Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 4

AnnH's new proposal

 * Copied from section above

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures. Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

Comments 1
Been through my proposed changes and there aren't many, the result is below, and most of the differences are in wording as opposed to content:


 * An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, referred to as a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the medical definition of the word refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortions.


 * Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. Since the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion has been the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

(Simplified miscarriage explanation, linked viable, removed 'strict', removed emphasis on 'any', removed 'procedures', changed to 'since the 20th C'). I think the simplification is an improvement, and is better than the current version. |→ Spaully°τ 14:22, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Like it. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I no longer mind if death is mentioned in the first sentance or not, but if it is removed as the medical definitions might suggest, viability or some sense of this must replace it. This is only to ensure a reasonable difference from birth. |→ Spaully°τ 16:57, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * The problem with replacing it with viability is that abortions are carried out on babies that would have lived if they had been delivered at that time instead of aborted. It is simply not true that abortions are always carried out before viability. AnnH ♫ 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Medically speaking, abortion is defied before viability. Commonly speaking, abortion is a procedure that a woman pays a doctor to end her pregnacy. TWO DIFFERENT definitions. The later very rarely covers "viable" fetuses, but it is still covered (according to rough AGI estimates, .08% of ALL abortions are performed past 24 weeks. And just because the gestational age is >24 weeks, doesn't mean the fetus is viable or isn't terminally deformed or what have you.) YES it would be wrong to say that the abortion procedure never occurs after 24 weeks, but no one has ever once suggested saying that.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be included with something like "most commonly on non-viable fetuses". I know it's not strictly correct, as I have argued for a while, but also realise a need for compromise.  As long as death is mentioned in one of the two defining sentances I'm satisfied.  I think the concept of viability needs to be included somewhere. |→ Spaully°τ 17:35, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Once again we are trying to make up our own definition to cover certain instances. Please google these two words "abortion definition". Read through the pages. Open up a dictionary if you want. Now go here (hit ~14 on the google search). This is a pro-life site explaining its POV why the most common definition of abortion is wrong and should be replaced with Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy murdering a baby. I know that no editors on this page are advocating going that far, but they are using the exact same arguments to "fix" the majority definition. This is a POV. There is no reason for us to change sources to fit our POV. This is OR and POV pushing. Seriously, our job is to report on our sources, NOT create the perfect, neutral definition through original research. We have two out of ~25 sources that use "death" and those are Encarta and M&W's Medical Dictionary. Because the word abortion can mean a number of things and can refer to non-humans, we need to make it clear that this article is not about abortion, per se, but instead the induced abortion procedure in humans. This version doesn't address this issue. Next, the definition of abortion that you are trying to present never includes miscarriages. It is the MEDICAL definition that is used to refer to miscarriages, so that part should not come before the medical definition. Also, there is no reason to mention the "in common parlance" part because abortion has already been defined as this in the opening sentence. Here is my idea. We find a series of definitions that we feel are most accurate in describing the induced aboriton procedure in humans. We summarize these definitions into the first sentence and cite them. We then present the medical definition and mention how it refers to miscarraiges an non-humans. We finally mention that the focus of this article is on the first, non-technical definition. I'll start us off: In 1981, the CDC defined an induced abortion as "a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and to produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age." The word "intrauterine" is used because molar and ectopic pregnancies are not included.--Andrew c 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, hope nothing was lost)

I don't think we're necessarily supposed to go for the average from 25 sources. If 23 of them don't mention death, we should only follow that if we think that death is inaccurate. Does the fetus not die? Is there not some essential difference between an abortion and a live birth? Was the fetus not alive before the abortion? Is it not dead now? Is it possible that other sources are suppressing "death" out of some political motivation? After all, if Wikipedia finds that 23 out of 25 sources dealing with the case of Michael Jackson's sex abuse trial seem to be sympathetic to him, or hostile to him, that wouldn't mean that we should follow their example. Our job is to present facts, uncensored and without comment. Nobody has convincingly argued yet that the fetus doesn't die. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Death is misleading, hence it does not belong. But you know this already, because we've been saying it over and over again for some time. Alienus 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If our job was to present facts, then you wouldn't mind if we changed the phrase "the removal of an embryo or fetus" to "the removal of the products of conception". Heck, we can even list them if we want (fetus/embryo, fetal membranes, and placenta) for users who are unfamiliar with the term "products of conception". It is 100% factual that MORE than just the fetus is aborted. So why are you trying to HIDE this fact? Because your personal POV tells you that those other things are irrelevent. Just as the significance of the fetal death is also part of your POV. You personally think all ~23 definitions are inaccurate. There is NO reason, other than your POV, to ignore our sources. No matter if we like it or not, we need to report on our sources. THAT is what NPOV is, not doing OR to decide what is and is not 'accurate'. My solution was to present two different POV to cover our basis. Like I said, weeks ago, eating meat obviously results in the death of an animal (an undisputed FACT), but if we put this out in the first sentence of the meat article, we are pushing the vegetarian POV. We are going out of our way to avoid our sources to push your POV, and that is unacceptable. Finally, if we make up our own definition of abortion, how is that WP:V? --Andrew c 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the significance of the death of the fetus can be my personal POV. Is the purpose of the abortion to remove the fetus or to remove the placenta? If it were medically possible and safe either to remove the fetus and leave the placenta, or to remove the placenta and leave the fetus, which one would you choose if you were a woman wanting an abortion? And some things are more essential to the meaning of a word than other things. I can tell you that as a linguist. If you look up "tiger", you'll find it's a carnivorous animal. If you look up "mug", most dictionaries will say that it's a drinking vessel with a handle. If you look up "spinster", you'll see that it's an unmarried woman. Now look at these three sentences:
 * My pet tiger is a vegetarian
 * My coffee mug has no handle
 * My brother's wife is a spinster
 * you'll find that the third sentence is the one that is the most impossible. The first might be very far fetched. Does anyone believe I have a pet tiger? Does anyone believe he's a vegetarian? But it could conceivably be a very unusual kind of tiger. The second violates many dictionary definitions, but most people would accept it. The third is simply a logical impossibility. An "abortion" that doesn't destroy the fetus is far more of a logical impossibility (and far more contrary to the intention of the abortion) than an "abortion" that doesn't destroy other "products of conception". AnnH ♫ 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing up hypothetical situations. It is a fact that if you go to get an abortion procedure, more than the fetus is removed. If the placenta or fetus or whatever is left in the uterus, it is an incomplete abortion and can cause serious medical problems. The doctor who is vacuuming out the uterus makes no difference between what he is sucking out. Everything goes. And when checking the POC to see if it is complete, the doctor doesn't go "oh, there is the fetus, my work here is done", s/he has to make sure that ALL POC are removed. If we do not make this simple fact clear, we are presenting an inaccurate definition that would consider an incomplete abortion synonymous with an induced abortion. Next: the d-word. No one is disputing the fact that living cells die as a result of an abortion. However, the use of the word "death" without qualification is vague. If we qualify it as saying that it is refering to cellular death, it favors the pro-choice view. If we qualify it as saying it is refering to human death, it favors the pro-life view. And it is unacceptable to leave it unqualified. There is debate over what exactly is dying, and how morally significant its death is. I feel that these controversial issues do NOT belong in the first sentence. My compromise was to present two POVs and have death STILL included in one, but just not in the first sentence. This was a compromise because some users (like our sources) did not want to mention death at all. And it isn't that I am against the d-word outright. It is the focus on the fetal death that I consider POV pushing. If 2 of our sources mentioning 'death' is good enough to mention 'death', then 4 of our sources mentioning that MORE than just the fetus is removed during an abortion procedure is also good enough, no? And I apologize, your dictionary analogy was lost on me. Are you saying it is ok to have definitions that do not cover every situation? or are you saying dictionaries are poor sources, and it is our duty to use OR to define our own terms, disregarding NPOV in favor of non-POV.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to soften anything. Essential facts ought not be softened. Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do) . But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc.  Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted).  Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously when you say things like "abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted)". Please, tone down your rhetoric. --Andrew c 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled that by boiling down the abortion rights mantra to its practical essence ("abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus if the child is not wanted") is anything but extreme candor. And its so very germane to this discussion. Killing the future resource sponge (the fetus) is the goal. No woman should be tied to a child or any associated responsibility just because someone deposited sperm into her. She has the right to a dead fetus. Even if we could remove the embryo and it could survive and thrive and grow into an adult, that would not be enough. Its truly all about kelling the fetus - its about absolute power. Empowering a woman.  Men can walk away from the consequences of sex - so can women.  In any event, you are invtied to comment on the substance of my discussion. The idea I espressed was that ridding the woman of the placenta is ancillary to killing and removing the embryo/fetus.  The embryo/fetus does not develop BECAUSE the palcenta develops.  Its the other way around. The entie pregnanchy is due to the development of the lviing embryo/fetus. The death of the fetus is the primary goal of induced abortion.  Removing it and the associated baggage is a follow up to the essential main event.  Rhetoric or not, I am sure you are quite capable of doing so. And I am interested to hear your views. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is what might be called evidence that my description reflects reality - however troubling that reality might seem - and is not simply rhetoric. The quote threw me for a loop, too, when I first read it. But the guy's candor expressed such a sad truth. As Mother Teresa has said much better than my parapharase: how sad that abortion pits the mother against her child as if they were enemies. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ann's intro seems pretty good :/. Homestarmy 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) It appears to me to be precisely the same in meaning as the current version, with two minor differences: removal, which rules out the death of the fetus wherein the fetus is not expelled or removed (which usually results in later removal or expulsion, or death of the woman) - yet leaves out the expulsion possibility; and that it is more verbose. If I have missed something please point it out. I am unaware that confusion existed about whether the fetus remained in the woman's body post-abortion; if consensus is that this is a matter for possible confusion or misunderstanding, clarification is indeed in order. Otherwise, I see no improvement over the current consensus version, and some negatives, in that it is more wordy, and less accurate (since it specifies removal yet ignores expulsion. I further object to the use of the word "murder" in the intro. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's rough cut 1 from above
Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

