Talk:Abortion/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 To do list 2 Terminology preferences 3 Mediation update 4 Abortion law 5 Chemical Abortion 6 Total Dispute 7 Emergency Contraception 8 Article in use: 9 removed subsection: pending reinsertion. 9.1 Current status of abortion law 10 Removed subsection 2 11 Questions about the morality of abortion 12 Removed section 13 Deletion in the Mental Health area 14 Questionable "Study" 15 Round two 16 Premature birth. 17 Inuse #2 18 Attention: Two minor tweak done 19 The new and improved Preterm Birth piece. 20 Text Move

To do list

Ok, the article is unlocked and there are anumber of things to work on:

1. The Pro-choice and Pro-life sections need to be renamed with an introductory blurb explaning the use of advocacy terms.
2. A paragraph on terminology needs to be written/expanded. Possibly embed into intro paragraph.
3. I'd like to get a breif list on prefered terminology going. Positive statements only please, I will be applying WP:NPA and WP:RPA judiciously and I invite everyone else to do the same. I will open up a new section on that.

Please add to this for other pressing matters.--Tznkai 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Terminology preferences

Please list terminology preferences and a brief statement as to why. Extremely civil discussion is welcome, but be very judicuous about WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Tznkai's preferences.

• Death - The term is reasonably sterile, neutral and factual. Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die. The only we don't know if it dies is a virus because we're not sure if its alive to begin with.
• Fetus/unborn - I prefer fetus, but unborn is fine.
• In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Non of this pro-choice pro-life prattle. we'll mention it once, then give a breif, neutral report of positions.
• In general, sterile terms are prefered in this and in most articles. I feel this focuses on facts and allows the reader to make his or her own decisions without out interference.

--Tznkai 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek's preferences:

• Death - fine with me
• Fetus/Unborn - I prefer unborn, as fetus only refers to one particular stage of prenatal development. However, when that stage is being discussed, fetus is acceptable, but I suggest using "human fetus" occasionally to distinguish from other life forms.
• In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Isn't it already legal? These terms seems to imply that it is not. Comments?

Sorta. It depends on where. I assume you're from the States? It varies by country to country, and the restrictions in various parts of the US might make it as good as illegal as I understand it. We're just trying to avoid advocacy phrases.--Tznkai 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point about different laws in different countries. With that in mind, I will agree to the terminology "In favor of legalization/Against legalization. You are mistaken, however, about restrictions in various parts of the US. There are actually very very few restrictions anywhere, and they can only actually prohibit abortion on minors without their parents consent, if a state so decides. They cannot prohibit it for any other circumstances, (Partial-birth abortion laws were all struck down, but they only applied to very rare abortion types anyway) only require things such as informed consent. There is noplace in the U.S. where a legally adult woman can be legally denied an abortion.--MamaGeek 14:33, 27 July 2005 (EST)

--MamaGeek 14:06, 27 July 2005 (EST)

Thats what I thought RoeV.Wade did, but I recall hearing stories about laws that interfere with the processes somehow (papers to be signed, have to gain consent from fathers). They may have just been proposed laws though, I'm not really up to date. At anyrate, we're looking at a termniology shift away from advocacy phrases as the goal--Tznkai 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

-- 198's preferences:

• Death is not fine. We are trying to write from a neutral point of view, right? No advocacy, no loaded terms, no cheap rhetorical tricks…. This is a reasonable starting point. So, why then do we need to begin this definition by using highly questionable terminology. Stating right off the bat that embryo/fetus (EF) dies or is capable of dying insinuates that EF is a living entity in more than bio/med terms. This clause establishes the personhood, “individuality” (sic), and bestows distinct ontological being to EF. If reproductive rights/abortion industry people accept this assertion, they have already lost the argument. Hence, this is POV.
• Furthermore, the usage in question is really a not-so-subtle rhetorical maneuver: the word “death” is here selected and agreed upon on the basis of a limited definition void of its full context, other meanings and connotations, and the history of its usage... The argument goes something like this: if we can agree that a living cell can “die,” then everything that’s made of living cells must “die” as well (including EF). Or, in the words of Tznkai, “Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die.” “Die” would appear to be the same word here used indiscriminately. However, in Tznkai’s example, “die” signifies three different things as its connotations vary. “Die” or “death” cannot be statically defined by the definition I suggested above; its meaning changes with its usage and depends on its relation to the words and context around it. “The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual. Remember, whoever defines/frames the terms in a debate, wins! Wiki is nobody’s patsy :)

What alternative do we have to the term death? I certainly don't think saying "the cessation of life defining characteristics" is NPOV, its silly. When I say my dog died, and when I say the bacteria died, and when I say the skin died, or I have dead skin all over me, or I say "programmed cell death" we're using the same word but we depend on the context to explain exactly what we mean. To use your own argument, saying that an EF dies does not give it personhood any more than saying bacteria or a dog dies gives bacteria or a dog personhood. The second paragraph of death points out exactly what it is. I take exception to your suggestion that "The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual." Dig through the history and you'll see I've been repeatedly attacked as prochoice sympathizer. What the hell else is an abortion? The death of an unborn human, thats pov. The expuslion of tissue. Thats POV. Both are strictly accurate, but obscure facts. NPOV does not allow us to lie or obscure. The embryo and the fetus, when an abortion happens, DIE. Period. Cessation of life. No more living. No longer living cells. Dead. Inert. Ex-cell. Whether we ascribe personhood to it, whether we are killing, that is a matter of POV and the meat of the debate. To say that an embryo dies is stating a neutral medical fact. I'm sorry if I seem heated, but I really can't see a way to remain accurate without treating abortion like the elephant in the corner.--Tznkai 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, your response in not heated and there is no need to apologize. I have tremendous respect for the work you’re doing here. Below is my counter-argument which I would like you to consider. I am NOT going to make further edits and will instead refer to your better judgment. Also, it has not occurred to me to question your pro-life/choice credentials – this really is only about the definition in question (not politics). It may be naïve of me to hope to have a semiotic discussion about such a hot issue. In any event, I agree with you when you say that “we're using the same word” the meaning of which “depend[s] on the context.” However, the context (both synchronic and diachronic) is not something that’s at our disposal to use “to explain exactly what we mean.” In other words, some of the meaning “happens” before or regardless of our efforts to explain it. It’s independent of the context WE intend to create around it. In our example here, one of the involved parties sees and refers to itself as favorable to “Life” (“Pro-Life”). The meaning of the linguistic sign “Life” in the community of language users is intrinsically tied to its binary opposite, “Death.” We think of these two signs always and already in terms of each other (whether this is right or not is beside the point here). Thus, while it may be biologically accurate to refer to the death of a cell/organ/organism, its application here also infers the logic of one and only one side in this contentious debate. You see, my suggestions here are not political or ethical in nature; I am not trying to argue either/any of the sides and would be equally opposed to adding any language that comes from the “Choice” side of the argument. My suggestions are linguistic/semiotic in nature. Thanks again for you diligent work. Cheers. 198 --198.104.64.238 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see where your argument is going, although I disagree slightly that the context gives the argument to the pro-life camp. Ultimatly though, I think the problem is we don't have a better word for cell death other than death. Using dictionary.com's thesarus we get...

afterlife, annihilation, bereavement, casualty, cessation, curtains, darkness, decease, demise, departure, destruction, dissolution, downfall, dying, end, ending, eradication, eternal rest, euthanasia, exit, expiration, extermination, extinction, fatality, finis, finish, future home, grave, grim reaper, heaven, loss, mortality, necrosis, obliteration, oblivion, paradise, parting, passing, passing over, quietus, release, repose, ruin, ruination, silence, sleep, termination, tomb, un

None of which I find particularly useful. I think a neutral presentation of facts is not a balanced view in the case of abortion. The facts give each side an advantage at certain points. The majority of abortions are elective. Fetuses die. Abortion probably helps cause depression (come on people. If having a freaking successful pregnancy causes short term depression, miscarraiges cause depression, I have no doubt an induced abortion causes depression). At the same time, rape and incest happen. Adoption programs are horrific. Abortions are done with excellent clincial standards. Ectopic pregnancies happen. All of these are pretty much the facts, each side gaining a slight advantage depending on what you're reading. We need to focus first on accuracy. To quote from WP:NPOV "The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." By avoiding partisan commentary during the bare bones facts sections of these articles, we allow people to make their own intelligent decisions. Simply by knowing information on partial birth abortion may sway people towards pro life or information on Eisenmenger's Syndrome may swing pro choice does not allow us to cherry pick facts and terms.

Ultimatly, my point can be summed up in one of my favorite phrases: Reader's Aren't Stupid.--Tznkai 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, kudos to you for being even-handed. I am happy to see that you seek a truly neutral presentation of the factual information about this topic. 214.13.4.151 15:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy not resulting in live childbirth."

Make it ""An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy, not resulting in live childbirth." I think that's the correct grammar. ;-) Daemon8666 13:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation update

As part of my looking into the topic, including terminology issues, Ive found some work must be done accross various abortion related articles. To organize this, we need to make an Template:Abortion sidebar, and deal with issues in their own context, for example pregnancy, fetal personhood, etc. Perhaps even abortion can be split into abortion - what it is, and abortion debate. We'll see. Sorry for neglecting recent developments here -been working on other cases, other articles. -St|eve 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Abortion law

An anon changed the section to this: Abortion was legal and widely practiced in the United States before the late 1800's. Near the end of the 19th century, male doctors attempted to "medicalize" reproduction and childbirth, creating a professional monopoly. In doing so, they aimed to eliminate women herbalists, midwives, and other "irregular" medical practitioners, mainly women, who had traditionally provided a substantial amount of care to women particularly around reproduction. Combined with anti-immigrant sentiments and feelings of white male Protestants that their status was threatened by women's growing power (seen, for instance, in the growing suffrage movement), these male doctors were mostly successful in criminalizing abortion in most American states.

In the United States, the Supreme Court held in 1973 that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see Abortion in the United States), while the German Supreme Court struck down state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees.

Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring, although not until "quickening," the point at which fetal movements begin to be felt (5-6 months into a pregnancy). Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited, often originating with religious prohibitions in many countries. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as Canada (see Abortion in Canada).

I reverted it because I felt it was both POV and too detailed for a summary. Thoughts, comments and other ways we can intergrate things?--Tznkai 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I know this is kind of late-coming, considering that your post was made a month ago to the day, but perhaps we should just condense what can be found in the article Abortion law? That would definitely be a good place to start: it's concise, effective, and comprehensive. Perhaps our goal should be to keep the summary under two or three paragraphs? --Kyd 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I think currently the abortion law section is removed pending reinsertion and I just never got around to it, and either no one else wanted to, or noticed. So please, go ahead.--Tznkai

I'll draft something up now, then, although I frankly don't know where to begin. Mostly concentrating on current world abortion laws and ignoring the historical aspect. --Kyd 15:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a little longer than I intended, but it can be trimmed down, if needed. Also, it completely ignores the historical side of abortion law, although anyone who is interested is free to add a third paragraph to the text. Please check my facts and compliance with NPOV first:

"The Soviet Union (1920) and Iceland (1935) were some of the first countries to generally allow abortion. The second half of the twentieth century saw the liberalization of abortion laws in many other countries. In 1973, The U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws banning abortion after it was ruled that these laws were in violation of an inferred right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada, similarly, discarded its criminal code regarding abortion in 1988, after ruling that such restrictions violated the security of person guaranteed to women under in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ireland, on the other hand, added an amendment to its Constitution in 1983 that explicitly recognizes the right to life of the unborn.

