Talk:Abortion/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Survey Public opinion

I found this: A Times/Populus survey carried out among 1,504 people in November 2004 found 38% of Britons believed abortion should always be legal, while a further 36% said it should be "mostly legal". Almost a fifth of those asked believed abortion should be mostly illegal, with just 4% believing it should be illegal in all circumstances. There was little disparity between the views of men and women, but Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were marginally more likely to support abortion than Conservative voters.

in this article [1] I could add it but I thought I should get the view of people first as it might be contended etc... --Wolfmankurd 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just read up on it and they conducted it in a larger group also, results arent too dissimilar. --Wolfmankurd 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of pictures in article

I think the two pictures displayed alongside the "Abortion Debate" headline within the article are a bit ridiculous. The one displaying pro-life supporters shows young men and women holding a silent vigil, whereas the pro-choice representation shows older people rallying and picketing obnoxiously. Its also worth pointing out that the rally picture is of a much lower quality.

While the details are not really that relevant (the fact that one picture contains attractive people in their mid-20's and the other is a badly compressed image of 30-40 year-olds) the subjects' activities are. Specifically, the fact that the pro-life protest is shown as modest and subdued whereas the pro-choice protest is depicted as obnoxious and fervent. The fact is that plenty of distasteful picketing occurs on both sides (see http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2003/0301/protest0121.jpg) and that silent and subdued protests are far and few between when it comes to topics this fervently debated.

The bottom line is that the implications within the two pictures are far too obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.28.191.109 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article can only contain images which are licensed for use on Wikipedia (see WP:IUP). In short, those images not eligible for copyright, with an expired copyright, or which the copyright holder has given us permission to redistribute. The selection of abortion-related photographs and diagrams is rather thin, although I have compiled them into a category, Abortion images. There is an image of an older pro-life crowd as well as Gloria Feldt and Rep. Albert Wynns at a pro-choice rally. Of these four pictures of abortion advocacy, all were taken in Washington, D.C., so there's definitely a thematic contrast between them all. The current pro-choice image might be grainy, but, compositionally, with the Washington Monument so central, I think it's great. It juxtoposes very well next to the great composition of the image of pro-lifers before the steps of the Supreme Court. I think the "obnoxious and fervent" complaint has more to do with scale: the pro-choice photograph was taken at the March for Women's Lives while the pro-life one appears to be a smaller scale demonstration staged solely by Bound for Life. -Severa (!!!) 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Similarly, why are there no pictures of abortion procedures, or of foetuses that have been aborted? That would surely help to clarify the debate, educating people as to why there it is a controversial subject. I'm sure that none of the pro-abortion people here would have any objection, after all, why would they? Any thoughts? Ros Power 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice. Your comment here is clearly biased and anything that is coming from a biased standpoint on either side of the issue should not be included. We can inform readers of both sides of the subject but for the sole purpose to inform, not to sway political thought one way or another.24.144.213.69 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Anon.
I have edited the header, to lowercase
Ros Power, please see what you can contribute to hot dog. Perhaps people should be graphically reminded of the process behind such snacks, too. Excuse my sarcasm. -- Ec5618 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
NPA, Ec5618. That said, Ros, there is strong precedence against shock images on this article (Archive 14, "Link to 'Aborted Children'", Archive 16, "Linking to Images is Allowed", Archive 20, "Abortion Images/Links". Such images, in the context of the politically-charged Abortion article, would be more argumentative than informative — a violation of WP:NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "shock images". Surely the last people who would argue that images of abortion were "shocking" would be pro-abortion people! After all, they don't believe that foetuses are people, and they think that abortion is acceptable! And from a pro-life perspective, such images would illustrate what they are fighting against! So how could anybody, in all intellectual honesty, object??Ros Power 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked at the previous discussions. I agree with the poster in Archive 20. There are a large number of other medical procedures and disturbing medical images on WP. There is no reason other than ideological bias that would prevent abortion images being put on this page. I will find some that I can get permission to post and put them up. Ros Power 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly advise you gain consensus for adding these images prior to posting them in the article. This is one of the most heavily debated, edited, and vandalised articles on WP and bold usually doesn't make much headway here. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Anyone object, and if so why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ros Power (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Haven't seen the image you propose to add yet, how can anyone support or object to the addition of an unseen unidentified image? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I would object on the basis that the pictures informative value is trumped by their sheer grotesqueness. Yes, the procedure isn't pretty, however neither is a cesarian section, or a pap smear, yet these are equally safe and commonplace surgeries or procedures. The aversion to placing a picture of an aborted fetus is not based on the fact that it represents some truth people want to conceal; rather, it is an uneseccary exposure to something that is already the known ugly truth. Someone might say the same thing towards a picture of an alley in Calcutta of dying and starving children due to overpopulation, yet this is an appeal to emotion rather than a representation of information relevant to the article. 71.28.191.109 05:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, Ros, the only reason for adding such images would be ideological bias. Shock images, whether "pro-life" or "pro-choice," serve little to no informative purpose. Anything that can be depicted visually is better written in descriptive text. Thus, their only function would be argumentative, and this is not the role of an encyclopaedia. Other than being uninformative, it is my opinion that such images would detract from the quality of this article, by lessening its stringent adherance to NPOV. Frankly, the "but other articles do it" defense doesn't hold water. I cannot say whether graphic images at Gonorrhea, Feces, or Anencephaly add informative value to those articles, but, I don't edit them and so I will leave it to the Wikipedians who do to determine what is appropriate there. Also, most of the afforementioned articles do not share Abortion's hot-button pedigree, so there is little comparison between other articles' use of graphic images and this one's failure to do so. -Severa (!!!) 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that they would not be informative. Many people are acutely unaware of the basic humanity of the aborted child - that is ignorance - an ignorance I too once possessed. Many women are shocked after an abortion to see their child's head and limbs in a metal dish. Surely the whole point of Wikipedia is to inform, enlighten and educate? Ros Power 11:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Now we are shifting into territory which is completely counter to NPOV. It might be one thing to argue in favour of shock images from a purely medical standpoint, but, your argument above only proves why such images should be precluded. There is no way that the presentation of such images could ever be considered neutral in the context of abortion. The role of Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, is to provide factual information; it is not to attempt to influence personal opinion. Let's leave that to advocacy groups, who probably do a better job in general, anyway. -Severa (!!!) 11:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power, you are just another twat pushing his POV here. I reject the WP:NPA in your case, see my userpage for explanation. ackoz 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ros, feel free to post a suggested image here on the talk page. Any bold moves on the main page will quickly be removed and wouldn't earn you any favor among the regular editors. It's not impossible that there may be a NPOV image out there that meets wikipedia guidelines, but I haven't seen one yet. -Quasipalm 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ackoz, if you check Ros' edit history, you will see that her first contribution was made on May 22. Let's not bite a newcomer, shall we? Assume good faith. Ros is new to Wikipedia, and, thus, is probably unfamiliar with its intent. Alienating language is not an effective manner by which to defend the article from POV images. Let's avoid tossing the, erm, dishes out with the dishwater, okay? -Severa (!!!) 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think both sides of the debate here have very good points, and I would like to see what Ros might come up with. Just because Ros has a blatant anti-abortion bias does not mean that his argument has no value. If a picture that accurately represents an abortion - or perhaps one being performed (he does mention abortion procedures in his first post)- can actually be agreed upon by a majority as something worthwhile, I don't see a problem with it being added. After all, wiki is about information. If there is a crowded street in Calcutta with starving children, although it contains "shock value" to see it, it's the truth, isn't it? It's not ROS' fault that the truth IS shocking, and his suggestion shouldn't necessarily be shot down for it.
And in regard to the two pictures already up in the abortion debate section, although the editor wanted a "better quality" picture for the pro-choice representation, one could also argue that the pro-life representation contains about three people, while the pro-choice one is a sea of people. So I think they're fair as they are.Stanselmdoc 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Sorry I only violate the NPA when I think the discussion is effectively over. I thought so but this is not the case. Would you place a photo of a person during the Whipple operation to the pancreatic cancer article? Of course you wouldn't people are not used to seeing blood and bowels and liver and burned and cut tissues .. such an image could distract people and prevent them from taking the operation that could perhaps be life-saving for them. Just because they are not used to something.