Andrew's rough cut 2
An abortion in common parlance refers to an induced procedure that serves to terminate a pregnancy with the intentions of casuing the death of the products of conception (an embryo or fetus, fetal membranes, and the placenta). This can occur through chemical, surgical, or other means. Technically, the word abortion is defined by a majority of medical sources as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This definition not only refers to spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, but also applies to all mammalian pregnancies. However, for the purposes of this article, the term abortion will be used interchangeably with the induced abortion procedure in humans.

Comments 3
I think we are close to consensus on the current definitions, so I think both of these try to make too many changes. Also I don't understand your insistance on the 'products of conception' unless you are trying to make a point about truth, if true watch out for WP:POINT. |→ Spaully°τ 17:44, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
 * Well, I think focusing on the death of the fetus as the defining aspect of an abortion is just a POV (and without qualifying who holds this POV and to what degree, we are ignoring NPOV). Death is a confusing word, and my attempt at compromise was to soften the significance of the fetal death, by pointing out a clear fact that is included in a minority of cited definitions. The purpose for including POC is to weaken the impact of the d-word. My justification is using similar arguments that AnnH and others have used for including 'death' (that it is accurate and factual). And if my justification is weak, then I think that makes the point that the inclusion of death is also weak. So I guess partially, I am guilty of WP:POINT. I apologize for that. I think I need to take a break. I still can't get over the fact that 2 users voted to reject the new proposal based on their objection to 1 single word: "nonviable". It is 100% factually accurate to state that this is how the term abortion is medically defined. If we remove "nonviable", we are no longer talking about the medical definition. It frustrates me that they would ignore our sources because they personally disagree with them (failing to acknowledge the existence of multiple meanings for the word "abortion"). --Andrew c 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see that you at least acknowledge that I was open to the new langauge, except for one word. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are told to assume good faith, but sometimes that assumption is plainly false. Alienus 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Alienus.


