Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Some items

  • Can we please archive the RfC? Lets take that as a non consensus, with significant majority support for some sort of image and a directive to put image inclusion on our collective agenda.
  • I'd like a moratorium on terminology debates for the next month. We just had one started by a sockpuppet and all it proved was the most insane person on the internet irritates the hell out of everyone.
  • I have a bunch of sources from a single, but well respected author in the OBY/GYN field, which I am working on. They are all under copyright, but available in libraries and databases world over, so it shouldn't be a problem if I distribute them to a couple volunteers. So we can work on improving the references and writing the new sections.

If for some reason we can't manage to stop wasting our time on comparatively petty debates, we're never going to improve this article. So please, take these suggestions in the spirit they are offered: I just want to get something productive done on this article.--Tznkai (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, archiving the RfC would be okay by me. The idea that the RfC involved a "comparatively petty" debate is not something I would agree with, however. Wanting to provide minimal information about what is aborted is not petty whatsoever. Once it is archived, I intend to update the FAQ. I also intend to eventually keep battling against Catch-22 here, i.e. the argument that an actual image of a dismembered fetus is too gruesome, whereas a toned-down drawing of an intact fetus is not relevant.
Regarding the "insane person", his position about terminology is currently the prevailing status of this article, with words (e.g. "mother" and "womb") carefully deleted for the purpose of dehumanization. However, I have no burning desire to fight that endless battle again right now here in this article. Cheers.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to be on the distro list for the sources?--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. Can't promise involvement though.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Religion and abortion page we agreed to try to use the term that was most often used by that source. Does that sound good for here? - Schrandit (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus has always been for medically accurate first, as this is a medical procedure. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Schrandit, I think it sounds good for here, per WP:Jargon and WP:MTAA. Non-medical terms can be accurate too.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify - I am not advocating medical jargon, merely accuracy. There is a happy medium between jargon and simple. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, please get your OB/GYN to look at a contradiction in the article.
  • The first paragraph says that only fetal defects are cause for "therapeutic abortion" and all other reasons are elective abortion.
  • The "Induced abortion" section says, 'An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease."'
I suspect that the second definition is correct and that the one in the overview should include maternal health. Would it be too bold of me to just go ahead and change it? The first paragraph has supposedly been reviewed although I'm surprised if the reviewers let a clunker like that through.
Also, please add me to your e-mail list if I can be of help as an interested layperson. Thanks --Monado (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Image (again)

So...the image of a miscarriage has been the lead photograph for several months now, but for some reason the image of an induced abortion has not been added. Perhaps to have no images is fine, but how is it being neutral to show a natural abortion but not an induced one (which after all is what we all mean by "abortion.")

Also, the proposed induced abortion image (performed in a hysterectomy, right?) is not a typical induced abortion, but the miscarriage is. So to be neutral, should we not have an image of a typical induced abortion? EditorDM (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful sources

I submitted this just about the time it was being archived and it's now on neither the live page nor the archive. Yes, it was about images; but it points to some useful sources as well so here it is again.... --Monado (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to stir things up, but I did find an image that has both a little grey "sculpture" of an embryo and a photo close-up of its face. I don't think it has shock value. It also has a size scale beside the embryo/fetus. You can see it at Endowment for Human Development: Face of the 8-week embryo. The site sounds non-neutral to me but I like the image and they might be willing to let us use it.

Re "We're showing an embryo but not a fetus": this gestational age is absolutely typical of surgical abortions; more than 50% are done at 9.5 weeks and under. For images of later abortions, just refer people to Lars Nilsson's book. (I have heard from doctors that the proportions of some of those dismembered fetuses are wrong and they think the feti(?) are fakes.)

Re "Show an ultrasound of a birth defect and then an aborted fetus": I feel that a club foot is the most minor defect you could find and would be unlikely to trigger an abortion. It does not even rate a mention on the CDC list of birth defects. Remember that abortion grows progressively more dangerous for the gravida as pregnancy advances, thus the reluctance of doctors to do later abortions, even considering only the life of the woman. The cases that I have read about have been anencephaly (1/4000 in U.S.) (anencephaly and ultrasound) There's a non-gruesome image here, and as it's a government agency the image might be available: CDC on anencephaly. The commonest birth defect in the U.S. is spina bifida (1/1000), so that would interest the most people. Here is the CDC page for spina bifida. The severity of this defect varies greatly.

That being said, it's my impression that the commonest reason for a later abortion is that the woman needs cancer treatment ASAP and can't have it while pregnant. —Monado, 2009 June 15 20:20

how about adding diffrent options to the one that dont want to keep the baby, like livig them in a hospital and other resources they can have? Does anyone have any information about that?--TeresaHdez (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that really falls within the scope of the Abortion article - thoughts, anyone? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Caustic" solutions; general anesthesia

Caustic

I've replaced "caustic" with "hypertonic." Caustic means strongly basic, but urea is a neutral molecule, neither acid nor base (see Wiki article on urea). Traditionally, "caustic" refers to sodium hydroxide, or lye. "Hypertonic" is the more accurate term, which means that the concentration of whatever molecule we're discussing is higher than it is in human blood. (Isotonic means the same concentration; hypotonic means lower concentration.)

Another good reason for using "hypertonic" is that it applies to saline solution, i.e. salt. Urea appears to be an organic salt since its chief virtue is that it dissolves readily in water. I think the point is to inject a strong saline solution.

General anaesthesia

The sentence about "Caesarean" abortions implied that it's considered major surgery, and therefore general anaesthetic is given. I removed the latter clause.

In fact, it's not what's being done to the body that defines major: if you get general anaesthetic, it is major surgery. If doctors can change the procedure so that they can avoid giving G.A., they will: general anaesthesia itself carries a death risk of about 1 in 50,000, so it used to contribute substantially to the risk of early abortions, which are now down to about 1 in 200,000. Monado (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Euphemism" vs. "short for"

I'm concerned about the use of "euphemism" to describe what, in other contexts, I'd call a shorthand way of referring to a longer phrase. (see How 'vanilla' became shorthand for 'bland' by Amanda Fortini). "Euphemism" implies covering up ugliness, which I think violates the Neutral Point of View. This is lumping two similar techniques together. So, for now, I'm changing it. If that is too idiomatic, would "short for" do? —Monado (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How bout this for an euphemism..."forced pregnancy" ? Why isn't it called what it is? Any law against abortion is a law for forced pregnancy. Not only that but forced child birth. I would like to see these two euphemisms added to the abortion debate. hmmm what is the opposite of a euphemism then? Pnoric (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)pnoric

"Dysphemism". -GTBacchus(talk) 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add information

can someone add information to the abortion law section for me, one part states "In the United Kingdom, as in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed." this appears as though it applies to the whole of the UK but in Northern Ireland abortion is illegal, you can't travel to get one nor can you supply information on where/how to get one. RyanM651 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Slashes

The MOS frowns on slashes. Yet, we have a slash in the opening sentence: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo, resulting in or caused by its death." It's understandable that people would want to avoid having yet another "or" in this sentence, but I think a slight rephrase could easily remove the slash, while also giving the reader a slight clue about the difference between the linked terms (so the reader will know which one to click on).

