Talk:Abortion/Archive 8

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.

Definitions for reference to enhance common arguments about neutrality

By the end of week 8, the embryo is a fetus with many organs fully functioning (which means mega-differentiation has already occurred, folks). See the Webster's Medical Dictionary definitions posted below. Regardless, the embryo and fetus is, medically speaking, human and alive, and must be killed for there to be an abortion, according to the medical definition of induced abortion (the main topic of this article). The biology here is not at issue. A living human organism exists. Abortion is the killing of that organism to rid the mother of having to carry it. Why is there an attempt to hide that medical fact? A vast majority of abortions are done AFTER 8 weeks, after the developing human has developed into a fetus. 214.13.4.151 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Webster's Medical dictionary: abortion = "1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: stillbirth = the birth of a dead fetus - compare live birth"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: fetus = "a developing human"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: embryo = "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: unborn = "not yet born : existing in utero < unborn children>"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: pregnant = "containing unborn young within the body : GESTATING"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: gestation = "the carrying of young in the uterus from conception to delivery : PREGNANCY"

Webster's Medical dictionary: miscarriage = "spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and esp. between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation - compare abortion"

Based on medical definitions, we will need to adjust the definition of spontaneous abortion. A natural loss of pregnancy after 12 weeks gestation, is NOT a spontaneous abortion - rather it is a stillbirth. The term miscarriage includes both spontaneous abortion and stillbirth. The term abortion does not apply to miscarriages after 12 weeks. 214.13.4.151 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case not only the medical definitions of the words, but also the connotations to non-medical people must be taken into account. If this article was written using medical terminology it would not only be unreadable but would be misinterpreted by non-medical people. This is why "unborn human " is innapropriate. Spaully 12:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From both the lay view and (as the medical definitions above demonstrate) also from the medical view, the use of "unborn child", "human", "dead" or "alive", etc., is appropriate. In fact, "unborn", "baby", "dead", "alive", are very common when lay people discuss miscarriage, stillbirth, pregnancy and fetal development - and l Lay people infrequently use the term fetus or embryo. So, in sum, the most commonly understood parlance in both lay and medical contexts uses the terms "unborn", "baby", "dead", "alive", etc. 214.13.4.151 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hear unborn a lot, but baby, dead, alive, clump of cells, blatocystes, those are terms used by POV'rs. Fetus is an exceelent NPOv, since everyone knows what it means without any connotation. Unborn is often a misnomer, since many unborn end up miscarried. Lay people are pretty smart and use fetus often. I travel plenty of circles prolife and prochoice and thats the most common one used for reasoned discussion sintead of griping--Tznkai 15:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice try 214. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy - you are pretending that pregnant women and friends don't use unborn, etc. more frwquently than fetus, etc. ? Same with Ob/Gyns when talking to pregnant patients and their friends? That, my friend, is just a ridiculous attempt to try to win this point despite logic. The last time a friend of yours lost a baby due to miscarraige, did you discuss the termination of her pregnancy or did you talk about the sad death of her unborn baby? Your pretense at "we're just trying to be neutral" strains credulity. In fact, you are just trying to use the pro-abortion euphemisms and make them seem normal. 214.13.4.151 06:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LoL! How wonderously twisted your line of thought is; I suggest from now on you ask questions first; make accusations later... it will make you more civil, and look more reasonable. Unborn, I have little issue with that word; certainly better than the "pre-born" garbage you were supporting. As to losing a baby, child to miscarriage; if it was her intent to have the baby then indeed it was a loss of those expectations, and if she chooses to use those words then that is what it meant to her. But very simply her emotional expectations are not in support of your position, and it is not difficult to imagine her (and our) sense of loss and tragedy would be more profound if the child was born and then died. Your point has little merit, and for the record I do not consider pro-abortion euphemisms normal; just check the archived response I gave to nadsat on non-viable. A conversation I very well may lose; but one I want to explore for our mutual benefit; rather than to persecute and label someone. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I use whatever term is appropriate at the time. To comfort, I speak as little as possible and listen instead. This is an encyoclopedia, not a soapbox. Your adherence to your terms is valiant, but misplaced. There are forums where that talk is welcome, but I don't think its here. Keep it away from personal, focus on making a good article thats useful for the LGMs and eveyrone who reads this. If your position is truly so right, unequivically, nothing we say here will change the final result.--Tznkai 06:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, in sum you all agree that:

"The exclusive terms used by ob/gyn medical practitioners (not just abortionists) when discussing a developing human in utero with a lay person are "fetus" amd "embryo", and other terms (such as "unborn" or "baby" ) are almost never used in this context.

Is that right? 214.13.4.151 11:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "fetus" is simply the ancient Latin Language version of "baby".

Unsafe abortion

WHO about UNSAFE ABORTIONS

"Unsafe abortion is entirely preventable. Yet, it remains a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in much of the developing world. Over the past decade, the World Health Organization has developed a systematic approach to estimating the regional and global incidence of unsafe abortion and the mortality associated with it. Estimates based on figures for the year 2000 indicate that 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year, that is, approximately one in ten pregnancies end in an unsafe abortion, giving a ratio of one unsafe abortion to about seven live births. Almost all unsafe abortions take place in developing countries. Women who resort to unskilled or untrained abortion providers put their health and life at risk. Worldwide an estimated 68 000 women die as a consequence of unsafe abortion. In developing countries the risk of death is estimated at 1 in 270 unsafe abortion procedures. Where contraception is inaccessible or of poor quality, many women will seek to terminate unintended pregnancies, despite restrictive laws and lack of adequate abortion services. Prevention of unplanned pregnancies must therefore be the highest priority, followed by improving the quality of abortion services and of post-abortion care." WHO see:

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/unsafe_abortion_estimates_04/index.html

This is an important issue. rewrite, add, stop quoting over much, and stick in its own section--Tznkai 15:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai

"The opinions towards abortion is mixed. While most people are morally uncomfortable with induced abortion, the debate is primarily on the legailty of abortion. Advocates for making or keeping induced abortion illegal are usually termed Pro-Life. Advocates for making or keeping abortion legal are usually termed Pro-Choice."

I agree with most of your edits, but could you provide some justification for the statement above. Otherwise it is not objective. Thanks, Spaully 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is that very few reputable pro-choice advocates run around aborting because it gives them kicks. Prochoice is really pro-choice in law, while pro-life is legal protection of the unborn.--Tznkai 15:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But to say that they are uncomfortable with induced abortion I feel is not objective, and not neccesary here given the article goes on to define the viewpoints indivually. There is a difference between people being comfortable with something and doing it for kicks also, and I think you'd find many doctors confortable performing abortions. Spaully 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, replacing with focus on legality.--Tznkai 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For edits regarding controversial information, begin requiring users to cite sources directlyCristianChirita 18:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

, remember to tag your comments.--Tznkai 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethics

Why not to move all of the discution about pro-life pro-choice in a seaparate page named: Abortion (ethics) since the ethical discution can be a distinct thing.CristianChirita 18:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is at Morality and legality of abortion. However, the Abortion article should have atleast a breif summary of the positions, since abortion is a core ethics issue.--Tznkai 18:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no discussion for ethics in Hanging article, but the hanging is a core eyhics issue.CristianChirita 19:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as the medical and scientific facts about abortion are presented without pro-abortion euphemisms that sanitize the medical and scientific reality, I am all for removing the ethical arguments from this entry. Although it surprizes most people who have never thought about what occurs during an abortion, the medical and scientific facts about abortion cannot help but paint a picture of a helpless and innocent developing human meeting a cold, calculated, violent and bloody death. 214.13.4.151 14:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