 * For Andrew - I understand your position, I thought we had consensus before and was surprised that this discussion dragged on. |→ Spaully°τ 18:50, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Initially I started the poll because I wanted to make sure the new version actually had support - and that it was not being debated in the shadows (on a talk subpage that few people visited or contributed to) and slipped in during an article freeze (which is what RoyBoy did). And surprise, surprise, there is no consensus to adopt the new language. I always expressed support for the new version - except for the word "nonviable".  I was trying to compromise in good faith - but all I got for my effort was grief and snide snarls from those who falsely claimed consensus for the new version. Perhaps next time my good faith efforts will be respected rather than pissed on.  ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately all we got from the poll was people who had not commented on the process and so did not understand the difficulty in establishing consensus rejecting the new version because they had not had to come to a compromise. I don't claim or feel you started it in bad faith.
 * G+E you can't just put your 'good' hat on and start taking the moral high ground, you have been mosty helpful in this process and people appreciate that, but you still have a strong POV that occasionally goes too far and have often not abided by WP policies and guidelines in your edits. You must see that we were either at or very near an acceptable compromise, and since the poll that seems to have been broken; hopefully through that we will come to a stronger and more widely acceptable opening paragraph.
 * If everyone will calm down a little, through whatever process, perhaps we can work to a final product soon, and hopefully never have to tackle this section again! |→ Spaully°τ 21:07, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * When the debate is largely hidden, it is hard to credibly claim any consensus and hard to credibly crticise the basis for how or why people voted in a poll. As with the rest here, I am not perfect. But that does not prevent or even dissuade me from commenting on the errors of others.  In this case, the faux consensus was transparent, and I called its bluff.  ____G_o_o_d____ 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, there was only consensus among those trying to make it. I think that would make a good argument for not splitting talk pages. The problem is that the poll you created was presented to people who had not seen the huge talk page to beat out the proposal, and so they did not understand the difficulty in forming the introduction. Given the talk page has been split, a link on the main page to move people to it is the best way to get attention and emphasise the difficulty in forming the proposal.
 * It was not a false consensus, only one based on a minority of interested individuals. One which you just said you were involved in. |→ Spaully°τ 21:33, 11 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought for sure that there were claims of consensus to the point where the actual article should be changed.  And in fact that Royboy inserted the change (based on this claimof consensus) during an article freeze.  But I also thought that a major change on the lead paragraph of a controversial article would require actual consensus of all editors, not just those who were working on a proposed change on a talk subpage. But thats just me.  Its moot now.  We can drop it. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent] Here is how I remember things going. All progress on the article was being halted because the main talk page was being consumed with the d-word debate. I proposed creating a talk subpage just for that, as other top teir articles have (see Jesus) and with the help of an admin (IIRC GT) we moved content there and added links to the subpage. We debated some more and I eventually proposed using two definitions, and explained my justifiation for the concept. The concept was well recieved and over 5 editors helped to reword and restructure the paragraph. Additionally, we had support of around 3 more editors. We all decided to mention this on the main page for the users who were not helping with consensus. On April 4th, I placed a notice on the main subpage giving the proposed paragraph and sending users to the talk subpage. We got additional support for this version, and only had 2 users opposed to it (G&E and patsw. Ann had reluctantly agreed back then). After all this, most users decided that there was consensus. A large number of users had their hand in creating and editing the final version. We went to the main talk page and advertised it. This wasn't a secret decision, and it wasn't a small group. I specifically said that if it wasn't perfect, at least it was better than the inaccurate old version, so we could at least replace it and then keep working on it if users felt it still needed improvement. Unfortunately, around the same time, there was an edit war going on having to do with the mizuko image. So the page was protected. And an admin (possibly) abused his power by editing the page during protection. But keep in mind that all the stuff on the talk page seemed to have consensus, and the protection had nothing to do with the first paragraph. This is why after all the work we did, and the advertising on the main page, it is frustrating that G&E went and asked specifically editors with known pro-life POV to vote on this wording, without looking at our process and reasons behind our decisions, and without helping our consensus. So it was shot down, by editors that aren't even here helping us make it better. Yeah, sob story, I know. I just wish we could temporarily replace the current version with my proposal until an even better version is consensed upon.--Andrew c 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You thought you had achieved a consensus, but it was a consensus only of those who thought the opening was broken and needed fixing, along with a few who felt compelled to participate to keep tabs on what was actually somewhat of a POV editing party. Many editors who were happy with the long-time consensus language (and who had likely seen it all before, as far as proposed changes) did not participate.  So there never was a consensus. There was a well-intentioned hope for one, but it morphed into a faux claim of an actual consensus. And then Royboy (who had been following the talk subpage and advocating for the change) abused his admin priveleges by sneaking in the new faux consensus language during the page freeze, which I could not stomach. That is when I very publicly invited others to express their views.  ____G_o_o_d____ 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a POV editing party, but then again, I do not know everyone's POV (I just know one of the people you specifically invited to your poll helped make the consensus version). I can understand people not wanting to participate because they didn't think it was broken, but I specifically took this issue into the main talk space on April 4th, and opened it up to EVERYBODY. Why didn't they voice their opinion there? Why did it take you personally inviting specific individuals before anyone would show interest in this issue? But seriously, having a large number of editors boycott this talk page, and ignore our concerns with the current version is not consensus. I have no idea how we are going to fix the opening if they naysayers aren't going to come here and discuss it. Like I've said before, there seems to be more editors here making sure the page DOESN'T change than interested in improving it. How many editors who voted in this poll have done a single item on kyd's priorities list? All I know is that the current version is OBVIOUSLY inaccurate, and questionably POV, and most likely OR.--Andrew c 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hint: anyone wishing to help out with my priorities list is encouraged to post at Talk:Abortion/To-do items. :-) -Severa | !!! 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These are comments on Andrew's rough cut 2: terminate is a euphemism. Products of conception is euphemism. No abortion is performed in order to obtain the death of a placenta. The reference to fetal membranes is bizarre &mdash; why not mention the loss of the amniotic fluid which takes place in many abortions?

Induced abortions take place for two reasons: where the life of the mother is at risk (i.e. ectopic pregnancy, uterine cancer, etc.) and the intention is to save the mothers life (and if it were possible to preserve the life of the unborn child, it would be attempted) or when the death of the unborn child is directly sought.

Common parlance can be better written as commonly.

This can occur... Why is induced abortion refered to in the passive voice &mdash; do they really just occur?

A spontaeous abortion is not the termination of a pregnancy but the death of a fetus or embryo. The end of the pregancy is the consequence of that death. patsw 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Abortion is never performed on an unborn child, just as I never respond on talk pages to undead corpses.
 * Termination is not a euphamism, it is a term used commonly by doctors referring to and describing an abortion; and it is a word used to mean to end something.
 * As for 'spontaneous abortion', either you take pregnancy to mean the presence of a live fetus in the uterus, in which case the death is the end of the pregnancy; or you feel the life of the fetus is not the important factor in pregnancy and so would feel the importance of any abortion is to remove the fetus. No?
 * However I agree that common parlance is overly complicated. I think the passive voice is best used to diminish the imporance of the actor compared to the act, which is the thing being discussed in this article.
 * → Spaully°τ 18:37, 12 April 2006 (GMT)


 * [edit conflict]
 * Terminate is not a euphemism. See my response that last time you said that. POC is also not a euphemism. That's like saying "teeth" is a euphemism for "incisors, molars, and canines". If you know of another word that means the exact same thing that isn't a euphemism, I'd be more than willing to use it. But as it stands, the only two terms I know of that refer to the products of conception are, well "products of conception" and "conceptus". An abortion is not the same as killing a fetus. The induced abortion procedure involves removing ALL products of conception. If just the fetus was removed, and nothing else, serious complications in the patient would occur, and the abortion would not be complete. I believe it is not only accurate, but significant to mention what exactly is removed, not omitting anything or focusing on just the fetus/embryo.


 * "Commonly" sounds fine to me. "This can occur" is also in Ann's version and the current version. I was just repeating already existing content.