As people are not used to seeing blood and cut heads and limbs etc, that doesn't mean that cut heads and limbs are evil? You get it? Ever? I doubt it .. The information in showing blood is zero, it's only emotions you are playing with.

ackoz 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You've successfully confused me. Is your sentence As people are not used to seeing blood and cut heads and limbs etc, that doesn't mean that cut heads and limbs are evil? a question? But that's not my point anyway. My point was, surely EVERY picture of an abortion procedure isn't "too graphic" to handle. Ros mentioned TWO kinds of pictures - dead fetuses and abortion procedures. Then everyone harped on the dead fetuses idea and completely ignored the possibility that there might be a picture around of an abortion procedure taking place that might actually be tasteful. Forgive me for maintaining faith in the internet. Oh, and forgive me for "playing with emotions" as well. Not my fault abortion IS an emotional subject. I'd like to hear from ANY woman who has felt no emotion in regard to having an abortion. Be it horrified emotion, or a good emotion. So don't accuse Ros and me of "bringing" emotion into a previously "unemotional" subject. Perhaps the medical procedure has no emotion, and may be presented in such a way. Oh wait...isn't that the kind of picture I suggested? Thought so.Stanselmdoc 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Should not have been a question. You know it, so stop kidding me. I am not accusing you of bringing emotion into an unemotional subject. I am accusing you of inability to perceive, that allowing emotions in the article is not a good thing for an encyclopedia. I am opposing using pictures of blood, cut limbs, resected bowels, resected pancreas etc in any article here. How would you imagine a picture that would be "descriptive" of abortion? A woman in gynecological position with some tubes inserted in her vagina? Yep that would be informative. But better described in text than illustrated by a picture. --ackoz 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha I think you think I'm smarter than I am. I really was confused and really didn't know it wasn't a question. But thank you for clearing it. I'm not imagining anything being "descriptive" of abortion. I haven't mentioned anything about even having found pictures that I would suggest putting up in the article. I'm saying that IF there are pictures like that, why can't Ros search for them? We agree on the same thing, I'm opposed to having pictures that are unhelpful as well. My problem is that everyone seems to want to stop Ros from trying to find a picture that IS helpful. Granted, his idea of helpful is probably different from others. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to try. You never know, he might get lucky and find something that we all agree on. Assume good faith. Stanselmdoc 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to be perfectly clear in terms of the sort of images we are discussing for potential inclusion in the article. A shock photo, whether of the pro-life or pro-choice variety, would be unencylopaedic and POV. There is, in fact, a photograph of the body of a woman who died of an illegal abortion which is occasionally trotted out in pro-choice literature, so it's not as though we're only discussing the exclusion of the aborted fetus pictures used in pro-life activism — the rule works both ways.