214, I will note that I have not presented my personal view on prochoice or prolife. I have no intention to in this forum since htis is not a chatroom. I am committed to creating a good, neutral, factual article, where both sides are represented fairly, as if they have reasonable beliefs, and rational disagreement. If you cannot accept that, I do not think you are capable of editing an article here that agrees with the NPOV policy.--Tznkai 14:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with 214... and agree with Tznkai. There should at least be a brief summary of the ethical discussion, otherwise the whole enty will be POV. It is one view to see abortion as a mere "technical issue" and not as a moral one. Hence, an ommission of the ethical debate will support one side's view more than any presentation of their point could. As for the "hanging" reference: Christina, if you feel the "Hanging" entry need such a discussion, then please add one. Or rather add one to a "death penalty" or "capital punishment" entry, since these would be the parallel entries to the general "abortion" entry. (I mean, this entry is not about any specific method of abortion, but the main page one will see when typing in "abortion") Str1977 17:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current disputes

It seems these are the main issues there is conflict over that need to be sorted before editing can recommence:

Methods of abortion

Bullets or prose:

Why have previously well written sections of this article such as 'Chemical abortion', 'Surgical abortion' and 'Other means of abortion' been reduced to (what I see as) a ugly list of bullets? I'll restore some of the original wording of these sections, and at the same time try to keep the postive edits that has been made in these sections recently. -- Stereotek 05:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree on reverting the methods of abortion, after all it seems to me this article is primarily about this, not discussions on stances on abortion. --Spaully 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The prose is probably best for the methods of abortion, but further down where bullets replaced section titles I think is a huge improvement.--Tznkai 19:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ongoing debate

Or "The debate on abortion"

214.13.4.151 has:

Pro-choice stance:

The cornerstone of the pro-choice stance is the issue of "reproductive rights", which its proponents argue encompasses the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. Most of the arguments are characterized by an appeal to "privacy rights" and gender equality. Well-known activist organizations like the National Organization for Women are generally pro-choice. Similar views are shared by groups including American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life stance:

Pro-lifers promote the "right to life", which proponents do not deny to unborn humans. Proponents do not differentiate between killing before or after birth, and consider induced abortion as the unjust killing of innocent persons (murder). The Catholic Church champions what it calls the "culture of life", a view shared by those who see abortion, euthanasia and unjust war as part of the culture of death. Pro-life views are shared by groups including Feminists for Life and Carenet.

Tznkai has:

Pro-choice stance:

The pro-choice stance usually appeals to several ideals, such as the rights of privacy and bodily integrity, which state that any person should be free to choose what to do with his or her body without government interference. Further arguments include issues of gender equality. and reproductive rights. Pro-choice advocates also often argue that abortion needs to be widely available because some women become pregnant due to rape or incest or have dangerous pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies or conditions such as Eisenmenger's Syndrome that threaten the health of a woman and/or the unborn child. Finally, many pro-choice advocates argue that abortions should be legal to prevent self-induced abortions. Organizations supporting the pro-choice stance are usually considered liberal. These groups include the National Organization for Women, American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life stance:

The pro-life stance usually appeals to several ideals, such as universal human rights and the protection of the innocent. Further arguments state that the human fetus is still a human and a person. Pro-life advocates often argue that the fetus is an innocent, and the circumstances of conception even rape and incest, are best solved with adoption, not abortion. Pro-life advocates often believe in the culture of life, which holds the right to life sacred. In doing so, the pro-life stance becomes part of a greater belief against euthanasia, war and capital punishment. Organizations supporting the pro-life stance are usually considered conservative. These groups include the Catholic Church, Feminsts for life and Carenet.

Common ground:

+ Advocate groups on both sides have worked on some combination of improving information pregnancy prevention, improving access to birth control, and funding and improving adoption services.

Not entirely true. The Roman Catholic Church, a huge opponent of abortion, also vehemently opposes birth control. --Crucible Guardian 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Its also true that the largest abortion merchant in the world (Planned Parenthood) has done virtually NOTHING to encourage pregnant moms to consider bearing and adopting out the children they don't want. 214.13.4.151 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

MISSING THE POINT! This is not the article to list what various pro-choice pro-life groups have done. and 214, I doubt that. At any rate these are intresting points of intrest for the Roman Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood articles. The entire point of that statement was to clarify that there was common ground between the camps. "Advocate groups on both sides have worked on some combination of improving information, pregnancy prevention, improving access to birth control, and funding and improving adoption services.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

I certainly do not miss the point - I have not complained about this wording - I simply pointed out that Planned Parenthood (IN FACT) sells abortion, and has not made any serious attempt to cut into that revenue by promoting adoption. The rate of adoption referrals related to Planned Parenthood is virtualy zero. And that is because their revenue (almost $1 billion a year) comes mainly from abortion (after the "safe" pills and condoms they sell fail). 214.13.4.151 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

I think the DoD has gotten you too used to politicians 214, you did miss the point. Wikipedia is not a message board. This talk page is not for discussion of things not realting to the article. If you don't give me a very good reason, I'm going to blank your comment--Tznkai 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Tznkai - your view on this is just silly. Portions of the "common ground" section were posted with the idea that people will comment on the appropriateness of the langauge. One person critiqued the language by noting a fact about the Catholic Church. Although I am not opposed to the language being in the article, I simply noted a similar fact about Planned Parenthood that would support the idea that perhaps the content of the article is in fact not accurate based on both organizations' actions. But, again, I think the language is ok, as there are other groups that exist that make the language in the article accurate. Your threat to blank my comments on this is just not supportable on any basis - and certainly not on the basis you claim. 214.13.4.151 7 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

I attempted removal of 214 and my additional comments[1] and later I was accused of censorship and covering up evidence[2]. I think we're headed towards mediation (again/still). Back on topic, is there anything relevant to the text of the article concerning the common ground section?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

To answer your question: Your language for the "Common ground" section was posted and commenta on it were invited; one poster made a factual comment about the Catholic Church to demonstrate his view that your language in this section was not accurate; I posted factual information about Planned Parenthood to demonstrate an additional reason why one could quibble with your language; You inaccurately criticized my commnents as somehow irrelevant; I noted the obvious relevance of my comments based on the proposed language of your "Common Ground" section and the commentary of the other poster and myself about the accuracy of your comments; you got mad because you like Planned Parenthood and can't stand to see unflattering facts about it here at wikipedia; you tried to censor out comments you don't like; I replaced them because there is no rationale fir your censorship; you continue to complain and try to censor discussion that you don't like. 214.13.4.151 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Ok. Once more with feeling. Please stop inflamitory statements. Also, do you have anything relelvant to the text of the article cocerning the common ground section? To wit: Do you have an improvement in mind to add, delete, or otherwise change?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Stop baiting me. Legitimate and relevant comments about the common ground section were posted. You complained about it. Just leave it alone. Rather innocuous factual comments about the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood were made that noted that your comment might not be accurate. You fanned the flame about my Planned Parenthood reference because you like Planned Parenthood (but we can all see yo did not find fault with similar factual comment about the Catholic Church posted for the same reason by another person) so that now there are several paragraphs about the issue. If you had not tried to scold me for posting a relevant comment, and then tried to censor it, then this would all be over by now. 214.13.4.151 7 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Not baiting, clarifying. Not my responsiblity or anyone elses but you, for how you respond to my scolding. Is there any relevant comments on the article's text, specificly the common ground paragraph by 214 or anyone else?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Crucible Guardian and I have both made relevant comments. We both took issue with the accuracy of the language in the common ground section, but for different reasons. What is your response to our criticism? 214.13.4.151 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

The specific stances of any particular pro-choice or pro-life group is irellevant. Both camps as a whole tend to seek alternatives.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Discussion:

First, I apologize for the stupidty of getting into an edit war. I believe the version I have is better for the follwing reasons. 1. Harmonized wording: both the stance summaries use similar wording styles and prose styles, no accidental POV.

2. Accurate and Comprehensive: I rolled the rape,incest, and health issues into the summaries, shortening the article overal without bringing that issue up as more important than the others. Both sides have very strong cases here. Also, may pro-life groups and advocates I know are pro-life except in maternal danger, but to get into that would overly complicate the article. This allows a breif summary of the stances, and invites either looking at the specific articles are the main article. Note, I did screw up the spelling for feminists for life. NOW, ACLU Planned parenthood, Catholic church Feminists for Life and carenet seem to be a good cross section of the biggest names involved in the debate.

