Talk:Abortion/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Terminology section:

Text was last seen here:[1]

Abortion terminology The intense and virulent debate surrounding the subject of abortion has created a number of linguistic pitfalls, where the usage of certain terms can imply additional meaning beyond the strictest definition of the used term. A common linguistic pitfall is the use of the term "human", which can imply an organism with human DNA, or an individual person. Similar implications surround the use of the terms "life" and "death". These terms may be used to determine the state of biological functionality, or may be used to further imply the state personhood. The terms "fetus" and "unborn" both refer to the same thing, but sometimes are taken to imply non-personhoood or personhood respectivly.

This was my latest attempt at fixing this little quagmire. It was removed in a spout of vandalism reversion. Despite this being my brainchild, I'm undecided whether its worth putting back in. I figure we can restore it, send it to the folks at Abortion Debate, or just wipe it out entirely. Thoughts?--Tznkai 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's your baby, Tznkai, so it's really your call. On the one hand, it acts something like a talisman to ward off both well-meaning, unintentionally POV edits and fully-intentional, egregious soapboaxing; on the other hand, is it just needless prefacing that contributes little in the way of direct information on abortion, laws, statistics, etc.? Don't know. --Kyd 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved International Law Discussion

The discussion of treaties and international law was too specific, involved, and overwhelming to be included in the abortion law summary of the top-tier abortion article. I have moved all the relevant text to abortion law. --Kyd 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I Wonder

Why aren't there any pictures on this page? They have them on most of the other pro-choice pages.Chooserr

This is actually a good question. However, there is a picture on this page: the map of world abortion laws which I made and added to the "abortion law" section. --Kyd 05:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one abortion is not a pro-choice page.

Secondly, I think we're looking at a systemic problem. Since abortion is such a hot topic, and some would say (and I may agree) gruesome topic, with most images we're looking at offending everyone, offending pro choicers, offending pro lifers, and offending wikipedians. The amount of information we get out of most images is either suited to the debate article and sub articles, or just insufficient to the amount of offense it will cause. Of course, I eagerly wait for someone to prove me wrong (again).--Tznkai 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It would only be a matter of time before someone came along and use the presence of a few more neutral pictures to justify adding the gory selections of protesters everywhere. Is there really a "neutral" abortion illustration? Perhaps a number of visuals to back up the text: charts, graphs, more maps, etc. Pipe dream, probably. --Kyd 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was upset at the time...I don't really want to see (key words) gory pictures. But atleast neutral pictures of "fetuses" (note, the fetus page doesn't even have a proper picture) in there different stages would be helpful especially if someone turned to the site for information. Chooserr

The picture you uploaded was taken by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson. Since he is still alive, and American copyright law holds the period in which an author's work is protected to be life plus 70 years, we should assume that the image is still copyrighted. This is why the fetus page uses a 19th-century drawing: it's public domain. Beyond the copyright concern, of course, the photo isn't exactly neutral when placed in this context. A bit like having a photo of an adorable, watery-eyed calf on the veal article, don't you think? Kyd 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that such a picture on veal would be non-neutral (though maybe off-topic). I don't have a problem with eating a "watery-eyed calf" (not in one piece of course. Str1977 09:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fetus picture is off topic. Applies to pregnancy, fetus, human and posssibly abortion debate as an example of pro-life attempts at (civilized) propaganda, in the context of that on top of a "don't abort message".

Same standard applies to off-topic pictures used in pro-choice propaganda. None of which I have seen recently, but thats because I think they have less money to spend this ellection cycle.--Tznkai 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The only context I can see that picture applied to this topic is in the context of "before and after", and that will be skirting NPOV by at most a hair's breath, nevermind the offensivivity level.--Tznkai 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the picture is off topic. It might imply Pro-life but only if the reader chooses to think of it that way. I won't add it because it is probably still copyrighted but there should be pictures - and if the pictures half to be "On topic" what would that leave gory bloody ones, or pictures of the tools used? I think a picture of a living human baby should be included. Chooserr

Actually Chooserr thats not a bad idea. having tools for each method of abortion may fly. (assuming no coathangers obviously)--Tznkai 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought that too. An illustration of the instruments used in a surgical abortion procedure would be of direct benefit to the written text. Also, perhaps a picture of protestors on both sides sparring, like the one on the cover of The Ethics of Abortion : Pro-Life Vs. Pro-Choice for Abortion Debate. Signs, of course, would have to keep within whatever rules we establish for pictures.

-Kyd 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't put that on, I was being sarcastic. I have another picture which I am about to upload sonogram doesn't seem to be copyrighted more of a family keepsake. Really cute but not as vivid as the first rejected picture. Only in orange. Chooserr

Chooserr, you're getting close to flying in the face of consensus here. We're still finding it questionable for ANY picture of a fetus, and you MUST completly be sure that the picture is fair use or public domain. This is a Big Hairy Legal Deal.--Tznkai 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

mental health section drop off

The medical literature has not conclusively shown that abortion affects mental health.

