Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Death 3 rehashing old views 4 Death 5 Definition of abortion 6 in many places

[edit] Archives

1. Archive 1 - Opening line straw poll, euphemisms, proposal by GTBacchus, edit warring, viability
2. Archive 2 - Use of "Death", medical definition sources, Sympathetic vs. Accurate, 'Quoted definitions' proposal
3. Archive 3 - Andrew C's two definitions proposal, pseudo-consensus, G&E's concerns and subsequent poll
4. Archive 4 - AnnH's proposal, SlimVirgin's proposal, more Death
5. Archive 5 - AnnH's proposal tweaks, versions 4.1-6.0, WHO and dictionaries, death

[edit] Death

I changed "causing its death" to "causing its termination" because "death" implies that the foetus is alive, which is not NPOV. User:The Lizard Wizard

I changed it back, because at least the death article is pertinent, while the termination article really isn't. Your objection has been raised before, and I agree that we don't have the most neutrally worded opening paragraph imaginable, but the solution is going to involve a lot more than just changing that one word. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we had this argument last week. Please, it doesn't take a read of the Talk archives to see these things. --BCSWowbagger 18:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rehashing old views

(in reply to User:Str1977) There are many mere biological facts that are not reported in this definition. As I have said in the past, the death of cancer cells is not the defining point of Chemotherapy, the death of sperm is not the defining point of male masturbation, the death of skin cells is not the defining point of scratching, etc. From cited sources, the vast majority of medical definitions do not include the D word. I never, ever tried to purge the POV that you are pushing. I always said included both. Have two definitions, the medical and the common definition, where the latter used the d word. However, focusing on death can clearly be POV. What would the meat article be like if it definied meat as the death of animals? Focusing on mere biological facts, by itself can be POV. I readily admit that we cannot make a definition of abortion that is cleansed of all POV, so my solution was to simply report multiple POV from cited sources, per wikipedia guidelines, instead of trying to create some new definition using original research in the name of faux neutrality. --Andrew c 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, just a quick reply:

• the difference is that all these others "deaths" are not in any way relevant to any debates. Hence leaving them out or posting them wouldn't make any difference. The issue really at hand is what or who it is that dies. We won't decide that here on WP but we also will not preclude the question by glossing over the fact that there is death occuring.
• Another issue is of course your joy in dehumanising language here. (And no: meat is not the death of animals, but the product of it. Of course, a meat article that would hide the fact that animals are killed for their meat would be just as ridiculous. If you wonder, I am a carnivore.)
• Two definitions is IMHO not suitable for an encyclopedia, especially when no medic in his right mind would dispute the common one. There is no POV difference in the definition, as long as all facts are presented. And no, it is not OR. Read the policy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add to that. Chemotherapy and male masturbation are not defined by cell death. Abortion is; fetal death is what distinguishes abortion from natural birth or c-section. Str1977 has a point about meat, as well; meat is the product, not the process. You'd more accurately use slaughter, which, in fact, does use the word "kill" (as in "kill it dead"). Your position of appealing to medical definitions is the most reasonable dissent I've heard so far, but I can't agree that those definitions are more precise, for the reasons I discussed above, or that the use of termination would be appropriate for Wikipedia, especially seeing as the termination article has no link to death and, in fact, links back to abortion with regards to termination of pregnancy. So it would be a logical loop to use "termination".

