Talk:Abortion/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Abortion's effect on crime rates not sourced

This appears early in the article: "Aspects of this debate can include the public health impact of unsafe or illegal abortion as well as legal abortion's effect upon crime rates..." When I read this I became curious about exactly what effect legal abortion has on crime rates, but no links or sources are provided, leaving my curiosity unsatiated. Not very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the subsection later, but a link to that subsection (or better yet, its article) would be convenient.

Also, I thought the last sentence in that subsection was out of place. "Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime.[38][39] Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action — merely reporting data as economists.

Researchers have observed changes in heart rates and hormonal levels of newborn infants after circumcision, blood tests, and surgery — effects which were alleviated with the administration of anesthesia.[40] Others suggest that the human experience of pain, being more than just physiological, cannot be measured in such reflexive responses.[41]"

It goes from economics, data, and studies right into fetal pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References

I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Mental Health - More Balanced Revision

Below is what I would suggest as a more balanced summary of the controversy over abortion and mental health. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, you will see that I put in multiple, independent peer reviewed sources for all of the negative effects which have been shown to be associated with abortion. The multiple sources could be included in single footnote to clean up the text.

If anyone wants to help refine it, I created a draft page here. In the meantime, I'm putting an unbalanced tag on the section in the article.

Abortion and Mental Health

The issue of abortion and mental health is very controversial. In 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reported that no definitive conclusions could be made regarding either the positive or negative mental health effects related to abortion because all available research at that time was too methodlogically flawed. A year later, a team of psycholgists with the American Psychological Association published their own review of the literature. They concluded that the "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women" but also noted that "case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." They also noted that certain groups of women were at higher risk of experiencing negative reactions, including: "women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand."

In a 1992 review of research on abortion and mental health lead editor concluded that "[t]here is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion," and that the issues of disagreement are centered on (1) how prevelant negative reactions are, (2) the severity of negative reactios, (3) determination of what level of negative reactions consitutes a public or mental health problem, and (4) how severe reactions should be classified.

In the subsequent ten years, case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment anxiety, depression,alcohol use,, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug use,, increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, suicidal thoughts completed suicides, and child maltreatment.

Self-esteem scores are not significantly affected by abortion. Students who abort an unintended pregnancy are significantly more likely to complete high school than similar classmates who choose to give birth.

It is has not been conclusively shown if the mental health problems staistically associated with abortion are directly caused by the abortion itself, by experiences associated with the unintended pregnancy, or if the abortion related experiences may only serve to aggravate, trigger, or in some manner contribute to pre-existing mental health problems. An alternative explanation is that the statistical associations between abortion and psychiatric illnesses are entirely incidental. Along these lines it has been proposed that women who already have mental problems are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.

Post-abortion counseling programs are offered by a wide number of peer support groups and professional counseling services. Many programs reflect a pro-choice perspective which attempt to help women deal with negative reactions while validating the choice to abort. Others reflect a pro-life perspective which includes an element of repentance for the abortion choice.

The controversy over abortion and mental health is fueled by the potential effects this issue may have on the political and judicial debate over abortion. In it's most recent ruling on abortion, Gonzales v Carhart the majority opinion indicated that abortion was "fraught with emotional consequences." The minority opinion, however, while acknowleding that "for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision" insisted there is no reliable evidence that women who regret their abortions suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem."

Please see abortion and mental health page regarding Strider

Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I was highly concerned about creating a disparity between the summary section and the main article. Specifically, it is inappropriate to have content here that isn't in the main article. There is nothing mentioned of "counseling" in the main article, nor about the SCOTUS case Gonzales v. Carhart, so the last two paragraphs need to go. Also, the Wilmoth info is nowhere to be found in the main article. High school isn't mentioned anywhere. I could go on... I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable to have so much content in a summary section that is not mentioned, let alone explained in fuller detail in the main parent article. How about this as a compromise. I propose: to replace the current summary section with the lead from the current Abortion and mental health. And once there are stable changes that are made to that lead, we can always update the summary section here. That way we make sure that the content here is actually at the main article, and we avoid bypassing consensus on the main parent article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead from the "main" artice on Abortion and Mental Health is totally inaccurate and biased. Reliable sources, such as the Wilmoth summary, have been consistently deleted by POV pushing editors. I'm all for including this material in the "main article," but IronAngel, MastCell, and MarginRed continue to disrupt the addition of any material that does not agree with their four preferred sources. Over the last six months the PAS / Abortion Mental Health has been, to use the words employed by the editors advocating it, "purged" of over 22 references to peer reviewed studies which document the links between abortion and mental health problems. The current distorted summary from the "main article" should not replicate or spread inaccuracies.--Strider12 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

((Broken Record - again)) Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.----IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Strider, please consider the dispute resolution options. You may just need a RfC for more eyes on the subject, or perhaps things need to go to mediation. However, I strongly feel that we need content to be consistent across wikipedia. You can't move on to another article and try to insert content which was rejected at another forum. Who is to say that they won't simply follow you here and prevent that content from showing up here (looks like IAA is involved already). Please don't bring conflict here, but instead try to settle all disputes at the parent article first. And keep in mind your dispute resolution options. I'd be glad to discuss this further on my talk page, but I don't want to fill up more space here discussing issues you may be having with other editors on other articles. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your interest in consistency. But that is also a reason to tag both the main article and the summary in this overview. The main article has become totally unbalanced following the relentless purging of all peer reviewed articles and citations to experts, even pro-choice experts, whose opinions do not conform with the "deniers" POV. Literally scores of reliable peer reviewed sources I have added have also been relentlessly deleted for violating the WEIGHT which MastCell insists must define the article. Due to a policy of aggressive reverts, all editors critical of abortion, except myself. I'm not familiar with the mediation or arbitration process. But clearly it can be seen that the summary material in the article is totally out of line with the summary material and sources I have been TRYING to include. Perhaps you can recommend a pro-life oriented editor who has worked well on the abortion articles to mediate. Or have pro-lifers generally been driven out of all these pages?--Strider12 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of individual editor's political positions. The best bet is to go for a RfC to draw in users who typically don't edit this subject matter, or likewise go for mediation (and ask for mediators who have edited abortion related topics to recuse themselves). Just read up on the WP:DR page to see and weigh your options. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. In fact, Strider12 did open a leadingly framed RfC at abortion and mental health. Three or 4 uninvolved editors showed up, all of whom quickly came to the conclusion that Strider12 was tendentious, obstructive, and misusing sources. And the forum-shopping continues. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ at the top of this talk page has info about images. Several prior discussions are linked, regarding so-called "shock" images. So, I think it is pretty well-established that there has been a consensus not to include any images here of aborted fetuses, or to even include any links to where an interested person can find such images. However, those linked discussions contain little (if any) discussion about whether it would be appropriate for the present article to include an image of an intact fetus before it is aborted. I clarified this point in the FAQ, and was reverted.[1] Maybe such an image will someday be included in this article, and maybe not, but the linked prior discussions have not settled the point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular image you have in mind? Personally, I think the appropriate place for intact fetuses is over at fetus or pregnancy both of which are linked to from here. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to get this argument going right now, but rather just wanted to straighten out the FAQ. As I mentioned previously at this talk page, Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing. Probably the best way to do it would be to calculate the average gestation at which women get abortions, and include an image shortly before and shortly after that point, simply to illustrate what it is that's being aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, didn't we have this exact conversation already? I recall you making the exact same argument not long ago. We also had this discussion on the Fetus page where the images already exist. There is no need to also post them here in order to make a political statement. The fetus page gives us more of an opportunity to qualify the images. For example, while we show an 8 week old fetus that has the beginnings of eyes and feet, we can also inform the reader that a fetus doesn't feel pain, can't control motor function, is not sentient, etc. We also talk about the length of the fetus at 8 weeks (30 mm or 1.2 inches). In short, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the fetus images here. Fetus images here make a political statement, not a medical one.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA, I am not interested in pursuing this subject with you now. I merely corrected the FAQ to reflect that this issue has not yet been definitively settled. Frankly, though you frequently accuse others of bias and politicization, I have never encourntered any editor at the abortion-related articles who is more biased and politicized than yourself, but I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with it right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So sorry Ferrylodge. I completely jumped the gun in a rush to celebrate Valentine's day.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone who cares: I was recently reverted here by an editor, whom I subsequently contacted here about the FAQ.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no reason has been provided why the FAQ should mix the issues of shock images with non-shock images, so I plan to seperate them.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Counseling

In List of counseling topics there is an entry for Abortion counseling that is red-lined. Was there an article? Should there be an article, or appropriate text here? Simesa (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See Pregnancy options counseling.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you're correct that is the best article name. However, it doesn't appear anywhere in the Abortion article. How should we put it in? Simesa (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that under == Health considerations == we add the simple section:

=== Abortion counseling ===

{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}

This will inevitably mean a battle and semi-protecting in that article, but I can't see ducking the issue. Simesa (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could make a subheading:

== Abortion alternatives ==

{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}

My ultimate goal is to somehow lead the reeader to alternatives such as An adoption scholarships foundation. While I take no side in the debate, that such alternatives and opportunities exist is of encyclopedic interest. Simesa (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, wikipedia shouldn't try to lead readers, per WP:NPOV. Second, I'm pretty sure that the external link you suggest wouldn't fit anywhere in this article. That said, I think an internal link to pregnancy options counseling in the see also section would be great, and even if we could come up with some prose to explain the topic a little better (no more than a paragraph I don't think), that could be placed somewhere. Though we have to keep in mind, this being the top tier article, we need to make sure our content is international. I'm only familiar with pregnancy option counseling in the states. I'm not sure of the extent of that sort of counseling in other countries. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do see your points; yes, the link by itself was significantly spammy even if it's a charitable organization - it was the concept that such options existed that I thought was (in conjunction with other options) encyclopedic. But let's start with the wikilink and let things grow. I'm afraid I'm not adept with prose, but how about, as a first conceptual cut, something like:

== Abortion alternatives ==

The possible alternatives to abortion center basically on four options: keeping the offspring with the mother or a close relative of hers, putting the offsping up for adoption, placing the offspring under state supervision in a setting such as a foster home or an orphanage, or the increasingly rare infanticide. The decision is also increasingly being made by the mother, often with counseling by professionals (see pregnancy options counseling) or with input and/or offers of assistance by charitable organizations or directly from couples seeking to adopt. International adoptions are now also common, although sometimes governmentally discouraged.

I didn't provide any cites for the above text, but I believe the perceptions to be correct and that they could be found. Feel free to rewrite as appropriate. Simesa (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I've suggested additions regarding this to Abortion, Adoption, Crisis pregnancy center and Pregnancy options counseling. It would appear to be germane to all four. How should we approach this? Is a "Main" article called for? Do we have someone competent to write one? Simesa (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, that last line should be broken out into:

=== International adoptions ===

{{main|International adoption}}

Simesa (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no one else has replied to this yet. I guess the talk page has blown up with more irrelevant bickering (see below). I have been doing a bit of research recently into the topic of pregnancy options counseling, and I have yet to see a single source that suggests infanticide is one of those options. I guess historically that topic is very relevant, and perhaps even in some other cultures to this day (plus the rare news story about a dead baby found in a trash can). I'd be interested in finding a source in regards to infanticide. Most of the sources I have found have said there are 3 basic options: abortion, adoption, and parenting. The latter two have two flavours each (open or closed adoption, and single or partner parenting). I'm not sure exactly how your section would fit into this article yet. I'm not exactly comfortable with the title "abortion alternatives" because it seems a bit like a POV term of art. Part of me thinks that if we are going to address this issue, it may be best in simply directing the readers to the main articles on adoption and parenting, perhaps with see also links. An article on abortion alternatives doesn't seem to pass NPOV in that a more neutral article would include all options, and thus a "pregnancy option" article may be better. That said, I don't think we need an article whose purpose would be to summarize 3 full length articles (abortion, adoption, and parenting). I'm worried also that following this topic may lead to a grey area where wikipedia is offering options or counseling for people, instead of simply reporting facts and various perspectives on topics in an encyclopedic manner. Hmmm.... these are just my initial thoughts. Perhaps there may be a way to work this material into the article. Does the smoking article have a section on Smoking cessation? Does the Chemotherapy article have a section on alternative medicine cancer treatments?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A harmless little experiment

This article was recently edited to say the following:

“ Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop, who is self-described as pro-life, conducted a review of the medical and psychological impact of abortion on women while he was in office. Koop summarized his findings in a letter to President Ronald Reagan by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective. ”

This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever. Here's what Koop said before a few of his words were yanked out of context by the people who control this article:

“ Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] ”

[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

As I said, I won't try to correct this article now. I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways. And incidentally, the cited sources do not say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Pres. Reagan; but, who cares about accuracy, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 19 Fe bruary 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your penchant for the dramatic and over-stated is engaging. I don't see how Koop is misquoted here. He plainly says that from a public health perspective, negative effects of abortion are "miniscule." Koop's charge is public health - not personal health. In other words, if a woman (or even several hundred women), say she suffers from post-abortion syndrome, the job of the Surgeon general isn't to rush out and proclaim a public health emergency. Please consider the following:

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0DF163FF932A15750C0A96F948260
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html

The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the cause of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't see why Koop is misuoted because you are obviously biased. The entire statement Koop was dealing with the psychological consequences of abortion; some of those consequences are 'miniscule', but more of those consequences are 'overwhelming' as stated by the Surgeon General. Stating anything other than that is a misquotation, and anyone who has written a real research paper in their life knows that. --67.234.215.73 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than including pro-choice NY Times editorials in this Wikipedia article, and misrepresenting what those editorials say because they are not pro-choice enough to satisfy you, perhaps you might instead spend a minute finding out what the job of the Surgeon General is.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was I who included the New York Times article on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page where the paragraph originated. Of note, there are two other references that say pretty much the same thing, and those aren't editorials. You may want to focus on those articles. Also, see above with regards to the charge of the Surgeon General. And if you look on the website you just provided, you will see that the the Surgeon General is charged with "public health," and nothing else is mentioned.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else is mentioned? Try the first sentence: "The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury."[3] There is nothing about "public health" in that sentence. Koop testified under oath to Congress in his official capacity that there are overwhelming psychological problems associated with abortion, even though the public health aspect of this problem is miniscule. But you only want to mention that last, miniscule part of what he said.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Attention Admins: Would you mind pointing out to IronAngelAlice that the article should not contain unsupported and unverified statements? None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is dishonest to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles; I may well be criticized for pointing this out, but such is Wikipedia. It appears to be Wikipedia policy for admins to look the other way.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the argument you were raising. The changes you made to the article were substantive and changed the meaning of what was said. Whether Koop said what he said in a congressional committee or in a is not relevant to the over-all meaning of the sentence, and a small mistake about the setting where Koop made his claim is easily fixed without discussion. FL, you are getting a bit over-the-top here in your accusations. Let's get reasonable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not over the top to say that when Wikipedia quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Wikipedia should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is dishonest. And it's also not over the top to mention that a NY Times editorial is not a neutral source. You put it into this article, not me. It's no excuse that you copied it from some other Wikipedia article.

You also put Koop into this article, on February 14.[4] Copying material from other Wikipedia articles without checking it for accuracy is wrong, and against Wikipedia policy. I pointed out that the material you inserted inaccurately described a letter from Koop to Reagan,[5] and you subsequently edited this article without bothering to correct that glaring inaccuracy.[6] This is a replay of what has occurred at the fetus article, where you have resisted correction of even the most glaring errors. I don't intend to spend much more time at this article in the near future. There is insufficient willingness here to provide balanced, neutral, and verifiable information.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It is also unfair, counterproductive, and against Wikipedia policy to edit your comments after they have already been replied to, by adding huge amounts of new material.[7] Try inserting such material after the latest response.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there has been so much back-and-forth and editing conflict, I simply misplaced the paragraph on the surgeon general - which you characterized as "adding huge amount." It seems to me unproductive to be making personal attacks, and creating drama around truly tangential issues. And if that is what this "discussion" has boiled down to, I see no further reason to respond to you, FL. At least not until you can come up with substantive arguments about the topic at hand.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You should not regard it as a "personal attack" when someone asks you to comply with guidelines. "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing."[8] Kind of like quoting a Surgeon General out of context.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issue with deleting the NY Times article. But that wasn't your original argument, and now you are trying to insert a bunch of claims that weren't in your original argument. If your contention is that the article should say "congressional committee" rather than a "letter to Ronald Regan" - no problem! It's been fixed. If you would like to delete the NY Times article, fine, but there are two other non-editorial references that are proper. The fact remains, you initially tried to change the meaning of the sentences about Koop's findings. However, the reliable resources don't support your claims.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can easily verify, I have been objecting to use of the NY Times editorial all along.[9] You inserted into this article in the first place, I removed it, and you restored it. Now that you have finally agreed to its removel, I will remove it again, and hopefully it will stay removed.