So, how about this: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo (instead a fetus later in pregnancy) resulting in or caused by its death."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an odd use of "instead" to my ear. How about, in your parentheses: "or, later in pregnancy, a fetus"? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Either way. Some people previously objected to so many "ors" in the sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, "later in pregnancy, a fetus". -GTBacchus(talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo (later in pregnancy, a fetus) resulting in or caused by its death."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Simpler option: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus either of an embryo or of a fetus, excluding live birth." LeadSongDog come howl 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Any change we make should me minimal. Endless debate has already occurred regarding the lead sentence, and there's no need to re-open questions like whether the lead sentence should include words like "pregnancy" and "death". Moreover, as I said, it would be nice to give readers some slight clue about the difference between an embryo and fetus so they know which one to click on for more info. A primary reason why the MOS frowns on slashes is because "It suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how." So, again, if we could just decide (yea or nay) on this change: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo/fetus embryo (later in pregnancy, a fetus) resulting in or caused by its death." This is a minimal change, and brings the sentence into conformity with the MOS.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(after EC)Yeah, slashes aren't perfect, but I think adding extra words is worse. It makes it verbose. I prefer keeping the slash. It seems like there are so many concerns regarding the definition that so many qualifying clauses were added. I personally don't think we need to differentiate in the lead between an embryo or a fetus, given one of the common definitions of "fetus". I also don't thin we need the death clause either, but I lost that battle years and years ago. Imagine a more simple sentence without those two complexities... we can always dream, eh? I think what we have now is a decent balance (compromise, if you will). Sure there is probably room for improvement somewhere. I just don't think adding extra words between embryo and fetus is the way to go. -Andrew c [talk] 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the amended sentence is wordy at all. Thirty words is not wordy. I suppose that putting a slash there has some ironic propriety, but I'd prefer to follow MOS.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Results of banning abortions

Someone objected to the use of a reference from Nicaragua on the grounds that it was biased and Nicaragua-specific. The next point is Bangladesh-specific--so what? the article reports, or should report, facts from around the world.

A few nations ban abortion entirely: Chile, El Salvador, Ireland, Malta, and Nicaragua, with consequent rises in maternal death directly and indirectly due to pregnancy.[1]

  1. ^ "European delegation visits Nicaragua to examine effects of abortion ban (November 26, 2007)". Ipas. Retrieved 2009-06-15.

Nicaragua was used because it is a location in which laws against abortion were changed on a specific date, with a specific objectively measurable result in public health: at least 82 deaths of women of childbearing age in the months immediately following. The source may be "biased," I don't know; but the facts are not in dispute. The bias may only be that the organization cared to report the results of the law's passage and of the delegation's findings.

If death isn't a consequence worth reporting, what is a relevant consequence? A debunked rumor that abortion causes breast cancer? --Monado (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rwx, what is your point? Monado has cites; he's not offering medical advice. Please either address his view or refrain from commenting, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"Refrain from commenting"? I'll comment if I want. Monado's sole source is a pro-abortion website, and refers only to recent events in Nicaragua. He himself admits it "may be biased". Some of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia are no original research, and use reliable sources, especially when dealing with such a contentious issue. (As it happens, the Irish medical establishment holds that banning abortion in Ireland does not increase the maternal death rate, though I can't find reliable sources at present.) Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guiding principles; NOR and MEDRS do not apply to the content, therefore your posting them was unhelpful; your childish "I'll comment if I want" ignores my objection to your post was that it was inapplicable, and therefore useless in this situation. Bias is a more tenable objection. As most of the content in this article is US centric, that the suggested content is Nicaragua based is an argument for inclusion, not exclusion, in order to promote a less biased worldview. I support inclusion of the material, and invite participation in a discussion regarding whether the source is biased; how biased it might be; and how to phrase the content for accuracy. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rwxrwxrwx, the figures for Nicaragua were also cited by MSNBC, but I don't like to cite them because their news articles tend to disappear. The delegation wasn't from a biased site, but from the European Union Government. Unfortunately, I could not find the committee report on their site in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps due to volume. I also didn't say that the site is biased; it simply contained the most complete description that I found of the figure, which I remember from news stories of the time, that more than 80 women had died of abortion or of pregnancy that might have been terminated earlier in less than a year in one small country, after it changed its abortion laws. I'm sorry that you feel the site is biased. However, it records a very small, clear, and abrupt change in law followed by a very large, clear, and abrupt rise in deaths. As I said, perhaps only they cared to repeat the findings in detail; there's no heated language, logical fallacies, nor obviously distorted facts. I believe that the facts as cited are verifiable. Next time, I'll try to get something from the World Health Organization.
I suspect that medically Ireland is quite different from Nicaragua. For one thing, women in Ireland routinely slip out of the country to have legal abortions and so don't have septic, illegal abortions or die of pregnancy complications. Even more important, the laws in Nicaragua are very harsh. Doctors who do abortions or women who have them can be imprisoned for thirty years. And any provision for saving a woman's life is extremely limited. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy in one of her fallopian tubes, which is a death sentence for the embryo and a dangerous emergency for the woman, Nicaraguan doctors must wait until the embryo bursts the tube and causes hemorrhaging before they can operate. That, of course, makes the situation urgent and increases the chance that the woman will bleed to death before getting to a hospital, to say nothing of what it does to her chances of having a successful pregnancy later. Women can be forced to undergo examinations to see if it looks as if they had an abortion and persecuted, sorry, prosecuted if the examiner thinks they might have.
One of the consequences of this health legal regime is that doctors are understandably afraid to do gynecological procedures, even if they have nothing to do with abortion, and women are understandably afraid to go to doctors for complications of pregnancy, even if they don't want abortions. So not only have women died from illegal abortions and risky pregnancy, the number of pregnant women dying of "unrelated" problems of pregnancy or reproductive organs has increased. Without the option to end a health-threatening pregnancy, the number of women dying from other illnesses made worse by pregnancy has doubled.
So you see, the consequences of this law are unusually stark and clear because the law itself is so purely protective of fetuses.
I did not go on detailing the effects of the law in all their horror because I wish to maintain a neutral and objective point of view. But I do think that the bare death rate, at least, deserves mention because it is the most obvious and measurable result on living, breathing human beings of anti-abortion laws.
I can also attempt to find out what happened in the other countries. Although, dollars to doughnuts, the death rate rose there too, I can rephrase the sentence that is footnoted to state only that the death rate rose in Nicaragua. In fact, I think I'll do that right now. Monado (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Monado, I respect you have a certain view, but quality references are important, as this is one of the most contentious issues in the whole abortion debate. I live in Ireland where abortion is banned, other than as an unavoidable side-effect result of necessary medical treatment, but there has been a lot of debate on the subject here, and the medical establishment, after much research and debate, holds that the ban does not increase maternal deaths here. But I am not trying to push this viewpoint as neither Ireland nor Nicaragua represent the world. If you can find some not-obviously-biased WHO material with a global view, that would probably be a quality reference. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sorry, are you calling the World Health Organization biased? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One does wonder granted they support things like "developing a national action plan for access to safe abortion": http://www.euro.who.int/Tajikistan/20090708_1?PrinterFriendly=1& LCP (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Honor killing

Have any pro-life/anti-abortion activists ever expressed the view that certain kinds of abortion could be a form of honor killing ? In many kinds of ways, it brings shame to a woman or girl who is forced to carry out her pregnancy, and in late-term cases, many people would agree that terminating a fairly developed fetus does constitute a killing per se. [1] Other possible cases of honor killing would be the unlawful murdering of abortion providers such as George Tiller for motives of honor. [2] There is also a strange opposite phenomenon of providing free abortions in honor of slain abortionists. [3] ADM (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, that is Original Research. So far as I know, no pro-life group has suggested that any type of abortion is an honor killing, and I think most pro-life advocates, while passionate about their view, are logical enough and reality based enough to not make such silly comparisons. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Breast cancer hypothesis

This topic should receive little or no space since it is a busted myth. The papers lovingly referred to in the footnotes are all 25 - 30 years old. It was a hypothesis that didn't work out. Much larger sample sizes and reviews failed to find any link between abortion and breast cancer. Any summary should point that out. If I recall correctly, if there was any association it was with being pregnant for too long and not breastfeeding. Monado (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the scientific consensus has said there is no correlation, does this mean we should omit mentioning it on Wikipedia?--Geremia (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying ABC is a "busted myth" is as ideological as saying there is a "link" between them. Reading the abstract summary of the 1997 Melbye study should make this clear to anyone who can read more than the overall conclusion. An increase of 3% per week of gestation does not agree with the assertion of "failed to find any link". - RoyBoy 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The main article at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis makes it fairly clear its bunk, but I agree the synopsis here needs reworking for clarity. The verbiage we now have does not make it clear this has been thoroughly dismissed by the medical community (ie; all people in the medical field not currently getting paid to testify for lawsuits.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Daling being a notable exception. Further one should not apply the thorough dismissal by many notable sources as being applicable to the entire "medical community". - RoyBoy 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling pregnant women "mothers".