 * Then we get into the philosophical arguments. Why is the death of animals not mentioned in the meat article? Why is the death of the tonsils not listed in the first sentence definition of Tonsillectomy (or anywhere in the article)? Needless to say, there is a POV that an abortion is no different than removing an organ (cellular death). But there is another POV that the death of the fetus is more significant than the death of the tonsils or the death of the placenta and fetal membranes (personhood death). I am not trying to hide either POV, but we cannot allow POV to slip in and appear as neutral language. Because there is debate over the significance of the "death", I do not believe this debate should be brought out in the first sentence (like when pro-lick tried to qualify death with the death of a cell, killing a virus stuff). --Andrew c 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Patsw has made some great points - and the replies don't really adequately address those points. Instead the tired old crap about "unborn child is POV" is posted - when everyone knows that patsw is NOT advocating use of that word. It is beyond silly to argue that induced abortion is NOT aimed PRIMARILY at killin th fetus and removing it and its support system. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do). But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc. Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted). Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When people who are not pro-life proponents read comments including 'unborn child' or repeated 'dead baby' comments, it immdiately compromises the point you are trying to make. Even though patsw is not advocating it's use, using it in his arguments is still incorrect and undermines what he is saying.
 * Furthermore I replied to most of his points, agreeing with some and not others. I do not agree that most of the points are great, indeed his comment on spontaneous abortion shows some confusion or double standard on the definition of pregnancy. If you advocate that killing the foetus is the important factor, then presumably you must agree that the presence of a live foetus in the uterus is essential for pregnancy. In which case, a spontaneous abortion is the termination of pregnancy.
 * Onto the motivation behind abortion, you seem to be suggesting that not wanting a live baby is the same as wanting a dead foetus. That is clearly incorrect, and I don't see too many women leaving abortion clinics closely grasping a dead foetus in formaldehyde.
 * So I ask, please stop using biased and incorrect language to make your point, you may feel it enhances the power of your argument but all it does is undermine your credibility. |→ Spaully°τ 10:30, 13 April 2006 (GMT)


 * WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This subpage isn't a dark, hidden corner to post ideological tagents. Let's try remember to stick to the topic at hand. -Severa | !!! 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please
I know it's particularly difficult with a very controversial subject on which many of us have such strong views, but could everyone please try to restrict comments to those that are directly related to how we can best improve the article for the future, and not what we should or shouldn't have done in the past. When pages get very badly cluttered, it's hard for those who were involved to stay involved unless they can give it undivided attention. That's why it took me so long to vote. I didn't want to vote until i had examined the talk pages properly &mdash; and with so much jumping around from one talk page to another, and so many posts that said more than they needed to, it just got too time consuming, while I was doing other things on Wikipedia and in real life.

I know it's hard, particularly for the person who hasn't had the last word, but whichever person it is, could you consider walking away now? Not from the article, but from the discussion of who did what. Saying whatever you want to say won't won't make this talk page better; it will make it worse. AnnH ♫ 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry.--Andrew c 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One more time, drive for improvements
Before completely ditching the work on my proposal, I was looking through the reject votes to see what we could do to change it. I believe we can easily implement Severa suggested change. G&E and WikiCats object to one single word in the whole thing, and that is "nonviable". However, as I have previously mentioned, if we remove nonviable, we are no longer talking about how abortion is "medically defined". We simply cannot remove the word because we don't like it. It accurately describes how abortion is defined in a vast majority of medical definitions. If I added citations after that sentence, would that convince G&E and WikiCats that we are simply reporting our sources? Str1977, while the first definition refers to the medical POV, the second definition refers to the common POV, and death is clearly included in the latter. I do not see how this is obfuscation. Remember, if we are citing sources on what the medical definitions say, it would be inaccurate to add "death" because the medical definitions do not define abortion in that manner. Homestarmy: no one is saying abortions do not occur on viable fetuses, in fact there were 2 clauses in that paragraph specifically refering to these very rare cases. As Severa has pointed out, this is giving undue weight. I'm not sure how we can reach a compromise with patsw and Dominick. I'm open to suggestions! AnnH, I tried to address your concerns above. I do not see any problem with refering to the medical POV. I do not believe mentioning death in the second common definition is trying to hide an unpleasent fact. Finally, I would propose also implementing SlimVirgin's suggestions in regards to the mass media sentence. So taking this all into consideration, here is another version of the proposal. Can people suggest how they would change it for the better (especially those who voted reject)? Thanks for bearing with us thus far.


 * An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation. This can occur spontaneously in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses on induced abortion of human pregnancies.


 * what exactly does "common parlance" mean here? I've never seen the word "parlance" before..... Homestarmy 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Idiom. I can't think of a more suitable synonym, so perhaps we could link parlance to Idiom, although that's not too clear either.
 * Andrew, as before I prefer it to the current version. I also think that 1 or 2 references would be helpful after the medical definitions section, however any more would begin to look messy. If people thought more were needed we could probably use 1 footnote number to link to several sources. I hope we can come to agreement on this. |→ Spaully°τ 00:18, 13 April 2006 (GMT)


 * [edit conflict]You can do a word search on this talk page to find the thought process that brought about "common parlance". It was DonaNobisPacem's suggestion after "popular usage" and "colloquial" were suggested. Also, look at the first paragraph of miscarriage.--Andrew c 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you've already done this (below), although I might suggest a more spaced version, see . |→ Spaully°τ 00:27, 13 April 2006 (GMT)


