Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion/Archive 1

Political asymmetry
The first thing that jumps off that category list is that the pro-choice and pro-life categories are structured somewhat differently. Is that ok, or needing to be addressed? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For uniformity, the "politician," "activist," and "organization" subcategories should nest within a main "abortion rights" or "pro-choice movement" category, as they do in pro-life. -Severa (!!!) 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should those two categories be named Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement, to be quite balanced about it? After all, if we call pro-life "abortion rights opposition", someone will ask us to call pro-choice "fetal rights opposition". -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. But is there some way to easily move both categories? -Severa (!!!) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might involve dealing with CfD - maybe we should prepare a list of category changes we can't do without them, and take them all at once? Actually, creating the pro-choice one isn't a problem, but renaming the pro-life one should be renamed by the book I think, after we make the pro-choice one.  Are there any other category renames or deletions we're looking at? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Y'know - on second thought, we can probably do it all without having to mess around with CfD for renames unless someone says something. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quickly moved everything to Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement. All we'd have to do, now, is CfD the empty categories, Category: Abortion rights and Category:Abortion rights opposition. I'll look to see if there are any other category names which might present NPOV issues. -Severa (!!!) 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'd say this project is a roaring success, so far! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Indeed! Just so you know, though, I might only be able to stick around for a couple of more hours, because my ISP is performing server maintenance tonight. In a very brief perusal of the categories, I found one other which might present an NPOV issue, Category:United States abortion rights case law. -Severa (!!!) 06:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just edit conflicted with you posting about that very category. I guess we should create a new one consistent with the Canadian one and delete the old? I can start the CfD for these three empty categories, no problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles moved from United States abortion rights case law to United States abortion case law. I may give it a day before taking that empty category to CfD, just in case...  It shouldn't bother anyone, making the names consistent, but you never know. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was doing it as you were doing it, actually. Strange. :-) -Severa (!!!) 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can just delete Category:Abortion rights now, as a db-author, since it was never really used. (Done.) I'll take Category:Abortion rights opposition to CfD, and I'll take the funny US case law one there in a day or two. After people have had a chance to react if they need to. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quinine
I say, yes, give the boot to quinine, at least on the Category Tree. Its place within the spectrum of abortion-related articles is noted by its inclusion in the "abortifacient" sub-category. -Severa (!!!) 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the big politician categories aren't really part of the project either, but we might as well keep links and counts around. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page tag
Anyone know how to make a WikiProject talk page tag, as per the ones which appear on the talk pages of articles related to WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Harry Potter, etc.? -Severa (!!!) 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Tag is . -Severa (!!!) 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now, how to go about tagging 1,000 pages? -Severa (!!!) 06:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only about 150 - we don't need to tag those politicians. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We can also tag pages as we get to them, and allow that others will start, once they see that it's a thing to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done tagging everything in the main categories. -Severa (!!!) 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It appears we have just about 184 articles in 15 categories, not counting politicians or pictures. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) A good starting activity for we and newcomers-to-come will be to continue sorting the articles in Category:Abortion into more specific categories. -Severa (!!!) 08:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User invitation drive
Do you think it would be a good idea to alert regular editors at Abortion and related articles to the existence of this Project, and also to invite them to participate, by placing notices on article and user talk pages? -Severa (!!!) 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages, yes. User talk pages, I'd hesitate to plug much.  A few wouldn't go amiss, especially if we're careful to invite people of varying POVs without showing any bias.  If we give people any excuse to claim the project's biased though, you know they will.  I think a few, carefully chosen notices will draw people in at a good rate - not too many all at once, but everyone who should be here, before too long.  Was that vague enough? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That tag you just made, applied to the talk pages, is probably all the advertising you'll need. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I didn't even know I could make one until ten minutes ago, so I suppose I was anticipating a back-up method of getting the word out. The tag will definitely be sufficient notice. -Severa (!!!) 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Might I suggest Religion and abortion for our first improvement drive? -Severa (!!!) 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So that's Miss June, huh? Well, she's on my watchlist. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, BTW. :-) -Severa (!!!) 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
How about a userbox that says "This user is a member of WikiProject Abortion", as most other WikiProjects (as far as I know) have? I'd be happy to whip one up. However, I don't suppose there are any images that everyone would agree to being placed on it... any ideas? rom a rin [talk ] 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there an image of... a caduceus and a scales of justice together? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as far as I know, but I could easily make a box with one on each side. I like this idea a lot actually. Great thinking! rom a rin [talk ] 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this?



Tell me if you hate the color... or feel free to change it yourself! That's always a hard part, picking the right color! rom a rin [talk ] 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The box looks great to me. Thanks for putting it together, Romarin.  We'll see what other people think... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along these lines last night for a corner image to be used in the talk page tag. However, I couldn't think of anything which would be immediately representative of abortion, without bordering on POV. I like the composition of Romarin's userbox, as it quickly conveys the predominant aspects of abortion, the medical and the legal/moral. Also, the sage green colour is nice. -Severa (!!!) 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you two like it. As no one else has shown up to participate yet, I'm guessing that this is good enough... I'll go ahead and put it on the main page so that people, when they finally find their way here, can add it to their userpages if they so desire. rom a rin [talk ] 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a section "Userbox"; when we get other templates we could put them there as well and call it "Templates" or "Useful Templates" or something along those lines. I know the userbox is not necessarily one of the most important things here, but what can I say, I'm a nerd and I like to make them! rom a rin [talk ] 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, look! New WikiProject!  Hope no one minds if I join up here, despite my relative newbishness.  As regards the userbox: it seems to me that that could just as easily be a userbox for any bioethics project.  Perhaps, if we are using both sides, we could have an anti-abortion image on one side and a pro-abortion image on the other?  (See my User Page for a disclaimer on my use of language.)  Like, perhaps a fetus on the right, and, on the left... I don't know what a good symbol for "choice" is that doesn't seem somehow unsympathetic.  Maybe... the Bill of Rights?  But perhaps that would be too America-centric.  Those are my thoughts.