You may have noticed some conflicting edits in abortion-related articles regarding what to call women who get pregnant. There's an open discussion here that could probably benefit from more eyes. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Objective Definition should not be changed

The long-standing objective definition was collectively and painstakingly developed by dozens of editors (with diverse viewpoints, backgrounds, and knowledge) over a period of months; in the end, a formulation that includes reference to the death of the fetus was found to be necessary in order to be scientifically and medically accurate and objective.

Lacking this scientifically and medically necessary refence to fetal death, the recently edited version ("termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo" )is inaccurate and subjective (and thus highly un-wikipedia).

While countless hours were spent debating many substantive concerns on all angles of this specific "death of the fetus" topic, one common pregnancy situation exemplifies that there is no abortion unless expulsion or removal of the fetus causes or was caused by fetal death.

When a doctor removes a healthy baby from the mother's womb during a C-section and hands it to the father, there has been a "termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo", but no abortion. This and other examples are unassailable reasons that any accurate definition must cover fetal demise (which in plain English is death of the fetus or fetal death)

The fact that all pregnancies terminate renders the euphemism "termination of pregnancy" inadequate to describe the fetal death that is always part of abortion; we can call to mind any pregnancy that ends in a live birth, and also recall that artificially induced labor is one type of induced termination of pregnancy.

When a woman carrying twins experiences the "removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus" via abortion (selective reduction or miscarriage) of 1 of the fetuses at week 12, and 19 weeks later she delivers the other healthy twin; the continued development (aka life) of the first fetal twin was aborted at week 12, but there was certainly no "termination of pregnancy" until the healthy second twin was born at week 31.

71.52.188.76 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted because there was no discussion on the point. Someone correct me if I'm wrong; but was the "selective reduction" argument made in the original Lead debate? Because it is an excellent point. - RoyBoy 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The edit was made by HalfDome (talk · contribs). - RoyBoy 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed again by IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) in agreement. HalfDome was bold and reckless, IronAngelAlice was consciously going against consensus. - RoyBoy 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
We went over this a long time ago. An abortion involves in something dying. People die, fetuses die, bodies die, organs die, tissue dies, cells die. However you want to think about it, its death. Its an essential part of the process, unless something goes horribly wrong.--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
N.B. Not sure how to deal with the multiple fetuses situation presented, but our current defintion seems to be on track. --Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

There has been bit of back and forth on the talk page for Indirect abortion over whether to use the term "mother" or "pregnant woman" and we're trying to work something out but haven’t really arrived at a conclusion yet and could use more opinions. Please stop by if you've got time. - Schrandit (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first used the term, I had in mind the concept of gestational mother (or mère-porteuse as they say in French). This means to say that even if a pregnant woman is not literally the genetic mother of the child, it is still a valid scientific usage to call that woman a surrogate mother. [4] ADM (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I prefer "pregnant woman" because it is more accurate, as we generally accept actual motherhood to begin at birth. (That is, people say, "I am going to be a mother". We use "pregnant woman" in this article.--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not use pregnant person if the carrier is a transsexual or a hermaphrodite ? Would it make a difference if it were a pregnant man ? What if the abortion occurs inside a test tube, isn't that relevant somehow ? Why should we oppose motherhood to personhood, since mothers are people too ? When a fetus is over eight months old, doesn't he already know that I am already a person ? ADM (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, this discussion was continued on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Abortion addiction

Certain pro-life activists have highlighted the phenomenon of abortion addictions in certain women as evidence that abortion is very often not a choice, but rather that it is much closer to the status of a social pathology. It might a good thing if we could a least have a stub on this matter. [5] ADM (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term honestly and at first blush it sounds rather dubious. If you can gather the sources supporting its notablity though go for it.--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that talk about this, especially since the topic has been in the news recently. Being mentioned in the press obviously contributes to its notoriety. [6][7] [8][9] ADM (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be exactly one person with a full blown pathology, not a new category of pathology.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, and I'm a hardcore anti-abortion activist. Seconding the dubiousness; let's wait and see. If it develops over time into a serious discussion topic -- not necessarily something real, but something that is widely discussed and debated (like the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis) -- we might consider including it. But it's a long way from ripe. And, like I said, it looks very dubious. Nonetheless, thanks for bringing it up, ADM. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spain

New Law in Spain 92.252.116.53 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Statistics

Feel free to add more, so it can all be eventually incorporated to the article.

About 19% of teens have had sex and became pregnant each year, and from that 19% about 78% of those were unplanned. Only 5% of women who need contraception are not using a method and yet they are accountable for the 47% of the 3 Million unwanted pregnancies each year in the United States. Without contraception services federal, state and Medicaid expenditures would increase by $1.2 Billion a year. Lelek310 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we even consider adding something like this to the article, what are your sources? We need content to be verifiable, and we do that through citing sources which are "reliable". -Andrew c [talk] 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Mother" vs. "pregnant woman"

I am one of the people who has made an effort to ensure WP:NPOV by using the term "pregnant woman" when referring to women who are pregnant and may or may not ever become mothers. While there does appear to be a consensus for this, there is also discussion in various venues. Rather than demanding that people bounce around article and editor talk pages to follow the thread of conversation, I'd like to centralize the discussion here, so that we don't have to repeat ourselves.

Briefly, my argument is that "mother" is neither accurate nor neutral, while "pregnant woman" is demonstrably both. As such, WP:NPOV requires us to avoid the former consistently. I recognize that this restriction of neutrality applies to Wikipedia, not to our sources, so we should expect to see "mother" pop up in some direct quotes, but that's not an argument for using it ourselves.

