).  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the time periods for viability do vary greatly from one source to another. That is why I choose to use the CDC >21 wks date. Re "usually", I believe that policy would say that all references are not equal.  Since abortion is a medical procedure, I would assume that medical sources would be preferable to non-medical sources.  If my memory is correct, none of the medical sources use the word "usually".  It seems to me that one dictionary does, and three give a definition that does not speak of viability.  Something like that...please check and see what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well "usually" can be sourced to CDC stats, but "before viability" might be problematic as you say if we think of it as SYNTH to put together CDC stats with the age of viability from other sources. Could we just not deal with it or do you think we should try to source it?  What do you mean by "medical sources?" The heading in the note is Other medical dictionaries.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. Let's start here:  The note lists refs from MAJOR OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS and OTHER OB/GYN TEXTBOOKSMAJOR MED DICTIONARIES and OTHER MED DICTIONARIESMAJOR DICTIONARIES and OTHER DICTIONARIESand ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I believe that our ref for our definition should come from a major textbook or medical dictionary, or an encyclopedia.  Do you agree or disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We could do that; but in such a case we should also agree to take out the other sources that aren't of sufficient value to base our definition firmly. If we're going to exclude the other sources, then we really ought to have an explanation of what ending a pregnancy later than viability is called.  This is out of respect for the reader who will know the common definition (which is any procedure preformed prior to birth to get rid of a fetus and prevent live birth).  We might also say medically defined.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The note has grown fitfully and was used as a form of argument by various editors seeking to undercut whatever the current lede was. Cleaning it up is very sensible. Abortion is a medical procedure that, like most, is to a greater or lesser degree regulated--greater than usual in the case of abortion, of course. The definition in the lede now defines what abortion is, as a medical procedure according to the sources, and the article addresses the legal issues afterward. The definition in terms of viability is, regardless of whether one likes it or not, the definition; that's what it is. We never turned up a comparable body of sources that address the issue of how unambiguously post-viability procedures fit in--and some of what we did find alluded to the fact that many later abortions are of nonviable fetuses even though they're well past the point that for a normal development would have resulted in viability. Determining viability is hard in a case-by-case basis, as seen by the varying guidelines and laws; but none of that changes how the term is defined, just how decisions about it are made in practice. JJL (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So then, are you saying that although abortion is a medical operation, it is much more than that and as such both medical sources and  non-medical sources should be used for our definition? Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There might be a case for legal definitions to be relevant? I think perhaps we just need to make clear what JJL says, that there isn't a term for post-viability intentional termination of pregnancy.  That would clear up the whole issue.  Can it be sourced?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite what I said. The medical defn. is clear and involves viability. It's extremely well-sourced and near-universal among medical textbooks. Is there a source for the claim that the medical defn. is incorrect or incomplete? I understand your concerns but what you are suggesting seems like synthesis to me. As to the legal matters, they are relevant but secondary--the laws are about the procedure. The legal discussion of course must be included but not in the first sentence. Define what it is first and what people think about it next. JJL (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but you have to explain that termination of a pregnancy on a post-viable fetus is commonly called abortion, but that's not the definition. You have to make the distinction out of respect for the reader.  Of course, you probably can't source that it's not the definition.  It's a gray area.  And that fact should be explained.  I think that can be sourced because it's mentioned relative to partial birth abortion. "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * BeCritical, "Medically defined" has been suggested in the past (by me). If I remember correctly, I changed my mind because other medical/surgical procedures, appendectomy for instance, do not give a definition using the words "medically defined".  As for the suggestion that post-viability induced abortions have no name in medical literature, they are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development. Gandydancer (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Medically defined" seems to me an appropriate summary/paraphrase, we don't have to use wording plucked verbatim from some source. If you can source that post-viability induced terminations are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development, then that is a resolution to this problem.  But apparently no one can do that, so we have to go with some sort of split definition.  Right?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A split defn. rather than a sourced one? JJL (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are sourced, the split one just takes into account the legal sources. This article covers more than the medical, and therefore should use sources beyond MEDRS. It has a huge section on Society and culture.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the lede sentence, the lede paragraph, or the whole lede (before the TOC)? Currently the lede section does provide a broad overview of the issues. For the lede sentence, abortion itself is a medical procedure. As with other medical procedures, I think we must define what we're talking about before defining a societal and legal response to it. That is the consistent style across the site--the lede sentence established what the medical procedure is even when it's something controversial. For the lede paragraph, the current structure seems to be first a paragraph on abortion as medical event and medical procedure; then a paragraph on the public health aspects; and finally a paragraph on the history and broader cultural implications of the procedure. That seems to me to meet the requirements of Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") including the requirements of Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject."). The lede sentence examples given there are short, succinct, and clinical. To take an example from there, "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!. does not indicate why this song is notable, but the two-paragraph lede section goes on to describe it as "one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music" and ""Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners. In 2000, "Yesterday" was voted the #1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame." That's what we're doing here. Arguably the second paragraph of the Abortion article could be shorter and the third could expand on the social/religious/legal issues, including late term abortions, but it's fundamentally hitting all the major notes and maintains a global, rather than U.S.-centric, view of the subject,as required.. JJL (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Medicine does not have a monopoly on defining words. Law defines abortion differently from the medical texts: it specifically talks about post-viability abortions.  This contradiction needs to be part of the first paragraph unless we expunge everything but medicine from this article.  We have to specifically state that the medical definition is different from other definitions.  We could do as you say... but only by eliminating the viability issue entirely, so that the lead sentence would be something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo."  But that also has problems.  Alternately, my suggested lead above is an alternative.  There are lots of different ways we could do this, but what we can't do is cover social and legal aspects while leaving those aspects out of the definition.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be in the lede sentence. Covering the medical, legal, and social aspects in one sentence would be very unwieldy. Looking at the style per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section and similar articles on medical matters of social import, I think we're well in-line with Wikipedia conventions now: Define what it is, then cover how people feel about it and react to it. Other defns. merely attempt to codify social/legal procedures related to the medical issue. JJL (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't have to both be in the lead sentence as you say: read my suggested text above. The reason for giving the legal definitions as part of what it is, is that while abortions occurring post-viability don't have a name in the medical literature, they do have a name in the legal literature.  This is just a way to tell the reader "yes, the medical textbooks don't have a name for such procedures, but legally speaking they are still called abortion."  This isn't how people feel about them, it's what to call it.  What you're saying is that post-viability abortions aren't "abortions," and that's just misleading the reader.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open-minded on that, though "has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term" makes affirmative statements that need sourcing (How will you establish it has no name? by the trouble we've had finding one? What's the source?) and "medically defined" has always seemed awkward to me. But it's not unreasonable. If consensus ends up going that way then that's that. I don't see it generating much interest here though and I do prefer the current version. What you see as a major omission I see as a topic to be discussed later in the article. JJL (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true so how about "Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability is also termed abortion in legal and common usage." I don't think the "common usage" part needs sourcing, as it's WP:BLUE, and the legal claim can be sourced with an example or two, plus the source already in the article.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds more sourceable. Again, while I'm open-minded on this change I do prefer the current set-up--the three-paragraph lede covering first the biomedical defn., then the public health issues, and then the historical and soiolegal aspects--so I'm not in favor of a change. If consensus swings this way I could certainly work with it though. JJL (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember a great deal of discussion re using "medically" - to my memory I suggested it and quickly dropped it after a very short discussion. I would have no problem using it if it would help to bring closure.  I also have no problem saying "usually before...", if it would help to bring an agreement.  I need to resort to using the common sense and/or break the rules policy for that, but in this case it seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was found to be insufficient (too specific) for an encyclopedic article. - RoyBoy 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to suggest a beginning paragraph which integrated the common and legal definitions?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some indication that a reasonably wp:WORLDWIDE legal definition exists? Even one that is widespread through the anglosphere? Is there any international law that pertains? LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No international law. "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."[laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html] That's a clear mention of post viability abortion, calling it "abortion." I'm sure you could find other sources from other countries, but I don't have time right now.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, there's wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.medicalabortionconsortium.org/uploads/file/rhm36_521.pdf Reed Boland - Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):67-89], pertinent text can be found here.

Box 1. Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion

1. The wording of many laws is not always clear and many laws are silent as to upper time limits and conditions for the performance of second trimester abortion.

2. Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman. Approximately 67% of countries allow second trimester abortions only for this reason, all of which, except Ireland, are developing countries.

3. Over half of countries allow second trimester abortion for health reasons, with varying definitions of what constitutes such reasons; more than a quarter of countries specifically also allow abortions for mental health reasons.

4. Over a third of countries allow second trimester abortions on grounds of fetal impairment, again with widely varying definitions.

5. Over a quarter of countries allow second trimester abortions if the pregnancy resulted from a sex offence.

6. Only 20% of countries allow second trimester abortions on broad socio-economic grounds, and only 5% allow them on request. These countries account for approximately half of the world's population, however, but mainly because they include China.

7. Developed countries are more likely than developing countries to permit second trimester abortions on a wide range of grounds.

8. Almost no countries set upper time limits for abortions performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, and few countries set time limits for abortions performed on health grounds. Half of countries that allow abortion for fetal impairment and pregnancy resulting from a sex offence set upper time limits, ranging from 16 to 32 weeks. Most countries allowing second trimester abortions for socio-economic reasons or on request do not set time limits for them during the second trimester.

9. Many countries place conditions relating to providers, facilities and procedures on the performance of abortions, only some of which are specific regarding second trimester abortions. Some of these are intended to create barriers to access, but others aim to protect women's health.

10. Although the general trend in recent years has been to liberalize abortion laws, including during part or all of the second trimester of pregnancy, there have also been successful and unsuccessful attempts by anti-abortion activists to lower upper time limits on second trimester abortions in some countries.

- RoyBoy 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Variations new and old for lead paragraph
For the DWPhil def, should go with this diff. Stepping through the history, I removed "live" as birth is always alive; then there was back and forth on if the medical diff is universal or "often / typical". Fundamentally I disagree with contorting the abortion definition to use the opposite "live / birth" language of its goal; doesn't seem honest philosophically speaking. Verifiability better than what we have now though, so I'll implement it.

The new suggestion is comprehensive and accurate, but wordy:

For information, WhatamIdoing's option:

- RoyBoy 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first one. It's long enough to accomplish what we need without being so long as to lose the reader's attention.  NW  ( Talk ) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are certainly all better, we are definitely making progress (: I do lean toward the more complete definitions though. The third option is kind of a compromise between the newly inserted improvement  RoyBoy made and the wordy and accurate (RoyBoy says) second version (I will say that as someone pretty much new to this subject I found it informative/useful).  However (and I leave it to people who know more do decide), it seems like we should go with a comprehensive version over an incomplete one.  So if the definition can't be called fairly comprehensive, don't you think we should opt for a longer one?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an illusion I assure you. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * BeCritical, where do you see this (#2) definition:


 * Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body.


 * As an improvement over this long-standing definition?


 * Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.Gandydancer (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a clear source for "Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth" for the first one? The second is stylistically untenable--it's virtually unreadable. The third opens with "Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." This doesn't define 'abortion' and isn't in line with LEAD. The first one is the only one that is workable but seems like mostly just a more wordy version of the consensus version there now. I'd sooner leave the current version and let people quibble about what they deem corner cases in the body of the article. No one is pretending that any subject can be treated completely and in depth in a single sentence or a single paragraph; but the current version is impeccably sourced, reasonably succinct, and clearly stated:


 * This gives us a stylistically-compliant (per LEAD), WP:MEDRS--accurate, highly WP:V opening. It defines the term, accurately and in line with how professionals who do it use the term. That seems like a success to me. JJL (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not compliant with LEAD (ie. too specific), and might be a poor choice for the nonspecialist preference of LEAD#First_sentence; as the sentence strongly implies viable abortions are not possible. Did you read the content on "Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion" above JJL? - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it. The current lead matches very well--and better than the other proposed versions--the requirements for a lede sentence. You can't hope to address what happens in 191 countries in one sentence. JJL (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading it is meaningless if you don't apply as you can address what happens in the world (or 191 countries) with a well constructed sentence / paragraph. We at Wikipedia have a mandate to have a worldwide view. If care is taken in the scope of a lead, for example not being too specific, you can accomplish it. If you think otherwise, stop editing leads. (I know you mean if you get into 191 specifics its not practical; my reply, therefore you avoid it by summarizing) - RoyBoy 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly is my strong choice as well. I am willing, as I said above, to insert the word "usually prior to..." for those that are concerned that a very small number of abortions are post-viability procedures.  Again, I strongly believe that when push comes to shove, rocks and hard places, and all, we must look to our sources rather than whatever our personal beliefs may be. Gandydancer (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an acceptable solution, "usually prior to...". Gandydancer, I don't all parts of the second lead as an improvement, especially the first sentence.  But the paragraph as a whole has some very good points.  I agree with you about the sourcing, but I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources.  That's all.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a definition concocted out of political concerns at all - I see it as a medically factual definition. While some claim that hundreds if not thousands of abortions are being done on post-viable fetuses, I'd like to know where they are getting their statistics from.  Our article states that 1.4% (8365) of abortions are done past 21 wks gestation and that's it - there are no further stats.  Just because a handful of infants survived, and those few have a high chance of being developmental disabilities, does not mean that 21 wks is actually the age of viability.  The medical community uses 24 wks as the low end, and again disabilities can be expected.  We also have no stats on the number of post-viable babies with gross developmental deformities that are aborted or the number done because the mother's life is threatened.  Furthermore, even the stats that we do have are questionable due to different reporting methods used from state to state.


 * It should be kept in mind as well that, though legal, some states have only one or two providers and many providers will not do an abortion even after 16 wks of gestation. I'd like to know who on earth, or at least who in the U.S., is providing all these post-viable abortions? I can accept that they are sometimes done for no other reason than that a woman does not want an infant - but I can only guess at the frequency it is done. Which is all anyone can do, and I would guess that it is extremely rare.


 * And finally, I have no concerns that the definition used by almost every major medical source is not medically accurate. My concern is that the ever-increasing political influence of the  Catholic and Evangelical communities write our definition, which includes using the phrase "death of the fetus". Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. Viability does not become a fixed point on the gestation timeline based on what might be written into a law. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Viability is perfectly well-defined biologically. Unfortunately we lack the technological tools to determine when it has occurred. That's where the guidelines and laws come in--not on what viability is, but on what proxies may be used to get around our inability to test for it within the 20-ish week zone where it's likely to occur. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The stats on post-viable fetuses are also immaterial! Legally can you get a 2nd-trimester abortion, "Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman." What would your preferred sources call it Gandydancer? Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally? - RoyBoy 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My post was in response to BeCritical's statement "I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources". This statement and some of his previous statements seem to suggest to me that he believes that  post-viable abortions are done with some frequency other than in instances such as rape, physically/mentally compromised fetus, very young child, a threat to the mother's health/life, and incest (which is actually more common than some people think).  I am arguing against the "fact" that the health care system is doing post-viable abortions without regard for the law, and if someone suggests that I am incorrect, I'd like to see them back that statement up with some sources.  Perhaps you or others consider this "immaterial", but I believe we need to work with facts, not someone's version of "but it's only reasonable!".  You asked, "Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally?" - I really have no idea since I have not researched legal terminology at all. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, "he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency..." No I don't think that at all.  I just don't think that the article should make out like whatever those are, when they occur, they're something other than abortion.  They are abortion, that's what they're called and the article shouldn't contradict that because an anomaly in the way medical textbook sources (though not all medical sources) define the term.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While the majority of that post was frustrating, conceding a blind spot in your topic knowledge is pleasantly reassuring; continued evidence of your good faith. Thank you. - RoyBoy 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, hopefully to come to agreement on what you are saying and move forward, does this correctly state what you believe: Almost all medical sources incorrectly define abortion as the removal of a nonviable fetus because of political concerns.  And by "political concerns", I assume you mean legal concerns, is that correct?Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, well you're asking me what I believe which isn't strictly relevant. But I just have this big question:  why would medical texts define away abortions performed (however rarely) on viable fetuses?  Because they don't want to deal with the politics (letters, threats, what publishers want to put out)?  Because that's all the law allows?  Because they're afraid of getting shot?  I have no idea, except it has to be something weird.  I just can't conceive that there is a procedure which is sometimes performed, but has no name. I think it's blatantly obvious that they're called abortions, so I'm just wondering why medical textbooks refuse to name them by limiting the term to pre-viability.  Any ideas?  And I think that we should use other texts like legal ones to augment the medical sources, since those other sources are within the scope of this article.  That make sense?  So yes to your question.  I don't want to break or bend WP sourcing policy, I just want to do the best we can with all our sources.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reality is a factor as well. 10 or 1,000 MEDRS does not remove 2nd trimester abortion from the topic we are trying to summarize accurately. I reiterate, we aren't defining a procedure, we are defining a topic. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, since the discussion seems to be stalled I will make a post in hope that it will help the discussion to move forward rather than go off on a topic that is not helpful. BeCritical, our opinions on the definition are quite different.  I believe that if one puts all judgements about the morality of abortion aside, abortion, like hysterectomy (for instance), is a medical procedure and that is what our definition should use as the first sentence in the lede.  Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion" - they define the legal considerations surrounding abortion.
 * We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted.  So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "An abortion can occur spontaneously" so is usually not a medical procedure. That's what I was saying in response to claims that abortion is a medical procedure.  "Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion""  Maybe, but guess what?  It's just unacceptable to use MEDRS as a way to falsify this article.  You, Gandydancer, know that abortions are called abortions even if the fetus is viable, and you won't argue that no viable fetus has ever been aborted.  So let's find some way to work together so that the definition in our article doesn't deny that fact.  I'm certainly for abortion rights: this is not some way of POV pushing against abortion, it's an attempt to use the relevant sourcing properly.  Because the medical textbooks did not mean to deny that it's called abortion when it's done on a viable fetus, they were just restricting the scope of their discussion.  We have the right as editors to use the relevant reliable sources with some discretion.  That's why I want to say "In legal and common usage, the term abortion is not limited to non-viable fetuses."   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion has stalled (multiple times) because Gandydancer, JJL and NuclearWarfare have been intransigent editors. It's been so frustrating I entirely forgot the most salient point of the 2011 debate (well settled in 2006 if I remember correctly), spontaneous abortion (the most common type) isn't a medical procedure. BeCritical's fresh eyes paid off, as I hoped they would, so I have prepared a Barnstar cluster. Another editor(s) needs to endorse it to make it official. - RoyBoy 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The current lede correctly defines it as a medical event. It includes both spontaneous and induced abortions ("termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion"). But are we to pretend that this article would still be so problematic if there were no such thing as the medical procedure? It's amusing to see you promoting another editor because he is singing your song but it doesn't change the facts. JJL (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All of this can be covered on the article's page--there's no suggestion of it being removed from the topic. It can't all be crammed into a single sentence or paragraph though. Wikipedia doesn't work like Twitter does. The info. being discussed is in the article. We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event and it's senseless to talk about reactions to abortion before defining what an abortion is. It's a noun that refers to a certain pregnancy-related situation and that needs to be the thing defined initially. Without termination of a pregnancy being possible, there'd be no legal reaction to it, would there? JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add, these variations can/should be hybridized if that can create a suitable option. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a suitable option--the current consensus version. Of course we can consider changing it, but a suitable option is already in the article. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's about abortion, which is usually not a medical procedure. And the legal reactions are, by the current definition, often to something other than abortion, which they are nevertheless calling abortion, but shouldn't be because that's not what abortion is by definition. Makes no sense at all.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What? You've really lost me here... Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)\
 * Sry, was responding to JJL "We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event." I responded to you here.  The post here is saying that legal texts talk about post-viability "abortions," which don't exist according to medical texts.  And that abortion is usually miscarriage.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly texts other than medical are relevant, because as you say, it's an entire topic, not just a medical procedure. But the medical definition can stand alone and other definitions/sources could be added.  Whatever the case, we aren't at liberty to ignore RS.  That doesn't mean we contradict or synthesize, just that we include all the RS viewpoints.  Deciding to ignore RS so that we make this purely a medical article isn't appropriate.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WP:RS is of course not acceptable. What sources did you have in mind ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a sourcing expert here, but I at least know there are legal texts, both the legal language as in Roe V Wade and texts discussing it. There are innumerable RS news sources "Brigham provided abortions to five patients ranging from 18 to 33 weeks pregnant..." "facing murder charges in Maryland relating to abortions performed on late-term fetuses that were viable."  We need to give the medical definition, then go on to state that "In legal and common usage, the term abortion is not limited to non-viable fetuses."   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion with BeCritical, could we get some feedback on this lede suggestion?

Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not bad. It's rather similar to Roy and my earlier proposal, but better done I think. I suspect that others might take issue with the medical definition coming first, but I think that it's entirely appropriate to have the definition most clearly articulated by sources go first.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we could source "The term...most commonly refers", and in any case it would be at best misleading as "most commonly" is highly dependent on context, speaker, and audience. Amongst farmers, as an example, "human" and "induced" would both be wrong. Further, the "usually called a miscarriage" is not wp:worldwide. Further, "prior to viability" should not be confused with "non-viable": after viability, it would in most places be considered malpractice to induce abortion after possible viability, (as distinct from feticide before removal of a then-assuredly non-viable abortus). LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 23:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first is another issue, I think, and deserves its own section. It's the wording that is currently in the article. If you have a better way to phrase it, please go ahead and make the change.  NW  ( Talk ) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My feedback is I think you should recuse yourself (Gandydancer) from the abortion lead, and JJL as well. Not simply because we disagree, but good faith notwithstanding, you're bad at it. - RoyBoy 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RoyBoy, personal attacks such as calling me "legally blind" and saying that I should recuse myself from this article because I'm "bad at it" are not appropriate and I hope that you'll stop this type of disruptive behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to slinging mud at editors who disagree with your 2005 version that you fought so hard to keep, I see. JJL (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only 2 editors disagree with me? NuclearWarfare, OrangeMarlin among others do as well. Anyway, changing the 2006 consensus prior to establishing a new one, then replacing and reverting to an incorrect viable consensus, makes you good editors? While the 2006 "death" version is hard to verify and unexpected (hence I didn't revert the article to it) at least it is accurate, that's my motivation. If BeCritical and others make an alternative that isn't too long / confusing, *thumbs up*. JJL, I give you partial credit for convincing me an alternative is possible ... the current viable version transparently ain't it. Just as astrobiology origins does not weigh into the "is the fetus life" discussion. - RoyBoy 20:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've swung at NW too ...about an hour before you made this post. If you had complaints about editors, the ArbCom case was the right time to bring them up. JJL (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And? Doesn't preclude NW from helping make an encyclopedic lead. The same, IMO, cannot be maintained for you at this time. - RoyBoy 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So, any objections to the new lead proposal? LeadSongDog's ideas aren't really objections, they would be for further discussion after the currently proposed change. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do share some concerns with LDS, I have no objections to the latest proposal going up. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with getting to the point, and making it a good one? "Abortion is the deliberate expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb for the purpose of ending a pregnancy. Abortions also occur spontaneously as a natural process, sometimes overtly during early pregnancy. In spontaneous abortions, the term miscarriage applies. The term 'abortion' applies most commonly to refer to the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means, e.g. through surgery or drugs." I am not understanding why an article about one of the most common medical procedures in America is so devoid of medical information. I actually learned more about the process that occurs during ingestion of RU-486 from Twitter than I have yet seen put into this article. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I too think we should define the medical event and procedure first--define the term--and leave legalism until later. Your suggestion focuses on the procedure first. I've said before that we could better streamline the debate here by separating out miscarriage from induced abortion. Since there isn't legal/social/religious objection to miscarriage, that article at least could be handled in an appropriate manner for a medical event, leaving the one on induced abortion more focused. That hasn't gained traction, and indeed I see some practical issues in implementing it, so I prefer the current consensus version which simply defines abortion directly out of the medical texts in a manner that includes both spontaneous and induced cases. Laws regarding it aren't defining the term--they're stipulating when and how it may be legally performed. Saying what happens in common usage is not the primary purpose of this site--people come here for the correct usage. JJL (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's being referred to as the "medical" defn. here is extremely well-sourced by professional-level secondary sources. The sentence about legal and common usage, with the assertion of "not necessarily", is not of the same quality--it's not a positive statement of what the legal defn. or common usage is is but rather just a claim that legal and common usage isn't always as strict. That common usage isn't as strict and precise as medical usage is a vacuous statement: Of course non-physicians won't be as likely to describe it in a technically accurate manner. That the legal usage may be different also doesn't say much to me--I'd wager the legal defn. of surgery (for the purposes of licensing surgeons, or specifying what types of damages may be awarded, say) isn't exactly what the surgeons use to describe themselves. Having the second sentence be "Lawyers and the man-on-the-street use the word differently" isn't very compelling writing. It also breaks the flow: The first sentence in the proposed change is a medical defn. Then comes a legal/common usage sentence. Then another sentences on the medical defn., and then another sentence on how the term is "most commonly" used. A better stylistic flow is achieved by having the first paragraph discuss what abortion is--from the biomedical viewpoint. We have that now. The second paragraph currently addresses safety and incidence with a brief nod to the law. The third paragraph introduces the history and the fact that there are significant legal/social/religious issues. Once again: We can't fit everything in on sentence, or one paragraph. Rather than constructing a Frankenstein lede paragraph, it might be better to discuss whether the rest of the lede section should be re-worked, or to introduce a new section (or link to a new article) later in the article discussing these issues. JJL (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You bring up some good points. Gandydancer put my suggested sentence in as the second sentence, but I was actually thinking of it as the last sentence of the first paragraph.  If we did write a section on definitions it would have to be in the lead somewhere, right?  And since it's about the definition itself, it should probably be in the first paragraph somewhere.  The medical definition is extremely well sourced as you say... but should be noted as being a medical definition.  Since the subject is very broad and legal and common debates and understandings are hugely relevant, we can't limit ourselves to medical texts though.  Since we can source that legal and common usage differs from the medical usage, is it really such a stretch to note the difference?  I hear what you say about fitting to much into the lead being bad writing, but perhaps this small sentence is not too much for the reader to comfortably handle. Here is the lead paragraph as I would suggest it:

Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, moving that one sentence makes a large difference for me--it reads much more smoothly and the last sentence now comes across like an opening into larger topics rather than a whittling away of the previously given defn. I still don't find the last sentence necessary or comparably well sourced and I still don't feel the qualification 'medically' in the first sentence is appropriate stylistically (also, it's the defn. used not just in medicine but also in veterinary medicine and biology, esp. for spontaneous abortions), and so I still prefer the current version to this one. However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference. JJL (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's amazing how much better it sounds there huh? So if you're okay with it, shall we put it in?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had categorized you as a troll earlier. You've now confirmed that I was correct. JJL (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What in the world!? Are you talking to me?  Did you post that on the wrong page?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) JJL, in my opinion your remarks about BeCritical being a troll are completely uncalled for and outrageous. I well remember my first edit at this article when I changed one word and I instantly had a half a dozen editors jump all over me - it didn't take me long to realize how closely-watched this article was!  And now we have a new editor who, IMO is willing and able to work with the group, and you call him a troll.  Actually, if I were to be critical of anyone it would be the editors who participated in the previous discussion and are now silent.  I prefer to believe that this new editor is simply being naive when he states, "shall we put it in?".  I believe that at the very least you need to explain exactly why you consider BeCritical to be a troll, because who could answer your concerns unless they understand exactly what they are?  I know I sure don't.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Outrageous? I repeat that "I still prefer the current version to this one" and he replies "So if you're okay with it, shall we put it in?" That's intentionally misunderstanding me and I don't intend to pretend otherwise, especially in light of his repeated assertions that using sources is for other editors, not him. This isn't a serious attempt by him to build a new consensus--I am assuming that he's simply amusing himself at this point. I find it very hard to believe that when I wrote, again, that I prefer the current version that I was somehow being vague and ambiguous about which version I prefer. Even if I had said the opposite of what I did say, it's not the case that--in the absence, as you point out, of the opinions other editors here--it would make a new consensus. You've said on my talk page that he's a "good editor" despite being source-phobic and now suggest that he's merely "naive" in trying to claim I agreed to put in a paragraph that I didn't want put in. On my page he writes "I have no idea why you'd call me a troll for agreeing with you." A reasonable editor couldn't read what I said as agreement to make a change that I had just said I opposed. Refusing to use sources and suggesting others do that work, falsely claiming agreement with his position...call it what you will. JJL (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I was assuming that our preferences are equal: you prefer one lead, I prefer another. You went on to say "However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference," which meant to me you were accepting the compromise and could live with the lead as proposed.  But don't call me a troll: that is a personal attack.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When JJL said "However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference," that sounds very much like an editor accepting a compromise. Thus my response.
 * Re doing further research, I don't think people are really having a problem with my position regarding facts. Here's what I think:
 * The term "abortion" is defined, generally, by the textbooks and medical dictionaries as pre-viability."
 * Other sources, such as news sources and legal sources, use the term for post-viability as well.
 * The topic of abortion is not merely medical, but also legal and social. Therefore, the legal and news sources are also relevant, and may be used in addition to the medical sources.
 * We as editors also know that in rare instances, fetuses are purposely terminated after viability.
 * We as editors know that when this happens, it is called "abortion."
 * There is no argument here over how the term "abortion" is actually used.
 * So we have relevant sources which expand on the medical definition and which express something which we agree to be true.
 * Conclusion: we should use the relevant sources to note that the term abortion is not limited to pre-viability outside the medical literature.
 * Is anyone actually disagreeing about the facts, or are we merely disagreeing over what we ought to say in the lead and whether we should use non-medical sources? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not have wp:WORLDWIDE reliable sources that use "abortion" to include "postviability feticide followed by extraction" while excluding "miscarriage", yet that is what one US faction has twisted the term to mean. Fortunately, this is not the Abortion politics in the United States article. There is absolutely no excuse to allow such provincial concerns to drive our decisions. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but you're not addressing what's actually going on here. We don't need any such source, very far from it.  We aren't saying "everywhere in the world, the term is not limited." We're noting that "the term is not necessarily limited," which means we merely have to establish the notability of the usage.  That kind of sourcing is easy. However, I'm not so sure you're correct even were we trying to cite worldwide usage.  For example this makes just the distinction I've been talking about for India. Here's one for Canada, and on International human rights , and Europe.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not able to read the google books link, could you cite the source more directly? Kay's piece reveals in its final lines just how polemic it truly is, though pretending otherwise: "unborn babies who were viable before their skulls were surgically crushed" indeed. The "international" and "Europe" links are again US-sourced, from BM Knoppers in AmJCompL and SCOTUS respectively. In case I haven't been sufficiently clear, my concern is that we should be using words to convey information in preference to conveying partisan viewpoint. The biomedical language is clear and unambiguous. The factional language is just the opposite. Hence, I favour the unbiased biomedical language and I think other good faith editors should too. If editors want to twist language that way on US-centric articles, they might be able to scrape together a reasonable argument for it, but not here. This is not a US-centric subject, nor article. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that terming a post-viability purposeful termination of pregnancy "abortion" is a politically motivated way to push an agenda, and that it is not termed "abortion" in other countries? And did you actually say, in effect "if you're a good faith editor you'll agree with me?"  And are you ignoring the fact that the discussion here is about merely noting that in some cases, the term abortion is not limited to pre-viability, and has nothing to do with a worldwide perspective?  Kay's piece could be POV- that doesn't matter, what matters is the common usage.  I agree about "information," but in this case even if you're right about it being a partisan viewpoint (and I don't think you are), what Wikipedia would properly do is note the information about common usage.  I don't think we should take the politics into consideration in writing here, we should just use our sources, and legal and news texts are notable enough for inclusion.  That's it in a nutshell.  To limit it to medical is arbitrary, and ignores the scope of the article... so that's really where we don't have a global perspective.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  09:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we should follow the best sources available, and that localized, agenda-pushing sources don't meet that criterion, particularly for this article. I think my tone and meaning were more measured than "if you're a good faith editor you'll agree with me": discussion of this topic has been too long plagued by agenda pushers of both flavours precluding any form of consensus, so I think the best way to improve this article at this point is to discount the factional sources altogether. If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of the trauma which is influencing the reactions here. Just one question though, is the language of CNN, Washington Post, and Roe V. Wade, and books on law and (what was it...) medical history really factional?  We aren't talking about anti-baby-killing websites here. I can find so many sources that aren't MEDRS, but they are eminently RS.  Are they too factional?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but they are local, in the sense that the US is only about 5% of the worlds population. The US discussion and its weirdly polar terminology should not be squeezing out worldwide perspectives. We have subordinate articles for specific national issues. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does WORLDWIDE mean we give a country equal weight even if it has little to say on the subject? How much of the reliable literature on abortion was written by Africans, Indians, and Chinese?  Why are we citing Western textbooks?  How about citing Indian, African, South American and Chinese textbooks?  That's one issue.  The second is that no one is "squeezing out" anything.  This is the English Wikipedia.  English speakers are likely to have heard their lawmakers, the laws of their countries and their reliable media refer to post-viability abortions.  Briefly noting that fact, as an addition, not a "squeezing out" seems extremely wise as a way of making the encyclopedia most useful.  Also, I note that post viability "abortion" is used as a term by pro-choice organizations such as National Abortion Rights Action League .  And here's what looks like a good legal source Abortion under State Constitutions: A State-by-State Analysis.  Every response I'm doing more research and confirming my position.  Perhaps you'd direct me to some source which shows me that this article really should not note the usage of the term "abortion" for post-viability?  The burden of evidence is more on you than me now as far as I can see, especially since I only want to note the existence of alternate usages, not to modify the medical definition or make it less prominent.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the one truism worldwide is that abortion is a medical event that can occur spontaneously or be induced. The "Reed Boland - Reprod Health Matters" source cited above, about what's covered in 191 different countries, evidently states as its first note that "The wording of many laws is not always clear and many laws are silent as to upper time limits and conditions for the performance of second trimester abortion" which indicates the wide variety of possibilities out there legally speaking. Biomedical language is much more universal than legal language. That's without even getting into translation issues. 'Abortion' the technical term has a well-established meaning (in part because so many countries use English-language medical texts and in part because that's the nature of science), but the common-language term used to describe it must vary much more widely. I don't know what language is used in pro-life Italy or in sex-selective India and China, for example. JJL (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, that medicine is a more universal language (and it is a medical event though not a procedure). If that is the consensus here then we should drop the issue.  I of course still think there is a contradiction between wishing to be global, yet not noting the broader use of the word, no matter what ideology is behind the usage.  I think there's a contradiction between wishing to be global, and refusing to note the broader usage of the word in a large subset of the world.  I also do not understand what possible POV would be pushed out there in society by using the word "abortion" for post-viability.  But I will leave it up to others here to either drop this or continue it.  Let me just assure you that to outside eyes on this article it doesn't make any sense, but perhaps I would have to have medical training to change my mind and ignore the full scope of how the term is actually used.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "universal language", huh? It's crummy logic for an ok lead. Their consistency comes from the bioethical constraints they choose to place on themselves. This is about comfort / common usage. Reality should be our yard stick, common usage plays second fiddle. You say "natural selection" to those unfamiliar evolution, they may say "survival of the fittest", its wrong, but why don't we change that lead to suit? It's "common usage". Oh, abortion is defined by big time PhD's and MEDRS, that changes things... actually no, it doesn't. (yes its weight, but not prominent weight in an encyclopedia context)


 * Good way to putting it, "medical training ... to ignore the full scope". Get comfortable with ones cultural (educational) definition of the term and ignore the rest. We need more of that at Wikipedia, wait ... no, we explicitly try to avoid it with Wikipolicy. LeadSongDog made decent points, but the legal limitations of abortion are not local, provincial etc. It is the scope of what abortion is, if the medical community would like that changed; they should make some case law. Until then, viability should be is less prominent, its our goal to reflect it.


 * While I take the point (from months back) Britannica used "usually" to define viability (not abortion), in so doing they accurately implicated abortion in the uncertainty of this wishful standard. My counter point to Britannica's editorial choice, is they are heavily weighted to scholars / experts in the fields. While this pays dividends in many ways (universal language), it lends itself to a bias. We need not replicate that at Wikipedia, just as Encarta choose not to. See y'all after the blackout! - RoyBoy 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer Two Earlier Questions with Research
Created a new section simply because my post is very large. Apologies if this is considered in poor form nowadays; I have not been an active editor for a while.

It was asked above what word is used for late-term abortions in Italian and Chinese. In Italy, late-term abortions are legally referred to as "lo aborto" -- abortion. See Act 194: Italian|English. Unfortunately, I can't read Chinese, but the legal texts of every Latin-alphabet language of which I am aware use the same definition: abortion is the termination of pregnancy at any time, up to (and, in some cases, including) birth. If it does not result in fetal or embryonic death, then it is, legally speaking, an induced birth. I can cite verse and chapter of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and I know a decent amount of English case law on the same subject. Happy to dig into foreign languages as well, if anyone would consider it helpful. Just need the Latin alphabet.

There has also been some question as to how medical textbooks refer to the procedure commonly known as "late-term abortion," if they are not abortions. This is a matter of considerable significance to our lede: if third-trimester abortions are medically considered abortions, then our first sentence is simply, factually, wrong. If not, then the discussion must continue on its present course.

Interestingly, medical texts, whenever they discuss late-term abortions, universally refer to them as "abortions," despite the fact that this sometimes 'directly contradicts' the definitions given in their own ledes. I went back to as many of the medical dictionaries cited in Note 1 as I could and looked them up. (I looked up many others, too. I quote them wherever there was reference to "late-term abortion," "third-trimester abortion," "partial-birth abortion," or "dilation and extraction". To begin with, here is Taber: Here is the National Center for Health Statistics, which is cited as a source for our first definition in Note 1... yet which plainly considers late-term abortions to be a species of induced abortion.  The definition we cite is a cherry-pick:  we used NCHS's definition of "abortus," which excludes post-viable fetuses, not their definition of "abortion," which includes them.: Black's makes it clear that, while other procedures exist, its definition is intended only to encompass those procedures that are legal in the U.K. (thus involving the law in its medical definition), and makes only this reference to abortions past 24 weeks: Here is the Gale Encylopedia of Medicine: Dewhurst, like Black, attempts to avoid making any definitions apart from those provided by British law. British law is, of course, quite clear that what we call "late-term abortion" are also be covered under the Abortion Act 1967 (which permits some) and/or the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 (which outlaws the remainder).

The Dewhurst case is particularly interesting, though, because the textbook explicitly instructs students to "NEVER use" the word "abortion." Table 12.2, Revised Nomenclature of Early Pregnancy Events, is as close as Dewhurst gets to defining abortion. Their definition includes late-term abortions: Danforth provides no encompassing definition of abortion. (Presumably, they think anyone smart enough to get into med school knows an abortion when he sees one.) It refers to late-term abortion as "intact dilation and extraction," the proper medical term for what laypeople generally know as partial-birth abortions. It does this in the chapter on "Induced Abortion" under the heading "Second Trimester Abortion Procedures": William's Obstetrics categorically denies the existence of late-term abortions, but then describes how they are performed under the heading "abortion techniques." It places the phrase "partial-birth abortion" in scare quotes in its brief discussion of Stenberg v. Carhart, but provides no definition in its place. (I have the 21st edition, which predates Gonzales v. Carhart, so I do not know whether this was modified with the national illegalization of D&X abortions in 2003.): Stedman's does the same, simultaneously denying that late-term abortions exist while calling the late-term abortion procedure an abortion: The Collins Dictionary of Medicine reverts to form: No self-contradiction exists in the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, at least: There are, of course, many other medical sources that do not contradict themselves in reference to late-term abortions (or ignore them outright), but I list only one. That is because what I am trying to show is that even the dictionaries that define abortion as strictly prior to viability actually agree: regardless of the technical cutoff for spontaneous abortions so defined, induced abortion is any feticidal pregnancy-terminating procedure up to birth. It just isn't legal in most Western jurisdictions anymore. So this is not a dispute over which sources are more reputable under WP:MEDRS. In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes. It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations. Our lede is medically incorrect.

It almost goes without saying, that, the instant we leave the realm of medical texts, all ambiguity and self-contradiction is dropped. Here is Becker & Becker's Encyclopedia of Ethics: Similiarly, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: Even in the demi-medical realm of psychology, we find that the Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health, and Medicine avoids the vaguenesses to which the strict medical books fall prey. Their first sentence in the abortion article: I do not presume to suggest that the medical textbook editors deliberately made nonsense out of their own terminology in order to forward political ends. They are responsible, intelligent adults, and plus Hanlon's Razor. But the suggestion, by several of them, that abortion exclusively refers to pre-viability feticide contradicts reason, language, and their own textbooks. I can certainly understand why one editor on this page felt compelled to accuse them of deliberate editorial malpractice. For the purposes of this article, we need not speculate on their editorial motives; we need only note the contradiction and resolve it in favor of the more accurate, comprehensive, and widely accepted definition of abortion.

All this I provide for the sake of information, in response to clear queries made earlier in this discussion. Now, if you'll grant me permission, I'd like to offer my opinion on this whole controversy, as a fellow editor, not a researcher.

As a member of the original 2005-06 consensus, I cannot overstate my disappointment and displeasure with the current lede and most of the alternatives under discussion. Even if medical texts provided the definition of abortion we are currently using (and, as we discovered above, they do not), Wikipedia is not a medical textbook; it is a general-knowledge encylopedia, and the argument that an abortion is merely a medical procedure and therefore deserves strictly medical language deliberately begs the whole question of abortion. Abortion exists at the nexus of medicine, politics, morality, philosophy, culture, and law. Any lede which excludes five-sixths of the "topic, context, notab[ility], and... prominent controversies" surrounding abortion has entirely missed the point of WP:LEAD (and WP:MOSINTRO in particular). In this particular case, because the medical viewpoint carefully excludes the only reason anyone cares about or outlaws abortion -- the putative personhood of some human fetuses -- it also does grave injury to WP:NPOV. The phrase "...resulting in, or caused by, its death," which is well supported by the general-language and common-use definitions still cited in Note 1, should never have been removed. Much less should the entire first paragraph have converted into a tangentially-related Planned Parenthood talking point about abortion safety. The current lead defends the falling incidence and relative safety of abortion before we know (in the final sentence!) that anyone cares about the falling incidence and/or relative safety of abortion! I have no doubt that the editors who made these changes from the 2006 consensus copy acted in good faith. However, I cannot help concluding that the lead would have benefited enormously had there been an even number of externally identified "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" working on this change, as we had in 2006. I'm not some kind of anti-abortion diehard who'll vote down any article that doesn't include a bloody image of a dead baby in the first paragraph; I (heck, I supported "anti-abortion"/"abortion rights" language years before it was cool). But what we have in the current lede is simply bad: inaccurate, unhelpful, irrelevant, and overly narrow.

All that being said, I am well aware that I have not been an active editor in more than five years now, so my opinion is both somewhat ill-informed, and, moreover, simply does not matter all that much when this conversation has been going on for six months. I'll sit back now and watch, allow editors more familiar with the current state of the article to take up my findings and work with them, and try to offer clarification and enlightenment whenever it seems germane and I have the opportunity to do so -- at least until I am caught up on the history of this discussion dating back six months or so. Thank you, all, for the hard work you put into this article. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A brief post-script: on reflection, it is actually a very good thing that the medical texts include post-viability abortions under the definition of "abortion." Otherwise, the only legal or medical term available to us to describe post-viability abortion would be "feticide," which, in turn, would suggest that this article needs to merge with feticide. I imagine the edit wars over this would be Verdun-scale in their magnitude, making the old "resulting in or caused by its death" argument look like a pony show by comparison. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, BCSWowbagger, this is the best-researched Wikipedia post I have ever seen. You say "In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes. It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations. Our lede is medically incorrect."  I consider your research conclusive: we must change the lead so that it does not restrict the definition of abortion to pre-viable fetuses.  Does anyone have a suggestion for exactly how we should do that?  I gave one above, but considering BCSWowbagger's research, I no longer think it's appropriate, because now we can say that even the medical definition does not limit the term.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Critical. I've been catching up on the past six months' conversation during the past couple days, and I think I'm nearly ready to be of some use in this discussion.  One thing that really troubles me, though: the 2006-2011 consensus was clearly changed.  That's a pretty big, pretty longstanding consensus, which has survived despite being under more or less continuous debate for five solid years.  I've popped in every once in a while just to see how WikiProject:Abortion is going (alas! still dead as a doornail) and to see if Severa has come back, so I've read a lot of those debates.  They read very much like this one, only shorter.  All of them resulted in either (1) consensus in favor of keeping the then-current text, or (2) no consensus.  So the text never changed.