In modern times, laws pertaining to abortion are diverse. Religious, moral, and cultural sensibilities continue to influence abortion laws throughout the world. Many countries, in which it is legal, have a trimester cutoff or require that certain criteria be met in order for an abortion to be obtained:

• In America, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter has requested an abortion.
• In Britain, as in other some countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessitated before it can be performed.

Other countries, in which abortion is illegal, will allow one to be performed in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the pregnant woman's life or health. A handful of nations ban abortion entirely, such as Chile, El Salvador, and Malta. Conversely, some countries, like Canada, enact no legal restriction on abortion whatsoever."

--Kyd 18:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Great start, but the last sentance is self contradictory. Stick it in the article and see what happens--Tznkai 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the input. Perhaps I should delete the above preview, then, so as to conserve space? --Kyd 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Chemical Abortion

Anon changed this section to: Chemical abortion, which comprises 10% of all abortions in the United States and Europe, is a method used to induce abortion by ingesting drugs, usually during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Chemical abortion is accomplished by administering either methotrexate or mifepristone (RU-486) followed by administration of misoprostol. Approximately eight percent of these abortions require surgical follow-up, usually by vacuum aspiration (See below). Methotrexate may also treat undiagnosed or concomitant tubal pregnancies, or assist women who have spontaneously aborted.

A common misconception is that emergency contraception, commonly known as the Morning-after pill, sold under the brand name Plan B, causes an abortion. This is medically inaccurate, since emergency contraception only works before pregnancy begins. Pharmacologically, emergency contraception is identical to ordinary hormonal contraceptives, and work to prevent pregnancy by delaying ovulation, inhibiting sperm motility, and possibly by making the uterine lining less hospitible to implantation. Emergency contraception has no effect on an existing pregnancy, and must be taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse, though it is most effective if taken as soon as possible. Intrauterine devices, also known as IUD's, can be used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse as well.

Not going to RV this one because of WP:3RR, but I think it needs work. The content is pretty good, but the prose needs to be neutralized.--Tznkai 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would question the claim that it has no effect on an existing pregnancy. Is there any source for that claim? Certainly, most pregnant women are advised to avoid any kind of powerful drug, and I imagine the morning-after pill is extremely powerful.

I'd also question the claim that it's medically inaccurate to say that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. Obviously, if it succeeds in preventing ovulation, then it works simply as a contraceptive. But, if ovulation has already taken place, and if the sperm reaches the egg, then the morning-after pill does cause an abortion. I'm not sure why Anon said "possibly" (in possibly by making the uterine lining less hostpitable to implantation). Again, where is the source for "possibly"? Is there any reputable medical literature claiming that the uterus may not become less hospitable? If the woman ovulates first, has intercourse second, and takes the morning-after pill third, and if the sperm still manages to reach the egg, then the changes made to the uterine lining cause the embryo to be expelled. Surely that's a fact - nothing to do with approving or disapproving? Whether the embryo is a clump of cells or a human being may be POV, but what happens to it when a woman takes the morning-after pill after ovulation is not. Ann Heneghan 22:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted that section for the moment. I think it needs discussion here. Apologies for jumping in like this. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but hadn't looked much at this article before tonight. Ann Heneghan 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. More editors, especially those who follow wikipolicy are welcome and wnated.--Tznkai 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continued here

Total Dispute

I'm out of reversions, a bit frustrated so this seems to be the best course of action.

Based off of my last good edit as a refrence point [1]

Line 1:See above. if someone finds me a neutral accurate and useful term for cell death other than the word death, enlightenme.

Line 6:Reasons for induced abortions: Unsourced claim. I happen to know personally people stupid enough to use it as birth control, I'm sure I can find documented instances of it, and so can the rest of us. That is something that happens, sad but true. Removing it fails accuracy and neutrality.

oh yeah. people who abort where there is no birth contro are not doing it because of birth control failure!--Tznkai 16:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Line 37: Opponents of abortion rights invented the term "partial-birth abortion," a term which does not exist in medical language, to describe these procedures. Probably true. Not totally relevant as we are not Wikimedicine. Certainly more neutral ways to say it. They can check the main article for the history of how the word developed. We try to avoid the term "abortion rights" and "reproductive rights" as much as possible. because of WP:NPOV.

These techniques are also necessarily used to remove miscarried fetuses from the uterus to prevent the woman from becoming infected. well then it isn't an abortion and we need refrences.

line 53: Leave the vast majority of that to the history of abortion Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Using facts as advocacy is still advocacy.

"In the United States, during the period when abortion was mostly illegal, many thousands of women were estimated to have died every year from complications of unsafe and illegal abortions." Unsourced claim, not relevant, Amero-centric, and dripping with prochoice rhetoric. The passage "Studies have found that in developed countries where abortion is legal, the risk of serious physical complications of an abortion is less than 1%. In countries where abortion is illegal, this percentage is much higher, although the exact figure is unknown. This is likely due to the inherently dangerous nature of unregulated illegal surgery by doctors of dubious skill." covers all of that without the lurid detail.

Physical health Section is argumentative. Its arguing against an invisible opponent.

Line 78: " do not establish a causal link between abortion and mental health problems" Readers aren't stupid. Report the facts, straight out, and use all of the ones avaiable. We can't just cherry pick. We let politicans do that, not wikipedians.

Actually, I would argue that readers ARE stupid. Most laymen don't understand that correlation does not imply causation (a lot of scientists forget this too) I don't think that mentioning that these studies do not establish a causal link is unreasonable. Perhaps we should remove any studies which do not establish a causal link? Lepidoptera 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have special issue with this study: "According to one study of 1,884 women conducted by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion are 65% more likely to be diagnosed with clinical depression around eight years later." The information doesn't seem to have a source, and it sounds like a poor imitation of the third study listed. Is its inclusion nessecary? Lepidoptera 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Line 102: Why Include NARAL Pro-Choice America? The article isn't great and It isn't as major of a player as NOW< ACLU and planned parenthood. In fact, may be we should just remove all the examples alltogether.

I've spent a lot of time protecting this article from pro-life POV, and I will protect it from pro-choice pushing POV just as strongly.--Tznkai 04:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to note that your current slate of edits in fact evidences your desire to eliminate POV. I find it rare among folks at wikimedia (editors claiming neutrality who are actually editing in a neutral fashion). Kudos to you. I have a strong POV, admit it, but also understand that facts are the important thing. I am comfortable that a neutral presentation of the facts will always favor the pro-life POV, which is why abortion advocates hate to deal with the topic honestly. Best of luck to you in your attempt to keep things even-keeled. 214.13.4.151 15:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I went a head and did a mass reversion as seen here [2]. This highlights that certain sections could stand improvement. Remember though that abortion is a SUMMARY article not a detailed analysis of all things abortion, not a forum for the debate, not a platform for advocacy.

Looks like I broke 3RR in the process. Going to report myself. Play nice while I'm gone kids.--Tznkai 16:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Emergency Contraception

Is the inclusion of the term "human" nessecary? Dogs can have abortions too... I'm just wondering if there's any particular reason that's there.

On a side note, I removed a reference to the morning after pill under the chemical abortion heading. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy and was not relevant to the subject. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the morality of EC in general, but whether or not life starts at fertilization or does not, abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy starts at implantation. Lepidoptera 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your points. The inclusion of human will be needed, because no one really cares all that much about general mamillian pregnancy. Perhaps a statement that "this article focuses on human abortions" will fix that. As for the morning after pill, we still need to include it somewhere in the article. While it may not technically cause an abortion, it is still very informative and useful to include it in the article. From a non technical perspective, an abortion is a prevention of a succesful pregnancy. The morning after pill does that. I suggest we make it a new section with the note "...while not an abortion per se...".

Welcome to the article Lepidoptera, enjoy your stay.--Tznkai 15:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of abortion doesn't make sense Tzukai; since that would bring condoms etc. into it as they too "prevent successful pregnancies". As our lead says, its the termination... not prevention that counts; and we should note pregnancy (at least medically) is defined as beginning at implantation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Condoms essentially prevent actual sexual intercourse. The morning after pill is a termination of pregnancy process. I think, even if technically incorrect, this is quite reasonable. I agree that we should note that pregnancy begins in a medical sense at implantation.

As an aside, I believe the morning after pill, in general is a really stupid idea, so I'm not totally unbaised.--Tznkai 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Condoms make intercourse safer; I would hope they don't prevent it. :"D Indeed the abortion pill can interrupt the process; I say can because a significant percentage of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway. RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In a sense, a succsessful condom use means you are going through extremly aggressive mutual masterbation :P (Wow my spelling sucks!). The point is, technically correct or not, its reasonable to think of the Morning after Pill as an abortion of a pregnancy.--Tznkai 18:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If we mention the morning after pill than we must certainly mention Intrauterine devices (IUDs). Before the legalization of the morning after pill, you could go to the gynocologist and have an IUD inserted after unprotected sex. This method is actually far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill, but it's also expensive (around $400- $500)- although you can leave it in for up to 12 years after for effective pregnancy prevention. Birth control bills can be used in exactly the same way- before the pill, you could just go to your gynocologist and get a pack of bc pills for $17.50. I have several packs of BC (Alesse) which I am no longer on, and should I have unprotected sex, I could take 5 of the active pills as soon as possible, and another 5 12 hours later for the same effect. The advantage of the morning after pill as opposed to using the birth control pills is that bc pills have very high levels of estrogen, which causes nausea. Lepidoptera 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. My knowledge is a little thin on this aspect of the abortion issue, but I will try to stick it in somewhere.--Tznkai 17:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Or even better. Write it up yourself. I will be shuffling things around (I don't hear a lot of complaints on me improving the prose and organization) but I will do my best to keep your additions in.--Tznkai 17:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, tried it. I wasn't really sure where to put it, but I hope that's okay. Lepidoptera 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 added "in a medical sense" under this section- is this really nessecary? Can you have an abortion in a non medical sense? RV unless anyone can provide a reasonable argument why it should be there. Lepidoptera 21:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain my reasoning:

If abortion is defined only as "ending" a pregnancy and if that in the medical sense is defined as beginning with implantation, then the passage is correct in saying that the ma-pill does not cause an abortion.

However, morally these are equivalent: whether an implanted embyro is aborted (medical abortion) or whether an embryo (I know this is not the correct term) not yet implanted is kept from implanting. Both result in his/her death.

This moral equivalence is included in this passage and hence I thought it best to refer to the abortion that does not occur as "abotion in a medical sense". This clearly defines what is meant here: medically no abortion, but morally the same issue.