I welcome reasoned discussion regarding this topic, but have little interest in discussing my own personal views, as they are immaterial. CarolineWH (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of wikipedia being a third-order resource, I would suggest following the usage of experts contributing to such reputable secondary sources as the Textbook of Perinatal Medicine. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a compelling argument, unless these experts are as committed to following WP:NPOV as we are. As it turns out, Wikipedia's editorial policies are in this case more strict. Moreover, a closer analysis of the contents of that source shows that it contains strong arguments against this use here, as I've explained previously. CarolineWH (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that those are explicitly arguments about usage in diagnostic contexts, not in encyclopedia-writing contexts. Rather than trying to synthesize our own usage, I do think it would be better if we stick with the usage of medical experts. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is incorrect. The article that I brought up says outright: "The terms 'fetus' and 'pregnant woman' are grammatically more correct than 'baby' and 'mother'". It then goes on to point out that the latter are preferrentially used "euphemistically with a more sinister motivation" by pro-lifers to "blur reality". In other words, it is his medical opinion that its use with regard to women who have intention of carrying a pregnancy to term at this time is intentionally misleading due to POV.
The article then puts aside the dishonesty of certain pro-lifers and focuses on a clinical context, which is where it does indeed become less relevant to this discussion. What we do care about is how these facts apply to the the context of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rule.
What constitutes WP:NPOV is pretty clear here. Since one term is demonstrably less accurate while being more controversial, I see no excuse to consider using it here when a better alternative exists. Do you? CarolineWH (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem there is that you're creating your own synthesis of what the bearing of the article is. Even the editors of the volume that it's in don't seem to think it applies to the rest of the textbook (presumably because writing textbooks, like writing encyclopedias, is not a diagnostic context). Something else that one might consider is that legalized abortion in many places is explicitly posited on a "threat to the mother's life" or "danger to the mother's health" - but if pregnant women are not mothers, then (bizarrely) it's hard to see how such laws could apply to them. Such considerations certainly incline me to think that trying to create our own linguistic standards that are "better" than those used in our sources would be a perilous undertaking indeed. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No, WP:OR is when the editors do their own research to synthesize facts, instead of allowing secondary sources to do it for them. For example, if I were to combine data for how much more dangerous carrying a pregnancy to term is as opposed to aborting, with data about pregnancy rates, and other data about jusrisdictions and population, I could generate the fact that laws which force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term cause some specific number of deaths. While this would be factual, it would also be unacceptable, unless I could first found a reliable source that did all this work and drew the conclusion on its own. After all, we don't trust editors to do this sort of active research, since we have no idea who they are or whether they can be trusted to get things right.
On the other hand, it's entirely our responsibility to remain WP:NPOV in our terminology, no matter what sources we use. Whatever biased terminology we find, we are not permitted to use it, except in direct quotes (and that's an argument in itself for more paraphrasing). So, yes, we do work under higher linguistic standards than our sources; I'm sorry if this distresses you, but it's a fact of life.
Since, as I've explained, "mother" is neither accurate nor uncontroversial, we ought to avoid it so as to comply with WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, you haven't addressed this issue. I wish you would, instead of simply saying that someone else gets to do a bad thing, so we should be allowed to. CarolineWH (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It's true, you have explained that, or at least asserted it, but what counts is not your say-so (nor the number of different talkpages you put it on), but the reliable sources you can bring to back it up. You have now "explained" repeatedly, indeed, that the word "mother", as used of pregnant women in medical textbooks, legal textbooks, political science textbooks, the texts of laws permitting abortion, and, for what it's worth, on pro-choice blogs, is somehow "biased" because it is also a term used by people who take a dim view of abortion. As far as I can tell (in the absence of sources to the contrary), the only point of view it contravenes is your own. On a personal note, I'm not sure what indication of distress I seem to have given, but I can assure you that you need have no concern on my account. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a powerful argument for the conclusion that people of all political stripes use language sloppily. However, it in no way suggests that we are allowed to do as they do. The sources we have say that "mother" is technically incorrect and abused to add bias; this is WP:NOR. Given this, there is little for me to say that is not repetition. Unless you offer an argument to show that it is acceptable for us to use "mother", when "pregnant woman" is both correct and neutral, there is nothing for me to refute. CarolineWH (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Nor can I say more than that here at wikipedia the aim is to follow the sources, not improve on them. Any attempt to prohibit other editors from using the words in common use in the full range of relevant reliable sources of, as you say, "all political stripes", should be far more convincingly sourced if it wants to avoid the appearance of censorship. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me 30 seconds and I can find a reliable source that says abortion is murder. Yet if I were to add "abortion is murder" directly to the article, I would be violating WP:NPOV. On the other hand, I could add that the specified source makes this claim, if it were relevant.
This is a typical example of how Wikipedia differs from the sources it relies on. In the same way, we can and should use sources that mistakenly call pregnant women "mothers", but we can't make their mistake ourselves. We can ascribe it to them if it's helpful, but that's all. If following WP:NPOV is censorship, I gladly admit to being a censor. CarolineWH (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but here we're discussing not whether one or other source uses the word "mother" in this context, but the fact that you would seek to prohibit your fellow editors from using a term to be found in the full range of relevant reliable sources of all political stripes. If you would set yourself up as superior in linguistic purity to the doctors, lawyers, legislators, professors and activists whose work we rely on, a language blog might be a better forum to do it than a collaborative encyclopedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, the word "mother" is not currently being used in this article to refer to pregnant women. While perhaps topical, your discussion does not relate to the content of this article. Perhaps a MoS page or a WikiProject page may be a more appropriate venue (and perhaps a RfC to boot, if either one of you is proposing some site wide style guide). I'm not trying to shut down discussion, per se, but I want to direct you to perhaps more appropriate venues. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I do apologise. The conversation actually started elsewhere, and I'm not quite sure how or why it ended up here. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Andrew, I'm sorry that Paular's "not quite sure" what's going on, and I'll be glad to explain if he can't. It turns out that this really does seem to be the right venue.
The issue under discussion is whether "mother" should be used to refer to pregnant women in the context of abortion articles. As such, I decided that this talk page was more appropriate than the others where the discussion had accumulated: it certainly doesn't belong on Talk:Religion and abortion, much less User_Talk:CarolineWH. The only reason "mother" is not currently in use in Abortion is the consensus among editors that it is inappropriate, a consensus that is being challenged on forks where nobody was paying much attention. As such, I feel that we need to deal with the issue centrally and avoid edit wars.
I'm already on record as agreeing that it might take an RfC to end this, but I don't know of any relevant WikiProject and I think this goes a bit further than MoS. I realize that you might find the presence of this discussion somewhat annoying, but at this time, I do not see a more appropriate venue, so I recommend that we keep it here unless a viable alternative is found. CarolineWH (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Two words: Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion (or is that more than 2 words?) -Andrew c [talk] 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I count four, but fortunately for you, I don't charge by the word.
I'm going to follow your advice and see where it gets us. I copied my initial message over to Wikipedia_Talk:WikiProject Abortion and optimistically removed the {{inactive}} tag. Let's see if moving the thread there gives it the home it deserves or just buries it. If it's the latter, I guess we'll just come back here. CarolineWH (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


I'll admit to not reading this in its entirety, but my remaining preference on terminology is in the following order: gravida, woman, female, mother.--Tznkai (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I moved your comment to the abortion project page, which is where all of this discussion is being centralized? CarolineWH (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

While we were discussing the issue, two of the participants decided jump the gun and start changing articles to ensure that their preferred version was in place. CarolineWH (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1. - I don't really think that can be called tendentious editing
2. - While the discussion isn't over yet and I am still trying to get more people to comment on it, it has been 3 days and with 5 editors leaning yes and 1 editor leaning no I think the gun has pretty well sounded. - Schrandit (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you there, on both counts. CarolineWH (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Paular, thanks, but this article really is the right spot for the notice. My obvious concern is that, while you are engaged in forming a consensus through discussion, you have prematurely made changes to an abortion-related article that is not central and might therefore be overlooked. CarolineWH (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fork changes.

As a courtesy, I'd like to mention that I've made some changes to two forks of this article: pro-choice and pro-life. I'm acknowledging this here so that you can offer appropriate feedback. CarolineWH (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The word Death

Sorry to bring up this heated debate once again, But shouldn't we euphemize the word "Death" in the first paragraph to match the article on Miscarriage? This would bring us closer to standardization and a non bias.

