Abortion has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives
Chronological archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
Topical subpages
First paragraph (active) Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" in intro (see First paragraph & archives)

In the UK, at least, the word miscarriage is used for 'spontaneous abortion', and termination is used for 'induced abortion'. The word abortion is not used, at least in the medical sense. I would edit but I'm not allowed, I thought someone could put it in for me?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.51.235 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 25 March 2007.

In the first paragraph discussion (see the top of the page and the archives for links to these discussions), some editors believed the word "termination" was a euphemism. I disagreed and said it was a technical medical term, (even here in the US for the most part). If we are to change the first paragraph, we would need to come up with a concreate proposal and make that on the subpages. What might be a better idea is if we added to or changed the information in the "Definitions" section. Do you happen to have an sources for the use of "termination" (all new content, especially controversial content, needs citation here at wikipedia). And do you have an specific wording proposals? Thanks for your comment, and remember to sign all talk page entries by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your posts. -Andrew c 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Adam, good idea to mention "human" in 2nd sentence of intro instead of first. Gnixon 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why is there no reference to the historically most common form of abortion by which the fetus is removed from the womb by natural birth before trauma is induced? "Infanticide" is probably the most widely accepted term, but because of editors aversion to the word for its social stigma in modern Western culture they could at least take the effort to find a more sterile terminology and add it to the article.GrEp 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process of infanticide as described above actually involves natural childbirth and as such it is not connected to abortion -- unless one defines abortion as a means of population control rather than a termination of pregnancy. It would be problematic (to say the least) to suggest that wikipedia adopt such a definition. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortions performed for population control, cultural stigmas of unwed mothers, and genetic defect of the fetus may all be safer in some cases to be performed at the end of the third trimester without invasive surgery. This is especially true in areas without access to modern medicine, women who cannot afford a surgeon, and of historic context before the advent of modern medicine. In such cases, barring cultural aversion, why is this option not discussed? The rate of cesarean sections has grown rapidly in the last century. One must ask themselves if the choice for surgical intervention among obstetricians has been driven by the welfare of the patient, or economic interests of the surgeon.GrEp 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing A instead of B does not make A the same as B, or a form of B, no matter what the reasons for the choice may be, no matter whether or not the end result is the same.

More specifically, infanticide is not the same as abortion, not by any definition of either term that I am aware of. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As defined by the article, "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Trauma to the fetus once safely passed through the uterus and vagina, without surgical intervention, certainly seems to fall under this definition. I concede the syntax of the "i" word might not be an optimal choice, but a description of the practice should be included in the article.GrEp 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new study, by the authors of the mental health & abortion study [1]. Unfortunately, no information on where the paper is being published tho Nil Einne 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any mentioning of the fact that 13 of 14 studies have found links of breast cancer to abortion? This area of the article needs revamping and a non-biased viewpoint. There have been numerous studies that confirm a link that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and biological reasons that support it. To only state one side of the issue hampers this site's claim as an encyclopedia.Kaneti 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ABC section is very strong the way it is. It is sourced, and neutral. It presents both sides without giving undue weight to minority views. It seems like the majority view is that there is no ABC link. No major cancer organization recognizes abortion as a risk factor, and a large number of recent studies have found no link (we cite those studies in the article). However, we do mention the rat studies that found a link, and we do mention the interview based studies that found a link as well. We present both sides, neutrally. Can you explain to me how the section is biased? or more importantly, where it breaks out NPOV policy? How would you change the ABC section to be more accurate and neutral?-Andrew c 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Kaneti: You mention 13 out of 14 studies. Could you provide sources to these studies, discuss whether they are in peer-reviewed journals, and mention the scope conditions. Are there any meta-analyses? Such things would make your argument more persuasive. Best, Bellagio99 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this user is referring to is 13 out of 14 American studies. All of them to my knowledge are peer reviewed. However, this aspect is mentioned in the following line: "that the majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and that some are statistically significant.[41]" To answer your question, yes there are a meta-analysis, which are in the parent article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is not a shred of peer-reviewed, credible evidence in the medical literature linking abortion with breast CA. Indeed, even the CDC, which reopened the issue a few years ago and convened an expert panel, came to the same conclusion, and this was under the current anti-choice administration in Washington--Dtoub 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is real good news, but somebody should expand on how the procedure is done. I've created partial birth abortion section which is important, i gave the dates and details. The law and partial birth abortion, may go together, do not delete, but create sub-section insead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 April 2007.

I'm afraid the title "Partial Birth Abortion" might be politically charged; it's a term invented by politicos outside the medical community. I suggest either the medical term "Intact Dilation and Extraction" or the broader and more accessible "Late-Term Abortion," which can describe other types of procedures done in the third trimester. --Swieland 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Partial Birth Abortion" is not a term recognized by the medical community. The correct term is either Intact Dilatation and Extraction or D&X.--Dtoub 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have a subsection for Roe v. Wade, let alone R. v. Morgentaler or the Irish constitution. Why should we have a section on a Supreme court ruling that only effects the US? We have Abortion in the United States and Abortion law and 3 different articles that cover this topic (IDX, Gonzales vs. Carhart, and the PBA Ban Act). Wikipedia is written for a world wide audience, and the top tier article should not have this much detail about one countries laws. And it is backwards to have sections on this latest ruling, when we don't even have sections on more important previous rulings. Therefore, this latest edit does not have consensus and goes against the spirit of this article as established in the past here on talk and would propose removing it until a compromise is met. But I can see no justification for singling out a recent ruling in US courts, but not mentioning the recent Portugal abortion law. We can only fit so much in a top tier article. -Andrew c 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, Roe vs Wade is a given and that is what started the abortion in this country, it's already well mentioned in all of the article. Also keep in mind, THIS IS A HUGE MILESTONE IN THIS COUNTRY AND FOR ANTI ABORTION FIGHT. That's why I removed the section and created the sub section, as explained succinctly. As far as the Portuguese law goes, keep in mind that is for abortion, nothing new there. Foremanfan

I myself think it is important, but at the same token that addition needs a lot of clean up and references. Some things can be removed such as when the law will be enforced or the penalty for breaking this new law. But it should at least be mentioned even if other judgments across the Globe have not yet been written. Besides, the USA is the most watched country in the World!Gilawson 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c is right, this maybe should be put into the article Abortion in the Unites States. I guess there has been and always will be the debates about this due to overlap between the different articles that cover "Abortion". Gilawson 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Andrew c. Saying "In this country... IN THIS COUNTRY" is all very well, but "this" is the internet. The relevance of this material to the top-tier issue of abortion is debatable at best. I believe that the Abortion law article is the correct place to discuss current events in US abortion law. Posting new material without consensus and then reverting without consensus is simply no way to behave. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to say in this country, I am not a heavy user, for a second I forgot this place is used by many people, well... Simply change any minor mistakes I made, be my guest. New material ? That's right, wikipedia is a place where up to date information is placed and this is of huge importance, so why are you sayint things which make no sense. Again, this is a subsection under law, not new paragraph or may be you are one of those pro abortionists instead of neutral editors? This is news of importance for both sides. Besides, who gives you the right to reverse everything, some things are of importance. (if you do not like everything) That is very very very rude.Foremanfan

It's not a question of whether I have a right, but of how we should all behave here. "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." That is written on this very page. Rather than accusing me of holding a particular position, and describing that in a pejorative manner, your goal ought to be to seek consensus that this material is relevant and notable enough that it should be included in the top-tier article, rather than a more specific sub-article such as Abortion law. And on that subject, my position can probably be summed up as: wikipedia is not a newspaper; we should not give undue weight to recent events simply because they are recent. I await other editors' opinions with interest. SheffieldSteel 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please sign talk page posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. This automatically creates the code for your username and time stamp. Also note, Foremanfan and User:Foremanfan are two different pages, one being a user page, and one being a redlinked article in the main article space. Next, I think a good compromise would to note the PBA Ban Act in a sentence after the bulleted point about US law In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion. I would propose something like "On a federal level, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed in 2003 and upheld by the Supreme Court, makes a specific abortion procedure, Intact dilation and extraction, illegal." It links to the 3 other main articles on the topic, and covers the recent history in a concise manner. Anything more than this, I believe, would be giving undue weight compared to how much we cover other countries and other laws/court cased.-Andrew c 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you always had a point here and there, but speaking of behavior, well then... why was the whole paragraph removed, remove it within 24 hours if the majority agrees, even if they are wrong, my word will not count much, but at least it is more civil. I said all there is to say, like I said, do not remove everything, add few things of importance, because I can bet you 1 000 000$ everywhere you go now, that is pro and anti abortion groups, they will both say this ABORTION RULING IS OF HUGE IMPORTANCE. This ruling, next to 1973, is most important. So if I wrote too much, it is civil not to revert, but just to mention few words, it's essential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 April 2007.

May be you should start abortion in USA topic, all by itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrew c to make some space for this judgment on this article, but not to make a section of it as that probably belongs in a different article. And I replied to Foremanfan on my Talk Page that there already is an article about abortion in USA - Abortion in the United States and he could search the related article links to find the appropriate article to create a section for the Supreme Court decision. Gilawson 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told there is an article abortion in usa, you should have told me, but no matter... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Let's improve all abortion articles. 20:05, 19 April 2007 Foremanfan 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the PBA ban, it seems noteworthy that the federal courts (I can provide the jurisdiction) struck down the initial state version because it didn't possess a clause allowing for such abortions in cases where the mother's life is in danger. The 106th Congress then held what many Constitutional Law professors, including many originalists, conservatives, and judicial activism opponents, who view Roe as bad law, believe was outside the enumerated powers of the legislative branch; Congress may hold fact-finding, but is then expected to allow the states to legislate as they choose, when the issue is a state issue. Congress immediately promulgated the 2003 PBA Act federally, after hearing testimony from physicians that there was no possibility of a mother's possible death without the procedure. Congress' legislation omits this. I must state that, as i'm not a physician I cannot question the findings of fact. Nor is the issue clearly state or federal, as Roe and Casey still allow the states to regulate abortion within their bounds. So Congressional action may have been legal. The background seems useful, or does it seem biased. as a pro-choicer who understands how, and why each side feels as they do, I am interested in consensus. Along the same lines, one worry among many pro choice groups surrounds the South dakota Law, which bans abortion entirely, and exists merely to try to re-litigate casey and Roe. My personal feeling is these are both relevant but I certainly would not add them without feedback.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 17:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This is a top-tier article, as Andrew c has stated, and, as such, its duty is mainly to summarise the content of related sub-articles. It must balance the seemingly conflicting goals of thoroughness and concision. The "Abortion law" sub-section is intended to give a brief history of abortion legislation, focusing particularly on the major developments that shaped the abortion policies of nations, and to succinctly summarise some of the world's current abortion laws. It's written to be an examination of abortion law on a global scale and that is why the focus doesn't zoom in to a high level of regional specificity. We discuss Roe v. Wade, Abortion Act 1967, R. v. Morgentaler, and the Irish amendment because each of these developments shaped their respective country's entire abortion policy. Cases like Attorney General v. X and Gonzales v. Carhart only influenced a single aspect of the Irish and American abortion law (namely, the policy toward abortion in cases of rape for the former, and the policy toward a specific procedure for the latter). We simply do not have the space to cover these subjects here. That's why information that's very specific to a particular country should instead be included in a relevant sub-article. Abortion in the United States and Abortion in Ireland do not face the same limitations that we do here, because the purpose of those articles is to summarise abortion on a national level, whereas our duty here at Abortion is to summarise abortion on a global level. -Severa (!!!) 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sentence, "this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year" in the "Incidence" section," I think that this long-standing version of that sentence is preferable. Suggesting that IDX is the "least common" method of abortion in the U.S. is too conclusive — after all, the previous sentence is clear that the 2,200 IDX procedures per year figure is an estimate — while prefacing this statement with "considered to be" is editorializing. Let's cut down on unnecessary verbiage by simply quoting the statistic, and leaving it at that. -Severa (!!!) 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Sorry, my bad.] Trying to improve rather than revert; it obviously didn't work out. SheffieldSteel 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. I find, though, that when you're dealing with a contentious issue, it's best to aim for prose that will be stable and resistent to frequent changes. If an editor desires to see a change to a long-standing, time-tested version of the text, it's probably better to defer to the older version, especially if the newer version is likely to be disputed. Discuss and approve it on Talk first; work out any possible kinks, so that the new version will be as stable as possible. I have found that sections which are prone to frequent changes tend to decrease in accuracy, neutrality, etc. over time. That's why I believe we should fireproof against such situations in the first place. Stating conclusively that X is Y, or framing the suggestion that X is Y with FUD-y adjectives like "alleged" or "supposed" is just an invitation for someone who disagrees to change it, which will then be changed back by someone who disagrees with them, and so forth. -Severa (!!!) 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following source, "Your Lifestyle Can Impact Your Fertility," which was recently added to the "Definitions" section to support the claim that "stress and lifestyle" can cause miscarriage, does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. The source is an essay "written by AJ," which does not list any of its own sources, and which is hosted on a site filled with Google Ads. A reliable source should provide citations for the information it includes. A citation that does not meet the requirements of RS is not sufficient enough to support the inclusion of new information in a Wikipedia article. -Severa (!!!) 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source was good and the information therein is what majority of doctors agree with. If it's incorrect, find better one.Foremanfan 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V [emphasis mine]: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." -Severa (!!!) 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, the problem lies with the fact that the "stress and lifestyle" information is unsourced, and that the source provided was insufficient, as outlined above. I obviously made an error in reverting, in that only the source was removed, and not the unsourced information. The information should be fully removed from the article until a reliable source is provided. I also do not feel that the "Definitions" section is the appropriate place to cover causes of miscarriage. The "Definitions" section is for outlining the meaning of terms; we have a separate "Miscarriage" section for discussing that topic. -Severa (!!!) 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of a reliable source, come on now folks, you are totally overdoing this, ask any doctor, then you will know I am correct, you find a source, I am not wasting time again, so it gets removed. Foremanfan 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the definition of a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." SheffieldSteel 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this in about two seconds at Google. Sid Kirchheimer, "How Stress Causes Miscarriage; Hormonal Effects on Certain Cells May Trigger Chain Reaction to End Pregnancy," Web MD (June 5, 2003). CITED SOURCES: Endocrinology, June 2003. Human Reproduction, July 2001. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 1999. Theoharis C. Theohardies, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology, internal medicine and biochemistry, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Calvin J. Hobel, MD, vice chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; professor of obstetrics and gynecology, professor of pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine.Ferrylodge 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given a reliable source, the discussion then becomes a question of whether or not stress as a cause of miscarriage should be added to the Definitions section, after this sentence "Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage): An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Most miscarriages are due to incorrect replication of chromosomes; they can also be caused by environmental factors."

Personally I think that starting a list of examples of environmental factors is opening a can of worms. Anyone else? SheffieldSteel 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with what Severa said: "The Definitions section is for outlining the meaning of terms; we have a separate "Miscarriage" section for discussing that topic." SheffieldSteel 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section already discusses some causes and risk factors for miscarriage. I generally agree that detailed discussion of causes of miscarrage should be reserved for that section. -Severa (!!!) 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is annoying ...could it be a little less constrained? When talking about the MVA procedure it's simply stated (something like) "..emptying the contents of the unterus..." It's actually absurd, now, i know this has to be neutral as this is an encyclopedia entry however is painfully so.

Anyway, thats not the only example but its the only one i could think of off the top...

How's about we say fetus where fetus is do...

Wickedxjade 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "too neutral". As it is an extremely controversial topic, the neutrality is required, because slanting it (even slightly) one way or the other could start an edit war. To be honest, I'm surprised that we even still have the phrase "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.", so it's still not 100% neutral, although the goal is perfect neutrality. Spazure 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain I can get the organization responsible for these (warning: may upset) photos[2] to release one into a creative commons license, which would allow posting here.

Is there any interest in a modern depiction showing what the article is talking about? I believe the authenticity of the age claims on these fetuses can be done in an unbiased way based on development signatures. (Also, the first link includes an authentication by an M.D.)

I was encouraged to post this query after reading another article[3] discussing that Wikipedia doesn't censor but allows depictions when they are directly related to the article. I am asking b/c since the page is locked the instructions recommend asking here first whether or not picture reference is a good idea. Dcsutherland 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider reading the 4 pages of archives linked to in the top box regarding "graphic pictures". There is a standing consensus not to include images here because of POV concerns from both sides of the debate. Additionally, it is difficult to find neutral images that are released under a free license (and thus usable on wikipedia). In the past, editors have been reluctant to change the previous consensus not to include images based on a proposal that doesn't have a free license. If you think your images will satisfy neutrality concerns from both sides, you are welcome to try and pursue obtaining an image with a free license, and then propose a specific, free, neutral images for use. But I ask you to please read the archived discussion before hand to know what you are getting into. Thanks for bringing up your concerns here on talk.-Andrew c 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to go through the archives. One new aspect that I I have already mentioned is that I believe I can get the copyright holders to release one of these into creative commons use, satisfying the "free license" requirement (likely to be an 'attribute' license). // I think I'll have to study a while to determine what a photo is that shows neutrality to see if this is possible. I might be getting ahead of myself in asking so I'll go ahead and read that section first. Thanks. Dcsutherland 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Andrew--I took your advice to look through the archive. Here are my conclusions.