 * Okay, I've got to spend a little while wandering around, getting aquainted with how WikiProjects work. Excuse me.  --BCSWowbagger 07:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the aim was to puporsely avoid politicized symbols, like fetuses or venus glyphs, because these would be divisive and suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic. -Severa (!!!) 10:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, welcome to the project, BCSWowbagger. -Severa (!!!) 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Severa is completely right. Why do we need to make the userbox about the debate? It is possible to have a discourse of abortion that addresses legal issues and medical issues without getting into the whole opposing forces aspect. Not to say that we shouldn't address those as well, but first and foremost this project should focus on presenting information, not trying to prematurely divide itself into pro-choice and pro-life camps.

And speaking of terminology, I read your "disclaimer" on language, and while you are certainly entitled to your oppinion, it would be greatly appreciated if you could use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as much as possible when participating in this project and the articles associated with it. There are many reasons why this is preferable, and if you wish for more information on this, please read the relevant articles.

Thanks, and welcome to the project. rom a rin [talk ] 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, we don't have apply the same formality in Talk pages as we do in articles, but I would still recommend it. "Anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" are less objectionable than clearly pejorative terms like "anti-women" or "pro-murder." Nonetheless, I think it's simple courtesy to refer to people, groups, and things by their self-identified terms. In general, I reserve "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" to describe things which are distanced from the main abortion debate, but still are taking sides with regard to its ethical acceptability (e.g. "anti-abortion violence" or "pro-abortion violence"); or, to avoid redundancy in the structuring of a sentence, as in, "Pro-choice activists lauded the pro-abortion bill." In terms of articles, though, perhaps we should decide upon terminology conventions to be applied in articles throughout the project? -Severa (!!!) 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the self-identifying names rule is pretty clear, as discussed in the cfd nomination, which, I note, looks like it's going to be successful. Pro-life and pro-choice are good ideas.  And, being new, I'm not completely aware of the acceptable level formality forTalk pages (and I have noticed that it varies from category to category), so I am glad to defer to the rest of you and switch to pro-life and pro-choice.


 * The userbox is it is simply seems vague. There is nothing in it that clearly identifies it being about abortion.  Just looking at some other WikiProjects I've hit, the templates are *generally* quite explicit about the content of the project.  However, I quite appreciate the desire to avoid polarizing the project from day one.


 * Thanks for welcoming me aboard! --BCSWowbagger 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding, and I appreciate your willingness to use the generally accepted terms. I understand your issue with the userbox pictures, and it's true that other wikiprojects use more specific images that identify exactly the issue at hand. However, this just doesn't always work, and I think it would not be in our best interest to turn the userbox into a representation of both sides of the debate. The only thing I can think of that would be even remotely representative of the two sides would be to have a fetus on one and a woman on the other. But I just don't think that is appropriate, and I am sure there would be much protest from people on both sides. In addition, that would be narrowing the scope of each side to "concerned with fetus" and "concerned with woman", and I'm sure we both agree that there is more to the debate than that. While perhaps vague, the userbox as it stands represents well, in my opinion, that this issue is largely a legal and a medical one. But again, thanks for your understanding. rom a rin [talk ] 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CfD
Ok, I've learned an important lesson. When you want to delete a category, unless you're prepared to speedy it in the dark, don't depopulate it or assume that it will be uncontroversial, no matter how trivial the issues at hand, until you take it to CfD by the book. Anyone who's done 100 CfDs knows when it's permissible to break this rule, and should go ahead. The rest of us haven't done 100 CfDs yet...

Thus, I'm going to re-populate Category:United States abortion rights case law, take it to CfD by the book, and then move those articles back into Category:United States abortion case law. Then we'll avoid being accused of any French phrases, and everything should be smoother. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 21. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's bureaucracy, if ever I saw it. Thanks for taking the initiative in this matter. -Severa (!!!) 06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. I was judging by AfDs, which I have done 100 of, and have enough intuition about to Ignore All Rules.  Turns out CfD is different. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FA Goal?
Should we make it a common goal to successfully nominate one of the articles in WikiProject Abortion as a featured article? Abortion is a likely candidate, but Abortion debate and History of abortion also show promise (but, then again, I'm biased toward the latter, as I've made it something of a pet project). Maybe we should create "Long-term" and "Short-term" divisions on the main "Task list" section. Any thoughts? -Severa (!!!) 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I haven't read all the way through any of those in a couple months though, so I couldn't say at this point which would be better. I started working on Abortion debate a while ago, and thought it was going in the right direction, but I have noticed that more recently you've been doing a lot of work on History of abortion, so maybe that one would be better to start of with. rom a rin [talk ] 15:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and added this as a long-term goal on the Task list. Perhaps we should start small, with a good article or two, before we strive to make a featured article? Yeah, I'm probably being overambitious, but it would nice if at least one of the main abortion-related articles (abortion, abortion law, history of abortion, and abortion debate) could be certified as a good article and another as a featured article. -Severa (!!!) 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the tumultuous history of those articles (especially abortion), it'd be great to see them recognized as stable, complete, and brilliantly written. Great idea. --BCSWowbagger 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another CfD
Category:Charitable organizations in support of abortion is inherently problematic and has been nominated for deletion. I'm removing it from the Category Tree as such. -Severa (!!!) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorization issues
MamaGeek, our newest member, has recently made some categorizations which I feel need to be explored:


 * World Health Organization added to Category:Pro-choice organizations
 * United Nations Population Fund added to Category:Pro-choice organizations
 * Roman Catholic Church added to Category:Pro-life organizations

Perhaps, to avoid future confusion, it would be a good idea for us to lay out the criteria used to sort articles — specifically how we would define an organization for inclusion under the "Political subcategories" section of the Category Tree.

I do not understand the basis for categorizing WHO or UNPF as a "pro-choice organization." MamaGeek, would you please explain why you believe these two organizations fit this description?

I believe it is the goal of WikiProject Abortion to create a useful portal without casting the net too wide and thus overwhelming readers and editors. This is why, although the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is pro-life, I'd hestitate to categorize the Church among pro-life political organizations, nor to claim it as domain of WikiProject Abortion. It's also for this reason that all of the pro-life and pro-choice politicians listed aren't tagged as part of WikiProject Abortion (just part of the Category Tree). The relationship between abortion and these articles is too limited for them to be a part of this project. We've got a lot to improve and we don't want to take on more than we have to by using too broad of a definition. -Severa (!!!) 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll just give this from the About page of the UNFPA/UNPF:
 * "Q: Does the UNFPA promote abortion?
 * "A: No. The Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994 states that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA fully subscribes to this and does not provide support for abortion services. We work to prevent abortion through family planning, and to help countries provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion."


 * From my reading, the UNFPA is almost exclusively in the contraceptive business. Two years, ago, however, the Bush administration ceased the U.S.'s $34 million funding of the UNFPA based on possible complicity in China's forced abortion practices.  It's attitude seems highly pro-choice, to me, but that's hardly grounds for labeling them a pro-choice organization.  (Ten minutes of Googling pass) On the other hand... ... or perhaps not.  In any case, the WHO does indeed appear to have full endorsed abortion as a form of family planning.  And, as we all know, the Roman Catholic Church disagrees rather strongly.


 * Regardless of all this, I tend to agree with Severa that we should keep from biting off more than we can chew. There is a *ton* of work that needs to be done in articles involving organizations focused solely on abortion.  Perhaps articles on the WHO and the United Nations could stand some abortion policy updates (I haven't read them, though), but any such edits shouldn't be under the scope of this WikiProject.  In my opinion.  --BCSWowbagger 06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that however we categorize articles, it should be very clear what those categories mean. I added a description to the pro-choice organizations category similar to the pro-life organizations category, but it seems to cover a lot more than you all want it to. I'm happy including only those organizations for whom abortion is actually mentioned in their mission statement. That would seem to be a very clear way of determining which ones belong. The description just needs to be tightened up, for both pro-choice and pro-life. I noticed that none of you removed Focus on the Family from the pro-life list. They are opposed to abortion, but it's not their primary focus. Should they be there? This is what we need to decide - the exact criteria. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I think we need to distinguish between articles which are actually a part of the scope of this project, and those which are only included in the Category Tree for reference purposes. For instance, we have the abortifacient subcategory and the two politician subcategories, but these shouldn't be considered the domain of WikiProject Abortion. Most articles within these subcategories would be better handled by WikiProjects dedicated to botany and U.S. politics. So, perhaps, only those articles whose Talk pages feature the  tag should be considered a part of the project. We'll need to better outline our standards for inclusion, but, in the mean time, a list of already-tagged articles can be easily acccessed through a  "What links here" search.
 * MamaGeek, your addition of Focus on the Family is fine, as "Our Guiding Principles" on the FotF site declares, "We believe that all human life is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions, including the unborn...". The status of WHO and UNPF as "pro-choice organizations" is uncertain and remains to be determined. The Roman Catholic Church, while pro-life, is a spiritual institution — for lack of a better term - and not a "political organization." Thus, I feel that it should be removed from the "Pro-life organizations" subcategory. However, perhaps a "faith and abortion" subcategory could be created to host topics such as religion and abortion, ensoulment, and so forth, with religious denominations being further subcategorized by official doctrinal position on the moral permissibility of abortion. I fear that the latter suggestion would be perilously close to editorializing for a number of reasons though.
 * A lot of the WPAbortion-tagging was not thorough, I'll admit, because I just went through all the categories and tagged everything in them. We'll probably need to go through them again and audit those which are relevant enough to be worthwhile of inclusion in the project.
 * For the reasons outlined above (not biting off more than we can chew!), I believe we should limit those articles included in WikiProject Abortion to organizations which make abortion its single focus, or one of its primary focuses among. -Severa (!!!) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've at added a note at the bottom of the Category Tree, explaining that only tagged pages are an official part of WikiProject Abortion -- everything else is just there for reference. I hope that this is agreeable to the other users of this project? -Severa (!!!) 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems cool to me... -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