3. No waffling: completly avoid quotations marks. Quotation marks are POVish in this sort of thing, they make an idea seem less legitimate. Nowhere else in this article do we have it. no reason for it--Tznkai 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By using the terms "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" we are subjecting the article to the agendas of both sides. Call the stances accurately what they are: "For Legalized Abortion" and "Against Legalized Abortion", then in the explanation of the two stances provide the marketing names that both sides have adotped. I know this seems silly but, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are tautologies; I don't know anyone that is anti-life and anti-choice. Both sides have chosen names that sound great and make one feel unethical or anti-democratic for going against their POV. By using these terms in an encyclopedia we are inadvertently lending credibility to these terms as if they mean something significant which they really don't. For example:

For Legalized Abortion:

The "pro-choice" stance usually appeals to several ideals, such as the rights of privacy and bodily integrity, which state that any person should be free to choose what to do with his or her body without government interference. Further arguments include issues of gender equality. and reproductive rights. Pro-choice advocates also often argue that abortion needs to be widely available because some women become pregnant due to rape or incest or have dangerous pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies or conditions such as Eisenmenger's Syndrome that threaten the health of a woman and/or the unborn child. Finally, many pro-choice advocates argue that abortions should be legal to prevent self-induced abortions. Organizations supporting the pro-choice stance are usually considered liberal. These groups include the National Organization for Women, American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

Against Legalized Abortion:

The "pro-life" stance usually appeals to several ideals, such as universal human rights and the protection of the innocent. Further arguments state that the human fetus is still a human and a person. Pro-life advocates often argue that the fetus is an innocent, and the circumstances of conception even rape and incest, are best solved with adoption, not abortion. Pro-life advocates often believe in the culture of life, which holds the right to life sacred. In doing so, the pro-life stance becomes part of a greater belief against euthanasia, war and capital punishment. Organizations supporting the pro-life stance are usually considered conservative. These groups include the Catholic Church, Feminsts for life and Carenet.

Common ground

+ Advocate groups on both sides have worked on some combination of improving information pregnancy prevention, improving access to birth control, and funding and improving adoption services.

Dwight

I understand your point Dwight, (please sign with your IP as well from now on), but its how they self identify and the words most people use, so I think thats more useful.--Tznkai 16:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-Thanks for the posting tip, it's my first time on Wikipedia. I agree that the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' terminology is the most convenient for identification (at least for us), but I disagree with them in concept. Whenever I discuss the two sides I feel obligated to refer to them by what they really are, rather than what they want to appear to be (hence my use of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in quotation marks). Therefore it pains me to see an encyclopedia use PR/ Marketing terms that really have little or no significant meaning behind them. Earlier in the article it mentions 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' in the manner which I am reffering:

"Abortion has been a controversial subject throughout history due to the moral and ethical issues that surround it (A link to the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/history_of_abortion would be great here). Both Human rights and constitutional rights are major issues. The complex issue usually focuses on the legal status of induced abortions. Advocates for making or keeping induced abortion illegal are usually termed Pro-Life. Advocates for making or keeping abortion legal are usually termed Pro-Choice."

Also, the use of "constitutional rights" in the above segment contributes to the articles America-centered feel. Dwight

Premature birth

This section was poorly written, and the reference "Dr. Caroline Moreau of the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" is insufficient. If it's a published article in that journal, what year, what volume and what page? Nevermind, found it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finished retooling the section. Now it agrees with what the study actually found and does not overstate the connection. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ongoing debate: a mixed stand (Harvey Jackins): 1. Yes, killing an embryo of any age is killing a human (denying that is the oppression of children, not seeing them as fully human); 2. Yes, the woman has to decide (denying that is the oppression of women, not seeing them as fully capable); 3. Support should go to the woman in the form of non-manipulative informormation and emotional and where needed financial support to reduce the chance that she would obt for an abotion; N.B.: Prevention earlier in this chain: better sex-education for both sexes, availability of good anti-conception. Anti-abortion laws don't reduce abortion rates but lead to a bigger percentage of self-inflicted or shady abortions, having a bigger health risk for the woman.

The section called "Reasons for induced abortions" starts with the following line: "Women have many reasons to seek an abortion." Is this really necessary? The statement seems self-evident and (although I can't put my finger on why) a bit biased in favor of a pro-choice stance (maybe it seems biased because the existence of "many" reasons makes abortion sound like a solution to a huge number of problems). Below this statement is a table that provides 9 reasons why women seek abortions (adding to about 84% of abortions). This compounds the sillyness of saying "many" reasons. If the table showed 100 reasons my reaction would've been one of agreement with the statement, but a tiny table just makes an already silly line look even worse.

There is a wikipedia entry on the history of abortions at [3]. It seems like an article on abortion should include a small paragraph on it's history rather than just a link at the bottom of the page under 'related topics'. I think a historical context is not only helpful when learning about abortion, but also pretty interesting. Most people don't realize that abortion has been practiced for at least a couple thousand years and has been a topic of debate for centuries. As the wikipedia entry shows, it was determined to not be homicide by the catholic curch in 1140, was considered acceptable (if performed before quickening) by the church until 1588 when the church deemed abortion and contraception to be crimes against nature. Even after that the church waffled back and forth until 1869 when it took its current stance against abortion. Dwight 6/21/2005 11:55AM

I've been waiting for the history of abortion page to improve before I wrote a lead paragraph here, but it seems now is a good a time as any. I'll take care of that when the article is unprotected. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elective abortion stats

214... while the stats you are inserting are correct they are in the table right below the paragraph you are editing. If you wish to clarify the percentage that are due to neccesity do it below that table, not in the text where it clearly shows your POV.

On the point of 'unborn human' or fetus, when describing the pro-life stance you have to use objective terminology regardless of the views you are describing. 'Unborn human' as I have said carries with it connotations that make that term innapropriate in this article. Spaully 11:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The use of 'unborn human' vs 'fetus' has been discussed many many many many times, and a consensus was reached that 'fetus' was a neutral and less loaded a term than 'unborn human'. Reverting so the article conforms to this consensus does not, I believe, violate the 3RR rule (although repeatedly altering 'fetus' to 'unborn human' does). Proto 11:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, your conclusion about consensus iw not correct. The consensus was that "fetus" is a calculated use of a medical term that is appropriate in the medical section, but should not be exclusive. To use "fetus" exclusively is, by itself, a viewpoint of dehumanizing the human fetus or embryo. Medical professionals use the term 'unborn child' or 'unborn baby' more frequently than they use the term fetus or embryo when talking to a pregnant woman. (See Webster's Medical Dictionary definition of "unborn" on this page at the top). And finally, use of that term in the pro-life section is NECESSARY to explain the pro-life stance. Otherwise the totally ignorant reader would have no idea that the very point of the pro-life stance is that a fetus is an unborn child. 214.13.4.151 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From both the lay view and the medical view, the use of "unborn child", "human", "dead" or "alive", etc., is appropriate and very common when lay people discuss pregnancy and fetal development. Any parent or person close to expecting parents or parents who miscarried can vouch for the common use of "unborn baby", "alive", "the baby died", "person" etc. Whereas the formal medical definitions below demonstrate that the use of "unborn" and "alive" and "dead" are appropriate for medical use:

Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: stillbirth = the birth of a dead fetus - compare live birth"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: fetus = "a developing human"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: embryo = "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: unborn = "not yet born : existing in utero < unborn children>"

So, in sum, whether you argue for use of lay terms or medical terms, it is inherently POV to claim that these terms ("unborn" and "alive" and "dead" and "human") are not allowed in this entry. 214.13.4.151 13:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the word to the left of human? Did you lose it, skim over it, or just take a nap? I'm quite capable of reading dictionary definitions 214.13.4.151; but statements like this make me doubt your reading comprehension. Speaking of "inherently POV"... reinterpreting (and in this case, stripping) context qualifies; pointing this out is not POV. - Roy Boy⁸⁰⁰ 05:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Proto's comment on consensus is not medical consensus but wikipedia's editor consensus.--Tznkai 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Abortion is not just a medical issue (this may be a good or a bad thing dependant upon your viewpoint), and so going by medical definitions alone is ill-judged. Respecting consensuses (consensii?) is a must. Even though Wikipedia is not a democracy. Proto 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternate solution

If we can find the original source online, we can just link readers there, and cut the information from the article.--Tznkai 06:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Question: Should we double report any statistics?