Regarding the incorrect description of the letter from Koop to Reagan, you also inserted that into this article. I removed it, and you restored it. I specifically objected to it at this talk page, and you edited the article without removing it. Now that you have finally corrected it, thanks.

Regarding inclusion of the rest of the Koop quote, when Wikipedia quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Wikipedia should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is dishonest.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of what happened is not accurate. I reverted your edits because they changed the meaning of what was being claimed. I don't care about a single NY Times article, or whether Koop said what he did in a letter or Congressional Committee. Your changes were disruptive to the meaning of the article, not just changes to honest mistakes made on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page - which, btw, is where we've collectively decided to get the text for this, the "Abortion," article.

Again, FL, if you can't form an argument around what you want this article to say using reliable resources, I think this conversation is done.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)As I said at the beginning of this section, I want this article to include Koop's clarification, instead of cutting him off. Here's what Koop said:

“ Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] ”

[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

This article presently excludes the last sentence. Koop said that there is an overwhelming psychological problem associated with abortion. When Wikipedia quotes a sentence which was immediately clarified by the speaker, it is not honest for Wikipedia to omit the clarification.

Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased. Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of the misleading and out-of-context quote from C. Everett Koop. Normal Wikipedia guidelines would therefore not allow inclusion in this article. However, normal Wikipedia rules apparently do not apply at the abortion-related articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(repaste from above)

The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the cause of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."

Furthermore, the quote we use is pretty much directly from the investigative Mooney article:

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8

And the general information comes from this source:

• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote you use was immediately clarified by the speaker. You are refusing to include that clarification in this article, and you are insisting on including the truncated part without a consensus to include it. This is entirely typical of you, based on my experiences with you at the fetus article. But there's apparently some kind of policy to let you do whatever you want, so I give up.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply making an argument for why the text says what it does. And we simply disagree - nothing more and nothing less. If a consensus is made (among more people than just you and I) to include the entire quote with no context, I would be happy to change the text myself. My objection continues to be that the main point of the paragraph concerns the causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health effects. It is clear that Koop does not believe abortion causes negative mental health effects from a public health perspective - the only perspective on which he is qualified to speak in his capacity as Attorney General. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not support including "the entire quote with no context." Please don't twist what I have said. The quote as it stands is out of context. The full quote is: "Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming." You have omitted the last sentence, and thus eliminated the context.

Strider12 and myself have objected to inclusion of your incomplete quotation. It seems to me that there is no consensus for you to include your truncated and out-of-context quote in the article.

I have edited the main article to include the full title of your allegedly neutral source.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence we have now is, "Koop summarized his findings to a congressional committee by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective." This is accurate, and speaks to the only thing that Koop is qualified to speak about - public health. In his position, he does not speak on behalf of individual American family members, and his later comment was an editorialization.

Also, the full title of the article which quotes Koop the same way we do is, "Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science." The article is not an editorial, and it mostly talks about David Reardon and Joel Brind. So, I'm confused - are you disputing the veracity of the facts in the article, which is published by the Washington Monthly, a reputable publication with fact checkers? Do you also object to a discussion of people like David Reardon and Joel Brind who do bend science to fit their religious agendas? Or do you simply object to the inclusion of the term "religious right" and believe that because the article identifies the religious right it is therefore POV?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA, why do you think that you know better than the Surgeon General what he is qualified to speak about? He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming", and yet you refuse to let that be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Do Surgeon Generals normally testify under oath about subjects that they are not qualified to speak about? You presumably believe that Koop is a reliable source on some matters, so why is he not a reliable source about what he is qualified to speak about?

In answer to your questions, I have not thus far disputed the technical accuracy of your source, I have not objected to its discussion about subjects other than Koop, and I am sure that many other articles use the term "religious right" while having an NPOV.

Now, IAA, why do you insist on including your truncated "miniscule" quote, when you do not have consensus to include it in this article? Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FerryLodge, you write "He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming" - actually, he did the exact opposite. He said in terms of public health, the problem is "miniscule." Most reasonable people (including the members of the particular sub committee, most of whom were pro-life, and the members of the media who were covering that committee meeting) agree that when Koop said, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, [the psychological problem] is overwhelming," he was editorializing, and not speaking from a scientific view (read further down the page at why Koop was compelled to testify in front of Congress). In short, Dr. Koop impressed upon the subcommittee that from a scientific perspective (Koop reviewed 250 studies), the public health problem is miniscule. This is why we, and many others, do not include the editorialization regarding the "personal perspective" being "overwhelming"--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reading about Koop and abortion that supports the above comments:

• New York Times - Reporting from capital Hill This is not an editorial. A quote from this article:

  "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."

• Guttmacher Research Institute Quote from the article:

  Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
  
  Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."

• U.S. House of Representative testimony on the mental health effects of abortion The person giving the testimony quotes Koop exactly the way we do. Quote from the testimony:

  President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
  
  Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
  
  Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.

• The academic book called "Re-Thinking Abortion," quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"

The book goes on to make some more interesting claims

• An academic book called "Abortion: between freedom and necessity" also quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  "Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You continue to avoid answering a very simple question: Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object? You know that more than one editor has objected to your inclusion of the out-of-context "miniscule" quote, and yet you have refused to remove it. Why is that? You've done it time and time again in the fetus article. Is it because you're able to succeed with this steamrolling that you continue to do it? Wikipedia is supposed to operate according to consensus, rather than according to whatever one particular editor likes.

It seems obvious that when a Wikipedia article quotes a statement which is immediately thereafter clarified by the speaker, then Wikipedia should include the clarification. This is essential for accuracy. I personally don't have a view one way or the other about how big or small these psychological effects are. And it doesn't matter what you or I think. The goal is to provide a neutral and verifiable description. I don't make any money or have any fun working on these abortion-related articles; I volunteer because of the principle that people should get accurate information, not distorted propaganda.

Your recently added news article from the NY Times says: "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that [1] there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and [2] that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." Point [2] is correct; he did tell the committee that. However, point [1] is obviously incorrect, and is not even consistent with your bare assertion that Koop testified the public health effects were "miniscule". If he thought they were miniscule, then obviously he did believe there was enough evidence to assess psychological effects. Your cited sources thus contradict each other. Koop has complained about the news reporting about this matter, and has emphasized that point [1] is incorrect.

You deny that Koop testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming." Well, here's the direct quote yet again:

Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1]

[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

Why not let Wikipedia readers judge for themselves what Koop was saying, instead of you trying to spin it and truncate it? Or leave the whole thing out entirely. You don't have a consensus to insert your out-of-context quote. Does that matter at all to you?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object?" Ferrylodge, thus far you are the only objector. Again, I point to all the other sources that use almost the exact same language we do - because it puts Koop's testimony in perspective:

• New York Times - Reporting from capital Hill This is not an editorial. A quote from this article:

  "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."

• Guttmacher Research Institute Quote from the article:

  Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
  
  Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."

• U.S. House of Representative testimony on the mental health effects of abortion The person giving the testimony quotes Koop exactly the way we do. Quote from the testimony:

  President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
  
  Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
  
  Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.

• The academic book called "Re-Thinking Abortion," quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"

The book goes on to make some more interesting claims

• An academic book called "Abortion: between freedom and necessity" also quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  "Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had it. You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make, refusing to respond, and genereally being obnoxious. Goodbye, and I hope you enjoy writing this article to satisfy your every whim and fancy, just like you did the fetus article. And shame on Wikipedia's admins for allowing such a travesty; I'm sure they're all getting a big laugh out of making Ferrylodge try to deal with Iron Age Alice. I am through with this article indefinitely.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another decent into a personal attack.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ferrylodge for finding more material on Koop's statements. I was sure from other statements he made that this "miniscule" quote was taken out of context. The discussion of distortions, and continued blanking of facts and peer reviewed articles in the post-abortion syndrome by IronAngelAlice and others demonstrates is clearly disruptive as defined by ArbCom's ruling that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[10] I have had over 20 peer reviewed sources, most from pro-choice authorities which demonstrate that the claims of the deniers are not shared even by most pro-choice researchers, persistently deleted within minutes every time I add them to the abortion and mental health articles.--Strider12 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed to see the clearly POV exclusion of a well-cited and very pertinent quote from a major public figure. I have restored it. Simesa (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which makes more sense: that a quote was "taken out of context" by dozens of reliable secondary sources, or that 2 partisan POV-driven editors (Ferrylodge and Strider12) have taken a quote out of context to try to undermine aspects of these sources with which they personally disagree? Actually, it doesn't matter. Aside from the completely dubious nature of Ferrylodge's idea here, there is no way that quote-mining a primary source impeaches numerous reliable, fact-checked secondary sources. They define the context, not us. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider this quotation: "Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as 'minuscule' from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming."

Which makes more sense: that removal of the last sentence removes context or provides context? The partisan POV editor here is the one who contends the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the partisan POV editor is the one who contends that his opinion of appropriate context trumps that of all available reliable secondary sources, including the New York Times Magazine, New Scientist, etc. Those sources place things in context. You don't get to cut-and-paste together a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion of what the context should be. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, let's please stick to the specific facts here, okay? The words in question were spoken by C. Everett Koop. One of those words was the word "miniscule" which you sought to include in this Wikipedia article.[11] You cited a source (i.e. a NY Times editorial) that actually did not even mention the word "miniscule," and thus did not support your quote. True to form, you are now contending that other sources used that word, when actually they did not.

As for you suggestion that I have tried to cut and paste together a series of quotes, that is blatantly false as well. I said that if this article quotes the sentence in which Koop used the word "miniscule" then this article should also quote the immediately following sentence in which Koop clarified what he meant. There was no series of quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my edit included a link to the wrong New York Times source. Specific reliable secondary sources citing the "miniscule" quote include the New York Times Magazine (not an editorial, and the source I was looking for), New Scientist, and Washington Monthly. None include the "context" which you deem necessary and which you've drawn from a separate part of the hearing. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for the corrections Mastcell. However, if you would consider the matter further, perhaps you will find that you're still very far from correct. You now accuse me of drawing "from a separate part of the hearing." On the contrary, I have already provided the following quote here at this talk page, which shows that I am drawing from a single answer to a single question on a single page of a single hearing report, with no ellipsis or other gap:

“ Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] ”

[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

Contrary to what you asserted in your edit to this article,[12] the word "miniscule" was not used in any letter to President Reagan. Additionally, your New Scientist quote is false; Koop did not testify that "the evidence of psychological damage to women from abortion appeared to be 'minuscule'." Koop only made that assertion regarding public health effects, as the direct quote from the hearing shows. Your Washington Monthly source by Chris Mooney uses the word "miniscule" as in his other articles and books, including his Washington Monthly article "Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science", and his book "The Republican War on Science."

The basic point here is that Koop uttered his "miniscule" sentence, and then immediately (i.e. right away and instantaneously) clarified what he was saying. You are seeking to omit the clarification, which is a clarification supported by a reliable online source. I think we would all be better off we let this matter drop, now that Koop is out of this article. But if you insist on including the "miniscule" quote, while omitting the context provided by the very next sentence uttered by Koop, then I will continue to disagree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of your MO, and I'm not interested in another endless hairsplitting round of the full Ferrylodge treatment. Multiple reliable secondary sources (not just Chris Mooney) are the source for the quote. I don't agree with your attempt to massage the primary sources to add "missing context" to what the New York Times Magazine, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly have reported. Have a nice day. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might help in the future if you would bring personal comments to personal talk pages, and stick here to the subject under discussion. I could elaborate here on the Mastcell treatment, but will restrain myself. Faithfully quoting Koop's answer to a question is not "massaging" anything. What would be massaging the facts would be to falsely claim that Koop used the word "miniscule" in a letter to Reagan.[13] You have a nice day too.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You got me. I restored an edit saying "miniscule" was in a letter, when it was in Congressional testimony instead. Someone interested in collaborative editing might correct this error (which does not affect the sense of the paragraph) and move on. You seem to be wielding the fact that I once made a mistake as a bludgeon. That's part of the treatment. Still, WP:SYN remains WP:SYN. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, if your assertion about the letter to Reagan had been correct, then it would have violated WP:SYN for me to combine that language from the letter with language from Koop's congressional testimony. But you were incorrect. And as far as I know it does not violate WP:SYN to quote two consecutive sentences that a person utters in response to a question.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source to add your own favored "context" to what secondary sources have to say. But again: are these really consecutive quotes? I don't see in the part of source available where Koop actually said "miniscule" - I only see Weiss referencing Koop's statement. Do we know that these were, in fact, contiguous? Or was Weiss bringing up something Koop had said much earlier, and attempting to amplify on it? I don't know the answer to this (it's not in the portion of the source you keep citing). While it's a moot point, I am curious. MastCell ^Talk 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here yet again is the quote from Koop's testimony: "Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as 'minuscule' from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming". So Koop agreed that the public health problem was miniscule, rather than explicitly saying the word "miniscule". Is this distinction important in some way? Mastcell, for someone who says that he deplores hairsplitting, you seem to do pretty well at it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My understanding is that Koop never actually said the word "miniscule" during a hearing, but only agreed with that characterization.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so sure that this is the specific exchange quoted by the Times, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly? It's obvious that Weiss is referring to an earlier, more detailed comment of Koop's which included the word "miniscule" - presumably that earlier comment of Koop's is the one quoted by all of the reliable secondary sources. The danger of using primary sources is that we get stuck making all sorts of conjecture, assumption, editorial interpretation, etc - which is why WP:NOR tells us not to do it. Nothing you've said convinces me that your reading of a primary source (which I think is incorrect to begin with) should trump the reporting of the New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly. Nothing you've said convinces me that we should set aside WP:NOR based on your reading of the primary sources. Please don't keep repeating the same arguments. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The earlier comment at "several meetings" (as Weiss put it) was a comment that Koop had made at several meetings with stakeholder groups (Mooney verifies that in his book). The earlier comment to which Weiss referred was plainly not the "congressional testimony" that Mooney was quoting in his Washington Monthly article, "Bucking the Gipper".[14] Mooney says in "Bucking the Gipper" that Koop spoke to Congress about effects that were miniscule "from a public health perspective." You will not find that testimony anywhere but where I showed you, but feel free to search if you like. Everything is online nowadays.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that Koop was incorrectly quoted by the New York Times Magazine, Washington Monthly, etc., then I would recommend you contact those publications and ask them to issue a correction. I'm surprised no one has done so sooner. A correction or clarification issued by those sources would resolve the issue satisfactorily. I'm not comfortable saying that because you or I couldn't find the quote in online primary sources, the New York Times et al. have made it up - certainly not on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that, regardless of whether Koop's congressional testimony was accurately quoted or completely quoted or fairly quoted by certain secondary sources, we have the primary source showing exactly what he did say. And since we have the primary source showing exactly what he did say, no Wikipedia policy forbids us from quoting consecutive words from the primary source. But as you say, the point is now moot.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this Ferrylodge? Junior High? Get a hold of yourself.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice, it sure does seem like it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple secondary sources repeating each others reports does not consitute a new truth. It's happened many times that a pseudo-fact becomes an accepted fact because it gets repeated often enough and every new writer trusts the previous writer they are using for research.

The simple fact is Koop NEVER used the word miniscule to describe the mental health effects of abortion in his letter to Reagan or any public statments after that, including at the hearings where there are transcripts showing that Weiss used the phrase, indicating that Koop may have used the word in conversations with some of the people consulting with his office during development of the report. Curiously, this dispute is less about the "miniscule" comment as it is about repeated deletion of Koop's others statements confirming his belief that some women do experience severe mental health problems that are devastating for the woman and her family.--Strider12 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop is no longer quoted on this page, anywhere, and the point is moot as regards this particular article at present. Could you please confine your arguments and your takes on Wikipedia policy to the relevant article talk page? MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I side with IronAngelAlice, this is common sense. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Koop

The material above is VERY interesting in that it shows the phrase "minuscule from a public health perspective" was actually the phrase used by Weiss, not Koop. At best Koop did not disagree with that characterization, but these were not words HE used in the testimony. Also, given his continued insistence that there was not enough reliable research from which to draw any conclusions, it is clear that even he could only make a best guess that it WAS PROBABLY be miniscule from a public health perspective. Subsequent research, including prospective studies of the type recommended by Koop, however, has shown that abortion is associated with a six fold increase risk of suicide, doubling of the rate of psychiatric admissions, higher rates of substance abuse et cetera. Therefore, it is quite likely that Koop might now revise this 19 year old assessment in light of the current data. Below is an objective overview of what Koop really said. POV pushers continue to delete it from the article on abortion and mental health, however. I'd welcome help on that article in retaining verifiable materials.