1) If someone else wants to fight for the use of graphic pictures displaying the modern depiction of the abortion please contact me and I believe I can convince the rights-holders to release some photos or videos into a creative-commons license. (There is a good probability of this although after initiating it may take some time to process.)

2) According the Wikipedia's NPOV editor guidelines I might be considered too biased to present any content because of my relationship with the primary content holder and b/c it is such a controversial topic--apparently I am disqualified to present information if I am reading this correctly. While I don't know how anyone who can source original content won't be labeled biased in this subject this is a strike against me offering any content.

3) Although articles discussing Short Drop Hanging & pregnancy surely include shocking photos and shocking content (depending on who is reading and what they consider shocking) after reading the archived discussion on graphic pictures here[4][5] [6][7] I doubt that any photos regarding abortion which shock would be allowed on the subject of abortion. This in spite of the fact that arguably a majority believe the procedure is itself shocking, and thus the entry itself is shocking. I fear the NPOV falls apart with highly controversial material because no one can appear to be neutral.

4) I am too busy for a fight in providing photos for this topic, because unfortunately I think it would be a lost cause--not based on the spirit of wikipedia but based on what appears to be arbitrary application of wiki policy. Based on the conclusions after reading the archive regarding photos I do not believe the wikipedia editors will be unbiased and allow a "neutral" (i.e. facts-based) representation of the actual procedure, primarily because the pictures of the reality of the abortion are shocking, therefore accurate representation of the subject is seen as shocking and thus censored. Again, though if anyone else thinks they can convince the editors here to be neutral in this matter, please contact me for released photos.

I am trying to assume good faith but after reading the history of the discussion on this page please forgive me if it appears I am not. I am trying to be realistic about what appears to be the outcome of application and interpretation of wiki guidelines that have be decided here in the past. I encourage others with more time to represent the truth in ways that the editors allow.

Dcsutherland 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Information about the fact that abortions fail and, as a result, babies are born, is essential to this topic. To leave out this information is misleading. It is tantamount to implying that all open-heart surgeries are successful. The text I introduced was fact based, not POV specific, and authoritatively referenced. Andrew c removed this fact from the article, appealing to vague reasons having to do with the history of this topic. He seemed to indicate that the information is presented elsewhere, but I do not see it. I am reintroducing the material and the ref. L.C. Porrello 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you can't find the following paragraph anywhere in the article: In rare cases, abortion will be unsuccessful and pregnancy will continue. An unsuccessful abortion can result in delivery of a live neonate, or infant. This, termed a failed abortion, is very rare and can only occur late in pregnancy. Some doctors have voiced concerns about the ethical and legal ramifications of letting the neonate die. As a result, recent investigations have been launched in the United Kingdom by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in order to determine how widespread the problem is and what an ethical response in the treatment of the infant might be.[35] A preliminary investigation estimated that at least 50 babies a year a born in the UK after failed abortions. But it's there. Please read the note at the top of the article in the edit window that says NOTE ABOUT INTRO: This is a product of extensive discussion between many Wikipedians. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and its archives before proposing — or making — any changes. Then go to the first paragraph subpage and read through the archived discussion. The intro has been a very contentious area, and we ask that editors suggest major changes to the intro here on talk before making those changes.

Now, onto your proposal. I believe we cover this topic in depth in other sections. We can't summarize every single point in the lead, we must pick and choose. Unfortunately, out of all the notable things about this topic, I do not believe failed abortion tops the list. There are a number of more notable topics that aren't included in the lead (and shouldn't be included in the lead). By giving so much emphasis on failed abortions, but not other notable things, we are giving undue weight to a fairly rare occurrence. -Andrew c 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was about to say something along the same lines, but my edit summary was truncated (accidently pressed return). This is already discussed in the article and thus its inclusion in the lead is redundant. The lead has also has its own topical subpage and has been the subject of five archives worth of discussion — thus, future changes to it need to be made through discussion, to respect past consensus. I also do not think that, of all the things mentioned under "Health effects," there is any reason for singling out failed abortion. -Severa (!!!) 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look closely enough under Health Effects. Sorry, Andrew. I stand corrected. I don't think "Health Effects" is the best place for this part of the topic. The delivery of a neonate or infant has no physical effect on the health of the mother. What would the consensus be for a new topic beneath "health effects” or a sub-topic within “health effects”?L.C. Porrello 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my first reply was snippy. I should have added a ;) I know this is a rather large article, so it can be hard to pinpoint information. Failed abortion is similar to failure rates listed on prescription drug label sheets. These leaflets list the side effects, contraindications, failure rates, warnings, etc. We have similar listed all of the negative outcomes under the "Health Effects" heading. As you note, the exact wording of the heading and the "failed abortion" information don't seemingly go together, but the general idea behind grouping them together, I feel, is valid. Therefore, to remedy this solution, perhaps we could change the section title to something a little more inclusive? Or where would you suggest we move the failed abortion information?-Andrew c 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for an example, per [8], I would propose renaming to "Complications" or maybe "Health effects and complications".-Andrew c 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "health effects" works if we create "failed abortion" sub-heading. Obviously, a failed abortion would probably effect a woman in some way. But how? I don't know of any information having to do with the psychological effects of a failed abortion, so "mental health" would not do. It is a difficult subject to categorize. By the way, thanks for the kind words. I am generally snippety too, so I don't mind. Snippety is not necessarily uncivil. Besides, I deserved it.L.C. Porrello 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complications would work for me.L.C. Porrello 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "effects" under "Health effects" are specific to the pregnant woman — take, for instance, "Fetal pain" under "Suggested effects." If you go to Archive 13, in a thread entitled "mental health section drop off," you'll see that the "Health effects" section was formerly titled "Health risks," but that "risks" was changed to "effects" in order to be more neutral and inclusive of potentially positive effects. "Health effects" is a much more concise title, encompassing risks, complications, and benefits in one term.

The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, so, if after an abortion, a woman remains pregnant, something went wrong during the abortion, and, like organ perforation, that would be a health risk or complication. I do not think it would be warranted for one health effect to have its own section, when other risks, such as sepsis, organ perforation, hemorrhage, or sterility do not. The only reason that the entries under "Suggested effects" have individual sections is because these topics are a lot less straightforward, and there needs to be room to cover the varying evidence, as well as the surrounding debate.

I think a lot of this was already discussed under Archive 14, "Failed abortions." -Severa (!!!) 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should differentiate, via sub-headings, between expected v. unexpected or common v. uncommon effecs?L.C. Porrello 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) That's an interesting suggestion, but, I'm unsure about how it could be practically executed in the article. How would we determine what is an "expected" effect and what is an "unexpected" effect? I think any basis for the of creation sub-sections needs to be more concrete. -Severa (!!!) 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "rare" and "very rare" have been introduced into this section. "Rare" is a relative, and therefore, subjective term. Rare compared to what??? Rare compared to the reported number of cases of influenza or rare compared to the number of reported cases of arsenic poisoning? Rare compared to the number of abortions attempted every year? Perhaps we should ask one of the woman who went in for an abortion and ended up giving live birth. "Rare" is also unclear as one doesn't know if it refers to total numbers or occurrence over time. If occurrence over time, live birth is not at all rare. At 50 per year in the UK, that is more than one infant per week on average. If one woman per week were killed by UK doctors in attempted abortions, we would hardly call that "rare." Furthermore, as the British article states, it is not known _exactly_ how frequent live births are--and so a study is being undertaken. The current number is an authoritative, educated estimate. As I stated in my comment, if a relative term is to be used, then it needs a citation. Otherwise it is merely POV and should be removed.LCP 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation and it states ~50 live births per year out of 7,432 abortions after 18 weeks of gestation in 2004. That is certainly rare. Introduction of the word 'some' in its place is misleading in being so vague.

Finally, doctors kill more than one woman per week. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:40, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

Do docs kill more than one woman per week in the UK in attempted abortions? That would be a relevant comparison. Secondly, unless you have stats, I don't see how I can accept your assertion that UK doctors kill one otherwise healthy person per week. Thirdly, regarding the stats in the article, as I suggested, they should be included to give a concrete idea of the frequency of occurrence. Finally, your response does not speak to the problems with “rare.”LCP 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment regarding doctors causing death was in response to version 2 of your original comment, in which you didn't clarify death during abortion. This statistic has no bearing to the current discussion however, whether it is the case or not.

The word rare is used to indicate that it is not common. 50/7432 is ~0.6%, a figure that I don't see how is better covered by 'some' than 'rare'.

If you have a problem with the wording, please suggest an alternative that is more correct (unlike 'some'), perhaps on the talk page. Continually reverting to 'some' will not help. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:56, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

I'm starting to question the notability of this information in the article. We only cite one source, and it is a popular news story from 2005. They mention the RCOG and CEMACH were both investigating this, yet they have not only not published anything, there isn't even a mention of this on their websites. I then went to search "pubmed" for the term "failed abortion" with not many results. None of them were talking about the phenomena discussed in the Times article. There were articles that discussed medical abortions that failed to complete, there were articles that talked about first trimester procedures that did not terminate the pregnancy. What I am getting at is efforts to verify this information and figure out if it is "rare" or not has lead me to conclude that we are probably giving this one article undue weight. Can anyone else help do some research and find more sources on this if at all possible? I'll keep looking.-Andrew c 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lack of follow-up data is troubling. However, I do not question the notability of this section. To date, there is no reason to doubt the Times article. And, this issue has enormous ethical implications. It needs to be included.LCP 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched pubmed for citations related to this, there are very few indeed. One reporting 6/7 infants surviving following very late abortions (>25 weeks) from 1974:

Case Studies in Bioethics: The Unwanted Child: Caring for the Fetus Born Alive after an Abortion. Sissela Bok; Bernard N. Nathanson; David C. Nathan; Leroy Walters. The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 6, No. 5. (Oct., 1976), pp. 10-15.

The article reports a very low number of live births and only 6/7 that survive beyond 24 hours. One article it cites is a study in New York from 1976. Only the abstract is available for this.

Overall there appears to be very little evidence about this, and I would suggest not enough to warrant the large paragraph that currently describes it. I can't find any more recent papers than those above, and the births here are associated with very late abortions using outdated techniques, both aspects that have changed since the 70's. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:58, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

The examples I provide have everything to do with this discussion as we are discussing the appropriateness of “rare.” My examples have to do with “rare”, not the issue of the frequency of live births. No one would call death “rare” in abortion if one woman per week were dying in the U.K. “Rare” is relative to perspective. Therefore, it is subjective. Therefore, it is POV.

However, I do agree with your critique of “some.”. While “some” is better than rare--since it is factual, not subjective--it is too vague. I suggest the inclusion of the actual numbers.

Regardless, the second occurrence of “rare” (as in “very rare”) does need to be removed as it is merely redundant. Any objections?LCP 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted how the article now reads with the omission of the second instance of "rare", I think I am ok with how this section stands.LCP 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point Andrew-c has raised is important, the Times article appears unsourced and while they tend not to lie inclusion of medical figures taken from a newspaper article with an unclear basis is unwise. Let's decide on how noteworthy this is before bickering about the wording. I still stand by the use of 'rare', anything with an incidence of below 1% is certainly rare, however big the consequences are. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:58, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

(unindent) I think this argument is specious unless you can demonstrate that the Times is unreliable. To date, there is no reason to doubt the article. And, this issue has enormous ethical implications. It should be included.

Regarding "rare", to this point Spaully has failed to provide even a single argument to rebut what I demonstrated about its subjectivity and, therefore, unsuitability for inclusion. Merely reasserting an unwarranted assumption about what one thinks “rare” means is not an argument. I am willing to leave in “rare” for the sake of compromise. But if Spaully really wants to pursue this issue, I'd suggest objective mediation. Unlike “rare,” “some” is an objective statement of fact.LCP 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've substantiated my argument surrounding the issue of how noteworthy this is. I suggest you read the papers I linked to and try to find more recent studies if you want to comment on it (I do not think you will have much luck, there are no further articles citing those I have linked to that are relevant). The use of figures suggests authority, the Times is not an authority on abortion figures. Unless we find suitable evidence the inclusion of figures is unfounded. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:48, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

Ok, I have found some more stuff out. I'm still in the process of researching, but I wanted to post two articles so others can join the research bandwagon. [9] [10] This doesn't seem to be an issue having to do with abortions not working and babies ending up living into adulthood. It's an issue of method. Some doctors are using early induction of labor as the method of abortion (instead of D&E or IDX or c-section or whatever), but they are not causing the death of the fetus before the induction. (which is required by law in the UK after 24 weeks, but not required in earlier pregnancies). These cases occur for the most part before 24 weeks, and occur in pregnancies that are being terminated based on fetal anomaly (either an anomaly that is legally considered lethal, or some other non-lethal abnormality.) So what we need to keep in mind is that a) all of these cases, the newborns died within 5 hours of being born, max (this shouldn't be confused with a failed abortion the results in a baby that lives into adulthood) b) this is a UK centric issue based on their unique laws surrounding abortion. In the US, there are no comparable laws regulating early induction of labor when used as an abortion method. So this stuff really doesn't deal with health effects, and I would propose including good information regarding these studies, but put them in the Abortion in the United Kingdom article. -Andrew c 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done my own “research,” and I came across the same abstracts. Firstly, I do not understand where you got the following information: "the newborns died within 5 hours of being born..." and "Some doctors are using early induction of labor as the method of abortion...." Neither abstract spoke to method of termination. To the contrary, the RCOG web page [11] speaks only of lethal injection. I also saw nothing in either abstract regarding length of survival outside of the womb. Can you please elaborate?