Where was I? Stupid other people in same room... Ah. Yes. I went back and found that list of medical sources you posted. It bears relinking: [1]. I don't have time to go over them right now, so I'll leave it there for the time being. --BCSWowbagger 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about the medical definitions linked to. From what I gathered, there were some not mentioning death, while others did mention it. Why should this be decided by a "majority vote of links", when the existence of medical definitions including death ipso facto refutes the claim that "death" is somehow un-medical. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer Str1997's concern, this is the epitome of POV pushing. Hypothetically, if we gave a definition from a specifically medical POV, and included the word "death" we'd be giving undue weight to a very small minority of the cited sources. As for BCSWowbagger. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, we are not required to have proper articles for all the techinical terms we use. Just because wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on this medical sense of the word "termination" does not mean we are forbidden from using that term. As for meat being a product of a dead animal, so is a dead fetus the product of an abortion. I still see the situations very aptly comparable. The other comparisons are ment to illustrate how mentioning something that is "a mere fact" can be seen as POV. To complicate matters, there is the whole issue of what sort of "death" is going on (and this matter is a real issue, just look at the recent RfC over at the Talk:Death.) Just as not mentioning death can be seen as pushing a POV, mentioning death can also be seen as POV from someone who believes the death of fetal cells is no more morally wrong that the death of tooth cells during an extraction, or the death of skin cells when one scratches. I am not saying I hold these POVs, just that the current wording is POV, and that there is NO WAY that I can see to "clense" the definition from POV (which isn't even the purpose of the NPOV policy in the first place). All this has lead me to say "include both POV". Besides, there are different meanings of the word "abortion" and there is nothing unencyclopedic about explaining the many uses of the word (how it can sometimes mean miscarriage, and how it sometimes only refers to pre-viability procedures, and how some people think the most important aspect of an abortion is the death of a pre-born human, etc). I'm not trying to hide POVs, I'm trying to a) include all relevent POV and b) specifically say where these POVs come from (a la the "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" section of the NPOV policy). What we have now is an unsourced, unqualified intro that has the illustion of neutrality, when there is still inherent POV. I still believe the safest thing to do is cite sources, state who hold these views, and include all relevent views. As seen from the constant edit warring that hasn't gone away, this issue isn't going to go away. People are going to see the d-word and shout bias (just as I imagine if we removed the d-word completely from the intro, we'd have people shouting in the other direction). We can't simply keep saying "this is the best compromise we've had so far, and we are tired of working on a solution," and we can't say "there is nothing biased about the intro" and make it true. If we admit there is bias, qualify it, cite it, then I believe we can avoid these issues. Acting like there is no bias is the problem. (remember, "neutral-POV", not "No-POV").--Andrew c 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can not rely on a minority of medical sources. That would be POV. Secondly, I want to say that I am not criticizing you for intentionally pushing POV. I am seeing an honest attempt at improving the article from you. I simply disagree with the content of your changes, because I believe that they are POV. I very much believe that you are acting in good faith.

Response to points about me: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see your point. We are not a dictionary; we are an encyclopedia. WP:LEAD is very clear that "the lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms." This involves defining them, and, by your own admission, we are supposed to define "abortion" in a manner that both clearly defines it and explains the context in which it is important.

Furthermore, we are not required to have proper articles for all the techinical terms we use. My point, with regards to termination, is that the word "termination" is only relevant to the fetus insofar as "termination" is a synonym for "death." Indeed, the only way to use it with regards to the fetus would be to say something like "...caused by, or resulting in, the termination of its life," because you can not end a fetus; you can only end its life. (If referring to the pregnancy, "termination" would be appropriate, since the pregnancy itself is being brought to its end or "terminus.") I brought up the link because the people at the termination article seem to understand that. People here do not.

As for meat being a product of a dead animal, so is a dead fetus the product of an abortion. I still see the situations very aptly comparable. Yes, but this article isn't called dead fetus; it is called abortion. The article on meat, logically, does not contain the word "death," but, logically, the article on slaughter does. I think this is a mostly minor point, but your use of other articles to back up your point simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because you are drawing imprecise analogies.

The other comparisons are ment to illustrate how mentioning something that is "a mere fact" can be seen as POV. The whole point here is that mentioning "death" is not a "mere fact": it may be "merely true," but fetal death is the central crux of this entire issue. It is the main reason abortion is notable, and it is the single most important part of contextualization of the issue.