Str1977 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's why I said "Some consider it the moral equivalent of an abortion". It's redundant. Lepidoptera 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

About the revert: I think we should just stick to "potentially" because statistics are very fuzzy. The first issue is that the chances of pregnancy from a single incident of unprotected sex are very low to begin with- during the second and third week of the cycle (where fertility is much higher), only about 8 percent. EC, the morning after pill in particular, can in many cases prevent ovulation since its composition is the same as BC pills which work by preventing ovulation. (For IUDs, the issue is more complicated, since there's some debate as to how they work in general) This pushes the possibility of zygote death after taking EC very low. Hope the way it is now is to everyone's liking Lepidoptera 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just so we are totally clear, What stage of development are we talking about when implanation is prevented?--Tznkai 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Implantation? By the sounds of it I would assume it would be at an embryonic stage. Considering that most embryos don't hold to begin with, I'm not sure it should even be considered abortion if it's what I think it is. I'll have to check. user:lucavix

Yup, preventing implantation is preventing an embryonic zygote from sticking. Most embryos don't hold as it is, which is why we normally only have one child at a time instead of reproducing in litters. user:lucavix

It's a common occurance to have multiple eggs in the womb? I thought it was relatively rare to have 2, let alone more. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to have as many as 4-12 release per month (depending on the woman). Even if fertilized there's only a 2-25% chance (depending on virility, health, sexual disposition, age, and rather or not a woman is ovulating) that an embryo or zygote will hold. At least from what I've recall from the Discovery Health Channel. I may be wrong however... user:lucavix

Implantations most commonly occur at the blastocyst stage, approximately 5 days after fertilization, although it can occur a bit later or a bit earlier. Embryo is more of an umbrella term, so it probably works best. Lepidoptera 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, when you think about it, this whole process is weird- women are most fertile SEVEN DAYS before they actually ovulate which means that sperm have to get there and stay there, waiting for the eggs- and then pounce on them. Then it's an average 5 days of development before the embryo to be able to implant itself. Consider then that the MA pill works at a maximum of 5 days after sex (but that's really stretching it) and we're at around 12 days after intercourse to become pregnant during maximum fertility and at average time of implantation. So if the MA pill prevents implantation so well, why does it only work that soon after sex? (And it's still only 75% effective after just 72 hours!) It makes me seriously doubt that the MA pill ever actually does prevent implantation. Now, the IUD is far more effective (99.9% instead of 75.0%), probably because it DOES prevent implantation. I'm surprised everyone has jumped on the anti MA bandwagon and not the anti IUD one. Lepidoptera 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Im new to Wiki, lets see if this works now.. anyway that 4-12 releases Ive never heard of, and ive been to medschool.. several eggs start to mature every month, but only ONE (normally) matures fully and is released. The implications of the even remote possibility of 4-12 children in a single human womb would likely be catastrophic.

193.11.218.40

Article in use:

Fixing Debate on abortion laws section. Possibly renaming the section.

The problem: This current organization is the result of a compromise/me stuffing change down people's throats. It worked for a while, but its also highlighted some problems.

A couple of the sections are completly stagnant. considering these reflect current law trends, I consider that a problem.

The end goal is to harmonize as much as the section as possible, reducing the subsection count and giving a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate treatment of the debate.

As a courtesy, feel free to leave suggestions and comments here, but do not edit the article until I am finished please. I hope to get this done within 36 hours, as this is a major overhaul.

As this article has been relativly stable for a while, I hope that is not a problem.--Tznkai 05:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: Looks like the section was easier than I thought, but he article as a whole is a pain. I'm heading to sleep soon, and will remove the in use tag. I intend to restore the two removed sections and do other significant improvments. Feel free to edit and comment on what I have done already.--Tznkai 07:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the before and after [3]

removed subsection: pending reinsertion.

Current status of abortion law

Main article: Abortion law

Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring. Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. In the United States, the Supreme Court has held that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see Abortion in the United States), while the German Supreme Court struck down state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as Canada (see Abortion in Canada).

Removed subsection 2

Abortion has been a bitterly-fought political issue, particularly in the United States. The controversy in the U.S. started in 1973 with the case of Roe vs. Wade, when the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a constitutionally protected right, as part of the greater right to privacy. Specifically, it ruled that states could not forbid a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months (the first trimester) of her pregnancy. The United States Supreme Court is largely considered the gatekeeper of abortion rights in the United States, and as a result, the possibility of the balance of the Court shifting towards a more conservative body became an issue in the 2004 US Presidential Election.

In many other countries, abortion is less of a political issue. For a long time, it has not been a mainstream political issue in the United Kingdom. In the lead up to the 2005 General Election, Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservatives, stated that he, personally, might support a reduction in the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but the issue was not included in the party's manifesto for the election.

Questions about the morality of abortion

1. The beginning of personhood: Also phrased "the beginning of life", when is an unborn human considered a person? See also fetal personhood
2. Universal human rights: is aborting an unborn human a violation of human rights?

I think both of these questions are leading, but I changed the second one as a form of balance, especially since the second topic is redundant: obviously, when an fetus is considered a person, it's a violation of their human rights to abort them, so the second question is unnessecary. I think the section as a whole is unbalanced because there is no mention of the ethics of forced pregnancy/birth- is it ethical to force someone to undergo massive body changes and discomfort/pain, and possibly drive her to actions which my result in her death? Perhaps my wording wasn't neutral enough, but I thought it added balance. Can you suggest something better? Lepidoptera 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lepidoptera, the 2nd question is only redundant if you adhere to the concept of human rights. I do and I guees you do and many many more do so as well and hence this might seem redundant. But ask the Chinese government and they will tell you differently. Also IMHO there are many people in west that do not fully adhere human rights, even without disputing it conciously, but through acting differently. (Not they are right in that.) Str1977 22:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lepidoptera... we've had this discussion in excruciating detail before; as human has two meanings. We've been more than fair in allowing "unborn human" to pro-lifers; since it is entirely correct and undisputed that the fetus is a homo sapien sapien; but it is entirely disputed as to whether it is an individual "human being" (alternatively, "human forming"). If the "human" question is left open; or answered by both perspectives then that should be fine. (BTW, if this doesn't help my bad, I'm just reading the talk section for now.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Lepidoptera,

the preceding post by RoyBoy only illustrates the fallacy of the "pro-choice" view. To justify it, he has to stretch logic by saying that "human" is not the same as "human" - he is allowed to have his POV, but it is illogical nonetheless. But I don't want to stir up that old debate (which isn't really a debate anyway) again.

as for your question: it is ethical to force someone to endure discomfort over against the preservation of a greater good, in this case another human life. Str1977 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not always the most eloquent; clearly I have failed in some way. The point of contention is about when a human (our species) becomes an individual being (human); and you are not allowed to misrepresent the key philosophical disagreement on this issue. My and your POV's be damned!!! Using "human" without context, and at this point I think its intentional, removes the distinction... a distinction pro-lifers do not see; and that's fine for their POV, but not for this article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no problem, Roy, with your eloquent. And granted, what I stated above is merely my POV and you yourself admit that that's fine.

My point was that there are two POVs here (mine and yours) - one is assuming that human == human, the other is assuming that human =/= human. Both are present. Let anyone decide for themselves which is more reasonable.

I for my part cannot see why I should distinguish, you think differently.

I was not misrepresenting, just using some focus.

Str1977 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the other (=/=) recognizes there is one meaning is being obfuscated. You're providing the antithesis of focus. I'll put it very simply; when you ask someone if a human is self-aware; they will say "sure," but they will have forgotten it's possible to be physically/genetically human and not be self-aware. There is an assumption "human" means a conscious individual similar to you or I (a person); we have to be clear here in order to avoid that misleading assumption stemming from common use of "human" which everyone uses in their daily lives. For it does not account (nor even consider) early development or exceptions such as comas and other brain damage. There is no "stretch logic" here; just an understanding words sometimes are not clear or specific. Which is exactly the focus of this discussion; replacing an ambiguous "human" with the more specific "person". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I know, Roy, that you don't see or don't want to see the stretch logic. Otherwise you couldn't hold to your POV as you do. And note that we needn't discuss this endlessly. I'm not disputing the article as it stands. Just pointing out the "flaw".

Consciousness is a perfectly arbitrary condition for "human being". Anyone can think of some category according to his wishes and this has happened in the past. With horrendous consequences. Or it can happen unconsciously: a murder has IMO already deprived his victim of his/her humanity before he murders, at least unconsciously.

Are those in "comas and other brain damage" not human beings?

Early development? When does someone begin to be human? I say conception, since from then on it's just natural growth, fed by nutrition, but nothing changes. If you provided some other point where a leap might occur to humanity, you'd surprise me.

You and I were once embryos too - when did we begin to be humans?

Str1977 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends, but it has little to do with word ambiguities. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Folks, this discussion is fascinating and all, but I lost track of the part where we're talking about the article.--Tznkai 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Tznkai, you're right. I'll shut up on this one. Str1977 19:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it even a greater good? The very nature of the abortion debate is insidious. Every tagline or question you ask is full of loaded terms. I did my best to keep it as neutral as possible, but I welcome improvements. Note that the new structure is designed to completly eliminate prochoice/prolife sectioning, leaving that to the main debate article. Ithink this is a major improvment --Tznkai 17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is an improvement. I was referring only to the points touched upon here at the talk page. Str1977 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My point was: The questions to think about ONLY consider the morality of abortion from the point of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. The morality of abortion asks two questions: From the point of the view of the women, and the point of view of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. So where is the former? Lepidoptera 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I see where you're going with this. Will work on it, but its implied in the individual liberty parts of the questions. --Tznkai 03:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see that it is a question of liberty- instead, a question of property (remember, the US constitution grants us the right to life, liberty, and property). It's a question of defending your property- legally and morally speaking, your body is your property. If any one or anything invades your home or tries to hurt you, you have a right to defend yourself with force- even lethal force. In the case of rape, physical damage is usually low as opposed to, say, even getting punched in the face- but your body is your property, and if someone tries to rape you, you have a right to shoot them to make them stop if you have the opportunity. So the question really becomes: if someone attacks your life, liberty, or property, to what extent can you defend yourself? If someone were to tie me down, give me injections of estrogen every morning to make me throw up, and shove a rock up my uterus every day for 9 months, and then at the end of the nine months cut me open to remove all the rocks, I think I can use lethal force to prevent them from doing that, even though they're a full grown adult with the same rights as I do. And when that person is not in fact a person but a proto human who depends solely on my body for sustanence and cannot live on it's own, then it's even clearer to what extent I can defend myself. I personally would have difficulty killing a rapist, because they are as fully human as I, and while I have no desire to be raped, it's a relatively short period of discomfort, although there is the potential of pregnancy/STI's. I find the prospect of pregnancy and birth far more horrifying than the action of being raped, so the morality of abortion in my mind is not even questionable. (And yes, maybe if you hadn't had sex, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant, and maybe if you hadn't walked down a dark alley alone at night, or worn that short skirt,you wouldn't have gotten raped either- but regardless of what you could do to prevent an attack, the situation still remains) Anyway, just a rant, but thought it would add an additional perspective. 65.96.72.221 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's worthy of noting that according to personhood theory consciousness is a prerequisite to the development of personhood. Since personhood is not dictated by biology, I think it would be rather reasonable to state that until such a time as a fetus develops a working brain, so that it can perceive sound and movement, it can be biologically human without even meting the first most necessary criteria for personhood. :user:lucavix

Removed section

There are several forms of birth control that some consider the moral equivalent to abortion because they destroy an embryo prior to implantation. Prior to 1976, a 'contraceptive' was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of sperm and ovum (fertilization). In 1976 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists changed the definition so that a contraceptive was redefined as anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst embryo, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Those who believe that life starts at conception believe that forms of birth control which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo in the uterus end a human life. The most controversial of these forms of pregnancy prevention is currently the Morning-after pill, which is legal in a number of countries and has recently been legalized in the United States and in Canada.