"George Walter, an employee of then U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, conducted a review of more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Walter conducted the review at the request of Koop, who was being pressured by then U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan to produce a report. Walter consulted primarily with researchers from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control, and used primarily studies recommended by researchers in favor of easy access to legal abortion. Walter submitted the report to Koop, who instructed Walter to shelve the report. Koop submitted a letter to Reagan indicating that the research was inconclusive. However, Walter released the report under Koop's name. Thus, public debates in the US as to the safety of legal abortion remain muddled. Opponents of abortion cite Koop's letter finding the evidence inconclusive, and those favoring the availability of legal abortion cite Walters' report, released under Koop's name, and attributed to Koop. "^[2]

Research on the risk of clinical depression associated with abortion has been inconclusive:

Another study of 2,525 women revealed that women who had an abortion were more likely to report depression or lower satisfaction with their lives. However, they also often reported rape, childhood physical and sexual abuse, and violent partners. After controlling for the history of abuse, partner characteristics, and background variables, abortion was not related to poorer mental health.^[3]
A study in the Medical Science Monitor^[4] stated that, "Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior trauma." In the study, 65% of post-abortive American women and 13.1% of Russian women experienced multiple symptoms of increased arousal, re-experiencing, or avoidance associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). According to the study, 14.3% of American and 0.9 % of Russian women met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD.^[5] However, in all fairness, not all PTSD is necessarily from abortion. Labor Law Talk has this commentary on the paper: "In keeping with the paper, it should however be noted that many day to day tasks cause problems for sufferers of PTSD, especially as a result of child abuse. Visits to dentists are often a problem, but women often still try to get to them and to avoid all events in life that might lead to re-traumatization." [6]

Fetal pain.

Two problems

Questionable relevance to abortion, belongs in the fetus and human articles most likley.
If we do decide to include it, it needs to have better sources and no weasel words. There is either compelling evidence, or there isn't. Go do some research if you're sure you have an answer to problem 1.--Tznkai 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary refers to the removal being discussed. Where is it discussed?--Kevin# 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, but you're welcome to help out around here.--Tznkai 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. That reads not how I meant it to read. What I mean is: Is there a discussion regarding the removal? --Kevin# 21:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is now--Tznkai 21:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Just curious about the differing opinions. --Kevin# 21:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I added more links to the page, but did indeed copy & paste the text. I was planing to work on it make it more NPOV if I could along with add information. That is why it should be re instated atleast temporarally for me and others to contribute and expand on it. Chooserr

You still need to address the relevance problem. If you want to work on it on wikipedia, you can do it offthe main article. Try cereating a page like [[user:chooserr/workshop/Fetal pain] and then you can copy and paste from there. The problem with fetal pain is its a degree or two seperated from abortion. Its an issue in abortion debates occasionally, but its pbetter served in the fetus or possibly pregnancy articles. Feeling pain requires a certain amount of development in the CNS and PNS, so thats where you can focus. I'm sure the research is really intresting too.--Tznkai 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Then mental and physical health would be seperate as well and the article could only talk about the debate and the actual process. I will work on the page at the workshop if I can create one but it won't allow other users to contribute, which would make it come off verrrrrrrrry POV when it isn't intended to (resulting most likely in it's immediate deletion). That's why a starter that others can work on would be a better Idea.

Note: It may sound like I'm trying to inflict my view on other...and on some level I might. But I am trying first and foremost to present relative facts.Chooserr

the mental and phsyical health address the mental phsycial health risks to the gravida. Since the procedure invariably ends witht he deat hfo the fetus/embryo/what not the pain question kinda seems off the main track. I'll let the others chime in though, I may be in the minorty opinion here.--Tznkai 21:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The scope of "physical health" could be broadened if this information is deemed appropriate. However, the evidence in support of fetal pain before the third trimester is lacking. The Journal of American Medicine, I believe, published a report on the matter: [9]. Any potential text should definitely address this inconclusiveness. -Kyd 22:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how just because the procedure ends in a death the pain it endures shouldn't be put on the page for most people ask the vet before they put their dogs to sleep "will he feel any pain" and a similar sentiment is uttered by adults when a loved-one has died. Anyway I'll add it again for I think I have perfected it here. Chooserr