To complicate matters, there is the whole issue of what sort of "death" is going on (and this matter is a real issue, just look at the recent RfC over at the Talk:Death.) There is no scientific question of what sort of death is going on. A member of species homo sapiens, with all the biological qualities of life, dies in an abortion. This is not cell death; this is the death of a separate, complex biological organism, and I defy anyone to find a biologist who says otherwise. The RfC at Talk:Death more closely relates to the cultural significance of the death of the unborn life and whether that life consitutes a person, which is a strictly philisophical issue that we go into more deeply later in the article and elsewhere in the WikiProject.

The rest of your response deals primarily with your longstanding idea of a "dual-definition" lead. I confess I don't really understand what you're looking for. We already have two defintions, although both could use cleanup: "Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." What are you looking for here? The current lead-in consists of 100% fact. It includes both POV's, with no undue weight. Could you, perhaps, post a proposal for a new version? I think this would be... what, 7.0 or 6.1? It would be easier to discuss a concrete proposal rather than vague generalities. --BCSWowbagger 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Could be v5.3, too. --BCSWowbagger 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It took longer than I expected for this to come up. - RoyBoy <sup>800 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only edited this article once in the past 3 months, and that was just to clean up some spacing issues. I don't know to what changes you are refering. Sorry about the confusion about dictionary. I understand the the first sentence lead is supposed to be dictionary style. I was just critical of your reasoning behind not using termination because of the manner in which it is currently treated on wikipedia. We shouldn't let the current status of wikipedia effect our decisions, but instead, change the rest of wikipedia to fit cited sources if necessary. Does that make sense? If the termination article doesn't mention the medical use of the word, we can simply add it. It seemed like faulty logic to use that as a reason not to use the term. As for termination specifically, you are misusing the term. Termination is not a euphemism or synonym for death. Fetuses are not terminated, pregnancies are.

I'm sorry you don't like my analogies. All analogies fall apart on some level. I apologies that the bigger meaning behind the analogies were not communicated adequately. As for death, this is part of the bigger abortion debate. We cannot say what you said and called it settled, because this issue is still debated. Does a fetus have all the biological quantities of life? Is a unborn human a unique organism? Saying that this is a bigger sort of death than cell death is just a POV, and we cannot push that POV without qualifying it and giving the other perspective. I agree completely that the reason why pro-lifers find this issue so significant is that the fetal death "is the single most important part of contextualization of the issue." However, that is just one POV. It is obvious that this first sentence definition is problematic due to the edit changes that don't go away. Wikipedia can't say "we have decided that something more than cellular death has occured in an aboriton procedure, and that this is the single most important and defining aspect of an abortion and if you don't like it, we will protect the page".

As for specific proposals, I stand by my proposal that had consensus before the stacked vote. However, I am also content keeping things the way they are for the time being. I just needed to say "look, everyone, the reason why the intro still gets edited is because it isn't perfect. There is still POV in it, and we should at least acknowledge that. I can't act like we have the perfect solution, so I'm going to rant for a bit. But it seems like I am alone, standing on my soapbox, so I'll just step down."--Andrew c 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The pursuit of a perfect solution is a laudable goal, and as I've said I don't like death in the first sentence. However, I'm doubtful there is a definition that doesn't have potential POV in it; given the ambiguous nature of language. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And just because I am critical of the current version doesn't mean that I don't understand that it is the best we have done so far, and that there was strong consensus supporting this as a compromise for an issue that has so many extreme POVs.--Andrew c 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't keep trying to hash this out, as long as we all have gobs of spare time laying around. I mean, this is bound to come up again, so if all the current editors could present a united front, that would make it easier to defend whatever we end up using.

"I don't know to what changes you are refering." My bad. I meant to write "your proposed changes" would push a single POV. Proposed somehow got dropped somewhere between my mind and the keyboard. I agree that, if the rest of Wikipedia is doing something wrong, we should fix it, not conform to them; I was arguing that termination was doing it right, and showing it as precedent. Termination does refer to the termination of the pregnancy, by linking back to us. But the clause of the sentence in question refers to the fetus, which is not terminated, but killed. I noted this distinction in my last response, and I here reaffirm my agreement that a pregnancy receives termination, but the fetus receives death.