 * If the medical definition of abortion was somehow changed to include "non-viable fetus's", then what is the medical term for induced abortions on viable fetuses? Does that just count as PBA, even if it's a forced premature birth? Homestarmy 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Abortion technically means the definition in the proposal. It contrasts with a similar but different term "the induced abortion procedure" which is what people commonly considers "abortion" to be. Late term abortion and partial birth abortion are both not technical, medical terms. Searching through pubmed, you find phrases like "third trimester termination of pregnancy". Also, you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used in journals that deal with animals and livestock.--Andrew c 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Third trimester termination of pregnency? why did abortion get changed to mean "non-viable" anyway, how is that more technically correct? :/ Homestarmy 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not know the whole history. So I couldn't tell you if abortion was changed to mean "non-viable". All I know is that most medical sources have a clause that says something about before viable, before able to sustain life, or before a certain week of gestation (~20). I think it has to do with the difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth. These are interesting questions/concerns and I wish we had a medical expert we could e-mail to shed light on the reasonings behind this.--Andrew c 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that "non-viable" can't really be confirmed very well, some children who are born perfectly healthy and have every indication that they will live long lives will just suddenly die for odd reasons shortly after birth, whereas some extremely premature babies whom most would agree have little chance of survival do, well, survive. Childbirth can be quite a strange, often somewhat miraculous thing, of which trying to polarize babies between "viable" and "non-viable" seems, at least to my understanding, somewhat futile. Therefore, I question the motivations behind the medical definition of abortion as somehow only applying to "non-viable fetus's". Homestarmy 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here and look at the poll, but I see it closes on April 13, and yet the new intro (which has been rejected) is already on the page. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy: Please read through the cited definitions (and refer to this and this for the ones not linked). How would your phrase the medical definition if we were to exclude the word "nonviable". Some definitions deal with this by adding on a clause such as "before the sixth month" or "before it is capable of sustaining life" or "before the twentieth week" or "before the fetus is viable" but I felt that this approach was too wordy for something that could be solved with a single adjective.--Andrew c 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem too wordy to me to put in "before the sixth month" somehow, why not simply
 * "An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus which is less than 6th months after conception being expelled or removed from the uterus. Homestarmy 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that the new clause is intended to motify the word "fetus", but splitting the subject from the verb like that sounds wordy to me. I also would prefer 20th week to 6th month because the former is found in more sources, while the latter is only found in the OED. So how about:
 * "An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation".--Andrew c 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 16:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that definition fully supported by sources? Specifically, medical sources? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, I added cited references for that sentence in this version. However, would it make you more comfortable if we added "by a majority of sources" or something similar to qualify "medically defined"?--Andrew c 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) I believe that this version resolves most of the issues which have been raised. I, at least, would be happy to adopt it. The sources certainly help solidify it. -Severa | !!! 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok assuming that these changes we have been discussing go into the proposal, do any of the folk who voted reject (besides Severa, who has already made her feelings clear) feel this version is good enough to replace the old version until an even better version arises?--Andrew c 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the 20 week gestation part was going in to replace "non-viable"? Homestarmy 19:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the concept of viability is more correct and versatile than 20th week. For example for the UK abortions before the 24th week would be more appropriate.
 * Given that the 20th week is chosen because of the limit of viability (and it seems most if not all of the other sources), would it not be more correct to have the broader term? |→ Spaully°τ 20:49, 15 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Well the "non-viable" part seems to be the main problem, for the reasons I tried to put forth and Str's and I think a few other people put forth some responses about that as well. Homestarmy 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression 'non-viable' was resisted because it did not include late term abortions, and so was not seen as correct. Any definition that provides a time limit for abortion in medical terms therefore falls into the same argument, presumably not satisfying those agaist the use of viability.
 * At the same time as I have said the use of a defined time is true to fewer sources than 'non-viable', and so is less justifiable. Unless I have missed a major complaint against the use of viability that a specifed time overcomes, it seems no better. |→ Spaully°τ 22:39, 15 April 2006 (GMT)


 * Eh, I personally wouldn't mind a time limit specified in it :/. But since the only term for "viable" abortions is convoluted and pretty ridiculous, and since I for one can't think of a single justifiable reason for the medical community to decide that abortions somehow only happen on "non-viable" babies, I am quite suspicious of the motivation to change the definition of abortion to non-viable when it leaves out "viable" abortions. (Or third trimester extraction whateverisms) I also still don't see how viable is really being defined, if its being defined as "capable of surviving without the mother", then that applies to extremely retarted people who require the care of others (Often their parents, perhaps specifically their mother) to survive, so the definition seems lacking here. Homestarmy 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition is being able to survive outside the uterus, so doesn't fall into any problems with adult dependents. Of course there are difficulties in defining the time, as several of the sources try to, due to the date not being absolute. For example increasing pediatric medical care has allowed more 20-24 week foetuses to survive.
 * Given the use of any date or concept of viability is solely based on the mass of medical sources, as indicated by the wording of the definition, to me it makes sense to use the most broad definition, that being 'non-viable'.
 * I'd appreciate if someone other than us two would contribute to this question, any people still following this page? |→ Spaully°τ 11:37, 18 April 2006 (GMT)

Suggestion
A humble suggestion from someone who has not been involved in the debate:


 * An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.


 * The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right. SlimVirgin (talk)  12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments 4

 * So the products of conception are being expelled, but only the fetus or embryo dies?
 * Yes, what else is there that could die? Or did I misunderstand the question? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people have criticized using the word "woman" because it humanizes/personalizes the issue, and favors the POV of the "woman" over the "fetus".
 * Hmmm ... they are descriptive terms. We can't call women by some other term so as not to favor them over the fetus, just as we couldn't call the fetus "fetal matter" (or whatever) for the same reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the parallel medical term used by ob/gyn's would be gravida. Ob/gyn's also use the terms baby/mother quite often; but the technical terms are fetus/gravida. Using woman is certainly POV in that regard, but its an issue I prefer to leave for some time in the future after more important matters are fixed. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding "by trauma" seems odd, and may be giving undue weight. Besides, a pregnant woman in a car accident could have trauma that causes a miscarriage, even though it isn't deliberate.
 * Yes, but this says "deliberately by trauma or by surgical or chemical means ..." That sentence doesn't mean that all trauma is deliberate. Some is, of course. Some women do induce abortions themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "morally" seems unnecessary. If someone thinks a fetus is a human, and a fetus is killed, then it follows they think it is not only "morally equivalent" to murder, but they think that it IS the exact same thing as murder.
 * Murder is a legal term. What opponents are saying is that it ought to be regarded as murder, not that it actually is so regarded, except in a moral sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Murder is a legal term, but it is also a colloquial one (as well as a moral and philosophical one). And a murder can occur with no conviction or trial. The whole point is they want the law to outlaw these killings because they consider it to actually be murder. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The last 3 issues could easily be solved by removing these things, but I am not sure how to change the first issue. Not many people seem to agree with me that the significance of the fetus dying is a POV that needs to be qualified somehow. I just feel your wording makes this issue worse by mentioning all the products of conception, but then focusing in on only one of them dying, when in fact all of them die. The last two sentences are a little odd, but I can't quite place my finger on why. Maybe they are a little wordy? --Andrew c 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now with your first point. The point of an induced abortion is not to kill the placenta. It is to kill the fetus. While we shouldn't stress that unnecessarily, nor should we be obtuse. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe they need to be balanced by mentioning that women who have an abortion performed do not generally believe the fetus is their child?


 * You'd need a source for that, and I can't imagine where you'd find one. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is fair to say that some women do not feel it is murder, but it is also fair to say that some women do think it is a justifiable homicide (IOW, they know it is a human person, but consider the killing justified because (insert a reason). It would be tricky to address this matter without making aborting women and abortionists seem callous or whacked. (And there are citations available for these beliefs). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet the view that it is not a person is their #1 or #2 defense. A Wikipedia article can state that pro-choicers overwhelmingly [claim to] believe that induced abortion is not murder because the fetus [at a specific gestational stage] is not a person/baby/child. It cannot state what I believe to be the case from personal observation: that most women who have an abortion generally believe this specific pro-choice argument. But it would be fair to say that most of them are pro-choice and that of all pro-choicers these women are the closest to the problem. I think they are probably the strongest believers in pro-choice arguments. Each time I look at this from a different angle I become more convinced that only a small proportion would go ahead with what is already a difficult decision for most if they believed this involves the killing of their own child. AvB &divide; talk  17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They do not see themselves as murderers. Very few women are capable of killing their own children. Mentioning views of personhood and even calling it murder on behalf of one POV surely requires the inclusion of this most important aspect of the opposite POV. AvB &divide; talk  16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're into original research here, AvB. No one has any idea how most women who have abortions feel or what they believe. What my intro discussed was what opponents and proponents tend to argue. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned a pro-choice defense missing from the intro while the corresponding pro-life accusation was included. I think it was unrelated to your proposal, since previous versions already contained this aspect. Andrew's question made me focus on those lines; considering them from the pro-choice POV I saw a problem I had not seen before. I thought mentioning it here might be useful to Andrew.