...i would like to add that i support the exclusion of WHO/UNFPA from "pro choice organizations" because there is substantive criticism over whether their mission is humanitarian, or to 1) promote population control (whereby wealthy developed nations and the IMF/world bank who financially control the WHO/UNFPA determine that poor developing nations are "overpopulated") 2 promote the agenda of drug companies who now give the WHO more money than its member nations. by which i do not mean that WHO/UNFPA do not do/have not done some good. just that they were not established to promote a woman's right to control her reproductive choices/that is not their stated purpose/they have been justifiably accused of doing exactly the opposite... Cindery 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Got any citations to that effect? I've never heard WHO/UNFPA accused of pro-life activity. --BCSWowbagger 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

hi, i think you misunderstood me. the WHO/UNFPA (and USAID/IPP, for that matter) has not been accused of pro-life activity, but having a population control agenda. (meaning, not a reproductive rights agenda per se). and committing human rights violations to further it, in fact. and boy do i ever have citations! :-) but start here, this is a great essay by Barbara Ehrenreich:  Cindery 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ps: the pop-dev program at hampshire college has a good site for more info on what i guess you could say is my POV: it is my belief that the issues of contraception and abortion are overly defined as either pro-life or pro-choice. the mainstream pro-choice movement has made alliances with big pharma and population control orgs, to which some people object (without therefore aligning themselves with the pro-life movement). i.e., we reserve the right to investigate the safety of for-profit pharmaceutical drugs and to criticize social/political/financial injustice perpetrated/enhanced/furthered by population orgs, but we are still "pro-choice." Cindery 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is straying into an ideological territory not germane to WikiProject Abortion. Please continue it on your user talk page. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

on the contrary; "ideological territory" is precisely what's being discussed in this thread: is the WHO a pro-choice org, and what does that mean, what are the criteria and according to whom, etc. i intentionally replied here and not on his talkpage because i am the first participant in this discussion to include a significant POV with adherents which has not only been unrepresented, but it is not even known to all participants in the discussion. the point is appropriate expansion of awareness of the "ideological territory"...viz "what is a pro-choice organization"? Cindery 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion's aim was to determine whether the WHO took a permissive position on, or even promoted, abortion. It was not to brand WHO "pro-choice" based on catch-all "population control" criteria utterly unrelated to abortion. Statements of opinion such as this are not topical, don't contribute to the WikiProject, and are counter to WP:NOT. Your concern for restricting off-topic discussion to user talk pages also applies here. Thanks for understanding. -Severa (!!!) 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the discussion covered whether or not the WHO/UNFPA offer/provide abortion, to determine if they were pro-choice or not. (whether or not they only or primarily provide/promote abortion was determined to be the defining criteria). what was left out of the discusssion was: if the WHO/UNFPA promote/offer/approve of abortion, does that necessarily make them automatically pro-choice? (i would say no. the reason "pro-choice" is called pro-choice and not pro-abortion, as i understand it, is that choice + abortion are the critical elements, not merely abortion.)

also, participants in the discussion specifically referenced UNFPA's cairo meeeting statement (which has been criticized by feminists for appropriating the language of choice without actually espousing it in practice) and forced abortion in china--two issues which specifically address the difference between abortion and pro-choice abortion, as they pertain to criticisms of population control organizations. to summarize reductively, population control orgs can offer /condone abortion and still not be "pro-choice." so, in addition to the fact that they offer more than abortion (the sole criteria agreed upon here) i offered additional support for exclusion of WHO/UNFPA on the basis of another criteria: they do not necessarily endorse choice, even when they endorse abortion. i believe that is a very critical and highly relevant distinction in a discussion of whether or not an organization is pro-choice viz abortion. Cindery 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One could, under the same logic, claim that any person or organization which opposed abortion while supporting the death penalty was not truly pro-life. However, given NPOV, a distinction based upon a subjective definition of what constitutes "pro-life" would not be a solid basis for excluding this entity from Category:Pro-life movement. It would be better to approach the issue from a broader, objective position, asking, "Is this group active in the abortion debate?" We can answer that question once we define what constitutes an activist/organization and what constitutes advocacy. -Severa (!!!) 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"is this group active in the abortion debate" was not the criteria discussed for inclusion as a pro-choice organization under the abortion project umbrella--the criteria discussed was, does the organization offer/promote abortion? (and then the orgs were limited to ones which focus on abortion, not just ones who merely offer or endorse it.) NPOV is the inclusion of all significant viewpoints with adherents, so it is actually broader/more objective  to include voices which, for example, question whether "choice" should matter in a discussion of a definition of pro-choice (and whether "life" should matter in a discussion of a definition of pro-life). i believe what you overlooked/objected to was the relevance of including choice as a criteria in a discussion of the definition of a pro-choice organization, so, that would be two separate issues: 1) should choice be discussed as a criteria? 2) should it be a criteria? presumably, one cannot make a determination of 2 without 1, hence the usefulness and relevance of discussion. Cindery