Are we, on the other hand, discussing medical diagrams? It needs to be stressed, then, that many apparent "medical diagrams" of abortion were in fact commissioned as propaganda. Also, photographs of an abortion procedure, as described by Ackoz, would be so ambiguous as to be suggestive of almost any other gynecological procedure. -Severa (!!!) 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Many are propaganda, many are not. We would obviously not include a biased image. -Quasipalm 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google image search for "diagram of abortion." That's my point. -Severa (!!!) 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


But you are, Severa, absurdly asking for the suppression of any image of the key focus of this aticle - the most common of all surgeries - first trimester abortion. Your pretense at neutrality by noting that a shock propaganda photo of a dead mom (a very rare victim of a botched illegal abortion) is also prohibited (to suggest the "rule" is balanced) is extremely transparent. Of course all good wikipedians know that the wikipedia solution has always been "if it ain't available on google, then it won't appear in the article." The NAF diagrams are the same as others you can find (see below). You must not be very well-versed in clinical abortion to make such odd statements about what an illustration of abortion would look like. Like most sugeries, it is ugly because it is bloody. But that is no reason to suppress the information (censor it). Go ahead, register for free and download the powerpoint diagram from NAF here.and then compare it to the one here. And by the way, the medical illustration of partial-birth abortion that is all over the internet was medically verified by an eminent professor as an accurate depiction of abortionist Martin Haskell's procedure. Stop with the tripe about propaganda. Get off the censorship soapbox. Aborting a fetus is ugly, no mater how you slice her. An abortion advocacy bias is the primary basis for keeping professional medical illustrations of abortion out of the article. 84.146.215.219 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And it would seem, from the way you frame your arguments and your clearly biased language, that anti-abortion advocacy is the primary motivation for adding such illustrations to this article. Going back and forth like this is not going to solve anything. romarin [talk ] 14:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Abortion is a common surgery. Why would images of such a common surgery be suppressed, if not to hide what it is? How is bringing what it is to light in any way biased? A bias for more information is what wikipedia is all about. A bias to hide relevant information is sinister - and what wikipedia is NOT all about. The strong desire to keep images of what an abortion is hidden speaks volumes about those who possess it. The strong desire to make such images available to more people (rather than suppressed) is to be lauded by all who favor enlightenment and decision-making based on fully informed decision-makers. 84.146.204.113 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no pictures of human corpses under "death", and why would there be? A broken body is not the central significance of death, it is just unpleasant to look at. The same is true of abortion. Our "humanity" is not our body, it is our working mind.

I don't think it's fair to have one image of a few pro-life activists and another image of a huge crowd of pro-choice activists. This shows that the pro-life movement has few supporters, which is not true. Mace 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of scale: the pro-life demonstration is by Bound for Life, a grassroots organization, while the pro-choice image depicts activists at the March for Women's Lives. Another user above expressed the concern that the younger age of the pro-life demonstrators in the photo makes the pro-choice cause appear less current. I don't think that the relevancy of an issue can be judged from the apparent turnout in a picture of an isolated protest. After all, "size isn't everything," and many gatherings are considerably smaller affairs than the March for Life or March for Women's Lives. I think that it speaks to the dedication of those who are willing to turn up even if they aren't thronged by 100,000 others. Also, the current pair of pictures create a thematic juxtaposition, centred about two Washington landmarks. That said, my own personal concern for the pictures is the unintended Amerocentrism; it would be nice to to have capture an image of activists in the abortion debate in another country. Anyway, there's an alternate image of a pro-life gathering. It's certainly a larger crowd than that in the Bound for Life picture, and, hopefully, this would resolve your concern. -Severa (!!!) 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Activist pictures

I'm starting a new thread to break away from the above discussion, which, for the most part, has turned from the subject. Hopefully, I've succeeded in compiling a list of all the images of abortion-related protests currently hosted on Wikipedia, so that we might pick and choose from among them. -Severa (!!!)

Pro-choice:

Pro-life:


Good job on these pictures, Severa. I think we could actually keep the current pro-choice picture with the hundreds of supporters, and maybe we could just change the pro-life one to a picture with more people. OR we could keep the small-scale one of the pro-lifers and change the pro-choice picture to something more small scale as well. Either way, I think it was great of you to find these and make them more accessible to us for our consideration. Stanselmdoc 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. ackoz 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If we were to use the image of a smaller-scale pro-life demonstration, though, we could also switch the current picture of the large, American pro-choice march for the small, Irish demonstration. This would be killing two birds with one stone, as it were, because I mentioned earlier that I wanted to counteract the current "American bias" in the activist images and thus help to give the article a more global perspective. However, it appears as though that image has been uploaded on fair use grounds, so I'm concerned that copyright would be an issue. -Severa (!!!) 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the first image from the first row, and the last image from the second row. Those are comparable in size, and neither prominently displays a web address of some advocacy site, which I find somewhat tacky unless we can't avoid it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we all agree that the pro-life image should be changed to Image:Pro-life protest.jpg? -Severa (!!!) 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that change. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too. I like agree with GT's idea, to use the first image from the first row, and the last from the second row. romarin [talk ] 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Activist pictures displayed

ProChoice:

150px

ProLife:

-Quasipalm 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are pictures of protesters really necessary in the article? We all know what protesters look like: they span pretty much all ages, they sometimes go to events and important places, and they hold picket signs. You could add pictures of protesters to get the idea across of what their group is like, but then it'd make more sense to just include it in the text, except it doesn't really seem relevant to the article. 70.66.9.162

Abortion articles at Wikipedia

Last night, I put together the following category tree for abortion related articles at Wikipedia:

Subtotals:

  • 194 abortion related articles
  • 677 politicians identified as pc/pl
  • 41 images