BFPIERCE (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring this up on the Miscarriage talk page instead? Death is involved in both procedures. No sense in bringing this article down, for the sake of standardizing a euphemism. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed miscarriage seems to have the issue. And to clarify, termination is also a euphemism; and depending on usage it is moreso than death. - RoyBoy 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"terminating a pregnancy" is not a euphemism, IMO, and is a fairly common term, if not a technical term, found in medical literature. Fetuses are never terminated, but pregnancies are. The miscarriage article, IMO, is fine because miscarriage has a specific definition that is related to viability, where after that point is crossed, the loss is called a stillbirth. I don't believe the word "death" would help clarify what a miscarriage is any further. However, editors in the past at this article felt that because abortion did not necessarily relay on time limits such as viability (i.e. late term abortions), the word death was needed so that readers wouldn't accidentally think abortion resulted in a live-birth (not that that was likely in the first place, but who am I to question past consensus). -Andrew c [talk] 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but to focus on the "pregnancy" is euphemistic in nature. Ending a pregnancy is not the hot potato, and to consciously place the "final act" of an abortion in those terms avoids the core issue; and creates a potential for said confusion in the first place. Because "terminating a pregnancy" is technical I preferred it initially, but we came to realize technical terms can be exacting and/or obfuscating. - RoyBoy 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
@BaronGrackle - Fine with me as long as it doesn't create a bias. Why don't you make the change? BFPIERCE (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What change is that, specifically? I see none actually clearly stated. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Are we discussing making changes on the miscarriage article on a page other than Talk:miscarriage? -Andrew c [talk] 14:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope that is not what is meant. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just discussing in general terms for the abortion "topic"; and clarifying a possible guideline based on my understanding of the consensus. So Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion centric, but that page seems slow. - RoyBoy 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Abortion in Spain

Abortion is now legal in Spain on request, up to 14th week of pregnancy. Please update the map. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.21.164 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As user Severa is retired from Wikipedia, who can update the svg image? - RoyBoy 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I can give it a shot. First, do we have a source to verify the content? Next, what do you want me to do exactly? Change Spain from brownish to bluish? -Andrew c [talk] 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there are more complains on the image's talk page. I have the skills and tools to edit SVG, but I don't have the up-to-date sources on what needs to be fixed. Anyone want to help compile a new list of abortion legality? Or is the Abortion law table current? Perhaps some brave volunteers could go and fact check Abortion law, and once that is up to date, we can fix the graphic?-Andrew c [talk] 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Both houses in Spain now allow abortion on request.

Rabbis: Abortion will delay the redemption

This Israeli site: [Rabbis] tells that Rabbis: Abortion will delay the redemption.Agre22 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Well, that's one opinion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And this other Israeli site: [JP] also writes the opinion from Chief Rabbinate of Israel about abortion. In the article, we can read:"There is nothing more important than encouraging births - according to the commentaries - and it is our role to raise the awareness on the subject of abortions," Rabbi Yehudah Deri, a member of the Chief Rabbinical Council, said during the committee hearing. "Women must be aware - many women don't know that the significance of abortion is murder. The information that we distributed was a rabbinic ruling that abortion is murder, the halacha sees a fetus as a living person."Agre22 (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Your links do not work. I seems that jpost changed around things on their site. In any event it is not the universal view even among orthodox Rabbis that Abortion==murder. And even the most extreme see a difference between the first month and the latter months (unlike some Christian theologians). Not to mention that more rabbis are not orthodox. Save monkey love 4 me (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Effect on subsequent miscarriages

Reverted. This para should be rewritten based on secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Consider instead using PMID 19301572 and PMID 18321519, both of which are recent review articles. Note that they significantly distinguish odds based on medical vs surgical abortion and based on how early the abortion was. User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I found it problematic to cite one study directly like this. It seems like cherry picking the data, and a bit of original research. We could easily cite other studies, such as PMID 1821179, PMID 19427095, or PMID 17699814, that found no increase risk of miscarriage related to previous abortion. Then we have religious tolerance.org[10] and Planned Parenthood[11] and Guttmacher Institute[12] all claiming abortion doesn't increase miscarriage risk, while pro-life sites like [13] and [14] disagree. I imagine this new addition has been prompted by this blog post[15], even though the study is from 2003. Anyway, I do believe this is a notable topic, and perhaps we should say something about it. But we need to see what the sources are saying, and if we can't find any expert synthesis of the sources. -Andrew c [talk] 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

History and Toleration

I was reading this article and felt that the major editors were doing a good job of explaining what abortion was while striving to keep NPOV. Then I stumbled across this line under the History section, "During the Middle Ages, abortion was tolerated because there were no laws against it.[65]" I didn't think this looked very NPOV, and looking up the reference doesn't help it either. I don't think the section would suffer if this line were removed entirely. Akuvar (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this sentence (under the History section as well) is confusing out of context. "Abortion in the 19th century continued, despite bans in both the United Kingdom and the United States, as the disguised, but nonetheless open, advertisement of services in the Victorian era suggests.[69]" If you follow the reference link, you understand what they are trying to say, but this sentence is worded poorly (and the UK isn't even mentioned in the reference link)! I would like to see the sentence replaced with a better paraphrase of the referenced article, such as, "In the US, abortions prior to "quickening" were allowed until the 19th century when laws became more and more restrictive. It wasn't until the 20th century that many factors caused more and more states to allow abortions." Akuvar (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Differentiating abortion in mammals from human abortion

I'd like to recommend a very small change in the first paragraph:

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.[1] An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced, in humans and other species. In the context of human pregnancies, an abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.

It seems to me that the first two sentences refer to abortion in mammals, including humans. The rest of the lead section and most of the article applies only to human abortion. (It's my understanding that abortion, as a term, can apply only to mammals. Can you abort a tadpole?)

I want to suggest two small changes. First, introduce a paragraph break between the secord and third sentences. Second, move the wiki-link to the first occurrence of human pregnancies. Like this:

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.[1] An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced, in humans and other species.

In the context of human pregnancies, an abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.

The first occurrence of the wikilinked pregnancy accesses the "Pregnancy (mammals)" article while the wikilinked "human pregnancies", now in the second paragraph, links to "Pregnancy", which deals with and is a redirect of "Human pregnancy". (The invisible comment under this text would have to be altered slightly as well; from <!--Annotation: This paragraph...--> to <!--Annotation: These two paragraphs...-->.)

Of course, another solution would be to split the article into "Abortion in humans" and "Abortion in mammals [or animals]" (including humans), with hatnotes pointing to the other one. Or maybe a series of hatnotes referring to Abortion debate, Abortion law and possibly Abortion in the United States and even Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide so that you can concentrate of the medical and surgical aspects rather than the legal and social facets.

But my proposal right now is for the simple change to the first paragraph detailed above. What say you? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Though the article seems to focus on human abortion, the last paragraph "Abortion in other animals" makes it known that elective abortion is used on horses, indicating that your proposed solution (to state that elective abortion is only in the context of human pregnancy) is contradictory.

In other words, your proposed solution, to limit elective and therapeutic abortion to humans is self-reflectively incorrect. However, acknowledgment of abortion in "human and other species" is self-reflectively correct.

173.30.9.30 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulatons

I have come back to this article after a year, and find it is MUCH improved. I might quibble about an emphasis here or an emphasis there, but this is much clearer and much more balanced --- and factual ---than it was. Congratulations to all those who were involved. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Header change

Should the section with the header containing the words "female infanticide" be changed to female foeticide, for clarification? (ie. pre-birth not post-birth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetGoomba (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Contraception substitute

This edit was reverted under claims of "The cited article really doesn't say that at all." but the information is mentioned in the top of the reference.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the whole article but - due to being unfamiliar with the formatting - didn't notice the "pull-out" at the top. I don't know who added the pull-out or why, but it doesn't sum up the rest of the piece. The article provides hard figures about abortions but does not mention use of abortion as an alternative to contraception, even at the very end of the article where a spokesman for the Family Education Trust provides a conservative interpretation of the figures:
In other words, the article doesn't say what you said it says - no mention of abortion as an alternative to contraception - and it doesn't even say what it says it says. It certainly doesn't refer to some abortions as being "inadequate." It just has an attention-grabbing sub-headline. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to "mental health"

I'm confused as to why the section on "mental health" risks is so much longer than the section on general health risks. It is unanimously agreed by reputable expert bodies that abortion does not cause mental health problems. I think we could say this is in a sentence or two, or a paragraph at most. Right now, our section on health risks gives substantial undue weight to this issue, well in excess of that given by independent, reliable sources. Is there any interest in trimming this section down to a more proportionate representation of available information? MastCell Talk 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. The same might be said for the section titled "Selected issues of the abortion debate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't carry mental risks for most but it has exceptions. The WP:UNDUE is not about size, but content. The problem is that the remaining of the health risk section is so small. I improved the mental risk section a little bit---Nutriveg (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Guttmacher purge