The subject of fetal pain is relevant if hard facts are available, but it has to be written NPOV. The way it is written now it says, in effect, I just know that poor little foetus is suffering and I want all you bad people to stop killing babies. The fact is we have no way of knowing when the qualia of pain begins. We know some necessary conditions -- a central nervous system -- but we don't know for sure when consciousness begins, and without consciousness there can be no pain. Rick Norwood 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked the three links provided in the "fetal pain" section. The first link is broken. The second link is to an article that states that Republican politicians are certain that a fetus can feel pain, and scientists had better get with the program. The third link tries to give or sell you coupons. With that in mind, I've cut all of the questionable "facts" and left a single sentence to the effect that not much is known on this subject. That should probably go, too. Rick Norwood 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rick, here is a good link. There's a JAMA link that I could get to earlier, but it seems to be broken now. This is the same text: [10]. In a nutshell, "Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." --User talk:Elliskev# 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Strike that. One of the authors worked for NARAL and another worked in a clinic that provides abortions.[11] That taints it for me.--[[User:Elliskev|Elliskev#]] 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this section would be better in Abortion debate. Or maybe a simple reference to Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 and the related debate regarding its merits and/or basis in scientific evidence.--Elliskev 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Working in a abortion clinic shouldn't kill your credibility, although NARAL is very low on my list as well.--Tznkai 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that working in an abortion clinic shouldn't kill credibility. For that matter, I could even go so far as to say the same for having worked for NARAL (could say), but it just begs too many questions for me to hold it up as a source.--Elliskev 02:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the current links supporting the claims definitely do not pass muster:

Abortion Facts.com: from an e-book titled "Why Can't We Love Them Both?" written by a pro-life activist and hosted on a pro-life site.
Preciouslife.net: an article from an Irish pro-life group ballyhooing the efforts of American legislators to pass the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act."
Religioustolerance.org: the only apparent neutral site and it is a broken link.

I have removed the section entirely because there does not seem to be any neutral, non-biased, non-partisan information to support claims either way.

-Kyd 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A-HAAA! That was an easy jump. I'm not sure I agree that a section devoted to outside links has the equivalence of in-article text, but I'll leave it ~~open for~~ for open discussion. --Elliskev 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a non-biased, full-blown scientific study before something is reported? It CAN be repored that "While no full scientific study has been done on the topic, some believe that an unborn human feels pain during an abortion, their reason for believing this is observations of ______ and _______ and ______. Others claim that an unborn human does not feel pain until _______ days old because ______"

Fact is, there's numerous accounts of doctors watching the unborn baby at a VERY early age (I don't have any ages offhand, but I know the resources are out there) actually immediately start moving their body away from the scalpel that is cutting them apart, or the suction tube that is literally sucking them apart.

Logic question - Have you ever bit your cheek? Hurts like crap doesn't it? You immediately react when you do it. Similarly, have you ever had a cavity filled? The doctor numbs you up, fixes it, and you walk out of the office with a big "fat lip" feeling and a droopy half of your mouth. You go down to the local fast food joint, pick yourself up a burger and fries, start eating some fries, and halfway through your 12th fry, you realize you taste blood in your mouth. You run to the bathroom and see that you've bitten a little bit into your cheek, and it's bleeding a decent amount. Now, WHY did you have to run into the bathroom to find out that you just bit your cheek? Why didn't you just react immediately? Because you couldn't feel it.

Now, no full-blown scientific study has been done on this topic, but can't we use our common sense and at LEAST say "some believe the unborn human feels pain because of observations of it moving away from the scalpel and suction tube during an abortion"? Barwick 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this to me? --Elliskev 04:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Why does there need to be a non-biased, full-blown scientific study before something is reported?"

Because we're not a cable news channel.--Tznkai 05:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick, your comment has been removed. Feel free to try again with the required amount of civility. Please see WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:AGF for applicable policies.--Tznkai 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Commentary removed and placed on User talk:Barwick. Those who wish to comment on how I've handled this are free to do so here: User talk:Tznkai, but we've had enough bickering over our POVs on this page for the time being. We've got an article to write people, lets get to it. --Tznkai 16:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the broken Religious Tolerance link referenced in Kyd's post, above ("the only apparent neutral site and it is a broken link") the link was typo'd - there is no L at the end. The correct link is: www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm (not .html) and it works. Can a fetus feel pain? KillerChihuahua 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, and the answer seems to be that by the 10th week according to one study, and certainly by the 24th week, the anatomical structures subserving the appreciation of pain are present and functional. Before the 10th week the fetus lacks the necessary antomical ability to register and therefore experience pain. Experts disagree upon how much later in gestation these structures are fully realized and functioning. KillerChihuahua 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Further information: A publication of the NIH (National Institute of Health, US) raises the question of whether a fetus can experience pain, even after the anatomy is developed to sense it. The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain states that awareness may not be present, even though the necessary physiological developments are.

I don't know if this information will help in your deliberation. I was undecided, but am leaning towards the opinion that this information would be a better addition to the Fetal development, Fetus, or Neural development articles. KillerChihuahua 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Now, no full-blown scientific study has been done on this topic, but can't we use our common sense and at LEAST say "some believe the unborn human feels pain because of observations of it moving away from the scalpel and suction tube during an abortion"?"

Even completely severed limbs can twist and move when stimulated (hold a lizard by the tail and you´ll see what I mean). Similarly even if completely paralyzed and numb below a body segment, a person can still move the limbs reflexively. I have not heard of anyone apart from grossly biased and factually incorrect pro-life sites say that the fetus specifically moves AWAY from the suction tube/forceps. I doubt they use a scalpel inside the uterus. So what "some" believe may well be their belifs, but it has no place in Wiki just because of that, especially when it is incorrect.