Secondly, I got to [12] via [13], which merely states, "If the fetus has had a lethal injection, it will normally die. However, there are some instances when there are signs of life at birth. All babies must be treated with dignity and respect. Palliative care should be provided till the baby dies where relevant." I understand the inference you wish to draw using [14], that fetal survival is generally the result of faulty care specific to the UK. However, the two studies that you reference are not related. They cover different populations in different cities. And there is no information in [15], by far the broader of the two studies, or the RCOG web page by which it is referenced to support your inference. Therefore, unless further evidence can be brought to bear, there are no grounds by which one might conclude that this is only a UK specific problem. What might be called for, however, is information on what drugs are used to terminate a fetus in the UK, the reliability of that drug, and whether that drug is also used in other countries. In any case, the RCOG web page [16] does state that further guidelines are forthcoming. Perhaps that will provide clarification.LCP 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I linked to the "full" text of the articles, not the "abs". I guess if you don't have full access, that link redirects you to the abstract. I have access to the full texts. I apologize if you don't. From the 2005 article Duration of survival after delivery (Fig. 1) ranged from 5 minutes to 4 hours and 36 minutes, with 13 cases surviving longer than 1 hour. No information was available in two cases. From the 2007 article Of the 102 live births, the gestation ranged from 17 to 33 with a median of 21 weeks. The survival duration for liveborn TOPFAs was a median of 80 minutes. Thirty-seven cases survived for 1 hour or less and six cases survived 6 hours or more. The 2007 study population was births to West Midlands residents delivered between 1995 and 2004. while the 2005 study population was births documented in the North Western Regional CESDI database. Both studies are limited to UK geographically, and both rely heavily on UK law. I hope this clears some things up. -Andrew c 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Thanks. What about lethal injection v. termination via induced labor? It would also be great if you could elaborate on how U.K. law impacts medical and surgical procedures to the point that this becomes a UK only issue? Although the evidence is from the UK, humans are humans and, in my experience, medical practices in developed nations do not differ that much from one country to another. For example, between Austria and the United States there might be questions as to when one would treat otitis media with antibiotics, but when it comes down to treatment, the same antibiotics are used with the same results across international borders. Also in Austia, a D&X is performed exactly like it is in US. In Italy, doctors diagnose and treat prostrate cancer just like doctors do in the U.S.LCP 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, back to the rare topic. The 2007 article starts off with Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) is a rare outcome of pregnancy and a principal element of fetal medicine. and then goes on to say 102 live births with subsequent neonatal deaths (3.2% of TOPFA). so what is in question here is 3.2% of something that the authors already call "a rare outcome". (I know it seems like we have already reached a compromise on the 'rare' in the article, I just wanted to note what this study states). Onto methods: the 2007 study only mentions TOPFA at 16 weeks onwards was undertaken as a medical procedure using oral Mifepristone followed by either Gemeprost or Misoprostol to induce vaginal delivery. They also mention that during the timeframe of their study, the RCOG released their guidelines recommending that feticide be offered after 22 weeks, possibly explaining the decrease in livebirths over the study (1.7% in '04 down from 4% in '95). Unfortunately they did not present any data regarding the exact methods that were used, nor how many of the TOPFA involved feticide (or "lethal injection"). As for the 2005 study, it says there were 12 cases in which feticide should have been performed but was not. It says nothing else about abortion methods. It isn't clear if they know for sure that feticide was not performed, or if feticide failed (the context implies the former). They go on to comment practitioners may wish to minimise the trauma for the woman and her family at an already very difficult time by avoiding the physically invasive and psychologically upsetting procedure of feticide. Does this mean the patients refused feticide in these 12 cases? It is a possibility. Does this mean the doctors are purposely neglecting informed consent? Also a possibility. -Andrew c 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent research on "rare" etc. I trust what you are reporting, and I gladly defer to the professional opinion in this case.LCP 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was inferring anything, it wasn't that UK had faulty care that resulted in livebirths followed within hours be neonatal death, it would be that one method of abortion that deals with fetal anomalies is to simply induce labor early and allow "nature" to take the rest of the course. For example "Induced labor leads to the fetus dying on its own, often in the arms of its parents," says Calvin, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Calvin has long offered his patients with fatal fetal defects only the options of induced labor or carrying the fetus until a natural labor occurs.[17] What I was trying to infer, if anything, is that it isn't necessarily an error or a malpractice issue when early induction leads to a livebirth; it could be intentional, or at least a known outcome. From the 2007 study there should be awareness that live birth is a possible outcome of termination of pregnancy. Our data clearly show there will be cases of live birth following TOPFA at 20 and 21 weeks,... There is little evidence to suggest that feticide is in the best interests of the woman, or her medical attendants. Generalisation is difficult, but for universally lethal fetal anomalies, there seems little justification for insisting upon a feticide procedure being undertaken in an already difficult clinical scenario. Where the fetal prognosis is universally fatal, the early delivery and subsequent terminal care of a baby can be a satisfactory outcome.-Andrew c 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting and helpful. So what about [18] and lethal injection?LCP 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues of whether to include the article comes down only to the credibility of the Times, not whether a few guys with internet connections can find corroborating evidence. Spaully states, "the Times is not an authority on abortion figures," and from that fact tries to suggest that the Times is not reliable. This thinking, however, is flawed. News publication don't have claim to have special authority regarding the subjects about which they report. They claim to have credibility and authority in collecting facts from authorities and writing news stories. The Times did not claim to make up the abortion figures, and so they do not need to have authority on abortion figures. They need to be credible reporters of information. To my knowledge, they are. That is the only issue in this case. That there is a dearth of information on this subject--on the internet--does not in any way imply that the Times article is faulty. To this point, the Times has more credibility than Spaully, Andrew c, or myself, so the burden of proof lies upon those who disbelieve the Times article to show that it is false. And unless you can demonstrate why a lack of corroborating evidence is damning of an NPOV source, an inability to find corroborating evidence--throught searches on the internet--is not sufficient.LCP 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To try to put this issue to rest, rare, as far as I know, is used when something only barely crosses a minor significance boundary. It's extremely rare for the 1 in 10,000 people who have a hepatitis B vaccine to develop a life-threatening complication, but it's enough to at least mention, but not nearly enough to prevent the drug's use. The same thing is applied to abortions. While 0.007 crosses an alpha of 0.001, it's not nearly enough to stop abortions completely (which would probably be done if it were a frequent, as opposed to rare complication), since the overwhelming majority of them progress normally. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last comment is dated 3 May 2007, I was under the impression that we were all resting quite comfortably.LCP 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point; I just wanted to be able to {{resolved}}-ify the thread with an agreeable explanation. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a top-tier article the primary goal of which is to summarise related sub-articles. As such, space is limited, and we have to be selective about the information that is included or summarised in this article. The information on the incidence of abortion by race in the United States is too specific to a particular nation, and would be better included in a relevant sub-article, such as Abortion in the United States. Also, what about the incidence of abortion in the U.S. based upon the woman's age, marital status, income, religion, party affiliation, level of education, or area of residence (urban/suburban/rural)? These breakdowns would also be noteworthy, but, due to size and summarisation concerns, belong in the article Abortion in the United States. -Severa (!!!) 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Severa. I have taken your suggestion and created a heading in Abortion in the United StatesL.C. Porrello 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In IDX article Talk, Andrew c points out that there is nothing wrong with medical language. It is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the yanking of a chomper from the pie hole."

Along the same lines, it is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from 'the natural opening through which food passes into the body of an animal and which in vertebrates is typically bounded externally by the lips and internally by the pharynx and encloses the tongue, gums, and teeth.'"

Granted that and what we normally call creatures to which/whom women give birth, I wonder if only "baby" or "infant" isn't better than "neonate" + "baby" or "infant". I do not see what the addition of "neonate" does for the text.L.C. Porrello 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no discussion of China's forced abortion policies ANYWHERE on Wikipedia?

Have you gone crypto-Google on the public?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.42 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 May 2007.

Well we have One-child policy and we have Selective_abortion_and_infanticide#China. Hope this helps. You are welcome to jump right in and start editing if you feel there is a way you can improve wikipedia yourself.-Andrew c 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that tax money is spent on abortion facilities, psychological sessions, etc., but I don't know what is being spent. (percentage of our taxes, etc.) Can anyone tell me, especially since I need to know this by tomorrow.75.15.206.129 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Abby May 10, 2007[reply]

It would be helpful to know which country you're from, as government funding of abortion services varies from country to country, and indeed from state to state or province to province. See Abortion in Canada#Access throughout Canada for information relevant to Canada, or "State Policies in Brief" and Planned Parenthood#Facilities and funding for information relevant to the United States. Hope this helps. -Severa (!!!) 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a consensus regarding whether complications such as “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death” are “potentially serious” or actually serious. When ThAtSo reintroduced "potentially" into the text, he or she stated, “Only potentially, because these errors would happen under a doctor's care so they can be immediately remedied.” I am not sure, however, how one can immediately remedy “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death.” I assert that all of these events are serious. I do not understand how “death”, for example, is only “potentially serious.” Input would be appreciated.LCP 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word should be "potential". I seem to recall it being so in the article, some time back. There was also some debate about "death" being on the list, since it does not happen spontaneously, but only as a result of serious complications, and with the potential for any complications becoming more serious (and perhaps ending in death) being greater when not under a doctor's care. With this in mind, I am changing the start of that paragraph to what should be a non-controversial form. SheffieldSteel 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit. I don't think ThAtSo was thinking about the difference between the potential for serious complications vs. "potentially serious complications." Thanks!LCP 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the inclusion of the word "potentially" in the original version ("Abortion methods, like most surgical procedures, carry a small risk of potentially serious complications") was intended to convey that there is only a potential of these complications happening — not that the seriousness of any of them is only potential. However, this "potentially" was redundant, as its point was already gotten across with the words "a small risk." I think SheffieldSteel's edit helps to remove any confusion the former sentence might've caused. -Severa (!!!) 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last line of the current lead states, "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." The last part, "which is considered nonviable," is a dangling modifier.

Also, I don't understand the claim of the entire sentence, "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." 1.4% (~18,060) of all abortions in the US (~1,290,000) are carried out after 20 weeks[19].LCP 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording of the introduction is the product of a substantial amount of discussion between multiple users. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph and its five archives to get an idea of how much work has gone into writing the opening. All changes to the intro will need to be proposed and approved on the "First paragraph" subpage in order to uphold the consensus reached by the discussion a year ago. -Severa (!!!) 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether one or 100,000 of Wikipedia’s best and brightest authored it, the line after the last semi-colon is nonsensical. As such, it can be defined as Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, “Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.” As such, your response is unacceptable and your appeal to consensus is specious.

Please note what Wikipedia:Consensus states:

“consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.” Your Rv does not support this policy.

“Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.” Your Rv directly violates this idea.

I'm curious as to how a consensus necessarily yields factual explanations, without at least a few knowledgeable contributors on each side, Given the antagonistic positions, and the personal nature inherent within each, such valuable editors are the least likely to compromise when each is validly self-confident in his/her knowledge. I raise the issue based on the misguided explanation of steve levitt's research. Was that passage refined through consensus? If so, the consensus seems unable to determine the purview of their combined knowledge.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Your Rv and insistence that editors be intimately familiar with exhaustive past discussion before they are permitted to edit is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikietiquette[20].

So contrary to your claim, any editor is well within his rights in editing.

But I wasn’t even editing. I was copy-editing. I don’t think I actually changed any of the intended meaning.

Please note, Wikipedia:How to copy-edit states that “Copy-editing refers to the improvement of prose, including its grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and paragraphing, and the correction of misspellings; it extends to the improvement of tone, style, cohesion and texture, and the removal of redundant wording.”

Therefore, your claim, that “All changes to the intro will need to be proposed and approved on the ‘First paragraph’ subpage in order to uphold the consensus reached by the discussion a year ago” is without warrant, especially if changes are limited to copy editing—as mine were. Regardless, in consideration of consensus, I entered comments on this page several hours before I made any change, and as far as I can see in OFFICIAL Wikipedia rules, that is more than sufficient.

If you disagree with this, please show me where your idea is supported by Wikipedia rules.

Your response seems to indicate that in this case you care about consensus over literacy, that you will limit your input to blocking good-faith efforts to improve grammar and clarity in the article and instead merely point out your idea of protocol. Is that your intention?

LCP 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are incorrect on two, maybe three counts. An alleged grammatical error is not patent nonsense by any means. Any reasonable reader can read the sentence and comprehend that the phrase is intended to convey that twenty weeks is the point of viability. I also believe you are in correct in calling it a "dangling modifier". I cannot find what part of the sentence the phrase is ambiguously modifying. (but I am not 100% because its been decades since my last grammar course). That said, if you can think of a better way to phrase that sentence, feel free to propose it. I'm not saying the first paragraph is perfect by any means. Finally, you are incorrect in saying repeatedly that all your edit did was improve grammar. You removed a significant sentence which mentioned the definition of the word "abortion" found in the majority of medical sources. (but I think the talk subpage is the best place to discuss changes to the first paragraph, so I will try to avoid specifics for now)

All that said, I do believe that consensus can change, but the only way to find out if consensus has changed is to discuss it on talk before making the edits (which I believe the page you quoted from is getting at). The fact that the first paragraph has a talk subpage devoted to the topic with 5 pages of archives should demonstrate how contentious the paragraph has been (and still is). Please feel free to try and raise a new consensus for your changes (I personally will not support blanking of the medical definition). Everyone is free to edit the first paragraph, but the best practice to avoid edit war, and to respect the history of the paragraph, is to talk and raise consensus before making major changes (For more minor edits, such as grammar that do not change the meaning of the first paragraph, they have gone by without contention in the past. But as stated above, your edit was more than a simple grammar fix). I hope this helps. We can all work together. It really does help to talk things out before making controversial changes to start things off on a good foot with everyone (and to test the waters of consensus). Editing top tier articles about controversial topics is a lot different from editing articles that nobody has on their watch list. We don't mean to bite newcombers to this page. I just personally feel (and hopefully speak for others) when I say that all the stuff that we went through on the talk subpages to get the current first paragraph can't simply be drastically changed without any prior discussion (and therefore sometimes leads to reverts of a good faith edits, as in this instance). This is covered int Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, the cycle sort of jumped ship when the talk page discussion didn't focus on the actual edit, but instead on the process of reverting an BOLD edit. I suggest, to move on, to start discussing the proposed change on the talk subpage and going on from there.-Andrew c 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Copyediting" would describe minor edits such as correction of spelling errors, incorrect grammar, etc. "Copyediting" does not describe removing an entire sentence that was decided upon by multiple editors after six pages of discussion. In addition, you changed the text "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" to "An abortion is the surgical removal or natural expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus", which is redundant with the following sentence, as well as inaccurate, because abortion can also be induced medically. How does this change improve clarity? In short, yes, consensus can change, but a new consensus must first be formed to replace the old one. One editor does not a consensus make. Please feel free to propose your ideas at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph — that is the reason the topical subpage was created. However, drafting the version that is currently in the article was a month-long process, so I'd recommend allowing for a time frame of more than just "several hours." Editors are often busy outside of Wikipedia, so time is needed for them to consider the matter, weigh in, and help to hammer out a solution. -Severa (!!!) 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of explicit rules governing what is and is not copyediting, the spirt of the idea seems to be the provision of quality prose. Certainly, it is inarguable to suggest that poor prose, so long as the meaning manifests, is as valuable as the same meaning availed in grammatically correct, clear prose.

While I not familiar with abortion terminology, i'm confused when medical is construed to involve the use of chemicals to abort a fetus, but not surgical removal. If this is the proper nomenclature, please correct me, but the article is confusing in distinguishing various abortion methods.

Finally, the lead heading, and most of the rest of the article, is very poorly written, though much of the research explanation doesn't appear as circumspect. Was this article largely the promulgation of one individual drafting a previously agreed upon consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC) ˜˜˜˜

I did try to start things off on a good foot by raising the issue here. No one spoke a word about the grammar problem. That another editor would merely Rv EVEN grammatical errors, such as the inclusion of the comma after “This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage,” is really annoying. I let my initial comments stand in talk for much longer than it took for you to Rv my changes to the article and for Andrew c to respond to my follow-up comments to your change. Nevertheless, I will take the discussion to the First Page talk page. I had not noticed it before it was pointed out.LCP 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue 1st paragraph discussion relating to this topic at Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#LCP.2C_dangling_modifiers.2C_and_medical_definitions, thanks.-Andrew c 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that the grammatical errors are glaring, They undermine what may well otherwise be valid inclusions. However, I am surprised that people are ok with the neutrality quotient (for lack of a better phrase). It seems that biases are revealed through perhaps well-intentioned attempts to include studies that are less pro-life biased. I submit that perhaps honestly stating your position, of which you will most likely possess more relevant knowledge, in the talkpage prior to, or immediately subsequent, an edit of substance. Then in the spirit of wikipedia, invite others who may better understand studies that counter your own. Not only might we all learn a little about a difficult issue, but perhaps rancor will dissipate. For instance, in a new talkpage heading, I clarified some rather startling fallacies in the section surrounding Levitt's freakonomics study. But I myself am not an expert, so hopefully someone with a little more statistical knowledge can validate, or impugn Levitt's undertaking. Please provide some feedback for me on that, as it needs to be altered. To misuse corollary and cause so blithely was shocking.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 16:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Add to reasons:

• • • To provide a planned rather than emergency delivery of a stillborn baby.

This is a situation faced by a large minority of women whose fetuses suffer from teratoma. --Una Smith 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a valid addition. But before we move forward, do you have a citation for this? I think the concerns is that you placed it in a section that was all citing one source, so you made it appear as if the new info was found in the source for the existing text. The way to clear this up seems to just find a reliable source that makes this claim and then append it to the end of the new sentence.-Andrew c

The information Una Smith is suggesting be added to this article is completely valid, but, per WP:ATT, it would need an independent source to verify it, as it is not discussed in the Roche source which currently serves as the basis for all of the information on therapeutic abortion under "Definitions." I'll create separate citations for each bullet point in order to allow another source to be logically listed. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some proposed changes on another talk page, but I don't think it'll get noticed unless I drop a line here. Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph

Please read over what I've said and leave your responses. Toastysoul 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we stay away from the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' euphemisms, partly because we have many non-American readers less used to American-centric wording (there are abortion debates outside the US as well), and partly because we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a political campaign. Saying 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion', for instance, would be more encyclopedic and to the point. --89.10.21.156 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would just be simplistic and inaccurate. The pro-choicers typically would prefer that there be fewer abortions, hence they support the availability of contraception and comprehensive sexual education. This makes them anti-abortion in a much deeper and more rational way than the people who think criminalization can fix things. As for the pro-lifers, it's more accurate to say they're anti-choice, since they don't consistently support life and don't much care about the quality of life faced by unwanted children and the women they would force to have them. Moreover, the majority are more revealingly inconsistent in that they would allow abortion in the case of rape; think this through.