 * After all, it was, first and foremost, a compromise text. Over the years we've had some intelligent people drop in -- people much like JJL but with a very different perspective on what's important in the Abortion article.  The JJL mindset -- well-represented for a number of years by a very smart, very fair editor named Andrew C would propose a lead paragraph very similar to what's on the article now: Abortion is a medical procedure defined as ending a pregnancy, spontaneously or induced, it is the most common surgery in the United States, etc. etc.  Somebody with the opposite mindset might object and say, "Abortion is not primarily a surgery! A woman who punches herself in the belly has induced a totally non-medical abortion. Abortion is primarily a crime!" and propose something like this:


 * ...and then the article would proceed from there, largely as-is, though with a slightly different emphasis than the current version.


 * Now, this is all true enough. It's not POV in of its particulars, and -- although I have skipped the research for this little illustration -- it can be extremely well-cited.  There are arguments to be made on its behalf.  It is a very good summary of abortion from one important angle.  But, ultimately, those like it missed too many of those angles, and people like JJL insisted (wisely, in my view) that a medical perspective be included on a practice which is, in the developed world, usually an act of medicine.  Examples like this one, combined with examples like the current lead, were eventually boiled down to create the 2006-2011 consensus.  Over the years, many proposals were lobbed at the article from both ends of the stick.  Many arguments were repeated several hundred thousand times (or so it seemed).  The lead paragraph grew, and, in my opinion, improved.  (Example: If I recall correctly, this was the original consensus text.  Here it is eighteen months later, much improved but still room to fix cites and things.)  But every single argument about the core of it, especially "resulting in or caused by its death," came back No Consensus or Consensus Against Change.  At least, that's what I remember.  By 2009, some of the editors here today (AnythingYouWant, for example) were already active on this page.


 * Now, of course, Consensus Can Change, and, indeed, it must, if the encyclopedia is going to continue to grow. So when I came back and started reading, I was really interested in seeing how and why the five-year consensus had finally changed -- and changed radically -- against even the basic structure of what had been there for so long, replacing it with a complete (and, in my view, as I have expressed, inferior) rewrite.


 * ...annnnd, I didn't find one. Actually, I found the opposite.  As far as I can tell, every discussion about changing the lead substantially from its long-standing structure and content, especially the "resulting in or caused by its death" clause was met, quite clearly, with No Consensus -- and frequently a majority opposed to the proposed changes.  RFC's were submitted, ArbCom was called in tangentially -- these things have been done many times before -- and the community-wide solution remained No Consensus.  This was all quite normal for this page.  What's surprising to me is that, from what I can tell of the record, the changes were then made anyway, with consensus occasionally declared by the pro-changers but never actually extant by any standard.  And, as we all know from policy -- some policies haven't changed in six years and more -- "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article."  Like I said, I need to read the edit history quite closely, but, as far as I can tell, the present text is simply not supported.  It was just changed one day (apparently in the 9 June 2012 edit by JJL), then edit warred over until the change stuck, on 26 June 2012.


 * It seems to me, and I'm open as any Wikipedian to some pushback here, that the correct course of action is to revert to the original until there exists actual consensus to change. That's policy, for one, but, more importantly, it's just the Wikipedian way -- you talk out editorial changes until you have broad agreement, even if the existing editorial makes you angry (heaven knows there's a lot on of copy wikipedia that annoys me!), and even if you never actually get the broad agreement you consider vital to making the page properly encyclopedic.  We don't need to go all the way back to 9 June, because the edit war was not all bad; it prompted NuclearWarfare to do some bang-up research on the major medical dictionaries and create in Note 1, which this article has needed for years now.  But I think NuclearWarfare's edit of 20 June 2012 is a good, stable starting point.  There is still a lot about the June 2011 state of the intro that I frankly think is awful, which I expressed in my earlier post, but we've got to start somewhere, and that was the last stable state supported by anything resembling consensus.  I don't actually see any reason not to revert it right now, but, as an interloper, I'll wait for comment from those more involved in this lengthy debate.


 * Going forward from the 20 June edits, I think it would be helpful to shorten and tighten the focus of the intro. I really can't see any way that we're going to get a lede that is both true and has consensus, except for the one that's currently there.  "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."  That's the only version I ever heard that included both the "termination of pregnancy" language that one group of (mostly medical-minded) editors insisted on and the "death" language that ethical-, legal-, and philosophical-minded editors considered non-negotiable, with approximately even weight.  But I'm open to ideas, of course.  So there's our definition.


 * We should then have some reference to abortion as a medical issue (probably a worldwide frequency statistic; 'there are X zillion induced abortions performed every year; it is estimated that X% are surgical, X% medical, and X% self-induced), some reference as a legal issue ('induced abortion is subject to a wide variety of laws varying by jurisdiction, with some upholding it as a fundamental liberty of women, others prosecuting it as murder in the first degree, and most others in between' -- and, yes, I know those "somes" are weasel words, but this is just an example), then finally some reference to it as a philosophical/ethical/moral issue, culminating in the traditional closing statement mentioning the pro-life and pro-choice movements -- or whatever ArbCom is going to declare them.


 * I'm not convinced the lead needs anything else. All other statistics about maternal safety, declarations about the nature of the controversy (e.g. the Personhood movement, tidbits about the history of abortion... all that can be dumped into expanded sections in the article proper.  In the article proper, those facts are valuable and can be fully explored.  In the lead, they are by necessity truncated, therefore by necessity controversial, therefore inevitably the subject of edit warfare and Talk page debate.  There should be an entire section on terminology.  This could discuss a lot of useful terms surrounding the definition of abortion, such as viability, quickening, spontaneous vs. elective vs. induced abortion, fetus vs. embryo, and so on (though it must not get bloated). The common medical definition placing abortion strictly before viability absolutely should be included in that section.  It just doesn't deserve to own the lead, partly because of its internal inconsistency, but mostly because abortion is importantly defined by more spheres than the medical.


 * I know I haven't proposed a specific text for the lead, but I don't feel like we're there yet... people have been proposing specific texts for months and it's gotten the conversation nowhere. How does this proposal sound as a basic framework for a lead paragraph?  It's four, five crisp sentences -- five at the outside -- a few nifty citations, and done.  Half the length of the current one.


 * So, those are my thoughts. Immediate revert to the 20 June text, and then a simplified, streamlined proposal that touches on each important facet of the abortion issue without trying to dig deep in the lead paragraph.  How does this sound?


 * P.S. I am actually not opposed to the idea I presented in my mock-up extreme legal version of this article, where we rename Abortion to Induced Abortion and redirect Spontaneous Abortion to Miscarriage. This would seem to make sense, given the readership of this page and the overwhelming majority of its content. In addition, I was reading Dewhurst the other night, as I mentioned, and that medical text said that, while the technical term is still "spontaneous abortion," "miscarriage" is now the socially appropriate term to use with mothers who have just lost a pregnancy.  So it feels like spontaneous abortion and induced abortion are increasingly divergent concepts, and even medicine is starting to recognize the social consensus that uses totally different words for the two concepts.  Finally, I think anyone actually looking for information on spontaneous abortion would learn a lot more from the article on Miscarriage than they would from this monster of an article.  We seem to already partially acknowledge this by linking miscarriage from our lead.  I think it may be time for full separation and a retitle of this article to Induced Abortion.  But that's a rather more radical suggestion than anything I've put forward so far, so I'll be especially interested in the reaction. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Those involved in making the 2006 consensus seem very attached to it. The Talk archives have been redacted enough that it'll be hard to follow the conversation, but there was first a very strong consensus that 'death' should be removed, then after NW's research there was a clear consensus that 'viable' was the way to go. No one believes that there is only one right lede except for some of those who edit-warred for the preservation of the 2006 version until they were, in many cases, banned or topic-banned; but this is a well-researched, well-sourced, and broadly-supported consensus lede. It continues to be a running theme, including in your comments, that stare decisis applies to your favored consensus version from 6 years ago but not to the one that has been in the article for 6 months despite RFCs, ANIs, and complaints about the editing of the page being taken to ArbCom and forming (part of, from case to case) the basis for the topic-banning of anti-change editors. The consensus has changed to the current version. Consensus can change again, but to state that "the correct course of action is to revert to the original until there exists actual consensus to change" is dismissive of the process of consensus-building that followed in exactly the expected way from the WP:BRD cycle. There was consensus--there was not unanimity. There still is consensus, and the two of you are talking among yourselves about how it doesn't exist because (I'll wager) editors here are tired of simple denial of the existence of the consensus and have some expectation that those who argued so fervently that the 2006 consensus was too hard-fought to ever be changed will allow a respite for this consensus and allow work to proceed on other parts of the article, which was largely held up during the consensus-building. In summary, if you're going to deny the very existence of a consensus in the wake of all that has happened then you can't expect to be viewed as making a serious effort to improve the article rather than continuing to lobby for the good old days to return. JJL (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoa; hold your horses, there, JJL. WP:AGF and all that.  I've stated repeatedly that I'm open to being educated on whether this new consensus really did come into existence.  Can you do me the favor of pointing me to the spot in the archives were it did, so I can better understand the situation on this page?  I've always been a fan of WP: Be Bold and I think WP:CON explicitly rejects the principle of stare decisis.  My trouble with the current lede and the process behind it is that -- from my reading of the archive -- it never became a question of how strong the consensus was to change the old lede, because I never saw the consensus as existing.  There was not only a lack of unanimity; in at least one straw poll there was a lack of majority.  My reading of the RFC's etc. was that they only underscored this point.  If I'm wrong, I will work within the current consensus, of course, but I will need to be educated.  (FWIW, I think you misunderstand the purpose and operation of WP:BRD - the object is to identify a person with whom to engage, discuss, and compromise, not to rally support for a major change.)


 * I don't know how new you are to this page, but you--and anyone else--should be aware that, however this particular conversation comes out, there will never be a respite from this topic. It's been under continuous debate for five years.  Work on the rest of the article must proceed around it.  If you wait for it to be settled, the page will never have another word added to it again.  --00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the offer to do your research for you, but you'll understand that that has been a frequently-used stalling tactic here. There was a clear and very strong majority in favor of eliminating 'death' and a clear consensus in favor of the current lede. I don't see any outcry here for a new consensus--mostly just you and another editor speaking to one another. That's fine, but when you talk about there being no consensus merely because others aren't sufficiently impressed by your arguments to start back in to the same argument on the short time scale of these few posts then that does not seem like a good-faith attempt to build a new consensus. JJL (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I have done my research, and I reached what I believe to be a fair conclusion based on it. I understand your reluctance to dig up old things for a new interloper, but, if you're not willing to do that, I don't see that I can be persuaded by your opinion of the same material.  I have to stick by my original opinion that no consensus was reached.  There are a couple of places in the archives where you, JJL, announced that consensus, but it seemed to me that this was immediately refuted by the responses to you, and I did not find evidence of a consensus in the places you announced it.  If I pulled up those spots in the archives myself and presented them here, do you think you'd be able to take the time to explain your thought process on those occasions?  Again, I certainly could be wrong about this, and would hope that some of the other contributors, like NW and RoyBoy, will be popping back in post-blackout to offer comment. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's not POV in of its particulars," no, it's a nicely written example of how text can be made POV while within the facts (: This lead is very good, and maybe people would accept it if we could take out the word "death?"  That word -if I'm right- will always be a sore point.  I haven't read the archives: I think it's probably useful not to labor under that burden, I'm here as a fresh perspective.
 * "What's surprising to me is that, from what I can tell of the record, the changes were then made anyway, with consensus occasionally declared by the pro-changers but never actually extant by any standard" Well, perhaps a well publicized RfC would clear up what the wider consensus is.  BCSWowbagger's research needs to be used to update the note 1. However, -BCSWowbagger seems to think we should accommodate the POVs of editors: we generally should try not to, but to make editors accommodate to the sources.  Agree about a section on terminology, the proposed lead on my talk page made it very clear that such a section is needed.  Separating to induced abortion and miscarriage might be a good idea, especially if it helps us move forward.
 * JJL, I agree with you that we should probably not use the word "death." But NW's research now needs to be added to, because our current understanding of the medical texts no longer supports "prior to viability."  I do not see, however, a current consensus on the current lead, but rather a near consensus that the current lead needs change: NW seems neutral on that, I think it needs change as do RoyBoy, -BCSWowbagger, and others.  Are there more than two editors here who definitely want the current lead to stay unchanged?  But let's be honest: to an entirely unbiased and new editor, the current lead was just wrong.  Further research, by myself and BCSWowbagger and others have confirmed that it is wrong in an entirely conclusive way both per the entirety of sources pertinent to the article and per MEDRS.  Consensus will change.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's a nicely written example of how text can be made POV while within the facts Yes, exactly! Like the current one.  If you narrow the scope of a large topic like abortion to include as "relevant" only the findings of a very narrow field -- be it law or medicine -- you create POV-by-exclusion.  That is certainly what I was trying to illustrate in my example text, because, it seems to me, it has happened here.
 * BCSWowbagger seems to think we should accommodate the POVs of editors: we generally should try not to, but to make editors accommodate to the sources. I can see why you'd come off of my post thinking that, but no, not at all.  I agree with you 100%.  Editor POV is irrelevant and dangerous, and WP:RS is our best (perhaps only) tool in fending it off.  Editors absolutely must conform to the sources.  However, the sources themselves must be broad and reliable, including the full range of (to paraphrase WP:LEAD) "definition, notability, context, and controversy".  We have reliability, but the current set of sources are very narrow, with overwhelming preference given to medical encyclopedias, to the exclusion of the findings of other fields with equal or greater claim to primacy in the abortion question, including ethics, law, and philosophy.  I would be happy to do some research into some of the more notable texts in those fields, add them to Note 1, and we'll see what comes out of that.  (Hooray! I didn't minor in philosophy for nothing!)
 * This lead is very good, and maybe people would accept it if we could take out the word "death?" If consensus says we need to take out "death," that's one of the best ways to do it.  However, the counter-argument, which we will be hearing for the next five years if we go with that lead, is that the definition "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo" would define birth as a form of abortion.  So it's not actually a good or complete definition.
 * Finally, what about my proposal to redirect spontaneous abortion to miscarriage, or, failing that, to its own article? Having slept on it, I'm increasingly sure that's a good idea.  Look at our article: the Types section features a brief explanation of spontaneous abortion, but the Methods section, the History section, the Health section, the Incidence section, the Social Issues section, and the Debate section -- i.e., the complete remainder of the article -- has an exclusive focus on induced abortion.  Spontaneous abortion does not fit well into the scope of the article.  Again, I don't want to tread on any toes, so, before I open up a Move proposal, would there be any opposition to such a change?  --BCSWowbagger (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a move of this article to Induced abortion, and a keeping the redirect of spontaneous abortion to miscarriage. It seems like it would make the rest of what we have to do easier. And "resulting in or caused by its death." -> "which does not result in a live birth."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Does not result in a live birth" would do nicely, I think. And, an aside: I misspoke a little -- I know that spontaneous abortion already redirects to miscarriage. But I see you understood my proposal anyway. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a split before but it's never gained any traction. The current lede is drawn from medical textbooks, not medical encyclopedias, regardless of what ended up in the much-edited Note 1. The pages WP:LEDE and especially LEDE has been much discussed here. These are short, simple, declarative sentences that define the subject in an objective way. Attempting to get a lede sentence that incorporates medical-legal-religious-social-historical views in a single sentence not only won't work, it's illogical. The advice of WP:LEDE and the style of pages on similarly contentious medical issues is to define what we're talking about--the medical event or procedure--then later discuss the reaction to that. If there were no way terminate a pregnancy, there'd be no legislation regarding it. JJL (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's do the split/move/whatever. I'll launch the proposal and leave it open for a few days. The short, simple, declarative sentence that begins this article has successfully and concisely encompassed medical/legal/ethical/other definitions before, and could do so again with (I believe) relative ease.  But I can't prove that until I've done my research, so I'll head off and do it over the next few days.  I'm pleased, incidentally, by the existence of Note 1, because it finally gives us a single place from which to put and read the various definitions.  Up until now, the only way to find the recognized reliably-sourced definitions under discussion has been to read through months or years of archive.  So, thanks again to NW for contributing it. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. "In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes."
 * Viability is not fixed at 24 weeks. Might be sooner, might be later.
 * 2. "It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations."
 * This is not supported by any of the sources.
 * 3. "Our lede is medically incorrect."
 * Our lede is factually correct per the sources. The 2006-2011 "consensus" version is not supported.
 * Btw, spontaneous abortion is already a redirect to miscarriage. I see little reason for yet another abortion sub-article. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really have to do a better job of contradicting BCSWowbagger's research (and my bit) than that. What you say has been specifically refuted by reference to sources above, and you have to be similarly specific in a refutation.  As it is, you just seem to be totally wrong.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The concept of viability is frequently misconstrued here, it seems. We've had this discussion often since June or so. A fetus may be nonviable at any gestational age, in unusual circumstances, and each case is different. Estimates abound for when a typical pregnancy has resulted in a probably viable fetus. Some are based on time, some on weight, and others on a combination of the two--and then there's the long-standing notion of quickening. The only way to determine viability would be to actually remove the fetus from the womb and see if it survives. In lieu of that there are estimates that in many cases are reflected in laws. But viability is a biologically clear, albeit difficult to determine, event. I too don't see clear evidence that the set of all abortions may be subdivided into pre- and post-viable abortions. That's principally coming from trying to impose on certain language a rigid set of rules, as though it were an artificial language rather than an evolved one where parsing the components of a phrase may give misleading results. We have random evidence of certain usages but no statement that abortion breaks down into these two categories, and hence are in WP:SYNTH territory. The lede is medically correct; this is near-unanimous definition drawn from medical texts, not an inference based on phrases found within them. The current lede is more accurate than the previous one and best reflects what the WP:MEDRS say. JJL (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And what research? Implying post-viability abortions from the quotes above is not research; it's WP:SYNTH —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ArtifexMayhem, it's not synthesis to say that IDX is an abortion technique when it's described under the heading of abortion techniques. JJL, are you saying that reliable medical sources do not refer to post viability abortion?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustration
As you can read here the illustration of vacuum aspiration is not correct.--WerWil (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The vaginal canal should be dilated to a much more significant degree (two inches would be reasonable), and the speculum should extend further down the canal. A tenaculum is typically used to grasp and pull forward the cervix -- this deflexes the uterus.  While we're at it, showing an ultrasound probe on the abdomen wouldn't hurt!
 * Also, most US MVAs/EVAs use rigid uncurved cannulae, in my experience.
 * I'll look into producing a new image (no promises!), but feel free to suggest a replacement! The current image is not terrible, though, for giving a rough idea of how things work.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion"
This article uses the term "pro-life".

I don't think that's a neutral term. I think it violates WP:WTW.

Some groups are anti-abortion. They like to call themselves pro-life, but that's not a precise term.

I could accept "pro-life" to describe someone who opposes capital punishment and war. But I don't think someone who kills an abortion doctor is "pro-life". Nor is someone who makes a medical decision that risks the life of a mother "pro-life".

They may believe in a lot of things. But the only thing they definitely believe in is being against abortion.

I'd like to know why they should be called "pro-life". --Nbauman (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely correct. "Pro-life" is a marketing term. Not appropriate here. I can't see too many instance in the article, but you won't have any objection from me if you removed what instances there are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that Becritical went ahead and by and large expunged "pro-life" from the article. While in my personal life I refer to them as "anti-choice," I have some hesitations about this stance in the article.  Starting points for concern include:
 * • the juxtaposition of "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" makes the article seem unbalanced.
 * • this has probably been covered already in the extensive archives.
 * • those in favor of limiting access to abortion could easily turn that around and say, "when a fetus is killed, where is its choice?" However unreasonable one finds that argument, Wikipedia isn't about assuming your view is more reasonable than theirs.
 * • "anti-abortion" still isn't great. Many people are against abortion in that they advocate contraception, but still in favor of abortion access when abortion fails.  I personally agree it's more accurate than "pro-life," but it's not perfect.
 * Going to go dig through the archives. PS: Becritical, please label your edits.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, this seems like a worthless triviality. No naming system is going to satisfy everyone, so we might as well just stick one that is common, easily understandable, and not likely to result in future edit wars. Can we postpone discussion on this until the rest of the article is at GA quality or better? If we don't, I think it's just going to distract us from more important issues (like the fact that the Incidence section needs major cleanup).  NW  ( Talk ) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pro-choice versus anti-abortion is NPOV. That's because pro-life is as noted above not a description of what they're for, as with pro-choice, but a marketing slogan.  Pro-choice is actually what pro-choice people are for.  But pro-life isn't descriptive of what they stand for in the same sense as anti-abortion.  So let's say people aren't familiar with the political slogans, then we should use anti-abortion instead of pro-life.  We can't use pro-abortion because that's not used at all and is inaccurate.  Look: search for pro-life, get more right wing news sources, search for anti-abortion, get more left wing, and more reliable sources .  My guess is that more RS use anti-abortion than pro-life.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I searched the archives for "pro-life" and got 59 pages of rambling discussions. If you want to refer to the archives, please tell me what the archives say to support your position and where I can find it.


 * If, NW, you think it's a worthless triviality, then why did you change it? If it's trivial, do it our way.


 * I think it violates WP:LABEL. It's literally false. In this article, "pro-life" is not a term used to describe people who are pro-life in general, supporting animal life, or plant life, or opposing war, or supporting funding for pre-natal health care. They don't consider sperm life.


 * It's only used by people who are opposed to abortion alone. The only life they support is human life before birth.


 * It's irrefutable that "pro-life" is a term used to describe themselves by people who believe in one side of the controversy.


 * On the other hand, "anti-abortion" is a neutral and acceptable term. Even the opponents of abortion refer to themselves as "anti-abortion."


 * If we can choose between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life", which is more neutral?


 * If we have a term that everybody agrees on, or a term that people disagree on, which one should we use?