193.11.218.40 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fetal pain should be included as it has a non-POV, non-vandaliss link to abortion.--Anti-Anonymex2 ^{Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco!} 22:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

See section Removed Section:Fetal Pain - the discussion is happening there now - the issue of whether or not to include a reference to Fetal Pain has basically been resolved - now it comes down to finding good sources for/against.DonaNobisPacem 23:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk page conduct

Enough is enough people. This article attracts POV pushers. We all know this. What we're forgetting is we all get worked up over abortion and abortion POV because we all care very deeply about it one way or another. We are all guilty of the same evil, of caring so much we believe we are right. This leads to hot tempers and little patience to hear the other person out.

This is directed at pretty much everyone who has been editing here recently and a few who havn't. I'm not going to play teacher and send anyone to the principle's office. It has got to stop.

We have a lot to do here. The prose in this article (a great deal of it my own work) is shoddy. The health risk section, arguably one of the most important part of this article is in serious need of repair. We need sources, we need refrences, and we need them yesterday. Several of the sections are place holders I created to establish the article's framework months back. So sit down, shut up, and get to work. We're a team here people, and if you have a problem with that, get the hell out of this article, and probably Wikipedia as well. If you cannot understand the need to have a sufficient, factual, acurate article here, and how that is more important that quibbling over POV, and accusing others of having it, (news flash, we all have a point of view), then you've got some serious thinking to do before continuing to contribute to this project.

Abortion is a major issue in the world today. We should all be able to agree that without the facts, we have a serious problem. We may have some disagreement on the particulars, but it is clear that there are major facts missing.--Tznkai 19:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Heres a to do list, feel free to add:

Decide if moving the article will cause to much confusion for the increase in accuracy
Decide what to do with the health section
Decide what our agreed upon policies for pictures are.
Vetting all prose
Vetting figures and updating them with current numbers.
Shore up Abortion history section.
More public opinion data from more diverse countries

I'm really liking the concept of setting ourselves to tasks. It is easy to get distracted in largely unproductive ventures like bickering on Talk pages.

I'll have to agree with you that the quality of the article is patchy throughout. There's inconsistency in phrasing, grammar, and style which my inner grammarian yearns to correct. I don't want to be nitpicky, though, because I do realize there's a certain amount of inconsistency to be expected in a collective writing project.

I admit that I get tunnel vision. I tend to work best when I concentrate my energies on one section at the expense of ignoring all others. Hence, I've made the abortion law and public opinion sections my pet projects while leaving the health, etc., to everyone else. I could rework the abortion history section, I guess, being that I already seem to be working the article from the bottom up and the subject does interest me.

-Kyd 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope everyone pays close attention to what Tzikai and Kyd said above. It has happened in Wiki that what were once featured articles became, by excessive rewrites, unfeatured. Too many cooks... . Rick Norwood 23:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved the pending tasks to a "to-do list" up top so that it's easier to keep track of the progress which we are making. -Kyd 21:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

History draft

Here's the draft of the summary for the history of abortion section. I'm not sure if I am entirely pleased with the result: I veered away from discussing the social, legal, or ethical aspects of abortion, as those are better served in Abortion Law and Abortion Debate. Instead, I stuck to discussing it from a purely medical perspective, attempting to expand upon the primitive methods of abortion mentioned in the current paragraph. I perhaps focused too much herbal abortion and would like to discuss the 20th century. Thoughts?

P.S. It would make a really great illustrative element if someone could dredge up an example of one of the 19th-century advertisements mentioned in the last paragraph. Such things should, of course, be in the public domain.

History of abortion

Main article: History of abortion

The practice of induced abortion, according to some anthropologists, can be traced to ancient times. There is evidence to suggest that, historically, pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, suggested in his work Gynaecology that women wishing to abort their pregnancies should engage in violent exercise, energetic jumping, carrying heavy objects, and riding animals. He also prescribed a number of recipes for herbal bathes, pessaries, and bloodletting, but advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage due to the risk of organ perforation. [12]

It is also known that the ancient Greeks relied upon the herb silphium as both a contraceptive and an abortifacient. The plant, as the chief export of Cyrene, was driven to extinction, but it is suggested that it might have possessed the same abortive properties as some of its closest extant relatives in the Apiaceae family.

Such folk remedies, however, varied in effectiveness and were not without risk. Tansy and pennyroyal, for example, are two poisonous herbs with serious side effects that have at times been used to terminate pregnancy.

19th-century medicine saw advances in the fields of surgery, anaesthesia, and sanitation, in the same era that doctors with the American Medical Association lobbied for bans on abortion in The United States and the British Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. Demand for the procedure continued, however, as the disguised, but nonetheless open, advertisement of abortion services in Victorian times would seem to suggest. [13]

-Kyd 03:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this text satisfactory? If so, I'll go ahead and add it to the article (Yeah, I'm a lot bolder on talk pages than I am in the editing of actual articles. Total mouse.) -Kyd 20:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks great to me. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Sentence (once and for all)

Do NOT edit this original portion of this particular section. If you want to discuss, ADD your comments at the end, below the horizontal line.