Now, that's the truth, but we can't write the truth here, only what's supported by reliable sources, so the best we can do is stick to the self-chosen labels of pro-choice and pro-life, quoting notable people who can offer some insight into what this really means. ThAtSo 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.Ferrylodge 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why we have to keep calling them pro-choice and pro-life, instead of pro-abortion and anti-abortion. This is directly relevant to the article. Your comment had nothing to do with the article, so there's nothing more to say about it. ThAtSo 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article has a pie chart to show incidence per gestation week. This is a poor way to display the information for a number of reasons. I've created a histogram to show the same data. Please check it and maybe tweak the appearance so that it can replace the pie. I used the same colors and trimesters as Image:Abortionmethods.png for consistency. — Omegatron 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't comment earlier. I like the new chart, because it is SVG. I'm not exactly sure why a pie chart was a "poor way" to display the info, but I agree that the histogram can be seen as superior because it has the y axis which represents time (the information is more visually organized, where the pie chart organized time clockwise, the relationship isn't apparent on first viewing). I am concerned with what you did with 20+. It doesn't say when the cut off is, so perhaps we should have had the final bar extending all the way up to full term? or is it only going up to 24 weeks because that is the legal cut off point in the UK? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pie chart is a poor way to show information like this. The bins are not uniform, it is hard to see relationships between bins, and so on. The histogram shows the "shape" of the curve over time and humans are much better at comparing lengths of bars than angles. I also used all the information from the study instead of dividing it up into even more arbitrary bins.

It's pretty irrelevant that the chart is SVG.

It is not cut off at 20. There are just too few to be visible after that point. If you zoomed in on the SVG you could see the bars. See the image description page for the table. The data stops at week 32; there are only 2 instances after that point, compared to thousands in the 1st trimester. The histogram shows this, while the pie chart does not. — Omegatron 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following link, because of information freedom. The Page is in German language available.

But the pictures should tell all people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.181.90.190 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 August 2007.

First of all, per WP:EL, foreign language links should generally be avoided. Second of all, please check the archives. Linking to pages with shock images has been controversial, and there has be a general consensus to not link to them. In addition to the controversial nature of shock images, there are also concerns of #2. So I personally would not support adding that link.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph that claims a Finnish and a New Zealand study conclude there is a causal link between abortion and depression/suicide is vastly over-stating the conclusions of those studies. There are also serious concerns with the Reardon study. The paragraph currently says:

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[66] Additional research in 2002 by David Reardon reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[67] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.

The paragraph should be changed to say:

"Finnish studies have shown a link between miscarriage or abortion with depression and suicide. The study found that suicide is more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population. However, the study was unable to establish a causal link between abortion and suicide because it was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. The article goes on to say, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])

Additional research in 2002 by David Reardon reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women and teens who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[67] However, Reardon has come under strong criticism for holding a conflict of interest because Reardon is employed by the Elliot Institute. Dallas A Blanchard, Professor Emeritus, University of West Florida writes, "...the principle author (Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organization, for which he works, has as its primary aim propagandizing against abortion. Therefore, the sampling, the methods, the statistics, and the conclusions should be rigorously evaluated." (reference: [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850], and Deborah L Billings, Senior Research Associate at Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC writes, "Several methodological flaws in the analysis carried out by Reardon and Cougle undermine the conclusions stated by the authors." (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850)

A study from New Zealand completed in 2006 which used data gathered data about children and young adults (ages 15-25) who sought abortions over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion. However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 )--131.216.41.16 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some valid points, however, I cannot support your specific changes. This article is already too long, and your proposal changed a 4 sentence section into a 10 sentence section. On top of that, we have a spinout out article dealing exclusively with this topic, see Post-abortion syndrome. Could you consider being much more concise? For the New Zealand study, perhaps it could simply be reworded so it doesn't imply that there is a cause/effect relationship.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support the following paragraph because it is more concise?:

Two studies, one done in Finland and the other in New Zealand, found links between abortion and depression. The Finnish study found that suicide is more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.(reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431]) The New Zealand study found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had an abortion between the ages of 15-25 years of age compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion.. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 ) However, both studies were unable to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression because it is not clear if abortion causes depression in women, or if women who are depressed are more likely to elect to have an abortion as the result of an unplanned pregnancy. The authors of the Finnish study write, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])

I would also propose to leave out the David Reardon study of the section because the Elliot Institute is not an academic or research institution, and because the methods Reardon employed for the study were highly criticized by academic researchers.--131.216.41.16 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to make the paragraph accurate... As the paragraph is now, it makes claims that are not supported by research... --131.216.41.16 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting there. Still seems a little bit long/detailed for this article. Perhaps the sentences on the two studies' findings could be combined, and the final quote removed and summarized in the previous sentence? Does anyone else watching this page have an opinion?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following paragraph better?
"Two studies, one done in Finland and the other in New Zealand, found links between abortion and depression. However, both studies were unable to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression because it is not clear if abortion causes depression in women and girls, or if women and girls who are depressed are more likely to elect to have an abortion as the result of an unplanned pregnancy." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])(reference New Zealand article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 ) --131.216.41.16 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helloooooo? ;) --131.216.41.16 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that no one else is participating. When I get a little more time I will try to integrate this new content of yours in with the existing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On articles such as penis and vagina, nice graphical pictures are displayed to show exactly what a penis and vagina are. Why is the same thing not done for abortion, the ultimate result of a penis and vagina? Could the "editor consensus" be hiding something from the public? Megastealer 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This raises interesting questions. Should we include pictures of late term abortions where the fetus is extremely deformed as the result of abnormalities (and wouldn't have been viable outside the womb) warning - this link is to a medical website with a photo of a herniated fetus?

At what stage of gestation should the picture of the abortion be? Surely, we can't clutter the page by having all the stages of gestation represented. Eight weeks is around the average stage at which women seek an abortion. This is a link to the abortion of an 8 week fetus provided by the Medical Library at the University of Utah. The photo isn't sensational, so I do not have faith that it will satisfy your desire to "display" an abortion. --IronAngelAlice 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an image of an abortion at each trimester? Megastealer 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this topic has extensively been covered in the past, if you'd look at the archive box there are some links to past discussions. Wikipedia policy concerning graphic images isn't a "other crap exists" sort of thing, where other articles' content should be used as rationale for the rest of wikipedia. Instead, specific consensus needs to be raised on each talk page of the article prior to including said graphic content. Furthermore, another issue is wikipedia's image use policy. There simply aren't many (or any) free images of abortion. I mean, just about anyone with a camera can take a picture of genitalia, but not many people can take a picture of an abortion procedure (I also think it may be good to have an illustration of the actual medical procedure, instead of just a bloody photo. ask yourself, which one is more encyclopedic?). So if you have any free content, or have either the access to photograph a procedure, or the artistic skills and knowledge to accurately draw diagrams, please feel free to bring proposals here to talk. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be improved by mentioning photographs. Such as: "Photos of aborted fetuses are not included in this article primarily because inclusion requires consensus. Such photos are, however, available on the internet from pro-life organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Any objections?Ferrylodge 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no reason for disclaimers, per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Next, it is unencyclopedic to mention talk page discussion in the main article space (and is that even an accurate summary of why there are no pictures of aborted fetuses?) Next why direct people to pro-life websites? Why not, hypothetically speaking, equally say "please refer to a graduate level medical text on obstetrics/gynecology..."? So yes, I object to that proposal.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have some good points there, but so do I. Let's instead write: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from pro-life organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Any objections? By all means, we can also footnote whatever texts you please, as well as providing further relevant links. I am not aware that Wikipedia has further articles about organizations which make such pictures available via internet.Ferrylodge 02:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would like to insert the following sentence into the article, I'm not sure where to put it: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Does anyone have an opinion about that?Ferrylodge 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that none of us would have any trouble obtaining the rights for such an image. Megastealer 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article could be improved by mentioning photographs. Perhaps the issues surrounding abortion pictures (and alleged abortion pictures) should be covered as part of the Abortion_debate article, since that is a topic where such photos are arguably notable. Incidentally I also don't see how this article would be improved by adding links to pro-life organisations.

To be honest I find this entire proposal rather confusing. Why would we want to include such a bizarre statement? We would be better off providing a link to Google image search... except Wikipedia isn't a link directory. It is not our job to tell people how to find images of things. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Look at the two images on the left-hand-side of the present article. They depict abortions. However, the quality is far inferior to a photograph. Isn't a rock engraving from thousands of years ago inferior to a photographic image? I don't think that is debatable.

The present article provides many external links in the external links section, SheffieldSteel. I'm not sure if that's proper or not. However, I was not suggesting doing so. I was suggesting linking to relevant Wikipedia articles, about organizations that provide pictures of the thing that is in the title of our article. Doesn't it make sense to at least discuss pictures of the thing that is in the title of our article?Ferrylodge 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to sheffie) Then you would have no problem keeping that as your wikipedia standard and removing all real photographs of penises and vaginas and just leaving their depictions? Megastealer 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't press the issue any further, but I think real photographs of abortions at different trimesters would be very educational as to what actually goes on.

Ferrylodge, apologies for not misinterpreting the internal links. However, that doesn't change my view on adding them to this article. As for illustrations, I am not opposed to adding a neutral image if one can be sourced.

Megastealer, I personally do not own a "wikipedia standard" although I do one day hope to adhere to one. I will not oppose your suggested removal of images - although I do suggest you discuss it here and here first. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they already had this discussion, and the majority of people felt that "I concur with Theresa. It's not a question of censorship -- I absolutely believe that we need good images on this article. We just don't need quite so many. They make the article appear too cluttered. Nandesuka 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"

I also concur with Theresa, we need good images on this article. Megastealer 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs good photos. But years of discussion have not led to any. As a first step, we should at least indicate organizations that make abortion photos available. SheffieldSteel, if you think the photos from the Priests for Life are somehow misleading, then let's also mention a prochoice organization that provides what you think are non-misleading abortion photos on the internet. Just name one such organization, please, if you can. I note that the Priests for Life photos have been reprinted in reputable sources.

Anyway, I also suggest to modify the misleading caption accompanying the rock engraving. According to the source of that photo, it is a "Bas relief decorating the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, dated circa 1150, depicting a demon performing an abortion upon a woman by pounding a mallet into her belly." Without such a caption, the image gives the strong impression that abortion was an accepted practice in 1150. Our article gives no hint that the abortion is being performed by a "demon."Ferrylodge 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, again, that provision of abortion photos by pro-life or any other groups should be documented, if anywhere, at Abortion debate. It seems to be quite irrelevant to this article. On the other hand, if you wish to suggest images to illustrate this article, then by all means post them here. Maybe we could have an RfC on the subject?Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am hearing: it's fine for this article to discuss pro-choice groups like the Guttmacher organization, but any photo from Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is ipso facto non-neutral and cannot be mentioned in this article, much less displayed. I ask again: is there any set of photos on the internet that you believe is an accurate depiction of an abortion? Do you think the photos at Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform are phony?

As I said, I intend to change the caption in the Angkor Wat photo if no one objects. And I see no reason to exclude a sentence like this from the article: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." If you think all of those photos are non-neutral merely because of the publisher, then please explain why we shouldn't toss out all other info in the abortion article that is from a POV source.Ferrylodge 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said anything on this page about pro-choice groups, so I don't know where you are "hearing" it from. As for the question of sets of photos from the internet: I personally don't think that photos would illustrate the subject or inform the reader as well as diagrams would. I believe this is why diagrams are used in medical textbooks.

Also, be aware that "I see no reason to exclude" is not a good argument for inclusion of material. And if you want to document the fact that certain pro-choice (or other) groups make photos of aborted fetuses available on the internet, might I suggest that the best article for such material would be Abortion debate? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if you want to briefly mention what organizations or sources provide diagrams of various abortion techniques, via the internet. But diagrams of various abortion techniques are a different issue from photos of the products of abortion. There is slight medical purpose for the latter. There are many reasons to include a sentence like the following in the article: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." This article is avoiding showing the reality of what abortion does. If every photo at Wikipedia had to have a medical purpose, then there would be far fewer photos. Your "personal" view that diagrams should be included is no reason for excluding photos, much less for barring any mention of organizations which provide such photos via internet.Ferrylodge 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to mention any organisations providing diagrams or photos. I cannot see any reason for including your suggested sentence in the article. Your argument that wikipedia is avoiding or covering up the "reality of abortion" leads me to suspect that your wish to include photos is based on a desire to influence readers emotionally, which is strictly against wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what part of the NPOV policy you are referring to, but you might want to check out this section: let the facts speak for themselves. I am not suggesting that we include photos of aborted fetuses with captions that lecture readers about how evil it may be.

Please see Wikipedia policy on external hosting of images: "Wikipedia does not allow direct display of external images but you can link to them using external link form. For example, see this image on this page. An external host may be a good place to put images while you decide which ones belong on Wikipedia; you can also show collaborators what you have." In this instance, I have not even gone that far, instead merely linking to articles about organizations that provide such images.

Obviously, this is a very frustrating discussion for both of us. However, upon reflection, I hope you will see that providing relevant and notable information is better than omitting it. It should be clear that I am trying to find some sort of middle ground here. Otherwise, I'd be insisting on inclusion in this article of actual images of aborted fetuses, or direct external links to such images.Ferrylodge 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how providing images of abortions is "middle" ground. I agree that the problem of choosing which photos to include would lead to cluttering the page with images from sources with various points of view (pro-life vs. pro-choice). The idea of including images is best left to the "abortion debate" page.--IronAngelAlice 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't neutral. To put it in perspective, why not add Videos of animal slaughter are available on the internet from organizations such as PeTA and the Animal Liberation Front. to the Slaughter (livestock) article? Because perhaps PeTA and the ALF are not neutral sources? Perhaps because there are more notable/neutral sources for that content? Saying "PeTA has used graphic images of animal slaughter as a type of activism for the purpose of shocking viewers into sympathizing with their political and moral cause. However, these images have been criticized as being inaccurate and in bad taste." is different that slyly directing users to said videos on their websites. We already cover this issue of the pro-life movement's use of graphic imagery at Pro-life#Types of activism: The truth display. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, the article you refer to on Slaughter (livestock) is barely more than a stub, and is certainly not an example of what a good Wikipedia article should be. Are you saying that this abortion article should omit sources that have a POV? I would be glad to do that. Can we get started on that right now? You say, "there are more notable/neutral sources." Please tell me what source on the internet has neutral/notable photos of aborted fetuses, and also please exaplain why you believe that none of the photos from Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is notable/neutral.

IronAngelAlice, in case you didn't notice, including the following sentence in this article would not involve choosing which photos to include, and would not clutter the page with images from sources with various points of view: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform."Ferrylodge 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See here.Ferrylodge 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ferrylodge, your POV pushing is becoming blatant and annoying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did KillerChihuahua come from and why is it inserting itself in a thread only to criticize Ferrylodge? It appears nowhere else on this page. May I use it (the user name) as an example in a new topic I am considering? I am thinking of starting a new topic titled "Wikistalking".LCP 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, mentioning that photos of aborted fetuses exist is POV. Is it harassment too?Ferrylodge 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, I think we are confusing several different issues. The sentence you would like to add belongs on the pro-life page. The article on abortion here should be concerned with medically accurate information, and describe the history and societal issues surrounding abortion using academic literature. Links to Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform are inherently meant to persuade, not inform. --IronAngelAlice 18:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to utter another word in this discussion, because I seem to be on the verge of being accused of harassment.Ferrylodge 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, you should not feel discouraged from discussing your ideas here. Please understand that abortion is a very polarizing topic, and passions are easily inflamed for all potential editors. This discussion was productive because we can establish the difference between an intent to persuade using emotions vs. an intent to describe using medically accurate information and academic literature. Please do not take any criticisms personally. --IronAngelAlice 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the reason that abortion images are seen as highly graphic content stems from the same reasons that detailed images of the dripping-with-blood placenta, the furiously-screaming woman, her baseball-sized vagina, and a shriveled up, gooey, but later absolutely adorable infant aren't on the Childbirth page. Simply put, they're unnecessarily evocative. Mind you, childbirth is a procedure that practically any mother who has vaginally-delivered a baby will be able to describe. It's something so commonplace to the world that it would make total sense to have it all, in 10 megapixel color, on the childbirth page so that mothers who haven't experienced it will be able to read up on (and see) the process. However, we refrain from doing so due to the sheer content of it all-- even though it's something as basic as childbirth. Same goes for sex. We don't have two humans having intercourse, and we don't have two gay guys having anal sex (well, technically we do, but it's actual classic-period art as opposed to a huge photo of buttsex :P).

If one were to assume that abortion was clear-cut murder (as several people have obviously expressed their concerns over), the images still would still not have a place on the page, because their semi-analogous counterparts on murder and death in general also wouldn't have a place there, either. We have tasteful free images of dead soldiers on Death, but we don't have the free images of body parts from explosions or close-ups of people being blown up in Murder, Death, or even Explosive, because that's unnecessarily evocative-- even though it's still considered death by intentional explosive, which is murder. Similarly, we don't show bullet holes ripping through someone's head on murder or the shooter shooting the victim, either. It's simply over-the-top and unnecessary.