I'd like to discuss this further. How specifically does a peer reviewed journal like Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health not meet WP:MEDRS, feel free to quote the specific portion of the guideline. Many places we are even clearly attributing the publisher, which we don't do with many other sources, which I think help qualifies the source. I think deleting sources, without replacing them with a substitute source is a form of disruption. Is this content inaccurate at all? Is it simply guilt by association, or do we have bad content in the article? I'd like to discuss the specifics of these edits, and work together to improve the article, and find suitable replacement sources, if that needs to happen, or argue that our current content and sourcing is accurate and within policy. -Andrew c [talk] 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is even more alarming is a source from The Lancet was removed because of the authors association with the GI. When do we ban citing The Lancet? Maybe I'm missing something here, which is why we have talk pages, but I'm concerned by the purge, and thus reverted it until further discussion. -Andrew c [talk] 19:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sources as non-MEDRS

Nutriveg has been removing citations to publications from the Guttmacher Institute on the grounds that they are not MEDRS compliant. I have questioned this on their user Talk (composite diff:[16]), since I feel this is a user conduct issue, but they asked that it be discussed here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health is a journal published by the Guttmacher Institute which is an advocate group supporting abortion, so a questionable source in this article context because its lack of neutrality in this matter. I also removed primary sources replacing with tertiary sources as possible, as well text that was not clearly supported by the source conclusions. I might have accidentally removed sources from other Journal (The Lancet) that were just stored in the Guttmacher website, I'll check for that. Let's try to use WP:MEDRS compliant sources from now.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The lancet source is a primary research for the calculation of unsafe abortion, the article was also produced by Guttmacher Institute employees. Can't we find better WP:MEDRS compliant sources?--Nutriveg (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a mistaken and wrong-headed application of WP:MEDRS. I'm not aware that the accuracy or validity of data published in Perspectives has ever been seriously called into question. It is a respectable, well-cited, peer-reviewed journal - in fact, one of the leading scholarly journals on family planning and contraception. Since our goal is to create a serious, respectable reference work, it seems misguided to exclude a significant amount of scholarly literature on the topic. MastCell Talk 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine, find a secondary/tertiary source citing that Perspective article and we can cite that secondary/tertiary source as defined in WP:MEDRS. I've never objected to that and it wouldn't be that hard.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS doesn't actually say that we can only use secondary sources, and it always pains me to see it abused to justify the knee-jerk removal of any "primary" source. The guideline says that we need to use primary sources carefully and avoid abusing them to undermine or "rebut" the conclusions of expert bodies and reputable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, WP:MEDRS says:
"Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. "
I was trying to improve the article in that sense. If Perspectives is as reputable as you say it's NO PROBLEM to cite another source citing that article.
Current use of those primary sources go beyond the WP:MEDRS when it says "should only describe the conclusions of the source" that's not the case for example of that first Perspectives article and it ommits informations found in other articles, like this other study that point to still high abortion between blacks and the unaccounted number of "early medical abortion". So let's use secondary/tertiary sources and avoid those problematic primary sources.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet another conflicting source "Among the 46 areas that reported data consistently during 1996--2006, decreases in the total reported number, rate, and ratio of abortions were attributable primarily to reductions before 2001. During 2005--2006, the total number and rate of abortions increased". So let's keep citing unreliable primary sources?--Nutriveg (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
These sources don't conflict with each other, so I'm not sure why you consider any of them "unreliable". This one says US abortion rates declined through 2005. This one says the US abortion rate declined through 2003, which is clearly consistent. This one says that US abortion rates dropped through 2005 (see Fig. 1, again, consistent with the earlier studies) but took an upturn in 2006 (a year not addressed in the earlier studies). Note also that in 2006, although the number of abortions increased, the ratio of abortions to live births did not. In other words, there were more pregnancies across the board in 2006 - more live births, and proportionately more abortions as well. I think this points up the need - spelled out in WP:MEDRS - to read primary sources carefully. MastCell Talk 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Less reliable would be a better word when comparing primary and secondary/tertiary articles, primary sources may occasionally be used with care, we shouldn't base articles on them.
By WP:MEDRS we don't interpret primary articles as you're doing above, we only cite their conclusions.
Citation of Perspectives go beyond the article conclusion, and BTW is naive to take chinese official numbers for granted.
Perspectives, omits high abortion between blacks and the influence of unaccounted number of "early medical abortion" cited in the conclusion of this other study
The conclusion of the CDC source says: "decreases were attributable primarily to reductions before 2001" which was as well omitted by Perspectives that had data from data time. The same CDC conclusion says "During 2005--2006, the total number and rate of abortions increased" so current data shows that the trend is inversed.
So when we mention primary source studies "Abortion incidence in the United States declined 8% from 1996 to 2003." a lot of information is missed which usually is not the case for secondary/tertiary studies that compare multiple studies to avoid inaccuracies including of the primary articles methodology and data selection.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
... in terms of secondary sources, this summary from the World Health Organization goes through 2003 at least. MastCell Talk 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you cite a pamphlet in a scientific work of yours? I don't know to which Journal would accept that. This doesn't fit WP:MEDRS--Nutriveg (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked for a MEDRS-style secondary source. I gave you one (an information page from the WHO, which is an international expert body). So now you have peer-reviewed journal articles, supported by information from an international expert body. That's sort of what MEDRS was designed to encourage. And by the way, if I were writing a manuscript for journal submission, I would cite primary sources - other journal articles - exactly like those described above, which you found unsatisfactory. MastCell Talk 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that informational pamphlet is not a secondary source by WP:MEDRS. "Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed".--Nutriveg (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, not only with your specific interpretation of this source (which I think falls under synthesis of evidence by a reputable expert body), but also with your general approach to interpreting WP:MEDRS. I'll leave it at that to give others a chance to comment, if they wish. MastCell Talk 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As yourself pointed above that source is a summary, a brief note, it's not even published it's just a one page (double sided) pamphlet. If you still have a problem understanding it's not a secondary source by WP:MEDRS definition we can bring the discussion about it somewhere else.-Nutriveg (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the WHO fact sheet is a secondary source. It explains in the last column that it is a version of a larger, fully annotated version, available from a link at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/en/ and that lists the sources it summarises. The principal survey used is described at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/2/08-057828-ab/en/index.html, which in itself is a secondary source. The data on the fact sheet is completely relevant to this article, and the WHO is a reliable publisher. There can be no valid reason for objecting to the use of the fact sheet here. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Identification in footnotes of affiliation or position for sources