Surgeon General Koop's Letter

In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop subsequently began review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion. In a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 Koop stated that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." To address the inadequate research in the field, he recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade."

In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material." In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, Congressman Ted Weiss questioned Koop saying: "And yet the American Psychological Assocation's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective." In response, Koop stated, "From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming. All this leads up to my conclusion to the President that we don't know what we are talking about, and if you want to know what you are talking about and feel certain about what you are saying you have to do a prospective study..."

In the twenty years since Koop's review of the literature, prospective and case-control studies have now found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment anxiety, depression,alcohol use,, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug use,, increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, suicidal thoughts completed suicides, and child maltreatment.

--Strider12 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reputation precedes you, Strider12, as do the same arguments you've been making at Abortion and mental health for the past 3 months without convincing anyone. Primary sources are to be used with caution for a reason: it's very easy to abuse them or take things out of context to advance a editorial viewpoint. You (and Ferrylodge) are focusing on one mined quote, which does not imply what you think it does, as "proof" that the New York Times Magazine, New Scientist, Washington Monthly, and the many other reliable secondary sources cited are mistaken. No. Oh, and for the 80th time, priestsforlife.org is not a reliable source. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Link overkill is an indication of a weak position; yes I know you acquired more sources to convince editors here; regardless do not force your edit on the article as more sources clearly hasn't been convincing. Besides, it looks yucky. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue, therefore accurate cites are very important. I would be glad to reduce the number of links. The easiest way would be to put all cites into a single footnote. But if I did not include all the cites then MastCell would complain that they disagree with her isolated sources, most of which are over 15 years old or cite the 19 year old APA review. My link overkill is provided only to demonstrate regarding this controversial issue that there are literally dozens of confirming reliable SECONDARY SOURCES that disagree with the half dozen aged or biased articles by journalists which MastCell is using as references to block peer reviewed studies. Peer reviewed studies are both RELIABLE sources and SECONDARY sources in that the authors have studied and analyzed primary materials and data and published an peer reviewed interpretation of these primary sources.--Strider12 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moot point; forum-shopping over; please take these familiar arguments back to Talk:Abortion and mental health. MastCell ^Talk 02:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fetal pain

I would like to add the following sentence to the section on fetal pain, and to the fetal pain article: "In rare cases, insensitivity to pain is a disorder that exists before birth and continues after birth.[1]"

"[1]“Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”, About Kids Health, The Hospital for Sick Children (2006-05-18), via Archive.org."

This would provide some needed clarity and context. The absence of pain does not say anything about sentience or about self-awareness, or about numerous other things (fetal pain studies have been cited by a POV-pushing editor in the fetus article to contend just that).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the fetal pain page. This is a lengthy parent article - we do not need to rehash every little detail covered in other articles. We should stick to the intros as given by daughter articles. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a sensible procedure. The daughter articles do not receive significant scrutiny as compared to this article. To robotically copy material from the daughter article to this article is unwise.

I agree that we should use a summary style to summarize the daughter articles, and I am not suggesting to add material to this article that is not yet in the daughter articles. However, what I am suggesting is that we can discuss here whether we think the intros of the daughter articles should be improved, and whether that improvement should be copied to here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use daughter article intros. Intros are summaries - why do extra work? If you disagree with the intros, perhaps you should start working on the intros and then bring it up here. The opinion that spinouts get less attention is not a valid argument (IMO). Also, fairly long-standing consensus seems to be that article intros are the way to go and that it is sensible because it reduces needless edit wars. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we not use daughter article intros. What I am suggesting is that it can do no harm to discuss one of the daughter article intros here a little bit, if the material is going to be copied here. More people are here than there, and I would appreciate your thought about the sentence I suggested.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The citation you give appears to be a dead link, and I'm not clear on how it can be from May 2008. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Apparently that linked website is down. I'll try to get a better link.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant 2006 instead of 2008, and have corrected accordingly. Also, I've replaced the link with a link from Archive.org. It takes a while to load, but does load for me.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK, having read the article, I don't see where it supports your statement. It says:

• "At the same time, allodynia, a condition in which even a gentle touch becomes painful, and congenital insensitivity to pain, or an inability to feel pain under any circumstance including injury, illustrate the bizarre and still-elusive nature of pain." And,
• "Pain perception is recognized in premature infants, some of whom have come out of the womb during the second trimester, yet some studies to show that where a fetus or infant is may also be important. The difference may be the uterine environment. The womb is seen as an environment conducive to sleep states and, until birth, it has been suggested that neural chemicals suppress pain perception in the fetal cortex, even if all the hard wiring is in place. These neurochemicals could be likened to a “sleep cocktail” and are no longer produced at such high levels after birth."

Neither support your assertion. Am I missing something? --Phyesalis (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the article. The language that I suggested was: "In rare cases, insensitivity to pain is a disorder that exists before birth and continues after birth." I'm certainly not inflexible about it, but it does seem to be supported by the source (i.e. “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”). The source says: "congenital insensitivity to pain, or an inability to feel pain under any circumstance including injury, illustrate the bizarre and still-elusive nature of pain." Congenital conditions exist before birth and continue ater birth.

Do you agree that there's a problem with citing fetal pain studies (e.g. in the fetus article) to support the notion that all movement is involuntary, and that there is no capacity to think or be sentient? The nature of pain is such that it can be non-existent both before and years after birth. By all means feel free to rephrase if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a flashback. The problem is WP:SYN. The source doesn't address congenital insensitivity as an issue with fetal pain studies. It simply mentions it to illustrate how enigmatic the phenomenon of pain can be. If you want to accurately represent the source, you could add something along the lines of: "Despite recent advances, pain remains an enigmatic and incompletely understood phenomenon." Has anyone besides Ferrylodge drawn the conclusion that this extremely rare syndrome invalidates our understanding of fetal movement? Why not use this source appropriately, emphasizing its actual content and conclusions, rather than manipulating it? And why are we discussing the fetus and fetal pain articles on this talk page? MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know very well, Mastcell, that I did not say one word about your understanding of fetal movement. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Thanks. The source says that "congenital insensitivity to pain, or an inability to feel pain under any circumstance including injury, illustrate the bizarre and still-elusive nature of pain" in the context of fetal pain. That's all I'm suggesting to include in this article.

Tell me Mastcell, do you approve of citing fetal pain stidies to support the notion that all fetal motions are involuntary, even though those fetal pain studies do not say one word about all fetal motion being involuntary? Perhaps this conversation would be more appropriate at the fetus article, where that original research occurs.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

((repeat)) My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Ferrylodge is forum shopping by trying have a discussion here that has already happened on the fetus page that concerned fetal pain.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I suppose it would be too much to hope that we could go a few more words without more accusations of one sort or another. I did not mention the article “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception” at the fetus article until about two minutes ago. So, no, I am not trying to bring it up here because of rejection there. And I explicity said above, "Perhaps this conversation would be more appropriate at the fetus article, where that original research occurs."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into ancillary issues, I think the best place to discuss this is on the associated subpage/s. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians

The Wikipedians Even though is just the Boise, Idaho newspaper, this article (which I've just started reading) seems influential. Simesa (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Boise Weekly is a tiny "alternative" newspaper, mostly known for its mistake with a bagel stores advertisement. For a decent comparison, the Weekly is similar in content to The Village Voice. I really don't see how it's influential at all, given readership is small and wouldn't qualify as a reliable source on Uncyclopedia. Justin ^chat 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I request that issues related to fetal pain be discussed at Talk:Fetal pain and issues related to abortion and mental health be discussed at Talk:Abortion and mental health. We are using the lead of those articles (and the ABC hypothesis article) for our summary sections. If we make changes here, we run the risk of adding content here that isn't found in the main article, and we run the risk of bypassing the consensus of those editors working on those main articles. We are only summarizing the parent articles here, so I think it's a good idea to use the leads (as we are) for our summaries. I believe new changes should go through the talk pages of those parent articles, not here. We have tripled the size of this talk page in just a couple days discussing topics that are better suited elsewhere. So please, consider working on improving the actual articles, not these summary sections. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it sounds like a good principle, but I don't think it should be rigid. If the editors at a parent article come up with a lead paragraph that strikes the editors of this article as bad, I don't think the editors of this article should be obliged to automatically include that lead paragraph here verbatim. Some of the parent articles attract only one or two editors, and those one or two editors should not be able to control what many editors here must accept, IMHO. We simply ought to follow the Summary Style guidelines.[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about following the Summary Style, especially the part about To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article. :)-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should generally go without saying that addition of material to the summary sections of this article should be accompanied by addition of that material to the main article, if it's not already in the main article. But deletion of material from this article should not necessarily require deletion from the main article. And I doubt it would be helpful to prohibit discussion of such deletion here at this talk page, or to prohibit discussion here at this talk page of a proposal to add material to both a summary and a main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why abortion

There are many reasons why women chose to have an abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

I reverted this bold new section by Vegan5589, as the header is in the form of a question; and the section needs a little work and refs... assuming others think its important to have in the parent article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two additional subsections were added to the "Forms of abortion" section, which duplicated information and citations found in the next section down "Incidence of induced abortion". We have a chart and cite multiple studies for when abortion happens. Also, the current wording contextualizes the studies geographically (US, UK) where the previous wording made one US study seem to apply internationally. Next, we already cite the Jones/Darroch/Henshaw study in another section. I'm sorry to revert good faith edits that someone worked on, and I don't mean any personal offense by it, but the content was redundant with what we already had in the article in the corresponding sections. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW good catch! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1.0 Percent of all abortions preformed are done because of rape or incest.

Abortion kills 42 Million babies per year around the world, and 70,000 women who have had abortions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone Vandalized the page, maybe lock it?

I was trying to use the page for a school project, but someone vandalized the page like crazy, with an obvious slant. Is it possible to lock the page so no one can vandalize or ruin it? --Scdog99 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are good, but I'm sure it will happen again... --Scdog99 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We will be watching, as will our bots. Thanks for the concern. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't use wiki for school projects, because it can be edited by anyone so the information is not always correct.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.207.233 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point, however Wiki can be used as a starting point; so long as the information the Wiki contains is verifiable to another source. Preferably a primary source. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion definition

hello, recently in my GCSE religious studies class i was told that the correct diffinition of abortion is "the premature expulsion of the foetus or embryo from the womb". i would have edited this my self but as the page is protected i decided to leave up to the experts. please concider changing this if you find it to be appropriate. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.209 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but "expulsion" only covers spontaneous abortion. We need to include induced abortion as well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of offending those who have finely tuned the meaning of abortion offered in the article, it seems to me that part of the current definition should be deprecated to a second level. The common interpretation of the term in contemporary speech and text is “induced” expulsion of the embryo or fetus. The “spontaneous or induced” meaning is archaic and specialized to the medical arts. Deprecating the “spontaneous” aspect of the definition is likely to offend one side or the other of the ongoing abortion debate. The following rewording is an attempt to retain the precision and neutrality of the current definition. Please comment.

"An abortion is the induced removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in its death. In medicine, abortion can refer to either induced or spontaneous expulsion. The spontaneous expulsion of a fetus or embryo before the 20th week is commonly known as a miscarriage.[1] The more commonly used definition, in reference to induced abortion, is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons” Quampro (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your comment to the end of the section, because that's where new comments belong if they are not responding to other comments. Regarding your proposed change, it might be easier for people to comment if you would indicate (e.g. with strikethroughs) waht you're removing, and also indicate (e.g. with ALLCAPS) what you're inserting.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

Could we update this and strike out some items? It appears to me the Lead expansion is done, well done in fact. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed and then deleted "Antenatal gender determination" section as redundant. Seemed to be a poorly formatted good faith addition by someone. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just be bold and update the to-do list as you see fit. If anyone disagrees, the changes can be discussed after the fact. Doesn't seem like the talk page is currently that active, and updating the rather dated to do list doesn't seem controversial, especially if done by someone who has been working on this article for quite a while now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aspects of Debate

Why was the aspect of the debate that equates abortion to murder taken out? Life.temp (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From the user's edit summary who reverted you, the reason was "bias". I cannot explain further that user's intentions. However, I will say that the edit was not appropriate for the WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. No where else in the article is that subject matter mentioned, so you introduced an unsourced idea to the lead which was not fully discussed anywhere else. The concept is presented in the pro-life article. The question remains on how important the concept is. Is it important enough to be in the lead of the top tier article on abortion? Do we have sources that we can cite to back this up? And where in the article should we expand on this concept (if we decide that is necessary)? Just some thoughts. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the paragraph is "The moral and legal aspects of abortion are subject to intense social debate" The main moral objection to abortion is that it is like murder. It makes no sense to omit that from a list of the main moral aspects of the debate. Life.temp (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading it again, I notice that the paragraph also doesn't mention the individual liberty of women. It doesn't actually the mention the main moral arguments people give for being pro-life or pro-choice. Life.temp (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Should there be somewhere a discussion about when human life begins? This comes up in the abortion debate. Though maybe there is some other place that would be better? Yes, laws often use the moment of birth as the defining moment of humanness. But that is mostly a matter of practicality. And at one time we just didn't know any better. But it is hard to see that anything actually happens at birth that somehow changes the fetus to make it human. However popular that belief is, it seems to be merely magical thinking. Modern medical science shows an amazing picture of how early various human aspects start in a fetus. Note that I am not raising this issue to promote a "pro-life" position. I am actually in favour of abortion being legal, for reasons I won't go into, but the idea that the fetus isn't human seems to be a dishonest idea. This is a real issue, that I think deserves some honest discussion. DeniseMToronto (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Lead_rework

I am making very significant changes to the ABC lead, mostly to improve readability, but also to remove some inaccurate statements and correct poor referencing. As this will effect the Abortion article; feedback now would be welcome. - RoyBoy 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This material still refers to certain doctors as "pro-life activists." Will there be any problem referring to other cited individuals as "pro-choice activists" if that is what they are?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are, in fact, pro-choice advocates (per reliable sources), then of course not. I assume we'll respect the difference between having an opinion (which everyone does) and being an activist. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. The issue is if there truly are notable pro-choice activists verifiably working against the ABC hypothesis. It is certainly a line of inquiry worth following. - RoyBoy 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the "ABC hypothesis". What I had in mind was other aspects of the abortion issue. Sometimes people who have worked at abortion clinics, or groups that have taken a pro-choice position, or people who have done legal work for pro-choice groups, are cited in Wikipedia articles without indicating their backgrounds. That would be fine if the same is done for pro-life activists, but here we have an instance where it's not done for pro-life activists.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples? MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue has arisen sporadically at this and other articles (e.g. fetal pain), and will undoubtedly arise again. I appreciate your willingness to be evenhanded about it. No need to go into details now.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented new lead. I will replicate to Abortion in a few days; and at the same time remove the disputed template from the ABC hypothesis article. - RoyBoy 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More pain

The section on fetal pain says, "Most medical researchers agree pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy."

The cited article says that there hasn't been any consensus, that data analyzed by a recent meta-study indicates a fetus "likely" cannot feel pain by this stage, and says that some scientists disagree. So, I do not feel that the statement in the text of this article is accurate.

Also, why not also cite directly to the meta-study in the footnote?

Lee, Susan J., Ralston, Henry J. Peter, Drey, Eleanor A., Partridge, John Colin, & Rosen, Mark A. (2005). Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (8), 947-954. Retrieved 2007-02-26. "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.... electroecephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." (emphasis added) Two authors of the study published in JAMA did not report their abortion-related activities, which pro-life groups called a conflict of interest; the editor of JAMA responded that JAMA probably would have mentioned those activities if they had been disclosed, but still would have published the study. See Denise Grady, “Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties”, New York Times (2005-08-26).

Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How about discussing this on the fetal pain article? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sub-articles are generally edited to a relatively stable state, and then their lead is incorporated here. This prevents POV forking and situations where this article says one thing and fetal pain says another. For the record, the authors' affiliations are notable (they've been reported in the New York Times); the appropriate context etc can be determined at Talk:Fetal pain. The lead could be revised to read "Most medical researchers agree that it is unlikely that a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester", I suppose, to square more precisely with the study findings. MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it's already been discussed at the fetal pain article, and that this abortion article does not accurately incorporate what's at the fetal pain article. That article says: "a meta-analysis (or "review") of existing experiments published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that the limited available evidence indicates fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester....two of the five authors of the study had done abortion work or abortion related work."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The section in this article echoes the lead from fetal pain. Presumably the affiliation issue for that specific study did not reach a level of notability and importance sufficient to warrant inclusion in the lead or in the brief summary here. There has been no discussion at Talk:Fetal pain since December 2007, it would appear, and the section here reflects the lead there. The editor of JAMA said that the affiliations should have been reported, but that the study remained "scientifically sound" and would have been published regardless. Does that fundamentally change the medical understanding of the subject? MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Only a day ago, you were saying that it's appropriate to mention the abortion-related activities of scientists involved in the "ABC" hypothesis. How was that different?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they're entirely different situations. The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis has been rejected rather decisively by the scientific community, and is championed at present only by people with strong and active pro-life lobbying connections. It is, at present, a partisan political issue and not a scientific one. Fetal pain is an actual unresolved (and possibly unresolvable) issue in neuroscience. There is also a major difference in Wikipedia terms: abortion-breast cancer proponents are described as pro-life activists by independent, reliable secondary sources. Not the case with the authors of the JAMA fetal-pain paper; they have been described as "activists" only by partisan sources such as the National Right to Life Committee, so far as I am aware. Consider your legalistic trap sprung; I'm going to step back and allow others to comment at this point. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean: "Consider your legalistic trap sprung"? Is this supposed to be an example of WP:AGF?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is - specifically, the part of WP:AGF which states that editors are not required to continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. If you think there's an inconsistency in the presentation of ABC and fetal pain, then just say so upfront instead of relying on gamesmanship. I welcome other responses to the content issue. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I deny your accusations. If you wish to continue in this vein, please do so at my talk page. I have already made my legitimate concerns about the content of this article perfectly clear above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The source supplied does not support the text "Most medical researchers agree", as the source discusses a review of available data by one group of researchers. I edited the text to reflect this, while attempting not to diminish the significance of study. Neitherday (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article now says: "A review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[90][91]" Neither the text nor the footnotes mention the affiliations of the authors of this study, despite their mention in the footnotes of both the fetus article and the fetal pain article. The affilations were reported not only in the NY Times and USA Today, but also The Chicago Tribune, the Independent (London), The Gazette (Montreal), Herald News, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), Philadelphia Inquirer, Slate Magazine, et cetera et cetera. I disagree with omitting even a footnote that indicates the affilations. This contrasts starkly with treatment in the section on abortion and breast cancer (in which the affilations are not just in the footnotes but in the text itself).

I also don't understand why it's necessary to tout the name of the journal in which this study was published, in the text of the article. That kind of information is normally in a footnote (see lede of fetal pain article, fetus article, et cetera). Describing the Lee article in this way seems particularly inappropriate given that the AMA disclaims liability for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material in JAMA.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine to remove JAMA from the article text; it would probably even improve readability. I have already explained why I think this situation is apples and oranges to the ABC situation, so perhaps outside input on that question would be useful. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided a draft footnote in my first comment of this section. Are there objections to it? It's similar to this footnote that's been in the fetus article for a long while.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing which text in the paragraph is your draft and which text is notes on the draft. If you could recomment with just the draft without any notes, it would be helpful. Thank you. -Neitherday (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the controversy surrounding the authors of the study to the fetal pain article, but I feel it would be undue weight to add it here. I think it is enough to simply state that the review is controversial in this article.

The journal the review was published in helps to establish the importance of the study within the scientific community, and for that reason I believe it should stay in the article text. However, I shortened "Journal of the American Medical Association" to JAMA in the text. Neitherday (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neitherday, please see this footnote in the fetus article. Do you believe that that footnote has undue weight, because it mentions the NY Times article about the controversy?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think references are appropriate places to introduce information (even information about controversy of the reference). I believe that that should be changed in the fetus article. Neitherday (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And why is that? We now say right in the text of the present article that there is a controversy, but you think it would be wrong to cite that?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the reference section is for listing citations, not for introducing new information or text. However, I see your point: the controversy should be cited. However, it should be cited in a separate footnote. -Neitherday (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and abortion

The old cited source says: "In Nazi Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as “Aryan” women were to reproduce to increase the “master race”. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.2" and "In contrast, Jewish women were forced to have abortions; both abortion and sterilization were used by the state against groups which it considered racially undesirable." The new cited source says: "The 'Law for the Alteration of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring' sanctions compulsory abortion, up to and including the sixth month of pregancy, for women considered 'hereditarily ill.'"

Compare this to what the old cites source says about CCCR: "In 1920, a decree from the Commissariats of Health and Justice permitted free abortions at all Soviet hospitals, and prohibited anyone but a doctor from performing them. This law reflected the belief in female equality held by the revolutionaries, as illustrated by Lenin's statement that no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will."

We have the article saying various countries "were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion." When we say "legalize abortion" it implies the type of legal abortion that is available to women in the UK, Canada, US, etc. Neither cited source says that Nazi Germany "legalized abortion". I think it is problematic to list Nazi Germany among the other countries. It was illegal for the preferred class of women (Aryans) to get abortions. I think we should remove Nazi Germany from the list of the first countries to legalize abortion, and instead of a separate sentence that says something like "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a laws was passed making abortions compulsory for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while Aryan women were specifically prohibited from having abortions." -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would probably best be dealt with first at the main article on history of abortion. I'm not crazy about Wikipedia using the word "Aryan" as if it were a legitimate scientific term. Incidentally, “In 1939, it was announced that Jewish women could seek abortions, but non-Jewish women could not.”Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589. Presumably, that meant elective abortion was legal for Jews but not for Hitler's preferred races. (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There are a couple developments about this matter today. First, this article no longer mentions anything about Nazi Germany, per this edit. I haven't checked to see who initially mentioned Nazi Germany in this article, or how long it's been in this article, but it does seem that if Nazi Germany was one of the first countries to legalize abortion for many women then it shouldn't be left out of the list of such countries.

As mentioned above, I went over to the history of abortion article, and have tried to provide more reliable and notable sources. Here's what I ended up with:

• 1935 - Nazi Germany amended its eugenics law, Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, to promote abortion for women who have congenital and genetic disorders, or whose unborn fetuses have such hereditary disorders.[1] This amendment specified that abortion would be allowed only if a woman gave her permission, and only if the fetus was not yet viable.[2] Abortion could be allowed for purposes of so-called racial hygiene.[3]

[1]Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.

[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), page 366: "This emendation allowed abortion only if the woman granted permission, and only if the fetus was not old enough to survive outside the womb."

[3]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123: "Abortion, in other words, could be allowed if it was in the interest of racial hygiene.... the Nazis did allow (and in some cases even required) abortions for women deemed racially inferior.... On November 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal for Jews." Also see Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589: "In 1939, it was announced that Jewish women could seek abortions, but non-Jewish women could not."

So, I think Germany should now be reinserted into the list in the present article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You weren't crazy about wikipedia using the word "Aryan", but you are fine with the phrase "racial hygiene"? The second sentence doesn't seem very important because it is lifted out of a footnote, not the main article text, and is followed by "it is unclear whether either of these qualifications was enforced". It is also problematic to state that Nazi Eugentics was simply aimed at people with congenital and genetic disorders (nor does the cites source mention either of those), when people considered mentally ill, or alcoholics, or even more spurious allegations were used. Fact of the matter, the Nazis used abortion (just like they used sterilization) on their road towards the "final solution" to exterminate people whom they deemed inferior based on alleged racial qualities, alleged genetic qualities, alleged disabilities, etc. This simply is not the same thing as saying they "legalized abortion". I think we should clearly mention Germany in it's own sentence. Their use of abortion is notable, and shouldn't be pushed aside into a list. I don't support restoring their name to the list, but think we should have a sentence (like the one I already proposed). Something like "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a laws was passed permitting abortions for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while women considered of "German stock" were specifically prohibited from having abortions." From reading your sources (which all seem fine), I believe my proposal is supported by those cited sources. I think your History of Abortion changes need a complete re-write, but it's the weekend so I don't want to tackle that today (or take up more talk page space here discussing another article). -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now inserted "so-called" before the words "racial hygiene" (just like we should before the word "Aryan"). It's crystal clear that the Nazis legalized elective abortion for Jewish women who wanted them. If a Jewish woman wanted an elective abortion, the Nazis were happy to oblige. Do you disagree with that? After all, one reliable source says that "the Nazis did allow (and in some cases even required) abortions for women deemed racially inferior.... On November 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal for Jews." Another reliable source says, "In 1939, it was announced that Jewish women could seek abortions, but non-Jewish women could not."

Therefore, I would urge you to re-think your suggested sentence, which does not even slightly suggest that the Nazis made abortion available to Jewish women who wanted them. (Also, I think the phrase "women considered of 'German stock'" is a bit vague; how about "women who the Nazis considered racially superior"?)

I also disagree with your statement that the following sentence is unimportant: "This amendment specified that abortion would be allowed only if a woman gave her permission, and only if the fetus was not yet viable" (here's a second reference for it). This is precisely what American law now says, which is an additional reason (if one were needed) why Germany should be in this article's list.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ferrylodge, cease your attempts to insert this bizarre interpretation of Nazi Germany's eugenics into the Abortion article, or I will ban you from this article (weren't you already warned about this by ArbCom?). KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

KC, it should be obvious that I am not seeking to insert anything into this article against consensus. Why pretend otherwise? You are accusing me of attempting to insert things into this article a full eight days after my last comment here. Why are you doing that? Please try to assume good faith. If you have personal accusations to make against me, please do so at my talk page.

And please be more specific, KC. Are you saying that the following proposed sentence by Andrew c is bizarre? "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a laws was passed making abortions compulsory for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while Aryan women were specifically prohibited from having abortions." Are you saying that the following sentence that existed in this article for months was bizarre? "In the 20th century the Soviet Union (1919), Nazi Germany (1935) and Sweden (1938) were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion." Are you saying that Nazi Germany did not legalize abortion for Jewish women?

Thanks in advance for clarifying what it is you think is bizarre, and for clarifying why you think I am attempting to insert anything into this article against consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Although I think it could use improvement, I'll agree for now to inclusion of Andrew c's language: "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a law was passed permitting abortions for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while women considered of 'German stock' were specifically prohibited from having abortions."[1][2][3][4]

[1]Friedlander, Henry. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.

[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123 and 366.

[3]Arnot, Margaret; Usborne, Cornelie. Gender and Crime in Modern Europe, page 231 (1999).

[4]Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589.

Usually, I would not attach so many footnotes to a single sentence. However, since this is a particularly controversial aspect of a particularly controversial issue, I think it's appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rationale for including anything about Nazi Germany in this article whatsoever. This article is not about the Nazis, it is about abortion. Any information about what the Nazis laws or views on abortion were properly belongs in the Nazi family of articles, not the Abortion family of articles. It is a precise parallel to the repeated attempts to insert that Dawkins was a character in the SouthPark episode "Go God Go" - its trivia, and its trivia about SouthPark, not about Dawkins - and it is rightfully promptly removed each time some SouthPark fan attempts to add it. This Nazi information is the same. Its not about abortion; its about Nazi Germany. We learn absolutely nothing about abortion in any of the suggested phrasings - we learn about Nazis. To attempt to add it to this article is at best spurious trivia and at worst an attempt to link Nazis and Abortion - Godwin's law, anyone? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding: a brief mention in History of Abortion, under the law section, would be appropriate - but not an extensive entry, which would give undue weight to the brief period of time in which the Nazis were in power. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article already says: "In the 20th century the Soviet Union (1919), Iceland (1935) and Sweden (1938) were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion." I see no reason not to mention that the Nazis dealt with this issue also, in 1935. We do not want this article to sugarcoat the history of abortion legalization, by omitting any mention that the Nazis legalized abortion under certain circumstances. This article mentioned the Nazis for months, the info is well-sourced, and it is brief. It's true that the German policy was overturned by their defeat in WWII, but the USSR's policy was also brief; legalization was soon reversed, and it was not again legalized until 1955.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does every controversial topic make a reference to the Nazis at some point? --Simpsons fan 66 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you, Godwin's law.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's Ferrylodge's law: "When Nazis or Hitler are mentioned, either for purposes of camparison or for other purposes, the probability that Godwin's Law will be mentioned approaches one."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I worry about lack of logical consistency in this argument. The Nazis did not legalize abortion, they made it strictly illegal. They did however exclude from that law many deemed racially inferior. The Nazis did not, for example, legalize murder, murder was strictly illegal, it is just that the laws did not apply to the targeted minority groups. They did not make private property illegal, but they did confiscate it from targeted racial minorities.

Take, as an explanatory example: would it be fair to say that in the United States in the 1700s, rape and assault were legalized? They were, of course, not legal, but strictly illegal. However these laws did not apply to a certain racial minority, namely, the slaves.

Abortion in Nazi Germany was VERY illegal, to the point that doctors convicted of performing abortions on ethnic Germans were executed. Read from the accurate (though granmatically incorrect) Wiki entry on 'abortion in Germany':

"In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. From 1943, abortion was threatened with the death penalty. [1] On the other hand, abortion was at times forced upon members of parts of society that were considered undesirable."

Ignoring the fact that you cannot threaten abortion with the death panalty, this is far better. Abortion was strictly illegal in Nazi germany, however it was compelled upon those deemed etnically inferior by Nazi racial laws. Nordenfeldt (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Google question

Is it correct that Google policy “does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’ …” Google does permit antiabortion ads and sales of anti-religious shirts. The Christian Institute filed suit in the UK regarding the Google policy.

Former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe, MP, has called Google’s action an “appalling and blatant case of religious discrimination.” Though rejecting the Christian Institute’s ad, Google has permitted ads by abortion clinics and the sales of anti-religious T-shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.254.10 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask this question at the Reference Desk. This page is for dicussion of the Wikipedia article only, not for general enquiries about the topic of abortion. Cambrasa 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Limited scope, need for disambiguation ?

The current article, titled as it is "Abortion", makes little sense medically; where the term "abortion" encompasses both "induced abortions" (which is what this article almost exclusively covers) and "spontaneous abortion" which is covered in the separate article of miscarriage. I agree the section Abortion#Spontaneous abortion is well written and provides a "Main article" link, but I think this article as a whole needs a disambiguation note for its particular focus.

Hence should there be at the top of the article this disambiguation tag: "{{otheruses4|intentionally "induced abortions"|"spontaneous abortions"|Miscarriage}}" which displays as:

This page is about intentionally "induced abortions". For "spontaneous abortions", see Miscarriage.

David Ruben ^Talk 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious.... Would the section on "spontaneous abortion" be removed? And would the article instead begin by defining induced abortion instead of defining abortion more generally? Generally speaking, I have no problem with your suggestion. Also, if a fetus dies naturally before birth, and is intentionally removed, we'd need to be clear about whether that's miscarriage or induced abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"No and neither" (Ferrylodge, the last part was a really good question with a very long answer)

I'm very happy with the abortion article as it is; I certainly do not advocate split into overall "abortion" as a very brief disambiguation/overview article with seperate "induced abortion" and "spontaneous abortion" sub-articles. Therefore given that the abbreviated term "abortion" has 2 meanings (a common usage for just the induced, and a less frequent medical use for all loses), this article clearly needs to include the "spontaneous abortion" section :-) As for your final point, I'm not sure "abortion" or "miscarriage" necessarily apply, as opposed to "delivery" - terminologies overlap and are also country specific in a very confusing manner:

• A dead fetus that has not spontaneously aborted (aka miscarried), is termed a "missed abortion" (these days with ultrasound one can establish that the fetus has died as an absence of fetal heart beat, but prior to this days or weeks might may have passed without being aware). Removal in such circumstances is by various means depending upon the stage of pregnancy:
  • Early on (before 13-14 weeks) often removed by a Dilation and evacuation (D&E) like proceedure ("a method of abortion as well as a therapeutic procedure used after miscarriage") which is termed Evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPOC); i.e. a D&E is not necessarially for an abortion but may be a gynaecological (vs obstetric) "therapeutic procedure".
  • After 14 weeks a D&E alone can't be used. I guess I would see "ERPOC" on the hospital discharge letter (I'm not a gynaecologist) - for following the use of pessaries & a drip to cause the women to expell the dead fetus, a D&E or D&C would be required to ensure full removal of the placenta. Clearly these are not "spontaneous miscarriages" as medical intervention is being used, but "induced abortion" is, IMHO, reserved for where the fetus is alive at the start of the proceedure (i.e. the pregnancy was, at least in the short term, still able to continue).
• Generally later fetal death is termed a stillbirth, but definitions vary by country (Australia 20 weeks, UK 24 weeks, US definitions vary between States, and Canada follows the WHO nomeclature of "Fetal death" at any stage of gestation).
  • When a stillbirth needs to be removed, then I think the term "delivery" would apply to the use of pessaries and syntocinon drips to force uterine contractions and expulsion (i.e. this would be termed "delivery of a stillbirth").
• By way of comparisons, spontaneous onset of premature labour (from age of viability at around 24 weeks to 37 weeks) that results in a live fetus, or where such a fetus dies shortly after birth, are both termed "premature delivery". Likewise if the delivery is induced with the intent to preserve the life of the premature baby (say in cases of pre-eclampsia, multiple (>2) babies, failure to thrive, placental abruption or caesarian for fetal distress or indeed after the death of mother etc) would also all be termed premature deliveries whether or not fetus survives or died shortly after birth. Induced or spontaneous delivery of a term (37 weeks onwards) baby that dies after birth has its own term of "neonatal death".