Thus, while abortion is a highly-charged topic that is emotionally tasking to various groups of people, we must try not to lose perspective when it comes to the content we choose to include. More importantly, this particularly holds true when it's potentially disproportionately weighted over content of equal validity, as this is the very definition of not having a neutral point of view. So if you would like, we can propose having people getting their brains blown off in murder or gunshot wound, but we would probably need to establish consensus first. --slakr^\ talk / 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you are arguing that it is unnecessarily indecorous to include graphic images. I think that that is a good argument for the examples you provide. However, the argument does not work in this instance and the analogies fail. Here’s why.

First, because dispelling error is an important part of providing accurate, NPOV information, pro-lifers are eager to include pictures of fetuses, live and aborted, to counter lies propagated by some pro-choice advocates; namely, that what is being aborted is a “blob of tissue” (http://www.euthanasia.com/jenniferoneill.html). If the lie were that “murdered adults turn into happy white puppies,” I am sure you’d see a similar press to include pictures of murder victims on the Murder page.

Second, this issues has different moral implications from any of the examples that you provide. No one is morally offended by the sight of a placenta or even a corps of someone who died of natural causes. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to introduce indecorous images for those subjects. Images add nothing to the truth value of articles speaking about those subjects. Similarly, an image of someone who was murdered would arguably not add much to the truth value of the article on murder. However, many people find images of aborted fetuses not only indecorous but also uniquely morally offensive, like pictures of the holocaust. And that is the reason why the images should be included. For those who are pro-life, the omission of images would be analogous to omitting images from the Holocaust page. Those images are absolutely necessary to convey the horror of the Holocaust. Pro-lifers think that images of fetuses are absolutely necessary to convey the truth about abortion. Hence the omission of images evidences a profound pro-choice POV.

As evidenced on the Holocaust pages, truth trumps decorousness. Because abortion is a moral issue about which many, many people have very strong ideas and feelings, an argument for omission predicated by decorousness does not hold water.

And finally, it is at best arrogant to assume that Wikipedia editors have a right to “protect” the squeamish sensibilities of readers in this type of situation. At worst, it is disingenuous. I agree that there is no need to offend sensibilities when there is no moral issue at stake and nothing in particular but grossness is communicated by a visceral image. However, that is not the case here. LCP 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make excellent points. The Holocaust was most definitely a uniquely horrific period in modern human history, and Godwin would most definitely agree with you. The vast majority of the Western world agrees, essentially, there is no controversy (except for fringe theories) when it comes to the moral reprehensibility of the Holocaust and of genocide in general. As such, images of the Holocaust are readily used on The Holocaust, but at pain of pre-emptively comparing apples to oranges, they are low-resolution, and they are in black and white, and they depict the end result of adults being inhumanely mistreated by adults. Most importantly, we all agree that it was a horrible thing.

So, if one were to use The Holocaust as a basis for adding images of excised fetuses or blastocysts, then it would only be fair that they be low-resolution, in black and white, and evoke emotions that represent the viewpoint held by the overwhelming majority of the world: that abortion is de facto and de jure illegal and morally reprehensible-- just like genocide. However, while genocide is illegal on an international level, abortion is socially and legally acceptable in many countries in the developed world.

It is also not sufficient to justify media inclusion based on the grounds of a particular act being morally wrong, as there is controversy even with murder as to its shades of acceptability (see also: capital punishment and war). Again, since the morality of the acts are controversial, adding full-color, high-resolution, modern pictures displaying arbitrary electrocuted convicts, botched lethal injections, pictures of innocent victims, and people who were hanged, again, is unacceptable because it connotes a non-neutral point of view by tugging at the heartstrings.

Lastly, and most importantly, justifying addition of emotionally-charged, highly-evocative media simply to counter an opposing viewpoint on a highly-controversial issue inexorably invites edit warring and turns the article into a war zone. Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is not an anarchy. Not to mention, it raises huge concerns over neutral point of view, as any rational reader can only assume one thing after seeing multiple full-color pictures of bloody tissue and/or fetuses strewn about the article: that the article is overtly biased against abortion, thus turning the article into a soapbox for denouncing abortion. Long story short, it's a pain in the butt (not to mention it's arguably against policy) to include those types of images. --slakr^\ talk / 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. I think part of the problem is the idea of what is thought of as NPOV. You state, “because it connotes a non-neutral point of view by tugging at the heartstrings.” This is non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because something pulls on the heart string it is not NPOV. And I did not say that images should be included because abortion is a moral issue. I was very careful to avoid that idea. I said they should be included because Pro-lifers think that images of fetuses are absolutely necessary to convey the truth about abortion. I do think your argument involving the international courts bears some weight. But ultimately it fails. The number of people who claim a pro-life affiliation are not merely a small minority (like, say, holocaust deniers). There are lots and lots and lots of them. Another thing to keep in mind is that while the courts have ruled that a woman has the right to have an abortion, it is universally accepted that abortion is not a good thing. Some support abortion because they see it as a woman’s right, but no one is just pro-abortion.

Regardless, I think you make a good point about how including photos might turn this page into even more of a war zone than it is. But answer this: who would object to the images? Answer: only editors who are pro-choice. I don’t know how to speak to the issue of how to keep the page from turning into war zone, but I trust you see my point that the omission of images betrays that the page bears a pro-choice POV. And even though the text is not badly balanced, the omission of images (of any sort) destroys its credibility as much as might the inclusion of great, big, hi-res images. How would you propose this problem be resolved? Seriously. I would like to know your thoughts. I think a good compromise would be to include a image of an embryo and a fetus at various stages of development.

By the way, I am not ready to talk about the quality of the images. I haven’t really thought seriously about it. However, I would add that the quality of the images on the Holocaust page has everything to do with the technology behind the photos and nothing to do with a sentiment to protect sensibilities.LCP 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; the number of people who claim a pro-life affiliation are not merely a small minority-- that's my point exactly. I think I forgot to clarify what I said, as it looks like it was easy to accidentally invert it: we can all agree that the Holocaust was bad, but we cannot all agree that abortion is bad; thus, while evocative pictures have a place in The Holocaust (since they represent almost all of society's viewpoint that the holocaust was bad), they have no place here, because there is considerable voice opposing abortion, though the majority viewpoint is that it isn't totally bad. If we all agreed that abortion was 100% wrong (like genocide), then those pictures would be perfectly acceptable here, just like on Conservapedia's right-wing version, but even there they don't have pictures of dead fetuses. The very reason why images of fetuses and bloody tissue shouldn't be included stems from that very problem: there is significant controversy. Pro-life isn't an insignificant movement, nor is pro-choice. However, that's the exact reason why neither can be POV-pushed in a scientific article about a medical procedure: the consensus is against it. That's why we have Abortion debate.

An article on the medical procedure of liposuction is no more POV by favoring fat people and the condition of obesity for failing to include pictures of bloody excised adipocytes than including them. The same holds true for the medical procedure of abortion. By not including pictures of the end result, we're in no way endorsing or denouncing the antecedents the allowed it to come to be.

Lacking images does not inherently "destroy credibility," because having them doesn't inherently "create credibility," either; for, the heavily-photographed Loch Ness Monster would agree-- if he/she existed. You also suggest adding images that are already in Pregnancy, which would be redundant. We don't include pictures of abortion there, so we shouldn't include gestational phases of pregnancy here. I also hope that in the future you refrain from dealing in absolutes when it comes to content decisions on this article. For example, people who oppose pornography being added to sexual intercourse aren't inherently conservative nor abstinent. I, for one, don't think overt pornography would have a place on that article for the time being (again, due to POV concerns), but it doesn't mean that I'm against people having sex (which would be ironically funny, but whatever :P). The same holds true for this article: someone can oppose a graphic content addition without having inherent motive behind it other than sticking to policy. In the future, I implore you not to assume inherent bias based on objections over content.

This cannot be emphasized enough: this article's title is Abortion, a medical procedure, whereas Abortion debate is for controversy dealing with political/social debate surrounding the medical procedure itself. If you feel that social viewpoints need to be given weight on the medical procedure, please do so at Abortion debate, the debate about the medical procedure. Images of fetuses, dead or alive, belong on Fetus (or maybe Aborted fetus, if you feel it should be created?); stages of pregnancy belong on Pregnancy; debate about the morality of abortion belongs on Abortion debate. --slakr^\ talk / 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notice has recently been inserted at the top of this article, without discussion. The notice says:

This new notice is unnecessary, and is also inaccurate. The second sentence of the lead paragraph already very prominently links to miscarriage. Moreover, the notice incorrectly says that “abortion” is medically defined as “spontaneous abortion.” That is incorrect, according to the lead paragraph and the sources cited therein: “it is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability” (emphasis added). Additionally, the notice at the top may give some people the impression that the article does not contain any medical information. Anyway, there was no discussion of this new notice, so I'll restore the previous version, with an invitation to discuss at talk page.Ferrylodge 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, and I agree that the use of "medical" in the text is just inaccurate. By its very nature, the abortion procedure is a medical procedure.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried about that notice too. It seems rather like a subtle attempt to redefine the article's subject matter. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing in this article about what is being aborted. Pictures af an aborted fetus have not been allowed. Even mentioning other Wikipedia articles about organizations that publish such pictures has not been allowed. The article has pictures of women who get abortions, but none of the abortus. I would like to insert a paragraph on this topic.

“

On average, abortions are typically performed at about 9.5 weeks' gestational age, which is near the point where an embryo becomes a fetus. Here is some brief information about the developing human at this point, when the risk of miscarriage decreases sharply. All major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, though they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional. The fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length, and the heart is beating. The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Some fingerprint formation can be seen from the beginning of the fetal stage.

”

I would also like to point out that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we are supposed to "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."

Thus, words like "man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" are not necessarily preferable to "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb". Favoring the former words over the latter runs counter to Wikipedia policy, and it also (perhaps unintentionally) favors a point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. If and when words like mother, baby, child, and womb are technically accurate, then they should not be blacklisted. Doing so tends to dehumanize the child and tends to minimize the parent-child relationship. Obviously, these terms will not always be technically accurate, but when they are they should not be avoided like the plague. For example, the word mother is very often used in medical contexts (click on mother and look at the footnotes).

Speaking in plain and accurate English is the preferred course according to Wikipedia policy. I have no problem using words like "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" in Wikipedia articles, but words like "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" should not be frowned upon when they too are technically accurate. Good writing often involves using synonyms and a wide vocabulary, instead of using the same words over and over again.Ferrylodge 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe we need to insert that paragraph into the article. I'm not sure why we should use an average figure in stead of focusing on the majority. The majority of abortions are not fetal, but embryonic. Furthermore, even the average number given, 9.5 is not during the fetal stage, so including all that information is misleading. On top of that, where did 9.5 come from? The statistics from England/Wales? What about using the CDC statistics for the US? (I calculated the average to be 8.9 there, even less "fetal" than the England/Wales data). And additional to all that, I'm skeptical of the characteristics given to summarize a fetus at that stage. They are just some cherry picked features that make the fetus seem as human as possible. And that concern of mine has been expressed before and dates back to when you inserted that information into the fetus article. What we get from your description is that a fetus has all the organs and features of a full grown person, has a heart beat and a working brain, it can move, and it has fingerprints. We could list a series of characteristics that dehumanize it as well, and that would be equally POV if listed in isolation (sex organs not visibly differentiated yet, skin transparent, brain-wave activity not continuous, hasn't started producing urine, bile, etc...). Wikilinking to the articles fetus and embryo, IMO, is sufficient, at least much more so than the proposed paragraph.

As for vocabulary, do you have any particular changes you'd like to make? Is the article weak in certain spots that could only be improved by the use of synonyms? I believe the phrases "unborn child" and "baby" should generally be avoided because, the latter because the term is vague and could just as easily be referring to a neonate or infant, and the former because of connotations (just google search the term). "Mother" and "father" are also controversial terms that should generally be avoided. Those terms do not generally connote a temporary state. Furthermore, women who have had abortions, yet have no other kids are not regarded in society as "mothers", and the "fathers' in these situations are even less regarded as such. That said, if there are specific places where you believe these terms would improve the article, we can consider them. Perhaps the context could help me understand, but generally speaking, it's best to avoid these concerns and use language that may not be as 'colorful' as these proposed terms.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped for a more progressive attitude. Apparently, you believe that it is just fine for this article to contain virtually nothing about what is being aborted. Do you also object to the image, or is that too "colorful" for you as well?Ferrylodge 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's accurate or neutral or an appropriate illustration. The source article is aimed at parents-to-be who are looking forward to having a baby, not those considering having an abortion and seeking impartial information. I support Andrew c's objections, and I am concerned about the motivation behind this. I vaguely recall this article saying that the heart was rythmically contracting but not circulating blood (sourced to a medical textbook) and Ferrylodge changed it to say that the heart was beating (sourced to a "family doctor" website, after others pointed out what the other source said). And this is progress towards what, exactly? Ferrylodge has been working away for many months now, attempting to alter this article in any way that might conceivably persuade a reader not to get an abortion. In my opinion this is the ultimate betrayal of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no images of an intact fetus, no images of an aborted fetus, nothing that might convey reality. I get it.Ferrylodge 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with reality. I do have a problem with inappropriate inaccurate non-neutral images specially created for pro-life or happy-family websites. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should look for a miserable family, and ask them to draw a fetus? I really have no idea what you would find acceptable. Do you seriously doubt the accuracy of the image? Click on it, and you will be led to a rotatable 3D image. It's quite amazing. But all you can see is propaganda. Is there any image of a fetus at Wikimedia that you feel is accurate?Ferrylodge 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[reset indent]I thought I gave a fairly well thought out, civil response, however, your replies seem to be increasingly patronizing. I refuse to engage in a discussion which is degrading as such. If you want to civilly address any of the points I brought up, or make an honest, new proposal taking our concerns under consideration (not a joke proposal such as finding a miserable family to draw a fetus), I'm willing to continue this discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, I gave one and only one response to you in this section, to wit: "I had hoped for a more progressive attitude. Apparently, you believe that it is just fine for this article to contain virtually nothing about what is being aborted. Do you also object to the image, or is that too "colorful" for you as well?"

You now refuse to answer that question. You refuse to have any image of a fetus in this article. You refuse to allow this article to contain any description of what is being aborted. Please don't point your finger at me and accuse me of incivility, when it is you who apparently cannot put your POV aside and work toward a neutral and informative article.Ferrylodge 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no problem with the text and image per se -- it is reasonably accurate. One could add additional text that describes the immature developmental aspects of a human embryo/fetus as well, as Andrew points out. The terms mother and father have specific biological meanings (i.e., the female and male parents of offspring, respectively), and in the context of biological pregnancy there is nothing inherently controversial about them either (any more than fetus or embryo), aside from one or the other "sides" objecting to their usage (i.e., mother and father "sound" emotive; fetus and embryo "sound" like laboratory terms; in the end, both statements are a POV). Regardless however, this text describing the early fetal stage of development is essentially tangential to article, the topic of which refers to either a natural process (miscarriage) or, more typically, an artificial surgical or chemical procedure. The links to fetus and embryo are thus sufficient and more appropriate here as Andrew again points out. LotR 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be mentioned that fetus and embryo are not inherently professional terms (as the thread-starter suggests). They're the accepted terminology for teaching high schoolers biology, and they're the most general (but specific) terms that don't evoke a misleading or non-neutral point-of-view. A simple example: abortions can be done on many animals-- not just humans-- so the term embryo is better than unborn child, since the term "child" evokes images of a child playing in the park (as the article Child suggests), which clearly wouldn't apply to a cat embryo. However, human embryo is a safe alternative to human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote-- the latter a clearly technical hodgepodge of scientifically-correct, accurate terms that would be most appropriate to a scientific audience. Thus, we use words like embryo to describe embryos in an article about Abortion (as opposed to "Human Abortion") to prevent us having to clean our keyboards every three days from having to type all that scientific nonsense and to prevent peoples' heads from exploding and/or going cross-eyed :P. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon be slapping a POV tag on this article, because it has virtually no information about what is being aborted, not even an accurate image of a fetus like the one shown above. Wikilinks to fetus and embryo are fine, but there should be at least the barest info here in this article about what the difference is between a fetus and embryo, and describing the point in time when an embryo becomes a fetus (i.e. at 9-10 weeks' gestational age). This point in time also happens to roughly coincide with when the average abortion takes place, at least in the UK and Wales. No one has suggested anything inaccurate about the image above. Inclusion of images of women in this article, while excluding images like that shown above, can only be explained by a POV, and so I intend to insert a POV tag at the top of this article.Ferrylodge 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "human embryo" and "human fetus" is better and more specific terminology. However, the clumsy and redundant terminology "human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote" is vague -- it refers to the human organism at any developmental stage beyond the blastocyst stage of development. "Human embryo" and "human fetus" are far more specific terms. The colloquialism "unborn child" is well known, indicating that the term "child," when placed in context, may refer to a "human fetus" or "human embryo." You are correct that this term can "evoke the image" of a cute, cuddly girl or boy. However, it is equally valid to say that "fetus" and "embryo," especially without the qualifying adjective "human," can evoke the image of a sterile, formaldehyde-smelling laboratory. So I will repeat my point: in the NPOV-eyes of Wikipedia, terminology favored by either "side" is a form of political framing, no matter how much either "side" provides justification for their favored jargon. LotR 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was using "human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote" as an example of actual technical language only to illustrate the point that the terms fetus and embryo aren't technical terms, and that replacing them with "unborn child" is misleading, much like replacing them with "unborn adult" and "unborn politician;" thus, the most concise, most factually-accurate terms are "fetus" and "embryo," depending on the stage of gestation. --slakr^\ talk / 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have had multiple individuals on both sides reverting, so this isn't a case of one person fighting consensus. If we need to, let's talk it out here. This wording was added a month ago without discussion. I believe I missed the edit when it happened, so I wasn't even aware of it. What are the arguments to keep it in? What are the arguments to remove it? Let's talk and stop edit warring. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the word "most" as in "most women": From this ref: "PIP: The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control has collected data on abortion deaths since 1972. These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions perfomed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth.". That's not "most women", it clearly states that abortion before the 16th week is, in fact, safer than childbirth. To say it is "safer" does not state that it is entirely without risk. The phrase "most women" is not correct, from this ref: "For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth." This statement refers to contraception and surgical sterilization in addition to abortion, so we should not take our cue from the combined figures when we have a standalone statement on abortion to use.