Those subtotals are assuming that nothing is categorized redundantly, which I don't assume. Anyway, we seem to have somewhere between 150 and 200 actual abortion-related articles, and no good way to keep track of them. Does anybody think something like a Portal or Project page would be a good idea? We could use such a page to try and organize the articles that exist, merge things that ought to be merged, fill in any gaps that are apparent, and help keep track of articles that particularly need work. What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If I support this and then cheerfully expect GTbacchus and/or others to do much of the work, am I a Bad Wikipedian? I think its a great idea; I unfortunately have limited time to contribute right now. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Great work, GTBacchus. Thanks for going to all that trouble. Your idea for establishing an abortion-related portal is a great. I do what I can, here and there, but there are some articles which need attention, especially from experts in the subject. And, no, KC, not participating as much in this article as you used to doesn't make you a bad Wikipedian, although your presence here has been missed since you ran away from home. :-) Frankly, I've been doing the same of late, mostly because I've been concentrating on the abortion sub-articles instead. -Severa (!!!) 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a positive initial response. Does any of us know how to code those boxes with "show" and "hide" links, where we could list all those categories and their articles in a tree that could open and close - do you know what I'm talking about?
I imagine a page with that tree on it, and then a big to-do list, with some large-grained tasks, like merging categories and articles, and starting new aritcles where needed, and some small grained tasks, like lists of abortion articles in need of copyediting, sourcing, etc.
What other ideas would be good? I guess we could get some ideas from Portal:Politics, which I know nothing about... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, great work GT! A portal sounds like a really good idea. I've always found it confusing to try to keep track of all the different abortion-related pages, and this will surely help a lot. Even though I haven't been spending a whole lot of time on these articles lately, I'll do what I can to help this project out. romarin [talk ] 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work! I merged the single "Pro-Life Apologists" with "Pro-Life activists" and updated your chart to reflect that.--Andrew c 02:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently, there's Portals, and there's WikiProjects, and they're not the same thing. I guess a WikiProject is really what we're after at this point, but I'm not thinking of it yet as anything fancier than a sort of noticeboard we could all put on our watchlists. I guess it would live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion? I'm going to go ahead and start putting something together there, and we'll see how it shapes up? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I know how to do the templates with opional entries - were you planning to have optional fields in a template? I'm not sure where that would fit in with a project on Abortion. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful abortion

The Wrongful abortion article has been dead in the water for several months, having been tagged for clean-up since September, 2005. This article is largely dependent upon a single journal article and I would thus consider it OR. I tried overhauling the article last year, but objections were raised, so I reverted the entire thing. Nothing has been done in the eight months since, and the complainer has had more than enough to to amend the article as they see fit, or to at least make suggestions as to how others might to do so. They have done neither. So, I suggest that the article be reverted to my version, and expanded upon, and that the "wrongful life" section be merged into the recently-created Wrongful life article. Thoughts? -Severa (!!!) 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. With only one source, it smacks of neologism-ism. I'm inclined to suggest AfD unless there's proof that it's got wider useage. --InShaneee 03:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I did find a few more sources in my version. The article has actually been subjected to an AfD before. It was also my initial reaction to nominate it for AfD again, especially after it's been neglected for so many months, but I figured it would only be fair to give the article an opportunity to be improved first. -Severa (!!!) 04:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Guttmacher Institute Link

User ASwann moved the Alan Guttmacher institute link to the unbiased section. I moved it back, stating in the Edit summary that they are associated with Planned Parenthood. ASwann reverted and left a note on my talk page saying that they are not associated. We need to discuss this and get down to the truth of the matter. Here is my evidence:

  • The founder, Alan Guttmacher, was "president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s." (About Alan Guttmacher - Alan Guttmacher institute offical website)
  • In 1998, Congress gave Planned Parenthood and its affiliated organizations, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, $142,976,618 to support its domestic and international "family planning" agenda. (Government Accounting Office, July 18, 2000 memo to members of Congress).

MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it too, but I won't move it back until we have consensus. As to the two points, Guttmacher himself died in 1974, so his current effect is nil. The Institute itself does research in large part, and at least in that context it defines family planning broadly. While it may have its own point of view, it doesn't engage in advocacy like Planned Parenthood does. The Institute, for example, wasn't at the last pro-choice march.--Kchase02 T 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cybercast News service calls the institute the "research arm of Planned Parenthood" MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about listing them as biased when the other organizations there are clearly pushing one or the other agenda, whereas most of what AGI does is research. How about we list them in the top section as 'a pro-choice research group whose data is widely accepted as accurate' [2]?--Kchase02 T 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cybercast New Service is not a neutral source. Please refer to "About Us:History." -Severa (!!!) 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we shouldn't base our information on sources that are biased in the other direction. On the other hand, a quick glance here shows no mention that there is currently any link between the AGI and PPFA, nor that there has been since 1977, when "the Alan Guttmacher Institute was incorporated as an independent, not-for-profit organization". They even get funding from the government for certain projects; I find it hard to believe that the current US government would be funding projects connected to PP. Although there was a connection at one time, that does not mean that the research put out by this institute currently is biased. romarin [talk ] 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While the link between between the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood is, at best, outdated, or, at worst, mistaken, the following statement of purpose is found on the official Guttmacher Institute site:

"The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation."