My image Image:Miscarriage-Pregnancy timeline.png on its last line gives terms for fetal death and spontaneous expulsion, but adding an extra row to cover removal in absence of a spontaneous expulsion is, as described above, beyond what can be included in a simple table.

As you can see, with different country specific definitions, wikipedia IMHO quickly reaches in this area the limit of what a general encyclopaedic description can cover without confusing "all of the readers all of the time" :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a very helpful image. By the way, note that I've added a ref to the miscarriage article. Also, I've swapped out a 1959 ref in this article, in favor of a 1999 ref.

I'm now leaning against your disambiguation note at the top of this article. If this article clearly needs to include the "spontaneous abortion" section, then it wouldn't seem proper to start by telling people to go elsewhere for that info.

David, this abortion article uses the terms "embryo" and "fetus" quite a bit, but never says when an embryo becomes a fetus (10 weeks LMP), and never says what distinguishes an embryo from a fetus (i.e. all major organs and body parts are present). Can we have a brief sentence that explains this very basic stuff?

Likewise, this article often uses the term "weeks" but never explains the difference between age from LMP and age from fertilization (i.e. LMP is two weeks greater). This would only require a brief sentence, which would greatly reduce the confusion, don't you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ferrylodge. Perhaps rather than a black-white disambiguation note a "mostly leans to addressing" tag might be better, but don't think that template exists yet :-) I'll continue to ponder on this...

"embryo" and "fetus" are individually linked to in the first sentance of the lead in, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to distinguish in this article (vacuum aspiration whether at 7 or 12½ weeks is the same proceedure and both are at a time before limit of viability or various proposed ages for fetal pain). Indeed major organs having formed or not is probably less of a strong pro-life arguement than as to whether fetus yet aware &/or able to feel pain (as this article does already discuss). Far more relevant in abortion debate is the issue of abortion before/after the date of viability (a point that has reduced in the last 20yrs from 28 to around 24 weeks) where the arguement of "potential to form an independant human being" changes to "already able to be a viable independant human being" (former is aspirational, latter is de facto state already reached) - upon this point UK abortion law was amended.

Agree dates oddly defined with gestational age linked to in "Induced abortion", which comes after the "Spontaneous abortion" section, and also no definition was given in the leadin for "before the 20th week". Don't want to over labour the point (article long enough), so do these edits providing links at start of major discusson of dates help sufficiently ? David Ruben ^Talk 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS minor point, embryo indicates 'until end of 8th week' from fertilisation, hence fetus indicates from 'beginning of the 9th week after fertilization, or the eleventh week in "gestational age."' (i.e. not the 10th week from LMP) David Ruben ^Talk 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. On the same issue, I've inserted a footnote in the first paragraph, just to explain the definitions right at the start of the article.

As far as mentioning when all the major organs have formed, I didn't intend to use that info to make a pro-life or pro-choice argument. Rather, this is simply the definitional distinction between an embryo and a fetus. For example, if someone wants to figure out when some other species of mammal moves from the embryonic to the fetal stage, one would examine when all of the major organs have formed. Anyway, even if this definitional info is omitted from this article, I still think it's important to at least mention the number of weeks after which a human embryo becomes a fetus, if we are to use both of those words ("embryo" and "fetus") here in this article. So, I've inserted that info into the first footnote.

As far as what is or is not a strong pro-life argument, I would not regard presence of fetal pain as one of those strong arguments, because there are full-grown adults who have congenital insensitivity to pain --- and no one suggests it's okay to end their lives due to the fact they feel no pain. Congenital insensitivity to pain is mentioned in the article on fetal pain, though not in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the dangers of abortion

what are the dangers of abortion and what can you do to avoid them.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.148.253 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking, wikipedia cannot give medical advice. That said, have you taken a look at the Abortion#Health considerations and Abortion#Unsafe abortion sections? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Approx 78,000 women die from legal abortions in the world each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Still more pain

An editor who only edits this article has reverted what he says is a "covert POV" edit.[16] Actually, there was nothing covert or POV. So, unless there are objections, I'll restore the removed material so that it tracks the lead of the fetal pain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That content was only recently added to fetal pain, and was added to attempt to address some specific concerns concerning the definition of pain that an anonymous user raised on the talk page. I moved that paragraph to the lead because I thought it didn't fit in the political debate section. I don't believe it has enough to do with fetal pain to warrant being copied over to this article. Ideally, I feel it should go in a "background" or similar section in the fetal pain article, not the lead. I would support removing from this article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but of course do not intend to get in an edit-war about it. The info is from an article specifically about fetal pain. That article pointed out the fallibility of pain science, and also pointed out that some humans (both unborn and born) definitely cannot feel any pain due to congenital insensitivity. This is important background info for people to have, so that they can properly interpret the rest of the fetal pain info that we provide.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The point that the scientific understanding of pain is incomplete, fallible, and prone to revision with new data is a valid and probably relevant one. I remain unable to see the relevance of rare congenital insensitivity syndromes to the fetal pain debate, however. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppose a reader peruses an article about fetal pain, which mentions that some adults have congenital insensitivity to pain. I think that a typical reader would conclude that the absence of fetal pain does not mean that it's fine to terminate life. This may or may not be the reason why the cited source mentions congenital insensitivity to pain, but in any event it seems highly relevant and notable. We ought to mention the existence of this condition, while allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Providing context is important in medical articles that are written for lay persons, and that's why I also inserted the first footnote in this article to alert the reader to the difference between gestational age and age from conception, and to alert the reader that the embryonic and fetal stages are sequential. Likewise regarding fetal pain, I think that the existence of congenital insensitivity is relevant and important context, and the cited source does too.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the cited source mentions it in a few words as a throwaway remark to illustrate the bizarre nature of pain. You're providing it with the intent of leading a reader to the conclusion that even if fetuses cannot feel pain, abortion is morally wrong. That's not allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions; it's an attempt to use this article to advance a POV. The source's point is that our understanding of pain remains very incomplete - that is relevant context. Elevating a few words used by the source to illustrate that point, with the goal of leading the reader in a particular direction, is not appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it may well be that the cited source was making a remark rather than presenting relevant information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. I suspect the latter and you suspect the former. Either way, there's absolutely nothing "POV" about what the source said about congenital insensitivity. Many experts on fetal pain (both pro-choice and pro-life) have opined that an absence of fetal pain would not resolve the abortion controversy, but their quotes have been deleted from the fetal pain article.[17] Now evidence suggesting the same thing has been deleted from this article. I wonder if there is any way to include such material, not to advance any POV, but to make readers more aware of objective facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject human rights

Moved this discussion to Template talk:Humanrightsfooter#Abortion as a reproductive right because so far this discussion has centered on that template and has had very little to do with the article on abortion. Having the discussion here makes it hard to keep a coherent history of that page. Those wishing to discuss what should be on the humanrightsfooter, please do it there. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fetal pain / consensus among neurobiologists

"There may be an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain."

This statement is dubious. Is there an emerging consensus, or is there not an emerging consensus? Gary P88 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited source (which is available for preview through google) clearly says "there is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists...". We have no reason to add "there may be". -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, can you please edit the article to reflect this? I am still unable to edit "semi-protected" articles, for some reason. Gary P88 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, and removed the irrelevant quoted text from the citation (the quote is relevant to the following sentence, not this one). LotR (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stem cell controversy in "See also"

WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Just casually browsing the article, I see at least three references to abortion. I'm restoring the link. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki finding is contradicted

The Wikipedia article concludes that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion. It even uses evidence from American Psychological Association, as does the following. But the following contradicts the Wiki claim: Chair of APA Abortion Report Task Force Violates APA Ethics Rules http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html Life Site News The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article more carefully. The Wikipedia article does not "conclude that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion." It reports that the American Psychological Association has reached such a conclusion. Which it has. Based on your posts here and elsewhere, it may be worth reviewing Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view, particularly its guidance on how this encyclopedia covers active debates. Additionally, since you suggest that the allegations of a partisan newsletter with questionable fact-checking and editorial oversight be used against a living person, please review the site's policies on biographical material, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, MastCell, YOU read Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I found 36 citations in Wiki's article that were from pro-choice sources but only two that were from pro-life sources. Yet, you say "partisan" newsletter. So you're saying what? That Wiki isn't partisan?

The 36 biased Wiki citations are: 4, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 61, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108, and 111.

Wiki doesn't waste any time in showing its bias. You do so in the first sentence: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Apparently, citation not needed. This alleged definition greatly diminishes what an induced abortion is. In an induced abortion, an abortion is not caused by a death or result in a death in the particular way you infer. A death is caused by an abortion, and the dead baby is removed or expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooookay. Citation #12 is from the World Health Organization. #16 is from the New England Journal of Medicine. #20 from the medical journal Gynecology & Obstetrics. And so on. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox; there are plenty of other venues on the Internet for what you seem to want to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"resulting in" points out death is caused by an induced abortion, whereas a spontaneous abortion is "caused by its death"; both are incorporated into one sentence. It is not laid out chronologically in simple step by step terms, it says precisely what you wish it to say, but with a compound sentence. Death is a strong non-biased word, and many would prefer not to use it. Make your case elsewhere. - RoyBoy 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember the rules of the internet, don't feed the trolls. Also, the abortion article is commonly cited as a good example of a well balanced article, which means it is relatively unbiased. The Anon however, seems to think it's okay if it's biased as long as it's slanted towards pro-life. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

external links

didn't find a section on the talk page. At any rate. the this section was getting too long. Using WP:SEH i took out the 2 points of view that were creeping in.

I also took out one issue guide because there already was one (presumably both were unbiased), and it cuts down on redundancy. Likewise for the gov website on the issue. Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the list, removing all country specific resources. Those should be linked from Abortion Debate only, or in abortion in X sections. I'm going through the abortion statistics section later--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just trimming it a big more. WP:SEH says "Points of view starting to creep in, minority dissent from the authorities and other monographs" as a sign the list is getting to big. As you said it's for Abortion debate (which is another can of worms altogether)

The laws of the world link should be in the abortion laws page (i think it already is)

Public agenda is good, but it's not global in perspective (ie- roe vs. wade)

Also, not too sure waht the pbs link is here for? what resource above and beyond does it have?

Meanwhile the dmoz link was recommended UNTIL consensus here is reached. (so its a temp link)

Also, importantly, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." (as you see planned parenthood already has a wiki site, maybe 'see also'?) Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes and have some thoughts

• Public Agenda removed: debate centered and U.S tilted.
• Dmoz I think should stay, we have those links everyone else
• PBS link was too old, it stays out.
• Planned parenthood should go back in. Its the major prochoice player in the debate, AND a major provider of abortions, but I don't have a good pro-life link to balance it out with. Suggestions?
• Guttmacher Institute link *has* to stay in. Its a PP connected institute, but it is the major respected source for abortion statistics. I kept its associated links since I havn't weeded them yet.

--20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is this is not supposed to have links to the different issues for support and abortion. Especially when there are links for it: pro-choice, pro-life and abortion debate already exist (kind of contradictory and pointless to have debate despite the individual pages). If Guttmacher is good for stats we should find the link on the website that has stats and link to that. For planned parenthood and the link, linking to organization is like WP:advertising. Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a quick note Lihaas, I formatted your comment. Anyway, abortion is meant to serve as a survey. It covers everything, but in brief. How brief is a matter of editorial opinion. And we're not advertising PP, but I can honestly say we're diminishing the article by not linking to them. Abortion in the modern day is tied to PP, they are everywhere. Wikipedia is here to provide information. As a matter of expediency however, we maintain the appearance neutrality by linking equally pro life and pro choice. The substance of neutrality is of course, the top priority in everything we do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't it be a 'see also.' Then it goes with wikipedia's explanation. It's also not 'global' (im not 100% sure though) in nature. Maybe we should put a link to pro-life and pro-choice directly? Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the link to the Just Facts website listed as "prolife?" That external site takes pains to be objective, including explaining why it believes its choice of terms within the discussion are unbiased. It tries to indeed provide Just the Facts. I propose that link's description of "prolife" be removed and that instead it have no description at all. Rather, it will continue to appear under the heading that it "may" be written those with an agenda. I am not authorized to make edits though! WikiEditi (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New section proposal

I just came back from an extended vacation, and I'm not sure who is active on this page now, so if you are, pipe up please, because I'm planning on changing the organization of the article.

I'd like to add an Abortion by country section, which will survey abortion prevalence and legality in various countries or regions, English speaking first, then moving our way down. Should be relavtively short, branching into larger articles.

Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be useful information. It will probably rapidly become large enough to warrant a spinoff article. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we in fact HAVE a list of abortions by country, but we might consider a small section inside the article itself, instead of the info box.--Tznkai (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage

before the 20th week of gestational age is commonly known as a miscarriage.

Problem here: This refers only to HUMAN abortions, an abortion can be induced any animal that bears young.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening section change

I've cut down the opening section considerably. My reasoning is fairly simple. We need a short and concise definition of what abortion is. The remaining sentences reference all of the major abortion subtopics (history, legality, by country, morality). Also, as a matter of precision abortion can be, and is induced in domesticated animals all the time, but as a lone term refers to human abortions

Everything else was cut because its covered in the article itself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Without putting in the comments of whether abortion is moral or amoral the whole article is put in jeapardy. Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway.Anathasius (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You fail to understand that the purpose of the opening paragraph is to give a short definition of what is contained in the article, not your personal views on what is in said article. Also, this talk page is not a discussion about abortion, it is about information that may or may not be added to the article. TheXenocide (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an important aspect. Whether one likes it or not, there is an argument on that. Are courts correct in (often) holding that human life begins at birth, or are they (perhaps for practical reasons) engaging in a legal fiction? Oh, I think you've heard reasons. They are "desirable" though only if one agrees the fetus isn't human. They are only "expedient" and "tragic" if one recognizes the fetus as human. DeniseMToronto (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage

Yeah, that's fair - but still, there should be some indication that a "spontaneous abortion" is a "miscarriage". The latter term is widely used and understood, whereas "spontaneous abortion" is not. There should be an explicit linkage between the two terms in the lead, to avoid confusion. How would you propose we phrase this? MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I was relying the wikilink in spontaneous and on the terminology section below to take care of it, but I do see your point. I'm looking at it now.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide in "See also" section

I seem to have a feeling of deja vu on this one. Hmm.. just so we're all clear (again), WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." I told you, do a "ctrl+f" for abortion in the infanticide article. I did. I came across the word eight times. You people are ridiculous. My version will be restored, in accordance with the relevant style guideline. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a tic. If you read the intro of the Infanticide article, it states "murder of infants". Clearly, pre-birth is not considered an infant, but fetal. If anything Feticide. It's not even peripherally connected, except through religious writings. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a side note as well, you people does not AGF, nor is considered civil. And which relevant style guide (Please link here)? Last I checked, Style Guides do not cover NPOV, which adding this See Also would be POV. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide is linked in miscarriage section, and that should be adequate, because it makes sense in that section. Also, sex selective reproduction--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IS INCORRECT. Not at all "clearly". Certainly at one time, having little scientific knowledge people thought that human life began at birth. But we can no longer indulge in such magical thinking as realistic. Science has given us a problem --- there's no distinct point in a fetus' development that we can all point to as being the clear point of humanness. (And no one seems interested in honestly discussing that issue.)

Granted courts often continue to use the birth point definition, but that is a legal fiction, and based on precedent rather than fact, and for what are practical and/or expedient reasons.