Generally speaking, I'm not for removing Guttmacher sources in the footnotes. However, I do think it would be appropriate in each one of those footnotes to append a very brief statement like "This organization is a pro-choice group" or (if being pro-choice is not part of their primary mission) "This organization takes a pro-choice position." Same for pro-choice individuals, and same for pro-life organizations and individuals, in this article. The readers can then make of it what they will. A disclaimer was previously discussed at this talk page here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A great deal of the scholarly literature on family planning and abortion is produced by groups that "take a pro-choice position" on some level. For example, the World Health Organization (among other major bodies) lists "improving access to safe abortion and high-quality postabortion care" among its public-health goals. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the relevant US expert body) and its UK counterpart both support access to safe, legal abortion as part of family planning. The American Medical Association supports individual doctors in their choice to perform or not perform abortion, and has repeatedly filed amicus briefs on behalf of groups seeking greater access to abortion ([17]). The New England Journal of Medicine frequently publishes editorials and news items critical of the US pro-life lobby's efforts to restrict access to abortion. I don't think it makes sense to start footnoting these and other reputable, scholarly sources in a way that seems designed to push the reader in the direction of skepticism of their findings. MastCell Talk 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The WHO doesn't promote abortion or its legalization, Guttmacher does. "The Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable women (...) exercise the right to choose abortion" The WHO has many goals, Guttmacher has specific ones. It's clearly an abortion advocate group. We can't take their data or analysis for granted.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
"Improving access to safe abortion" (WHO) and enabling women to "exercise the right to choose abortion" (Guttmacher) are semantically equivalent to me. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Both WHO and Guttmacher have pro-choice positions, and ought to be identified as such in the respective footnotes. See, for example, Ruth Ann Dailey who is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (January 21, 2008): "contrary to the Guttmacher/WHO study's squishy estimates and ideologically driven claims, legalizing abortion can dramatically affect its numbers."[18] Readers of this article need to be aware of the sources' potential leanings. Additionally, since we're talking about primary versus secondary sourcing, there's another significant distinction to be made: sources that are available online and those that aren't, and we need to use less of the latter (because only certain editors have easy access to them, and readers cannot easily fact-check our interpretations of the offline sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)It's clearly an abortion advocate group. We can't take their data or analysis for granted. And why is that? Can you cite specific Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Do you have sources which question the validity of our cited sources, or is this entirely based on Nutriveg's personal opinion? Seems like original research. As for semantics, I agree with what MastCell wrote directly above this post. As for the topic header, I think it is a terrible idea to attempt to label all our sources and add disclaimers of sort. If we are using bad sources, we should consider changing them. If we have conflicting sources, we should describe the conflict, if notable, in prose. Anything's proposal above seems unnecessary.-Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
MasterCell, the WHO may be interpreted as pro-abortion but it doesn't say that clear, access is different of right. WHO main goal is defined as "reduce unsafe abortion". While Guttmacher defines abortion as a right and has a mission to expand the exercise of such "right".
Andrew c, Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field"
I've no objection in using secondary/tertiary sources that cite the Guttmacher (pro-abortion POV) sources but by WP:MEDRS I disagree of the current use of such POV oriented sources in this article.
The Guttmacher Institute itself defines its mission as "expand (...)(the) exercise (of) the right to choose abortion". Abortion is not qualified as right in a large part of the word if you're unaware of, Guttmacher Institute mission of expanding the exercise of such "right" isn't equally neutral. Does anyone here really disagree it's a pro-choice organization?--Nutriveg (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
In some ways, I would prefer if we would cite research papers from NARAL than from Guttmacher, because readers would more easily recognize that NARAL has a bias. This is a short article, so we should be able to find sources that are not sketchy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that scholarly, peer-reviewed literature from Perspectives is "sketchy", nor do I think that material from the World Health Organization is "sketchy". On the contrary, I think such sources form an essential part of any serious, scholarly treatment of abortion (as opposed to a basic he-said, she-said reiteration of political talking points). MastCell Talk 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Textbooks, newspaper reports, and scholarly articles in publications that guarantee neutrality are not "he-said-she-said".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And I don't object to those, of course. I'm saying that we should not exclude a substantial portion of the scholarly literature on abortion (without which I don't think we can write a serious, scholarly overview). MastCell Talk 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS is clear: "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints", so secondary sources that fill that definition should be used, not primary sources, specially those supporting a specific point of view.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to marking sources as suboptimal in this article, if everyone agrees that the same information in another source would be okay.
Nutriveg, any reason why the Trupin source has been removed? I thought it had some good info about contraindications for both medical and surgical abortion. And the Tchabo source had some interesting info about overall risk of maternal death.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of marking sources if they aren't good enough they shouldn't be used to support article text.
We may add information about contraindication, but I prefer to use better sources, will try to find some.
I added the information about maternal death.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Marking the sources may not be the best way, but it may be an acceptable compromise between yourself and MastCell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Nutriveg's interpretation of MEDRS has been questioned by quite a few editors, not just myself. I would rather wait for more input than have this turn into a contest of who-can-shout-the-loudest or who-can-post-the-most-often. Also, tagging sources with our editorial impression of their "bias" is an extreme and (I believe) unprecedented attempt to editorially lead the reader. I don't think that a "compromise" involves meeting these positions halfway, since I think both are rather extreme. MastCell Talk 20:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to add our editorial opinion about a perceived bias in sources, because that is our opinion, and nothing more. We only report what reliable sources say. If sources conflict, we simply present both viewpoints in a neutral way with a weight according to their prevalence – that's what WP:NPOV requires. It is a serious mistake to try to exclude a reliable source because it is a minority viewpoint; it is an equally serious mistake to attempt to characterise the POV of a source according to our own view. If a reader wants to learn about the POV of a particular institution, then the Wikipedia article on that institution is the place for that (and such information will also be cited to reliable sources which describe that POV). --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Contraindications

The info about the risk of childbirth was in a parenthetical that was not apparent on a first read, so I fixed it.

Regarding the assertion that contraindications do not involve health risks, I disagree. If a person with contraindications for medical abortion gets a medical abortion then the risk is abnormally great, just like if a person gets an abortion in an unsafe operating room the risk is abnormally great (or gets an abortion where they are illegal). Also, I have not suggested hedging any more than Grimes has.

Regarding the idea that I would take the lead on writing a section that addresses alleged indicia of humanity that cause some women to not get abortions, I would need some kind of assurances that doing so would not inspire accusations of POV pushing. That's why I would prefer if someone else would get started on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest any sources that you would consider appropriately encyclopedic, to assist in writing it? MastCell Talk 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I usually accumulate sources in the process of writing a section. But I think it's common knowledge that many people find significance in such things as when unique DNA is formed and/or when the heart starts beating and/ or when the shape and form become characteristic of humans and/or when movement begins and/or when the first electrical activity can be detected in the brain and/or when the chance of survival to birth becomes very probable and/ or when the mother can feel kicking and/or when survival outide the womb could be possible. These seem like the primary alleged indicia of humanity that cause many women (and men) to either completely oppose abortion (of their own offspring or offspring of others), or alternatively encourage abortion sooner rather than later in pregnancy. There are zillions of reliable sources out there. I feel like I would be just as susceptible to accusations if I named sources, as if I drafted the section myself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[1]

The above is from the article Pro-choice. I'd like to see this article (Abortion) use the more neutral terms oftener, and reduce the use of the pro- terminology, which so obviously is political framing. ("Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life").

I've met Europeans who laugh at the pro- terminology. Reducing the use of it will make the article more global.

I'll make a couple such changes. --Hordaland (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Goldstein, Norm, ed. The Associated Press Stylebook. Philadelphia: Basic Books, 2007.
I'm pleased to see someone taking this stand. Yes, the pro- words are pure, manipulative POV tools. Go for it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for immediate support. When I started this thread there were 6 instances of "pro-choice" and 8 instances of "pro-life". Now there are 4 of each. --Hordaland (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes not much difference to me. Generally, I don't like stupid euphemisms, and vague modifiers, so there's something to be said for using the word "abortion" to describe people who take a position about it. On the other hand, self-identification is important too. Anyway, you're removing a lot of wikilinks. Maybe you could use a piped link: anti-abortion, pro-abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that wikilinking a term once in an article is enough. Sometimes the term will be wikilinked in a caption as well as the first occurrence of it in the text.
Let's not introduce a term "pro-abortion" as people don't advocate for more abortions than they believe are desirable/necessary, as that term could be construed. Reproductive rights people usually say that the woman/girl involved must make the final decision about abortion. Hordaland (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:Euphemism is reasonably clear, but we do generally accept that the names by which groups self-identify should be respected. I think Hordaland has found a reasonable compromise between the two. Given that redirects are free, I would suggest all the various names can redirect to whatever target title is accepted. Perhaps Abortion debate is a sufficiently neutral target? I suggest that direct language could simply explain terminology, such that

Supporters and opponents of a right of access to lawful abortion are groups that respectively have characterized their positions as "pro-choice" and "pro-life". These groups strongly correlate to - but are significantly different from - the groups that support or oppose a right of lawful access to effective contraception.