Also, there is reason to move Abortion Statistics and Other Data, given this editorial written by the site's owner. I thus suggest that we create a second disclaimer, such as, "The following statistical resources may be created by those with a non-neutral position in the abortion debate." Site such sites as the AGI and Johnston's Archive, unfortunately, fall into a grey area between purely neutral parties and clear-cut advocacy groups. -Severa (!!!) 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with Severa's proposed compromise.--Kchase02 T 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will support this move. romarin [talk ] 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Also, thinned out superfluous links. I moved Abortion.com, an online directory of abortion clinics, out of the "non-neutral" (fomerly, "biased") section, because I see it as strictly an informational resource, rather than an partisan advocacy site. Or should we slot it into the second section along with AGI and Johnston's Archive? I know "non-neutral" is sort of neologistic, but it's certainly less negative than "POV," or "biased."
I think also that think that we should also try to counteract the Amerocentric selection of links presented within the "non-neutral advocacy" section. Most of the organizations listed are American. Does anyone now of any international pro-life or pro-choice advocacy sites which could be linked to in order to be more global? -Severa (!!!) 00:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and am still figuring out the editing process. I added what I thought were some appropriate external links to a few abortion related pages. They were quickly removed. The rationalle for removing the link I added to the "advocate" section of the main "abortion" page was as follows: "We cannot link every site with a position on Abortion". I agree, though I would argue that http://Abort73.com provides a more comprehensive and engaging defense of the "pro-life" position than any other site on the web. As such, its inclusion seems a fair and appropriate addition, providing a valuable resource for those wanting to better understand the pro-life position. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abort73 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Picture... Maybe?

Okay, this will be controversial, and, not having had time to read all n archives for this page, I might be recovering old ground. But, taking note of Wikipedia Is Not Censored, noting that it may be relevant to the article, and noting that a significant number of articles, especially in the human sexuality category, contain explicit images of anatomy and certain biological functions, I ask the community: Should there be attached to the relevant section of this article a graphic image, whether immediately visible or merely linked, of an induced abortion? --BCSWowbagger 08:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See above discussions. Short version: no. They'd be too POV and devisive to do any good. --InShaneee 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV concerns would outweigh censorship concerns. Such images, within the context of abortion, would be more argumentative than informative, whereas graphic images in the vast majority of anatomy-related articles are able to serve an educational function because there is little to no ethical controversy tied to penises or vaginae (with the exception of, perhaps, circumcision and FGC). -Severa (!!!) 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems to come up a lot. Personally, I'd have no problem with a graphic image showing a fetus aborted at two days of pregnancy, it would look something like this: .
However, the call for images on this article page is far too often a request for showing late-term emergency induced abortions/miscarriages, which reduces an extremely wide topic (Abortion) down to an extremely narrow one, and most often involves pictures which rely on anthrocentric appeals to emotion... oh, and BTW, we already have one picture of an induced abortion procedure being performed on the page. [3] :-) Ronabop 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, this is recovering old ground, for which I apologize. (@ Ronabob: That is true. And amusing.) --BCSWowbagger 02:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

do/did chinese people eat aborted fetuses?

i swear to god i have heard this so many places. i'm pretty sure it's true to some extent, but i can't find a link. Joeyramoney 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[4] --Midnightcomm 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
For those who don't feel like following the link: NO. Its a bullshit story, also known as an Urban legend. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
For the love of Pete.... This can't have been a serious question. Time to add Joey-moron-y to my watchlist... --Elliskev 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
time to report Elliskev to the administrators' noticeboard for violating Wikipedia: civility! this was not meant as some rumour i heard, as i actually read it in a travelogue of china a year or so back, and it stuck in my head. yeah, it's probably more legend than fact, but i've seen a few (admittedly sketchy) links ([5], [6], [7]) claiming the same story. i know this isn't a terribly likely scenario, but the original account was pretty convincing. i didn't mean to hurt anyones' feelings and i expected people would maybe be a little more mature about this. Joeyramoney 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. You asked, we answered, someone thought it possible you were a troll and stated valid concerns. Perhaps Elliskev could have phrased his concern a wee tad more tactfully but you threatening to "report" him is not the best way to handle this. Always attempt to work with another editor first - a simple "it was a serious question and I appreciate the answer" would have gone a long way. A "call the cops" mentality is emphatically not helpful on Wikipedia. The "cops" are volunteers too, and have better things to do than protect every thin skinned person from percieved slights. I now consider this subject closed. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese performance artist Zhu Yu once ate part of an aborted fetus as described in this BBC news article [8], but I doubt this topic has any relevance for the Abortion article and was presumably brought up to fan the flames of an already hot topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.146.13.203 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 6 July 2006.
It's an urban legend: nothing more, nothing less. According to the Urban Legends Reference Pages article, "Fetus Feast," Zhu Yu's cannibalistic display was part of a conceptual art piece called "Eating People," and the fetus was "most likely constructed by placing a doll's head on a duck's carcass." -Severa (!!!) 12:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In The Jewish War by Josephus (Book 6, Chapter 3, section 4), a starving mother cooked and ate her infant during the siege of Jerusalem and the resulting starvation. However, this does not really have anything to do with abortion. --Midnightcomm 13:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cutting Down the Size

The breast cancer and mental health sections seem relatively pointless. It says, "The hypothesis has not been verified and abortion is not considered an actual breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization." So if this is true, why in the world is it important enough to be mentioned here? Concerning mental health, it seems that that is also pointless. Many things that can happen to a person cause negative feeling. For example, getting HIV/AIDS must severely injure your mental health, but that article doesn't talk about it. So this article shouldn't, either.--Hadoren 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that a lot of these concerns are pseudo-science, they are still very popular arguments among some people. In order to satisfy NPOV, we must present all relevent POVs. The ABC-hypothesis and post-abortion syndrome are relevent enough to be mentioned, even if you and I both feel they are B.S. Our job, as wikipedia editors, is to report on our sources, not to determine The Truth (TM). --Andrew c 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There are large sections which I would prefer to dispense entirely in order to streamline this article. However, given the nature of the subject, I believe it is impossible to not to be comprehensive in our coverage. If you remove a section, a future browser will likely notice the absence, and replace it with something twice as long as the original. It would be wiser to just tolerate the 60K-and-growing article size than to open a Pandora's Box and unleash an edit war. The sections are stable and succinct; we can worry about pruning them when and if WPAbortion ever gets around to nominating this for FA. -Severa (!!!) 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to resurrect a dead topic, but 60K is pretty huge. Perhaps (and I'm just thinking aloud here) an article split? We are roughly twice over the usual size limit, so an even split would put both child articles just under the wire for optimal FA size. --BCSWowbagger 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say that approximately 15K of that are the refs. :-) A year ago, Tznkai (who is sorely missed) suggested moving the article from "Abortion" to "Induced abortion", so that the discussion of miscarriage could be cut out entirely. Perhaps reviving this proposition could would help? -Severa (!!!) 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of text in Soviet poster