Some people do consider the fetus to be nothing other than a fetus, but clearly other people do consider it also to be a human being. So the statement as made, is clearly (I couldn't resist) incorrect. DeniseMToronto (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Paranormal Skeptic, I "assumed bad faith" in my edit summary, and by golly, someone comes along and reverts me anyway. So by your own logic, you were acting in bad faith. Infanticide is not linked anywhere from the abortion article (I checked before I made the addition). NPOV requires that all views be represented, so none of you have any reason to be complaining, unless of course, you're trying to skew the article towards your POV. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 12 hours. Hash it out here, folks, and no hitting below the belt. Tan | 39 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you assumed bad faith automatically which is why I reverted it to being with. It was linked in several places already (You failed to look hard enough), and you came to this article attempting to push POV. NPOV doesn't require all views, but rather substantiated views. Find a WP:RS speaking about infanticide and abortion. This was clear POV pushing. And yes, 'you people failed WP:CIVIL. I was acting in bad faith to remove a POV push? I think not. Infanticide is ruled out from the see also, and I can't think of why it would be linked anywhere in this article, rather than in Abortion Debate. Infanticide, according to intro of the article is "murder of an infant". Pre-natal isn't infant but rather fetal or foetal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guideline for "see also" (carefully) again, before you rule it out. Show me where "infanticide" is linked. Substantiation is WP:V, and that policy is not violated by my addition, which by the way is supported by the content of the article. It's not about POV, it's about linking to a related subject. It's POV if you remove it (which you are doing). --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with accusing the "other side" of pushing a POV is that it works equally well both ways. It's very common for editors who support a minority viewpoint to agitate to include their own POV on the top-level article of a controversial subject (e.g. September 11 attacks, CERN, AIDS, Water fluoridation, Abortion) when, according to WP:Summary style, the material in question would be better dealt with - indeed, may be already dealt with - in a lower-level, more specific article (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, AIDS denialism, Water fluoridation controversy, Abortion debate. Arguably, the reverse is true, with "pro-mainstream" editors citing WP:UNDUE to push details of controversies into "more obscure" articles. I don't know if this observation helps this particular discussion, but hopefully it puts things into perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and Infanticide are both top-level topics. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already covered in Abortion Debate even though the term infantacide is not used ,nor should it, it's an incorrect application of the term:

INFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.) 2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433. 3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.

That's the legal definition, here is the defintion from WP itself:

"Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant." Infantacide

It has no place in this article, IMHO. However, would be good in Abortion Debate, since really what people are trying to say is that, without using the term. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal, subjects do not have to be exactly identical to have links to each other in "see also". They just have to be related. Abortion and infanticide are related, even if there are specific differences between them. They are so related that the word prolicide can refer to either of them. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a legal fiction. Personally I don't think references to infanticide add much, if anything. I think the push to add them is because the article is often edited to remove the argument that the unborn child is human. You don't think it is human? That's your point of view. But let the other point of view be given. If your arguments against its humanness are good enough, then you shouldn't have anything to fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeniseMToronto (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't even see how they are anything but vaguely connected, both being a type of killing. I'd be more comfortable with the term Feticide in the See Also. Infantacide is always, except in the case of Judeo-Christian writing, as being the killing of an infant, not a pre-natal. Before adding Infantacide, I'd rather see a WP:RS referring to abortion as an instance of infantacide Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The hell? I leave for two hours and I come back and theres an edit war? Sheesh. Also, don't revert an edit just because it contains one thing you don't like, in fact, try not to revert at all, but if you must, revert only the part that is objectionable. It takes twenty more seconds.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble with the edit features, so my sincere apologies. My points ARE about improving the article. I think a major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such. It is easy for people to attack my comments as presenting a point of view. People do that rather than suggest how the article could deal with the facts I present. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how the article can deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. That's magical thinking. That's a legal fiction. I state that, not to argue a position, but to point out that it is a PROBLEM with the article. Has no one any idea of how to actually fix the problem? I don't know how the article can deal with the horrible tragedies caused by abortion being difficult to obtain or illegal. But what is apparent to me is that, rather than find ways to improve the article, people would rather fight out the issue here. And simply dismiss my points as being a point of view. DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC) DeniseMToronto

Discussion reset

I tried reading the arguments above, and my eyes almost immediately glazed over, but what we have here are three conflating issues. 1. Maintaining the neutral point of view. 2. Stylistic guidelines involving See Also and 3. Edit warring to get your way. Can we at least all agree that Edit warring is stupid?

Now, I suggest we try to agree on some principles about how big, and what the See Also section should contain. Please consult certain guidelines we have on the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, edit warring is stupid, which is why I asked the editor to come to the talk page to hash it out prior to myself requesting temp page protection. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• In a moment of clarity while smoking a cigar and drinking a cup of espresso, maybe adding Feticide to the See Also, rather than Infantacide. This would keep an NPOV, as well as covering Related Topics quite a bit better. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As a technical matter, feticide is already wikilinked in the body of the article, meaning that it's unecessary (but not entirely forbidden, I suppose) to add it as a "See Also" (see WP:SEEALSO). MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that the See Also section is crufty enough as it is. The See also should to me, link to topics of interest. Reprodcutive health for example, Obstetrics/Gynacology are certainly related enough. Very short leaps. Remember, this is a top tier article, and addresses abortion as a social phenomena (incidence) as well as a medical one, and we address it from that top level survey perspective, not in the context of the ongoing abortion debate.

Looking at it, the "See also" section does seem large already. Even though there is undeniable similarity between abortion and infanticide, I can understand trimming that section down to only links that include the word "abortion", plus the link to Fetal Rights. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fetal rights is a third tier article, possibly fourth (Abortion --->debate-->pro-life--->fetal rights) (Abortion -->ethical considerations-->fetal rights). I think removing all of the reproductive/fetal/whojawahtchit rights and replacing it with "see ethical/philosophical dimensions" would be more effective. Everyone has their pet abortion related ethics case after all.--Tznkai (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the section as it is. These links do not "naturally fit into the body of text", because the article sucks. It's not even a good article. The perfect article may not have a "see also" section at all, but this one is far from perfect and needs to be expanded, so that these links fit more naturally into the text. But until that happens, they should be kept, because they are related to the parent topic. Don't narrow the scope of the "see also" section. By its very nature, it is to be broad, while remaining relevant. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. Infantacide is tangenitally related to abortion, feticide is closer(Still belongs in the debate article, but I can see it's placement here). And part of the process of narrowing the scope of the See Also section is expanding the other parts of the article. This article was almost rated a Good Article, but fell a bit short, so I can't see how you'd say it's piss poor article. With some citation cleanup, and better cohesion through the article, it can make it to featured status. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a good way to think about the See alsos is that they are informational, not argumentative. If a see also is part of an argument about abortion, it doesn't belong. Murder is an invitation to argument reproductive rights is an invitation to an argument, contraception does not immediately display a POV, its merely relational.--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Libertarian perspectives on abortion and eugenics? The former is related (As is a whole host of topic on abortion in wikipedia), but perhaps inline. The latter is...? Lihaas (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarian perspectives" was removed, presumably, because it was the only such article, and that compromised NPOV. As for Tznkai's comment, the idea that a see also item should not be included because there's an argument about it is just silly. The point is that it's a related topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian perspectives is way to detailed to be linked from a top tier article, it belongs as an offshoot of a second teir article, say abortion debate, or philosophical, or abortion law, if it should be an indpeendant article at all. The abortion family of articles has a lot of cruft from the early days. And as for the invitation to argument test I suggested, its a way of testing how legitimately NPOV and related an article is. Let me flip this around for a moment: Pwnage8, since you're the minority voice here, why don't you tell us what we could do to change your mind, if anything.--Tznkai (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to change my mind so that it'll be over with? Not gonna happen. You don't get your way just because the majority of the editors here are pro-abortion. That's not how it works. Infanticide, Feticide, and Eugenics all belong in the see also, because they cover abortion itself, not the debate surrounding it. I hope you're not suggesting we exclude them because they're supposedly 'second-tier' topics. That would be inappropriate, since they aren't. Examples of second tier topics would be "History of Infanticide", "Feticide law", and "Eugenics in the United States", so that argument doesn't hold. "Libertarian perspectives" is, however, a second-tier topic, so I don't care, and in fact, am glad that it was removed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats a sticky widget, because Wikipedia operates on the discovery of consensus through discussion and compromise, not on an imagined battle with the pro-abortion cabal. I'm asking you to help do that, because I think I've laid out some fairly clear principles why we disagree with you about the inclusion of infanticide as a See Also topic, none of which have to do with a supposed Pro abortion point of view. In other words, time to put up either a more compelling argument, or to start compromising.--Tznkai (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus forms among a biased group of editors, then that compromises NPOV. Policy is more important than consensus. The fact of the matter is, the articles which I have mentioned should be included. The "reasons" which you gave for not including them have been debunked in my previous comment. Your links to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TNC do not WP:AGF, by the way. If there is any "battle" it is because the editors of this page have made one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In case it isn't already blatantly obvious, we disagree on whether or not linking infanticide is following policy. The assumption of faith is exactly that, the assumption that we're not biased, but we are in fact in earnest disagreement with each other. Your comments including "You don't get your way just because the majority of the editors here are pro-abortion" indicated you might be earnestly mistaken as to what was going on here. We have a list of policies the length of my arm, many of which speak very clearly about compromise, consensus, and speaking about edits versus editors. So, again, whats your offer for a compromise?--Tznkai (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa now Pwnage8. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-NPOV and pro-Brilliant prose. I can almost thing, that since we have the sidebar pointing to different Articles within the Abortion scope, perhaps start writing this article to be a medical aspect, and leave the debates, etc in their respective articles. This would clean at least this article up (Can't be POV if it's a medical topic), and maybe get this article back to GA. And FWIW, I take no stance on abortion. I have not that physiological characteristics to make such a claim as to if it's right or wrong(AKA I'm not a woman, leave it to women to decide one way or another is my take :P A safe, stance me thinks ). And a point to you, the legal definition clearly removes infantacide from being related, other than being a minority opinion (Only the religious right of any religion sees it this way), Eugenics is tangentally related (Maybe a See Also for Abortion in the Eugenics article). Feticide, I've already ceded that I can see that being in the see also. And yes, if consensus rules that it's doesn't have it's place here, then yes that's how it works. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, eugenics is already linked from the article text, why also in the See Also? I think the see also section should not include articles already linked in order to stick close to the MOS (ie overlinking). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't who believes what, but that it's a related topic. Eugenics, is only linked once, in the "effect upon crime rate" section, in a sentence about criticism of that theory, which gives insufficient context. It's not mentioned that abortion has been used to practice eugenics in the past anywhere in the article. And you say that this could be a featured article with some citation cleanup? FAs are supposed to be thorough. To remove it from the see also, these points should be addressed. Other articles in the "see also" already linked: ethical aspects of abortion, medical tourism, pregnancy (five times), population control (though only in reference to China, again, not full context), religion and abortion, selective reduction, and teenage pregnancy. Other words which could be linked in the article: fertilization. These are the real overlinking problems. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) As I tried to point out above, this isn't a simple question of whether to follow or ignore policy. This discussion is about how to interpret different policies and guidelines, and weigh up what's best for the article, and as such this is exactly the sort of situation where we should work together to achieve a consensus. Personally I think the over-riding principle here is that 'incidental' content (categories, "see also" links, and infoboxes) should be non-controversial navigational aids, and should be used neither to make a point nor to emphasise a particular point of view. Regardless of the editor's intent when adding such a link, I think that the most likely interpretation or implication of the link being added is a presentation of the view that "abortion is infanticide", which is, needless to say, a controversial minority view. Therefore I feel that it is not appropriate for a link. If the relationship between abortion and infanticide is to be touched on at all, (and for those that haven't read it, Infanticide is very interesting as a socio-cultural phenomenon) then it should be done properly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't like linking to infanticide, we can link to prolicide, which means either. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion is NOT infanticide, that much is uncontroversial. Some people believe it is (and/or should be) philosophically, ethically, morally, or legally equivalent to infanticide, but abortion is not part of the class "infanticide." The factual relationship between abortion and infanticide is in the case of Sex Selective abortion/infanticide, because they're part of the social phenomena there.

If we included equivalent terms to eugenics to abortion, we're going to have to go with See also with articles about Crime rates, Women's rights, Feminism, prenatal screening, and a whole host of crap. We have three columns of see also. The typical article has maybe three. If we really want to link everything somewhat related to Abortion under the sun, someone can go and make guidance template. Lets stop arguing about this minutae, strip the See also of the cruft, and work to improve the article.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I just put prolicide up for deletion.--Tznkai (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to get you started about "minutae" and "cruft" and deleting article stubs; the conclusion I'm leaning toward is the same as yours, remember. Like you said, abortion is not absolutely equivalent to infanticide; just incredibly related when topics like sex selection, eugenics, population control, and genocide come up. But the See Also section of Infanticide itself doesn't even have links to Eugenics or even Murder, so why should those links be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronGrackle (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning per se to throw dirt or what not, but Pwnage8, you really need to step back and take a breath, smoke, grab a cup of coffee or something. As a stated Pro-Lifer (per your user page), maybe after a breather you'd be able to come back and work to Consensus rather than coming here to make a point. You have some interesting views that can weigh in here nicely, but consensus is key. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To Paranormal Skeptic and Tznkai: It doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I do everything according to policy. Infanticide is a related topic (what the "see also" is for), so it doesn't matter what people say or think about it. The fact is, right now the article isn't very good, and that's why we have such a large see also section. This article needs to be worked on to incorporate those links better. I'm not trying to "link everything somewhat related to abortion under the sun", because it really depends on what kind of article it is. We can't link to every single "abortion by country" article, because that would be insane, and we already have an article for that, so there should only be one link. This, however, is a primary topic that is related to abortion, whatever your POV may be on that. Feminism and women's rights is already thoroughly covered in the article, and effect on crime has its own section. Dunno about parental screening. That could be a topic that can go there. What harm does one stinking link do? --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, at this point, you are not doing everything according to policy, such as WP:POINT... The harm that "one stinking link" does, is it alludes to Abortion being murder, without affording the supporting argument (As being in the body would do with refs, counter-stance, etc). In other words, it's a tacit statement of Abortion being murder, which falls into WP:SOAP. So, yes, work here to better the article. Rather than sling things into See Also, write the section. Expand the other sections, etc to inlcude the concepts. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about "parental screening", in response to Tznkai. Don't put words in my mouth. WP:POINT does not apply to this situation, because I'm not trying to prove a point by being disruptive. Having a discussion is not being disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Paranormal Skeptic's argument apparently revolved around accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and has been proven wrong, this discussion has waned. I propose, based on the above findings, that the following "see also" links be removed:

• ethical aspects of abortion
• fertilization
• medical tourism
• pregnancy
• religion and abortion
• selective reduction
• teenage pregnancy

If no one objects, I'll just go ahead with the (what should be uncontroversial) removal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave pregnancy. It is inlined but is topical enough I think.--Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we trying to cut down on the see also links? That is the most linked term in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We are, its just a term I would have left in myself. Go for it, see if it sticks, I won't dispute it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization and improvements

I think the "Abortion Debate" section needs to be reorganized (and then rewritten) We don't seem to have any sensible criteria for which arguments used in the debate we choose. In fact, we seemed to have completely skipped the major ones: (potential) humanity and reproductive rights/liberties. I think having some measure of the theorized and actual social, physiological, and psychological effects of abortion and various kinds of abortion (unsafe/"back alley", sex selective, possibly the crime rate thing, ABC theory if anything ever happened with that could go. Mental health section needs to be improved.

Abortion is ultimately a medical undertaking, for good or for ill, and right now the coverage of that portion of Abortion, the process and immediate effects to the individual(s) involved is poorly handled in lieu of a scattershot of abortion related controversy. Probably time to get moving on that.--Tznkai (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how to efficiently catagorize all the information we need to put on this page. I'm thinking we need basically Abortion defined, the Abortion controversy(ies) social effects/incidents, and abortion worldwide. The social effects can be stuck under the world wide heading as we cover abortion by Region? By country? I'll try to put a mock up in my user space before starting the edits just so we have an idea of what I'm (planning on) doing, but the current organization does not work at all.--Tznkai (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible form a subdivision: Since abortion's actual effects are in controversy, we might use "known" and "disputed" as seperator for various effects of abortion sections.--Tznkai (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible sectioning

Intro - Defines it (der)

Medical discussion

Social Controversy

Legal Controversy

I think the controversy sections should be very limited (1-3 para) with the Also See linking to the relevant articles. But, JM2C Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the ABC section to the first paragraph, is that sufficient? - RoyBoy 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit sparse to me, i'd like to get about 3, 4 lines or so.--Tznkai (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Already thought of that myself, I've re-added the 2nd paragraph. I would request during this overhaul process the intro here remain the same as the Lead. - RoyBoy 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Is Murder

Pro-life knowing vs. pro-choice uncertainties
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway.Anathasius (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Uhmm... I think you need to read WP:TRUTH. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC) There can be such a thing as "human forming"; defining a "human being" as stridently as you do is worrying. Another fact is the pregnant women is a human being. - RoyBoy 06:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) As much as I agree with the original poster, is there a way we can just delete this whole thread, since it won't end up improving the article? Because I know that this talk page is not a forum, but if I have to hear more baseless banter about "human forming" or "choice" or "grey area", or any of the other foundationless dreck that the Pro-Choice argument is based on... I'm sure enough talk pages have been filled up already. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) While it won't effect the article, it is preferable to keep it in the talk page so that others who would post similar things can see it is already here. I have employed the technique used on other talk pages of putting it in a hidden box. As to foundation-less, I do prefer pro-choice, as at least it is better defined what we don't know; pro-life seem to know with little rationale about things they cannot. More importantly they know things religions have shifted positions on. So plenty of Popes can see some measure of grey, the fact many followers choose not to is their prerogative, not God's will. - RoyBoy 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the template used as my intent was not to stop the discussion giving me the last word. That would be unfair, I merely wanted to limit it as this discussion has been done repeatedly here. If further comments are required specifically to me you may post them on my talk page. If the comments are of a more general, specific and preferably short nature... please post them within the hidden box above. Thank you. - RoyBoy 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Methods and percentages

Mauriziosaavedra (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't agree with some of the things posted in this article. The way abortion methods are performed is not stated clearly, and the percentages for the reasons of abortion are incorrect.