 * I think "pro-life" is WP:POV and WP:LABEL, and we should change it. --Nbauman (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it isn't exactly balanced to use both "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". I see from our article on the former that "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[24]" If we want to switch the article completely to AP style, I wouldn't have any objection to that.  NW  ( Talk ) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, if we aren't using "pro life", we shouldn't be using "pro choice". I would support your suggestion, although I don't have a problem with using any sourced descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good solution, agree to switch entirely to AP style as NW says. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't ArbCom going to bring some clarity to this? JJL (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely not, it's a content decision. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, ArbCom didn't, and will not, rule on content issues. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion which is to set the names for the relevant articles. We don't need to use those but it would provide some guidance. However, AP style is a sensible choice to my mind and I'm inclined to go with that. JJL (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like their guidance will be definitive in a few months, which will make this discussion moot. Otherwise I'd start editing other articles to match AP style, but that would be asking for a lot more trouble and be overruled once that case came to a conclusion.  Also, everybody in this discussion should be sure to go and provide input once the case is opened, unless I misunderstand that description.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if they have they announced a timeline for this yet? JJL (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in my support if it's the AP style advice. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've supported the AP style for years, but, at the same time, the broad consensus to use pro-life/pro-choice (both silly terms) has held for even longer across a surprisingly large number of articles. It is beginning to break down, precipitating the current ArbCom, but, until there is a ruling, let's hold on to the current language. I don't like it, but it is a consensus much older and much bigger than us, and the process for overturning it is already underway. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is reasonable, but on the other hand the AP style may be more WP:WORLDWIDE than those U.S.-centric terms. It's a nonce issue and I don't have strong feelings--I'm hoping that ArbCom's mediated discussion leads to a clear recommendation on this. JJL (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right that it's more WW to use the AP style, so I know what I'm hoping to see when ArbCom makes its decision. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On a closer reading of the ArbCom proceeding, it doesn't look like they have any intention on ruling on content. The best we get is the mediation cabal's informal ruling, which is useless to us because too wordy for in-article use.  How should we proceed?  If WikiProject:Abortion were still up, we could ask there, but... how do other abortion articles treat it these days?  It used to be pro-life/pro-choice based on a self-identifying terms policy WP had at the time... but I think that policy is gone now. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Back-alley
I changed unsafe abortions to back-alley abortions Pass a Method   talk  13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Unsafe abortion is the term that is used almost unanimously in the highest quality sources.  NW  ( Talk ) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the reasons women have abortions? Why is it too detailed? Do you have a proposal? Pass a Method   talk  16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing would be needed for those being the reasons, and I do wonder if that is more detailed than is desirable in the lede. JJL (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is provided, sourced, at Abortion. Can you think of a way to better summarize the addition? I don't think yours was entirely in keeping with Lead section.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's also more in keeping with WP:NPOV and a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective. JJL (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Society and culture section
Every subheading in the Society and culture section goes to a separate article except for Art, literature and film. I wonder if it'd be better if that section were shorter and went to a main article that could have a broader and more representative selection of art, books, and films. As it stands now I'm unclear on why those particular items--which seem slanted toward recent U.S. material--were chosen. I'm not particularly qualified to write such an article, but what's there now doesn't seem adequately inclusive to me. JJL (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did the section quickly when it was suggested on talk, it seemed relatively easy to start so I got'er done. To go beyond the current selection would require a little digging. - RoyBoy 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It'd be a good idea, I think; among other things, it would allow for better organization (film, TV, print, and in particular fiction vs. nonfiction). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to make the move as requested Mike Cline (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion → Induced abortion; Relisted — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><b style="font-family:Georgia"> AjaxSmack </b>  01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
Move and redirect Abortion to Induced abortion. Add soft redirect with the "about" template to top of Induced abortion: "For Spontaneous abortion, see miscarriage." Remove spontaneous abortion-related content from the article. – 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

 * Support, per above. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support WP:COMMONNAME actually supports this, so that we can give people what they are most likely looking for when they type "abortion." Since we can't exclude miscarriage from "Abortion," but we should direct to the article on what the reader is likely looking for.  Also it will allow us to make this article less ambiguous, separating material into the categories it naturally falls into.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support because WP:COMMONNAME seems to suggest the current situation but the fact of the matter is that the article is almost exclusively about induced abortion and I see no path forward to making this an article that covers the whole topic in a balanced way. A dab page seems unwieldy unless, as was suggested last year, one wants to broaden the definition of abortion much further and I don't favor that. Having Abortion point to Induced Abortion with directions to Spontaneous abortion prominently at the top and an internal link to it in the lede paragraph is the best common-sense solution to me, all things considered. JJL (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Given WP:SUMMARY and WP:COMMONNAME, "abortion" is the most appropriate title. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies when there are WP:DISAMBIG concerns, which there are here. And I don't see the application of WP:SUMMARY here.  The "related but distinct" subtopic of spontaneous abortion is almost completely excluded from this article already.  We could expand that coverage to give it equal weight, but we would be largely repeating text and research already done by the editors at miscarriage.
 * We would be redirecting abortion to induced abortion, if that helps. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although some of my concerns are alleviated by the concurrent suggestion of redirecting "abortion" to "induced abortion," "abortion" is still the WP:COMMONNAME in both lay and scholarly (incl. scientific) parlance. I think the concern about spontaneous abortion is handled by a hatnote and/or a brief summary with a mainlink to miscarriage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (That said, I don't feel strongly about it.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It would help better separate the two subjects that are currently stepping all over one another in this article. PeRshGo (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've read the Wikipedia articles that the other editors have suggested but can not point out anything to make my decision for me, so I'm going to have to go with my personal experience: In common, everyday usage abortion means one thing and miscarriage means another.  For instance, never, ever, would one read that xxx aborted a pregnancy when they were speaking of a miscarriage. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, seems helpful... unsure on redirect but we can try it and wait for complaints, should relieve some constraints on the lead and allow us to be succinct. Sorry to JJL if I didn't catch / support this idea previously. - RoyBoy 18:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I have thought this over for the last couple of days, and while initially opposed to the idea, it now makes more sense to me. While miscarriages are very related to induced abortions, the way that the sources approach them are very different. On the other hand, spontaneous abortion does make up a small but not insignificant percentage of this article, and the way it is done seems pretty reasonable to me (three paragraphs in "Type#Spontaneous" that in addition to describing a miscarriage, allow us to quickly summarize some quick facts about an induced abortion; as well as one paragraph in "in other animals", which I imagine would have to be cut?). Also, could someone properly list this at WP:RM?  NW  ( Talk ) 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I just fixed the listing issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and, strangely, User:Gandydancer's argument. For those worried about inclusion of material on spontaneous abortion, i.e. miscarriage, just add a hatnote stating "This article is about induced abortion.  For spontaneous abortion, see miscarriage."  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><b style="font-family:Georgia"> AjaxSmack </b>  01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me--I'm less concerned about the mechanics of doing this than about the convenience of having them (mostly) separated. JJL (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AjaxSmack, I'm aware that my reasoning may sound pretty lame. Perhaps the correct name is clearly spelled-out in WP:COMMONNAME and due to my policy inexperience I just could not see it.  Anyway, unable to find a policy that seemed to address the issue, a recent editing experience had a lot to do with my Support decision.  I was editing an article and was including a medical advise quote which used the word "abortion".  The advise clearly meant "miscarriage", but used the medical term, abortion.  But knowing that if I only linked the word abortion nobody would bother to check the link since most people are well aware of what an abortion is (or so they think), so instead I needed to insert [miscarriage] following the term.  To my way of thinking, if abortion is so seldom used when speaking of miscarriage (including within the medical community), it's about time Wikipedia use the two terms in the same manner in which almost all people do. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AjaxSmack; or include a brief section on spontaneous, with a main link to miscarriage. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons above, plus common usage sees abortion as induced, and the abortion-miscarriage continuum best described in miscarriage article and mentioned only briefly here with "see main article" note. Seems WP:Undue to have its own article. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. There would be no separate article describing the differences. Abortion would simply redirect to induced abortion.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose also common-usage, and redirecting would still be a problem because a miscarriage is an abortion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Abortion' in common parlance is medical or surgical means of removing an unwanted pregnancy. It certainly does not carry any connotation of natural abortion. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ajax. The common name is simply "abortion" and if a hatnote is added this problem is solved, IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as currently formulated. COMMONNAME in this case is the problem, and should see an application of wp:IAR. We'd make better progress by moving the disambiguation page Abort to Abortion, with links to Spontaneous abortion, Induced abortion, and all the other meanings. LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl!  14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article covers both spontaneous and induced abortions, so this is in effect a proposal to either a) split the topic, or b) narrow the scope of our coverage. Neither of those propositions is legitimately addressed through a rename discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; "abortion" without modifiers almost always refers to induced abortion, making it the common name. Powers T 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as common name and primary topic. – Pnm (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Obviously, this is the common name for the subject. It also seems pretty obvious that induced abortion is the primary topic for the term abortion, so the article about them should be at abortion if we split it up. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose to me, and in common usage, abortion refers to induced abortion. A spontaneous abortion is defined as a miscarriage. It's already clarified in the article, but to me, the title of Abortion fits best. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 05:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Induced abortion seems overly technical, and while technically there is a second meaning, the term abortion is commonly associated with "induced abortion" specifically; so it is not out of scope under the current name... L.tak (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think disambiguation is necessary. When people say "abortion" on its own, no one wonders if they're talking about "spontaneous abortion". In fact, saying "abortion" when they mean "miscarriage" would cause confusion, nine times out of ten. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After-birth abortion
This addition to the See Also section was deleted as inflammatory, pointy and fringe. Well, it's published in a well respected bioethical journal published by the British Medical Association so I don't think it would qualify under WP:FRINGE (if referring to the concept itself being fringe then this is definitely not the case, many philosophers including Peter Singer have written in defense of infanticide). The editor of the journal wrote an article in defense of publication which can be read here and might put things into a larger perspective. I don't know why it was reverted as WP:POINTY as I have no point to make on abortion one way or another. Lastly, it's definitely related to the concept of abortion so why not have it in the See Also section? Also, why don't we have a see also section in this article? Strikes me as a little odd. N <sup style="color:red">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black">Talk 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If infanticide is relevant, it should be linked in-text with reliable sources to support its inclusion, not in "see also" with a cutesy redirect based on a news controversy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Roscelese, that makes sense. In the future would you mind putting that in an edit summary instead of "idiotic and inflammatory?" N <sup style="color:red">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black">Talk 00:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the abstract, some of the full text, and the defense of publishing by the two editors. I am not referring to the journal as fringe, but the idea that infanticide being to referred to as "after birth abortion" as fringe. The "pointy" portion is to add the "See also" section just for a re-direct into infanticide. Dave Dial (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that thanks. Is there a reason this article doesn't have a see also section in general?  It seems there are quite a few related topics.  N <sup style="color:red">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black">Talk 01:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. As for the section, I have no idea. I don't have a well enough understanding of "See also" sections in articles to know. I do think that adding one for something like infanticide would most likely be challenged. Thanks for the reasonable responses. Dave Dial (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

More Sources

 * Why has no one bothered to respond to all these excellent references? Dr. Jux (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been asking that greater consideration be given in the lead and in Note 1 to the equally relevant and equally defining areas of philosophy, law, and ethics, especially the law. Not one to make a suggestion on WP and then leave it for others to follow through, here are my findings. I have bolded the sections I plan to include in Note 1, but believed that providing the full context (and, in the case of U.S. law, all the statutes) would be beneficial. I have also tried to list the weightiest definitions first, descending to the least weighty. (Black's Law Dictionary being clearly superior to anything else in tertiary legal sources, for example.)

JJL suggested that I include religion and history, so I have also included a couple of definitions from religion and the social sciences (a somewhat broader category). I admit, I didn't see either of those as especially important, so there isn't much on them. The overwhelming weight of what I have brought back comes from the law. U.S. State statutes in particular proved extremely amenable to inclusion in the Note and the lead.

I don't know that comment on this is necessary, but I welcome it. It is posted here primarily as an expanded reference to the non-medical defining authorities on abortion, and in case anyone objects, for whatever reason, to the additions I am proposing to Note 1. (I learned long ago that it is always, always, always a good idea to post all proposed non-grammatical changes to an abortion-related article on Talk before doing it. Half the time it provokes no comment and you go ahead, but the other half you save a lot of edit warring.)


 * I plan to edit the lead based on your plethora of bona fide sources and the lack of any refuation here of the content you have cited.Dr. Jux (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't. First review my comment on the poster of this list's talk page and then propose what the edits you plan to make.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please post whatever comments you have about editing this article here on this talk page. Dr. Jux (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's significant consensus for the current lede after a lengthy discussion last year. There's a reason this laundry list of random links hasn't caught fire here. JJL (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the talk page archives and I was not able to find the consensus you mention - could you please point out where you think it is? The talk page is not a place where ideas are proposed and silence means the ideas are invalid - my lurking on various pages tells me it is quite the opposite - silence is acquiescence or lack of counter-argument or the equivalent of "holding your breath until it goes away". In fact, I have read hundreds of wikipedia articles and talk pages and this particular talk page caught me eye because of the lack of honest dialogue on it - this page should reflect the extremely divided opinion on abortion around the globe but it does not; perhaps the lockdown on the page deters open dialogue. Certainly the failure to address the bounty of solid sources in this section is disappointing. Dr. Jux (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy
In philosophy, I should note, an encyclopedia is generally considered more authoritative than a textbook. I was surprised by JJL's suggestion that the converse is true in medicine. Trivia, I suppose, since both are tertiary sources in any case, but I was intrigued.

Law: Courts
Surprisingly slim pickings here. Courts frequently take the definition as read, so, while a definition might be implied by, say, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, one is rarely stated. Here is one I found, from a state appellate court:

Law: Statute
British law defining abortion is rather simpler than U.S. law, so I'm going to start there and do Europe before circling back to the U.S.'s massive weight of statutory law. It seems there is exactly one statute that defines it (the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)), exactly one statute permitting it under some circumstances (the Abortion Act 1967), and a zillion tiny, totally unimportant amendments modifying the statutes to comport with innovations in the NHS and so forth. Here is the U.K. definition/original prohibition on abortion:

The effect of this law was modified/explained by the Abortion Act 1967 to render unpunishable most abortions, creating a space for legal abortion. It is not clear to me whether current U.K. considers the abortion definition of 1861 unenforceable or redefined. If the latter, I have not uncovered a succeeding definition.

Canadian law was voided, more or less, by R v. Morgentaler, but the definition remains on the books:

Italian law, already mentioned, uses the terms "abortion" ("lo aborto") and "voluntary termination of pregnancy" ("Sull'interruzione volontaria della gravidanza") interchangeably.

German abortion law does not include formal definition, again using "termination of pregnancy" ("Schwangerschaft abbricht") interchangeably with "abortion" ("Abtreibung" or -- interestingly -- "Schwangerschaftsabbruch") (German Criminal Code section 218.)

Same goes for France (Code of Public Health, Art. L2212-1, L2213-1).

Where abortion definitions have proliferated is here in the States, where a complicated legal situation has bred explicit definitions all over the place (thanks to NARAL for pointing me in many of these directions):

Oregon statutes never use the word "abortion," but switch between "termination of pregnancy" and "fetal death" depending on context. Only "fetal death" is defined. More trivia than anything, but interesting all the same:

More:

Texas appears unwilling to settle on one definition:

And here is an old statute, simply because I was curious about the language of my home state prior to its repeal in the 1970s:

Some 35 U.S. states (according to NARAL) have statutory language prohibiting abortion under various conditions (unenforceable under Roe). I read their statutes, and nearly all define illegal abortion using text virtually identical to these:

Law: Text
Here is an interesting (and relevant?) distinction drawn in British law of which I was not previously aware:

Amusing
Not actually including these anywhere, but I found these and was amused. In case anyone feels the urge to write some abortion poetry:


 * I have tried to figure out who submitted all of these citations. Who was it? Dr. Jux (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of those rhymes for abortion are at best a linguistic distortion! Instead your selection rhymes with contraception, which is an amusing bit of good fortune.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Include eugenics as example of public policy influencing debate.
Re:, and several like it.

I am still wondering why User:Attleboro is continue to edit war on including material about eugenics in an article on abortion. Sure, religious ethics impacts both, but religious ethics also has plenty to say about marriage, sexual behavior, slavery, and dietary habits. We are not including those though, and I am struggling to see why we would even mention eugenics in the context that Attleboro wishes to.  NW  ( Talk ) 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the title to clarify what this is about; it's a simple sentence and a simple relationship that NuclearWarfare seems not to see:

NuclearWarfare (I don't doubt that it is true, but I fail to see how mentioning that religious ethics has an influence on eugenics (of course it does) is relevant to this article. Please open a discussion on the talk page if you still want to add it.)

Attleboro (To User:NuclearWarfare: How do you get "religious ethics has an influence on eugenics"? The sentence is "Religious ethics ... has an influence on ... the greater debate over abortion, as does public policies like eugenics.")

NuclearWarfare (There is no serious public policy debate on eugenics in the modern day, so there's no need to mention it here. Take it to the talk page if you disagree.)

Attleboro (Wrong, see "ObamaCare and Eugenics", WSJ, 3/15/10. Why change from your original argument when it is answered? Though the citations concern policies of recent history (up into the 1990s in Japan), how is that irrelevant today?)

Roscelese (Undid revision 476892814 by Attleboro (talk) rv irrelevant synthesis)

What synthesis and how irrelevant? -Attleboro (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It would give WP:UNDUE weight to the eugenics claim, which is at best a minor point w.r.t. abortion and public policy. (The cited source is a "Best of the Web" section--essentially an op-ed that also includes other stories.) Religion is addressed elsewhere in the article. JJL (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this undue weight if only mentioned in passing at the end of a sentence but backed up with 5 cites to actual eugenics policies, some recent? (...not to mention even more recent use by the WSJ.) I note my questions as to synthesis and irrelevance remain unanswered. -Attleboro (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it gives undue weight. The citations talk about historical examples and ethical conjecture; the current public policy discussions over abortion care only touch eugenics in the form of anti-choicers drawing unfounded connections.  Appropriate for a history section, maybe.  Also, whose grammar was that? Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Undue weight to have any mention of eugenics in this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before giving credence to the notion that any mention of eugenics would be "undue weight", we should at least consider that: Dr. Jux (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the Eugenics article references abortion/termination 15 times,
 * the Prenatal diagnosis article references abortion/termination 8 times,
 * the Sex selection article references abortion/termination 7 times,
 * the Sex-selective abortion article references abortion/termination 24 times,
 * the Genetic counseling article states reason for prenatal screening is to offer abortion,
 * the Genetics and abortion article discusses this topic,
 * the Abortion in Japan article notes that the only legal way for women to terminate their pregnancy is by using the abortion provision in a law that was originally established to prevent the transmission of bad genes, called the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948,
 * the Abortion in Sweden article notes that Abortion in Sweden was first legislated by the Abortion Act of 1938, which stated that an abortion could be legally performed in Sweden upon medical, humanitarian, or eugenical grounds,
 * the List of MeSH codes (E04) article lists MeSH E04.520.050.050 --- abortion, eugenic as one of the Medical Subject Headings,
 * the Abortion in Norway article notes that in 1960, a new law allowed abortion by application approved by a commission of two physicians, and only on the basis of medical, eugenic, or criminal criteria,
 * a Google Scholar search of the words eugenic abortion together but not in quotations results in 18,100 results (with 9,600 of those within the last 10 years), and
 * a Google News search of the words eugenic abortion together but not in quotations results in 91 articles just in the past month.

Also, it is simply untrue that any mention of eugenics would be undue weight given how often the public debate about eugenic abortion is in the news, as it was this week regarding 4 totally different news events: Dr. Jux (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian this week covered the abortion/eugenics debate: Clinics granting sex-selection abortions to be investigated by health officials, Secret footage shows consultants at British clinics agreeing to abort foetuses because the gender was unwanted with respect to the common Asian problem of gender-based eugenics that has crept into the UK,
 * The Telegraph this week covered the abortion/eugenics debate: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say with respect to infants with Downs Syndrome.
 * Slate magazine this week covered the abortion/eugenics debate: Eugenics, American Style, Santorum says prenatal testing leads to abortions. Read Tucker Carlson’s classic essay on prenatal testing and the abortion of Down syndrome babies, which is influencing the US presidential election campaigns.
 * The San Jose Mercury News this week covered the abortion/eugenics debate: Simple, early blood test tells fetal health, replacing intrusive tests, noting that "the controversy over abortion is about to be hit by a tsunami of new science".