Maybe the translation is from NLM, but it doesn't correspond to the Russian text on the poster. Any objections to my redoing the translation and removing the note about the translation coming from NLM? Jbhood 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I certainly don't object to an improvement. It'd be even better if you can explain here what you're correcting and why. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not at all! I always felt there was more text on the poster than fit NLM's brief translation, so, a more accurate, detailed translation would certainly be both insightful and beneficial. My advice: if the translation is long-ish, place the full version on the image page, and relevant snippets in the in-article thumbnail caption. -Severa (!!!) 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I redid the translation now because the NLM one was incomplete (included only the header), and incorrect in that the warning was against abortions by trained midwifes (okusherka) and self-taught midwives (povival'naya babka), not doctors and nurses. Will now revise the thumbnail caption. Jbhood 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Your translational effort is truly appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A picture of abortion.

As was said above I realize this is already a touched upon issue and my comment is nothing new to the argument but I was wondering why is there no actual picture of an abortion/post aborted fetus on this page? The picture is only as POV as the messages following it as I've seen many proponents of abortion openly share them and declare they are worthless appeal to emotion in the context of abortion debate. Regardless, they're neutral outside debate and it's curious an entire article on ABORTION has no picture of such despite the fact they clearly exist. To further prove it is NPOV: I am pro-life and will openly admit I don't think people surfing this page, seeing the picture will honestly be changed by it. It just seems to stupid to censor content that speaks no message other then "This is an abortion.". It's a disservice to the type of informaiton Wikipedia is trying to provide.

I might as well address this point now: as I had said above the pictures of abortion are pretty NPOV to begin with. Pictures displayed matter-of-factly that somehow evoke pity or sympathy do not mean that they can't ever be displayed without sharing a point; they just draw upon innate emotions. Pictures of rape, war, genocide, and other serious world issues certainly are all very negative when looked upon but that doesn't mean they were posted by anti-war goers etc. and so forth. --Talv 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a picture of an abortion being performed on the page. We have had such a picture for a quite a while now. Not even a safe, sterile, surgical abortion, but a rather brutal, violent, one. Perhaps it isn't violent enough? Ronabop 05:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I now note we have *two* abortion procedures depicted on the page, one herbal, one via blunt force. Ronabop 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Ronabob, we have essentially a cave painting of an abortion. It's not equivalent to a photograph or even a basic diagram. Would it be up to wiki-standards if, say, Wikipedia had only a cave painting of a deer in the article on deer? Of course not. Now, I don't mean to equivocate between the deer article and the abortion article, but I do mean to point out that your equivocation is deeply flawed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCSWowbagger (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 July 2006.
We have a 3-D sculpture, and a soviet era poster of two different procedures. They are *not* cave-drawings, *nor* are they photographs. As I pointed out in above discussions, a 2 day old abortion looks like this:
.
A dot. A speck. Folks wishing to add pictures not only haven't made a good faith effort to inform what that *vast majority* of abortions look like (clotted miscarriage, and undifferentiated groups of tissue), instead, they attempt to mislead the public into thinking that most aborted tissues have fingers, toes, heads, etc., rather than, for the most part, being things that don't exactly look human, let alone act it. Ronabop 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the majority of abortions take place between 1 and 9 weeks. The bracket, from AGI, is not further broken down from there. So a fetus can either look like that spec, or it can look like: http://www.chanceandchoice.com/ChanceandChoice/56days.jpg A woman would need to be clairvoyant if she knew she was pregnant after 2 days considering it was accidental and she didn't realize the protection failed. The first signs of pregnancy don't begin until for about 2 weeks.
You might be ignoring the fact that *most* abortions take place before a mammal even suspects it is pregnant. She doesn't have to be clarivoiant, she simply has an abortion, like a normal period, without ever realizing she was pregnant in the first place. The numbers you're citing are probably not for abortion as a whole, but *elective medical procedures to induce abortion*. Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as the picture is concerned: ANYTHING is better then nothing. Aborted fetii, in utero fetii, aborted tissue, aborted remnants, the actual (modern day, modern photography) picture of an abortion procedure. Why hide it? Because you think it's insignificant? It IS abortion, that's what abortion IS.
That is, indeed, a *part* of what abortion is. Showing abortion can also be showing a tiny clot on a used tampon, or alternately, bloody, reassembled, parts of a 140 day old fetus. It might be better showing a used tampon over nothing, I suppose... But I'm doubting, from your selected image, that a used tampon is what you had in mind... or am I wrong? Would you consider that acceptable? Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any shame in it it's part of the fact of it and learning what it entails. How can you have an article on it with our technology nowadays and not include some picture? --Talv 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
More difficult than making the argument for a real-abortion image is finding a properly-licensed image from a reliable (non-advocacy) source. It's not exactly something they keep at StockPhotography.com. --BCSWowbagger 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This said, before this discussion continues, perhaps all who have not should review Severa's links to Archives 14, 16, and 20, as well as the discussion with Ros Power above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCSWowbagger (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 July 2006.
I did. What was written there did not quelle my concerns over it. --Talv 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Indeed. My mistake for trying to be lighthearted that most women get their periods and thus abort and kill billions of potential babies a year, rather than do their duty as baby factories. >:-D Ronabop 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You're not even using pictures and I can tell you have an agenda you're attempting to push. Read my above reply: i'd be satisfied with very little. It does a disservice to the article to not have some media regarding it. Heck, you could even find a pro-life picture and just caption it as such: "Pro-life propoganda of abortion." Anything works.--Talv 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My agenda is medical accuracy, where most sexually active women quite regularly have abortions, and we *are* using pictures of abortion procedures. Best as I can tell, you are arguing to show fetuses, and *not* abortion procedures... am I accurate in that guess? Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Quit whining. Although we all try to make this article as informative as possible, we have ethical standards to follow. Nobody likes to look as pictures of dead babies. Please see the article on donkey shows, and examine, and examine the discussion page. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY is asking for a picture. The reason nobody is asking for a picture, is that there is no controversy surrounding donkey shows, and there are no advocacy groups constantly publishing biased articles and detail depictions of it. The question is not that of appeasing you ("i'd be satisfied with very little."), it is of educating the public in a neutral, and removed fashion. I for one, vote NAY to the "detailed depiction proposal." Somnabot 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL, thanks. As frustrating as it might be to have to retread this subject again, let's try to approach it civilly, cool-headedly, and objectively. -Severa (!!!) 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