This is very good, but I think Its a little detailed for this article. --Tznkai 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, this history bit is intresting, but i think it'd do better in the main article. It could problably use a little expansion though. What do you think the best summarizations of the views of each side is?--Tznkai 14:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion in the Mental Health area

The first study states the same material as the third study with less detail, and it has no source. It's unnessecary. Lepidoptera 14:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Lepidoptera

Ahkay. I don't think I have an objection then. Anyone else?--Tznkai 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable "Study"

The source of the "study" showing an increased rate of premature birth is unlisted, and the argument is questionable. Many "studies" are conducted by biased groups such as the "Focus on the Family" institute. Only empirical studies with empirical evidence should be listed on topics that invoke such strong positions on each side. Due to the nature of the debate there is, after all, a large potential for the manipulation of information to present a biased result. Sources and a list of subject material and "evidences" would be preferable when such claims are made.

Furthermore, no number of premature births resulting from "post abortion" damage was given, nor an initial percentage, so the "increased risk" may well seem more serious than it supposedly is. Moreover no information was given to indicate the cause of such a phenomena, what type of abortion "causes" premature birth the most? Is it considered premature birth when a fetus or embryo simply doesn't hold? The utter lack of information regarding this "study" makes it appear designed to scare young women from considering abortion a viable option. --LucaviX 12:30 AM. August 10'th 2005

Since the study is listed as the 2nd footnote; I'm unsure if responding to the rest of this is even necessary. Is there something wrong with the reference provided? Also I had to reword the entire section to this version, because previously it was worded to scare women. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucavix, can you be more specific with your problems with the study? I think we're pretty screwed if we're dependant exclusivly on unbasied sources for our data. In fact, I don't think we'd have any. By providing the refrence, the reader can determine the worth for his or herself.

I think we give Lucavix 24 to respond before removing the objection comment? --Tznkai 14:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My objection is to how the "study" is presented, the lack of any evidence provided to support the "study", the lack of any provided source, and the lack of information in the "study" (such as what the initial statistics for premature birth and the utter lack of information as to how this "study" was even conducted). This almost seems no more than propaganda, and not a "study" at all. There are all kinds of "studies" out there that are no more than opinion pieces and use skewed or false statistics. Furthermore the entire study seems deliberately engineered to scare women away from considering abortion as a viable alternative, by leaving out information such as what the actual probability of premature birth might be ( for example, saying that there's a 70% increased risk that something bad will happen doesn't say much if the risk is extremely miniscule, at say .007, to begin with). Unless some sort of source is provided or more information is provided about the "study" or more information regarding the content of the study is provided, the objection will remain. --LucaviX 10:03 AM. August 10'th 2005

Lucavix, the study is linked. we don't have room to exhaustivly document each study. Thats what refrences are for. They can research the Pregnancy article as well. We don't have the room to lead our reader's by the hand and give them the research. We've provided bloody hyperlinks for them already. Readers Aren't Stupid.--Tznkai 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the Links doesn't even work and the other is a propaganda page by Peter Bowen who is a self described "pro-life" Politician. His agendas are also suspect, and his sources are slanted and far from scientific! The objection holds. -- user:lucavix 11:51 AM August 10'th 2005

Not sure about the second one, but the first one is the PubMed database, one of the more impressive and rigerous databases of medical sceince outthere. I'll let another editor with more expertise take it over from here--Tznkai 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least have the initial statistics for premature birth listed or the objection is going to stay there. The entire piece is totally slanted, unless more information is provided to balance the objection must remain. -- user:lucavix

Which link doesn't work? What "initial statistics" do you want... a baseline rate from the study, or preterm rates for France or the world in general? I presume the goal being to clarify the percentage differences in real numbers in context of how many women have preterm deliveries? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please help with the reserach then? --Tznkai 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Source appears to be One Dr. Caroline Moreau, a french anti-abortionist who has stated that embryo's are sacred. Her entire findings are subject and should be reviewed with the utmost scrutiny. -- user:lucavix

At some level LucaviX, we suffer GIGO. We summarize what other people say. I don't have the medical expertise to crticize Moreau's methods. To do so violates WP:NOR anyway. You need to find a balancing notable view criticsing her work.--Tznkai 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Caroline Moreau's arguments are slanted, Dr. Caroline Moreau has taken clear "pro-life" positions. Dr. Caroline Moreau's findings are subject and lack secular or empirical evidence. Dr. Caroline Moreau's findings are being presented as fact. Conclusion: Dr. Caroline Moreau's argument should either be removed or edited such as to remove anti-abortion bias. Suggestion: Include information purposefully left out, such as the initial probability of a premature birth, or remove Dr. Caroline Moreau's unscientific argument entirely. Unless solid evidence is shown to support Dr. Caroline Moreau's claims, said claims are removed, or more information is given to dull the anti-abortion edge the objection must stand. -- user:lucavix

Futher information: When asked "A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births “because so far, they have not been established". It appears that the "findings" of Dr. Caroline Moreau's "study" aren't even conclusive. This should be noted if the "study" is to remain.

Removing it or arguing against it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The letter and spirit of both rules prevents us from using our own doubts about someone's integrity and evidence. IF her findings were published by the medical community, they were published by the medical community. As for the statistics, I don't have them on hand. do you?--Tznkai 17:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No but in case of clear bias alterations should be made. Dr. Caroline Moreau should not have her "study" presented as incontrovertible facts. As for the medical community publishing her findings, what medical community? Just because specific sites or magazines may publish it doesn't mean that the medical community by and large accepts the findings. From what I can tell the medical community in general holds that the link has not been established. Dr. Caroline Moreau's study is entirely biased and slanted, and the methods used are subject. If you want I can go fish up all the biased studies on abortion I can find and flood the entire page with them, since the merits of an argument don't seem to matter. Either the article must be removed or it must be elaborated upon. That it is presented as if it were factual without any evidence is unacceptable. Evidence is required, and no evidence is provided even among any of the links I can possibly find. All that's out there seem to be opinion full of anti-abortion bias without any evidence to support the paper statistics given. -- user:lucavix

I'm pretty satisfied so far with your additions, I made some tweaks. For example, you are in absolutely no position to put "study" in quotations, I don't care if you find proof of bias in the study, which BTW was published in the BJOG, and no that doesn't mean I turn my skepticism off, but it does mean it is a peer reviewed study, and you had better get use to that. I also request a reference regarding the doctors politics; it would be best if you could put a link after sacred, which contains her saying that. Thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/premature_birth.cfm Premature birth occures at a rate between 8 to 10 percent in the united states. So a 5% increase is significant if the "study" is actually valid, which considering that abortion clinics do not inform patients of the increased risk of premature birth because they consider the findings have not been established as valid, is doubtful.

Whoever put the above, please sign it using ~~~~. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved, objectivity returned, equasion balanced. Please do not remove my comment regarding the link between bacterial vaginosis and premature births, the above link actually validated it. user:lucavix 1:27 Pm August 10'th 2005

I made some tweaks, and your note on vaginosis is a great start, but leaves more questions than it answers. Did Moreau account for that in her study? Is vaginosis effected by abortion? Are infection rates equivalent or different for women with and without an abortion history? If equivalent then it wouldn't effect the results, if different, then in what way. As of now I'll put your link at the end of your note, but there is a bit more work to be done on it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 removed your background to Dr. Moreau, which is a questionable move without discussion beforehand. But if its reinstated I would like to see a reference regarding her position on abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that was me. Roy, and if I havn't mentioned why I did it earlier, I'lld o it now: we are not in the psoition to critize the motivations our source data. To do so fairly, would require us to do it to everyone, an idea I do not wish to entertain as it would make this page a huge back and forth. Second, if I read the pubmed entry correctly, Moreau was not thoe only other of that study. Leave her motivations to her own page, if she gets one. This article is on Abortion, not abortion debate adovcates.--Tznkai 19:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad if that is the case. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do a google for it then? And no, Dr. Moreau didn't account for bacterial vaginosis, the entire point of Dr. Moreau's "study" was to make abortion seem dangerous and immoral. It is roughly a rebuttal and should not be removed as it actually has factual evidence to support it, unlike the "study" Dr. Moreau conducted. Bacterial Vaginosis can be caused by sexual activity (some bacterial infections can be spread through sexual activity like an STD), hormonal disorders, rape and physical abuse, and supposedly by stress, maybe stress caused by an aborton or hormonal changes caused by an abortion could cause it, but it could also be treated. user:lucavix

You can't be serious, yes I have Google... but your pushing for these changes; I don't mind your boldness but you had better put up or be quiet. Yes I'm sure Dr. Moreau study is made of sugar and fairy dust on your say so, seriously this is very interesting stuff you are bringing up... but it is lacking!!! No references for Moreau's views, and no indication as to how much the "concluded" Bacterial Vaginosis accounts for premature births... is it confirmed as the main cause, or just a factor, studies and percentages please? Your holding us to a high standard, we are repaying the favor. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR prevents us from ignoring studies because *we* happen to think they are wrong, especially when a peer reviewed journal lets them in.--Tznkai 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is the burden of the inserter to fact check all of his/her statements, including refrences if requested.--Tznkai 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

When a "study" lacks evidence (and I dare you to try and provide any evidence whatsoever for Dr. Moreau's Claims, which until I came along were presented as though they were facts written in stone) it should at least be noted that the study is inconclusive, and given that the vast majority of the medical community does not seem to accept these findings they shouldn't be presented as though they were absolutely true. I can get a LOT of "studies" out of magizines and off of websites to push a view, but at the end of the day if there aren't any facts to back up the "study" and the vast majority of people dismiss the "study" then the "study" should be presented, at the very least, as inconclusive. As for providing evidence of Dr Moreau's bias, if you can read french I'll try to pull something up for you. user:lucavix

That information is welcome on her page, and its POV to say they are "pushing" a view, they could also be publicizing a view and/or results. Similarly pro-choice publications will not be shy about relating results they agree with. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't prove that the study has evidnce or lacks it. I am not a doctor. I am not an expert. I do know that experts reviewed the study and put it in a peer reviewed Journal. That is an observable fact. You say that the majority of the medical commmunity disagres. great! Prove it! Give me an article that says "the medical community has discredited this study" and I will gladly insert it into the article myself! Thats the way WP:NPOV and WP:NOR work!--Tznkai 19:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny because I am an expert and, it is impossible to prove a negative, that a study lacks evidence, but I dare you to search. Search for evidence and you will find none. You ask me to prove that the majority of the medical community disagrees? That's a NEGATIVE claim the burden of proof is on the one asserting the positive, that they accept his claims. The best I can do to prove a negative is this. The "study" was inconclusive, that's why abortion clinics DO NOT inform women of the risk of premature delivery after an abortion. If the study was accepted abortion clinics would be bound by law to inform them, or they'd get sued so much that they couldn't stay functional. Find me one abortion clinic that assures women of such an increased risk. In reality all you have is a french anti-abortionist taking questionable material that could be evidence of a link to Vaginosis and saying "hey this is caused by abortion" and where's the proof? There is none! user:lucavix

Also, please give a list of names of "experts" (not some institution that's in someone's pocket) that gave it a peer reviewed journal! All you have is a canadian politician and a bunch of "pro-life" advocates. So by getting cozy with a canadian politician she gets her article in a journal, it's not like it's that hard to do. I can get some stuff from Time magazine saying that time doesn't exist and that there are multiple universes but that doesn't make it true.