 * Due weight can't be evaluated in a vacuum. That contradicts the very nature of the idea. Is the connection between abortion and eugenics stronger than the connection between abortion and other women's rights issues or the connection between abortion and right-wing Christian or Muslim politics? Of course not. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Juxtaposit, you list four articles from the past week to support your claim.
 * * The first, on sex-selective abortion, is not about eugenics. It mentions the word once, in a quote from someone from the "Society from the Protection of Unborn Children."  Sex-selective abortion is not eugenics; it does not (to quote from the eugenics article) change the genetic composition of a population -- except to slightly change the X-Y ratio for one generation.
 * * The second, on a recent publication from an Oxford group of medical ethicists, is not about eugenics. It does not mention the word once.  It is about academics asking questions about the definition of personhood.  It uses abortion in the case of fetal disability as an example, but not only does it explicitly say that the ethicists are arguing the general case, not the disability-specific case, they specifically bring up parental hardship and not the, say, bettering of the genetic pool at large.
 * * The third, by Tucker Carlson, quotes Santorum's claims that the mandate that prenatal testing be provided without copay by insurance plans in order to encourage abortions and "cull the ranks of the disabled in our society," and heavily references Down syndrome. This begs two points: first, Santorum, who claims that the Dutch government forcibly euthanizes the elderly (I notice this article claims that the Dutch government also starves to death infants with Downs; have you considered adding this detail to the article on human rights in the Netherlands, if you think this is a valid citation?), is being a sensationalist and pandering to the far right when he ascribes this aim to making prenatal testing more available.  And second, even if the aim of those tests are to reduce government costs, that is not sufficient to call it eugenics, especially when the main example is Down syndrome, as the vast majority of individuals with Down syndrome do not reproduce.
 * * The fourth does feature the word eugenics once, in a quote by someone from California right to life, who associates the abortion of a cleft palate fetus with Nazi eugenics, despite the fact that isolated cleft lip is congenital, not hereditary, and thus irrelevant to eugenics. It also includes some sensationalist Gattaca-style predictions by one individual, which is saying nothing more than "this technology is on a spectrum of technology that could someday enable more eugenic abortion maybe."
 * So please find some articles that support your point more directly. Perhaps some that involve public policy debate about eugenics.  Remember that eugenics is "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population."  Just because anti-choice (remember, that's the AP Style Guide preferred term) individuals want to call something eugenics doesn't make it eugenics.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of weight to note that eugenics influences the abortion debate. And your replies are not convincing to the contrary. First of all, you cite the definition from the wikipedia Eugenics article while dismissing the 15 references (within that same article) that note the link between abortion and eugenics and the debate surrounding that link. Second, you marginalize sources by pretending that they deviate entirely from the wikipedia article (when they only deviate from your selective slices from the wikipedia article). For the sake of honest discussion, this same Eugenics article you cited actually evidences the fact that eugenics is part of the abortion debate:
 * The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.
 * Nothing you have written contradicts the fact that the mainstream press is reporting that the debate about abortion does involve eugenics. Even leading medical ethicists who favor eugenic abortion admit that eugenics and abortion are linked:
 * "Whichever option we choose, current practice should change. I favour option 2. It is most consistent with current law in Australia and the UK, which includes a maternal interests ground for LTOP [late termination of pregnancy]. Admitting a fetal disability ground, as UK legislation and current practice do, introduces discrimination, is a form of passive eugenics and probably cannot be supported by any plausible account of fetal moral status without significant revision of practice." - Is current practice around late termination of pregnancy eugenic and discriminatory? Maternal interests and abortion, Julian Savulescu, Journal of Medical Ethics 2001; 27:165–171.
 * Leading progressive mainstream media such as NPR report that sex-selective abortions in Asia (now also popular in the UK and in other nations with large Asian populations) are seen as a form of "Consumer Eugenics" in its piece titled In Asia, The Perils Of Aborting Girls And Keeping Boys On several occasions the leading progressive mainstream NPR has chosen to highlight the very eugenics-based debate as to whether the abortion industry targets blacks (Debate Boils Over African-American Abortions) while noting that many people "link Sanger, a birth control pioneer, to the discredited eugenics movement that sought to eliminate less 'fit' races from the gene pool", and that some black leaders think Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood "plan to eliminate our race." When NPR told us Minority Anti-Abortion Movement Gains Steam, it reported that some black leaders "view abortion as an active genocide on African-Americans" rooted in eugenics aimed at decreasing the black population. This view is shared by pro-life civil rights activist Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King.
 * What is more, the leading progressive mainstream NPR even broadcast a series on disability that highlighted eugenics vis-a-vis disability, in which the series presenter actually highlighted the connection between eugenics and abortion:
 * "Euphemisms are polite ways of saying things we find unpleasant or difficult, and prenatal diagnoses is surrounded by them. We say we test fetuses because women want reassurance about their baby's health. We don't talk about our fears of disability. We describe selective abortion as preventing disease, when what is prevented is the possibility of ever living--well or badly-- with a condition. No other form of disease prevention eliminates the people who have the conditions. Our ambivalence about disability goes very deep, and it's very old."
 * And leading progressive mainstream NPR even reported that according to a critic, a star and the director of a globally popular X-Men film, the film was an allegory of the eugenics/abortion debate that specifically warns the audience that we don't really want abortion as a "cure" for diseased embryos because we are not fit to determine who is unfit (with some parents for example likely to unjustly select "gay" embryos for termination).
 * Finally, the progressive mainstream BBC sums up the extremely eugenic side of abortion that is the source of the debate:
 * Selective abortions, which are a small fraction of all abortions, occur in those cases where a particular foetus is perceived as having undesirable characteristics. Selective abortion is also done when there are too many foetuses in a pregnancy. These include cases where:
 * the unborn child is a girl, and the parents, for cultural or other reasons, want a boy
 * the foetus is defective
 * the foetus does not suit the parents in some other way
 * the pregnancy is intended to produce a child with specific genetic properties, and this foetus doesn't have them
 * This article must give due weight to the well-cited fact that eugenics - broadly defined - is an important part of the global abortion debate and will become more important as technology allows for screening for all sorts of "undesirable" conditions for which selective terminations can be requested.
 * Dr. Jux (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. Jux (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are much more convincing citations! I'll be able to read through the sources this weekend; it seems likely that a compromise may involve being precise about what is meant by "eugenics," so that the past-eugenics of abortion (e.g. forced abortions on the mentally retarded in order to improve the species, etc.) don't get overlayed on the present "broadly-defined" some-call-it-eugenics of abortion (e.g. selective abortions by parents as aa very personal decision unrelated to the species as a whole).
 * I hope you understand why maintaining this distinction is important, and perhaps you'll agree that many sources don't find that distinction important, and find blurring that distinction politically advantageous. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might also want to see this 2005 scholarly article from the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review: The Disabling Impact of Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life Actions, which cites and discusses the debate about eugenic abortion as it has appeared in court opinions and legal arguments, such as these passages excerpted from the article: "The court reasoned that eugenic abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade was now both available and legal. It further intimated that in some circumstances, eugenic abortions are actually desirable as a means to limit the 'increasingly large part of the overall health care burden' represented by genetically defective children... One could logically interpret legal recognition of such actions as akin to a public endorsement of eugenic abortion in lieu of the child’s life with disabilities... Professor Asch argues that in a society which endorses eugenic abortion for disabling conditions, 'it will be very difficult for most families to consider bringing [such] children into the world if they know that the society believes that their births should have been prevented'... At least one scholar has suggested, however, that if social norms evolve to the point that society accepts genetic testing and eugenic abortion for sophisticated traits like intelligence and eye color, courts should not 'stand in the way of that social evolution with doctrines designed to preclude liability'." Dr. Jux (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Update on global abortion incidence
We should probably update the article with (Sedgh et al., "Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008", Lancet 2012). Key points include:
 * The previous slow decline in the global abortion rate has stabilized
 * The proportion of abortions performed unsafely is increasing
 * Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates; abortion rates were lower in regions with liberal abortion laws

The accompanying editorial in Lancet was a bit more forceful, arguing that the study "points to the weakness of some arguments in favour of restriction of abortion services. First, legal restrictions on abortion do not lead to decreased use of the procedure; in fact, there may be an inverse relation... The data continue to confirm what we have known for decades: that women who wish to terminate unwanted pregnancies will seek abortion at any cost, even when it is illegal or involves risk to their own lives."

There's been some popular-press coverage, FWIW, for example from the Associated Press: "Higher abortion rates where it's illegal".

Thoughts? MastCell Talk 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you don't actually read Yahoo! news and you just happened to find that article by searching for AP coverage ;) Here is a copy of the paper for those who don't have access to the Lancet at ScienceDirect or their website. I have made some preliminary additions to the article, though I'm sure that there is more that needs updating. Something that I found to be interesting (though I'm fairly certain it's because I missed something): the paper actually doesn't calculate the abortion ratio (unless it's in table 3, which would require defining the denominator of the abortion ratio to include miscarriages, which our article says it does not). I have therefore excluded it, though I would not be averse to re-adding it if someone can find the updated figure.  NW  ( Talk ) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert: sex-selective abortion in lead
Put simply, I see no reason why that factoid about abortion belongs in the lead. It seems out of proportion with the rest of the lead in terms of specificity. Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a subsection in the article for this and it leads to a separate article for the topic. It does seem a bit out of place in the lede--tacked on at the end. JJL (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is nothing in the lead section about why people get abortions. A short list of reasons could include sex-selective abortions. Putting something in about "why" will help us comply with WP:LEAD—the lead section should summarize text that appears in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that could be done in a non-contentious way then I'd be open to it--though a three-paragraph lede may not be in need of much lengthening. But summarizing "why" is apt to be lengthy and to lead to much wrangling over POV concerns, I'd imagaine. In any event, the lone reason of sex-selection should not be in there in isolation unless there's some evidence that it's the dominant reason women seek abortions. World-wide it's a major reason, but not to the point that it eclipses the others. JJL (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sex-selective abortion is a notable exception in the abortion law, which was denounced by the majority of nations worldwide. I see it as the logical continuation of "In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion". That kind of abortion is also a concern in China with its billion-plus population, among others. Don't see any POV here. Brand meister talk   09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister, its inclusion in the lead is very out-of-place. Abortion law is a field full of exceptions; sex-selective abortion is not an exceptionally notable exception, and including all of those exceptions and specific ways in which they've been recognized by groups is far beyond the scope of the lead.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and would make it seem like one special reason was chosen to be in the lede, which is where the POV concern comes in. A majority of Christian denominations have probably also condemned it--the argument could be made that that should be in there. JJL (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I think that people's reasons for getting an abortion is too big a topic for the lead, and it will be nigh-impossible for people to reach consensus. The pro-choice camp will want it to boil down to "the person doesn't want to be pregnant," and the anti-choice camp will want to focus on "outside forces are pressuring her to be unable to let the child live."  Citations are very difficult in this arena, of course.  Feel free to suggest something!  Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks, is there a single country in the world that legalized sex-selective abortion? For if no, it is an exceptionally notable exception and a special reason. Brand meister talk   22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, in many or most countries where abortion is legal, it's legal for any reason. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather a shadow business, I highly doubt that a normal medic would proceed after hearing "I want an abortion because it's female". That practice is still carried in China for example, but at legal level the country did ban it. Brand meister talk   23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister, you're making it blatantly clear that you're not approaching this with a NPOV. I have a lot of experience with the abortion field.  Normal doctors do proceed with abortions on basis of sex selection; we provide counseling, and if it remains somebody's decision that they do not want to carry a pregnancy to term (for WHATEVER reason), we do not force them to do so.  Period.  It is not a shadow business, and we are not abnormal.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph for lead section
Here's a possible paragraph for the lead section, intended to summarize article themes. "Most abortions occur because of unintended pregnancy. Worldwide, about one-fifth of all pregnancies end in induced abortion. The reasons for choosing an abortion vary greatly; the most common ones include lack of money to raise a child, lack of support from the father, and the wish to wait longer before having a baby. Other reasons for abortion include fetal or maternal health problems, conception from incest or rape, and the desire to choose the gender of the baby. This latter reason is called sex-selective abortion and is most commonly practiced in parts of Asia."

Discuss, please. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Major citation needed for those reasons, and please rephrase and cite the "most commonly" bit -- it's unclear what relative prevalence you're communicating.
 * I'm also a bit irked by "the wish to wait longer before having a baby," as it implies (but does not strictly mandate) a presumption that pregnant people must want to have babies at some point.
 * So this seems generally like what we're looking for, but surely there is some nice citation out there. I'll look around for one later if I get the chance.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Citations are not needed here. They are present in the article body, in abundance. This is merely a summary of text found in the article body. The bits that cause you dismay are bits that are in the article body. I have added nothing new. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For an appropriately worldwide summary in the lede, I'd want to know that most abortions are for the stated reason in most countries. If sex-selection is the major reason in China and India, that'd mean that even if the reason given is technically accurate that it's averaging out too much. Is the first sentence necessary? The rest is not at all objectionable to me. JJL (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The data on "one-fifth of all pregnancies" may be prone to outdating, requiring monitoring for that. Because of contraception, I'd exclude two sentences on reasons since they raise natural questions about condoms etc. As for sex-selective abortion, I hold my aforementioned opinion - international stance is important enough for the lead. The related section on sex-selective abortion has been recently expanded to reflect that. Brand meister talk   22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "exclude two sentences on reasons." Which two sentences?  What natural questions about condoms?
 * International stance on abortion isn't covered in the lead; it's only mentioned that it varies. We know your opinion; please back it up with a reason.  The fact that the sex-selective abortion section has been slightly expanded isn't evidence for its importance, because you were the one who expanded it.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lede needs to state why people have abortions Pass a Method   talk  08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want to explain why you think that, or do you have suggestions to how it should be phrased? Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Link
The image i added is in the right section, since both the text and image are about miscarriage. Hence it is relevant. Pass a Method  talk  08:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not consensus and not a discussion. This article has a long and contentious edit history; when somebody tells you something has come up before, please look through the archives so that we don't rehash old discussions.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed enough that the archives list at the top of this page has a special link for archived discussion of the Lead image. JJL (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pic opinions
I was asked to seek consensus for this edit. Do you support or oppose it?


 * Support. I think it is relevant because the picture is about the same subject as the subsection hence is in an appropriate location. The article lacks images anyway. Pass a Method   talk  11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Two reasons: first, this image is atypical of a miscarriage (most of which occur well before this level of development).  Second, in the larger context of an abortion article, a picture of an intact 11-week fetus is not an appropriate opening image, imho.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, this is not what seeking consensus looks like. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Concur with Triacylglyceride. This is not an image of an abortion; it's an image of a fetus. See also the previous discussion centered around this (or a very similar) image. JJL (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Including an image of a miscarriage (and a misleading one at that) in an article that focuses almost exclusively on induced abortion seems to be an attempt to push an agenda, just like every other attempt to insert such images. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per the above. Regarding seeking consensus, one must generally make a case for inclusion, attempt to persuade one's fellow editors that the desired addition would improve the article and enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, while being open to arguments against inclusion; discussion regarding the pros and cons. You state the image is of the subject at hand; yet it is not typical and is representative of a fetus not a miscarriage. It would thus fail to educate and would even mislead readers. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Usually back in lead?
I'm a little confused why the first sentence doesn't include a caveat such as "usually" in front of viability. As the Arbcom noted, "improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article". As others have pointed out, the article makes reference to late term abortion and procedures used. This would seem to require a weasel being flung into the lead for self consistency. - RoyBoy 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does state the definition per sources, which is what the first sentence claims to do. JJL (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources you prefer to place weight in, a circular point that ignores an encyclopedic lead should reflect the entire article / subject. The current first sentence does not. Also, I'm unsure if "(those performed by persons without proper training or outside of a medical environment)" is needed. - RoyBoy 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always found that parenthetical comment awkward. JJL (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical could probably be removed, since we define "unsafe abortion" later in the article and it is, after all, wikilinked. MastCell Talk 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I begin an RfC on adding "usually" to the lead while the spoken article is being created? - RoyBoy 15:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it usual to wait while a spoken article is being done? I'm not in favor of the change, but waiting for that may not be needed. JJL (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry about it. I got a third of the way done before my life took over.  I can make no promises.  Each weekend there is a 15% chance that I binge-read my way through the rest of it.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the above, I'll remove the parenthetical... I think this is the first time I've used that word. Booyeah! - RoyBoy 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC
The first sentence of the abortion article currently states: "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability." As the abortion article refers to late-term abortions which may include viable fetus' it has been proposed adding "usually" before "prior to viability". If agree, support -- if you believe it should remain as it is, Oppose. I've added politics RfC as abortion is also legally defined in various ways. - RoyBoy 04:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * While I sense a slippery slope here, it's clear that, historically at least, abortion has been used to refer to the termination of the pregnancy up to and surpassing the point of viability. I have not the slightest doubt that sources can be found which support this usage and which would be viable for inclusion in the article (if some haven't been included already). Snow (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. - RoyBoy 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. - JSR (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - United States Man (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Abortion very often happens weeks or months after viability. There is plenty of proof & evidence of that. I say viability is removed from the lead altogether 'cause its inclusion is misleading, leading people to believe it always happens before viability or we say "usually before viability". Just look into what happened or happens at Dr. George Tiller's clinic or in China or Russia and you'll understand. In Russia, abortion often happens in later stages of pregnancy for any reason. Repeated abortions are the norm there too! Israell (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also proof & evidence that no abortions occur after viability. Take, for example, the sources in the article. They say that any termination of pregnancy before viability is abortion and any after viability is a birth. So under that definition (a definition that a lot of sources support), performing an abortion procedure after the fetus is viable is considered a birth, not an abortion. Of course, there are also sources that don't specify viability at all, but we cannot just choose one side. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, while there is ample Evidence of the medical position; Proof infers there is a true definition of abortion. There isn't... well at least not a politically correct one. - RoyBoy 07:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The principle of WP:DUE weight suggests the current lede and comments about possible exceptions later in the article body. JJL (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Abortion of viable fetus' is noted in reliable sources; moreover there is no upper limit to abortion, if you bother to research it this is a majority (or at least prevalent) definition in fields outside medicine and is actively debated within the medical community. "Possible" exceptions, that's rich... and silly, as they aren't even exceptions, they are part of what abortion is, was, and perhaps always will be. They can be construed as exceptions with a narrow definition, but its a false construct in any context beyond medical best-practice. - RoyBoy 07:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So correct me if I'm wrong, but the National Center for Health Statistics, three OB/GYN medical textbooks, three medical dictionaries, and three general English dictionaries all define abortion as occurring before viability. Those are all very significant and reliable sources, and you cannot just toss them aside. And yes, it is looking increasingly like after-viability abortion definitions are the exception considering the weight of these sources, although honestly that doesn't matter in the long run because both definitions are still major viewpoints, which means they must both be represented in the article. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 14:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If your position is their definition excludes reality that legal precedent happens to codify, then you'd be wrong, but I don't see you taking that position. I'm uncertain how inserting "primarily" into the first sentence would not represent both sides, as viability is still the prominent definition. As to weight, while not easy (archives make that clear) there is proof -- that abortion is not defined one way. It, I believe, is also established abortion is not merely a medical article. After that, reinterpretation of Wikipolicy becomes ... unnecessary. It truly comes down to your opinion of accept, reject or other (such as: push to next sentence -- more confusing I think; or attempt generalization -- pushes issue to a sub-article most readers intended to go to). In the end, despite the complexity, I'm just trying to make the article / subject self-consistent using summarized prose. We are trying to define abortion as a subject in its entirety, the sources you cite define it as a medical procedure. - RoyBoy 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me re-establish the points in question here. There are significant reliable sources that define abortions as a termination of pregnancy before viability. Under that definition, if an abortion procedure were to take place after viability has been reached, the end result is called a birth, not an abortion. On the other hand, there are significant reliable sources that define abortions as any termination of pregnancy that results in the death of the fetus. Under that definition, any abortion procedure or accidental death of the fetus is considered an abortion. Unless there is reason to consider any of these sources invalid or unreliable, these facts cannot be refuted. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, both definitions (and their respective sources and due weight) must be represented accordingly in the article. As I have explained in other comments, inserting the word "usually" or "primarily" does not carry the message the article should be portraying to the reader. When you say in the article that abortion is defined as occurring "usually before viability", you are basically saying "Abortion is defined as a termination of pregnancy, and it usually occurs before viability." In reality, what we should be saying is, "Abortion is usually defined as a termination of pregnancy before viability." Notice the difference in placement. The former tells the reader that the official definition is any termination of pregnancy, but that most abortions occur before viability. The latter tells the reader that the definition is disputed, which it is. A better worded lead would be, "Abortion is a medical procedure defined as a termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the unborn fetus. Some sources restrict the definition to only procedures that occur before the fetus is viable, classifying all other terminations of pregnancy as births. Other sources make no such restriction.". By using this lead, which treats the issue of viability as a conflict rather than a fact, it is made clear to the reader what the actual agreed upon definition of an abortion is and what parts of the definition are unclear and debated upon. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 20:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not in dispute. The medical community restricts it, but at the end of the day they operate within the legal framework, not visa-versa. Concerns over due weight misses this. The better lead starts well, but then digresses into source weight hand wringing for the reader to wade through. Not preferable. While I do not ignore medical sources their "restrictions" aren't actually enforceable in most jurisdictions, if any. Since the majority of abortions do happen prior to viability spontaneously or by ethical clinicians, its a great definition... but remains incomplete. - RoyBoy 01:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We've established beyond any reasonable doubt that it is the medical defn. of this medical procedure. All other aspects are discussed or linked to in the article body. I am not seeing what the problem is here. Perhaps you'd care to be consistent and stick up for the principle of fidelity to last summer's hard-fought reworking of the lede? You did so for the previous lede when a single word was at issue on the grounds of stare decisis. Why not rely on the same principles now? JJL (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency, as in slowing down rapid fire editing and now trying to improve the article, again? Stare decisis, nifty verbiage I've never seen in Wikipedia, I like. As a reward I'll elaborate. The death lead is more consistent with what abortion is vs. a pure medical definition, of course we don't agree and that's a good thing. In the end you helped me see "death" wasn't sustainable, that doesn't make "viable" the perfect definition. I'm curious how you note other aspects are in the article, but do not merit reflection in the lead. Ah yes, professed weight... you can throw the flooded Titanic onto the scale but abortion does not have a limit and isn't always performed by doctors. It's that simple. As to same principles, how long was your RfC to substantially change the lead of a core article... a few days? A few days... gets me every time, and that's after pushed for a semblance of consensus. Apparently you felt uber support from WP:MEDRS, and are still prioritizing that over a complete lead ... stare decisis would be a bit more convincing (to me) if you helped maintain a controversial article for over 5 years. - RoyBoy 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're having trouble separating the definition of abortion and the practice of abortion. If the medical definition of abortion is the termination of pregnancy prior to viability, then there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion. And it's that point I think you might be having trouble understanding. Under the medical definition that a number of sources provide, the death of a viable fetus is just not considered an abortion whatsoever. Yes, some doctors do perform abortion procedures on viable fetuses, but under the medical definition it is still not considered an abortion, rather it is a stillborn birth. And this has absolutely nothing to do with ethical or legal concerns, but rather just the factual separation of pregnancy termination, i.e., terminating a non-viable fetus and the medical consequences and procedures therein are different than that of a viable fetus. On the other hand, under the other definition (that does not pose such a restriction), any termination of pregnancy, including accidental death, would be considered an abortion. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 13:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put, except for "factual separation", stillbirth hinges on legality. I'm not separating them as I don't think we have that luxury, your valiant attempt to create an inclusive explanation seems to validate this. You outline stillborn birth as if it's a standard, I don't see that reflected here or here. Moreover, do you understand the abortion article isn't just about a medical procedure and its learned practitioners? Yes accidental death can be abortion, unless you are referring to fetal death, that is indeed separate from abortion as it died prior to extraction process... then again some use stillborn / fetal death interchangeably. - RoyBoy 03:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The use of 'death' was highly contentious but consensus was against it. This was the main point last summer. Inserting medically (defined) was tried but also was not well-supported. In the end the medical defn. is clear and there's no need for weasel-wording it, but the article body must treat the related issues of how non-medical sources view it. JJL (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Death was preferred (vote wise) over medical. There would be no need to weasel-word it if Wikipedia was a medical encyclopedia. The definition is clear ... clearly incomplete. Non-medical sources are crucial and doctors pay close attention to them, Wikipedia is no different.. - RoyBoy 04:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside spontaneous abortion for the moment, (medical/surgical) abortion is a medical procedure. That's all it is. Spontaneous abortion is a biological and medical topic. When we acknowledge that the abortion article has to cover many issues it's because of the reactions to that medical/surgical procedure. But how people view it and react to it is now what it is and hence is not part of the defn. Compare similar articles like Euthanasia or Lobotomy and note that they define first what it is, then discuss societal reaction to it. That's what we're doing here. Isn't that what a defn. should do? JJL (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia is a personal choice and by careful definition is voluntary and is clearly differentiated by "involuntary euthanasia". Back alley, forced and war crime abortions are all still "abortion" and have a part in its definition. Reactions, what are you talking about??? I / Wikipedia doesn't care if people dislike abortion, it is what it is. If viable abortions can happen, we acknowledge it and don't fall over ourselves with stillborn redefining of abortion by lawyers and statisticians. - RoyBoy 04:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Correction: I don't care right now. - RoyBoy 00:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia is by no means always voluntary. The second entry at List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims represents a common use of the term; it's also used when medical professionals withhold care to infants with severe birth abnormalities and in other involuntary cases (e.g., the Anna_Pou_case). The defn. at Euthanasia does not avoid that fact, as you seem to imply: it states that "Euthanasia...refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering." It doesn't state anything about voluntariness or consent. Medical procedures are given medical defns., since that defines what they are. The Wikipedia article should cover all significant aspects of the subject but they do not alter the defn. of the subject. It's how most other controversial medical procedures are handled here: First what they are, later how society reacts to them. The medical defn. is clear and of lawyers or others prefer to represent it another way due to their own interests that doesn't change what it is as a medical procedure. JJL (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't those defined in non-voluntary euthanasia, while euthanasia is not that? I do see the logical breakdown your demonstrating with that example, generalized non-technical first sentence, laws next paragraph (exception noted), types next paragraph, big picture last sentence. I'll hand it to you, one of your best examples I've come across... but the details reminds me why we need to tweak abortion. The first abortion sentence isn't generalized, its fairly specific, technical and requires a doctor's involved to classify viability. Euthanasia's first sentence doesn't commit those mistakes. Lobotomy does in a fashion, and should actually be rearranged; but the procedure is so specialized not a big deal... but you don't need to be a neurosurgeon to do it. - RoyBoy 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going by what I see in the articles here--I'm pointing to Wikipedia style. It does look like they break out non-voluntary and involuntary into their own articles as well and I don't know how well justified that may be by their sources. (It seems like a fairly fine distinction to me.) Of course, we've had somewhat similar discussions about spontaneous vs. interventional abortions here. I don't see viable as so very technical--a common term that has some standard indicators in the obstetric realm, as it's easy to state ("can live on its own outside the womb") but hard to prove--so I do see these as fairly similar treatments. I do agree that the first abortion sentence is very specific--a definition--and that that's not the only way one can go, but in these articles and ones on similarly contentious medical issues I see a common stylistic choice of leading with a defn. based on the medical procedure itself. I looked also at Electroconvulsive therapy, Sterilization (medicine) (with Compulsory sterilization broken out into its own article), Breast augmentation, even Homeopathy, which are all medical issues and all have critics to a greater or lesser extent, and I see a pattern. They use defns. that are not equivocal, and I still think we should do so too. It's important to discuss the whole subject in the article but leading with the standard defn. makes the most sense and fits stylistically, in my opinion. JJL (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, you're pointing to Wikipedia style of medical subjects, if the article was called "abortion (medicine)" you would be correct and I wouldn't have proposed this. I did not say viable was very technical, rather technical; yes it is a term in the obstetric realm, that's why its technical. Moreover it has differing meanings in various contexts, forcing the reader to differentiate which is ok (not ideal for first sentence) as we wikilink it. - RoyBoy 03:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Due weight has very little meaning here. Neither opinion is in the minority. There are major medical textbooks and statistical sources that define abortion as occurring only before viability. There are also prominent sources not making such restriction. To give due weight to both would mean either presenting both in the lead or leaving the viability definition out of the sentence entirely and moving it to a separate sentence, as I suggested in some of my other comments. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 17:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Abortion is a medical procedure--weight being given to medical sources is reasonable. That's part of how this lede came about last summer. JJL (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't understand your point. There are multiple medical sources (both OB/GYN textbooks and medical dictionaries) that say an abortion is only before viability. And then there are also multiple medical sources not stating such a restriction. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the former outnumber the latter to an overwhelmingly great extent--esp. among the WP:MEDRS preferred on Wikipedia--and the latter almost never contain an affirmative statement that abortions can occur post-viability. Hence due weight goes to the medical defn. as found in OB/GYN textbooks (expand the collapsed section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42 for example). JJL (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me explain my position on this issue. The reason this RFC was started was to add "usually" into the title to take into account the sources that don't specify the before-viability restriction. I came into this debate and am arguing against the change, because I believe, like you specifically say, that an overwhelming amount of sources do indeed specify that abortions only occur before viability. I must ask, after reading your last comment, when then are you in support of adding the word usually if most medical definitions do not mention abortions after viability? — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I too oppose adding "usually". Thanks for clarifying--I may have gotten a bit lost on where I was on this page! JJL (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, OK. I was confused for a second. It tends to happen on long debates such as this one. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * While I do not doubt that there are probably some sources that define abortion as any termination of a pregnancy, regardless of the time, there are significant sources, i.e., medical textbooks cited in the article already, that separate the definition, saying that if the pregnancy is terminated before viability it is an abortion, while if it is terminated after it is considered a birth. Simply adding the term "usually" into the sentence does not, in my opinion, properly cover the disputed definition. I would recommend removing the viability clause from the lead sentence entirely and moving it into a separate sentence briefly explaining the dispute in definition. For example (and don't use this exactly b/c I'm horrible at prose), "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus from the uterus. Many medical textbooks restrict the definition of an abortion to only instances when the fetus is not viable, while others define it as any expulsion of the fetus before proper childbirth. " — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That definition has been proposed several times in large lead discussions, defined in that way it includes live birth, as birth is the natural expulsion from the uterus. - RoyBoy 04:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, don't use my prose. I don't edit this article often as I'm simply a third party who saw the RFC and walked in. My point is that you should add a sentence explaining the dispute in definition rather than just inserting one word and giving readers the wrong idea about what you mean. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * speaks to this. It hinges on the ethical question of whether or not the fetus has become a patient.LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl! 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you see my point. I'm not trying to establish what the official definition of an abortion is, nor do I care whatsoever as to the answer to the ethical question of whether the fetus has become a patient or not. The point I'm trying to make is that there are very valid and reliable sources in the article that state an abortion is only called so when it is performed on a non-viable fetus. There are also very valid and reliable sources, as you pointed out, indicating the contrary. Which one of these is right? I don't know, nor do I have the expertise or authority to answer such a question. But regardless, so long as there are multiple significant reliable sources on both sides of the definition, then this article must cover them all. By adding the word "usually" (or any similar term), you are telling the reader that the correct definition of an abortion is any termination of pregnancy, but that it "usually" occurs before viability. This completely ignores the other sources that contradict this definition. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Parent, I get what you're saying and I think it is an excellent point. I'm in agreement with your suggestion.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the distinction needs to be made somewhere in the text (and I'm surprised it hasn't been previously), but I'm not sure that this level of clarity and balance precludes using "usually" in the lead as that one word isn't going to significantly influence the reader such that they will not be able to understand the distinction between the two different definitions once they read them. After-all, leaving it out caries an equal bias, since the sentence would then read that only pre-viable procedures qualify as abortions.  I guess we could try to do a census of sources to see which is more prominent, of course, but that strikes me as an endless debate. Snow (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, plenty of archives on that unicorn search. - RoyBoy 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * By putting the word "usually" in the latter clause of the sentence, you are implying that the definition of Abortion is defined as " the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo" and that abortions usually occur prior to viability. Consider the following: "Abortion is usually defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability." In this version, it implies that the definition is debated. I would not recommend this version for inclusion in the article as it is kind of awkward for a lead sentence, but comparing it with the suggested version illustrates my point. This is why I suggested in my previous comment to simply remove the viability clause entirely and move it to a second sentence. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Parent, took me some time to coalesce the threads of well presented thought you've pumped in - thanks BTW - had party obligations and now a tooth induced migraine, but I've held off until Advil kicked in. There's a key element in your structure, I believe, that is incorrect: "only called so when it is performed on a non-viable fetus". Those medical definitions are how they prefer it to be used -- as a bioethical guideline for their profession -- it does not constrain abortion, rather it tries to constrain doctors. The AMA, supreme court and whoever else looking at the big picture make clear there is no upper limit to abortion, and if you dig... historically there never was as "quickening" is not easily verifiable by a 3rd party. I'll be very interested in your counter.