 * Are you saying that pro-choicers only use one of their two main defenses (i.e. always the legal defense, but never the moral one)? AvB &divide; talk  22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've checked this out and it is true this defense is not used very often. A notable example would be this speech by Sarah Smith where her mother says "Please know I did not know what I was doing and I pray someday you are able to forgive me". But even if it were OR, my point would remain valid: I argued what I believe (a no-brainer really) on the talk page, but in the article it would still translate as a widely sourced defense along the lines of: "Pro-choicers do not view it as murder because they do not believe a fetus is a person/baby/child". I still think the introduction sells pro-choicers short, painting them without emotions, cold, callous, citing the legal defense but not the moral one.


 * FWIW, mainstream Christians (i.e. most of them) generally believe that people undergoing or performing abortions are entitled to this defense. In fact it is used as an important argument in defense of abortion by mainstream protestant Christians/theologians who also qualify as mainstream pro-choicers. And even extreme pro-lifers (though by no means all of them) are known to pray "Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing" . AvB &divide; talk  10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The largest mainstream Christian denomination actually assumes the woman who has the abortion is in need of repentance (which is freely given if asked for in confession). In paragraph 99 of the authoritative encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul addresses women who have had an abortion (note section in bold):
 * "I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. 'If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.' With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."
 * ____G_o_o_d____ 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "mainstream protestant Christians/theologians". AvB &divide; talk  17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks encyclopedic, but the two definitions thing had a certain appeal to me. Kind of clarified there were not only two worlds/perspectives on the issue and the language, but professional and common understanding of the very word "abortion". I guess I have a bias for etymology. It does keep the lead short by moving "late term abortion" and viability issues to elsewhere; as they are certainly debatable subjects.

Perhaps I'm thinking subconciously the fact medical professionals define abortion to be of a non-viable fetus, and how that differentiates itself from common usage; it becomes a key bioethical point of the debate and that could be lead worthy; as it is they who perform abortions... their POV could be necessary to mention. Then again, since this is relevant to the "debate", maybe that meme should go on the Abortion debate lead. Meh, just my stream of consciouness... I'm hungry. - RoyBoy 800 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was hoping someone previously uninvolved would do this so thanks. And I definitely prefer your explanations in the 2nd paragraph of the debate stance. However I still prefer Andrew's version of the first paragraph specifically in the split between the medical and colloquial definitions and for the fact that it introduces induced abortion in more detail. |→ Spaully°τ 23:54, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

Slim, I like what you have suggested. I need to digest it. THanks for your efforts here. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds promising; I'd certainly love to have Slim's there at least as a solid emergency backup consensus version. The tossing of associated has been a long time in coming. - RoyBoy 800 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello? What say you people? Can we implement this at least? - RoyBoy 800 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think quite a few editors took a break from the paragraph one discussion after the lack of consensus on the previous proposal. I know I did (apart from commenting on what technically is paragraph two in SlimVirgin's proposal). I've now thought over the first paragraph of this proposal. Here's my verdict. I like it. I'm in favor of using it.


 * There are a couple of things I would want to change in the first paragraph, and which I think will reach consensus, but I do not want to discuss them now. Having participated here for some time, I've become convinced that "one thing at a time" is the best approach for now. I say let's implement this and take it from there. Any minor problems we may have with it can wait.


 * "One thing at a time" also applies to the second paragraph of this proposal. Shouldn't that be the next discussion after we have implemented para 1? For now I am in favor of leaving the current text in place, or possibly amending it by adding something like "legality" to "ethics" and "moral." FWIW, I oppose the use of the second paragraph of the proposal. It presents the two most vocal POVs (that are at opposite ends of the POV spectrum) as the only ones. The proposed language completely ignores anything in-between, which may well be the majority. It also paints the pro-choice side as too legalistic, making it seem they do not have a moral defense against the "murder" accusation. The pro-life POV is presented as a moral verdict where it surely also implies a wish to change the law. Just a handful of problems I have with the second paragraph of the proposed lead.


 * How about adding "legal aspects" to paragraph two for now? Like this:
 * There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethical, moral and legal aspects of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. AvB &divide; talk  11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Another straw poll
As its generally agreed the current version has to go; perhaps we can now implement SlimVirgin's proposal. - RoyBoy 800 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First paragraph proposal:
 * An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

Support paragraph 1

 * RoyBoy 800 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * AvB &divide; talk  12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * weak support, if changed to "expulsion or removal" KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose paragraph 1

 * Second paragraph proposal:
 * The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Support paragraph 2

 * RoyBoy 800 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose paragraph 2