PS: Just because Peter Bowen is able to get an article in a magazine, supposedly to support his political agendas, doesn't make it true. user:lucavix

Another note: One reason it's impossible to provide a public rebuttal from the medical community as a whole is because this "study" is widely ignored by the medical community. In fact about the only people who seem to discuss this subject, besides us, are "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" interest groups and politicians like Peter Bowen who pander to those interest groups. user:lucavix

A final point worthy of note. If the medical community by and large accepted the "study" made by Dr. Moreau don't you think it's odd that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at Nichd.nih.GOV, an official united states government medical site, never mentions abortion as a cause of premature birth under http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/premature_birth.cfm ? user:lucavix

Wouldn't be the first time the medical community is slow in reacting to emerging information... prions anyone, maybe a little nature vs. nurture for good measure? Politics cuts both ways, but your additions are appreciated and have, I believe, more accurately reflected the current state of affairs. I will place your background information in an article about Caroline Moreau. As to inconclusive, I'm unsure if you can justify that word. Something else might be better, such as controversial, or... not accepted *shrug*, just spitballing. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

However, 1: The "Study" is inconclusive, as many of the claims made are made on shakey grounds. Much of the evidence for Theory A could just as easily support Theory B for example. Also no actual solid scientific evidence has been provided to support the claim that abortion causes premature delivery. 2: The Medical community by and large fails to even recognize the "study." It should at best be treated as an inconclusive theory, but more fittingly a controversial claim. If the "study" were conclusive don't you think more than a magazine article wedged in by Peter Bowen (again supposedly to pander to his base) and a handfull of "anti-abortion" sites would cite the "study"? user:lucavix

The day I stopped thinking like that is the day I came a step closer to objectivity. It is indeed impossible to prove a negative, but I find the lack of coverage by others just as telling as coverage by those. People will attack things they don't like (pro-lifers), but people will also protect and ignore things that put in question things they support. (pro-choicers) Both have the best of intentions; but both will unintentionally hurt those they seek to help as they dogmatically pursue their views. (pro-life, delaying abortions increasing complications for women — pro-choice, some women regretting their decision and health impacts only becoming clear with long enough abortion histories)

That can be particularly seen in the "nature vs. nurture debate" in years past; where the scientific (and media) climate was hostile to studies supporting nature because of the equality philosophy which pervaded the culture that wanted people to be born equal. Causing a significant amount of guilt on parents who were told by experts their nurturing was at fault. Does this prove anything one way or the other, heck no, neither do your observations above. What it does show is things are more complicated than many attempt to make them out to be.

Even if Moreau is an anti-abortionist, does everyone on that study share that sentiment? It's important to note potential biases if we can, but we must focus on the science even if others haven't. Anyway back to the subject at hand, I'm not arguing to say its "conclusive" or proves a link, but the results are statistically significant, and saying its inconclusive seems to contradict that – without good reason – at this time. Maybe we can keep inconclusive, or change it to controversial and add statistically significant somewhere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I want percentages for theory A and theory B; just throwing it out there to cast doubt is insufficient. We can note theory B, but it won't remove theory A unless there is a good reason. Furthermore if there was a known mechanism for a abortion-premature birth link we wouldn't be arguing over epidemiological studies; the fact there isn't one is arguing from a negative. Not found does not mean not there, you know that, I know that, so don't bring it up. (wow, that's the most nots I've written in a sentence in a long time) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

All I know is.... a "real" encyclopedia or even a magazine article about abortion wouldn't even footnote it. Maybe that's because the universities and media are all controlled by the "liberals" but who knows. This guy is right though, a lot of these studies are not considered reputable. The consensus of the medical and scientific community is that abortion, done by a doctor, is perfectly safe and has no effect on future pregnancies. Lepidoptera 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you know this given the study is relatively recent? I like you and have found your contributions to be above par, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just slipped up in all the excitement. I did too, thinking 213 did something Tznkai took credit for. Let me be perfectly clear here: abortions like any procedure is not perfectly save. Frankly pregnancy is no small matter for a woman's body; so it is not hard to imagine messing around with it can have concequences, especially after 7-8 weeks. What they are, dunno, but to minimize them by assuming its trivial does a disservice to us all. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite whatever philosophical views you share and whatever arguments you make, it doesn't change the cold hard secular fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting Dr. Moreau's "Study". You have not provided any. All you have, in the end, are bold claims, and a politician named Peter Bowen who props up a "study" that panders to his base. As much as you twist and moan, it does not change the fact that the medical community by and large fail to even recognize Dr. Moreau's study, nor does it invalidate the alternative theories, rooted entirely in secular, empirical evidence, that BV tends to be the primary cause of premature births. Impartiality to the secular facts will not stand. I do not argue against this "study" because I am on some "pro-choice" side of the debate. I object to the "study" because it is a bad argument, based upon bad science, propped up by a politician with a clear agenda, and unrecognized by the vast majority of the medical community. I have as much apathy for illogical arguments from the left as I do from the right. But alas, balance has been found. The "study" WILL be flagged as inconclusive and the name of the source WILL be listed, and the alternative secular, non-biased, physically proven alternative that BV is the primary cause of Premature Births will be listed. user:Lucavix

Unless your from the BJOG, or have a inside track there, the above is an insult. "Fact(s)", "empirical/secular evidence", saying those things does not make them materialize. I haven't said the alternative is invalid, I want actual studies to clarify how much of a factor it is; the current reference has a few non-specific sentences on the subject and calls for more research, hardly robust "empirical/secular" evidence. And I love the reversal that it is we who are making bold claims. The section was worded strongly before; you have tweaked strongly in another direction... which is fine so long as its properly supported. I'm rapidly losing my assumption your working in good faith and assertions this is how it will remain is curious. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Alright Everyone. REWIND.

We are not here to discuss truth.

Let me repeat.

We are not in the position to dictate what is true. Got it? Not you, not me, not little Freddie down on the corner.

We are not in the position to criticize the Peer Review journal for publishing something we think is crock. We are not in the position to applaude them for publishing something we agree with.

We are not here to take sides.

We are here to write an article. We write the article by providing sources. We write the article by summarizes and reporting the hard work and research of others.

Wikipedia is not the collection of religious truth, nor is it the collection of secular truth.

It is an encyclopedia.

--Tznkai 23:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The physical, secular facts remain "truth" regardless of how the human mind twists and skews them. This is not a matter of some god's word, this is a matter of what the unflinching, impartial, secular realities are. At least, that's what this is about for me. user:lucavix

I suggest you read WP:NPOV WP:NOT for a quick read on what Wikipedia is about then sir. Your input is welcomed, but it must be tempered by the unified direction we share.--Tznkai 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm all for being fair, but this article is Biased and anything but Neutral. It has been edited to make it fair, and it will remain edited. Moreover, providing FACTS shouldn't be viewed as some kind of biased attack. The fact that the "study" is inconclusive is evidenced in the fact that the medical community by and large does not recognize it, which is evidenced in some of the html hidden links in the altered and corrected version. Also the SOURCE of the information will remain. Lastly the Factual Alternative that BV is the primary cause of premature birth will also remain. None of these things are biased, and all of these things remain factual. You seem to be suggesting that impartial secular facts are somehow biased. user:lucavix

My problem is we have yet to see the evidence BV is the primary cause, those are your words. Just point us to the scientific evidence for that position. Your reference is short, and vague, and calls for more research. That indicates to me the BV needs to be toned down as a possibility, not the likely alternative. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to give you a little perspective. 1. Not one of us is in the position to dictate what the article Shall Be. 2. In the short time I have been editing this article (oh, about three months) I have seen it been accused by a lot of people for diffrent reasons for being biased. Those usually came in two types. Strong point of view persons who were willing to work with everyone else, and strong point of view people who wanted people they disagreed with kicked out of the article. I think I can speak for most of the abortion article regulars when I say we are not duly impressed by people throwing around their weight on what the truth is, and what facts are without atleast the willingness to discuss and do the needed homework.--Tznkai 00:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Article has been edited to be nonbiased. The article will remain edited. Minor modifications can be made, however it must remain nonbiased. I have violated no rules. I have only sought to enforce the rules. The current version will remain with the amendments made. This is nonnegotiable. Where you stand on this issue is clear, but the bias of the article has been neutralized, and will remain so. user:lucavix

Attempts to maintain a "pro-life" bias in the article are futile. Neutral and fair amendments will remain despite attempts to censor out the name of the source and limit the obvious notation of the fact that the topic is controversial.

Attempts to strong arm the situation will be equally futile. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It always amuses me when I'm accused of being pro life. 214 could probably provide plenty of evidence I am not.--Tznkai 00:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ironically it means we are doing something right; even though we did miss that clarification initially; too bad, I'm usually more careful than that... could have been fixed quick if somebody hadn't been so fixated on discrediting the entire study without sources. But the current version might not be right either, as the 10% and 15% might not reflect France rates. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai you are violating the article to push a prolife agenda, you must at least leave in the name of the source. If you continue to be abusive you will be reported. I am not strongarming, the rules favor me in this. You have abused the rules to push your anti-abortion agenda long enough, the bias of the article will be neutralized.

If abusive equals asking for properly sourced claims; then I'll put on a wife beater and take out my belt. This kind of brow beating might work in the classroom, but will get you nowhere and frustrated very fast on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate you're not enjoying your stay; because we can certainly use people with your intelligence and expertise... but the attitude can stand a little reverting. LOL! Whew... there was some bad jokes in there; exactly what I needed for a little release. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Constantly removing the name of the source, one Dr. Caroline Moreau, is abusive. No reason has even been given for this, it's as if Tznkai is doing just to snub his or her nose. There is nothing Biased about revealing the source of the study. And by the way is it biased to say that a subject that has sparked so much controversy is controversial? Tznkai has removed the point that the study is controversial as well, why? It can't be to maintain a standard of fairness and impartiality. Look, all I want is to KEEP IT IMPARTIAL I have a HUGE problem with how it was initially presented and I also have a huge problem with the idea that a source should be hidden, What is Tznkai trying to hide about Dr. Caroline Moreau?

"If abusive equals asking for properly sourced claims" Be more speecific. Sourced claims to what? What exactly do you need? user:lucavix

Don't forgetto use ~~~~ --Tznkai 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Other Sources regarding the ling between BV and Premature Birth. http://www.aafp.org/afp/980315ap/majeroni.html http://www.midwife.org/prof/display.cfm?id=260 http://www.medicinenet.com/bacterial_vaginosis/page3.htm http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/188_722.asp

Sources Regarding Dr Caroline Moreau. Mostly Anti-Abortion sites. http://www.ncln.ca/articles.php?id=2&article=81 http://www.ifrl.org/mchenry/pastarticles/050517/ http://www.rightconservative.com/abortion-endangers-next-child.html http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2005/052005.html

As you can see Dr Caroline Moreau is the source and there are many sources linking BV to Premature Birth. So why, yet again, was the name of the source removed? user:lucavix

"Other sources have linked many of the above complications to bacterial vaginosis and concluded that abortion is not a likely factor." This is wrong in two ways, the source provided does not clarify BV is the cause of those problems, and if by what percentage? Also I have seen absolutely nothing to show BV can exclude any factor for preterm delivery; including abortion. Now you said in the article in the comments, you listed more sources but they were remove... well put them here. This is precisely why advocating in the article (even in comments) is frowned upon because an article can change rapidly and they have space constraints. Paste good (hopefully) multiple sources here and say, there they are, I'm right you're all wrong; instead of insisting on your version. (written before sources were posted)

Okay, thank you. Now which source specifies BV excludes abortion as a factor? As to Dr. Moreau, pro-life websites reporting evidence they find favorable to their position (some of them are quoting the Telegraph report) does not make Dr. Moreau pro-life. I'm confused. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"This is wrong in two ways, the source provided does not clarify BV is the cause of those problems, and if by what percentage?"