Regarding the bit about it being safer "for the woman", this smacks of POV-pushing. The woman is the patient, and the figure is discussing her safety. To say that it is safer "for women" makes no sense. Do biological males get abortions? No. Is there anyone else who would be getting abortions? Other than transmen, no (and if we take them into account, "women" excludes them too). So to make a point of pointing out that it's safer "for women" is to allude that it is not safe for another person. The point is that unless Wikipedia is taking the viewpoint that the fetus is a person, this sentence should only say "abortions [performed under these circumstances] are safer than childbirth". Photouploaded 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the issue between the editors differently than Andrew c does. I did not see it as an issue between “women” or “most women”. I thought the issue had to do with who is effected in the procedure. So, I would consider two sentences from that perspective: “safer for women than childbirth” and “safer than childbirth”.

Perhaps the first step is to establish the factuality of what some editors apparently think is implied in the statement, “safer for women than childbirth”, namely, that it is not safe for the embryo or fetus. First, it should be pointed out that “safer for women than childbirth” does NOT imply that abortion is unsafe for others. To read that idea into the statement is logically fallacious. HOWEVER, it is understandable why some might take the statement to imply that abortion is unsafe for others—and resent that implication. Granted this, to avoid the POV charge, all that has to be proven to warrant the inclusion of “woman” (at least concerning whether it preserves NPOV) is that abortion is, in fact, unsafe for someone (or something) other than the mother. And this is easy to do. Fact: an embryo or fetus is a living creature (albeit some assert a non-human creature). Fact: in abortion the embryo or fetus (aka would-be baby) is killed. Fact: killing a creature is considered harmful to the creature.

Issues of logically fallacious reasoning aside, I think a weak (albeit valid) reason for inclusion has to do with making context explicit. Leaving “woman” out of the proposed sentence leaves several editors uncomfortable with the level of ambiguity. And since I have demonstrated that the inclusion of “woman” does not introduce POV, it should be included.

In terms of semantics, I think it would be good to include “woman” in the sentence since, logically fallacious or not, it does remind the reader that the woman is not the only creature effect in an abortion.

But none of the foregoing arguments are truly compelling. The only truly compelling argument is that “safer than childbirth” is incorrect. Abortion not safer than childbirth for the fetus or the embryo—regardless of whether one considers the embryo or fetus a human person. Abortion is universally, unequivocally deadly for embryos and fetuses. That is a simple fact. And since THE ARTICLE, INCLUDING THE SECTION ON “HEALTH” IS ABOUT “ABORTION” in all of its varied facets, it would be misguided to limit to the statement about the safety of abortion to only one facet (namely the effect on the woman) of abortion.

Along these lines, in case I have completely misread the issue, I would support Andrew c’s revision. Abortion cannot possibly be safer for all women (as implied in “safer than childbirth” and “safer for women than childbirth”) since some women die and suffer serious complications from abortion.

LCP 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion cannot possibly be safer for all women (as implied in “safer than childbirth” and “safer for women than childbirth”) since some women die and suffer serious complications from abortion.

Bogus, bogus argument. As I said already, To say that abortion is "safer" than childbirth does not state that it is entirely without risk. Jumping out of a plane wearing a parachute is safer than jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Simple, yes? This statement says nothing about the empirical safety of jumping out of a plane wearing a parachute. Some people die and suffer serious complications from jumping out of planes wearing parachutes. That fact is not challenged by stating that wearing a parachute is safer than not. It's a comparative statement that states that one activity is safer than another, just the same as stating that when performed before 16 weeks by a doctor, abortion is safer than childbirth.

Furthermore, the relative safety determined in that data does not include the outcome for the fetuses. If that were true then the "safety" rate would be smaller than half of what it is in the case of abortion (with at least 50% of the "creatures" involved perishing with each abortion). To bring in the safety of all the "creatures" involved would be to calculate the number of lives lost among women who abort, women who carry to term, and the fetuses involved in each. We would have to incorporate women who die in childbirth whose fetuses survive. That would mean that dying in childbirth is actually "safer", overall, if the fetus survives. Does any of this make sense if we involve the outcome of the fetuses? No. Do the references refer to the safety of the fetuses? No!

It is factually accurate and supported by sources for the article to state "When performed before the 16th week [by a medical professional], abortion is safer than childbirth." Photouploaded 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It should be abundantly clear, in context, that any discussion of safety or risk applies to the woman. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the embryo or fetus. Suggesting that its safety is an issue is simply bizarre.

I can't see any reason to include "for women" or "for most women" other than to point out that there is another being involved. Why make that point? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: still risky business” states, “For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth.” This peer-reviewed article supports the inclusion of “most” and "women" and trumps the assertion that the inclusion of “most” is “bogus.”

“Standardized mortality rates associated with legal abortion: United States, 1972-1975” states, “Women in the age group 20-24 had a 2.3 times greater mortality risk in childbirth than in abortion and women over 35 had an 8.1 times greater risk.”

Although both articles are obviously about women’s health, both articles refer to “women” explicitly. This unequivocally supports the inclusion of “women.” By wanting to remove an explicit reference to women, it seems to me that Photouploaded is (perhaps unwittingly) inserting his/her own editorial bias.

Regarding Photouploaded’s arguments--which are immaterial in light of the direct quotes from peer reviewed journals--Photouploaded initially argued that to include “woman” would mean that the article is counting the fetus as a “person.” I have demonstrated that that is not correct. Photouploaded tacitly agrees with me that a fetus is a “creature” (as Photouploaded is at a loss as to what other type of thing a fetus might be). And as I have demonstrated, that another “creature” is involved warrants the inclusion “women.” And finally, although immaterial to this discussion, Photouploaded states, “If that were true then the "safety" rate would be smaller than half of what it is in the case of abortion (with at least 50% of the "creatures" involved perishing with each abortion). To bring in the safety of all the "creatures" involved would be to calculate the number of lives lost among women who abort, women who carry to term, and the fetuses involved in each. We would have to incorporate women who die in childbirth whose fetuses survive." This, in fact, is how I view the facts regading birth in general (as opposed to facts about only women)--except that I would say that a “baby” is born is childbirth, not a “fetus” as Photouploaded states. Although I am NOT pushing my POV here, I assert the fetus--conceived by humans, with human DNA, alive, destined for birth--is a human person. So, Photouploaded’s attempt at a reductio ad absurdum does not hold water.

LCP 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) How safe are agricultural pesticides? Very dangerous, if you count the millions of deaths that typically result from their proper usage. Such calculations of safety are meaningless. Instead, if A is intended to kill B, then the safety of A is measured in terms of risk to not-B.

What arguments are there, other than "the source says women"? The other reason to include "women" is to draw attention to the view that another being's safety is an issue. There's no need to make that point, as I've said, and NPOV says we should not do so. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state, “if A is intended to kill B, then the safety of A is measured in terms of risk to not-B.” I think you raise an interesting point. However, here is the problem. The deaths of fetuses is not as morally unambiguous as the death of insects. What do you do with this fact: the Nazi’s intended to kill Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, gays, etc.? Should we not include their numbers in our account of WWII dead since these poor souls died as the result of the intended and “proper” use of gas chambers and carbolic acid?

Regardless, in the context of several editors who see it fit to include “women,” I think that "the source says 'women'" is the most cogent argument. If the sources didn’t say “women”, or if the page were titled, “Women and Abortion,” or if even the section were titled “The Health Effects of Abortion on Women,” then I don’t think we would be having this discussion. I brought in extra-textual arguments only to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for respecting what the original texts says and that any move to remove “women” is arguably more POV than including “women.”LCP 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCP, you said: I assert the fetus... is a human person. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the stats refer only to the safety of the person undergoing the procedure. As Sheffield Steel stated, the context makes it abundantly clear who this person is: the adult. Therefore, there is no reason to point out that it is safer "for women" unless your intention is to point out that there is another "human person" involved; a belief which you have admitted openly. The preexisting ref clearly states: "These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth." Not "safer for women" (emphasizing the termination of fetuses), not "safer for most women" (emphasizing the risks of abortion), but simply, abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth. Period. There is no reason whatsoever to augment this statement with editorial commentary. It stands on its own. Photouploaded 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text also states, "Women in the age group 20-24 had a 2.3 times greater mortality risk in childbirth than in abortion and women over 35 had an 8.1 times greater risk."LCP 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which means that abortion is safer than childbirth. Photouploaded 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for women. ;-)LCP 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which goes without saying. Photouploaded 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no compelling need to include "for women". The meaning is clear enough without it.
2. Adding "for women" puts forward the viewpoint that the safety of another being is an issue. This is the "pro-life" viewpoint.
3. NPOV policy says that we must present information neutrally.
4. NPOV is non-negotiable and nothing trumps NPOV.

I'm not sure what else there is to say. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, completely. Photouploaded 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first paragraph of this article, we define abortion as a procedure which results in the death of the fetus/embryo. Isn't it redundant to imply abortion isn't safe for the fetus/embryo, when by definition the procedure results in their death? I think I'm starting to see the view that we don't need to add "for women" to this sentence.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there is another creature that is effected isn’t an “issue.” It is a fact. And it isn’t even pro-life fact. NPOV Fact: there is a living creature in the womb. NPOV Fact: It is killed. This is a “health effect.” This undermines your premise #2. It is your premise #2 that is POV. Furthermore, The inclusion of “woman” isn’t editorial. It is explicitly stated in both texts referenced.

But perhaps you are right. Since the entire section speaks only of the health effects of abortion on the woman, perhaps the naming of the section is the issue, not the inclusion of the word “woman” in the text in question.

I must say, I am deeply impressed by the unbiased zeal for grammatical efficiency that informs my opponents regarding this issue.LCP 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no call for such incivility. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being uncivil.LCP 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a bit of editing activity, yet no significant increase in talk page activity. As it stands on the talk page, we have Photouploaded and SheffieldSteel clearly against the inclusion, me on the fence leaning towards exclusion, and LCP for the inclusion. It can be assumed that FL is for the inclusion based on the fact that he inserted it, without consensus or discussion a month ago, and because he has reverted back to the included version. ElinorD and KC have both reverted Photouploaded, but it isn't clear if they were fighting a disruptive editor, or making a stance on how they feel the article should be (they should comment here on talk so we know). Regardless, there doesn't seem to be consensus to include the phrasing, and the talk page discussion has been unambiguously leaning to the exclusion side. So what I'm saying is, those who keep reverting to a version that isn't supported on talk, you should probably comment here. In this situation, words are louder than actions. That said, should we remove the controversial phrasing that has yet to have talk page consensus until the discussion is done? If things change, we can always restore the text once there is consensus.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should remove the controversial phrasing, as there is no consensus to include it. Photouploaded 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s like saying, “since the jury is hung, we should execute the defendant.” Since there is no consensus, the most inclusive reading of the texts itself should hold precedence. In other words, the benefit of the doubt needs to go to the text. And both texts say “women” and one says “most women”. At worse, it is redundant. At best, it clarifies meaning for readers who, through no fault of their own, are too dull to understand that it is implied.LCP 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The studies cited are from 1978 and 1994, and are limited to the United States population. It is therefore NPOV and factual to state the dates and geographic limitations of the studies cited in the article, which do not cover either abortion or childbirth safety beyond the US. More documentation is needed to make the universal statement presently in the article. Please see my change to the article reflecting the above limitation.--Ajschorschiii 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Also, sentences reporting scientific studies with dates should properly be in the past tense. I have made this change. --Ajschorschiii 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final footnote #24 supporting the sentence, "The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed,[32][33] but remains less than complications that may occur from carrying pregnancy to term.[24]", does not support the use of the phrase "less than complications" but is specifically about morbidity and mortality, which are quite different from simply "complications." I am changing the phrase in the article to read, "but were reported in the US in 1994 as remaining less than the morbidity and mortality from carrying pregnancy to term." Scientific articles in the past should properly be reported in the past tense.--Ajschorschiii 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Photo has changed the statements to which I refer above to the present tense, without adding to this discussion. Years ago, I was taught that when writing a summary of scientific findings, to report the findings in the past tense, since science is ongoing. The past tense also would give the writing a factual, NPOV tone, which would add to the encyclopedic quality of this article. Also, to remove the dates 1978 and 1994 from the sentence, as Photo did, gives the reader less information on which to form an opinion. Photo's comment in the edit that the studies have not been refuted can only be made from a factual point of view if Photo has read every study in the world, in every language, that is currently extant. Since no one has this knowledge, the convention of using the past tense, and referring to the date and scope of studies, keeps the article within factual and NPOV boundaries. I ask Photo to reconsider his or her changes.--Ajschorschiii 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support and restored your change. The removal of your text is just another instance of Photouploaded edit warring.LCP 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's profoundly uncivil to talk about the actions of someone who is participating in a discussion, as though they weren't there. — Photouploaded 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you talking to me? I wasn't present. I was getting my teeth cleaned. I am sure you will be happy to know that my teeth and gums are in the best of health. My dentist even gave me a free tooth brush!LCP 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an attempt to garble the information being presented. This insistence on using the past tense is not being duplicated with any of the other dozens of statistics cited in this article, such as "The World Health Organization suggests that there are 19 million terminations annually which fit its criteria for an unsafe abortion." and "In the first twelve weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method., "Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy." It's odd that you would insist on phrasing this in the past tense. It gives a feel of uncertainty to an otherwise simple statement. Also, the list of medical professionals who might perform an abortion is not supported by either source, and serves only to increase the bulk of stipulations on the truth of the statement.

Here is your version:

As reported in 1978 and 1994 studies limited to the US population, when performed before the 16th week by competent doctors — or, in some states, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants — it was safer for most women than childbirth.

And here is one suggestion for improvement:

"Studies on the US population in 1978 and 1994 reported that when performed before the 16th week of pregnancy, abortion is safer than childbirth."

This version is nearly a direct quote from the first reference, which states:

"The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control has collected data on abortion deaths since 1972. These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth."

There is no need to weigh down the sentence with unnecessary (and unsourced) information. Simply stating the date and the word "reported" makes it clear that the report was published—as all reports are—in the past. — Photouploaded 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV Fact: there is a living creature in the womb--regardless of the humanity or lack of humanity of the creature.
• NPOV Fact: It is killed.
• This is a "health effect" on a creature that is party to the procedure--regardless of the humanity or lack of humanity of the creature.
• NPOV Fact: some people say this creature is human. To them, the death of the fetus is definitely a health effect.
• NPOV Fact: some people say this creature as non-human. To them, the death of this creature is inconsequential.
• NPOV Fact: The current “Health effects” section does not speak to the health effects of abortion on the fetus.
• Therefore, the current name of the “Health effects” section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human.
• This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia NPOV rules.
• Therefore, the name of the section should be changed or information about the health effects on the fetus should be included in this section.
• Since health effects on the fetus are discussed elsewhere, including them in this section would be redundant.
• Therefore, the best solution is to rename the section.