Yes

No reason to. Using statistics in that way is simply going to show POV. The facts are there, and our readers aren't stupid.--Tznkai 14:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Once is sufficient, I think. And they're in the best place right now, no need to repeat them. Proto 15:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As Tznkai says, highlighting particular statistics over others is showing a point of view. Spaully 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree - and the brief mention of "34 of 35 are elctive" to introduce the statistics is concise and helpful to the reader to help her quickly summarize the info in the table following. GREAT solution!

This was left by 214.13.4.151. And anyone else feel this vote was disengenous at best?--Tznkai 05:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is a need for it, then we haven't written the article correctly... and editing or splitting should be in order; not repetition. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I tried to remove them when the IP first inserted them, as I said a the time the purpose of the page is not to speculate as to why women have abortions or to comment on those reasons. As far as I'm concerned this article should cover the procedure and the related law.--nixie 05:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 18:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exclusive use of Abortion Industry Euphemisms?

Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: stillbirth = the birth of a dead fetus - compare live birth"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: fetus = "a developing human"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: embryo = "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"

Discussion on abortion semantics

Hey, 214 - let me know if you find a way of phrasing this question so that somebody who is not involved in the debate has any chance of figuring out what you are trying to say. 'Cause I really don't think that there are that many medical texts that refer to the fetus as "the alive" or "the dead". Oh, and you might want to try to find a way of asking the question that is slightly more neutral than the current version. -- AlexR 06:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up and look at the medical dictionary definitions that use the nouns and adjectives I mentioned instead of exclusive use of the euphemisms used by the abortion industry. 214.13.4.151 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think you'd get more repsonse if you treated us like decent human beings who have brains.--Tznkai 06:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have tried that, but you seem to be un able to read the dictionary excerpts above. They support the use of these terms - as just as neutral as any others - yet you are blind to them. Perhaps a bias on your part. I use both the word fetus and the term unborn human. I am not afraid of either term. I am just against exclusive use of the abortion indutry POV words. 214.13.4.151 06:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theres never much of an excuse to stop treating people as reasonable, and certainly against the good faith guideline. At anyrate, the definitions are woefully irellivant. We're building and acting on the consensus of wikipedians, not the medical community as defined by webster.--Tznkai 07:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this is the proper place to voice any concerns you may have, please talk out any issues you have with this article in here instead of pushing your point of view directly on the article. Appreciate it. Jtkiefer 06:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Funny, no one did that before inserting an erroneous statement about the pro-life camp being "conservative"!!! I can see its a one-way street here. Those in favor of abortion edit at will. All others are suspect. 214.13.4.151 06:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most groups that are pro life are conservative. The catholic church is extremly conservative. Most pro-choice groups are liberal. This is observation, not value judgement. You're reaching hte point of wild accusation. If you want to genuinly improve the article, stop that and talk reasonably with good faith. Otherwise we will end up in mediation.--Tznkai 06:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Catholci Church is the most well-known pro-life group in the world. This church is also well-known as being against most all war and most all captial punishment, and for welfare support of the poor - and provides a huge amount of social services around the globe. These are very liberal positions. It is extreme bias to claim that Catholic Church is "conservative" in light of this fact. And also to claim that most pro-life groups are conservative, when in fact the most well-known group does not fall into that cateogry. You hold extreme biases that you do not even recognize you have. I am a catholic pro-lifer - but I am at least honest about it. I am not afraid of facts or words that I may not prefer to highlight. I simply advocate that the abortion industry paradigm not be accepted as the neutral view here at Wikipedia. 214.13.4.151 06:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two important things. One, the catholic church is widley considered Socially Conservative, with a remarkable lack of fiscal policy to examine. Issues such as Gay marriage, Birth control, abortion, euthinasia, a remarakable oppoistion to communism all can be seen by a myriad of people as conservative. Second, even if we were to conceded that the church is not socially conservitive in anyway, why only edit the pro-life, and not edit and neutralize the pro-choice? You're not playing ball here.--Tznkai 07:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am playing ball - but not to your satisfaction, apparently. I am happy to let those who support at least some abortion being available to state what that view entails. And I am not happy to let those same people write a false or misleading summary of the pro-life view. Anyone who follows the Catholic Church knows that she confounds liberals and conservatives because she falls into neither camp. And you still have not addressed the exclusive use of abortion industry euphemisms for this entry. Why exclusive use of that POV's terms, when medical professionals and laypeople more frequently use other terms? And certainly why not allow such terms at least in the pro-life section? You really have made no attempt to address this. I know you find me annoying, but I am only annoying because I am forcing you to rethink your paradigm - and you are disappointed that I do have some valid points that you had previosuly not considered. I don't claim to know everything. But this is one issue about which I know both sides arguments very well, and I know where the neutral ground exists. This article is not neutral - yet. 214.13.4.151 07:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edits aren't simple changes of fetus to unborn. Again, a misnomer, misleading, and biased as has been pointed out by me and others. You are constantly reverting the article to your particular POV, which you can do to your hearts content on the Pro-choice article, and I will not be there to stop you. Here though, we are comitted to having a breif summary. You are a very vocal and intelligent minority, but you are just that. Furthermore I have not, and will not resort to personal attacks and discussions on what you have or have not considered. The articles written are fair and charitable to both sides. The term fetus is used by a lot of people, as I have said above, and is a term wikipedians have decided to use.--Tznkai 07:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, are you opposed to the use of phrases such as "unborn human", "dead fetus", "fetus is alive", "death of the fetus", "unborn child", "unwanted child" ? These are terms that are in common use by doctors and normal people in every day conversation. (Even pro-abortion activists often talk about the need to prevent "unwanted children" - but somehow even that iss not allowed by you.) Why do you - personally - want only the terms favored by the abortion industry used here? And what is more, why do you want to avoid using other terms even when discussing the POV of the pro-life stance? You have not answered theses simple questions, other than to claim "consensus" (which you improperly define, as true consensus means all parties are willing to agree to a compromise solution).

I am advocating for use of ALL terms commonly used.
You are advocating for use of ONLY terms favored by the abortion industry.
You have failed to explain how doing so is "neutral", despite it being popular here at wikipedia. 214.13.4.151 07:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"unborn human"; "unborn child"; "unwanted child".

These are innapropriate to describe a fetus. Until the 20-24th week the fetus is not viable i.e. cannot live outside the womb. In this case it is innapropriate to call the fetus a child, or to imply it is a fully formed human that just hasn't popped out of the womb yet. The cases where doctors refer to the fetus by these terms would be in the thrid trimester when the fetus can actually live if it is born. The other cases might be by a midwife or obstetrics doctor near the end of pregnancy. No self respecting doctor would refer to the fetus as an unborn child at less than 20 weeks.