Yes they do, check the links I've provided why don't you?

Apologies, but that paragraph was written prior to the sources being posted, as the ( )'s note at the end of that paragraph.

"Also I have seen absolutely nothing to show BV can exclude any factor for preterm delivery; including abortion."

Who's the one claiming that BV excludes abortion as a possible cause? I said the medical community by and large does not recognize Abortion as a likely cause, I have provided many sources linking BV to preterm birth and despite having multiple sources suggesting that abortion may be a link they all cite Dr. Caroline Moreau and present nothing new other than opinion so it can be broken down to a single source, Dr. Caroline Moreau. So you have Peter Bowen on the linked page supporting Dr. Caroline Moreau's "study" as if that means something. George Bush Jr supported a "peer reviewed" study claiming that global climate change isn't happening but by and large the scientific community doesn't accept it's findings. It's also worthy of mentioning that a "peer reviewed" study published by big tobacco suggested that smoking couldn't cause lung cancer but by and large the medical community never even humored the study. This "peer reviewed" study hasn't been humored by the medical community at large, beyond a piece shoved in by Peter Bowen who has to pander to his base.

Your sentence included a statement that sources concluded abortion was likely not a factor. Only one of your sources has the word abortion in it; and I've seen no statement to that effect.

"Now you said in the article in the comments, you listed more sources but they were remove... well put them here."

Scroll up.

Yup.

"This is precisely why advocating in the article (even in comments) is frowned upon because an article can change rapidly and they have space constraints."

Point well taken.

Coo.

"and say, there they are, I'm right you're all wrong; instead of insisting on your version." \

That's not what I'm interested in doing. Unlike some my primary interest are enforcing WP:NPOV, regulating what I consider to be bad science with the inclusion of uncontested facts, rewording such studies in such a way that they are not presented as incontrovertible fact, and expanding on an article so that no information regarding the source or the more widely accepted alternative is hidden from the viewer.

Fine, but I fail to see how BV effects the studies findings; as it appears infection rates would be roughly equivalent for women with and without an abortion history. If on the other hand women with an abortion history have a higher rate (or more severe) BV infection, then that's a different story.

"Okay, thank you. Now which source specifies BV excludes abortion as a factor?"

Who is making said claim?

I'm under the impression you did.

"As to Dr. Moreau, pro-life websites reporting evidence {no evidence is reported, they simply report Dr. Moreau's "study".

It's worthy of note that no evidence has been presented thus far to support Dr. Moreau's study. user:lucavix)

Not really. We can term Moreau's study as preliminary or uncorroborated; but no (additional) evidence (since the study is evidence) means just that... however, I'm pretty sure there are other previous studies which indicate a connection.

they find favorable to their position (some of them are quoting the Telegraph report) does not make Dr. Moreau pro-life. I'm confused." - RoyBoy 800 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually all the sites confirming (or actually recommending that) Dr Moreau's "pro-life" bias are in french, which I can barely read, so I have abandoned that suspicion due to lack of information. Particularly after finding that the primary french site suggesting as much was linked to a pro-abortion movement in france, meaning it's reports are suspect. user:lucavix

I believe you and think Moreau is biased; but don't write your suspicions in an article. In future, bring them up here (in talk pages) for discussion and further research; fewer reverts that way. Hope your adjustment to Wikipedia is smoother from here on. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't gone and deleted it ^-^. But having an abortion is a lot less painful and a lot safer than having your tonsils out. This is because an abortion just empties a cavity in the body... like having your stomach pumped. 65.96.72.221 23:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I would caution pain experienced does not equate to the seriousness and/or complications of a proceedure. Furthermore while the analogy of the stomach is useful regarding the abortion proceedure itself; the inherant flexibility (throwing up), and function of the stomach (its high cell replacement rate) makes it more robust than a uterus. Especially when you consider any damage to a uterus may be exaserbated when it is put under the significant strain by a pregnancy (analogous to a very full stomach?). As to the tonsils, they are removed entirely and as I understand it are largely vestigial after puberty; whereas the fetus is removed and the uterus remains (although certainly the monthly lining provides protection). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Round two

Firstover RoyBoy, the fact remains that BV is widely accepted as a cause of preterm birth by the medical community, as shown in the above links, while Abortion is not. Secondly, BV is directly related to preterm birth, and if someone is trying to scare women into thinking Abortion causes it, then an alternative cause of Preterm Birth should be listed, and one that actually IS accepted by the medical community. Lastly, I ask again, why is the name of the source of the study removed? Are you trying to hide something? It's funny that everyone seemed content with a controversial study being presented as solid fact and when I do a little fact checking everyone gets in a tizzy and tries to cover up the source of the study isn't it? user:lucavix

I find it "funny" you can be so obtuse. The fact remains BV does not remove abortion as a factor. There can be little doubt anti-abortionists will use anything to scare women away from abortion, but that fact does not permit us to ignore studies they reference for that purpose, unless there is good reason to do so. Tznkai has explained already the name is irrelevant unless its notable, meaning we can firmly establish a bias for that person. We aren't in the business of using double standards for scientific studies (focusing on people rather than the study); and we certainly are not covering up anything as the source (meaning the study, rather than the person) has always been linked. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Enough is enough. We have been very tolerate and have avoided biting the newbie. I have linked the policies several times, but to summarize.

• Neutrality is good
• We determine neutrality in several ways. These include demanding factual accuracy through attribution, citation, and standards of encyclopedic content.
• Our personal reasoning for the truth value of a statement is irrelivant. We find published invidiuals, or notable individuals, write down their opinions and their findings, and move on.

Now. Dr. Moreau bias is irrellivant to the truth value of her study. Its anecdotal at best, and is a bait for POV. There is no compelling reason to include it (a). and also (b), we have recieved NO refrences citations and other proofs that her bias is not only real, but has compromised her integrity, and the integrity of the study.

The study ins't contraversial because you, I or billy joe down the street disagrees with it. Anyone notable, especially someone targeting the study or Dr. Moreau in specific can make it contraversial. Find me a newspaper article that calls it contraversial. This is an open challenge.

These are bear minimum standards that are applied to all parts of the article, especially when the statement is disputed. Those inserting content bear the burden of proof.

All assertions must be proved, or at the very least defended and refrenced. Occasionally by consensus we will agree a statement is uncontroversial enough to avoid vetting. These are all long standing and useful parts of the Wikipedia Way.--Tznkai 22:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"I find it "funny" you can be so obtuse. The fact remains BV does not remove abortion as a factor."

Because of the bias of the french website that suggested that, I am not making that claim. The fact is that BV does not need to remove abortion as a possible factor to be presented as a logical alternative cause. It is (A) Related to preterm delivery and (B) can be spread through sexual activity. The fact that BV increases the likelihood of Preterm birth is well documented, and has numerous, scientific studies to support it. In contrast there's a single, nonscientific study from a single source, one Dr. Caroline Moreau who only managed to get her findings published in a couple of peer reviewed journals (talk about lowering the bar) and has failed to get her study recognized by the medical community as a whole (as evidenced by every abortion clinic out there that does not "inform" patients of the increased risk of future preterm births).

It was my understanding there was more than one study on this issue; and I wouldn't consider what abortion clinics tell their patients to be an accurate measure of current research (Wikipedia tries to be current), but it is certainly a reasonable measure for what is accepted by the medical community.

"There can be little doubt anti-abortionists will use anything to scare women away from abortion, but that fact does not permit us to ignore studies they reference for that purpose, unless there is good reason to do so."

Always better to regulate a bias argument to better fit with factual findings and better meet with WP rules than ignore it IMO.

Certainly; so long as those factual findings are presented; rather than extrapolated.

"Tznkai has explained already the name is irrelevant unless its notable, meaning we can firmly establish a bias for that person."

Incorrect. The name of the source is relevant to the article, as it is after all, the single uncontested source of the actual study. It takes up little space, and if inserted without any personal opinion regarding the source, does not violate any WP Policy. Would you remove the name "Charles Darwin" from an article addressing the evolution controversy? Would you remove my name as the source of my own above posts? If not, why then would you remove the name of the source. See below Facts and Objections.

I was personally ambivalent to naming the source; after all I did create the Caroline Moreau article based on your information, because I was at the time assuming good faith on your part. Still waiting for references on that.

"We aren't in the business of using double standards for scientific studies (focusing on people rather than the study)"

Illogical statement. How is mentioning the name of the source in the article in which the source's findings are presented shifting the focus away from said findings onto the source? No one is asking for a double standard to be implemented here.

Don't go back into my bad books when we are so close to the meeting of the minds. Granted the focus is not on the person (I mispoke), but I've done enough research and been on Wikipedia long enough to see a clear and present double standard in respect to the presentation of research findings. And we live with it, but still try to avoid the habit, because indeed some people/research is better than others; but lets not fool ourselves.

"and we certainly are not covering up anything as the source (meaning the study, rather than the person) has always been linked." - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

However you are systematically hiding the source as if it's inclusion somehow derails the entire "study" in question, when in reality it only gives credit where credit is due. How is changing "According to a recent study" to "According to a recent study by Dr. Moreau" even slightly in violation of any rules or standards. See below facts and objections.

I occasionally linked the name to its article; and I find Dr. Moreau et al. more accurate.

Well it's about time for my next appointment. I didn't get everything I wanted in but that will have to wait. User:lucavix

That's fine, patience is a good thing around here... for future reference try not to use BR's (means more rendering for wikiservers), just double space it or use asterisks to make a list.

Fact #1: The website that was linked to the initial article references Dr. Caroline Moreau as the uncontested source.

That's par for the course on website that agree with the findings; but I didn't read the website; I went directly to PubMed to ensure it existing and the findings were actually there.

Fact #2: Multiple impartial sources have been provided, here on discussion, making a link between BV and Preterm Delivery. No link between Abortion and Preterm Birth is directly made by these sources.

Sources can be out of date; and although they are less political; I wouldn't be so bold as to call them impartial.

Fact #3: The link between BV and Preterm birth is uncontested. The link between BV and Preterm birth is accepted by the medical community as a whole. It is unnecessary to prove that BV excludes abortion as a possible contributing factor in order to say that the sources suggesting BV as a factor have not made said connection. The burden is on he or she who suggest that said connection has been made.

This is an important point, I agree with the above; and yet what you wrote was still wrong. Can you tell me why? "Other sources have linked many of the above complications to bacterial vaginosis and concluded that abortion is not a likely factor."

Objection #1: Because Dr. Caroline Moreau is the source of the article's study there is no reason to remove reference to Dr. Caroline Moreau's name as said source.

There is a reason or two; whether they are sufficient is another matter. Essentially it hinges on a bias being established.

Objection #2: Because Dr. Caroline Moreau's position as the source is factual it should be included, simply because Dr. Caroline Moreau is the source.

It's reasonable; that's why I'm ambivalent to the name.

