Talk:Suction-aspiration abortion/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Merge of content from Manual vacuum aspiration and Electric vacuum aspiration

I have merged the content of these two articles to Suction-aspiration abortion. The following are the comments from those two pages' Talk pages. Joie de Vivre 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Manual vacuum aspiration

Pro-life Population Research Institute claims

The following was removed from the article: Scott Weinberg of the Population Research Institute (PRI), stated: "Manual Vacuum Aspiration is so substandard a procedure that it should not be used anywhere." in context to the use of it in third word countries.

I would like to see a line of reasoning to support the notion that it is 'substandard'. Otherwise, it is mere opinion, and as such, I could insert someone's opinion that it is a 'superior' procedure without giving justification. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree on this, and was going to remove it myself. A) Who the heck is Scott Weinberg? B) Why should the 'medical' opinion of a NPO dealing with overpopulation denial be significant? C) Where did this quote come from? A ha! Googling this phrase leads one to a press release from PRI on a very small handful of Catholic and Pro-Life sites. The press release is mostly about Manual Vacuum Aspirators (the syringe device used in the procedure) being distributed possibly illegally in third world countries. They also claim that the devices are being used into the 2nd trimester in these countries (I believe the FDA prohibits the procedure after 10 weeks or so...) Even with this context, the aforementioned quote still does not make sense. At least for the legal use of this procedure in the US, it appears to be the safest form of abortion. Patient satisfaction is remarkably high, side effects and complications are remarkably low. Knowing all this, I cannot see any basis for the quote what so ever. However, if Chooserr (or anyone else) feels inclined to add a controversy or criticism section mentioning the information in the PRI press release, so be it. --Andrew c 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This quote is in context to third world countries, and if you haven't heard of Scott Weinberg that isn't my fault, but a quote shouldn't be erased beacause you believe that over population is happening or that the FDA can control how people perform abortions in third world countries (or even poverish parts of first world ones). So I will readd it. Chooserr 02:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Imagine this scenario. There is a political think tank that claims some people in Moldova are removing the front doors of microwaves, and they publish a press release about this that gets published on 3 websites (but there is no other verification to their claims). There is a quote in the press release from Davey Fredrick (who ever the heck that is) that says "Microwaves are the bane of the planet and should never ever be used anywhere because they are completely unsafe," but obviously, he is talking about the use of microwaves in Moldova with the front doors removed. You tell me if it would be alright to take the quote out of context and add it to the microwave oven article? If you want to add a section of the possible use and misuse of MVAs in third world countries, fine, but your quote is inaccurate by saying "so substandard ... that (they) should not be used anywhere.", when clearly they are not substandard. If the quote is truly in reference to their misuse in third world countries the word anywhere is inappropriate. I am not opposed to you creating a section summarizing the press release, but face it, that quote is inaccurate and misleading, and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedic article on this topic. --Andrew c 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but the fact that you won't let me add the quote is quite upsetting, because it pertains to the subject matter and I gave the surrounding details. Chooserr 01:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As outlined above, your quotes does NOT deal with the subject matter. It deals with accusations of misuse of MVAs in developing countries. The quote you want to add is misleading because it says Manual Vacuum Aspiration is so substandard a procedure that it should not be used anywhere. Nowhere is there any information about why it is 'substandard' and the use of the word anywhere clearly is misleading. Even in the context of the PRI press release, this statement is opinion and clearly POV. If I am wrong, please add context to the quote, and address these concerns about substandard and anywhere.--Andrew c 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Electric vacuum aspiration

Fetus vs. tissue

If EVA is performed as an abortion method before 8 weeks (which does occur), then technically speaking, a fetus is never involved. Futhermore, if EVA is performed after a late-term abortion, the fetus has already been removed. Perhaps we need more clarity, but beacuse EVA is used to suction tissue (including fetal tissue and membranes and placenta and all that), just focusing in on the fetus is POV (and ignores a number if situations were EVA is employed and when fetuses are not involved).--Andrew c 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/c/Talk%7ESuction-aspiration_abortion_Archive1_d84d.html"