"I'm sorry you don't like my analogies. All analogies fall apart on some level." True, but mine, comparing abortion to slaughter (livestock) was better. Which was my point. As for the biological death of the fetus, it's immediately evident, based on the qualities of life, that a separate being is killed. I will acknowledge the debate over this when I see a credible source participating in it. Maybe I just live in a bubble, but I haven't seen it; the closest debate I've seen is whether or not the fetus is a parasite, but that concedes that it is alive. If you have a new source, please, bring it forward, but the debate seems to be over whether or not the living fetus has a right to life.

"As for specific proposals, I stand by my proposal that had consensus before the stacked vote." Would that be version 4.0.1? Or is there a later version that I'm not finding?

"However, I'm doubtful there is a definition that doesn't have potential POV in it; given the ambiguous nature of language." Exactly what Andrew's been saying all along. I still agree both with that and that multiple POV being included is the solution. And, while a perfect solution may be impossible, it doesn't hurt to try. Hey, we've got to get this to an FA someday, so we might as well keep trying, right?

If you still want to let this go until next time some anon editor strikes at the opening, I'm down wit' that, but I'm also more than willing to keep discussing this. Or I can just let you rant. That's cool too. ;) --BCSWowbagger 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death

The opening sentence makes an assumption, namely that the aborted child is alive. But that is a point that is at the core of many discussions on the subject. So that sentence takes sides. And an encyclopedia needs to be neutral. Shouldn't it read something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy, through natural or artificial causes"? DirkvdM 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thousands of words have gone through the tubes discussing just this issue. I think the opening could still be improved to be made more neutral, but it hasn't been a priority to address it for some time. See Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, which has about 5 pages of its own archives, for a taste of the debate so far. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The aborted foetus does not 'die' for it never was a living thing, a foetus remains a mere parasite until upon delivery it takes its first breath. Comradeash 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if your "fetus = parasite" statement were correct, that wouldn't prove that the fetus doesn't die and is never living. Parasites, in fact, are alive, and do die. Go to the cagegory for parasites, and click on some of the articles. You'll find that ticks DIE at the end of a two-year LIFE CYCLE; that tapeworms LIVE in the digestive tract of vertebrates; and that head lice can be KILLED by a 1% permethrin or pyrethrin. AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is a human person or another type of living tissue (whether that tissue be a parasite, an animal, a human fetus, or some other thing just short of a human person) it can still die. I don't think it advances a POV to say that the fetus can do the same. It would advance a POV if there were reference to a person or baby dying.--Kchase T 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Before that whole discussion fires up again, isn't it easier to avoid the issue (and inherently choosing sides) by calling it a termination of pregnancy, as I suggested? That's nice and neutral, isn't it? DirkvdM 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not nice and neutral. To conceal that the fetus dies is inherently choosing sides. The fact that it dies shouldn't be shocking unless someone thinks it's a human. If I read an article about Hitler, I'm shocked, and I feel uncomfortable, because I happen to believe that it's abhorrent to kill Jews. If I read an article about treatment of head lice, I'm not shocked, and I don't feel in the least bit uncomfortable, because I happen to think there's nothing wrong with killing lice. So the word "death" only causes discomfort because of questions in the mind as to what it is that dies. That's why it would be extremely POV to put "baby" (which is what I believe) or "parasite" (which is what Comradeash apparantly believes) in the article. There's nothing wrong with death, unless the thing dying has a right to life, which the article does not assert. And, in addition, we've been through the argument many times that "termination of pregnancy" does not distinguish abortion from a live birth. AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But a live birth is also a termination of pregnancy, so that term doesn't work. -- Cat Whisperer 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add another topic under Notable precedents in discussion in the archives nav box. *sigh* When a cell dies, it is death. When an organ dies, it is death. When a fetus dies, it is death, regardless of whether you consider the fetus to be a vital human endowed with a soul, a forming mass of tissue, or something else. Death is death. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is a single cell or organ alive? That is open to discussion. If I lose an arm, does the arm die? Not in normal English. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat: that is a semantic argument (a word game, if you will). Termination of pregnancy is a technical term. Do a google search of the term. What is the first hit that uses the term to not be synonymous with abortion? #60, an employee manual having to do with maternity leave. The next hit is #113. I do not find the argument against this term compelling.--Andrew c 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And if that is a problem it is a matter of choosing between problems and picking the lesser one. Taking sides is a strict nono in Wikipedia. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is as good a time as any to suggest that there's a way to avoid taking a side in the first sentence. This came up before, but we didn't want to deal with it then, having just hammered out 5.3 versions of opening sentences.