It is also innapropriate to have the sentance "the violence of abortion" even in the pro-life description, so please stop adding this to the passage. Spaully 08:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but some mainstream medical texts very explicitly contradict this unsubstantiated claim of yours, specifically Webster's Medical Dictionary: embryo = "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception". I know you keep pretending that this not to be the case, but it IS the case despite your refusal to acknowledge the existence of this bona fide reference (as well as others). 214.13.4.151 09:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to bold developing. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the embryo is a developing human individual. That means it is developing, it is human, it is an individual. A child of 6 is developing to and one could argue that man never stops to develop until death. Str1977 18:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can an embryo be considered an "individual" when it is biologically dependant on another organism (i.e. the pregnant woman)? This is certainly the case before viability. --Kyd 18:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, an embyro is also an individual. Though dependent on the mother, the embyro is a distinct "biological entity" with the potential to grow/develop into someone different than the mother - this makes the embryo different from a kidney. (Note that I am not associating anything more with being an individual than being a "distinct entity" - personhood is another question and actually the one really in debate (though sometimes subconsciously). Str1977 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A genome distinct from that of its mother will not allow a 2-month-old embryo to survive ex utero. Thus discussion of the potential for fetal individuality does not really become pertinent until viability. --Kyd 19:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The embryo might not be viable outside the womb, but that is a different issue: viability. We, I think, agree on that. But it doesn't follow that viability is a necessary condition for humanity or individuality. Some with a kidney malfuntion cannot survive without dialysis. Does that make him and the machine one individuum. Or does it deprive him of his humanity? And dialysis is a articificial means much more "costly" than just leaving the embryo in the womb. Str1977 09:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed one can argue a person develops till death, but making a comparison between in utero and childhood development is unpersuasive and disengenous. Using the same word does not make them the same thing, just as the meanings of human are not equally applicable to a fetus. You focus on its individual characteristics and I focus on its developmental stage. The fact its developing indicates it has yet to become "insert word here". A child/teenager is not an adult, nor is a fetus a child. What does that mean, I dunno... but using the same words (developing, human) in different or ambiguous contexts isn't the best way to figure it out... or express it. Be that as it may so long as things (on both sides) are couched as POV's in the article; all's well that ends well. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to mention the obvious. The dictionary definition can be parsed another way: "developing" "human individual". Not sure why you would think the grammar is setup to say each thing seperately. The words were put together for a reason; you and 214 using them to "prove" your position on these issues wasn't one of them. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see why it should be unpersuasive and disengenous. There are distinct and different stages in development, but IMHO it's unpersuasive to arbitrarily draw a line at this or that stage and say: from here on human, before that not - except for conception, as this is the biological beginning of a new "entity".

I entirely agree; just remember that next time you want to interpret dictionary definitions to suit your line in the sand.

You are mistaken about "developing". Is a developing country a country? Is a toddler a developing adult? I think, the former answer is yes, the latter answer is no!

As stipulated the word developing in different contexts means different things. "Country" denotes legal sovereignty of a geographical area; it being economically disadvantaged "developing" does not change that in the slightest. When speaking of biological development; yes we can describe it as "developing" in all stages of life; but that in no way makes stages equivalent and mentioning it as you have serves no useful purpose. A biological entity is fundamentally changing what it is as it develops. To make your poor country analogy roughly equivalent; it would be writing its constitution and setting its borders. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"A child/teenager is not an adult" - I agree - "nor is a fetus a child." - it depends on how you define child: is child a period in human life/development as opposed to adult (the alternative is: child in relation to be born of parents, but that's off-topic here), then the fetus might or might not be a child, depending on how you define the beginning of childhood. But that affects merely the term, not the underlying reality.

Yes. I'm pointing out weaknesses in your statements; thank you for elaborating on my clarifications. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at some other encyclopaedic entries on the internet about abortion. 1 - No mention of "unborn human" or child unless describing a particular viewpoint explicitly. 2 - Again no mention of these terms in any of the articles. 3 - again not a sinlge mention of "unborn" or child. 4.

Why do they not mention "unborn child", because it is factually incorrect and not objective. The same goes for "unborn human" as that implies that it will in EVERY circumstance go on to be born alive. Spaully 11:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the word "unborn" only applies that the fetus/embryo is not yet born. At most, it implies that that unborn someone USUALLY is bound to be born. It does not imply that birth will occur under any circumstances. (just like, say, an "undergraduate student" is bound to graduate and will graduate if everything works according to the plan, but the student might drop out or fail the exam. Still the term "undergraduate student" applies to all students prior to their graduation. Str1977 09:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, the words "unborn" and "human" and "alive" and "dead" are all used by medical professionals and laypeople when describing pregnancy related ob/gyn concerns. Even though "unborn child" is used, I have never pushed to use that word, but simply make the point that it is a neutral term - just as neutral as "fetus" is. The fact that many references choose to adopt the abortion industry's terms is not a sign that those terms are neutral. It simply reflects the bias of those editors. But wikipedia is NOT like those other encylclopedias.

Ref 1 of yours is simply an old wikipedia entry - and thus does NOT illustrate your point.
Ref 2 and 3 of yours are the exact same text cut and pasted from "Columbia Encyclopedia", a print encyclopedia published by the avowedly pro-abortion Columbia University - and thus does nothing to prove the neutrality of the content.
Ref 4 is an incomplete entry so we do not know what the content is, but it is published by the oldest encylcopedia in the world (Britannica) - offering an old-fashioned approach to encyclopedias and hardly something wikipedia seems inclined to imitate.

In sum, your references actually weaken your argument. 214.13.4.151 14:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with words such as death or alive being used, the issue is with "unborn child", "unborn human" without the developing qualifier, or "baby" or other variation.

Last I checked this was an online encyclopedia, hence is trying to be an encyclopedia. So modelling one of the oldest encyclopedias in some respects cannot be a negative thing. You'll notice that entry does not even use the term "unborn". It is revised, and so not old-fashioned apart from the fact that it does not have subjective inputs from users all over the world.

You seem so keep to inform us of the use of unborn in the medical literature and cite the glossary as an example? Of course the glossary is going to explain the term. Perhaps if you showed a medical definition of abortion - pre 24 weeks - where the term unborn child is used, that part of your argument would hold more weight.

Proto raises an important point - arguing with you there are several people of the opinion that these terms are subjective and should not be in the article. This in itself demonstrates that the word is innapropriate. "Unborn child" should be relegated to pro-life websites where the idea is to misinform.

Finally, the reason for me not believing your arguments that the medical profession uses unborn child often is not just because I think your argument is flawed or my stubborness. It is from my experience as a medical student and time I have spent shadowing doctors in hospitals. Spaully 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If even one person objects to the use of the term 'unborn child' to describe a fetus, then its neutrality is inherently questionable. In this case, there is a growing consensus (a lot more than one person) in favour of using the term 'fetus' rather than 'unborn child'. There is a growing consensus that the use of the term 'unborn child' (unborn human, unwanted child, etc) is a loaded term that should be avoided. Why are you unable to accept the consensus? Proto 14:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll be weighing in on the "fetus" side of things as well. It is inherently flawed to refer to a fetus as "unborn" for any number of reasons. By that logic, you should be referring to your breakfest as an unborn chicken. It is also biased to use a word which the general wikipedia community has decided as POV, Fetus does nothing to diminish the capacity of that being for life, and unborn child is merely waving a flag; the best litmus test for this could probably be as simple as cracking your average high-school health book; no mention of "unborn child" in there, I do however see zygote and fetus all over the place. Daemon8666 13:15, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)

Yes Daemon, a breakfast egg is an "unborn chicken" (or once was one, since it is killed somewhere down the line) and it'd be perfectly factual to use that term. (The moral difference is, that it is a unborn chicken and not a unborn human, but that's a different issue.)

Where has the general wikipedia community has decided that a certain word is POV? Where can we read about that?

From what I have heard, 214... does not oppose the word "fetus", but only that prescribing this word while banning all alternatives is just as much flag waving.