 * As to the impact of "usually" grammar and implications, I hope "primarily" resolves those concerns... but my grammar is mediocre at the best of times so I could be wrong. Hopefully a local grammarian / lawyer can help on that. Moving viability around is a good move, but I've found it shifts the problem rather than resolving it and generates more ambiguity. - RoyBoy 03:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but are there any sources to support that? Because from what I can see, that may or may not be true. Looking at the sources in the article, the ''National Center for Health Statistics defines an "abortus" as "[a] fetus or embryo removed or expelled from the uterus during the first half of gestation—20 weeks or less, or in the absence of accurate dating criteria, born weighing < 500 g." They also define "birth" as "[t]he complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a fetus after 20 weeks' gestation. [...] in the absence of accurate dating criteria, fetuses weighing <500 g are usually not considered as births, but rather are termed abortuses for purposes of vital statistics."'' From that definition, it does seem they are making the separation for ethical purposes. From what I can tell, under that definition, sure you can perform a "late-term abortion" of sorts and abort a pregnancy after the fetus has become viable, but if you do the term for it is birth, not abortion. While it may be true that this definition is made for ethical reasons, we cannot assume that is true. There needs to be a source saying so. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 12:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious even the statisticians have to make use of "usually" to delineate their datasets, which is about tracking trends, one way to accomplish that is to label late-abortion a birth to break out datasets... indeed bioethical consideration seems front and center. No need for assumption, whatever the actual reason(s), the medical definition does not match the legal scope / definition, nor the reality. The current lead is already making assumptions of what abortion is: a procedure done in a clinic, by a medical doctor bound by best-practices and guidelines laid out by their peers and associations. It's inaccurate / incomplete. From a source perspective, one need only show a single RS that differs. The AMA appears to qualify. - RoyBoy 04:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is in fact the definition--that others use it imprecisely, if that's the case, isn't the issue. This is what the term means. It's also not clear to me that we can parse "late-term abortions" into its parts and conclude they constitute a subset of abortions--e.g., it's arguable whether a "killer whale" should be considered an example of a whale. Let the lede stand and let's move on to other things. JJL (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't using it imprecisely, there is more than one definition; and other definitions should not / cannot be ignored simply because happen to be not medical, besides the AMA seems unambiguous on what third trimester termination procedures can be called: "... abortions not be performed ...". Yes, the consistency of medical definitions is alluring, but it's blatantly a mirage to think this can define abortion in its entirety. - RoyBoy 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have read all of the opinions and I oppose a change at this time. I find JJL's arguments convincing and I believe that Parent offers some interesting new insights. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Feedback appreciated Snow. I would reply, in the 2011 lead discussion it was noted post-viable abortions still occur. I brought back this topic for other reasons. The arbitration stemming from 2011 emphasized the lead should reflect the article, which refers to late-term abortions, so it seems inaccurate to declare all abortions non-viable. My POV is, abortion isn't constrained to a clinic, backstreet and forced abortion occur and in some regions is the norm. - RoyBoy 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question What sources do we have that support the addition of "usually"? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms" J Pregnancy. 2010;2010:130519. Epub 2010 Aug 1. is the first large article I came across, provides other studies on late term abortion. Are you asking the simpler question of what supports the prose? - RoyBoy 03:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for sources that mention post-viability abortions. The sourced linked does not (nor does it satisfy WP:RS). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain why "3rd trimester (25–36 weeks) abortions" needs to be more explicit to support this clarification, granted they are predominantly done on fetus' with anomalies, but are you or by logical extension the medical community asserting every abortion performed is on a non-viable fetus? I believe the correct question is, what source states all abortions are pre-viable. There is already an assertion in the lead, I'd like it fixed. As distasteful as the "death" version was, it had the advantage of being simple. I skimmed this JAMA article, it was educational on viability jurisprudence and AMA recommendations. They didn't draw up those recommendations out of boredom. - RoyBoy 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Are you averse to something more specific that "usually" (i.e. "primarily")? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "primarily" is a much better fit, "usually" came to mind from Britannica. - RoyBoy 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ArtifexMayhem, does that mean you support the motion? - RoyBoy 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Like Parent, and for partly the same reasons, I oppose the suggestion because it simply makes a woolly statement of an inaccurate statement in an already woolly field of arbitrary definitions, counter-definitions and redefinitions. The title of the article is "Abortion". Like another RFC respondent, I have not visited this one before, and my immediate response was that the article does not earn its title; it deals largely with human abortion, with a nod in the direction of mammalian abortion in general in the form of a casual afterthought. In biology and in general usage the term has far wider meanings and these should be reflected in the lede and in an introductory section. If I thought it would be welcome I would proceed to supply these wants immediately, and if so invited I shall proceed to draft something, but as the situation stands there is the RFC to finalise first, so I shall hang fire unless invited (which I comfortably expect will not happen). But within the context of the RFC, I cannot support the proposed change, not because I disagree with the intent, but because the proposed wording is worse than the current, already unacceptable, wording and structure, and because no trivial rewording of the definition will suffice.JonRichfield (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing what you have in mind if you want to throw together a draft and copy it to a subpage/sandbox here. It can't hurt to consider a fresh approach. Assuming you feel it's worth your time, given how contentious the issue of actually changing anything in this article could become; hell, at present we're having an RfC on a single word and none of us seems to have stopped to think how odd that is!  Still, I think you have a point about needing broader commentary on the biological process(es) at large and would like to see what you have in mind. Snow (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, having shot off my big mouth, I guess I asked for it. The contentiousness of the field is another reason I did not just jump in straight away. Frankly, I suggest that we look at either a separate article for Abortion and renaming this article (most of it anyway) to something like "Human abortion" or "Artificial pregnancy termination" or the like. (Calling it "Medical" or "voluntary" abortion is likely to leave us all at sea in "Yet Another Controversial Hostile Tangle".) However, I'll have a go. Probably be back sometime tomorrow if no one beats me to it. JonRichfield (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The branching of the Abortion article has been proposed several times before but is stifled quickly with WP:common usage. Does your analysis change by using "primarily" instead of "usually"? I'll be interested to see what you come up with, but I have a sense of going down this road before, as being technically accurate to a subject is not always the priority for a reference work. (see: Abortion) However, the article likely can benefit from some informative generalization. - RoyBoy 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, changing the word to "primary" does not affect my argument above in the Oppose section. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lot to be said for branching the article but alas no specific proposal has ever gained much support. JJL (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for taking longer than intended, and I have not yet finished, but then I am not really trying to produce a finished product (for obvious reasons). If I understand how these this work, anyone interested can have a look in on User:JonRichfield/abortest. It contains what I propose as the new lede, plus another section or two dealing largely with material that was not there before. I have avoided fiddling too much with the existing (human abortion) text, though I have done a little editing. What used to be the lede is now a separate section, and what used to be its subsections would need to be adjusted to lower levels to fit in (I have not fiddled with them.) This is not yet a serious proposal, but possibly it could serve as the basis for some useful discussion. Over. JonRichfield (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and incidentally, I note that the wording I propose would negate the problem that gave rise to this RFC. JonRichfield (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't see User:JonRichfield/abortest being broadly implemented, I think sections 1 and 2 could be put in abortion almost as is, as a bit of a broad overview before Types. - RoyBoy 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it isn't clear by my previous statements, I would oppose the above proposal as initially put forth. I am sympathetic to RoyBoy's comments though, and am wondering if there isn't another way to go about things. Using "primarily" instead of "usually" is one way that I am not entirely averse to, but I'm wondering if there aren't others. If we include primarily, we should certainly include a comment in the notes section explaining why we did so, as a reader might be confused as to why our definition includes that caveat when the OED does not. Jon Richfield's way is a little too...something. Not really sure what I dislike about it, maybe just the time it takes to get to the main topic? It has potential though.  NW  ( Talk ) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're thinking "a little too..." much like a dictionary, which would be convenient given your OED mention. A quick look at that definition and it specifies (Med.) context for independent survival, we have a larger scope. Is the concise definition different? As it refers to only natural abortions as occurring prior survival. It would be prudent to note abortions can happen in a variety of circumstances. - RoyBoy 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Close
Well it has been a month, the bot's done its template removal, I'll add "primarily" to the lead now. - RoyBoy 04:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's late, but I've done up a draft to add to the notes section for the lead sentence.


 * Primarily (legally)

As late-term abortions can enter a "gray zone" of viability, it cannot be certain all are non-viable. The Supreme Court has struck down provisions requiring doctors to exercise life preserving care to a potentially viable fetus', "because it could be construed to require the mother to bear an increased medical risk in order to save her viable fetus." JAMA Few nations put an upper gestational limit to abortion. [reference exists?] Also, illegal and back-alley abortions do not have the same ethical boundaries and guidelines as medical professionals and may abort viable fetus'. [insert nice reference here]

- RoyBoy 05:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus has yet to be established on this issue, there are multiple people who still oppose the proposal, and you have yet to provide a counter-argument to the numerous points I have made. Furthermore, do not mark edits such as the one you just made as minor. Closing this RFC is in no way a minor edit. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been established. I have answered every point you raised, they may not be to your satisfaction but I am not a mind reader, reply or stand aside. My replies are outstanding since mid-July, even the bot got bored. One word edits for me tend to be minor, I'll admit the discussion / context may warrant otherwise, but I'll continue to decide that thanks! The lead was significantly changed (more than 1 qualifying word) by an straw poll of 48 hours with 10 supporting change and 6 oppose, then again even the tally was contentious.


 * Given you've been engaging I'm willing hear you out, but I gotta say IMO what you just pulled is not good faith. Where are your replies, what is outstanding? - RoyBoy 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't find this RFC very convincing given the small numbers on both sides. It would've been nice to have it closed with some sort of recommendation. JJL (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please tone down your attitude. I apologize if I cannot reply promptly to every Wikipedia discussion I get involved in. Like many other editors, I have a life outside of Wikipedia that takes priority, and it is far from uncommon for myself and other editors to be forced away from the Internet for a while to handle IRL issues. And taking a "reply or stand aside" stance on consensus is destructive and unreasonable. Just because I don't respond for a little while doesn't mean my arguments are any less applicable or that your arguments are any less fallacious. Finally, you may realize that this debate has other people other than myself, many of whom also brought up arguments against your proposal and oppose it. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. When people do a bad job I let them know; and I expect the same coming back. This is about me? You can revert my edit in the article space in less than 24hrs, but think you can coast for weeks on the RfC? Hey, life happens, we all have things happening and even prefer to take breaks for days / weeks at a time, give us a heads up and it's amazing... we'll wait. Don't even try that "I don't respond for a little while", unlike other editors I do not rush edits on key articles. Had I genuinely thought there were outstanding issues I wouldn't have closed the RfC. - RoyBoy 04:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem quite able to speak up for yourself, however I'd like to mention that at times RoyBoy is a difficult editor to work with. Even though I believe that I have made a reasonable contribution to help this group work towards a compromise with this very difficult article, he stated to me a couple of months ago, "My feedback is I think you should recuse yourself (Gandydancer) from the abortion lead, and JJL as well. Not simply because we disagree, but good faith notwithstanding, you're bad at it.".  He should realize that as an admin his words and opinions may hold more weight (not necessarily deserved) than that of others, at least to someone that may be new to Wikipedia--and even to me, someone who's been around the block a few times.  How exactly does one offer a comeback to "you're bad at it" without drifting into unconstructive "well you're even badder" drama?  Gandydancer (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what "you're bat at it" even means. Bad at arguing? Bad at making points? Unless you're violating some sort of conduct policy, neither of these reasons are legitimate enough to require recusal from an argument. Just because somebody's bad at debating (and this is, of course, assuming you actually are bad at debating, which is probably not the case) does not mean they're all of a sudden not allowed to speak. If you have an opinion in this proposal, feel free to speak it. And as far as being an administrator goes, as long as RoyBoy is involved in this argument, it is policy that he not act as an administrator. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 14:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed you cannot know because no context was provided, not helpful, and when editors aren't being helpful I can be "difficult". They were being bad at, and being too bold on, the lead of a high visibility controversial lead. Slowing things down works to everyone's advantage, even if some don't immediately see it that way. - RoyBoy 04:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * RoyBoy the fact of the matter is that I never, not once, made any bold or otherwise changes in the lede of this article. IMO there may be a history of treating editors that are new to this article, such as myself, in an inferior manner.  I'd like to see it stopped. Gandydancer (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to take your point on this, I hear a KillerChihuahua in my head right now. I'd like many things stopped: going through points / debates for the nth time, especially when already addressed; complex examples that have little to do with the original point; being bold rather than careful; same editors making the same mistakes (this includes me). Yes yes, fair hearing and welcoming etc... but this is an established high traffic article, with it there can be unfair expectations of new editors, especially if they engage some of the challenging / nuanced parts of the article. - RoyBoy 03:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

New Proposal
I have a new proposal. For those who don't want to go searching for my comments, here's a summary of what I've deduced: And here are the points I have made: With these points in mind, here were the objections I made to the original proposal of adding "usually" or "primarily" to the lead sentences: Because of these points, I am making a new proposal that maintains NPOV in the lead by representing both of these definitions. Note that my intention is NOT to argue whether either of the definitions is "right" (in any sense of the word), but rather just to point out the fact that both definitions exist and are supported by reliable sources. Here is my proposed lead: "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, defined in some sources as only occurring before viability and in others without such a restriction." In addition to this, a more explanatory version of the conflict can be added to a section in the article. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple, significant, reliable sources that define abortion as only before viability.
 * There are multiple, significant, reliable sources that define abortion as any intentional termination of pregnancy.
 * The concept of an abortion is different and separate from abortion procedures, i.e., the procedures used to trigger an abortion. In other words, you can perform abortion procedures without the result being an abortion.
 * Under the first definition above, abortion procedures may be performed at any time (as there is no physical or medical restriction preventing doctors from doing so), but the result is only considered an abortion if it is before viability.
 * Under the second definition above, any successful performance of abortion procedures is considered an abortion.
 * Because both of these definitions are valid and supported by reliable sources, and both of these definitions are not minority opinions, there is a conflict in the definition of an abortion.
 * In order to maintain NPOV, both of these different definitions must be represented neutrally.
 * The proposed lead of "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo primarily prior to viability." is grammatically and logically equivalent to "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo. Abortions primarily occur prior to viability."
 * The above sentence only represents the second definition of abortion. A more proper version would be "Abortion is usually defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability." In this version, the presence of conflict in the definition is represented.