I strongly oppose this suggestion. It would be a blatant violation of NPOV rules to name it "Health effects of abortion on women" because this would emphasize that abortion had other "health effects" on 'someone' else. It is not Wikipedia's place to indicate that the fetus is a person. Are we going to create a companion section called "Health effects of abortion on the fetus", complete with gory descriptions from an in-utero point of view? Please. Photouploaded 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do. You keep on making the same claim, but you keep conflating several ideas. A creature does not have to be a "person" to suffer health effects. Worms suffer “health effects.” The NPOV fact is that another living thing is involved. The NPOV fact is that not only the woman suffers health effects. Ergo, the title is inaccurate. At best, it lacks the level of refinement you insist upon above. Nevertheless, let's look at personhood. Perhaps you are right to suggest it is an issue. You state that a fetus is not a person. And that is POV. Namely yours. You imply that it is POV to say or imply a fetus is a person ("It is not Wikipedia's place to indicate that the fetus is a person"). However, to state or imply that it is not a person is also POV. So the page already is in violation of the NPOV rules. That is what the name change will fix. So now we have two arguments for changing the name of the section. And to perhaps anticipate the repetition of a response attempted by Sheffield Steel above, even abortion supporters would reject the idea that the killing of a fetus, be it person or not, is as inconsequential as the killing of an insect. LCP 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely did not "state that a fetus is not a person", or similar! Please be much more careful of your wording if you choose to restate another person's position. Using direct quotes can help in avoiding these errors. I'm waiting to hear from others before I comment further. Photouploaded 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think a fetus is a person?LCP 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I assumed good faith in thinking that, perhaps, you had made an honest mistake in attempting to represent my viewpoint, but your behavior makes it clear that your intent was to corner me. So, rather than admit that you misrepresented me, and even apologize, perhaps, now you fire a single, personal question at me? That is terribly ill-mannered, LCP. Mainly, in light of this, (and also in an absence of any benefit my answer could provide the article) I have no interest in answering your question. Photouploaded 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Ill mannered”? Apologize because I inadvertently misquoted you? You’re so funny! Anyway, I did not intend to misquote or “corner you” (as evidenced by my line-through). Had that been my intention, I would have been a little bit cleverer! Regardless, you did answer the question, albeit reluctantly and perhaps unwittingly. BTW, even if you had provided an explicit answer, I would not have held it against you or your "argument". While you are cogitating on that, you might also want to consider that fact that in real academic discussions the participants make no secret of their affiliations.LCP 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have ascribed to me both words I did not say and a position I did not claim. Yes, you struck through the first instance, but what good is that when you immediately do it again? You claim that I "did answer the question", even having the gall to insinuate that I might have done so without realizing it. How tedious. What actually happened was that I said that you "made an honest mistake in attempting to represent my viewpoint" and that you "misrepresented me". The words "mistake" and "misrepresentation" were intended to refer solely to your act of claiming that I made an outright statement that I never made, not to imply my position. I made it clear that I had not answered your question in any form. For you to infer that I had is vexing, and it is very tedious to have to correct you again.

You seem intelligent enough to become aware of this error, and to stop. Please do so immediately! It is taking too long to have to correct you each time. Surely you must see how detrimental this is to the improvement of the article. We only have so much time we can spend here, and instead of spending it on the noble goal of improving Wikipedia, we're stuck here. If you choose to continue here, please stop misrepresenting me so we can get to the business of the article. Thank you. Photouploaded 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Photo, if someone misunderstands you, it is less divisive and hostile to AGF and rather than accuse them of wilful misunderstanding, to simply clarify your meaning. A simple "I seem to have been unclear, allow me to clarify" or "You seem to have misunderstood me, this is what I meant" avoids attacking other editors, and as an added bonus, is easier to type than attacks and accusations, which are pointless. Remember to comment on the content not the contributor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While what you have said is correct, I find it troublesome that while bringing up the topic of civility, you focus only on me. For example, LCP's comment: "you did answer the question, albeit reluctantly and perhaps unwittingly." Is it not profoundly uncivil to infer that another editor failed to grasp the meaning of their own words? It seems you unfairly target me, alone. Photouploaded 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for Photouploaded's comments and in the interest of saving time, I am tagging my comments so that those who care can avoid the metadiscusion. This comment has two facets: metadiscussision and forensic discussion.

<metadiscussion>

I am, admittedly, an ass sometimes. I have been pointed even with KillerChihuahua. (And she has been pointed back—good for her or him I say!). However, you claim to be interested in not wasting time, so I really cannot understand why you spend so much breath on non-topical meta-discussion. Whatever.

</metadiscussion>

<forensic discussion>

I think you’ve misattributed the source of the “tesious”ness. The tediousness tediously entered into this tedious discussion at its inception--when the word “woman,” although a directly quoted from two sources, was tediously deleted.

</forensic discussion>

<metadiscussion>

If you are going to attempt to patronize me by correcting me, I would be more impressed by arguments (such as Sheffield Steel’s below) or at least bigger words and wit. I do my best (which I’ll be the first to admit is very humble), and I just don’t see how you are keeping up your end of the bargain. Simply repeating the word “tedious” and giving me imperatives really doesn’t do anything for me. I find it tedious.

</metadiscussion>LCP 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you repeated the word "tedious" seven times indicates to me a kind of attitude with which I do not wish to interface. Admitting that you are, at times, "an ass" does not give you license for such a thing. Please consider reviewing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; if you will uphold the spirit of these policies, we will be better off. Photouploaded 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the pesticide example was causing confusion based on the value attached by the reader to some of the parties.

Question If asked to find the safest method of execution, assuming relevant data was available, would your answer be...

1. The method that is most likely to leave the condemned person alive; or
2. The method that is least likely to harm anyone else?

Answer 1 is correct in a narrow and mathematical sense, but it is not going to be useful to any plausible real-world enquirer.

The above renaming proposal is frankly bizarre and supremely irrelevant given that it is perfectly clear what the purpose of the procedure is. The health of the fetus or embryo is only an issue insofar as the procedure is consdered a failure if it survives. I also strongly oppose this proposal. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Mathematical” is an impressive word (even if it would apply only had you created a syllogism), and the parallelism in “frankly bizarre and supremely irrelevant” is nice, but I don’t see how the clarity of the purpose of the procedure has any bearing, whatsoever, in the proposal to rename “Health effects.” Perhaps you would be so kind as to walk me through your argument step by step as I have done above in laying out my proposal. While you are at it, I am also interested in learning more about how “narrow mathematical sense” differs from “broad mathematical sense”, “mathematical sense”, and simply “mathematically”, and how any of these apply to non-syllogistic arguments. Thanks in advance for your kind attention!LCP 04:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm and incivility don't help anyone.

1. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the embryo or fetus.
2. The majority of abortions are successful.
3. Therefore, it is normal and intended for the embryo or fetus to die during an abortion.
4. There is another entity involved in the abortion process, i.e. the woman.
5. The purpose of an abortion is not to injure or kill the woman.
6. An abortion is attended by trained medical staff.
7. The medical staff are concerned with the health of the woman, but not that of the embryo or fetus.
8. It is neither normal nor intended for the woman to be injured or killed during an abortion.

I hope this is clear enough. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using language inaccurately in an attempt to impress and multiplying pejorative adjectives doesn’t help anyone.

I do now have a much clearer understanding of where you are coming from. And although I still want to change the title of the section, I think I do see your point. Here is my rebuttal. I think it applies to your premise #7, “The medical staff are concerned with the health of the woman, but not that of the embryo or fetus”. In response, I assert that the intentionality of the medical staff that provides abortions is not the only thing that should inform Wikipedia’s view of the subject. NPOV does not mean “as viewed in the eyes of medical professionals who perform abortions”--especially since those particular medical professionals arguably have the most POV position of all. The rest of my argument is the same as above and hinges on “the current name of the ‘Health effects’ section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human.”

Thank you for outlining your position. It was clear enough for me.LCP 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal I suggest the section be renamed from "health effects" to "health risks". I think "risks" is more accurate than "effects" because the section talks about chances, rather than certain consequences. It also defuses the above debate, by reducing ambiguity about who might be considered at risk during an abortion, as opposed to being affected by it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This change might, perhaps, give needed warrant to your argument and overcome my objections. I am willing to entertain this idea. I’d like to mull it over and get input from other editors.LCP 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks was discussed previously, I will see if I can find it in the archives. It might help to see previous views on this issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find it. It seems the section was "Health risks" through Archive 13, then sometime before end of Archive 15 it became "effects". If I recall correctly, the reasoning was that in some cases abortion is not a "risk" but a positive effect - for example in cases of therapeutic abortion, and also since abortion is safer for the woman than full term and delivery "risks" was inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched this debate and have not commented because I had a neutral stance, but I am now beginning to understand the point about changing the section title. The page discusses a term that can refer to both a natural process (miscarriage) or, more typically, an artificial surgical or chemical procedure performed upon a female parent in gestation (aka, mother or pregnant woman) with the intention to terminate her pregnancy, resulting in the destruction of the offspring, usually in utero. The Level 1 Section title "Health effects" is therefore vague, and even a bit confusing. At the least, it should be demoted to a subsection under "Induced abortion" -- do we really have anything to say about the health effects of natural miscarriages? Right now, I am leaning toward the proposition that it be changed as has been proposed, which provides more clarification on the section content. The only rational counter argument I have heard is simply that it is redundant, but I have not been convinced of this yet.

There was an edit conflict and I did not see the new proposal. I agree it is an improvement. I would also suggest the section be demoted to a subsection under "Induced abortion." LotR 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the phrase "health effects" the more it looks like a bastardisation of "health risks" and "side effects" - and the more I think it should be one or the other.

I like LotR's suggestion to move the section, and think the above post raises other good points. What information is available (and how much should be included) about health risks/effects associated with natural miscarriage? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Miscarriage#General_risk_factors will help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tangent: I just noticed that Miscarriage speaks nothing of associate risks to the woman when that happens--such as infection if parts of the aborted fetus are not expelled or complications resulting from the D&C.LCP 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good! but I see you are already on it. Good catch! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple e/c) My bad. That's exactly what I was wondering about - the health problems that may occur, during/after a natural miscarriage. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deprecating the header level and moving the section (and renaming the section in accord with comments by LotR) to provide clarity. I am neither for or against a repeat of health risks associated with spontaneous abortion. I am inclined to include merely a statement to the effect that there are risks and a link to the Miscarriage page.LCP 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suggest the non-risk health information go, such as the information that an abortion carries less risk to the woman than delivery, or the studies which show that abortion is often less of a mental health risk than having an unwanted child? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. I thought we were talking about the whole “Health risks” section. Not that that is much help as I don’t see where to move that either. Are we talking about moving/depricating the whole thing or just parts? In either case, perhaps LotR has some ideas.LCP 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that the entire section titled "Health effects" (currently Section 4) be moved under Section 3.2 "Induced abortion" as the current Section 4 only refers to induced abortions. I did not intend to generate the additional work of having to write up the impact of miscarriage on a women's health. Also, having a mirror section titled "Health risks of spontaneous abortions" would not make sense given they are a natural, spontaneous process. The point KillerChihuahua brings up about previous editions of the page is something to consider, but under the context of induced abortion, it would not be any more out of place than having similar sections under other medical procedures or medications -- any of these has an intended beneficial end, but they also carry "risks" or "side-effects." LotR 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that there are one or two references to miscarriage in that section. It might be best to move them here, for further attention if necessary, rather than move them under "Induced Abortion". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that rather than move with undue haste, we examine this carefully. Since section 4 has miscarriage information and positive health effects, to rename it Health risks and move it to below Induced abortion would require some text surgery, as well as discussion on where to place the (now homeless) information. Rather than have a chaotic result or a confusing result, IMO it would be beneficial to discuss the pros and cons of renaming and/or moving the content at all, and how best to proceed if consensus is to rename and/or move. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I am confused again. How is moving the section going to speak to my main objection with the title, namely, “the current name of the ‘Health effects’ section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human”? Thanks.LCP 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals (just food for thought):

• Move the sentence in "Health effects" on miscarriage to a new subsection called “Health risks” beneath “Spontaneous Abortion”.
• Rename “Health effects” to “Health risks” (thought, for reasons stated, I still would prefer “Health risks to the woman”—but I’ve said everything I have to say on that topic.)
• Deprecate the header level of “Health risks” so that it (and its children) fits as section 3.2.4 (beneath “Induced abortion”)
• Break “Suggested effects” into two sections: “Suggested effects: positive” and “Suggested effects: negative”. LCP 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sentence in question that would be come a new one sentence subsection of miscarriage? I just re-read the section and didn't see any content that need to be moved (are you talking about the very last sentence under the "Mental health" heading?) Next, I do not believe we need to move "Health effects" under another header. If you note, every section following "Health effects" (namely, "History of abortion," "Social issues," "Abortion debate," and "Abortion law") all deal with induced abortion. In fact, I would say that this entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage. I do not believe we need to move sections 4 through 8 under the heading "Induced abortion". Splitting up the suggested effects also doesn't make sense. What are the positive suggested effects? Is it the single paragraph which directly contrasts the "Mental health" section, starting with Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients?

While I can understand your desire to organizes, I don't think proposals 1,3 or 4 would work. As for #2, "Health risks" is ok, but what about "Risks & Side Effects", which is the phrase Planned Parenthood uses, or we could just use "Risks" as The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does, or even "Side effects and risks" as American Pregnancy Association does. I agree that "Health effects" is oddly phrased. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[68] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression." is under Suggested effects/Mental health.

I agree, “this entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage”. Following the suggestion to rename the section, what do you would you do with, “Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients?”LCP 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage" then the article should be trimmed back so that it discusses its intended content with appropriate weight. Rather than do that, I still advocate that this section be demoted as has been proposed (LCP has some specific proposals for this). This section is not the same as the others because the bulk of it relates directly to induced abortion medical procedures. Otherwise, by the same line of reasoning, we might as well promote the subsections 3.2.1-3.2.3 to their own Level 1 section since the entire article is about induced abortion. Again, I am not advocating that, but rather illustrating why "Health effects" should be demoted (and, BTW, "Risks & Side Effects" is certainly an improvement in this context). The other sections mentioned do not necessarily need to be demoted since they do not pertain explicitly to the actually medical procedures. Alternatively, a new Level 1 section could be created entitled "Issues concerning induced abortion," and these sections could be put under this one. So, we might have the following revised outline:

   * 1 Definitions
   * 2 Incidence
         o 2.1 By gestational age and method
         o 2.2 By personal and social factors
   * 3 Forms of abortion
         o 3.1 Spontaneous abortion
         o 3.2 Induced abortion
               + 3.2.1 Surgical abortion
               + 3.2.2 Medical abortion
               + 3.2.3 Other means of abortion
               + 3.2.4 Risks & side effects
                       - 3.2.4.1 Breast cancer
                       - 3.2.4.2 Fetal pain
                       - 3.2.4.3 Mental health
   * 4 Issues concerning induced abortion
         o 4.1 History
         o 4.2 Social issues
               + 4.2.1 Effect upon crime rate
               + 4.2.2 Sex-selective abortion
               + 4.2.3 Unsafe abortion
         o 4.3. Abortion debate
               + 4.3.1 Public opinion
         o 4.4. Abortion law
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links

This allows us to keep most of the content of the current page, but in a more logical and explicit structure. Either that, or we should just trim back or remove the large sections that implicitly refer only to induced abortion, as this page is supposed to deal with the generic term "abortion." LotR 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed that the "Incidence" section also only talks about induced abortions. This could be demoted under the Sections 4 or 3.2 I proposed above -- were I the only editor, I would probably go ahead and do that, but it may be too many changes for everyone. The article is just too heavily weighted on induced abortions. Perhaps we should just change the Section title as Andrew suggests and let it go at that. Sigh. LotR 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sections 2, 2.1 and 2.2 don't say a lick about "miscarriage" so they would need to be demoted to some subsection. We don't have a single external link dealing with "miscarriages", so section 11 would need to be demoted. The see also section also doesn't really deal with miscarriages either. Really, look at the article. We mention miscarriage in the lead once. We define it in the "Definitions" section and explain it a little bit more in the "Forms of abortion" and briefly mention it for comparison purposes in the effects section. This article is always been, in my mind, primarily the "Induced abortion" page. I also believe we treat the closely related topic of "miscarriages" appropriately, according to how we should summarize and spinout content. I don't see what could be trimmed, or how we are giving too much weight to the topic of miscarriage. We need to mention it in the lead because there are definitions of the word "abortion" which are synonymous with miscarriage. Mentioning it in the definitions section makes sense to more fully explain the lead, and the "forms of abortion section" is the summary section for the spinout article. The remaining 3 mentions of the word are simply there for comparison purposes in regards to statistics and related studies. I'll repeat what I said above. Changing the heading makes sense, but switching up the outline doesn't. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question, how much content (and what parts) would you trim that deal with "miscarriages" in order for you to feel comfortable leaving the outline the way it is. I think if we ever get around to expanding the lead to an appropriate 3-5 paragraph suggested length, it would be even clearer what the article is about. Maybe that will be my next task.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea to solve the miscarriage problem:

• Leave the lead as it is
• Leave the current paragraph on miscarriage in place
• Collect the rest of the info in the article on miscarriage into the section on miscarriage at the top of the page since it is mainly just a summary and a pointer.
• Expand the lead to state that the article is primarily about induced abortion.