Str1977 09:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I enjoyed your entry Daemon... but it kicked in my nitpick mode. Were the eggs fertilized? and its not common to use medical/biological definitions for food. I do like the health book mention ... even though I've pointed out on many times Wikipedia need not follow medical texts to the letter. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The eggs some eat for breakfast are indeed unfertilized (see "ethical issues"). I suppose, then, that these are less like chicken abortions and more like...chicken periods, perhaps? --Kyd 16:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I live in Canada and I doubt I've touched; let alone eaten a fertilized egg; and I've helped out at an egg farm a few times. Hehehe... chicken periods; that works with the caveat its functional. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I'm Canadian, too, and I've as of yet to eat a fertilized egg or hear of such a practice. --Kyd 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist, 214, that removing "abortion-industry terminology" will neutralize the article? Why aren't you advocating the converse: removing all "pro-life terminology" at the same time? Unfortunately, we're treading a thin line, aren't we? Obviously, though, no one here is suggesting the use of an egregiously POV synonym for fetus or unborn child, such as "precious, innocent human baby" or "unfeeling glob of cells." Most would seem to be in agreement that the term "fetus" (and, perhaps, "unborn child" in a limited and appropriate context) is an acceptable comprise between view points. --Kyd 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on fetus, but "unborn child" is the most misleading of the lot for the gestation time during which most abortions occur. That suggests that without intervention a child will be boen 100% of the time, and also conjures up images of children and babies in the womb. Spaully 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precisely what I was thinking. I think it would be best to avoid the term entirely - unless it is used in the discussion of late-term pregnancies. Otherwise, it has the distinct flavour of POV. But I am open to considering "unborn child" — not "human," "unborn person," or "baby," all of which are seldom used in abortion-related discussions in a neutral context — in tandem with "fetus" if it will resolve conflicts with those who insist that the latter term is too cold, clinical, and "dehumanizing." --Kyd 18:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unborn can probably be used, as it is in this sentance "Further complicating the debate is the issue of paternal rights, involving what rights and responsibilities the father has regarding the unborn offspring in question." I am not certain why I wrote it that way, but it seems to have stuck. I think what 214 is missing here is not that the word unborn cannot be used, but it should be used with great care and respect. The use of the term fetus is not soley the providence of pro-choice advocates, but the default term for reasoned discussion.--Tznkai 17:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has pretty much resorted to repetition. Understand, I am not trying to be confrontational, nor am I attempting to disrespect anyone's personal beliefs, but it seems that as I was reading through this, it is 2 or 3 people giving a reasoned argument why we should use "fetus", followed by 214 claiming that not using "unborn" is a POV. I think we've pretty well established that it's as close to a neutral word as possible, most of all because using a scientifically accurate word is not at all a violation of someone's beliefs. I have not been weighing in for very long on this, but it seems this argument is headed for potential Ouroubourous. Let's stop discussing, remove the lock, and start editing; objectively.

Repetition is preferable to pies in skies; and I've advocated both are okay given appropriate contexts. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated above, my goal is to use the terms the pro-life stance uses in the section clearly called "pro-life stance" - a goal which has been thwarted by several, including particularly Tznkai. My other goal is to use neutral scientific/medical tems (such as "developing unborn human" or "dead fetus" or "living fetus" or "human fetus" or "human offspring" when appropriate. Fetus is a generic term that encompasses all mammals - it is appropriate to occasionally use the term "human fetus" instead of simply "fetus" when discussing the human variety in a lengthy article. Contrary to how others here have painted this, I have not advocated use of "unborn child" throughout the article - and actually noted that fact, and my edit history shows that I have actually eliminated that term when it popped up. This, despite the uncontrovertible fact that virtually all persons who discuss a miscarriage (at any stage of pregnancy) talk about the loss of a baby or child who has died (not a potential child - which would insult the parents). Even women I know who have had abortions discuss the child they aborted. And the doctors who perform abortions also discuss the fact that they actually abort what they consider to be children - but that it is not their choice. And medical professionals also use these terms when discussing a pregnancy with the parents of the unborn child (at any stage). Of course, I know this because I have six living children (and several miscarrigages) and this is ALWAYS how the doctor discussed things with me from my very first appointment with the OB/GYN - and this did not matter whether I was seeing a European doctor or American doctor. And each child was born in a different city or country. Finally, I will restate my intention to use pro-life terms in the pro-life section, and to use terms such as "developing unborn human" or "dead fetus" or "living fetus" or "human fetus" or "human offspring" when appropriate elsewhere in the article. To exclusively use "fetus" is to slavishly adopt the abortion industry's preferred terms as if they were neutral (prior to the disease of political correctness, there was no slavish exclusive use of the abortion indutry's preferred terminology). Clearly EXCLUSIVE use of that term is ABSOLUTELY not neutral and is very much POV; and if its EXCLUSIVE use were neutral (as you all claim it is), then people who were pro-life would not be having this debate with you. And I will point out that each of you has either expressed actual bias or has shown bias by your actions and comments that considers legal abortion to be acceptable in at least some circumstances. As such, I cannot count any of you as having or even understanding the pro-life view. Therefore, despite your much ballyhood "consensus", whatever you call it, it is the "consensus" of peopole who think aboriton should be legal. As such, the "consensus" expressed here is that of people with a known bias in favor of some legal abortion. Do any of you hold that abortion is an unjust killing of a human person with rights that should be unlawful? I don't think so. But despite whatever you imagine, many people DO agree with that pro-life idea. And it was the view of most people until 30 years ago. Wikipedia should be open to a fair/neutral representation of ideas that are quite mainstream, although under-represented here at wikipedia. For goodness sake, the president of the US holds this view, the party in power in the US holds this view in its platform, the world's largest religion holds this view, Islam holds this view, some international human rights documents hold this view, most OB/GYNs won't do abortions because they hold this view (one prominent argument of abortion advocates is that there is a shortage of abortionists) - in sum, the pro-life view is not a fringe view. Wikipedia should be professional enough to acknowledge this and treat the matter fairly. I have not advocated exclusive adoption of pro-life terms (that are also commonly used by lay people and doctors when treating patients). But others do advocate for exclusive use of abortion industry terms (that are also commonly used by doctors, but rarely used by lay people). It is folly to claim that in normal conversation with friends and family about pregnant people they know or love the term "fetus" is commonly (if ever) used. It makes sense for this article to be professional but also to use commonly used language. Is there really a problem with using common language (while being careful to avoid the terms "baby" and "child" except in the "pro-life stance" section)? 214.13.4.151 09:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with a number of your points, you are little loose on your rationale in a few ways. While OB/GYN's can certainly be pro-life; the shortage of them willing to do abortions has more to do with harrassment and murders of abortionists than it does with how many OB/GYN's are pro-life. As to your personal experience, I'd imagine you'd seek and find OB/GYN's that agree with your views, but even if that were not the case; as professionals they would use terms that are appropriate for a women who wanted to have a baby and has miscarried. Their use of those terms within that context means little to the debate of abortion, and I'm therefore doubtful if it supports your/our position on allowed terminology for an encyclopedia; the purpose of which is to inform. But in pursuit of informing people, I think pro-life terminology should be used when discussion pro-life; as it serves to further clarify there isn't agreement on the status of a fetus. So I agree with the thrust of your argument, which is that the pro-life position needs to be presented. This does not mean being able to reclassify the Catholic church as not conservative because they are liberal on other subjects, adding elective labels to statistics and other shenanigans that is not only against consensus... but you take it upon yourself to do without dicussion, then revert warring and forcing the article to be protected, again. That persistent behavior will eventually just get you blocked. - Roy Boy ^{800</sup> 15:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

Your comments tend to illustrate my point about how "neutral" it is to use only the term "fetus" - the reality of what exists does not change simply because the unborn child is/was wanted. Those cells are what they are, regardless of what the mom thinks they are. Thus to only use the sterile medical term that dehumanizes the human fetus is to agree that the fetus is nothing more than a sterile medical thing. Just as it would likewise be a sign of bias to only use the more warm medical terms of baby or child. The point is, the use of the sterile term implies the following "we don't think this thing should be treated as if it were a person, and so we will make sure we use cold terms that engendr no empathy or compassion for it." Can you explain it any other way? The default position it the one that implies its nothing more than a thing? Again, to be fair, we would have to use an equally sterile term every time we spoke of the mom - gravida. But that would be just as ridiculous as using fetus exclusively. I am happy to see some indicators that there is some openness on terms. I do NOT advocate for using unborn child anywhere but in the 'pro-life stance" section. It seems that this fundamental belief ought to be present in the paragraph that explains what that stance holds to be true. 214.13.4.151 19:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are in agreement; regardless of what "mom" or the OB/GYNs thinks/wants/calls them, the cells are what they are. I'm just clarifying the circumstances, although they do not change what the fetus was/is, they do change ones perspective of the fetus; and hence are also hardly neutral.