Objection #3: Removal of the name of the source suggest some ulterior motive, as the name of the source takes up little space, no opinions regarding the source are given in the actual article, and the position of Dr. Caroline Moreau as the source of the "study" is demonstrable. user:lucavix

Suggests ulterior motives if people talk past each other; and some people don't do research on whom they are dealing with; and how to deal with them. Demonstrating something and it being notable are different things.

PS: Please forgive my double posting, I had added this to another area earlier but found it's needed here due to my references. user:lucavix

Forgiven. So the entire section was removed? I'm just curious by whom, when, etc. Ohhhh, Tznkai did you move it here for refinement? Good call. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Sources can be out of date; and although they are less political; I wouldn't be so bold as to call them impartial."

Is applying double standards par for the course? How are the links I provided any less impartial than pubmed? I suppose Government Health Sites are part of some left winged liberal conspiracy eh? Why are you applying a higher standard to the VB link than to the Abortion link?

In the real world, yes. PubMed is defacto impartial as they merely keep a database of studies; that of course by no means translates into the study being impartial. A conspiracy is not necessary to perpetuate an institutional bias; this is true of left or right leaning institutional cultures; but it sure does make for lame straw men. Doesn't it? And I am applying the same standard to the BV link as I am to the abortion link; ideally scientific studies which examine the issue; and we report their findings/conclusions rather than extrapolating BV studies "conclude abortion is likely not a factor" (unless you can provide me with a study saying that). Don't equate my skepticism of your additions to a skepticism of BV. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"There is a reason or two; whether they are sufficient is another matter. Essentially it hinges on a bias being established."

Why does it hinge on bias? What sort of standard are you trying to hold this to, when I have, never once in the article, suggested bias with my inclusion of the name of the source.

Good. Why bias? Makes it worth knowing to me.

"It's reasonable; that's why I'm ambivalent to the name."

Why are you ambivalent? You seem to be demanding proof of bias where there is no suggestion of bias. It's not a very logical standard to hold me to. My amendment to the article never once suggested bias, it only listed the name of the source. Might I ask why exactly you found that objectionable?

I just don't consider it notable in this context (the main article about abortion); unless that scientist is notable... one thing that would make them notable is a confirmed bias; or if they are a leading advocate/researcher in the field.

"Suggests ulterior motives if people talk past each other; and some people don't do research on whom they are dealing with; and how to deal with them. Demonstrating something and it being notable are different things."

Firstly, My "Facts and Objections" were an attempt to remove myself from how personal this seems to be getting and present my position from an analytical perspective devoid of any feelings. Secondly, I wasn't talking past anyone, at least that was not my intention. Lastly, as for rather or not the name of the source is notable, I would contend that it is notable simply because it is the source. Unless there is some real objection to be made, and not some straw man argument (such as the argument that one must prove a non-suggested bias), I contend that the source should stay in due to the pure, fair, secular, and impartial fact that she is the source.

user:lucavix

This got personal the moment you made accusations; which played a part in your talking past us which I consider entirely intentional and verifiably hostile. (Not that I care much, made things more interesting around here for a while... it did significantly eat into my Wikitime; but hey that was my call. :'D) If you wish to invalidate my objections, do so in a rationale manner, calling it a straw man does not make it so... and the bias was suggested on the talk page by you, and which resulted in 13:56, 10 August 2005 by 65.240.164.98, who put it right under your "talking past us" comments in the article. Is 65.240.164.98 your IP? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I had given up on the whole bias argument quite some time ago, and even recanted it based on the fact that my ability to read french isn't adequate to confirm it, and that the source of my initial suspicions proved to have links to a french pro-abortion movement.

I appreciate the scrutiny.

Secondly, what's said regarding a supposed bias on the talk page is irrelevant to the facts listed in the article, when indeed no bias is being suggested in the article. Asking for proof of a bias that is not being suggested (in the actual article) is an unreasonable standard and it is a straw man argument. Consider the following: A study has a source. The name of the source is listed with the study with no suggestion of bias (the the article itself). The name of the source is demonstrated. Here's where the straw man comes in, You demand proof that the source is biased in order for the name of the source to remain listed. If I were, in the article itself, suggesting bias, then your standard for the inclusion of the source's name would be reasonable. However, I am not, so I ask again, what exactly do you hold objectionable about the words "A Recent Study by (insert name here)"?

Sorry, should have spotted the confusion. I'm not requiring bias to be proved per say as indeed its (no longer) being inserted into the article; I'm requiring notability and its plain I do not agree with your standard of what's notable about the study. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to remove it; but others might when they ask themselves, why do we care who the lead scientist was? You'd respond, he's the source... I'd respond he among others... hence adding "et al." would be good. It might be necessary to delete the article on Caroline Moreau if we cannot get corroboration. If you'd like I can try and follow that up; after all Wikipedia is an international collaboration, with over 134,000 articles in French.

In one sense you're right, calling an argument a straw man argument doesn't make it one. Creating a false standard, demanding proof of something that isn't even suggested, is what made it one. As for the IP, I'm one of numerous people who share the IP address, that's why I always sign user:lucavix

So, yes? Or am I to infer you have collegues on the same IP working on this article. ;'D Just kidding. Please use the timestamp ~~~~ to sign your entries, which will print your name and a timestamp. There is even a button above the edit box (second from right) that will paste it in for you.

PS: Upon reviewing some of my earlier comments from several days ago, I identified some points in which I may have been rather pig headed. I apologize for such instances, especially any instances in which I may have gotten personal. I think my initial frustration with the removal of the name of the source, and being overwhelmed by the sense that I was being ganged up on, not to mention my initial lack of familiarity with wikipedia and how exactly to get amendments recognized and discussed, made me a bit more rash than I should have been. For what it's worth I do apologize. user:lucavix

It happens, natural psychological response I'd wager. :'D Its kind of a privilege to break in new users, especially if they go on to be regular contributors... as more equals better. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

PSS: The amendment to the article currently I advocate are not those reflected in 13:56, 10 August 2005 by 65.240.164.98, but rather simply to mention the name of the source (as the study is conducted by said source).

Understood. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh! That thing! *feels like an idiot* --Lucavix 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Premature birth.

Contested paragraph:

The results of a recent study have suggested a higher chance of premature birth after an aborted pregnancy. Women with a previous induced abortion supposedly have a 50% increased risk of a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks), and the risk of an extremely premature baby (less than 28 weeks) was 70% higher. When put in context of the overall risk of preterm birth – if the findings are accurate – it would increase risk from a 10% chance before an aborted pregnancy to approximately a 15% chance after an aborted pregnancy. (Specifically in France it would increase the overall risk from 5.8% to 8.7%. [4]) According to the study the increased risk of an extreme premature birth rose from 1.5% to 1.9%. Abortion may be a factor for premature birth, and has been associated with premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the fetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labor.^[5]

Other sources have linked preterm birth to bacterial vaginosis, but have not linked abortion as a likely cause. However, some have linked post-induced abortion to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which is morbidity associated with bacterial vaginosis and may well contribute to a preterm birth. Additionally PID can cause 10-12% of women with it to be infertile.

Current problems: we need those "other sources" listed. If someone could track down the medical communities response to ths new study, I'd be much oblidged. We're suffering a few breaches of WP:NOR in the mean time.--Tznkai 01:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fact #1: The website that was linked to the initial article references Dr. Caroline Moreau as the uncontested source.
Fact #2: Multiple impartial sources have been provided, here on discussion, making a link between BV and Preterm Delivery. No link between Abortion and Preterm Birth is directly made by these sources.
Fact #3: The link between BV and Preterm birth is uncontested. The link between BV and Preterm birth is accepted by the medical community as a whole. It is unnecessary to prove that BV excludes abortion as a possible contributing factor in order to say that the sources suggesting BV as a factor have not made said connection. The burden is on he or she who suggest that said connection has been made.
Objection #1: Because Dr. Caroline Moreau is the source of the article's study there is no reason to remove reference to Dr. Caroline Moreau's name as said source.
Objection #2: Because Dr. Caroline Moreau's position as the source is factual it should be included, simply because Dr. Caroline Moreau is the source.
Objection #3: Removal of the name of the source suggest some ulterior motive, as the name of the source takes up little space, no opinions regarding the source are given in the actual article, and the position of Dr. Caroline Moreau as the source of the "study" is demonstrable. user:lucavix

While I still have time, it's worth noting that the HRSA article (link #4 listed in the paragraph in question) makes no connection between preterm birth and abortion. user:lucavix

Inuse #2

Will be applying the inuse template as soon as I get home to a stable internet connection. Doing a major reorginzation starting around 2:30 EST. See embbedded comments. Voice objections and comments now or hold your peace until I'm done please.--Tznkai 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC) RL is being uncooperative. Edit postoponed until tomorrow--Tznkai 19:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally getting around to it. Doing a major restructoring of the articles based on the embedded comments. Comments here are greatly appreciated, or if I seeem to be ignoreing you, toss em to wards my user talk page so I get the little "you have mail message".--Tznkai 01:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Attention: Two minor tweak done

I made two minor tweaks to the article. One, I noted how the Table of Contents is being used in Christianity and Terri Schiavo, and made an adjustment accordingly. Secondly, I adjusted paragraph spacing, and added some text as indicated here:

Abortion debates, especially pertaining to the legal ramifications of abortion laws, are often spearheaded by advocacy groups. These groups tend to fall into one of two camps, with people in favour of legal abortion being described as pro-choice, while those against legal abortion are described as pro-life. Both pro-choice and pro-life are loaded terms, designed to make opposition unappealing (anti-choice and anti-life). For example, "what" is being done is alternately referred to as a "procedure" by some and "murder" by others with differing views. Likewise, the use of the word "choice" is often considered controversial, regarding "who" has a choice: The pro-lifers often argue that the unborn fetus has no "choice," while the pro-choicers argue that choice to abort inherently belongs to the mother who is the giver of life in the biological terms.

I've gotten into the habit of using dark blue to make my posts more readable. Also, I give credit to both the 214 anon and her accusers in the recent RfC for a few ideas here. Hope this is helpful.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation: Note that abortion is not considered murder by law. Note that "pro-choicers" often argue that since a fetus lacks any form of sentience it is not a person, and thus is unable to make, desire to make, or even fathom any choice. The addition you've made seems slightly biased against the "pro-choice" side of the debate, but I have no major objections. I'll leave any objections to someone who's actually "pro-choice". user:lucavix

Secondary Suggestion: Present a link to the personhood page. user:lucavix

Heard and noted, user:lucavix. I noticed someone tweaked my own tweak, so I may not be able to look into all your concerns. They look good, but the "legality" is well-known, and it may not be necessary to mention it. I'll see if I can fix the section -but I also notice that at least two registered editors (RoyBoy and SqueakBox) have reverted inclusion of some pro-life link. While it is not in English, it seems a little "extreme" to call the link "vandalism." I know there are a lot of pro-life links out there, and maybe this one is "not notable," but it seems things are a little on edge here. Sometimes I wonder. Oh, well -let me see what I can do. ** Oh, one more thing: My "Table of contents - LEFT" edit seemed the safest and least controversial -I wonder that Tznkai found objectionable. However, I assume "good faith," especially since he/she seems to be a reasonable and thoughtful editor -so we can think about the Table of Contents things later -maybe if time permits.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

TOC left I just didn't like because it squished the terminology paragraph funny when I looked at it. When the TOC templates were up for deletion it was suggested we use them as little as possible. --Tznkai 21:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thx for your feedback, Tznkai. Sometimes the Table of Contents will appear on top of text, and it always changes the shape of paragraphs, since it at least pushes the existing text some place else; We have to be careful here.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If it had been put in external links that would have been my description, but it was all over the place and being put back. That (becomes) spamming; and I'm simply not inclined to be generous on an article notorious for spamming (in the right place) in the past. Regardless the notes are there to help editors understand the posture they should take; if clarification helps, then here you have it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, RoyBoy. I did not know the history of those putting it in, but still, if the shoe fits, it still might be able to be worn (that is, if the link is good, it still might be able to be used some place), but I guess it's good to not encourage adding millions of links. Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

MINOR UPDATE: / reply to user:lucavix.