Then we just have to deal with…

• the naming of “Health effects”
• the omission of information about what is being aborted, including the disposal of aborted embryos and fetuses. But don’t worry, I am not talking about picture of fetuses in dumpsters! The disposal of aborted and fetuses has been a big deal in this issue for both sides. It has been an abomination to pro-lifers and an embarrassment to abortion clinics. If anyone wants to debate this, may I suggest a new thread be started?

LCP 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I attempted to add a dispute template to the section over which we disagree, User:KillerChihuahua immediately reverted this addition. In the edit summary, KillerChihuahua stated: "A minor content dispute does not call for a tag, especially the "totally-disputed" tag. Photo, you are being disruptive again." I feel that this statement fails to WP:AGF. Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute makes it very clear that this use of a dispute template is supported:

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: [emphasis mine]

• insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.

The multiple page lengths discussing this issue indicate that a dispute has arisen.

• paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning.

This I did, actually I added {{disputed-section}} as to be minimally disruptive on the readability, only to be labeled "disruptive" by KillerChihuahua.

Does anyone else find the template to be problematic? We haven't resolved this, and the template may draw new voices to the discussion. At least, it will alert readers to the presence of a dispute. Photouploaded 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used {{totally-disputed-section}}, which you have now replaced with {{disputed-section}}. Either one indicates a dispute about the accuracy of the content. We have no such dispute. We have a minor content dispute about the best phrasing to meet NPOV. This is not an accuracy dispute which calls the content of the section into question. The section itself is well written and sourced. I strongly support the efforts to reach consensus on the minor phrasing issue in question. A template, however, is overkill. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I demonstrated, the use of a template is indicated in the presence of a dispute. Also, whether or not to include the word "most" does affect the accuracy of the content, as I stated in my initial edit summary. The length of the disputed sentence is short, but it has given rise to such lengthy debate, here, that placing the template is a good choice. Photouploaded 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with KillerChihuahua. And I would add the dispute is not only minor but also "tedious".LCP 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is now the eighth time you have used the word "tedious", adding to your seven uses of the word in one of your previous comments, which seemed intended to call me out for using the word twice in a two-paragraph comment. Your repeated use of the word strikes me as antagonistic. Please stop. Photouploaded 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your use of "tedious" inspiring. You hit the nail on the head. “Imitation is the greatest for of flattery.” Regardless, did you mean “stop using he word tedious" or “stop responding”?LCP 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)LCP 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "demonstration" consists entirely of pasting content from a page which explains a template - it isn't even a guideline page, let alone a policy page. My I suggest that at 178 edits, you may have a less clear grasp of the appropriate use of tags than other editors who have considerably more experience with Wikipedia, and that you are arguing rather than availing yourself of an opportunity to learn. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an editor who recently chided me for the necessity of commenting on content, rather than the contributor, you seem to give yourself a wide rein when doing the same. As an administrator, are you aware that Wikipedia:Disputed statement, an editing guideline which is "generally accepted among editors and... considered a standard that all users should follow" details the exact same course of action as that which I detailed from the template page? Photouploaded 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Sure am. Please read that, and also WP:DR which you will find is a policy. Guidelines are just that... guidelines. They "guide". Policy trumps guidelines, every time. However, some guidelines denote blockable behavior - such as WP:DE. Please note especially Rejects community input and the policies linked to in the Campaign... section. Consider this a warning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Community input" is not the same as "a bulk of chastisement from one person". Now you are waving your administrator status over my head. I have been clear and provided refs for what I am doing and why. Please back off. Photouploaded 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have received warnings from Andrew_c, Gscshoyru - twice, me about deleting Ferrylodge's post, which he commented on here, along with mentioning WP:CON; you were blocked by Walton One, I pointed you to WP:CIVIL here. This in addition to multiple comments and suggestions from multiple editors, the pasting of which would take another entire section. I will now "back off" and stop trying to help you, as you clearly would rather do without the assistance of an experienced administrator to help you learn. The warning, however, stands. You have now moved my post again, and you are well aware of TPG as both Ferrylodge and I have explained it to you. You have chosen to replace the template on the article, thus edit warring despite having only seen opposing positions on the talk page, and none supporting inclusion of the template, thus going against consensus (such as it can be at this early juncture.) Make another personal attack, edit another post by someone else, in short break a single policy and I will very likely block you in order to give the regular editors of these articles a much needed break from your hostility and disruption. You have shown no desire to learn the rules, or to learn how to work within the rules on Wikipedia, and have POV-pushed using incivility, ABF, personal attacks and hostility to one and all. It is a pity you reject the help you have been offered. If you have a change of heart, let me or someone on the mentorship program know and I or they will be happy to help you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made me feel really unwelcome over something as little as attempting to restore the order of a threaded discussion. I'm absolutely serious, I think you should review WP:NAM and WP:BITE. Photouploaded 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to intrude on the conversation, but it seems to me (and my weird mind) there are quite a few sections on many controversial articles that could have {{totallydisputed}}, {{disputed-section}}, and the like added to them-- probably perpetually-- for whatever reason. However, if we did that, the tag would lose its meaning and its weight relatively quickly (as they'll become commonplace). That's why I try to use those templates very sparingly on controversial topics, and only when necessary to evoke discussion and consensus-building. That's why I propose, as a happy median, that while we can argue over what policy says this or what policy says that, we instead try to focus on the question: is the tag essential for now, or can we just solve the problem by discussing it in a new section on this talk page-- without even bringing up the stuff related to the tag/untag? Obviously there is no right answer, but I, personally, feel that we should try to use self-restraint when it comes to adding dispute tags on high-traffic, highly-controversial article (if at all possible) until we've at least tried to raise our concerns on the talk pages (like this one). --slakr^\ talk / 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr, your input is welcome, you are not intruding. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe due to the heated stuff above, now isn't a good time to bring this up, but I've been working on a little project: a freely licensed image of an abortion to illustrate this and related article. So here it is.

I used Image:SpirellaCorsetry02.gif as tracing reference for the hands and Image:Illu repdt female.jpg as tracing reference for the internal organs and body outline. The references I used for the procedure itself come from two sources: Jones, R. E. and Lopez, K. H. Human Reproductive Biology. p. 425; and Decherney, A. H. and Pernoll, M. L. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment. p. 684.

So what do people think? Questions, comments? If you have access to a good library, you can check the references. If not, you can preview the pages using google books or amazon search inside (both have diagrams as well). I chose the first trimester vacuum aspiration method as it is the most common method. Note, this image is not complete. Depending on the feedback, I will try to address concerns, add labels, make some finishing adjustments, and upload the final file in SVG format.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great idea. If you don’t want to get flack, you’ll need to depict the fetus accurately and to scale (or have a call-out with an accurate image of a fetus or an embryo) and state the age of gestation of the embryo or fetus depicted in the procedure.LCP 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see it in the gif thumbnail, but in the actual image I've been working on, there is an embryo in the amnionic sac (same embryo from Image:Month 2.svg). But again, you should look at the diagrams in my cited sources (that is, if you don't want to see an illustration of an embryo). -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First draft looks good, what were you thinking of for captions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cite in the methods section (paragraph starting with "Reported methods of unsafe"), but I also added a sentence that is also described in the article about the prevalence of use of self-induced abortion in comparison to developed countries (abortion legal). I'm not sure if that's going to be a problem (i.e., if it should be in another section), since the article applies to both enumerating self-induced methods and their prevalence, but I figured I'd add it anyway since the to-do list wanted more cites :P. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be putting a POV tag on this article. The article includes several images, but no image of what is aborted in a typical abortion. Previously, I have suggested images of aborted fetuses, but that suggestion was rejected. Then I suggested wikilinking to articles about organizations that present such images, and that was rejected too. Yesterday, I suggested simply presenting an image of a 10-week fetus that is intact, and I was accused of presenting "inappropriate inaccurate non-neutral images specially created for pro-life or happy-family websites." That charge was false. It is very clear that this article deliberately presents virtually no information about what is aborted in a typical abortion, and deliberately presents images of women while omitting any image of a fetus. There is nothing inaccurate about this image, and the time has come to label this article to warn readers that its neutrality is disputed.Ferrylodge 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image has not been clearly identified as an artist's rendition, and it is not illustrative of the section in which it was placed. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about Abortion-- not Pregnancy. If someone viewing the page would like to know about the stages in pregnancy, we have a decent article on it. Moreover, the caption and your description is misleading, as it's 10 weeks gestational age, which means it is 8 weeks after fertilization. --slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved the {{POV}} tag to {{POV-section}}, since your concern arises over fetus-oriented issues. There is also a discussion above over inclusion of images and the reason that consensus is against it for the time being. --slakr^\ talk / 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Moving the tag to this section is fine. I have clarified the caption so it makes clear it's a drawing, and makes clear the difference between gestational age and fertilization age. And it most certainly is illustrative of the section in which it is placed.Ferrylodge 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the tag based on arguments above in "Images of Abortion".LCP 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, what does the image have to do with "pain"? This isn't an electrocardiogram of a fetus being aborted, its a picture of a baby-looking fetus at time of abortion, clearly biased towards conflating the fetus with an infant. If the image is to go anywhere, the "fetus" article is appropriate. I see no rationale whatsoever to include it in the "pain" section. This is POV-pushing with a vengeance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I don't care about the placement of the tag or the image (which isn’t to say that I don’t think placement is unimportant; I just haven’t given it any thought). However, I do like the tag in the context of the issue of the omission of images. At the same time, I don’t think I want to see it as a general indictment of the entire article. People have worked hard to be balanced about the information in the article. Too bad there isn’t a tag that states, “This article is arguably missing important information”.LCP 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the most edited and vandalized articles on wp, this article could arguably support every tag known, according to at least someone. As it is a well written and thoroughly referenced article with an active talk page and very few actual edit wars, however, tagging is needless clutter and misleading - if we manage NPOV then both sides of the abortion debate are going to be unhappy with the article, and if we are only making one side unhappy then we're probably biased in one direction or another. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no NPOV regarding this issue. It’s kind of like the Church of England under Elizabeth I. It was displeasing to all. Here is a truly stupid idea that I was originally going to post just for fun. Maybe there is a kernel of value in it that someone with a better mind than mine can extract. Why not have two articles on the abortion page: Abortion from a pro-life point of view and abortion from a pro-choice point of view? Then the only argument will have to do with which one is on top.LCP 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work. We have the Pro-choice and Pro-life and Abortion debate articles. This article is a top-tier article, and as such must be a medically accurate article about abortion, with brief mentions of, and pointers to, the debate issues. What you're suggesting is like merging Abortion with Abortion debate, yes? Or merging Pro-choice, Pro-life, and Abortion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new proposal for an image that can be used in the fetal pain section. Hope you like it better than my attempt to make an accurate, actually diagram of an abortion. Enjoy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you're bold enough to post that image here, I will post a link to sandbox (using permanent link since it won't last). Inspired by LCP's ideas on having "versions". Feel free to edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I, for one, support KillerChihuahua's version. ;) I take it it would be outside the scope of fair use to use Image:2010-poster01.jpg, though, wouldn't it? :D --slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joking aside, though, I totally support Andrew c's graphic (not the joke one-- the procedural one) if you guys want to include it, as it's educational in nature and, from what I can see so far, it is relatively neutral and pertinent to the article. This is about a medical procedure, and you could easily have fooled me into thinking that that was from a textbook. Good job =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this talk page could go for a {{FAQ}}. Any thoughts? --slakr^\ talk / 07:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but summarizing the arguments/conclusions can be a bitch. (In other words - if you'd like to take a shot at it, I think you should.) Tvoz |talk 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is misleading to say that in the context of 2 isolated years in a single country, abortion may be safer than childbirth. So I decided to go and get some more sources. I don't believe in source piling, but hopefully these will demonstrate that the additional language is not necessary. Here is from a pamphlet from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists "For most women, an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby".[21]; and if the last link was too dumbed down for patients, there is RCOG's Evidence-based clinical guideline which states "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon"[22]. Then there is "Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1990", by Stanley K. Henshaw International Family Planning Perspectives, which states. "The provision of abortion under modern medical conditions has reduced abortion mortality to an extremely low level in developed countries that have legalized the procedure. The aggregate mortality rate of 13 countries for which accurate numbers of deaths and abortions are known is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. The procedure in these countries is now safer than pregnancy and childbirth." I also found a 1982 source for the claim in the US "Researchers Confirm Induced Abortion to be Safer for Women Than Childbirth; Refute Claims of Critics" Family Planning Perspectives.

Therefore, I propose removing "As reported in 1978 and 1994 studies limited to the US population." We can consider adding or replacing citations if necessary. If anything the part about "competent doctors or, in some states, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants" could probably go. We could replace it with either "in developed countries" or "legal abortion" or perhaps both. What do you think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Nice work. To avoid the "piling on" problem, use one footnote that contains all the references and the quotations above. I think that "under modern medical conditions" is a better qualifier than "in developed countries" or "legal abortion". It seems more neutral (there's no risk of it being seen as flag-waving for legal access to abortion, for example) and it seems to more directly describe the factors contibuting to safety. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase as you suggested, and add all the sources. I'm tired of people complaining something isn't well sourced enough to satisfy them. As with Intelligent design, another contentious article, the more sourcing the better, and those are excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only part I care (and have cared) about is, "For most women" (at least under the current structure and title nomenclature). And I do kinda like the idea of speaking of studies in terms of what they "found" (past tense, as suggested by Ajschorschiii). But as Photo pointed out, that would require quite a bit of rewriting.LCP 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear that admins here such as Andrew c and Killerchuhuahua ridicule the notion of fetal pain, and are detrmined to make sure that their pro-choice POV is fully reflected in this article. No images af an aborted fetus are allowed. No image of any fetus is allowed. Only clinical words like "uterus" may be used. The word "mother" and the word "womb" cannot be used even once. No more needs to be said. I will replace the POV tag at the top of the article, and you two biased partisans will undoubtedly remove it and have me banned for even questioning your perfect objectivity.Ferrylodge 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicle the notion of? No indeed, your reading comprehension is pathetic if you have ever seen either of us do anything of the sort. I did indeed remove the grossly inappropriate image which was stuck in that section. And one person's sour grapes do not a POV dispute make. So far your reasoning for POV dispute is firstly, an unsupported accusation that I and Andrew are "pro-choice" which is, frankly, your bias, and secondly, is irrelevant. I'm not a cow but one presumes if I edit the "cow" article no one will slap a POV tag on it because an editor is "anti-cow" or some such silly nonsense. No, you'll have to do better than that. Your other reason for POV tag is your bizarre campaign for "womb" - an inaccurate and non-specific term - and your desire to see "mother" used more often. This is a content dispute, Ferrylodge, and adding a POV tag is disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to continue this converstation because you refuse to be civil. This article deliberately omits any description of what is being aborted, and deliberately has only images of women without any of a fetus.Ferrylodge 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that KillerChihuahua is a conscientious editor who attempts to avoid POV. Perhaps it helps to remember that the closer one is to a POV dispute, often the harder it is to see the POV. NPOV directs us to “fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute”. If an article exclusively (or preferentially) uses the language of only one side of a dispute (“Woman”, “Uterus”) and excludes the language of another side of a dispute (“Mother”, “Womb”), then that article has failed at NPOV. Reading this article, as it stands, it appears to represent abortion as if it is primarily a medical topic. Social issues and the abortion debate are presented in subsections as if they are tangents to the “real” medical meaning of abortion. This is fundamentally a POV approach. One could just as well write the article to portray abortion as primarily a social issue, and present the medical concerns as a subsection. Given that the very framework of the article leans towards a clinical approach to this topic, I think that Ferrylodge’s desire to see greater use of words like “womb” is reasonable. One can argue that those words are lacking in precision, but one can’t deny that those are words commonly used by one of the primary views in this dispute. I would encourage all parties to try to show more understanding. - Hoplon 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]