 * AvB &divide; talk  12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments 5
Maybe you could post this at the bottom of the talk page? And maybe its time to archive the first poll. All that said, I believe a number of concerns have been cleared up with my proposal, and I do not see why my proposal couldn't be used for the time being, until an even better first paragraph comes along. The main objections come from people who do not understand or otherwise want to ignore the cited medical sources. I know I am being a total jerk by writting off people's concerns, but I can see no justification for ignoring the medical definition. The most valid concern was from Ann, who thought that the common definition should go first. Because she initially supported my proposal, I would hope she would support its temporary approval as an improvement on the current state of affair (and until an even better version is agreed upon). --Andrew c 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply don't want a repeat of the last poll. I'm getting seriously fed up and will start getting aggressive if something doesn't happen. Becoming pro-choice partisan is suddenly appealing to me if it means things get done. I'll contact Ann. - RoyBoy 800 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you consider switching the definitions? Can you see it as an improvement? - RoyBoy 800 05:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm away from home at the moment, and have less good access to internet connection than usual. I'll just comment that I was unaware that it was "generally agreed the current version has to go", but I have been following the discussion less than usual. I made a proposal here, and I think some people liked it, and others didn't comment. I wasn't actually expecting that my suggestion would be adopted, but it gives an indication of what I consider to be a full and accurate version, which respects NPOV by not implying that the fetus is or isn't a human being, and by not suppressing the fact that &mdash; regardless of what it actually is &mdash; it dies. I'd like to make it clear again that I do not oppose the medical definition (if that's really the medical definition), but since people use the word to refer to the process late in a pregnancy as well as early, I think the common meaning should go first. After all, it is usage, not codification in books, that determines meanings. Otherwise, dictionaries would never have to be updated except to add new words. "Presently" changed its meaning over the centuries from "immediately" to "in a little while", to (the not-yet-acceptable) "currently", precisely because the people began to use the word in a different way. I agree with SlimVirgin about removing the bit about human abortions getting the most attention. I think her proposal should have "removal" as well as "expulsion". An abortion can be one or the other. And I'm not keen on "products of conception". It sounds a bit awkward and unnatural. In my view, that phrase is used with the purpose of "avoiding" another word or phrase. Other than that, I'd be happy. My main concern is to see that "death" is not left out, and that we don't give the impression that abortions are carried out only before the fetus would have been capable of surviving outside the womb. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've also argued in the earlier comments section, I propose we go ahead with this first paragraph and discuss improvements later on. It's a wiki, nothing's being carved in granite here. I think relatively minor changes can wait. A desire (including my own) to implement several of them at once seems to me to be one of the factors that have been thwarting change for some time now. Just my two cents. AvB &divide; talk  12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of the fetus
I discovered the term "intra-uterine fetal death" (or IUFD). Apparently a medical term for the cessation of life in a fetus is "death". ____G_o_o_d____ 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ackoz 09:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) SEZ> That's true. I "discovered" the IUFD when I was studying for my gynecology exam. Do you know that if you kill a chicken it's called death too? Or are you just too astonished by the fact that even a human fetus can die (as you have been taught that every fetal death is a murder, you MUST be surprised). Study first write later.


 * I have not seen you posting here before. Perhaps you are not familiar that some editors think it is not "medical" to describe fetal demise as "death". That is the only reason I have posted this.  Quite frankly, I always knew it was medically accurate - my discovery is of the term IUFD.  You may not realize it, but not many of us have ever studied gynecology! Finally, why the snottiness? I am trying to ensure we have an accurate article that editors are proud of. Providing sources helps that along. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal (intended as a temporary solution pending the 1st para discussion)
An abortion is the premature termination of a human or mammalian pregnancy resulting in or due to the death of an embryo or fetus. Abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage) or be effected through chemical, surgical, or other means.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

AvB &divide; talk  21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on all the Blabber
Someone left a message for me to post here about the opening part the article. I do not have hours to sift through all the back and forth. Arguments and votes are completely contrary to the point of any encyclopedia with the only exception being when there is no clear consensus among the experts. From what I can see, none of you have bothered to reference the experts and list them here, which should be the only discussion going on. All the arguments are rather pointless unless all of you happen to be known experts, in which case I apologize for this comment and my changes.--NColemam 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "None of you have bothered to reference the experts," eh? A closer reading would reveal that you're incorrect, and that the precise reason for all the "blabber" is that there is, as you say, no clear consensus among the experts.  Anyway, thanks for your input.


 * Oh, as for arguments and votes having no place in writing an encyclopedia, that's also incorrect. Considering that there are roughly an infinite number of ways to state the same fact, many of which are subtly (or blatantly) prejudicial in one way or another, there's actually lots of room for discussing how we ought to phrase controversial statements.  If you think the exact phrasing of the definition of abortion isn't controversial, or if you think there's a single, agreed-upon way that "the experts" define it, well, you're in for a surprise. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Some poor guy (or gal) calls it like it is, and gets blabbed in return. Evidence for his claim. A closer look at what? You could have posted a hyperlink to the evidence that there is no clear consensus. If that were true, certainly you would be able to cite it. Instead, blab blab blab. O.P.Nuhss


 * Here. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Archive 18 on the regular talk page has a list of 21 or so referenced definitions. I looked through them and compiled a best effort for a medical definition, and even cited those references in my latest version of my proposal. I think it is clear that the first medical/technical definition that I provided was an attempt to relay what the sources say, because I felt editors were trying to use OR to come up with a 'neutral' definition that covered every single possible case of 'abortion'. (trying and failing, IMO). My solution was to list two definitions, one medical, and one common. I believe this is accurate because there is the technical term "abortion" that includes miscarriages and non-humans, and then there is the common use that refers to the 'induced abortion procedure in humans'. This doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of consensus among experts, but instead multiple meanings and applications for a term. The controversy on this page deals more with POV, word choice, and trying to come up with a 'perfect' definition that includes every single imaginable use of the word 'abortion. I hope this clears things up and doesn't come off as blabber :P--Andrew c 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

After implantation
As I recall, we recently had a discussion about when pregnancy began. There has been a contentious editor warring here, who has nonetheless provided a number of sources which were claimed in the edit summary as being for the after implantation definition of pregnancy as regards abortion. One was. The others either do not specify or were not sources at all for the paragraph (such as a list of obstetrics related classes offered at a university.)
 * After implantation


 * 
 * Def of abortion w/out specifying implantation

KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 
 * 

Life and Death (was: Totally disputed tag?)
So why did someone add the tag without adding an entry on the talk page? --Andrew c 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That was me, and the page was reverted before I could get to adding a talk page entry. Sorry about that, I'll be sure to do that the other way around next time.  I've removed the tag.  Struct 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if you think there are POV issues or factual issues in the article, feel free to explain them here (without or without the tag). There is always room for improvement.--Andrew c 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Death" in sentence one was what I primarily had a problem with, and from the looks of the talk pages, I wasn't the only one. I was going to lobby for "destruction" in its place, but "termination" works fine. Struct 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your issue with "death" in sentence one, exactly? As you can see, we have gone 'round and 'round on this one; maybe a fresh perspective is just what we need. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Y'all certainly have. :-) Here's my perspective:


 * Death is an utterly loaded term, with all sorts of scientific, ethical, moral, and legal implications and connotations. In my viewpoint, for something to die, it must first have lived.


 * Is a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus truly "alive" in all of the above-listed senses? That's one of the most (if not the most) contentious social issues in the USA currently.  Given the extremely vituperative controversy, it seems disingenuous to me to claim that "death" is neutral terminology.


 * If "death" were the only clinical term available, then perhaps one could argue that the benefits of its use outweigh the detriments, but alternative language can easily be found without a corresponding loss of scientific meaning. To me, that trumps the tired old "anything other than 'death' is a euphemism for baby-killing" argument that the pro-lifers love to trot out.  Biology and medicine cannot state definitively that a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus is "alive"... biology and medicine havn't even arrived at common ground as to what "alive" truly means.