(with suitable refs)LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, this terminology thing is no big deal to me. But I would like to point out that the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" (or "anti-abortion") would be somewhat misleading. Everyone supports people exercising their rights, and the question here is not whether anyone should exercise their rights, but rather whether the right exists. So, if it were me, maybe better names would be "abortion rights believers" and "abortion rights nonbelievers". That's not how they characterize themselves, but if we go by how they characterize themselves then we'd be sticking with "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, no matter what two terms we use, it will be an oversimplification.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
While most people support the exercise of their own rights, many are not so enthusiastic about other people doing so, particularly when those rights have an associated cost to them (individually or, in the case of insured medicine, collectively). However, I would agree that it is essentially a question of oversimplied terminology. I suspect that few care so much about natural rights as about legal rights in this discussion, but that is just a guess. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Even in a legal sense, there are non-believers (i.e. people who think that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional). But whatever terminology people use is pretty much okay with me (within reason!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the terms pro-choice and pro-life are very common in English-speaking countries other than the USA? I know that American groups self-identify with these terms, but I wonder if they are immediately understandable for all others? I suspect not. Hordaland (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, common enough in Australia, but used by the bodies thus described as political tools through making the opposite side seem less reasonable when the prefix anti- is added. The terms are out and out POV in themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, now "pro-abortion" has been introduced and as I have said, there is no such thing. People can be pro- the legality and availability of abortion, without being pro-abortion. No one welcomes a rise in the portion of induced abortions in a country where they are readily available. No one who is pro-choice is obliged to welcome abortion in her/his own family. Surely everyone agrees that avoiding any need for abortion is the ideal.
Anti-abortion seems to me to be a correct term, while pro-abortion is not. Most people who are anti-abortion are against its availability in all or nearly all circumstances. --Hordaland (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Pro-abortion" implies a belief that abortion is a good thing that should be encouraged. Contrast this with being "pro-choice" (being in favour of the woman's right to choose) and "pro-abortion-rights" (being in favour of the right to have an abortion). Ultimately a pro-abortion position may be associated with eugenics programs and forced abortions for e.g. the very young or mentally subnormal. It is not a belief altogether without adherents; rather, it is an extremist position. That in itself - plus the term's use by anti-abortion groups - ought to demonstrate that "Pro-abortion" is a pejorative term. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 12:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What was wrong with self-identity again? Yeah, the AP has decided to use it's own terms, and there can be arguments that both are somewhat misleading, but still... self-identity seems more in line with Wikipedia policies, it isn't proscriptive or trying to right some perceived wrong. And it had been the longterm standing consensus on multiple articles. The recent edits to the article show that the change was controversial, and perhaps lacked consensus yet. I think self-identity is better than using homegrown, awkward phrasing such as pro-abortion availability which is the current state of the article. -Andrew c [talk] 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Those "pro-x" self-identity terms violate WP:WEASEL if nothing else. It won't harm the article to actually use English descriptive clauses rather than spin-doctor's labels. At worst it will add a few dozen words. It also allows discussion of nuanced positions. Not everyone supporting access to family planning supports access to abortion. Not everyone opposing abortion is so literally "pro-life" as to eschew using antibiotics. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
eschew using antibiotics, I'm sorry, what are you talking about? Sounds like a strawman argument. The "Catholic Church" is not necessarily the one, universal Christian church. Many arguments could be made that choosing such a title for itself is weasely. What about the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Symbionese Liberation Army? Surely arguments could be made that these are weasel terms for terrorist organizations. What about vegetarian? Surely, people still consume food that isn't vegetable based. Fruits, grains, legumes, fungus, not to mention all the microbs. I mean, these arguments seem ridiculous to me. I read WP:WEASEL and I don't see hot it applies. If we say "survey X found 46% of Americans consider themselves 'pro-life'", it is entirely clear what it means, just as if it said "26% of Americans consider themselves 'catholic' or vegetarian". If we say "pro-life organizations hold that...." we know what it means. It isn't weaselly in any sense, IMO... -Andrew c [talk] 13:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We could avoid this whole debacle by just sticking to pro-choice/pro-life. - Schrandit (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse organizations with positions. If the "Pro-x Alliance of Inner Outer Slobovia" says something in its literature or on its website, of course we use that name in the attribution. But points of view are graduated in various subtle ways. Our language should not introduce further polarization. We would not say "26% of Americans consider themselves 'catholic' or vegetarian", but rather that "Such-and-such a source estimated that 26% of Americans consider themselves 'catholic' or vegetarian". When a statement is clearly dubious but notable, we alway seek to attribute it in text. The antibiotic comment is fairly self-evident, not a strawman at all. Life is inherently a competitive phenomenon. One organism lives only at a cost to other organisms. To "respect life" as the slogan goes really means to "respect the life of an embryo" not "respect all life", which would include the lives of various organisms that might threaten the life of that embryo or its mother. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Before everybody spends too much time debating what we think about terminology, we should first acknowledge the two elephants in this particular room. The section where these terms are used principally is Abortion debate. It claims (using the {{main}} template) to be a summary of the articles Abortion debate, Pro-choice and Pro-life. If that template is to remain, then the section needs to accurately reflect those. At present, I think it is rather short of that goal. Secondly, and more importantly, the section has four paragraphs and one source. If the text had been written with reference to reliable sources, then no-one would be in any doubt about what terminology the preponderance of sources use. My suggestion is to go back to the sources. The three articles to be summarised have plenty of sources – some of them even reliable sources. Why not use the experience of the long-term editors of this article to set out here the reliable sources that relate to the Abortion debate section? Then you can agree the sources to use and the text for the section. It needs to be done anyway, and a by-product would be it would settle the debate about what terms to use. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RexxS probably has the best idea, you know, following sources. Schrandit's last edit is disruptive because people here specifically objected to "pro-abortion", yet Schrandit re-instated it. Seriously, does consensus and working with other editors not mean a thing? Hordaland and SheffieldSteel strongly objected to "pro-abortion". So why on earth put in the article, despite (or in the face of) this ongoing discussion. Perhaps it's best to restore the longstanding version pro-life and pro-choice, as there hasn't been consensus to change anything yet. Someone made a bold edit, we tried to fiddle with it, yet haven't come to a compromise we can all agree with yet. I objected to "pro-abortion availability" because it is awkwardly phrased, and gets very low google hits, so it's a self-coined, perhaps neologism, which we should avoid. I instead restored the phrasing that the AP used, and is cited above in the first post, as it seems like more people on this talk page were into that then using the terms of self-identity (my preference). I mean, I'm trying to work with y'all, and I'm down for a compromise, but lets NOT use terms which multiple editors object to, OK? Can we agree on that at least? And then perhaps restore the old version while we work this out further? -Andrew c [talk] 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Using neither and just sticking with the previouw pro-choice/pro-life sounds dandy to me. - Schrandit (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it would be best to restore the longstanding pro-choose/pro-life terminology for the time being, as Andrew c and Schrandit said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have very strong opinions, but are not participating in the discussion. In light of what I said above, would you consider reverting yourself, as you introduced a term clearly which lacked consensus? Then, would you like to put forth arguments why you'd prefer "pro-abortion", or instead revert back to the self-ID terms? Building consensus only work if you are an active participant in a discussion :) -Andrew c [talk] 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any terms in the fray that gather more consensus and at the same time I am unprepared to allow one side on the debate to be described in positive terms while the other is described in negative terms. - Schrandit (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Abortion debate

  • Goldstein, Norm, ed. (2007). The Associated Press Stylebook. Philadelphia: Basic Books. - page needed.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_34&oldid=1140569337"