On the contrary, Talv, it would do a disservice to the quality of this article to open the floodgates to shock photos. Also, please be civil to Ronobop, because it's not as if your point of view on the matter is unapparent. I'll stand by my argument that pictures of aborted fetuses or women dead from illegal abortion are uninformative. If there is a point to made about not "hiding" the visual outcome of a surgical procedure, I suggest you also voice your concerns at cardiac surgery, hysterectomy, plastic surgery, and sex reassignment surgery. I suspect the endemic censorship has something to do with what Somnobot expressed above. -Severa (!!!) 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a disservice to Wikipedia for the abortion catergory of articles to ever be written: they've been nothing but controversy, but that's what you get. I remember the first time I ever read it on top was the "Neutrality" tag and then finally it was locked from editing and of course, I laughed expecting it.
I was being civil. I have been nothing but civil. I would argue Ronobop is being smarmy and sarcastic towards myself, on the contrary.
As far as you drawing my attention to other articles on Wikipedia I would argue that attempt is fallacious. I have no passion for such subjects, or knowledge and would probably never have even looked at them if you hadn't given them. While we're on the subject, yeah, I do think they all need pictures of the procedure, save for the ladder (I've seen pictures of most medical procedures. Sex change surgery remains to be one of the few I haven't. I know this is more then coincidence). The censorship is more then endemic, Wiki is after all uncensored where matters of sensitive or vivid content is concerned: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, especially when you willfully look it up. --Talv 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
@Somnabot: I exist, and willfully am arguing for this. Therefore, you are incorrect. NOBODY is not arguing for this, SOMEBODY is. --Talv 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I will rescind my view to put a picture into the article. I respect the upkeepers of the article who, as far as i'm concered, are those active enough to check the Talk page. Of course I could always just edit it in, that's the type of power you have here but it would be edited out. If something becomes an edit war over an already good article, it isn't worth it. Thank you. --Talv 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you have been nothing but civil, Talv, something that previous supporters of graphic depictions have never been. The eternally-fair Severa's initial comment was directed at Somnabot and Ronabop. To you, he gave merely a reminder, as your anger was becoming apparent and it appeared that you might cross the civility line. At least, that's my reading of the passage. Severa, obviously, speaks for himself. (Also, somebody above split my post in two and then slapped an <unsigned> template on my first paragraph. I don't know if that was accidental or what, but I want it made clear that I am not in the habit of leaving my comments unsigned.) <end paragraph 1>
As for the precedent of previous surgical articles having/not having detailed depictions, I do find the argument persuasive. I took a look at the [[List of surgical procedures] and went through every operation, one by one. I have a detailed list on my computer, but, because it would be obnoxious to paste the entire thing up here, I'll just relay my results. Of the 47 articles labeled that were not labeled as stubs (and there were several that *should* have been so labeled, but were not, and are still included in the 47), 20 included detailed depictions of the related surgery, whether it be a medical diagram of the procedure, a diagram or image of the tumor/organ to be removed/destroyed, a photograph of the surgery in progress, or a photo of the result (e.g. a vagina after clitoridectomy, or a post-amputation human hand). So it would seem that nearly half of surgical articles already largely agree with Talv's position that these things should be shown. Whether that should apply to abortion is the question at hand here. Furthermore, I think we should make a distinction between shock photos and medically explicit depictions. We aren't out to shock our readers for the sake of it, but we do want to present all the facts in the most encylcopedic and illustrative manner possible. --BCSWowbagger 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting perspective, but this is not a surgical article, and "abortion" is not a surgical procedure. Dialation and Curretage *is* a surgical procedure. Dialation and Extraction *is* a surgical procedure. Dialation and Evacuation *is* a surgical procedure. Abortion, however, is a catch-all term, referring to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and elective abortions, pharmaceutical, surgical, and otherwise. We could load the article up with examples of each, or elect to have images of a D&C procedure over at D&C. Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, BCS, that was I who added the "unsigned" tag. Someone is posting their messages within the comments of other users, or there is some kind of server error, so I felt it necessary to rectify the situation the only way I knew how: seperating the posts and adding an "unsigned" tag.
Specifically, I was reprimanding Somnobot's "quit whining" comment, which was patently uncivil, and Talv's "I can tell you have an agenda you're attempting to push" comment, which I found mildly, but inappropriately, accusatory in nature (see WP:AGF). Ronabop's comment was snarky, but I didn't find it particularly uncivil, probably because I interpreted it as a generally sarcastic remark rather than a direct personal attack. If Talv felt insulted, though, I'm glad that Ronabop is willing to own up to making a mistake. If only past discussions on this forum could have demonstrated such a civil level of incivility.