Medical terms are neutral in the sense they are without emotion; this is why they appeal to many editors. But I agree that in stripping the emotion, the humanity if you will, that also betrays a POV on the "personhood" of the fetus. Be that as it may, I think it important for an encyclopedia to minimize emotional language in its entries. I will continue to defend a variety of terminology in this article; I guess as I see it, just as with populations... in variety comes strength. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting that pro-life people be precluded from debate. On the contrary! I know you must feel like something of a one woman army, 214, what with the apparent paucity of ideological fellows, but it's not as though Wikipedia is being run exclusively by abortion-rights supporters. The discussion page would not be seven pages long if that were the case. Obviously, though, the pro-life side cannot be unilaterally voiced, and I doubt that all who share your views at least in part would approve of all your suggestions. Nor would most pro-life or pro-choice Wikipedians make rampant POV edits without prior discussion. Don't claim to be extending the olive branch of measured, rational discourse when your past conduct seems to have demonstrated otherwise. --Kyd 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some basic, NPOV terms should be laid down. Something along the lines of "abortion proponents" and "abortion opponents." On many online bbs, simply the semantics of "pro life" and "pro choice" are the targets of huge debate. Abortion proponents charge that the term "pro life" implies that the supporters of abortion are "pro death." Furthermore, the entry should use only the terms used by the medicinal community to refer to the baby at different stages. The only REAL problem is when refering to an unborn child at any point in the pregnancy. Is "unborn child" NPOV? One could say it is, but then again many do not consider the embryo to be a child yet. Perhaps "embryo or fetus" would do? --Crucible Guardian 6 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your though. Scroll up and look at the medical definitions from Webster's medical dictionary. Medical community frequently refers to the developing fetus or embryo by those terms, and even uses the word "child". Even abortionists use the term when discussing the children they abort. 214.13.4.151 6 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I think the mistake we've made here is in assuming that the medical community is monolithic. I seem to recall a bill that makes it law allowing doctors to not perform procedures they are morally opposed to ( I don't know about it myself). This suggests to me the possiblity that same commmunity may have some division. Even if this example is not correct, I still think its a mistake to assume websters, or any dictionary for that matter, is the final word.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

You have clearly made a mistake - you have not read my words and digested their meaning: I want the terms commonly used to discuss pregnancy to be used here. I do not want to exclude the sterile cold terms that the abortion industry uses to dehumanize the fetus - and likewise I do not want to exclude terms commonly used by ob/gyn doctors and medical references (such as Webster's medical dictionary) that acknowledge (as most pregnant women do) the humanity of the unborn child at any stage. The only final word is that it is certainly just as common for doctors and laypeople to refer to the content of a pregnant mother's womb as an unborn human, a child, etc., as it is to slavishly use ONLY the abortion industry terms (fetus, embryo, etc.) to underscore the viewpoint that this entity is not a human person. 214.13.4.151 7 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)

On misuse of polls

Wikipedia is not a democracy: we don't make decisions by voting, we do so by discussion with the intention of finding a consensus (m:Polls are evil). I've removed the rubric at the top of this long discussion suggesting an either/or vote, because it seems to be an attempt to destroy the possibility of consensus by forcing a polarization of views. I also interpret this as undesirable behavior under WP:POINT, a guideline that has been repeatedly affirmed by recent arbitration committee decisions. By all means let us have a discussion on the use of terms (or still better, edit the article with the intention of introducing the most suitable terms) but we should not run a divisive poll. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is locked Tony, pending us actually getting our act together. While I do agree that this particular vote was rather... divisive, the other one above was meant to establish consensus. If you feel that it is uneeded, by all means remove it. As for this discussion, its quickly going nowhere, I'm afraid.--Tznkai 14:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extra link

Adding a link to 'zygote' would seem sensible. I'd forgotten what one was.

Zy-gote. A pair of syllables found at the beginning of life and the end of encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viability

In response to Nadsat on /Archive 7

I reiterate that in the context of Wikipedia there isn't a requirement we follow medical terminology; nor does something need to be medically viable in order for it to die. On the issue of "death" there is no rational grounds to remove/change it. If it troubles you, I suggest you read fewer medical texts and more literary and philosophical texts. (not to change your opinion on abortion, we are on the same side, but to appreciate the differences in language aren't as stark as you perceive; just because death/died aren't in medical texts does not make it incorrect) The issue I'd like to continue to explore is whether non-viable should be included in the lead. I have copied this paragraph to the main discussion page, please follow up there. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd oppose including "non-viable" into the definition, since it does not apply to all (induced) abortions. Yes, some aborted embryos/fetuses are not viable outside the womb, but some are and this article is about abortion in general. Str1977 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I agree, which ones are viable? Is that in reference to partial birth abortion? If so, is there a verifiable overlap of when these procedures occur, and the survivability of the fetus? (ie. weeks of gestation) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think viability is more of an issue in abortion law, where manslaughter charges and the like get involved. Abortion both as a technical term and referring to the social construct and crisis refers to the whole gamut from day 0 to 300. (or however long)--Tznkai 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, unless one is an abortion-supporter who considers partial-birth abortion to be infanticide (rather than abortion), the word viability is totally misplaced, because any abortion performed after 22 weeks is performed after viability is likely. But, alas, it matters not what one wants the definition to be, as abortion clearly, at least in the influential US, now legally and medically encompasses any time from conception until the instant before natural birth would occur. Although I suppose some people would still consider it abortion for the first few days after the babe is born.214.13.4.151 18:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was your point?--Tznkai 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it answered my question, ~22 weeks. As I'm sure abortions have been performed past that time, I'd maintain and agree non-viable shouldn't be in the lead. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terminology Debate: Proposed Solution (1)

I propose this for the article, and ending this debate. Note: This is a guideline so we can agree and come to consensus, not a democtractic decree

1. Both the pro-choice and pro-life stances be written neutrally as possible, not in the voice of its advocates.
2. Primary usage of the word fetus throughout the article, as fetus has been determined by the vast majority of editors to be the most neutral and the most tactful and polite.

2a Fetus will not be used exclusivly, unborn will be used where it is tactful and appropriate (non contraversial statements)

2b Edit wars changing fetus to unborn and vice versa will not be tolerated or conducted by the editors of this article.

3. We will add in a section on terminilogy, explaining the contraversy surrounding word choice in the general public.

3a There will not be a lengthy discussion of the above, nor delving deeply into the contraversy between editors. Encyoclpedia's have to be useful, not just full of information.

3b Further arguments can be rolled into any number of sub articles, or perhaps a new one.

Proposed by --Tznkai 15:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notes:
- For the sake of all of our sanities, please keep comments breif, to the point, and free of inflammitory statements. Lengthy debate can go elsewhere on this page.

Discussion:

Support I't'd be rather silly for me to not agree with my own solution, wouldn't it?--Tznkai 15:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support, as long as it is the term "developing unborn human", not without "developing" as this then it becomes factually incorrect or at the least misleading. I especially advocate point 1, you should not use pro-life terminology to describe their views, nor pro-choice theirs. Spaully 17:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to use the whole term "developing unborn human". Just asthetically, the term is clunky at best. Furthermore, I think in sentances such as "Further complicating the debate is the issue of paternal rights, involving what rights and responsibilities the father has regarding the unborn offspring in question." is reasonable and not misleading, while "Further complicating the debate is the issue of paternal rights, involving what rights and responsibilities the father has regarding the developing unborn human offspring in question." is rather clunky.--Tznkai 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For further ideeas regarding the terminology see :Nineteen Eighty-Four -CristianChirita 12:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC):)

Moved your comment to discussion. Can you be more specific what you mean?--Tznkai 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a reference to Newspeak. --Kyd 21:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, not being a government conspiracy myself, I'm not quite sure of the point still.--Tznkai 23:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vacant sarcasm, perhaps? But I'd imagine that CristianChirita intended to liken reinventing the terminology we use to reinventing the way we think about the subject at hand (and thus how we debate it, too). Not that I agree with that assessment. --Kyd 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(S)he'd have a point if we weren't discussing how to write an article on abortion, not the morality of abortion itself.--Tznkai 01:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might get more mileage out of the Doublethink and Doublespeak articles. The implication is that phrasing matters a certain way will put the audience into a frame of mind that accepts lies and propaganda. So, determining "how to write" an article will make value judgments concerning the content. This is an element common to the Orwellian dystopia and poststructural theory of relative truth—the first step is devaluing language or removing language undesirable to one's point of view. → ( AllanBz ✎ ) 28 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