 * "Is this group active in the abortion debate?" is a question formatted to include both sides. Our definition of abortion-related advocacy would be intended to apply to both the pro-life and pro-choice categories. Our goal is to establish a logical convention for organizing articles, to be applied throughout WikiProject Abortion, which would free us from the myopic, time-consuming business of having to make judgements on case-by-case basis, as we are doing now. I never suggested that the criteria for a "pro-choice organization" should be "organization[s] [which] offer/promote abortion," only that our selections should be limited to "organizations which make abortion its single focus, or one of its primary focuses among [others]," and that spiritiual institutions (i.e., churches, not faith-based advocacy groups like Priest for Life), do not constitute, for want of a better term, "political organizations."
 * "i offered additional support for exclusion of WHO/UNFPA on the basis of another criteria: they do not necessarily endorse choice, even when they endorse abortion. i believe that is a very critical and highly relevant distinction in a discussion of whether or not an organization is pro-choice viz abortion.."
 * You suggested that the WHO should not be considered a "pro-choice organization" because it fails to live up to a subjective definition of what it means to be "pro-choice." Under the same logic, then, the argument could be made that all politicians who support capital punishment while condemning abortion shouldn't be categorized as "pro-life politicians," because "they do not necessarily endorse life, even when they condemn abortion."
 * It is all well and good to practice inclusionism in articles. Accomodation of one viewpoint, in that instance, does not preclude the accomodation of another. Categorization, however, is finite, and thus requires us to be exclusionists in practice. A system of categorization based upon subjective criteria is inherently dysfunctional. The broader definition of "pro-life" demands the inclusion of the pro-death penalty, anti-abortion politician in the "pro-life politicians" category, while the narrower definition demands his exclusion. You cannot respect both perspectives and still have a working system of categorization. We should thus seek to establish a criteria of categorization which is closer to objectivity. -Severa (!!!) 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cindery 05:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, i clearly stated that the point of view exists--and i subscribe to it--that choice is an essential criteria of "pro-choice."
 * yes, pro-lifers who oppose the death penalty exist, and it is true that pro-lifers who support the death penalty are criticized by some who believe this is a contradiction viz the pro-life position.
 * categorization is infinitely inclusive via subcategorization...(hence, for example,"pro-life politicians who support the death penalty" as a subcategory of "pro-life politicians"...)
 * all definitions of "pro-choice" are subjective/dependent on subjective adherents for existence--hence a definition which includes "choice" is as subjective as one which does not. there is nothing objective about calling a huge corporation which accepts billions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry and supports coercive "family planning" a pro-choice organization--that's an opinion, and one quite subject to criticism.
 * the broadest definition of the categories of "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are not being determined here--what is being discussed is which organizations should be under the abortion project umbrella as pro-choice or pro-life. (excluding every organization which does not specifically/primarily focus on abortion is a unique and contextual definition of pro-choice, which generally encompassses the broader category of "reproductive rights" within such a limited context, it is a very valid point that perhaps organizations which have supported forced abortion should not be included as pro-choice viz abortion.)

New stub tag
I just created Abortion-stub. Feel free to begin the process of stub identification and tagging. This will help us to discover which articles within the project are most in need of expansion. -Severa (!!!) 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, and you thought CfD was bureaucratic. This time, though, I happen to be expert in the stubs area of Wikipedia, aka WikiProject Stub sorting.  Since it's already created, we'll bypass /Proposals and go straight to /Discoveries.  Stub sorters are remarkably anal.  We actually have to get this passed as an official stub type, or it's liable to just be deleted.  It all makes a lot of sense, but one can lose sight of that...


 * Before presenting this stub for approval to the official list of stub types WP:WSS/ST, we should show that it meets the critical size, of about 60 stub articles. I'm sure there are 60 stub-sized articles in Category:Abortion and its subcategories; if we have a list of them ready to populate the new stub category, then we shouldn't run into any sticky red tape there.


 * Stub types also have accompanying stub categories that they sort articles into. I imagine we'll want Category:Abortion stubs to be a daughter category of both Category:Medicine stubs and Category:Law stubs.  Maybe I should go start a thread at WP:WSS/D now... -GTBacchus(talk) 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. If I'd have known, I wouldn't have created it in the first place, as Romarin had no issue with the userbox or I with the Talk page tag, I figured it wouldn't be a big deal. Is it possible to just delete the tag? -Severa (!!!) 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible to delete it - that'd be a db-author, CSD G7. I didn't mean to suggest it was a bad thing or a problem though. It might be a useful stub type, and I don't mind running it through the stub-sorters' gauntlet. I was just letting you know, because it's a surprising red-tape forest to find yourself in unawares.  Do you think we have 60 stubs under the project?  Stub categories with an associated Wiki-project are pretty well thought of at Stub sorting (because they're more likely to be maintained with some vigilance), and I doubt it would be a problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From Category:Pro-life organizations From Category:Pro-life activists From Category:Pro-choice organizations From Category:Pro-choice activists From Category:United States abortion case law From Category:Abortion case law From Category:Abortion law From Category:Abortion by country From Category:Forms of abortion From Category:Abortion providers From Category:Abortion
 * Aktion Leben
 * American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists
 * American Collegians for Life
 * American Victims of Abortion
 * Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
 * British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
 * California ProLife Council
 * Care Net
 * Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
 * Choose Life Inc.
 * Family Life International (New Zealand)
 * Heartbeat International
 * LIFE (charity)
 * New York State Right to Life Party
 * Operation Rescue West
 * Pharmacists for life international
 * Physicians For Life
 * Population Research Institute
 * Precious Life
 * Priests for Life
 * Queensland Right to Life
 * Right to Life Australia
 * SPUC
 * Students for America
 * Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust
 * Women Exploited By Abortion
 * Caroline Moreau
 * Joseph Scheidler
 * Abortion Law Reform Association
 * Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand
 * Guttmacher Institute
 * National Abortion Federation
 * National Coalition of Abortion Providers*
 * Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
 * Ellie Lee
 * Ann Furedi
 * Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic
 * City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
 * H. L. v. Matheson
 * Hodgson v. Minnesota
 * Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
 * Attorney General v. X
 * Abortion Act 1967
 * Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
 * Conscience Clause (medical)
 * Fetal protection
 * Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 * Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
 * Holly's Law
 * Human Life Amendment
 * Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995
 * Status of the Unborn Child Bill
 * TRAP law
 * Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 * Women's right to know
 * Abortion in Brazil
 * Abortion in Chile
 * Abortion in Iran
 * Abortion in the Netherlands
 * Abortion in Sweden
 * Electric vacuum aspiration
 * Feticide
 * Hysterotomy abortion
 * Manual vacuum aspiration
 * Suction-aspiration abortion
 * David Gunn (doctor)
 * Leroy Carhart
 * Martin Haskell
 * Warren Hern
 * Foetal impairment
 * Jonathan Glover
 * Guttmacher Institute
 * Nuremberg Files
 * The Hand of God (Book)
 * Judith Jarvis Thomson