The trouble is that whether you include or omit "death", you're seen as speaking from one side of the debate. Instead, we could begin with "An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is controversial...." Then we could quote two definitions, from very reliable sources, one with "death", one without, and note that each is problematic. Is that a feasible solution? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

At talk:abortion#Definition of abortion I have approached this in a broader sense, looking at various sources for a definition of abortion. Almost all definitions use a variation of 'premature termination of pregnancy' or 'termination of pregnancy before something, something '. Not one definition uses the word 'death' and only the Dutch dictionary uses the word 'life', but then in the sense that the foetus could not live outside the uterus. This avoids the issue of whether the foetus is alive. So the definition of abortion is not controversial at all. It's just the English Wikipedia as it is now that is the odd one out. DirkvdM 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of abortion

There is a continuing discussion over which definition of abortion to use in the intro. To resolve this (POV and OR), I've looked for some sources (what else can we use, especially if we can't agree?). The definition in dikke van dale, the de facto official Dutch dictionary is as follows (translated):

miscarriage, untimely birth, that is, during that period in which the foetus can not stay alive outside the uterus.

And then the definition of abortus provocatus:

artificially brought about miscarriage, termination of pregnancy

Not that this does not say whether the foetus is alive, thus avoiding that issue. Also note that the Wikipedias in other languages I can read don't use the word 'death' at all and all use variations of 'termination of pregnancy' or 'pregnancy-interruption'.

• Spanish: "la interrupción del embarazo antes de que el desarrollo del feto haya alcanzado las 20 semanas"
• French: "l'interruption avant son terme du processus de gestation"
• German: describes the process in stead of giving a definition, but this is a separate article form 'abortion', called 'pregnancy-termination'.
• Italian: "l'interruzione prematura di una gravidanza"
• Portuguese: "a interrupção (espontânea ou provocada) de uma gravidez antes do final do seu desenvolvimento normal"
• Dutch: voortijdig afbreken van een zwangerschap door (medisch) ingrijpen
• Indonesian: "berhentinya kehamilan"