The suction method is used within the first three months of the child's development.In this method, a tube connected to a suction device is inserted into the mother's womb. The force created by the device tears the child's body apart and draws the pieces into the tube and into a container for disposal.

The dilation and curettage(D&C)method, is also used in the first three months of development. This method involves using a loop-shaped knife called a curette to scrape the womb, severing the child's attachment to the mother. The baby's body is often cut into small pieces, and the head may be crushed to fit through the opening of the womb.

During the period between 13 and 20 weeks(3 and 5 months)of development, the most common method of abortion is the dilation and evacuation(D&E) method. In this method, a pair of forceps is inserted into the mother's womb, where they are used to dismember the child and drag the parts out of the womb through the birth canal. The tiny parts are often reassembled to ensure that none of the child's remains are left in the womb.

After 20 weeks the D&E is no longer practical, so abortionists sometimes use salt poisoning(saline abortion) to kill the child during this period. Using a long needle, they inject a salt solution(or sometimes urea)into the amniotic sac. This concentrated salt solution is swallowed and inhaled by the child, causing hemorraging, shock, and often painful burning of the skin. The baby thrashes about as it slowly dies, usually within an hour and a half. The dead baby is then delivered through the birth canalwithin 2-3 days.

Although most abortions are performed during the first three months of pregnacy, 15,000-20,000 per year are performed during the final three months of development, when the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. When the child is so far advanced, hysterotomy abortions are usually peformed. In this procedure, which is similar to the Caesarean section, the baby is surgically removed from the womb but is laid aside to die from neglect. Alternatively, the exposed baby is killed while still in the womb and then removed after he is dead.

Some mid- and late-term abortions are also peformed using the intact dilation and and extraction(D&X) method, or partial-birth abortion.The baby is delivered alive through the birth canal just as in a normal live birth, except that he is delivered feet first. When all of his body except his head is outside his mother, the baby is then killed by puncturing the base of the skull and using a suction device to remove his brain, collapsing the skull so that the head can fit more conveniently through the opening of the birth canal. An unborn baby is still a human, and very much alive. By the time the child has been developing in the mother's womb for only 8 weeks, all he organs are formed and the external features are established. By the end of 12 weeks, EVERY detail of basic stucture is developed. Life is precious and we need to protect it.

This information is excellent, and would make a great addition to this article, can you provide reliable secondary sources to support the statements? Words like some and most are considered weasel words, and really should be avoided in order to maintain a neutral point of view and not be added in order to prove the point that abortion is evil. So, really if you can find some sourcing to match the statements, I think we should be able to work them into the article. Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the advice to curtail the spin. The article tries to lay out the issues with as little bias as possible. The content above really reads like it's coming from a pro-life pamphlet on abortion.198.23.5.10 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't matter if the same information could be found in reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion by country

Apparently the list article was deleted, so we're going to have to fix the infoboxes and think about how to rework that.--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt find anything that tells when is the "last chance" to abort (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.32.178 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The cost of choice. According to the US AG Dept., IRS, and the US Census Bureau, if Abortion ended, in one year we would creat 13 million jobs and add over 600 Billion to GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf5000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting statistic. If you can cite a reliable source, then it may be included in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Caption of Soviet Poster Mistranslated

Currently translated as : "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."

The Russian actually says "Miscarriages induced by either folk healers or midwives not only maim the mowman, they also often lead to death."

Russian has the word "аборт" [abort] for "abortion," but here "miscarriage" is used euphemistically, and this should be maintained in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

mother

It says "One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy showed a rate of pregnancy in exposed ovulatory cycles of 59.6%; with 61.9% of conceptuses lost prior to 12 weeks of which 91.7% occuried subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother."

If a woman's pregnancy aborts itself, how is she a mother? Maybe she's a mother already by coincidence, but maybe she's not. We should just say call her a woman, not a mother.

I'd fix it myself but this article is locked tight. You should fix it for me. Spotfixer (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current phrasing. It is common practice to refer to a pregnant woman as a mother. She is mother to the fetus. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from pro-life:

"Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby," "unborn child," or "pre-born child",[35][36] while some pro-choice or pro-birth-control advocates insist on scientific terminology (distinguishing between a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus, and objecting to "fetus" as a blanket term)."

It's a framing issue. Calling a childless but pregnant woman a "mother" is rounding up, just like calling a fetus a "baby" or abortion "murder". If I understand correctly, anything but medical terminology would amount to breaking NPOV. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's the alternative? "Pregnant woman"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the paper referred to in the "offending" sentence itself uses the term "mother" - as does a lot of the medical literature. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In casual conversation, especially with the pregnant women themselves, doctors do indeed use the word "mother" to refer to pregnant women. On this article specifically, however, I agree that the term probably carries unavoidable POV issues. In his article "Mothers and babies, pregnant women and fetuses", in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, volume 106 (1999), Lachlan de Crespigny et al, recommend as best practice:

"It is unfortunate that physicians frequently use the terms mother and baby in referring to the pregnant woman and fetus in medical literature and scientific meetings. Such language suggests that the author or speaker is unaware of the important ethical dimensions of the terms....Mother, however, should be used only when grammatically correct, to describe a woman who has borne a child. Mother is therefore not interchangeable with the term pregnant woman."

It seems to me it is reasonable to follow this practice, perhaps with an explanatory note referring to the article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Crespigny has a strange understanding of "grammatically correct"--the dictionary definitions for "mother" use the word "parent", which is not tied to a woman who has borne a child. Thankfully, we can change the article to "pregnant woman" without implying that Crespigny's view is either scientific fact or grammatical standard. If we decide that's best. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pregnant woman" or just "woman" is fine by me. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Woman" should be enough, since the context says she's pregnant. Spotfixer (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Abortion, Economy, Underpopulation

In section 7.2, we should add a new section about how abortion can be a leading factor for underpopulation and economic recessions. The words "economy" and "underpopulation" are not found in the article as of 2008-11-09. What are you guys' thoughts? There are various resources on this, e.g.: Movement for a Better America and the film Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family--Geremia (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I followed the first link and it led to a really partisan site that didn't seem to point to any neutral or objective sources. Do you have any reliable sources that support this? Spotfixer (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert in demography nor with demographic literature and journals, but this book seems to be a good reference, especially its notes section.--Geremia (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the subject of the book is that closely related to abortion, rather than, say, fertility or contraception. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This book covers abortion as it relates to overpopulation much more.--Geremia (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The book is self-published by the president of a pro-natal activist group. On pop.org, it says:

"Founded in 1989, Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries."

I think that makes it entirely clear that this "book" is not a reliable source. Spotfixer (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with terms

The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the pro-choice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the fetus. -Zahd (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I suspect the choice lobby would have some equally trenchant things to say about your side. Can I suggest that you try to edit in such a way that your views aren't quite so obvious? ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean. I think using the language "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak and violates WP:WEASEL. The relevant concept is the status of the fetus, not the mother. The article is not about aborting mothers, after all, but rather aborting fetuses. -Zahd (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'd like to move/copy this discussion to the abortion talk page. Let me know. -Zahd (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zahd, no objection to you moving this discussion there, but I would caution you that your view that mothers rights are not relevant to the subject is liable to be perceived as strongly anti-choice. If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion. But as far as I'm aware the science isn't that advanced yet. Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would caution you that your view that mothers rights are not relevant to the subject is liable to be perceived as strongly anti-choice."

I actually don't mind so much how I'm perceived, and being called anti-choice is not really as offensive as you might think. My point is not that "mother's rights" are not relevant at all. In fact I fully support "mother's rights." Motherhood is in fact a beautiful thing and in no way offends me. You see of course that by calling "choice" an aspect of "mother's rights" you've found only an oxymoron. I would suggest that "choice" itself is also a similar oxymoron, being largely a euphemism for death. "If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion." I don't see what this has to do with anything. At no time did I mention IVF, and in no way does it help matters to use IVF as the basis for a thought experiment. "Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article." I know what the arguments are, namely that in the absence of fetus rights woman's rights should prevail. My point is simply that its a violation of WP:WEASEL to call killing a fetus "ending a pregnancy." Period. -Zahd (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zahd, I didn't say that your views were offensive, merely that you seem to be editing from one particular point of view, that would be fine if you were blogging or writing letters to a newspaper; but this is an encyclopaedia and we aim to produce neutrally phrased articles. Can I suggest that for a change you do some editing in an area that you don't have strong views on? - I could certainly do with a fresh set of eyes at List of demons. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The terminology is pulled out of medical dictionaries in an effort to be neutral.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical dictionaries can be just as biased. The point is simple, calling an abortion "ending a pregnancy" violates WP:WEASEL, period. -Zahd (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zahd, I've read wp:weasel again and still can't see what in it is violated by saying that an abortion ends a pregnancy. As for your comment that from your perspective "Medical dictionaries can be just as biased", well if there's a specific source that you think is problematic the place to go is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But I do think you are having difficulty editing neutrally in this area, can I suggest that you edit a topic where you don't have such strong views? ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have strong pro-choice views, and I am not suggesting to you that you edit something else. -Zahd (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zahd, it may be clear to you that I have a particular stance on abortion, but can you point me to a single edit I've made to the article moving it in that direction? As far as I can remember my only edits to Abortion have been reverts of non-neutral edits. If I were dealing with a Pro Choice extremist wanting to replace "Pro Life" with "Pro knitting needle" and arguing that whether abortion is legal or not should be discussed in terms of the loss of women and girls lives through backstreet abortions, I would be advising them to read some of the Pro Life literature and try to edit in a neutral manner. There are subjects on Wikipedia which I care about deeply and don't trust myself to edit neutrally, including one I withdrew from when I was a newbie editor over a year a go, and have not returned to. Whilst I'm not suggesting you take a permanent break from this topic, I think it would be good experience for you to try editing something where you don't hold strong opinions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The article oscilates between unhappy pro lifers and unhappy pro choicers, but without much change to the content.--Tznkai (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New edits

OK, I'm not sure what happened here as I've been busy elsewhere on wiki, but Zahd, you came here, made your position, and encountered opposition. Then you edited the article, I'm in the proccess of going over the edits, and you're reverting me. I'm just sayin, maybe thats because there isn't consensus for your view point, and we should discuss it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

May verus is: Definitions are a matter of is, or is not. Abortions are performed for a number of reasons good and bad, this much is obviously true, but if an abortion is done to save the mother's life or perserve her health, its defined as a theraputic abortion. Now, we can argue endlessly if that makes any sense, but that is how its defined.--Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone, please be conscious of edit warring. I recommend WP:BRD. It is fine to make bold edits, but if you get reverted in good faith, please don't re-insert the disputed new content, but instead start discussing the proposals on the talk page. Also, all content on wikipedia MUST be verifiable, and we do that through citations to reliable sources. Looks like none of the new content has sources. Adding unsourced content is not helpful in the long run. And please remember that we are a community and we are all here to work together to build a better free encyclopedia. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant all of my reverts to be a consecutive series, I tend to work maddeningly slow that way. As far as sourcing, the whole article is virtually unchanged from late 2006, so lots of citations needed. I've been meaning to work on this article, but you know how that goes.--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Religious views almost unanimously tend to support pro-life, on the claim that a human fetus is a being with a soul. Pro-choice views tend to reject the relevance of the religious view, and claim that the fetus is not human until an arbitrary point in time (See fetal viability, fetal movement, and fetal pain)."

There are a lot of problems with this edit. One, it puts questionable weight on the idea of religious groups all holding there is a soul: which, even if it is true, isn't particularly useful or neutral. Religions have incredibly different views on what a soul is, ask a Catholic and ask a Theravada Buddhist and you will get very different views on what a soul is. Pro-choice groups can also have strong wells of support, for example mainline Christians tend to be deeply torn about religion, but generally go with the "safe, rare and legal" position. The statement also sounds suspiciously like a judgment on the Pro choice opinion - ignoring the unanimity of religion. That is even before we get into the use of the words "claim" and "arbitrary." Arbitrary is very much incorrect: fetal viability was Justice Blackwell's doomed attempt to blend law and medical science. It was a lot of things, but it wasn't arbitrary. Blackwell tried to find out when an average fetus, if birthed at a specific point in would likely be able to survive. (Of course, he didn't count on technology changing, but that's a separate issue. Finally, appending fetal movement and fetal pain onto that sentence makes it a Point of View statement definitively, by directly attempting to bolster the pro-life opinion by weighting the pro-choice with judgements. The only part of this edit that is ultimately sound is that the crux of the pro-life movement is the insistence that the fetus is a human being. You can find a lot of citations that support evangelical Christians coming to the pro-life movement because of their belief in the soul, but as you try to move outwards from that religious viewpoint, the citations start becoming very thin: because no one in the U.S actually cares what Buddhists think of abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please illustrate further this last point. In one breath, you've invalidated the concept of the soul, and made some strange inuendo about Buddhists and abortion (no doubt not knowing that we don't yet have an article on abortion in China.) -Zahd (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The concept of the soul doesn't mean the same thing in all religions, it doesn't have the same implications, and it doesn't always inform a position on a debate that is predominantly Western world in nature. "Arbitrary" is the wrong term to use because it is incorrect, and also biased. "Claim" has a non-neutral connotation. Linking fetal movement and fetal pain creates undue weight on those concepts, creating sentence that does not conform to the neutral point of view policy because it ineffect argues against pro-choice. You can find citations on the majority evangelicals and Catholics forming their political view on abortion from their religious belief in the soul, but you won't be able to find nearly as many for other groups, gets much thinner out of the Abrahamic family.--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The concept of the soul may have certain variance, but all religious posit the same basic concept, that the soul is a transcendental aspect of a being. Namely it supports a concept of trancendental (not of this Earth) life. Namely the concept of eternal life. Any religion that deals with concepts of eternal life deals likewise with the soul. "Arbitrary" was used in lieu of a more definitive concept, because the concepts used (viability, movement, and pain) are each in a sense arbitrarily chosen, and ultimately, as each has been shown to be, immaterial with relation to the concept of humanity and human being. It does not argue against pro-choice, but rather simply gives a list of concepts to which that position has historically or currently offered as substantive evidence. You don't like the list, perhaps because you see clearly how insubstantial each is, and infer from that some attack. It is not. It is simply a list of proposed concepts, each in contradiction to the concepts of ensoulment and conception (which has its own issues). -Zahd (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've used one of Zahd's sentences in the Abortion Debate sentance, tinkered with it, and come up with this: "Generally, the pro-life position argues that a human fetus is a human being with the right to live. The pro-choice position argues that a pregnant woman has the right to choose to keep or end her pregnancy."--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its bad, but it instead of using NPOV language, it uses language from the pro-choice camp in referring to "ending her pregnancy." I don't think anyone disputes that a woman has a right to "end her pregnancy," in fact, after nine months, she can be as unpregnant as she wants to be. The argument isn't about if, but when. Certainly one would be unwise (or evil) to propose that a woman can terminate a fetus at 8.9 months? -Zahd (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Abort" her pregnancy then. As for the 8.9 months, or for that matter, 10 months in long pregnancy, it depends on who you ask. One ethicist said that viability had nothing to do with it: the fundamental right remains regardless of length, duress or viability. (She was the one with the kidneys and the world famous violinist.) Others would argue that the "right" to choose requires taking to account the amount of (remaining) duress (a utilitarian perspective.) Some think that there is no difference from the first second from conception to the last moment before birth, and that any quibbling devalues life. All of these nuances though, are better suited in the Abortion debate pro-life and pro-choice articles.--Tznkai (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sentence is not spelled with an "a." -Zahd (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, Zahd, issues

Tznkai wrote: "There are a lot of problems with this edit. One, it puts questionable weight on the idea of religious groups all holding there is a soul: which, even if it is true, isn't particularly useful or neutral." LOL. This reminds me of this piece of logic (from VALIS):

God doesn't exist.
And anyhow he's stupid.