Ok, that's 75 stubs within the project (give or take a lot of judgement calls as to what makes a stub). (The one marked with a star is the stubbiest of the stubby.) I think we have a good argument for our own stub type. A lot of those articles will be double-stubbed as Abortion-stub and Org-stub, or whatever, but that's all cool. Clearly someone who's an expert on abortion could use such a stub category in a way that isn't permitted by the current stub types. I'll just take it to WP:WSS/D now that we have this list. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. That link looks broken, but seems to work. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was entirely serious about wanting to delete it. Thanks for trying to sort it out, but I don't see why you should have to pick up the slack for my mistake, nor do I think it's worth the all the hurdles. Just delete it. -Severa (!!!) 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... do you really think it wouldn't be helpful? I can delete it, but it's already halfway through the process now.  Your call... -GTBacchus(talk) 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're right -- the process is halfway complete and stopping it now would be counterproductive. I still don't see it as fair that you should have to take on so much extra work on my account. If deleting the tag could avoid that then, to me, that course of action seems preferable. I've just been having intermittent ISP service. It's very frustrating and I'm probably not in the best frame of mind for problem-solving. I think I'm going to take a WikiBreak. -Severa (!!!) 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't feel like a burden to me. Despite being a self-proclaimed "expert" in stubs, I've never actually proposed one fully according to process, and this being the closest I've come to that, has been educational.  I also suddenly have a much better idea of what kind of articles we've got in this project - I think the Law category could use some sorting out, for example.
 * Of course, if a Wikibreak is what you need, go for it! You do good work here and have certainly earned time off, if that's the cure for what ails you.  You know we'll keep a fire burning for ya. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm returned from a week-long sabbatical (although, yes, I've been around making minor edits during that time). How fares the adoption of my poor, illegitimate stub? -Severa (!!!) 14:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the facts that a) almost three weeks of discussion have ensued since the proposal of this stub, b) over a week has passed since the proposer's return with no subsequent discussion, c) no action has been taken to propose this stub template for deletion, and d) I agree with the reasoning behind it's proposal and the draft list of articles proposed above as recipients of the template, I have tagged each of the articles listed above with Template:abortion-stub, thereby populating Category:Abortion stubs. Reversions of my edits will not be met with resistance should consensus be that either this was a hasty act or that the template should, in fact, be deleted. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

POV userbox
Hi all, I just came across this userbox: Template:User_abortion, and I find the use of a near-term pregnant woman as the image pretty POV. What does a woman about to give birth have to do with the abortion debate? Is this something we should try to fix, or am I the only one bothered by it? rom a rin [talk ] 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say so. It should be replaced with something a little more topical. However, in my experience, userboxes are the one place on Wikipedia where NPOV doesn't apply. Perhaps a second one should be created to give users a more neutral option? -Severa (!!!) 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree, except I think that the point of this particular userbox, saying "this user is interested in..." rather than "this user is pro-choice/pro-life" is to be neutral itself. If we had another one with the same text but a different picture, everyone would break into camps, using either box A or box B, just as they would with pro-choice/pro-life userboxes. If this box is actually supposed to be neutral, then it should be so all the way, and I think that means changing the picture. rom a rin [talk ] 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason not to have more than one neutral, "This user is interested in..." userbox for this topic. You could pick a different image, color scheme, etc. to make the selection more diverse. Almost 70 users are already using user abortion in its current state, and not a one has in the past ever objected to any aspect of it, so some might object to a complete reworking of the template to something as dramatically different as User WikiProject Abortion, though I personally have no strong opinion one way or another on the matter, as I am not using the template myself. I see no potential downsides at all to simply adding another template with a different image or layout to accomodate anyone who objects to the current template, though; it has no possibility to trouble any of the current template-users, and will give anyone in the future who doesn't like the current one another option. We've done the same thing for several other popular user-templates. -Silence 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason not to have multiple neutral boxes either; the problem is I just don't think this one is neutral. Sure, maybe no one has said anything so far, but most people are not sensitive to the intricacies of abortion debate-related media and the subtle implications an image can have. Different pictures mean different things to different people, and some are bound to be bothered by something that others find acceptable. That's why I originally posted here, because I wasn't sure if I was the only one bothered by it. I would still be very interested to hear more opinions. At any rate, the few boxes I saw on userpages were all substed, so they would not be affected if someone changed the image. rom a rin [talk ] 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, would be interested in hearing more opinions on the matter, to find out if others share your concerns. Incidentally, you are mistaken in saying that there are few non-substed uses of this template; there are numerous. Also, interested users should note the related discussion here. -Silence 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that few userboxes were not substed, I only said that the few I saw were. I have no idea about the rest. Sorry if this was unclear. rom a rin [talk ] 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some more opinions at Reproductive rights
Hi all, there's a bit of a disagreement going on over at the Reproductive rights page, and in trying to avoid a full-blown edit war, I am requesting that some others take a look. The issue, as you will see on the talk page is over the definition of the pro-choice position, and whether it is about more than just abortion. There also seems to be the issue of whether the pro-life position is completely excluded from a discourse of reproductive rights. Thanks for helping, rom a rin [talk ] 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeking input at Fetal rights
Hi, I've been helping (hopefully) to build this article, after nominating it for AfD. I am seeking input, as to how the article could be expanded, or how remaining issues might be resolved. Specifically, I desire to seek a consensus on whether the article should be merged to Fetal protection, or vice versa. I believe that the article should be merged to Fetal protection, not the other way around, but would like to invite your opinions here first. -Severa (!!!) 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis/archive1
RoyBoy has begun a peer review of the article Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis if you would be interested in participating. -Severa (!!!) 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion stub - POV fetus?