(note that they all deal with 'abortus prenatalis', although some articles are about abortion in general.)
Also try googling "definition of abortion". I haven't quite looked through them all, but what I have seen all says pretty much the same thing. That's quite some concensus. The English Wikipedia is the odd one out here. DirkvdM 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read through the archives. We've been over a lot of this before. You may find the 21 definition list more a bit more thorough Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS.--Andrew c 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are reliable sources that use "death", and there are reliable sources that don't. A lot of sources that don't use "death" are written from a medical perspective, but the argument has been raised that Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, and that abortion is much of a political topic as it is a medical one. If we use the most clinical definition we can, then we're taking a position that abortion is more importantly seen as a clinical act than a moral one, which is already a biased stance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: someone moved this thread, claiming it's part of the 'death' dispute. But that's just part of it. It's very simple. There is a standard definition of abortion that (practically) all the sources agree upon. Giving a different definition is OR. This is so straightfroward that I'm tempted to change the article, but given the long dispute over the word 'death' I'll wait a bit. DirkvdM 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said the exact same thing before, that creating our own definition to cater to multiple POV is OR. My solution was a two definition solution which almost passed consensus. However it didn't. This version isn't perfect but it works. I personally have spent way too much time discussing this issue over the past year, when there is still a rather large to do list. Perhaps you may consider holding off this debate, and instead put your energies towards improving the actual content of this article. Then, after we have improved these other issues with the article, maybe we can tackle this issue again. Also, your posts are being moved, not because it is the 'death' dispute, per se, but because you are discussing the first paragraph. Note the title of this page. Historically, when we fill up the main article talk page, all progress and other discussions stop (however, I will say that there isn't really any ongoing progress or discussion to be disrupted). Anyway, would you consider putting this debate on pause and helping out with the to-do list instead? We obviously need help from other editors in this department.--Andrew c 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I echo what Andrew said above. I'm not attempting to be difficult, or to shoo away your topic because it's related to the "death" wording, but rather because this topic is relevant to the first paragraph more broadly. Earlier this year, the "death" and first paragraph discussions crowded out all others on the Main talk page, so we created this topical sub-page for the specific purpose of discussing the first paragraph. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem not to notice it in the archive box on Main talk; I have to move threads at least once a month. -Severa (!!!) 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to? You mean you do? DirkvdM 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And even when I knew there should be such a link, I still had a hard time finding it. No wonder others can't find it either. DirkvdM 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I always leave a post explaining why I've moved the thread and directing people here. It's hardly an anomaly that this article's discussion page should have topical sub-pages. Take Talk:Jesus, for instance. -Severa (!!!) 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The consensus on political correctness isn't the concern of the accurate and balanced English definition. The fact Encarta uses the word "death" removes OR from serious consideration. The fact it isn't in many other Wiki you've checked speaks more to the Wiki-process than to unassailable truths on the definition of abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This post keeps on being removed from the talk page and I don't feel like a revert war over that, so I'll continue here.

As far as I'm concerned this is about the intro giving the most used definition of abortion, which is something along the lines of the premature termination of pregnancy, through natural or aritificial causes. But some seem to find the inclusion of the word 'death' a big deal, so that needs to be addressed. I hadn't seen that other list of definitions before, and it indeed includes some that use the word death. However, those are just 4 out of 12 definitions. And that's not counting the sources I mentioned above, where I haven't found a definition using the word 'death'. Also note that all definitions using the word 'death' are from US sources, so maybe that's a factor here. The talk pages of the other Wikipedias hardly address the issue. Only in the Portugueses one there is one remark that the use of the word 'death' is inappropriate. The definition I copied above namely continues to say "muitas pessoas o definem como a morte do embrião ou feto", or "many people define it as the death of the foetus". Maybe that would be a good basis to satisfy the discussion here.

So what about "The medical definition of abortion is 'the premature termination of pregnancy, through natural or aritificial causes'. However, more moral definitions, especially in the USA, sometimes use the word 'death'. This touches on the difficult issue what what the definition of life is." That last bit is very open to change, but on the initial definition there is so much consensus that using any other definition would be OR.

There are really two issues here. One is whether the word 'death' should be used. I'd say that's an issue that needs to be addressed, so yes. The other is if that word should appear in the definition. I tend to disagree since that is not in keeping with the most common definitions. But another solution would be to use both a medical and a moral definition, as Andrew suggests.

And about stopping this discussion. If many people protest the present, deviating, definition, then something needs to be done about that. Such as giving both views. What could make more sense? DirkvdM 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in many places

The end of the lead was changed to this from "in many parts of the world". Personally I find "places" weaker and less specific. World by its nature is more of a worldwide view that Wikipedia wants us to adopt in articles. Thoughts? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This was changed by Resonanteye as part of an effort to trim down article size through copyediting (see the thread, "Word count and grammar"). His edit is a good step toward that goal, but I see now, "in many places" is a lot more ambiguous than "in many parts of the world." Technically, "places" could refer to Mars, Io, or the Andromeda Galaxy — not exactly places where abortion is hotly debated among humans (at least, not yet). I suppose "in many parts of the world" puts the debate in a more appropriate context, so I've restored it. -Severa (!!!) 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)