In reality, though, I'm not Tznkai, because I don't know how to mediate half as well. -Severa (!!!) 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And please accept my apology, Talv. Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My tone was inappropriate, and for that I apologize. I do realize that I need to be more cognizant of the perspectives of others. At times, my humility is defeated by my sense of incredulity, which leads to me wishing I was more in touch with the sensibilities of others. Ronabop 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so much civility in a Wikipedia abortion conversation. Not to mention one without any anonymous users TALKING IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!1!!1! Severa, the <unsigned> thing is no problem. I assumed it was something accidental or miscommunicated, and so it was. As for abortion as a surgical procedure, Ronabop, I think it's clear that most of the article is about induced abortion, as is most of the debate over the issue. However, your point is cogent. I have already been looking for public-domain diagrams to add to dilation and extraction and dilation and curettage, though so far without success. Nonetheless, adding it to those other articles in no way prevents us from placing a more medically accurate image in the induced abortion section of this article. The question is whether that would be a good idea. It clearly follows a precedent, but not an overwhelming one. And the abortion article is very different in nature from other non-controversial surgeries. So it's really up to consensus, although I think, regardless of how we decide, it will be a point that will be brought up and re-evaluated periodically, as is healthy in any article of this nature. --BCSWowbagger 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ronabop, I think it's clear that most of the article is about induced abortion, as is most of the debate over the issue.
I can agree with that (while also noting that the most widely used form of induced fertilized egg/blastocyst/fetus rejections are pharmaceutical, not surgical, in nature), but could that mean that the article is lopsided, or how we use pictures in the article is lopsided, or what? Mostly my sense of bemused irritation comes from folks who want to portray all natural, surgical, and pharmaceutical procedures similarly. A MVA Manual_vacuum_aspiration, with WHO (anybody know their copyright status?) pictures at [[9]], makes it pretty clear that even surgically induced abortions are fairly simple, and not even that interestingly graphic. To repeat a refrain, many who have asked for (and suggested) pictures are *not* asking for pictures of an abortion procedure, or process, they are asking for gore pictures of a dead human fetus, which is not what this article is about, subject-wise (Though it could be, if the article was renamed Human aborted fetuses). However, I can understand their motivations, in that they are wishing to "humanize" and "personalize", abortion, and one of the more functional tactics in that effort has been using shock images. While seeing such things doesn't really bother me all that much (having fed a good 20-30 fetuses to coyotes in my life, and consuming at least a few hundred... life on a farm an all), I'm divided on how to present the subject, images, and article, properly in a NPOV manner. Ronabop 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of your claim that pharmaceutical abortions are more prevalent than surgical ones. However, I agree with you about those who seek to portray all abortions in the same way (although it is *quite* possible to find quite graphic photos for most surgical procedures and the saline abortion method). I also agree that too many people are out to use the article to score political points, not to create an encyclopedia. (I dispute that this is a "functional" tactic, as you put it; for various reasons, it almost invariably backfires on the anti-abortionist who presents the image. Also, LOL at the rest of your post.) In any case, the point is moot until there is actually an imaged proposed for use here. I'm looking into a few that I think will meet our standards, and I'll be back with an update in the near future, I hope. --BCSWowbagger 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I tend to lean almost unilaterally toward adding pictures to articles (because it definitely makes them more appealing), I'm very much torn on this one. I would love to see if there IS a picture that would be usable for the article, but...to be honest, I don't think the "pictures of an abortion" have a place here. Those pictures are used relatively universally to prove a pro-life point. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't see them, but it does make it difficult to say they deserve a mention on an NPOV article. Maybe they could be on the Pro-Life article or have a LINK to some at the bottom of this article, so that people could click there if they choose? Stanselmdoc 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm late to the discussion, but how can you possibly take a picture of an abortion? A fetus is not an abortion. A picture of an aborted fetus might be useful in the fetus article, but not here. It is disgusting, that's true, but so is an adult when you open one up and look inside. CGameProgrammer 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How could you take a picture of an abortion? Ultrasound. Silent Scream did it (though there are *other* good reasons SS won't be used). However, I don't think that's a valid point. The article on amputation shows a hand minus two fingers. Should that picture be moved to the hand article? I think not. Nonetheless, we seem to have acheived a consensus: more illustrative images would be a good thing, but "shock" pictures will not be accepted unless the article somehow directly concerns such images (e.g. in the pro-life article, perhaps). --BCSWowbagger 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"The article on amputation shows a hand minus two fingers. Should that picture be moved to the hand article?" No, but the equivalent here would be a woman without a fetus in her. A better analogy would be showing a picture of the severed fingers alone, and no, that would not belong in the amputation article. Anyway I agree with the consensus reached here; I just wanted to offer my opinion anyway. CGameProgrammer 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm don't agree, but the point is moot. I'm glad, however, that you have added another voice to consensus. The stronger consensus is, the more easily we'll be able to get through this issue next time it comes up. --BCSWowbagger 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In my wake, you're making it sound like I was some raving manic voice of dissent. It was an honest inquiry about bettering the quality of the article. --Talv 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

Created this peer review for the ABC article. Please add comments and suggestions there. Thanks! - RoyBoy 800 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/o/Talk%7EAbortion_Archive_23_73eb.html"