What lies and what propaganda? The general aim, here, seems to be to phrase and present the article so that it remains neutral on the subject of abortion. This is the precise opposite of trying to configure the lexicon so that it best conveys one's POV. --Kyd 29 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Dehumanizing the unborn human offspring by using selected medical terms (that are also used for rabbits and pigs) and censoring out any medical terms that humanize the unborn child (such as "unborn human") is a classic example of the doublespeak Orwell warned us of. When the only lexicon allowed is one that dehumanizes the unborn, then the POV is clear: the unborn child is not human (as many of you vociferously argue whenever there is the slightest mention or hint that the embryo or fetus is a fully human entity with unique human DNA, etc. etc., that is in the process of normal human development). Such a lexicon and such fear of words that express the undeniable scientific reality that this is a living unique human entity is classic doublespeak and classic "it's not human" POV. Many are blind to this obvious expression of POV, as they have bought in to the doublespeak. I am all for using the word fetus, embryo, etc. - just not exclusively. 214.13.4.151 30 June 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Just piping in from a country where this ethical debate is very much a fringe thing. Whatever terminology you guys end up using, try to keep the facts straight and don't choose misleading wording, please (according to mainstream science). Words such as "child" and "human" have many uses, and whether or not that includes corner cases such as fetuses is non-trivial to decide in general. (e.g. replacing "children" with "children and fetuses" wouldn't generally be a good idea; same for many other pairs of words) However you classify things, it doesn't change the phenomenon, and I'd like to have it described as accurately as possible so it can be used as a reference. I think that whether fetuses (or whatever) are dehumanized or enhumanized doesn't interest many of the readers of the article at all. In your language, letting this debate affect the article too much introduces America-centric POV. (for some reason Americans want to wage huge flamewars over everything)

Unsigned comment by User:82.103.206.55 --Tznkai 30 June 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terminology Debate: Proposed Solution (2)

Acceptable words

fetus
human fetus
developing unborn
developing unborn human
unborn young
offspring

Unacceptable words

Change these/add to them but please be prepared to justify yourself. But it might be useful once we have come to a consensus to have a list such as this on the main discussion page for future reference. Spaully

I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with this. We're getting dangerously close to instruction creep here.--Tznkai 17:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instruction creep? The way I see it if we don't make this then in a few weeks some new editor will come along and start up this debate again. We have to break the cycle somehow. Spaully 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, it just seems vaugley unwiki like to have a list of words that are OK and a list of words that are not ok. I'm really ntot sure where I stand on this--Tznkai 18:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be a good idea in general, but I think this is such a frequently disputed problem and sensitive issue that it might be sensible. We could just create a specific archive for this topic and refer new readers to that instead. Spaully 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to go with my gut feeling here and disagree with this whole idea. I think it'll get us into a lot of trouble, although I understand where you are coming from. I just can't quite get my head around it.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Webster's Medical Dictionary: unborn = "not yet born : existing in utero < unborn children>"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: pregnant = "containing unborn young within the body : GESTATING"

Webster's Medical Dictionary: gestation = "the carrying of young in the uterus from conception to delivery : PREGNANCY"

214, why constantly posting this dictionary definitions?--Tznkai 17:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pregnant and gestation are new additions. Just demonstrating that use of the terms I prefer are actually quite neutral, and it is only those who advocate for abortion to be legal who consider the use here of words commonly used to discuss pregnancy-related medical situations as somehow divisive or POV. I know this is objective evidence that underscores my point, but I also know that such objective evidence will be ignored by the constant nay-sayers here who seek not a neutral stance, but one that presumes abortion is a good thing that is beyond legitimate public criticism. 214.13.4.151 18:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of two major problems 214, and I hope and believe you are not doing them on purpose. First, you are propogating a false dilemma, second you are forgetting WP:AGF. 214, the dictionary helps make your point that, yes, people out there do use those terms, and yes, sometimes in medicine. That ultimatly ins't the concern here. We want to be neutral, accurate, and useful, and I disagree that equivocating fetus and unborn as equally acceptable terms does that. Also have moved things about for organizational purposes.--Tznkai 18:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Activty around here seems to have died down, are we ready to get the article unprotected yet? I'm still not sure if we stand on any kind of solution to the edit wars, and I'd like 214 to weigh in on my proposed solution in iether direction. If she's left, or if I've missed us having an agreement, go ahead move to get the article unprotected.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)

Kindly recap your proposed solution. There has been so much posted, its all a blur. 214.13.4.151 30 June 2005 03:20 (UTC)

Its here[4]--Tznkai 30 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Your proposed solution if fine, as long as it accomodates usage of the words that have been for some time listed above on this discussion page as "acceptable words". If that is the solution, then no need for mediation. 214.13.4.151 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really like the acceptable words solution, but I have no serious problem with those words. The thrust of the solution is to neutral wording, use of fetus primarly, and then use other words where its tactful.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Mediation

A request was filed for mediation. Is there consensus for this? -SV|t 1 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

~~:I am not certain. If 214 agrees to the solution presented, we will not need it, otherwise, I suspect we will.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)</s~~

Would mediation help in protecting the article from future disputes, if so I'm for it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 1 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Yes.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

'Mediation does'nt help "in protecting the article from future disputes," rather it helps to untangle any issues that may exist now, and clarifies them in terms of how to represent material in the article. I have'nt read any of the issues, yet, but experience has shown that disputants who can agree to mediation can also agree in terms of how to convey information in the article. One, do parties agree to mediation? Two, do parties aceept me as mediator? -SV|t 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

I have no opposition. Specificly 214 and I need to hash some things out it seems, as well as over all help with the terminiology debate.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

~~Acceptance of mediation by both you and 214 has to be initialled at WP:RFM.~~ I would be happy to assist.-SV|t 8 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

OFF TOPIC

Ive noticed theres a large gap with regard to info on pregnancy here on Wikipedia. For example the stages of pregnancy are not well defined (as a chronology). (Maybe a template:pregnancy would be a good idea for consolodating this area?). Another example, which is highly relevant to this topic, is the discrepancy (aside from the terminologies) between the notion of "conception date"(ing) and the far-dominant "menstrual date"(ing) or "menstrual age." As abortion and the abortion controversy fall under the category of pregnancy, its important to state the facts, and explain how the sides in the abortion debate represent or account for the accepted and factual knowns about the state and stages of pregnancy. -SV|t 08:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change

I would like to change the interwiki link to da:Abort to one to da:Provokeret abort. However, I could not do so because the page is protected. If the page gets unprotected or if a sysop comes across this, could this please be changed? Thanks in advance. - Andre Engels 10:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. --nixie 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a small factual edit about the abortion debate, the nature of which should not be controversial itself. In the section, Debate on abortion laws, add to the end of the first paragraph: "These terms are often inverted by political opponents such that pro-life becomes anti-choice or pro-choice becomes pro-abortion." Indeed, I think most people will agree that each side tends to use these inversions when refering to their opponents. User: Jkwhitejr

Shouldn't it be "anti-life" according to that model. And please sign your posts with four tildes. Str1977 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/o/Talk%7EAbortion_Archive_8_f2f6.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Abortion/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Definitions for reference to enhance common arguments about neutrality

Unsafe abortion

WHO about UNSAFE ABORTIONS

Tznkai

Ethics

Current disputes

Methods of abortion

The ongoing debate

Premature birth

Elective abortion stats

Alternate solution

Poll

Exclusive use of Abortion Industry Euphemisms?

Discussion on abortion semantics

On misuse of polls

Extra link

Viability

Terminology Debate: Proposed Solution (1)

Terminology Debate: Proposed Solution (2)

Acceptable words

Unacceptable words

Unprotecting

Mediation

Proposed change

Views

Navigation

Search