 * Ah, so you are still hung up on the grammar. Well I don't believe we should try to make the lead into a disambiguation of definitions that gets even further away from what abortion is, and rather segways into compartmentalized definitions. Moreover, if the previous RfC is ongoing (as you see it), we conclude that rather than start another. If the previous RfC is done then reinstate my edit to the article space and this RfC can proceed normally. As to "the result is only considered an abortion if it is before viability" is a medical preference and statistical line in the sand. If the intent is to abort, the D&X procedure doesn't magically morph into a delivery because the fetus was more viable than previously thought. I concede it would if doctors were required to provide best care to a plausibly viable fetus -- but they are not. It is a nifty point, but it isn't winning the day. - RoyBoy 04:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the edit history, I was not the one who added the RFC template, and an RFC is not some sort of enforcing process. Just because the bot removed the template doesn't mean discussion is automatically closed and one side wins. As for the argument at hand, you must provide a source explicitly showing that the medical textbooks are indeed indicating preference rather than definition. And your penultimate sentence is exactly the point I'm countering: a D&X procedure does become a birth if the provided sources specify it so. In any case, under any circumstances, at the end of a pregnancy, no matter how or why the pregnancy ended, the result is a fetus/embryo/infant being expelled from the uterus in some way, shape, or form. This is an axiom of the topic at hand. The conflict is merely what to name such process of being expelled. Some sources say that this generic process is called an abortion if the termination of pregnancy was intentional. Other sources say it is only called an abortion if the fetus is not viable, otherwise it is called a birth. You're making an unnecessary tie between the name ("abortion") and the process ("expelled from the fetus"). — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 16:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been quite a while since I've had a reply so infuriating at the beginning (I didn't take my cue from the bot, rather the bot punctuating a dying RfC) and pretty decent after that. As we both now agree the RfC is still ongoing, let us continue.
 * I agree "stillbirth" is how they define it, but with the AMA making clear 3rd trimester abortions need guideline clarification; it is plain even from the medical standpoint abortion has no upper limit. I was confident on the legal definition alone there was a need to tweak the abortion definition (as professional medicine works within the legal framework), with the AMA it's a bit of a lock. I cannot reference my characterization of the medical definition, nor am I defending it, I'm demonstrating / defending the complex nature of the abortion definition. Can we handle legal reality in the next sentence ("abortion has no upper limit"), I guess, but now you are again making the first sentence the "medical" definition by virtue of it being different. Again, avoiding a diambig in the lead is preferred.
 * As to unnecessary tie, perhaps you are making that error. The concept of abortion is not tied to viability, the medical profession does this for its induced abortion (yes I know it applies to spontaneous as well, but that's not the intent of their bioethical judgement). Speaking for myself, an abortion can occur and the fetus is reabsorbed into the host, so literally speaking I don't see expelled as being needed. But, I'm not sure I understand what "unnecessary tie" error I'm making, if I didn't address it please do elaborate. - RoyBoy 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep making the argument that "abortions past viability do occur, therefore that must be the definition", but this is begging the question. Saying "I invited a lot of people to my house and had fun" is different from saying "I hosted a party". One can only be connected to the other through the definition of the word "party". The same goes for abortions. Saying "a doctor performed abortion procedures" or saying "my unborn baby died because of abortion procedures" is only the same as saying "I had an abortion" iff the definition connects the to. And the argument I'm trying to make is that the definition of abortion doesn't necessarily connect the word to it's supposed definition. If abortion is defined as only occurring before viability, then it is physically and theoretically impossible to have an abortion after viability. It's not legally disallowed, or ethically condemned, but denotatively impossible. And as has been shown, there are indeed sources that define abortion as occurring only before viability, thus under some sources there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion. Of course there are other sources that say otherwise, but we cannot simply ignore some sources per NPOV. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the medical definition of abortion, it was asserted and well argued for in the last lead debate. Does not make it complete. Agreed, we cannot simply ignore some sources, hence my proposal. Parent, can you establish gestational limits on legalized extractions? How about illegal extractions? Because Wikipedia seems to assert there is. - RoyBoy 03:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that the lead as originally proposed in this RFC did ignore source by stating that the definition of an abortion has no restrictions on viability, when in fact the definition sometimes does and sometimes doesn't have viability restrictions, depending on the source. Because there are some definitions that do restrict viability (medical) and some that do not (legal/etc.), both must be represented. That is the purpose for the newly revised lead sentence above, which clearly and explicitly notifies the reader that the definition is not clearly defined. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good approach. I've been concerned about our very US-focused notion of the definitions for a long time.  There's a lot of "but it's illegal to abort a viable fetus..." above to which I say:  China.  It is illegal to abort a viable fetus in the US (and much of Europe) unless there is a significant risk to the mother.  Illegal in some places and some circumstances is not the same thing as "illegal"—just like "illegal" is not the same thing as "never done".  Noting the divergence in equally valid definitions, especially if that divergence gives us a better representation of the whole world, is appropriate and helpful to the reader.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly second this perspective. There's no reason why the nebulous nature of the definition should not be noted up front.  So, just as an example, something along the lines of:
 * Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.  In this context, abortion is usually [or "often"?], but not exclusively, used to refer to procedures conducted prior to viability of the fetus.[note 1]; whether the term is an appropriate one to describe procedures which are performed post-viability is a matter of considerable ongoing debate.
 * or, alternatively, the last statement could read.
 * ;the use of the term to describe procedures which are performed post-viability is a matter of considerable variation and debate across a wide variety of cultural and medical contexts.
 * These are just two examples of how the subject could be approached to allow both sides' definitions to be covered and which, more importantly, makes the contentious nature of the issue apparent to the reader. Inclusive accuracy should clearly be taking precedence over certitude in this case, so what's with the acrimony here guys? When two sides both feel so passionately on the matter and can both site sources to support their arguments at length, that's a clear indication that both perspectives (and the debate existing between their proponents) ought to be represented. Snow (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That last paragraph of your reply: the exact point I've been trying to make. I agree entirely, although I prefer the second example you used. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing can you refer me to these viability laws? I am under the impression there are few if any jurisdictions that have an enforceable upper limit to abortion.


 * Snow, I'm trying to avoid that scenario; not only because it is longer and more confusing, but I'd maintain there isn't a debate. In a clinical (statistical) context they will use it one way (and separate stillbirths), medically another (AMA), and legally another. Each has its scope and function but there is no adversarial discussion or confusion occurring. Noting there are differences is relevant and notable, but I'm still skeptical it has to laid out immediately in the first paragraph, rather than a sub-section called Definition. - RoyBoy 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't think you can have it both ways; if you want to include "usually", you are opening that door yourself. In any event, I disagree that the term is as concrete as you suggest it is in any of the three contexts cited.   But even if the term were set within each sphere of influence (legal, medical, ect.) -- which I'd personally not concede -- then it would still be a case of missing the forest for the trees to suggest that it's not controversial, as the debate here (and the abundant sources referenced) clearly demonstrates.   If for no other reason than because we do not employ exclusively clinical (or legal, or otherwise technical) sources on this article.   All that being said, I'm 50-50 on whether the mention of the debate belongs in the lead or later; but I feel that if you're going to include the fact that cases involving viable fetuses are sometimes considered abortions by some in the lead, then this point needs some minimal clarification as to the social context and variability of that use.  I don't see how that would be particularly confusing to the reader and it surely doesn't make the lead particularly long.  I have to go with the same principle I noted when first supporting your proposed change; there are a massive number of sources that support the variability of the term, therefore it should be adequately reflected in the structure of our commentary here.  Snow (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, maybe Parent is hipper than I thought... I'm feeling you on most of this, but cannot quite buy into the definition as being controversial. Our discussion here demonstrates controversy on prioritization even philosophy of a Wiki lead. I'm being consciously generalist (based on my understanding of Wikipedia), others see selecting medical def as logical (main category), even necessary (weight of defs). The forest I see is WP:Style or more basically encyclopedic style, not so much the definitions. As to "viable fetuses are sometimes considered abortions by some", I'd go back to my argument that medical procedures are done within a legal framework. If that framework does not have a gestational limit (WhatamIdoing says there are) on abortion (where legal) then I still think there is no need to explain the medical vs legal definitions.
 * Perhaps I need a thought experiment / real world example, of doctor(s) performing potentially viable extractions (abortions, as they do not attempt intensive care). Do they get censured for not confining themselves to the medical def / guideline? Are / were there legal consequences? If it is no on both, I'd reassert there is no controversy regarding the definition. Add to this, where abortion is illegal or performed in a back-alley, there is less rigor / expertise on viability. This further expands the sphere that requires differentiation and explanation... and may push your current 50-50 in a direction. "primarily" covers all of this in one word, and it (or a note) can link to a sub-section that lays it out. - RoyBoy 04:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoken article?
I'm considering doing a spoken article of abortion, and thought I'd give you all a chance to talk me out of it (for example, if someone's planning on doing some major rewriting in the next week or two).

It is a relatively high-edit article, but I think its importance (and the relative triviality of these edits -- it's not as though abortion itself is changing) outweighs that inconvenience. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Things have been pretty calm lately. Jinx. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur now that unsafe abortion parenthetical removed (after I updated my section 0 javascript, love it!), I would suggest recording the lead last as "usually" might be added. - RoyBoy 20:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh. It'll be easy enough to edit and I need a diversion.  I'm going for it.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an involved project, given the length of the article. Props to you for the initiative! Snow (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why despite new technology....
The info in the bar graphs below as you scroll through the article, ...are of ones in 2004 only?! NEED NEW MATERIAL here!!! Alot has changed in the eight to nine years since...!

Thanx. Wikiuser92612 (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a CDC 2008 report  Nothing more recent seems to exist. Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After viability
I think it would be honest to mention the late termination of pregnancy in the lead, which may occur after viability. The forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, for example, occurred somewhat beyond the viability's upper bound, at 7 months. It has been also noted that "abortion is legal in the United States without condition before the fetus is viable". Brandmeistertalk  19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions
Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions

LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer

Updated 12:37 a.m., Friday, October 5, 2012

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Study-Free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-3924284.php

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Study-Free-birth-control-leads-to-fewer-abortions-3919766.php

--Ocdnctx (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Breast cancer hypothesis - 1980s/90s, any link > causal link
Hello's MastCell! Liked most of the tweaks, inspired my re-redo of last sentence, now shorter and contains exact pro-life go to phrase; should help redirect more peeps to Wikipedia on the topic. Win-Win! ABC associations aren't confined to any decade, I understand trying to relegate it to the past; as a narrative it's informative and largely accurate... just not completely so.

"any link" is completely wrong, I'd ask you again to stop making declarative statements... and no it isn't in the scientific links to even synth, a few opinion pieces say as much, but *chuckle* those aren't very good. Even the NCI workshop acknowledges positive findings, but ignores / explains them away. This of course does not excise them from reality, please try to keep that in mind. I will give you much credit for waiting for my re-interest in the abortion article space, so I won't even feign annoyance; however for old times sake I can muster it up. - RoyBoy 03:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I can live with those edits. And in the spirit of reciprocity, I'll even let slide your denigration of the NCI consensus statement. MastCell Talk 03:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * LOLz, *thick Russian accent* Gud one! Yeah, give me a strong cider (or three) and I can do lots o'NCI analysis/ranting, but I doubt it'd match the NCI response bias thread in ABC talk. Any other abortion areas that need a second look? I see the Art section has matured a bit. 👍 - RoyBoy 04:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not but we can always try:) —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To NW, while I don't prefer the "have" implication, it is helpful and quite accurate. Good move again, good move. - RoyBoy 04:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mastcell's rhetorical question
"i don't see why these apparently non-existent risks should receive such disproportionate coverage compared to acutal risks", because Mastcell, actual risks have sub-articles. We are summarizing here, ya'know? The ABC section can be further summarized, without doing a crap hack job on it. Hiding the sub-article under "does not cause breast cancer" is my fav. Lack scientific support is mostly true (however some scientists do support it) so it is not true, also implies has no positive findings which misleads the reader. This doesn't reflect reality, and your re-expansion of orgs names is disproportionate to the now very small section and appears malevolent and more gratuitous than usual. - RoyBoy 05:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the non-existent risks also have sub-articles, so I don't see the distinction you're drawing in your first sentence. "Some scientists support..." isn't really going to cut it; after all, "some scientists support" AIDS denialism, creationism, 9/11 trutherism, and the existence of glowing extraterrestrial raccoons. The question is whether the relevant community of experts supports a hypothesis, and here they don't. I'm impressed by your ability to infer my motivation, but you're off-base. The reader deserves to clearly understand the weight of expert scientific opinion on the subject - particularly given the prevalence of online misinformation. The best way to accomplish this is to attribute the view that abortion does not cause breast cancer - hence the listing of organizations which hold that view. If you know of any major national or international organizations which hold opposite views, we could of course list those as well. MastCell Talk 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I did say "appears", less inferring motivation and more observing the result. The result being a summarization of a topic with semi-interesting results, critiques, politics and even science can be best explained by listing associations? Their conclusion is the most relevant bit, not taking over the section with their names.


 * You've made the parallel with junk science previously, and as before I point out ABC has findings by scientists / experts in the relevant field; with you know, peer reviewed published research on this specific topic. Criticized research yes, but actual science nonetheless with its flaws and unknowns that cut across all research. This isn't truly reflected in your examples, try to avoid painting with such a broad brush... things get lost in the mix. ABC could be junk science, if the mechanism was found to be wrong. It hasn't, the best we've found is a hypothesis that a hormone at an early stage may counteract the known risks of hormones on immature breast tissue.


 * We are in agreement on the crucial point, readers do deserve a clear understanding, and to see the weight of scientific consensus. You focus on the latter and sacrifice the former, when no sacrifice is necessary. The reader should be told there have been associations. This is important in several respects, context (especially historical), prepares them for the mixed results that do exist, but in the end gives the current consensus; this narrative is a complete picture. Situating ABC as "lack scientific support", provides no context, lops it in with mental health assertions, confuses a reader when they see science supporting it, and directly implies anti-abortionist fabricated ABC from the beginning... rather than latching onto it after the initial research.


 * Your edit is so out to lunch, I'm reverting it... and considering reinstating the hypothesized mechanism and shortening the associations list. But I'd only do the latter if a 3rd party also said it was too long in relation to the shorter ABC section. That is my concern, I'm not trying to hide it from the reader, just strike a balance in the complex section you insist is simple and should be dominated by a list. I honestly don't know the weight ABC should have on abortion, that's why I've gone along with several downsizing's of the section, from a full lead copy to a small paragraph, but I get the sense you are not the person to decide it. Also, to remind you having "abortion breast cancer link" in the section helps bring more readers here to read about it, but its in the sub-article so not a priority. RoyBoy 02:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed the mains to see also's, if you don't want sub-articles interrupting the section, we can reinstate the sub-section headers. We shouldn't bury sub-article links in the section, at worst linking it to nearly identical text is ok. Or we can just link it to our preferred conclusion again and get..., no wait, that's an irresponsible and blatantly POV thing to do. Overemphasize animal studies? It is literally one word in the section. The conclusion they aren't analogous / pertinent to human breasts is fine, but that is part of the context of early ABC research. I appreciate you're trying to make a weight determination on its scientific merit, that's not required here, what is needed is informing the reader about ABC. And no, opening a section with "lack scientific support" on a topic that has some (qualified published support, and mixed results in studies your own associations refer to), then associating it with mental health that is not identically marginal / unsupported scientifically; is a disservice to science, Wikipedia and our readers. - RoyBoy 02:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You and I have been having this same argument since 2006, and I'm not going to rehash it. From where I sit, it's really simple. The scientific community's view could not be clearer: abortions don't cause breast cancer. Every credible medical and scientific authority agrees on that. We have a responsibility to clearly convey that reality to the reader. Period. You can go on to your heart's content about the 1980 rodent studies suggesting an association, but that level of detail is appropriate for the spin-off article abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. When we pull back to give a brief capsule summary, we need to convey current scientific opinion, and we can't pretend that a mouse study from 1980 should land on equal footing with a mountain of current clinical data from humans. I'm not going to revert; this article is, after all, subject to 1RR. But I'm not happy with this - it strikes me as another instance where your personal unwillingness to concede to the scientific community's viewpoint is warping our coverage - and I'd like some additional opinions. MastCell Talk 04:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with MastCell. It is consensus that we do not use primary / old research in an attempt to refute secondary sources that are recently published. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Refute? How are you possibly interpreting it this way?! Yikes. You have suggested association on one hand, and causal link on another. They aren't even equivalent statistical conclusions let alone scientific rigor that MastCell thinks I need to hear repeatedly. It bares repeating, epidemiology doesn't age nearly as quickly as many other fields. - RoyBoy 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on primary research the Jasen ref MastCell and I both like contains most of what is required. (the Discover article can speak more directly on the animal model) You think me a fool? Oh, you do as you reverted my edit! Ahhhh, but you just didn't like my "see also" choice, and everything else you saw as completely valid, required and sourced? :") Maybe not? Too bad. - RoyBoy 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by suggesting the "ABC link" has even a modicum of scientific support outside its very few activist supporters is not aligned with the policies of this project. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 things wrong there. There is scientific support for an ABC 1) association outside the activists, 2) Wikipolicy requires us to note it with appropriate weight, even in a stripped down paragraph. I expected shots like this, but not from you and Doc... kind of depressing. - RoyBoy 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Um, no there isn't. Not any more than there is for ID or the Flat earth - a few kooks don't challenge scientific consensus in any meaningful way. and 2) since there isn't, then we don't. We don't have Flat earth mentioned on Earth, and we don't mention ID on Evolution. Not as any sort of valid alternate view - Evolution has a one-liner dismissing both Creationism and ID, and Earth mentions Flat earth twice, both times in an historical perspective. If we mention this at all, it must be to make it clear that it isn't real. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Howe (1989) are not kooks and even though they correctly found their data set inconclusive, they did believe further study was needed. By mere fact 1 study was published on the ABC subject makes it relevant to present scientific background on ABC, and comparisons to ID are ill-informed. Are you aware of a published scientific study on ID? I'm not. Moreover JNCI editorials discussing the ABC topic, mixed results, response bias, and the need for cohort studies doesn't jive with the status of flat Earth. The short reply is Daling after 3 studies, with the third looking for significant response bias, came to the conclusion there was evidence of an association (not a link).
 * 2) There is and so we do. What is getting me mighty miffed at this point, is even to take your side of the argument and say: in the end ABC is not the reality according to modern large studies and the scientific consensus. Reader: I'm unclear, why were expensive modern large studies and establishment of a consensus necessary in the first place? Wikipedia in abortion: No reason. Reader: Oh... okay, that wasn't terribly informative.
 * Without historic context the story told is incomplete. You can weight it and emphasize it (almost :') as much as you wish, like listing every org you can to overload the section. But removing the context will mislead the reader into believing ABC is simply an anti-abortion tactic, misleading the reader doesn't jive with NPOV. I could agree the ABC link is, but not ABC in its entirety. - RoyBoy 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the top-level article on abortion - there's a lot of ground to cover, and there will necessarily be less context about minor issues. I get that this is an area of great personal interest to you, but we can't base the article emphases on your personal priorities. We outline quite a few risks associated with abortion, and we generally don't go into a lot of detail about the preclinical and animal studies underlying them. I don't see why this should be a special case - other than the fact that one particularly tenacious editor has made it sort of a pet project. If readers are interested in the 30-year-old mouse studies that led the scientific community to investigate the hypothesis, they can certainly click on the bluelink for more information. That's Wikipedia's strength. MastCell Talk 21:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may concur if we were talking about a paragraph (or the original ABC footprint here). This involves one word for rats and a sentence who's overall focus is on decades of clinical research, not preclinical. Personal priorities... yeah, well I cannot be as pure as you by selectively ignoring decades of contested science because it's not in line with the consensus I prefer. As to strength, I'd emphasize our summary style yet complete articles. So you believe this completeness shouldn't be reflected in top-level articles? Such exceptional-ism can be considered a personal priority. To be clear, I'll be reverting it back today without the "see also" / "main article" given even I'm doubtful it deserves a sub-section, and perhaps without the word animal as that is a very small part of the ABC story... but you seem content to remove the entire sentence as a result. Quite balanced of you. - RoyBoy 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, is the current debate solely over the question of whether the breast cancer hypothesis article deserves a "see main article" link? If so, I'm inclined to agree with MastCell on this one; the article is already linked in the text covering the debate and, as theory theory thoroughly debunked by the scientific community at large (and largely lacking any social traction in general), it deserves no special priority here.  If, however, the debate is on whether the description of the 1980 study and it's resulting debate should be included, then my opinion is that it should; it generated significant commentary for a time and the current wording makes it clear that the scientific community holds the theory in low regard and I feel its inclusion in the section is appropriate.  Snow (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My priority is on the latter, of prelim research providing necessary context and the ensuing large studies (why were they necessary?) / anti-abortion frenzy (why and in what context did it happen?). You are verifiably incorrect on "thoroughly debunked by the scientific community" if that encompasses ABC association. Actually it's also wrong on ABC link as well, given my mechanism reiteration above.
 * I very interested and curious on your further opinions. The ABC issue may have ironically become notable, in part, because of the Bush administration NCI website messing about and the ensuing workshop. Is that, in conjunction with its media coverage in the late 90's early 2000's sufficient to give it back a sub-header? I'd argue it is (coupled with it notably skirting the limits of epidemiology), but at the same time my non-expert opinion (on mental health) is its pretty much as notable as the mental health tactic of anti-abortion... and if it can't qualify, then maybe ABC cannot either. - RoyBoy 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Authority is Wikipedia's priority as well, but not the only priority as Snow points out. Moreover, this isn't just about authority as there are credible, independent sources that do not agree. There are results within reliable studies that do not agree! You seem to place more weight in crap OpEd's (the only sources I know of stipulating "every authority agrees") over those being more precise on link vs association and providing a complete picture. Wikipedia is about the complete picture.
 * The mouse is reflected in one word, "animal", how you interpret "association" as equal footing is confusing. Did you and Doc drink from the same Kool-aid? To give benefit of the doubt, benign lesions were similar or higher, but carcinogenesis was not seen to be higher in aborted rats. But that clarification would be giving equal coverage, which we don't want. One word is ok, the rest is about early studies like Howe etc.
 * I am unwilling to let someone who cannot (or possibly worse, refuses) provide basic context, and has allowed media coverage to warp their summary of an interesting topic as if there was only two sides! You almost have some of the best editors in this article space convinced. I'm optimistic it won't take them 5-6 years to appreciate that while the ABC link has been refuted by the scientific consensus, this does not translate to the ABC hypothesis / association / mechanism. - RoyBoy 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in total agreement with you on additional opinions. - RoyBoy 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Representation of sources
Explain to me how: accurately represents Jasen, the first reference cited.
 * no mention of studies with ABC associations (and their criticism)
 * repeating "promoted by anti-abortion groups" twice in a short paragraph