Regarding all the discussion for the last week, this is the final version, to change the introductory sentence to the following: "An Abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn humans (sometimes referred to as embroy(s) or fetus(es))."

Reasons to change

No evidence exists to show that a fertilized egg is not a human, or something else besides a human.
Scientific evidence exists to show that a fertilized egg is nothing but a human from moment of conception.
Numerous accounts exist of people who've researched abortion and were either deliberately misled or simply did not understand that a "Fetus" or "Embryo" is in fact a real human (as opposed to a "lump of tissue").
Stating that abortion...resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn humans (sometimes refered to as embryos or fetuses)... would make this topic easy to understand for the average person (not a lunkhead, not a rocket scientist, but an average person). Rather than forcing them to research the terms Embryo or Fetus before they can fully understand the scientific fact that it is a human.

Reasons to not change

huam being implies personhood. (this is a controversial topic in itself, but regardless, problem solved by recommending dropping the word "being"), see above new intro sentence

Discussion on Intro Sentence change

If you have any clear scientific evidence that shows that a fertilized human egg is something OTHER than human, OR why the article should not be made easier to understand by the revision, then discuss below, otherwise keep your peace. Barwick 04:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem has changed from human "being" to the use of the term unborn. Not to mention the increased complexity of the prose.--Tznkai 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds kind of weird. What about "An Abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn children (sometimes referred to as embroy(s) or fetus(es))" --Elliskev 05:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In wiki, nothing is ever "once and for all". Rick Norwood 14:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Human is out. While my hair cells are also human, they aren't A human. And with modern day cloning, their DNA could be extracted, and they could someday grow into a human. So, on a real level, my hair folicles are uncloned, unborn, unrealized babies. Is this absurd? Of course it is, but it proves the point that un-[future event]-ed is problematic and that since we don't know when a human becomes an independent fully realized human, to say otherwise is POV.

I still like what I proposed a week ago, "An abortion is the termination or loss of an embryo or fetus that results in the premature cessation of pregnancy." The current version(s) is a [mess] problem. People (nobody I know) talk(s) like this. (It is not / It's not / isn't, clear.) It reads like a (pile of) damn legal document(s)... --Quasipalm 14:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I favour keeping the current wording as it is.

For my part, though all Barwick says is true and noble, would discourage inserting it, because in general abortion can be done to animals as well. Yes, it is mostly discussed regarding humans and later on the article clarifies that, but we don't need it in the opening sentence - "of human or animal fetus" I think to circumstantial (I already considered the 2one or all carried fetuses" superfluous. Str1977 14:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The question of abortion in animals is a red herring. The artical clearly states that "this article focuses exclusively on abortions performed upon humans."

Leave the intro alone. It is correct as it stands: abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus. That is NPOV, non-controversial, everybody agrees with it. It states clearly and accurately what abortion is. All ammendments are attempts to sway the reader to one side or the other of the abortion debate. Rick Norwood 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rick, for once. Let the intro stand as it does. Str1977 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope we agree many more times. Having looked at the intro, though, I now discover it has sprouted plural forms instead of singular, which seem to me to contribute nothing. If a one twin fetus is aborted and the other is not, does that make it not an abortion? Why plurals? Rick Norwood 14:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my point -- it's currently a mess. See "Termination of pregnancy sentance" above. Basically, Tz wasn't happy that the old sentence didn't say that a single abortion could remove two or more fetuses. --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem was actually looking the other direction. If an abortion is the termination and death of the fetus (singular) the sentances implies that pregnancies always have a singular pre/unborn/fetus,embryo, etc. This is not true in humans and very much not true in everyone else. Its more an innacuracy of english, not a POV issue. Anyway. I think we're close to having distilled the current intro section as close as we will ever get it to perfect, unless someone can find a more clever way of the plural issue, or convinces me that it isn't one. Ann, could you jump in here, I know you're good with the whole English Language Thing.--Tznkai 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I'm eliminating the correspondance between str and quasi. Take it to user talk fellas. If you feel the need, go ahead and object to my heavyhandedness, but i'd prefer you remained focused.--Tznkai 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the original comments and my response too. I agree that ad hominem attacks shouldn't be on the talk page, but I wasn't going to edit another persons comments directed at myself. Heavyhandedness can fall under Wikipedia's guidline of being bold. :-) --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, it's okay that it's removed. Quasi, I did not intend to attack you personally. If you think I did, then I'm sorry. Str1977 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, I saw nothing ad hominem in the post. Ad hominem means attacking the person rather than the argument. I see now that Str1977 has written that he did intend to attack! I'm so positive that this is a typo that I'm going to be quite impertinent and add the missing (but obviously intended) not. I'm confident that he'll forgive me for the liberty I'm taking! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      - No, Ann, I will never forgive you because there's nothing that needs to be forgiven. I will rather praise you for spotting my typo and for your righteous impertinence. Cheers, Str1977 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with Str1977's deleted comment that Quasipalm's proposal is POV, but sometimes this talk page fills up so fast that I miss important new (or old!) arguments until a few days after they've been made. I prefer the older version "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus." I think Tznkai is quite right, of course, in saying that it raises questions as to what we should call it when one child survives, and is later born. But that doesn't make the old definition incorrect; it just makes it incomplete in a tiny, tiny minority of cases. I wonder could we elaborate later in the article, dealing briefly with the case of twins, etc., rather than going for a clumsy wording at the beginning? We could also, perhaps say "resulting in the death of an embryo or a fetus." Changing from the definite article to an indefinite one would get over the problem of numbers. Using the definite article makes it more specific – "this one, not these two", or "these two, not these three". If we don't decide to get rid of the "any or all" bit, then I'd agree with Str to leave it as it is. By the way, I'm not comfortable with "fetus" as the object of the verb "terminate". Pregnancies are terminated; fetuses are killed (or die). I'm not saying that it can never be used that way, but since to terminate means to end, termination collocates more with pregnancy than with fetus, and is, strictly speaking, more correct when used that way. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blind to my own comments, but I honestly think this is NPOV and I'm confused as to what POV this sentence expresses. (If it's my own POV, it's that we don't know when a fetus becomes a baby, which I think is the only POV that is also NPOV in a sense.) But yes, I agree with you about the first sentence you quote being better than the current one. Why don't we have the first sentence just speak to 99% of cases and then have a following sentence say something about multiple births if need be? --Quasipalm 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Quasi, I agree with Ann on the simpler version.