-Zahd (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, could you address the points I brought up please?--Tznkai (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problematic edit:"In short, the pro-choice position holds abortion to be a human right, while the pro-life position holds abortion to be murder." : Aside from some quibbling over the use of "in short" which is very conversational, and pro-choice generally seeing that there is a right to choose to abort or not, as opposed to the right to an abortion (there is some interesting philosophical implications of a right to abortion - can you give up that right, or is it a natural right that cannot be given or taken away?), the main problem however, is that it is in the lead. Abortion is an overview article, and strict efforts need to be made to control the amount of weight that is given to the pro-choice v pro-life controversy. Introducing the two positions out of the blue is bad writing, as is placing them in the lead of a survey article.--Tznkai (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand. You want to remove or devalue (or both) any direct explanation of the essential philosophical debate at the heart of the issue from the lede? Why does that not surprise me. Just an aside, would it be fair to think of you as being pro-choice, and that your desire to remove such clear and plain language from the lede represents a kind of partisan operation on your part? -Zahd (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about the essential philosophical debate, nor your take on what that debate is. Its about the topic of abortion in general, miscarriage, methodology, incidence, history and controversy. We do have an article only on the philosophical aspects of abortion as I recall.--Tznkai (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but again, it seems like you are saying its not valid nor encyclopedic to at least brush over the central, most topical, most relevant, most interesting, most compelling, and most argued concepts related to the issue, namely the battle between people who say "killing unborn babies is bad and will get you sent to hell," and those who say "there is no God, and by the way life isn't all that precious anyway." Excuse the sarcasm, but I find your notion that the basic positions are'nt relevant to be rather lacking in merit. -Zahd (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your summary of the debate is flawed, and your opinion on what is the most compelling issue of the abortion controversy isn't what is needed in the lead.--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just, like, your opinion, man. -Zahd (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is. So what?--Tznkai (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is what. -Zahd (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We should present the central, most relevant and most argued concepts in the lead, for sure. But, how can I verify what those arguments are? Where are the sources? I haven't run across the atheistic view you present for the pro-choice side on any of the leading pro-choice organization's websites. I also am not sure all major pro-life organizations mention hell either. A simple matter of providing sources could settle this. Do you have a specific phrasing you'd like to propose? We should focus on specific changes you guys would like to make to the article so we can discuss them more detail. More generalized arguments could get off topic fast and lead to a debate (which isn't what talk pages are for). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate this. For one, your rational approach is precise, and to the point. Certainly the aspects I raised, which you pointed out, don't have to be dealt with much. The concept of hell and who goes there, for one, is extremely difficult to deal with. Avoiding it for sake of rationality is more agreeable. As for sources, we can dig those up without a problem. Naturally pro-choice editors will want to challenge each source, and I understand that they are just promoting an agenda. I am happy with the summary treatment of the lede, thus far, and think we can tweak my more religiously conceptual treatment of the debate section to suit. I disagree with removing such basic elements as the list of pro-choice fetal distinctions, not so much because they are patently ridiculous, but because these concepts were or are major rationales which they propose to directly answer the religious concepts of life at ensoulment, and ensoulment at an early point in human development (not necesarily at conception, which has rationalistic problems, which we can point out). -Zahd (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The "core issue" of the abortion debate are pro-life and pro-choice and the groundings for that position. I agree with that. Ensoulment is certainly the thrust of it from Xian originated pro-life groups. There is an additional issue of whether or not it should be in the lead of the article. "Abortion" is not just about the culture war issue. Its a big topic, and pro life and pro choice are smaller parts of that big topic. That isn't a "change", thats the scheme we determined two years ago. If someone has a compelling argument that it can change, fantastic, but I havn't seen it yet.--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Move-Protection

Shouldn't this page be move-protected? What if someone tries to move it to something like "baby-killing"?Jonathan321 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is move protected, I just checked. Looks like it has been for quite a while too.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we call it what it actually is. -Zahd (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, but why doesn't it have a green lock on it? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure entirely what the protocol is for using those icons. I have a feeling that we don't want to fill the top of the page with little lock icons. Since the page is semi-protected, which is more serious than move protection, it is of my personal opinion that we just use one icon (and the semi-protected one seems more important that move protected). If there is an actual guideline page that describes when to use these, or if the consensus here is that we have multiple lock icons, then surely we can added it. What do you think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Tznkai, you said "In addition, mainline christian groups are often pro choice, which is nowhere near unanimous." Do you have a source for that? Its interesting that Christians would be pro-Choice, and I know there's some truth in it. "Often" is probably not inexact, unfortunately. -Zahd (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't, which is why I havn't inserted that tidbit of information into the article myself (along with weight concerns). I'm pointing it out because I feel that any time you ask someone for a citation, you should ask because you believe they're wrong, not just to be a dick.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I wasn't going to use that language with you. -Zahd (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The religion and abortion article states Mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, Methodists, United Reformed, Quakers, those in the United Church of Christ, and Presbyterians are generally pro-choice, as are Unitarian Universalists. Many of these denominations are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. and cites the RCRC as the source to back up that statement. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct, and I think that concept is fallacious. Certainly there are beings who claim faith and belonging to a certain denomination who likewise claim to be pro-choice. In no way does that infer that most of such people are in fact pro-choice. -Zahd (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that people who say they're pro-choice aren't? Spotfixer (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the numbers must be wrong, or otherwise inferred tangentially. The statement "most Christians are pro-choice" for example, is on its face wrong. The concept proposed is not too different, and tries to imply something similar. Its false. -Zahd (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The source spotfixer cited proved one of my basic points however, which is there is not a near unanimous support for the pro life from Religious groups.--Tznkai (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a risk of confusing the official views of particular religious sects with the actual views of their adherents? ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also true. Evangelical christian and catholic christian communities are now showing an age determinent in their view on culture war issues. Either way, statement isn't kosher.--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that making the statement that all of such religious bodies are pro-choice is not, as you put it, kosher. I agree there isn't "certain unanimity" (certainly a contradiction of terms) in what religious people of Protestant denominations believe. We must distinguish, and perhaps represent, each of three dimensions; the denominational postion, the subgroups of polled life/choice supporters, and indirect evidence. If we want to use indirect evidence, Obama recieved 54 percent of the Catholic vote, of which most (over 90 I believe) claim to be pro-life. We can deal with these issues conversationally within the article. -Zahd (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Battles, personhood, human rights

I added the below. What the fuck is wrong with it?

Religious views almost unanimously tend to support pro-life, on the claim that a human fetus is a being with a soul. Pro-choice views tend to reject the relevance of the religious view, and claim that the fetus is not human until an arbitrary point in time (See fetal viability, fetal movement, and fetal pain).

-Zahd (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this two sections up.--Tznkai (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are talking about new edits in an old section that had to do with previous edits. -Zahd (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, I noticed that you made a series of partisan and inaccurate changes to Human rights, mostly relating to the topic of abortion. Since the article is locked, I can't fix them myself, but I can at least bring it to the attention of other editors. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I took care of it. Spotfixer (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Spotfixer for your biased action. I will deal with that article again, and while were at it I can state what my issues are with it. The problem with the human rights article is with its handling of the reproductive rights and fetal rights sections. For one, the RR section is loaded with excessive quotes nested in ref tags, such makes editing the section unnecessarily difficult. More substantively, the RR section fails to mention abortion in any substantive way, only slipping it in lower in the section. It likewise fails to treat the controversial aspect of abortion, not to mention its contradiction to a certain concept of human rights, namely the fetal rights mentioned below in the same article. Likewise the FR section is poorly developed, and (in stark POV contrast to the RR section above) qualifies in its first sentence how "controversial" the concept is that beings even 8 months after conception might actually be human. -Zahd (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm proud of the corrections I wanted made and would want to make them again given half a chance. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you have a bias, and you are operating under the concept of promoting those biases. I, on the other hand, am promoting clarity. There is a direct moral and political battle between two of those concepts of rights, namely reproductive rights and fetal rights, and I intend to give due treatment to this battle in that article. You can try to stop me in the course of promoting your agenda, but I think people will see that the dimension I mentioned deserves direct illumination. -Zahd (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From a strictly policy based perspective, the problem with your edit quoted above is that it is not verifiable and you do not cite reliable sources. From an accuracy standpoint, the claim "almost unanimously" is at least disputed by our religion and abortion article (which, let me note, we cannot cite, but I mention it to show another perspective), the phrase "religious views" is vague and should specify what views, I'm not sure pro-choicers reject religious views (or that religion and pro-choice are mutually exclusive at all), and finally I'm not sure how notable the fetus not being human view actually is (I believe personhood is the issue at stake, not humanity). Basically, you need to find reliable sources to support your wording for it to not be "wrong". Better yet, why not do some research with a blank slate, and then summarize your findings, as opposed to publishing your own conclusions here with no sources to back them up. Let the research guide your phrasing. Don't write text and then try to find a source to back it retroactively. Better, well rounded, neutral articles can result from this suggestion. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From a strictly intelligent point of view, I think youre being unnecessarily picky with my language. For one, the concept that pro-choice holds that the fetus is not a human being, may not be what they state in their own language, but it follows naturally from the concept that human beings generally deserve human rights, to which they say the unborn don't. They don't consider them humans in the human rights sense nor persons in the personhood sense. Note that the concept of personhood is a legalist concept used in the United States, which is in essence a substitute term for humanity and human being. Its unnecessarily complicating, and not in a way that illuminates the issue, but rather it instead tries to draw parallels to past legal concepts. My understanding is that the concept of personhood comes from the context of slavery. There are serious political and moral parallels, but the differences are prohibitive. For one, people generally did not murder slaves, thus the issue wasn't so much their basic humanity, but their personhood in society. -Zahd (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis is interesting and has some merit. But its your analysis.--Tznkai (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be sensible about this. Pro-life people have stated that fetal human rights are the issue. Pro-choice people have stated that woman's human rights are the issue. There we have it. The debate, and the language we use to describe it can use the term "human fucking rights." -Zahd (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got two basic hurdles. You're going to have to convince us that it makes sense in the lead, and you're going to have to convince us that your analysis is verifiable, and not original research.--Tznkai (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, a major pro-choice organization is in the process of approaching the UN to have them officially recognize what are termed "reproductive rights," including abortion, as a human right. Conversely, pro-life groups are challenging this, promoting instead nascent human rights, what they call "fetal rights," as recognized human rights. The link is made, and therefore refer to the human rights paradigm and use the language therof. Thank you very much. -Zahd (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Still an original analysis, still not cited, and still not self evidently deserving of being in the lead of the overview article.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Abortion is ....

I understand pro-choicers don't like seeing this language, but its the most concise and plain summary of what the pro-life camp thinks of abortion. Anyway, I don't think it fair to be reverted by people who aren't even involved in discussion here, so I restored the summary to the lede, which addresses both sides very clearly: "In short, the pro-choice position holds abortion to be a human right, while the pro-life position holds abortion to be murder." Nothing POV about this, is there? -Zahd (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that this wording is not appropriate for the lead is that it represents a breach of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that it glosses over the diversity in both camps. Some pro-choice folks might not think abortion per se is a human right, but argue instead that it has positive social consequences; some pro-life folks might not discuss abortion in terms of "murder," but rather oppose abortion on the same grounds that they support vegetarianism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain truth in that there are certain variances, but in no way does a summary gloss over them. In fact SYNTH doesn't really apply here. It explicitly states "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." Believe me there are plenty of sources that state both points clearly. Most arguments for abortion hold it to be a woman's right, be that framed under civil rights or reproductive rights, etc. Most arguments against abortion hold it to be the immoral destruction of an innocent human being; a violation of the sanctity of human life. -Zahd (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And starting this discussion with "I understand pro-choicers don't like seeing this language" clearly displays the motive behind the attempt to add it to the article lead. It looks very much like a blatant POV attempt to insert "this language". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well its a true characterization that pro-choice people don't like seeing that language. In fact you've proven the point. I would suggesting you're too biased to edit the article, but I'm fine with it as long as you don't pretend to be neutral. -Zahd (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that "pro-choice people" don't like such language, yes. But how dare you presume to know my opinions on the matter. I am not pretending to be neutral. I am neutral. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm objective, so I can't possibly be neutral. However, I do know what a neutral point of view looks like and that's what I want the articles to reflect. If this means reverting every change Zahd tries to make, so be it. Spotfixer (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Social movements addressing abortion

I have just deleted this entire newly added section. Sorry if this seems precipitate, but there are several problems that I think should be addressed before the author puts it back. (1) It is over-long in the context of an article about abortion as a whole; (2) it looks like a breach of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH; (3) it is badly mis-formatted, with references incorrectly constructed and every occurrence of numerous words (abortion, pro-choice, etc) needlesly wikilinked. I invite the author of this new section to come here and say why he/she thinks such a section is merited, and (if necessary) to ask for help with the formatting. Meanwhile, I feel that the article is better off without this addition. Sorry. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexico City Policy

I've modified the recent insertion of a section on the Mexico City Policy. The section as added weighted some things inappropriately, namely W. Bush's reinstating the gag rule on day one. (Watch, Obama will do the reverse).

I think a fair argument for inclusion can be made, it shows how much the topic of abortion effects foreign policy, which is a big deal. That having been said, I'm not sure if it should remain, or remain in the section it is currently in.--Tznkai (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of human life

Since its a sufficiently debated concept, I think we should create a beginning of human life article, which details all of the varied concepts of human beginnings, detailing each argument and counterargument, etc. -Zahd (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're going to need more eyes and hands on this article, since Zahd has proven to be incapable of neutrality. The article reads like something the Pope would say. Spotfixer (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered. -Zahd (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You should not be flattered by your inability to write neutrally. Instead, you should remember the block you earned and think about what you're doing now to earn your next one. According to the rules, blocks get progressively longer and end in a full ban. Is that really what you want? Spotfixer (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some tweaks needed

There are a number of improvements that I propose to make to the article, but as this is a controversial subject I thought I'd float them on the talk page first.

1. Currently the article covers but doesn't quantify the issue of maternal deaths from backstreet abortions, though a sub article has this as 68,000 women and girls per annum.
2. It would be really useful if someone could find a source for estimates of what this would rise to if abortion was banned in more countries, as this is one of the major reasons for the debate being so heated.
3. Some of the most controversial cases I'm aware of have been where laws were so restrictive that raped children were unable to have abortions, I appreciate that's going to have to be worded carefully to put both sides cases but I think its worth trying to get a neutrally worded paragraph on this.
4. Is it disputed that total abortions (legal and illegal) are likely to increase if we reverse the liberal legislation of the 60s? I've read some SPUC literature and couldn't spot anything that contested the Choice position on that one.

Thoughts please ϢereSpielChequers 18:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for post and a sensible reaching out to get a range of views to tackle these points.

1. See section Abortion#Unsafe abortion that already mentions the 68,000 and with a reference
2. Hugely problematic as such a prediction can not be objective (for nothing yet to record & count) but is a subjective interpretation of what might happen (Prochoice will cite this as a reason for not being more restrictive, Prolife might state that with better education and social support a) less people will have sex or get pregnant b) less would request abortions) - who would one use as a neutral independant source to cite such an opinion from ? (best might be to list views of both side on this)
3. Given controversy, best to give matter of fact descriptions of what abortion is, definitions etc as the article does... my mild reservation on this point is on this already being quite a full article and need editorially to consider weight. But reflect on this: what is notable in one country is probably not so elsewhere, so what selection criteria will be used ? Perhaps just cover the debate and how general restrictions might include more tragic cases that highlight the range of views and regulation permission/restriction that exists across the world (i.e. as illustrative examples, rather than trying to include the list of notable cases)
4. Question needs rephrasing "total abortions (legal and illegal) are likely to increase if we reverse the liberal legislation" is nonsequeteur, for if legislation tightened then the "legal" numbers must reduce - the question is whether the "illegal" number would increase? David Ruben ^Talk 19:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the option of legal abortion is diminished or removed from an area, this still doesn't stop people who can afford to travel from getting legal abortions elsewhere. So while it would definitely lower the number of legal abortions locally, it's not clear that it would do so overall. I suspect it still might, though not as much as the anti-choicers would like. As usual, the impact would fall disproportionately upon the young and the poor.

On the other hand, if this legal effort includes reducing comprehensive sex ed and the use of contraception, then the number of unwanted pregnancies would increase. This would likewise increase the total number of abortions, perhaps to the extent that the number of legal ones would increase despite the need for medical tourism. So, on the whole, this is not a simple issue. Spotfixer (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)