Then explain how "investigated extensively" is more informative and offers better context vs "Subsequent large clinical studies failed to show a causal link". I suggest doing that prior to reverting me. - RoyBoy 03:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
I'm reverting the content closer to how it was prior to MastCell's off-kilter and what remains unsubstantiated changes. Ze / they should clarify their change(s) from the previous status quo. Their version has been up for a time simply as my Wiki time has been less, however the discussion above remains open, or complete depending on your perspective. - RoyBoy 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the above discussion as offering substantial support, and arguably consensus, in favor of the changes I made. I understand that you're trying to re-frame the dispute by being rhetorically aggressive, but I don't see what's substantively changed since August. I don't think that unilaterally restoring your preferred version in the face of the discussion above, along with a set of demands, is a productive next step, but that's your call, I suppose.
 * As to the substantive questions:
 * I think that a brief summary is appropriate for this top-level article. Individual clinical trials - particularly older studies whose findings have been superseded and are no longer considered particularly relevant - are best discussed in our massive sub-article on abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.
 * "Promoted by anti-abortion groups" is obviously a major thrust of the cited sources, but if you'd rather it were mentioned once instead of twice that would be fine, I guess.
 * "Subsequent large clinical studies failed to show a causal link" is not my idea of readily accessible language for a general-audience encyclopedia. "Investigated extensively" is more concise and, I think, easier to parse.
 * Were there other specific content changes you had concerns about? MastCell Talk 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I join MastCell in arguing for a better reason from RoyBoy before we change the text. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd concur if Mastcell hadn't changed long standing text. I'd invite you to reverse the burden of reason(s). - RoyBoy 00:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sort of, re-framing that you unilaterally changed long-standing text, and you need to provide better reasons for the changes, not I... but my absence doesn't help. Nor does your past assertion I was pushing / prioritizing animal studies above other considerations (from one word). It is crap rationale such as that which makes me "aggressive" at times.
 * Brief summary, your version 622 chars; mine 710, not brief enough? The consensus is they have been superseded (it's not a fact in some cases), moreover as Snow pointed out and I've reiterated and tried to explain several times patiently, without this context the need for "extensive" research is lost on the reader; and no they shouldn't have to dig for it! We can provide context in 710 chars and better reflect Jasen actual content / story arc.
 * Reality (reflecting the topic) and good writing does dictate it, not me really. But I'd assert one mention at the end is a strong accurate, in context, closing to the subject. The of beginning with it is poor... for a multitude of reasons both obvious and not.
 * Good point, although the ABC topic isn't a readily accessible subject. I'd be okay using your prose in this specific case... but I think it less strong as my version clarifies where the best research sits on the issue.
 * Yes, as mentioned before; to keep ABC mention brief (we both want), expansion of the OBGYN makes it longer than necessary. Instead could we use "Royal College of OBGYN" and "American Congress of OBGYN"? Just a third option. - RoyBoy 00:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything further here? Or will this be pushed to some kind of hybrid... - RoyBoy 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Within the gestational period
Is this not just another way of saying "while pregnant"? Does anyone get an abortion while they are not pregnant? In the lead, I would suggest changing the sentence: "Forty percent of the world's women have access to induced abortions (within gestational limits).[5]" to:

"Forty percent of the world's women have access to elective abortions."

Eliminating the reference, as it is not a particularly surprising statistic (in general, references are avoided in the lead unless they are for something that is particularly surprising, and instead the information is repeated in the body and referenced where it appears in the body of the article). In the body "therapeutic and elective" is used, but elective is the more important word. Abortion, other than forced abortion, which is very rare, is always elective (while technically a miscarriage is identical to an abortion, the word abortion in its most common use does not include miscarriage). Induced abortion means nothing because abortions are always induced (using the most common usage of the word). 100% of women who are pregnant have access to abortion, but not all women can legally elect to have an abortion. That is why the word access is included, but as a qualifier it really means "legally have access". Adding legal is not significant.

Secondly, it is still an abortion on the delivery table, so remove "prior to viability" from the first sentence, and abortion is not "the removal". The removal is secondary. A C section is "the removal of the fetus". Birth is the "expulsion from the uterus of a fetus". What abortion is, is the termination of pregnancy. Technically a woman does not become pregnant until about five days after conception. So a more accurate opening is:

"Abortion is the termination of pregnancy and can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy prior to viability.[note 1]"

If we want to add "and the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo" that can be done, but it is not by the removal, it is and the removal. Just because some of the methods involve the removal is not important. What is important is the termination of pregnancy. A woman who is carrying a still born child is no longer pregnant [she just looks pregnant]. Delphi234 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

First line of this abortion page is poorly written, containing grammatical errors and poor sentence structure
Currently, the first line is full of half truths and topics that have nothing to do with abortion. I know this is a hot topic, but the truth is simply all we're after here. A miscarriage, listed on the first line, is NOT an abortion under any definition. After reviewing all the notes and PDF files, the first line of this page would be far more appropriate (neutral and truthful to the definition), and leave the rest be for now.

"Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life during the term of pregnancy."

I'm listing it as "human life" because after all, this page is not talking about dogs or cats. Please update. Thank you.Divinearmor (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A miscarriage is considered a spontaneous abortion. This page is about the term abortion, even though it focuses mostly on induced abortions. Attempts to split it to two pages--one for spontaneous, one for induced--have never gained traction. JJL (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A miscarriage is an abortion by definition.
 * A vast majority of the sources support this and for better or worse, we go by the sources not the truth. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Artifex, you're making my point. There is no medical definition of miscarriage, and this needs to be relegated to a separate page.  On the "miscarriage" page, we can discuss the possibility that it's an abortion.  This is the abortion page, not the miscarriage page.  As for the truth, this is an online encyclopedia, not an online liberal democrat subversive newspaper.  The truth is precisely what we're after.  If there are no clear objections to the definition I've proposed above, than I'm going to go forth with posting it.  Artifex has made a point, but not offered an alternative to the correct definition I've listed.Divinearmor (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think you can get support for an RFC to split this article to Induced abortion in humans, Spontaneous abortion in humans, Induced abortion in animals, and Spontaneous abortion in animals you may have missed the recent process on article names. Simply put, there are no easy answers to finding consensus on this.  Have a read of this page and its archives. (Fair warning, you may need to pack a lunch. There's a lot of reading.) LeadSongDog <small style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus">come howl!  18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All sources agree that under standard medicalese, abortions may be spontaneous ('miscarriage') or induced ('medical/surgical'). Note that there is a separate Miscarriage article and it also states unambiguously that what it discusses is a type of abortion. You'd need to get support for a split. No one has succeeded in doing so before--that isn't mean to discourage you, because there could be value in such a split, but to let you know that yours is not an easy path. JJL (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I read his Talk page and now I get it. JJL (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, you didn't get that scent around "not an online liberal democrat subversive newspaper"?


 * DA, you do not have consensus for this change to an article of significant value and high editorial review. Nor are you going about it in a manner that has a remote chance of success.  However -- and I rarely take such a cynical tone in dealing with new users -- after reviewing your previous contributions to the project in terms of both content and community discussion, I consider it unlikely that you can contribute as an editor under our core principle of neutrality on this matter in any event and I suggest that you direct your efforts on the Wikipedia project in a different direction.  If however, as seems almost certain from your tone and previous comments, you are here simply to campaign vehemently for an ideological standpoint and try to use this project as a tool for harassment of those who stand on the other side of those beliefs (or anyone, for that matter), I can assure you your contributions will not be welcomed by the community long.  Snow (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback
Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New study

 * What happens to women denied abortions? This is the first scientific study to find out. Posting link here for consideration. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would certainly like to see a small mention of the study in this article, with probably more extensive coverage in Abortion debate article. (Although IMHO the latter is mostly a politically messed up disaster area.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for finding this and bringing it here. This certainly should be in the article.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do write up the study and its implications for women's health. This is an important topic. One of the sub-articles on abortion may be a good place for a fuller description, e.g. abortion & medical practice or abortion & public health. Monado (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ABC in Safety
Soooo... with no meaningful discussion of Mastcell's original changes; and little response to my points I take a revert with tweaks (-animal) is in order? "lack scientific support" doesn't accurately convey the mixed results in the past, within even cohort studies, controversy over results, interpretation thereof and reliance unverified response bias to critique them. - RoyBoy 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a bit more context for me here? What exactly is the suggested change(s)? JJL (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, Mastcell's new version:

"Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups, but lack scientific support.[57] For example, the question of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer has been investigated extensively. Major medical and scientific bodies (including the World Health Organization, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer,[58] although such a link continues to be promoted by anti-abortion groups.[57]"


 * Updated original per Snow / Mastcell feedback:

"While clinical studies (most early on) have suggested an association between abortion and breast cancer, they have been criticized for not fully adjusting for confounding factors and response bias.[57] Subsequent large clinical studies failed to show a causal link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on available scientific evidence, major medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer.[58] The concept of an abortion-breast cancer link is promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups.[57]"


 * I find using the excellent Jasen ref, that provides historic context, as a way to merely repeat the conclusion of associations given in the next sentence as a strange choice, given the small footprint ABC has. - RoyBoy 02:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If what you're suggesting is that you believe your inability to gain consensus for your version means that it's time for you to edit that version in again, I would strongly advise you to re-examine that idea. As for the versions themselves, I do not find chronological order a valid reason to put the outdated and poorly designed studies first in the paragraph. I might be open to mention of the studies and their problems, but we must be unambiguous about stating up front that medical bodies recognize no link. ("Criticized" is also a poor choice of words.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting MastCell boldly changing an intro of a sub-topic with long standing text was inappropriate. This isn't just a matter of chronological order, it's context for why larger studies were Necessary. There is an assumption (both in lay and expert circles) that any study showing a positive association was poorly designed (ie. response bias). This assumption does not carry scientific validity, it is plausible and could be true, but isn't verified for study X, Y, Z where the criticism was leveled. Yes some are poorly designed and/or outdated, some showing no association have also been poorly designed. Poor design cuts both ways, agreed?


 * So my version would be alright, if it began with MastCell's opening? Speaking to the ABC link, MastCell's opening is fine. But just as Abortion isn't just about human induced abortion, the ABC topic isn't just about a Link. It's also about epidemiology and its limits, politics & science, link vs association, ambiguous / contradictory findings both in the past and present. MastCell is lazered focused on Link conclusions, its not the be all / end all of the ABC topic. Most important, sure, hence the long list of org's conclusions and Pro-Life scare mongering at end. But it needn't take over the entire summary. - RoyBoy 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing me up-to-date on this. Between the two I prefer Mastcell's version. JJL (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... - RoyBoy 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

 * Lead: 2006, 2007–10, 2011
 * Lead image
 * To-do items (active)


 * align="center" |Notable precedents in discussion
 * "Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus"
 * "Fetus" vs. "foetus"
 * Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5,
 * Use of "Death"
 * }
 * Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5,
 * Use of "Death"
 * }

Induced abortion: therapeutic vs. elective?
I ask about the definition under "Induced Abortion" of 'therapeutic abortion' as medically necessary. In Canada, the medical terminology is that a therapeutic abortion is done by doctors and a spontaneous abortion is one that happens naturally. There are no "elective abortions" in medical parlance. What about other countries? Monado (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

New article for definitions?
I just read through the archive and am sure that I am missing something obvious, but has anyone previously proposed creating Definitions of abortion? The note on this article is wonderfully well researched but I doubt that many readers follow the link. I'd be happy to copy its content to the new page but given the sensitivity of the topic I don't want to do so without some form of consensus. Andrew327 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The dictionary definitions would count only as primary sources for such an article. While I'm not entirely sure about notability requirements for subarticles, I think we would need to find secondary sources that discuss any disagreement among sources to create such an article.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rapid response. I'll search the literature and see if I can find secondary sources talking about different definitions in a notable manner.  If I do, I'll sandbox it and come back here for input. Andrew327 05:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Check it out and tell me what you think! I included nine reliable secondary sources that refer to problems that arise from different definitions of abortion. I could find more, but it's starting to get late in my area. I'm open to suggestions. Andrew327 07:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure it is worth it to have a separate article. Perhaps a subsection in Abortion would work better instead?  NW  ( Talk ) 12:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This amounts to moving the note. I agree it's a bit unwieldy but lots of contentious terms have varying definitions, I'd imagine (euthanasia, rape, ...). Is there precedent among terms like that for this? I'm not so much opposed as unmotivated here. JJL (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is well done, but given variations, contexts and controversy of the topic / word; it runs a risk of being fork or worse... just a list! Ahhhhh, run! The best path could be something similar to Definition of marriage, thought that could constrain the sub-topic, and I'm fairly sure a sub-section was brought up several times in the past lead debate(s). - RoyBoy 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stages figure
I've just written a Module:Block diagram that can replace figures like the one at right. Hopefully this is more legible, and note the Wikilinks work.



I've just now gotten the bugs I know of out of it, so I should probably ask what people think before I make the switch ;) Here's the smaller version I have in mind to squeeze into the right-hand column:

Gestational age may determine which abortion methods are practiced. I also have a larger version on the talk page at Module talk:Block diagram. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This would be neat. Would it be possible to get a border around it?  NW  ( Talk ) 19:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made a small change in the text input above - is that good enough? Wnt (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On second thought I came up with a way to annotate it like an image. (I should make a template to do this, and was going to at Template:Pseudo image, but the File: syntax is so involved I just haven't worked myself up to drudge through it - probably need a Lua script just to unravel the parameters, and stuff like the vertical align options... well, anyway, I'll see if I get more ambitious.  Anyway... the lower right-hand "image" is probably what I'll use. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've tried this out now. Please let me know - and many apologies! - if something looks bad on certain browsers/skins/etc.  This relies on a pile of new code - Template:Pseudo image, Module:Pseudo image, and Module:Block diagram - and admittedly, they're all about alpha version level of completeness. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is pretty awesome! Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Section and illustration for medically necessary abortions needs to be added
I am appalled to find out that File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg was removed from this article as "atypical" for the specific lead image spot it was to go in. Regardless, it is a beautiful image. And the reason why it belongs is that you don't have a section that lays out all the reasons why abortions are held to be medically necessary, for which this would be a perfect example. For example, the photo describes the complete removal of the uterus after cervical cancer was diagnosed. Clearly there are few issues more important to abortion debates, nor which have so much potential to find common ground otherwise warring factions, than what circumstances make the action medically necessary, and "how" medically necessary it really is, and so forth. The topic deserves a book - at least, it deserves a section. But given how much strange discussion I see here, before trying to make one I should first ask - did such a section exist in this article at any point in the past? Wnt (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I took a stab at this - though I rushed a bit; I've done better. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason that image was not used in that article is because of significant ethical concerns about using an image like that without documented medical consent. Accordingly, I am removing it as per multiple past discussions. Additionally, this is a top level article on abortion. While abortion and cancer is certainly a worthwhile article for the encyclopedia to have, I just wonder whether it is a good idea for this particular article to focus so much on it when the subarticle isn't even developed yet.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see very little discussion of "ethics" in the last archive when according to the discussion it apparently was removed by means of some person(s) winning an edit war and getting the article protected in the state they wanted.  It was rejected in the lead image discussion  but I see at least two editors who thought it was good for a non-lead placement and one who thought it was atypical for abortion, but of course, here I want to cover precisely that atypical kind of abortion.  Placing it there kind of explains to people how there are occasional oddball images floating around the web of a fetus neatly in its sac after an abortion.


 * More importantly, I see no relevance of "ethics" here in the first place. In discussions like at Rorschach test, we have, in no uncertain terms, told relevant professional organizations we don't care about their ethics.  Which is absolutely the right thing to do.  If they want to let us write our own prescriptions and get paid $50,000 or more a year to sit around in a room spouting out vapid ideas about why it's wrong to show people what an embryo in its sac looks like, then we might talk.  But for now, we should stick only to valid policy or guideline based arguments, and I don't see any.


 * I don't think abortion and cancer is quite ready for its own article - at some point it surely ought to be, but right now I can still picture an AfD putting it right back here again. I had in mind to look up some other things like eclampsia at some point, and if I get near having a whole section that systematically covers all the medical reasons why someone would have an abortion, then I can think of a name for it and spin it off and summary-style it here. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the image was removed because "some person won an edit war", then I think you've badly misread the history of the article. The article has been in a stable state without that image for quite some time now. Of course, consensus can change, and we could decide to use an image in the lead - but for that to happen, we need to have a serious discussion. The Rorschach situation is a poor analogy; here, the ethical concern is displaying an aborted fetus on a high-profile article on a top-ten website with no indication that the mother has consented to, or is even aware, of that usage. That concern plays directly into WP:BLP; we have an obligation to consider the avoidable harm our edits can inflict on real, living people. There were also other rationales voiced for excluding the picture, but that was mine and might serve as one starting point for a discussion. MastCell Talk 21:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How does BLP enter into this? I don't think the embryo qualifies, and we aren't making any statements about the mother (I don't think anyone even knows who she is). Wnt (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Somewhere out there, there is a woman who found out she was pregnant, and shortly thereafter found out that she had cancer. She was told that as a result of the required treatment for her cancer, she would not only lose the pregnancy, but also her chances of ever having children in the future. I don't know if you've ever been involved in a situation like that; if not, trust me that the emotional impact is extreme. Now, after her pregnancy was terminated, someone took a picture of the fetus and posted it on Flickr (an action which raises all kinds of questions in its own right). We have no idea whether she consented to having that picture taken or published. You're proposing that we use that picture here, on a top-ten website, without any indication that the woman in question has consented to that use. What happens if/when she comes across the picture? Does she have any reasonable expectation of privacy - any expectation that a medical photograph taken under unclear conditions during what is probably the most traumatic experience of her life isn't going to be blithely republished and viewed by thousands of people? I'm going to trust that most people are capable of empathy to the extent that they understand why using this picture creates potential problems. MastCell Talk 03:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a picture of her. It's not a picture anyone can use to identify her.  I don't think anyone can identify the embryo from the picture - not even her.  The only way she could possibly know that was a picture of her embryo is if she already saw the picture, say, to sign a release for publishing it.  And even if the picture would potentially cause her distress, some people would still argue that the embryo had its own distress to think about, and would have wanted someone to take a picture of it.  But meanwhile, why was the picture taken in the first place?  Maybe she wanted someone to get some educational good out of her cancer ordeal - why else was somebody taking snapshots in the operating room?  I should note that the Flickr uploader identifies herself as a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology in India; I see no special reason to assume she didn't post that picture within medical ethics at least as people there practice it.  Your ethical worries seem positively mythical, absurd, irrelevant.  In any case, I think ethics we need on Wikipedia are much more straightforward: to educate.  And while there is a policy WP:BLP, that policy is not a policy against including any information that conceivably, somehow, could remind someone who isn't mentioned in an article of a bad time in their lives. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a great image and is of educational value. I do not think the consent issue is significant personally as the image is none identifiable. As long as the image does not identify a person it can be used without written consent. However I do not feel it is representative of abortion and thus would not consider it appropriate for the lead of this article. Should be within the article on fetal development may be. However there are already a number of similar images there. Should we look for an image for the lead of this article? I would be supportive of further discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my use (since reverted) was as the sixth figure - see . Personally I'm not that interested in what the lead image is, just the image for the new section - and actually, by now I'm more interested expanding the text of that section, but fortunately I didn't run into opposition with that.  Doc, as long as you're watching this article - can you think of a good scientific review, or perhaps some other kind of document developed to inform abortion politics, that would list all of the medical reasons to recommend abortion in one place? Wnt (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a difficult question. Of course psychiatry is within medicine. Is mental illness a justification for recommending an abortion? Maybe for some, maybe due to the meds the person may be taking. "medically necessary" is more of a legal term which is poorly defined . This book discusses both the psychological and non psychological reasons.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No surprise here that this image was removed. Reading the article itself, it's easy to determine why the folks controlling this page didn't want anyone to see such an image. I would also suggest that a diagram of a partial birth abortion be included also. Why not video of an abortion via a link with a warning? I doubt such things will ever be allowed to appear, since this is such a biased article that only presents one side of this issue. But it is at least worthwhile to have it on the record here so that others can see what is going on. Maybe I'm wrong, but let's see.. YourHumanRights (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)