 * Discussion copied from User talk:Booyabazooka...

I'm not sure I've found the commentary to which you refer on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion to explain your revert on abortion-stub. I find it interesting that you noted, in discussion of a userbox, that the image should not "suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." I agree entirely; the graphic should not be about the debate. The scales graphic is about nothing but the debate. It has nothing to do with abortion itself. The fetus graphic seems to fit perfectly without any politics at all. Abortion is an act upon a fetus. What better way to illustrate it than by a fetus? You indicated that the image was POV - but which point of view do you think an image of a fetus supports? We can't depict the actual action of abortion in a stub icon, so we can do the next best thing: depict the subject of the action. It seems very clear-cut and unpoliticized to me. ~ Booya Bazooka 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would invite you to participate in WPAbortion if you are concerned with the decisions we are making. We were the ones who discussed and created the abortion-related templates, including the project userbox, stub template, etc. Evidently, you missed a key point in the "Userbox" thread, because my precise response was: "I think the aim was to puporsely avoid politicized symbols, like fetuses or venus glyphs, because these would be divisive and suggest that abortion is solely an ethical topic." In other words, it would frame the issue in a manner preferable to one side, which is precisely what we want to avoid. Romarin agreed with me, and, again, conveyed the importance of neutral images in the thread "POV userbox." -Severa (!!!) 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also find it perplexing that you equate scales with "the debate." Most would associate it with the law. -Severa (!!!) 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is funny, because I find it perplexing that you equate a fetus with the debate. I would think most would associate it with... abortion.  I do associate the scales with decision-making, weighing two options against each other.  Anyway, what does abortion really have to do with legislature?  I certainly did read what you quoted, I agree that neutral images are important, and I believe I responded to it specifically: I believe that the fetus image is neutral.  How is it politicized and divisive?  Which side of the debate does it favor? ~ Booya Bazooka 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "What does abortion have to do with legislature?" Quite a lot. But if abortion is truly just an ideological balancing act, as you suggest, then the pro-choicer will place more emphasis in a woman's right to choose, while the pro-lifer will place more on the right to life of the fetus. Choose an image representative of either and you preferentially frame the issue, as if to say, "X is more important here than Y"— which isn't NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The mere fact that there is legislation regarding abortion does not mean that abortion is solely a legal issue. Just about everything can be said to have quite a lot to do with law. I'm truly confused as to why you said "if abortion is truly just an ideological balancing act, as you suggest".  That's not what I suggest at all.  I've been trying to convince you precisely of the opposite.  The balancing act (as represented by the scales) should be ignored in this representation; we're not trying to focus on the debate, we're trying to focus on abortion.  And abortion is the act of aborting a fetus.  A depiction of a fetus doesn't mean that the fetus is important or has rights.  It's just a depiction of a fetus. ~ Booya Bazooka 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this discussion to WikiProject Abortion now... ~ Booya Bazooka 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) An abortion is the termination, induced or spontaneous, of a pregnancy. But, regardless of how one defines it, the neutrality precedent was set with the selection of the images in the userbox. I find it counterprodutive to revist something that's already been decided when the "Task list" remains to be addressed. -Severa (!!!) 05:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Severa asked me to weigh in here, so although I'm not strictly back online for a few days yet, I'll offer an opinion or two.  First, I don't like the fetus image, not for any POV-related reasons, but because it's not a very clear image at that size.  It looks like a blur to me.