 * Until there's a mainstream scientific consensus as to whether or not a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus can "die", I take strong exception to framing the abortion debate in terms of life and death. As I said above, a term like "destruction" instead of "death" has the same advantages but without the baggage.  Struct 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's well put, Struct. I'm not as certain as you seem to be, but I'm very open to a definition that avoids the political baggage of the word "death" while remaining accurate.  Lots of definitions seem to leave out essential details in their care to avoid eggshells.


 * Also, we need to frankly acknowledge very early in the article that the very definitions of the terms are hotly debated, precisely because many people (much more than a "fringe" of extremists) consider the debate to be framed precisely in terms of life and death. I don't think we should allow pro-choice or pro-life activists to dictate how we frame the deabte.  How do we avoid using the language of one or the other? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment, GT, mucho appreciado.


 * As for certainty... Me, certain? Heck no.  I'm as uncertain about the morality of abortion as I am about the existence of a Higher Power or Powers.  I have no problem with those who oppose abortion, so long as that viewpoint is not forcibly imposed on others.


 * How do we avoid falling into the life/death paradigm? Let's get clinical, clinical, I wanna get clinical... (sorry, really bad pun/reference there).  In the spirit of NPOV, let's be scientists and attempt to objectively determine fact where there is certainty, and indeterminacy where there is uncertainty.  Easier said than done, I know, but I think that's the only reasonable approach. Struct 05:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "How do we avoid falling into the life/death paradigm?" wasn't quite my question. How do we avoid framing the question using either side's language was my question - which means how do we simultaneously frame it as a life/death question (because it is) and studiously refrain from framing it as a life/death question (because it isn't)?  Simply avoiding the life/death issue as if it's not there is too much of a concession to the pro-choice side, IMO. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood then, I guess you meant that rhetorically, as in "How can we help BUT fall into the life/death paradigm?" My answer would be that where possible, use language that straddles the line, such as "destruction" rather than "death".  Where not possible, contrast viewpoints:  some people feel X, others feel Y, and science has nothing definite to say on the matter.  I'm not arguing that the words "life" and "death" have no place in this article, but I am arguing that a matter-of-fact, pat, life/death frame, such as the one in Para. 1 Sent. 1, violates NPOV. Struct 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that last statement. I would also say, though, that writing para. 1 sent. 1 as if it's simply not about life and death is also POV (namely, the clinical, medical POV).  I'm not offering some bright solution here, I'm just trying to state the problem as clearly as I can.  I like the two-definitions solution, but it has to be presented very delicately. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think a good solution is to include two different definitions, from two different POVs, covering two different usages of the word. But apparently citing the medical definition is to controversial for some editors because it uses the word "non-viable". I'll stop being bitter, and just remind everyone to take discussion about the first paragraph to the talk subpage.--Andrew c 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, from a purely biological standpoint, death is not limited to things which are born in a sense. To die really means to cease biological functions, you know, the whole reproducibility, ability to adapt, etc. etc. criteria, so when you get an abortion, death is being caused. The cells forming the embryo or fetus are quite alive in a biological sense, and I assumed people really want to go with medical definitions here? Homestarmy 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, focusing on this fact (that biological or cellular death occurs) goes against the cited medical definitions. It is giving that fact undue weight, because that aspect is not one of the defining factors of an abortion when defined by medical sources. It would be like saying a tonsilectomy is defined by the death of the tosils. Sure, removing the tonsils is going to cause cellular death, but there is no need to point this out in the first sentence definition. But this is just one POV (the medical POV). There are other POVs, namely that a) abortion is serious business because a living human being is killed and b) there is no other way to define an abortion in contrast with a live birth except by mentioning the d-word.--Andrew c 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't mean the abortion procedure does nothing except cause the death of the child, I just meant that biologically speaking, it is compleatly correct to say that it causes the death of the embryo, fetus, or whatever stage of development the child is in :/. It's certainly a compleate organism in its own right as well. So while a tonsilectomy wouldn't necessarily refer to it as the "killing of the tonsils", the tonsils most certainly do die, their just not separate organisms in any sense. I don't see how its undue weight to mention that it causes death when perhaps the greatest reason this topic has such a large amount of weight is because it causes death, specifically to a fetus, embryo, and so on. Homestarmy 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"death"
From what I've seen here, "death" is HARDLY a consensus term and should either be removed or tagged disputed post-haste! Struct 06:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been an extensive amount of debate about this one contentious little word. See Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. -Severa (!!!) 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen it, I've perused all of it, I've read a good deal of it in detail, but I'm very curious as to how on Earth it all adds up to "consensus" about its usage. The fact that you yourself used the word "contentious" indicates that "death" either needs to be changed or tagged disputed. Struct 07:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Four weeks of circular, tangential debates have failed to yield anything conclusive. You can throw yourself into the mix and see if your perspective helps move it out of an impasse; call me a skeptic, though, but I don't see any breakthroughs or epiphanies occurring any time soon. I, personally, would prefer that such resources be lavished upon the poor, neglected To-do list. -Severa (!!!) 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I already have thrown myself into the mix, and I doubt that my perspective will make a difference given the nature of this issue. This country's endured thirty-plus years of circular, tangential debates ever since the Roe ruling.  I feel like I've contributed all I can, and I'm going to focus on expanding the "Media Coverage" subsection of South Dakota reproductive rights controversy.  Maybe I'll hit that To-Do list this weekend.


 * However, I still think "death" in sentence one is a massive problem and ought to be tagged . Struct 07:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we're past any point where we can call any opening sentence the "consensus version". -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted, but no; it is the consensus. We've had a circular debate of our own, and simply "death" is accurate and in the summary style appropriate for Wikipedia. (Encarta uses it as well) Alternatives, for the most part, are weasely; and do not clarify the key aspect of the Abortion issue. Death does. - RoyBoy 800 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we're using the word consensus in two different ways then. According to my understanding, if one person disagrees, it's not really a "consensus". -GTBacchus(talk) 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you switch to my definition; or else there is no spoon... I mean consensus. :"D My implementation of consensus is where people from across a debate can agree (or at least concede) on something. This is a routine thing when it comes to deletions; where things can be significantly split, but consensus is achieved nonetheless. Moreover new users to an article cannot suddenly skew the consensus. - RoyBoy 800 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and my initial response was for Struct, not you. My bad. On an additional note; consensus is defined as a "general" agreement, not a unanimous agreement. - RoyBoy 800 17:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, is there an abortion where the fetus ends up alive, besides failed abortions, as noted in the article? Because otherwise its dead. Death is what we call it when something which was living ceases to live and becomes dead.
 * Btw, GTBacchus, love your edit summary! I knew you were a cultured and erudite individual!!! (Princess Bride reference) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Erudite, I wonder who came up with that word. - RoyBoy 800 18:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Erudite comes from Latin eruditus, from e-, "out of, from" + rudis, "rough, untaught," which is also the source of English rude. Hence one who is erudite has been brought out of a rough, untaught, rude state. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)