As for your proposal being NPOV, try this sentence: "Alphonse Capone was a highly successful business man in the Chicago area until he stumbled over charges of tax evasion."

Do you think that sentence is POV or not?

Not only additions can be POV, also substractions. Str1977 20:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken. For the record I'm not trying to eliminate any nasty details about abortion. My objection was that "death" implied personhood. I'm dropping this objection now, however. I'm becoming convinced it may be the simplest way of conveying, um, termination. ;-) I think this may be caused by my own idea of what "death" means, rather than any real, documented definitions. --Quasipalm 20:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to make that point – that it was POV because of what it left out – but Str beat me to it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong [14] We forgot something folks, the abortion can follow the death of the fetus. This is part of why we really need to move the article as I proposed. The more complete the definition, the more problems we get--Tznkai 17:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So to sum up, the first sentence needs to say that abortion can be:

natural or induced
plural or singular
before or after death of the fetus

Does this sum up all of the major different circumstances? I'm fine with breaking the article into two different pages, it seems reasonable enough to me. --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Human" should be used only in the adjectival sense (i.e. "human or animal fetus") and not in the form of a noun ("unborn human"). Barwick's concern that people don't understand the terms "fetus" and "embryo" is silly, especially when the suggested alternative is actually a lot more confusing, as in, "Those unborn humans who will someday shape our world." I'm not talking about unborn children, here, but rather as-of-yet-unconceived future generations of people. Unborn is a tricky word, as it can also be used in a context which means "future," so pair it with an equally ambiguous word like "human" and you've got a recipe for confusion. I say stick primarily with the technical words.

As for everyone elses' comments, I pretty much agree with it all. The multiples text is, in fact, rather awkward, but it's really just a stopgap solution. It's nice to see everyone making lists, too. It really adds to atmosphere of productivity. :) -Kyd 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

forgive me for barging in on the discussion, as i've not participated in it before. but i wonder if it might be of value to the discussion to refer to how *other encyclopedias* open their entries for abortion. for example, the Columbia Encyclopedia, fifth edition (my fave), opens the entry on abortion thusly: abortion, expulsion of the product of conception before the embryo or fetus is viable. my crusty old copy of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, fourth edition, opens thusly: Abortion. The explusion of the fetus from the uterus during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, before it has become capable of separate existence. i'm offering those here only because they may help with finding simplified, or perhap more accurate terminology. if there's interest, i can transcribe the entries in their entirety, pursuant to fair use etc. - they're not terribly long. Anastrophe 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Anastrophe. Here are dozens of other defenitions.

Also note the "Related phrases: spontaneous abortion, incomplete abortion, missed abortion, therapeutic abortion, threatened abortion, habitual abortion, inevitable abortion, elective abortion, complete abortion, induced abortion" for ideas on possible article splits, if people decide to do that. "Termination" and "expulsion" appear often as the main verb. --Quasipalm 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anastrophe, a long time ago we had a look into other encyclopedias, including the Columbia. I can remember your quotation very well, because back then I was wondering how an encyclopedia, apart from winding around with phrases like "the product of conception", could present wrong definitions with "before the embryo or fetus is viable" - that's neither part of the definition of abortion, nor is it so in reality. There are abortions on viable offspring. There is a famous case in Germany of a baby who survived his own abortion. The boy was aborted but still lived and the "doctors" left him to die. Only after a couple of hours did they help the baby. Also, "during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" is inaccurate to the extreme. I know some people dispute the term "partial birth abortion", but I always thought they opposed "partial birth" and not abortion. So, Anastrophe, your effort is appreciated but this will not help. Str1977 20:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