 * Anyway, an abortion is a medical process. Additionally, it is an extremely controversial and visible ethical, religious, and legal issue.  Severa is correct that images of fetuses will carry connotations of pro-life propaganda for many, however inexplicable that may seem to others.  I suggest a caduceus as a compromise image, which suggests only that abortion is a medical topic, which I think is uncontroversial and sufficiently non-political.  We have a good caduceus on the left side of User WikiProject Abortion; why not use that one? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for "weighing in" on the issue of the scales. :-) I've swapped images as you suggested. -Severa (!!!) 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Navigation box?
Would it be appropriate to create an infobox to be used in articles throughout WikiProject Abortion. If so, how should it be organized, and what articles should be included within it? Also, are there any official processes which must be seen to first, as we wouldn't want a repeat of the stub debacle? -Severa (!!!) 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From my experience with the BC infobox creation I recall this: List of infoboxes/Proposed. However, I'm not sure if an infobox is exactly what we need for this project. I think a navigational box, similar to Category:Religion navigational boxes or Category:Science navigational boxes, with a format of either a side bar at the top of the articles, or something that stretches the length of the page at the bottom of the articles. We could start listing the categories and most important topics we'd need in a navigational box here if we want.--Andrew c 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I now see that there is a difference between a navigation box and an infobox. I intended to propose the creation of the former and thus I've change the title of this section to avoid confusion. I think that our potential navbox should be based upon the project's category tree: it should list abortion methods, under a "medical" topics heading, and then list the three major abortion sub-articles, history of abortion, abortion law, and abortion debate. I would prefer a side-aligned bar at the top of the page, for easy navigation and prominent visibility, but that would prove obtrusive should it have to compete for space with an image at the top of the space. So, I suppose, a length-wise box at the bottom of the page would be preferrable. -Severa (!!!) 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think abortion related articles are image heavy. And if we come across a page that is, we can always use a table to stack the image above the navbox (like we do at Jesus). So I don't think having a vertical box is that problematic. I'll see if I can't throw together a rough draft later tonight or tomorrow.--Andrew c 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Work-in-progress navbox hierarchy

 * Abortion (part of birth control)
 * Forms of abortion
 * Surgical abortion:
 * Dilation and curettage
 * Dilation and evacuation
 * Electric vacuum aspiration
 * Hysterotomy abortion
 * Intact dilation and extraction
 * Manual vacuum aspiration
 * Suction-aspiration abortion
 * Chemical abortion:
 * Herbal abortion
 * Feticide
 * Instillation abortion
 * Mifepristone
 * Other:
 * Late-term abortion
 * Miscarriage
 * Self-induced abortion
 * Selective reduction
 * Law:
 * Abortion by country
 * Abortion case law
 * R v Davidson
 * R. v. Morgentaler
 * Roe v. Wade
 * Debate & social issues:
 * Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis
 * Anti-abortion violence
 * Fetal pain
 * Legalized abortion and crime effect
 * Pro-choice movement
 * Pro-life movement
 * Paternal rights and abortion
 * Religion and abortion
 * Sex-selective abortion
 * Unsafe abortion
 * History of abortion

Discussion of hierarchy

 * Ok, here is my sandbox: User:Andrew c/abortion. It seems like there are too many long titles for the vertical template to work. Anyway, its a rough draft. Anyone feel free to edit the sandbox at will. --Andrew c 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to amend that issue in the vertical template by shortening the titles down to their essentials. Hope it worked. -Severa (!!!) 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking pretty good. Do you think it's up to snuff, or does it need more work? -Severa (!!!) 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should there be a few more articles on case law, at least from the U.S., which has had an awful lot of it? Or will the subcategory on U.S. Abortion Case Law do the trick as-is? --BCSWowbagger 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean for more articles on U.S. abortion case law to be included in the navbox? If so, space is limited and we want to avoid any national centrism, so only three major cases are included. Or are you suggesting that there have been more abortion-related cases in the U.S. than are currently listed in Category:United States abortion case law? If so, we could make it a future project goal to create articles for those cases which currently aren't represented. -Severa (!!!) 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the navbox. And I see your point now.  --BCSWowbagger 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Instillation abortion vs. Saline abortion
User:ChristinaDunigan created Saline abortion yesterday. I found the content to be copied almost verbatim from a pro-life essay hosted here: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa063000a.htm. I removed the problematic content, as such, rewrote, sourced, and moved the article to Instillation abortion. ChristinaDunigan claims to be the author of said piece, and, thus, that it does not violate any copyright. She recreated the Saline abortion article. However, I believe it to be redundant, as "Instillation abortion" is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted. "Saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. Aside from the larger issue of offering no functioning sources, the tone of her version is editorialistic, which I believe to be unencyclopaedic:


 * "But the Japanese physicians kept news of the trouble among themselves -- until Western nations discovered instillation abortions and embraced them with great enthusiasm."
 * "After Roe vs. Wade was handed down, saline and other instillation abortions spread to other areas of the country, despite the dismal goings-on in New York and California."
 * "Two Japanese doctors, Takashi Wagatsuma and Yukio Manabe, broke the silence."
 * "For whatever reasons, physicians in the United States were deaf to these warnings."

Further input in this matter would be appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the article is rather interesting. However, it is not particularly encylcopedic, somewhat redundant, and the tone's not quite NPOV, so your decision seems right. Most of the interesting facts could possibly be written into Instillation abortion as a history-of-method section. --BCSWowbagger 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was a little hasty in my decision. However, given the fact that methods of instillation abortion are not limited in the use of saline as a solution, it was difficult to rationalize such a fork. Also, many facts remained unsourced, or were sourced from an article on the web site of the article's creator (thus OR). Any facts not currently included on Instillation abortion definitely warrant independent verification. It does strike me as odd to devote so much attention to an outmoded, uncommon method, when the articles for more common ones are neglected. However, it has been a longstanding goal of mine to research the development of modern methods for History of abortion, so any research would have benefits for that article and those in Category:Forms of abortion. -Severa (!!!) 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)