• On the point that you imply I add something like "abortion is legal in America," I shall opt to leave it out: It is obvious to most familiar with the debate.
• Regarding your suggestion that I point out that babies and/or fetuses can't make their own choice, this is maybe a good point -I may mention it (but I have just now noticed that SamSpade did a major edit and wonder if the other editors approve of his major reworking and apparent deletions??)
• "The addition you've made seems slightly biased against the "pro-choice"..." -I didn't mean that. Will re-look at it...
• "Secondary Suggestion: Present a link to the personhood page." There is already a link to person in the "Abortion Terminology" section -and even though SamSpade deleted other similar links, they were redundant and not necessary, and your suggestion, while well-meant, is probably not needed, as it is mentioned once, but making a link active in a later section is still not "really bad," and thus, I may do it. (Please note that the wiki links to person and personhood go to the same page.)--GordonWattsDotCom 02:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• MORE UPDATED reply to user:lucavix.
• O.K., I fixed everything that was possible among what you suggested - and I add that abortion is legal in America, but in some places (Germany, maybe?), I believe it is illegal, so mentioning that it is "legal" or "illegal" must be qualified by WHERE it is legal or illegal. REMEMBER: Not just Americans read this page, lol. (We're a big, rich self-centered hog of a country sometimes, aren't we.) But I love my country -and all people, even goofy ones, ha ha. OK, that's the best I could do; i hope it helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I recommend that it be noted that abortion is legal was to show that according to law abortion is not murder, but I should have specified that this may only hold true for most provinces in Canada, all of the USA, all of France, all of England, all of China, all of Japan, all of South Korea, and many parts of Russia. Rather or not it's legal in other first world nations, island nations, or any of the third world nations is actually rather beyond me and I find it impossible to find out on the web because of all the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" rhetoric. Rather or not abortions in general, especially as a means of contraception, are ethical, wise, or safe are other matters each worthy of being discussed. I would argue, perhaps from my own personal bias in part, that in many cases it may not be ethical, that it's never really safe, and that as a means of contraception it is unwise (given more effective, safer, and ethically sound methods of contraception). As to the ethics and wisdom, that's pretty much a matter of my own personal opinion, but I think the facts speak for themselves in regards to safety, which is the part of the debate I'm most interested in, and want the solid facts on without some left/right bias (From what I know, drastic hormonal changes can cause harm to anyone, post induced abortions incontrovertibly carry a risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, and any surgical procedure carries some risk). user:lucavix

PS: I appreciate that you took my recommendations into consideration :) user:lucavix

You're welcome, lucavix. It's hard to keep track of all this "where's it legal" and stuff -let the reader figure out his or her OWN country's and states' laws, I say ... -heck, I have trouble keeping up with my OWN self sometimes! - Also, I've noticed you have an intersting habit of saying "RATHER or not." I saw your page, and you seem educated, so I guess this is a saying in your parts "WHETHER or not" others like me have colloquial slang and saying (humor, ha ha). Lastly, this editing for free (Wikipedia isn't paying me, lol) is wearing me down; I may be more scarce around these part, due to real life things. To one and all, enjoy!--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 :) Yup' Here round' these parts Rather or Not is a common turn of phrase, rather or not it's good grammar. Heheheheh. user:lucavix

The new and improved Preterm Birth piece.

I'm rather fond of it, but there is one minor nit picky thing... PID only statistically renders 10-12% of women who suffer from the disorder infertile, not 10-12% of women in general. :) user:lucavix

Where is the preterm piece? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Text Move

I have problems with this extract:

Of final note, the term unborn is also frequently use to describe the embryo or fetus. Often this is in the context of "unborn baby" or "unborn child". This sometimes carries the implication that all embryos and fetuses that are undisturbed by an abortion are born.

Maybe it's just the wording I don't like. (I've put the problem sentence in bold.) It doesn't seem clear to me. Of course the phrase "unborn child" causes problems for those who campaign for legalization of unrestricted abortion, so "unborn" could be considered POV. But what does it mean to say that the phrase carries the implication that all embryos and fetuses undisturbed by abortion are born? I can't see any such implication. If someone talks about how "unborn children" get their supply of oxygen, or how they react to music, or how they start jumping when mummy drinks too much coffee, I can see nothing in that phrase which would even vaguely imply that those who are undisturbed by an abortion are or have been or will be born.

I presume that "are undisturbed by an abortion" means "have not been aborted". What does "are born" mean? Does it mean "are going to be born"? (Okay, if they're not aborted, they'll probably be born, assuming that the word "abortion" covers miscarriage, etc., but isn't that stating the obvious?) Does it mean "have already been born"? I can see that there's an implication in the phrase "unborn child" that it might actually be a human being, not a "product of conception" or a "clump of cells" or (my personal favourite) "an unwanted growth on a woman's womb". Most human beings walking around today were not aborted, so you could call them "born" people (but not fetuses or embryos) who were "undisturbed by an abortion", although it would seem rather a waste of words to state something so obvious. There are, of course, a few abortion survivors walking round today. I suppose they could be described as "born" people (again, they're not fetuses or embryos) who were most certainly not "undisturbed by an abortion".

Maybe I'm being frightfully dense, but I do have a Master's degree in Linguistics, which included analysing texts for obvious and hidden meanings. I'd appreciate if we could discuss:

1. What is that extract trying to say?
2. Why do we need it in the article?

Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That was my passage and I fully admit that its problematic. What Iwas trying to get at in a neutral way was that the term "unborn" is yet another loaded term. Unborn can be interpreted as pre-born. The problem is, many so called unborn, especially in the very early stages of life gestation quickly die do to miscarriage. The argument goes something like" By calling them unborn you give the false impression that without [induced] abortion, all embryos and fetuses make it to child birth.

Upon reflection, I agree that this is a rather poorly written sentance. I do think the point still needs to be made, unborn is right up there with "death" and "life" as far as controversial terms.

So, in summary.

1. The extract is trying to describe that A.) unborn is a loaded term and B.) why it is a loaded term.

2. The termininology used to describe abortion is an important barrier of entry to truly inform about abortion.

--Tznkai, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Tznkai, your signature didn't come out properly (did you use the four tildes?) but I can tell it's you from looking at the history of this page. Thanks for your clarification. I agree that the use of the term "unborn" is controversial, being used by one side and avoided by the other. (I always use it, and guess which side I'm on!) An unborn something is a something that has not been born, but we would never use it about a stone, a piece of glass, a cup of coffee, or a light bulb. So the term does at least imply that we are talking about something that is capable of being born. Also, if you check a concordance to see which words come most frequently after unborn, you'll probably find that "child" comes most frequently, and "baby" comes second most frequently. You won't find "unborn clump of cells", or "unborn fetal tissue". I've just tried it with the British National Corpus (4,178,696 words), using concordancing software tools - a great way to test for neutrality and bias! (I learned in some Open University course that a newspaper had referred to "migrants flocking", and a writer had written that the use of the word "flocking" dehumanized the migrants, by implying that they were like birds or sheep. So another writer tested with a concordancing tool to see what words came most frequently after the verb to flock - you can line them up in alphabetical order - and found that the verb collocates with humans (tourists, fans, etc.) more frequently than with birds and animals. So the instinctive reaction that the word implied they weren't human was simply incorrect.)

Anyway, I'm getting away from the subject. So yes, unborn suggests something capable of being born, but I don't think that it suggests something that will definitely be born unless the mother has an abortion. Most people know that stillbirths and miscarriages occur. So if it's a loaded term, that's simply because it collocates more frequently with "child" than with "clump of cells". Anyone else got ideas about this? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to say its hard for me to represent the argument against using unborn very well cause I don't care all that much myself. I prefer embryo and fetus generally because the terms are sterile and sound more professional. Someone else should probably jump in here to explain it better.--Tznkai 21:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll try to fine tune that sentence, retaining the original meaning, but also being clear and concise. See e.g., the abortion article in a moment.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gordon. I see you tried this:

Of final note, the term unborn is also frequently use to describe the embryo or fetus. Often this is in the context of "unborn baby" or "unborn child". This sometimes carries the implication that all embryos and fetuses that are undisturbed by an abortion are born; however, this is not true because some “unabotred” embryos and fetuses are stillborn or are casualties of miscarriages -and thus not born.

Well, as you can see, I reverted again. I hope you won't mind. (Actually, I'm sure you won't, because I've seen how "untouchy" you are on other pages!) I understand the compromise you were trying to reach, but I felt that it was still messier having that in the article, than not having it.

I think it's false to say that it carries the implication that unaborted babies will be born, and I think it's unnecessary to explain why this is not true. I think it's a bit like inserting something into the article on mice to say that if they don't get any food they'll die. It's almost patronizing the readers, by telling them something obvious, and something that wasn't disputed. If we had a world where "unborn" was used frequently, and "fetus" and "embryo" were never used, I do not think you would have people growing up ignorant of the tragedy of miscarriage or stillbirth.

I understand that the term "unborn" is controversial, but I believe that it is controversial solely because the people who use it generally believe that they are talking about a baby, not a clump of cells. And the concordancing research I mentioned backs me up on that. "Unborn" is followed by "child" and "baby" more frequently than by anything else. In the entire British National Corpus, it was never followed by "clump of cells" or "fertilized egg" or "unwanted growth". I can see nothing in the term to imply that a baby that is not aborted will always survive the nine months and be successfully delivered. I just cannot find that meaning - exlicit or implicit.

I see that Tznkai has changed it again. It now reads:

The term unborn is also frequently used to refer to the embryo or fetus. Often this is in the context of "unborn child" or "unborn baby". The use of the term "unborn" is controversial because of its frequent use in the abotion debate.

I'm happier with that, although perhaps it should say "because of its frequent use by those who are opposed to abortion."

Obviously, accuracy and neutrality are more important than style, but I like, even in articles on subjects I care a lot about, to read the article and see how it flows, see if there is anything that might grate on the reader, etc. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is indeed obvious that some unborn babies don't get born, and the final version seems ok. "I hope you won't mind. (Actually, I'm sure you won't..." Part of my apathy, I admit, comers from not getting paid to edit, lol. That is a time-budgeting issue of cost effectiveness in which time is (somewhat) equal to money.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While in adequate, thats an adequate placeholder. As I was reading this and the passage, I realized we were getting away from the point, and arguing the nuances of nuances of a word (duplication deliberate). If someone can think of a concise way to explain why abortion is controversial, please go ahead, but for now I think this works. Sorry for not discussing and explaining better, havn't been running on all cylanders recently. Nor can I spell.--Tznkai 15:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)