my effort "will not help" only if you choose to ignore it. columbia, van nostrands, britannica, etc, have authority. wikipedia does not. those writing a non-authorititative definition, or formulating wording in that regard, who don't refer to authoritative sources, do so at their own peril. per your 'example', that famous case is what's known as an abberation; typically, aberrations do not play a part in the definition (that's rather *why* they are aberrant). one can argue that there are two things at work there - the *intention* in attempting an abortion, and the *actual* aborting of a fetus. that the baby lived means de facto it was not an abortion, regardless of what the intent was. i guess you simply misunderstood my intent in posting that. i'm not trying to alter opinions, i'm interested in wording. "the product of conception" is a perfectly valid construct - albeit stilted - unless you have some contrary data.Anastrophe 21:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster does an interesting job seperating the removal and death into two distinct events, this may help the issue Tz brought up earlier:

the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus --Quasipalm 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When no fetal heartbeart is found, and a D&C is performed, is it an abortion? If abortion is the termination of pregnancy, didn't the pregnancy terminate when the fetus died? Anyway, let's kill as many birds in one sentence as possible: "An induced abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resultant in, or subsequent to, the death of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es)." Perhaps I should become a lawyer. >_< -Kyd 21:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Ann's suggestion to go to the indefinite article at minimum simplifies while accomplishing the same. "An induced abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in, or subsequent to, the death of an embryo or fetus."Anastrophe 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about a multiple pregnancy where more than one fetus is aborted, as in a selective reduction? -Kyd 22:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

well, in the latter case, the pregnancy has not been terminated. the pregnancy continues, but with fewer fetuses. it's a sticky wicket, to say the least.Anastrophe 22:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not everything has to be in the first sentence. We can move the plurality to a subsequent sentence about these (i'm assuming) rare occasions. --Quasipalm 03:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i've taken the liberty of removing "(human induced)" from the definition of Induced abortion. 'human induced' is implicit in "deliberate", unless we wish to enterain the notion of alien induced abortions.Anastrophe 22:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've re-added the termination of pregnancy bit but tacked it onto the end. While I think termination of pregnancy is the more common usage, this is definatly easier to read and understand. While I doubt its perfect, everyone congratulate yourselves on working together very well.--Tznkai 16:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fetal pain and health risks vis a vis the fetus

I've given it some thought and I've been compelled that Fetal pain is infact a relevant idea. However, I don't think it deserves its own section. I'd like to roll an "effect on the fetus" sentance into each section of the procedures. However, this is a very touchy situation because of the potential for abuse. Or perhaps a section on effects of abortion cross refrenced against time line of fetal development. I'd like everyone to input here on a possible structure and some ground rules before we start building the improvments in article.--Tznkai 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It definitely does not warrant a seperate section. I think we should divide the abortion methods section based upon the trimester and/or week frame within which each method is used. In this manner, we can roll in discussion of fetal pain into the time period in which scientific evidence seems to suggest that such information would be relevant (3rd trimester, probably), and in so doing avoid overgeneralized alarmism. -Kyd 20:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem with that is that no one is sure. General consensus is that at 20 weeks, with minority views ranging from 10 all the way to 24 weeks, the anatomy is there. Only one study I could locate is addressing the question of whether the fetus is aware as well as developed enough to feel anything - the equivalent of being 'passed out cold' - although it seems to be a known issue with answering the question (when?). KillerChihuahua 11:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Simpler first line, per Ann's suggestion above.

1) Shorter is better 2) This takes care of the very rare case where one twin is aborted but the pregnancy continues, as well as the case where twins are aborted. Rick Norwood 23:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Move proposal

discussion

The vast majority of this artilce is on induced abortion. Why not create a disambiguation page for abortion and move this article to induced abortion. This should make things significantly smoother. Will move in 72 hours barring objections.--Tznkai 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your motivation is entirely reasonable. However, my main concern is that this'd be confusing for the layperson. "Abortion," to most people, means more than just "induced abortion." It means this whole embroilment over laws and ethics and statistics, etc., etc. Most people would not think to search for "induced abortion" when looking for such information. Just a thought. --Kyd 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I echo Kyd, furthermore it would mean two articles to be vandalized. When someone puts in abortion its reasonable to assume they want induced abortion; hence your proposal :)... but this issue has been around for so long its more and more common to see it called "abortion". Yeah the intro is a bit awkward... but entire subject is awkward so I think it kind of appropriate. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

my thought is this then.:

Abortion will hard redirect to Induced abortion
Introductory passage in Induced abortion is streamlined with that breakdown in prose.
Abortion(disambiguation) has links to sponanues, induced, with the explanation as well. This would allow us to cut some redundant subsections.--Tznkai 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote is with Kyd. Hold off, Tznkai, unless you can muster support for the move. Rick Norwood 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretty good sales technique Tznkai; you've sold me at least. :"D Although if Abortion redirects what would be the point of disambiguation? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kyd too. Though abortion is strictly speaking more than induced abortion, the latter is what most readers would think about when using the term. Also, that it is more is reflected in the upper parts of the article. And we already have a disambig page. All in all, I see no reason for a change. Str1977 10:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What disambig page are you referring to str?--Tznkai

Oh, there is no disambig page? I though there were as someone here talked about it. I should have checked first. Anyway, the rest of my point stands. Str1977 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Tzankai's post of 00:25 on 1 November, make sure if you create a disambiguation page that it's Abortion (disambiguation), not Abortion(disambiguation) (which is what you had above). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I think there was a bit of confusion how this works. So I've set up an example! User:Tznkai/workshop/Abortion --Tznkai 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The working model is convincing. It does eliminate the need for the cluttering distinction between induced and spontaneous abortion in the opening paragraph.

--Kyd 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked over Tznkai's proposal, but my vote is still to leave things where they are. The confusion of a move would be much greater than any current confusion that may or may not exist. Rick Norwood 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked and I seem to have gathered one standing objection and some quiet support for the article move. I've decided to go ahead and try it barring further loud objection so we can see if it works out. However, moving pages tends to shake things up quite a bit, so if everyone could tell me what they'd like accomplished first, or needs to object to moving at all, please leave that here.--Tznkai 16:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Second the objection, strongly. As the article is written, it draws a clear distinction between spontaneous and induced abortion, there is a separate miscarriage article for those who are interested in that, and to move the article will simply result in virtually all requests for Abortion hitting a redirect or disambig page. My $.02. KillerChihuahua 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i also register my objection. KISS principle. abortion, whether induced or spontaneous or whatever, is still abortion. the article is about abortion. the different kinds are clearly described. or are we to believe there's a large population out there that would specifically be entering "induced abortion" into the search field, rather than simply "abortion" - and who would not understand if "abortion" came up as the first hit? Anastrophe 21:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua and Anastrophe, for the reasons they have given. Str1977 21:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua and Anastrophe and Str1977 for the reason they have given. Rick Norwood 23:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And so do I. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have all misunderstood (again). I put a link to an example a few comments up please take a look and see if you still object.--Tznkai 00:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. I read all of "Article Move proposal.", menu item 22, as well as followed the link to your example. My objections stand, and I concur with Anastrophe's objections also. KillerChihuahua 00:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My objection remains. Does this not fall under "Readers Aren't Stupid: don't lead em by the nose everywhere."? the article is on abortion. the types of abortion are subsets of the article's topic. it simply isn't necessary to split, disambiguate, and lead the reader around by the nose to different articles. Anastrophe 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

actually, the idea was to move it so Spontaenues and induced both fork from pregnancy instead of through abortion: Preg-->abort-->Spon(miscarriage) as well as pregnancy-->miscarriage. This is about organizational and definitional accuracy. RAS suggests that readers should be able to keep up with the more accurate structure, not the other way around.--Tznkai 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. My reason for the move is similar move Declaration of indpendance to United States Declaration of Idependance, although less clearly cut. Perhaps a more similar example is the hard redirect from Intelligent design theory to intelligent design. Most people hear of it as intelligent design theory, but it in fact is not a theory. Conversly, abortion as used means induced abortion. There is very little to say on totallity of pregnancy failure, all abortions as a whole, so who cares if the redirect page is hit frequently. That happens all the time.--Tznkai 03:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd think that the reason for prefering "intelligent design" to "intelligent design theory" as an article title would be NPOV -- the latter, of course, seeming to comment on the subject's veracity. As for the article move, I have warmed up to it since it was first proposed, but I still habour most of the same reservations expressed above. In any case, let's wait 'til we've completed most of the overhaul. -Kyd 08:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You assume we object to the move because we don't understand your reasons for the move. My main objection to the move is that it will involve a needless redirect. Few will search for "induced abortion". Many will search for "abortion". Rick Norwood 16:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very true, because the argument you use against the move is rather similar to my reasoning TO move. The fact is that the abortion article addresses induced abortions. The spontaneus abortion subsection hasn't been touched since I copied/pasted the first paragraph from the miscarriage article. Its dead weight thats necessary for accuracy unless we teir off. Hitting a redirect is hardly a reason to avoid a move, readers hit redirects all the time without noticing.--Tznkai 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

standing vote

Okay, let's all take Tznkai seriously for a moment, and commit ourselves to a vote. Do you vote yes, no, or maybe? If "maybe," state why, or upon which conditions a change in vote would be dependent.

Maybe. We wait until after the article has been mostly overhauled first. This way, at least, we'll be "shipping" a finished product. -Kyd 20:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Wait. Once a stable version is done; get admins from noticeboard to for input/vote. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Wait but leaning toward No I agree with RoyBoy, need input from admins after a stable version. I do, however lean in the No direction because 'abortion' means induced abortion to most people. --RobbyPrather (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes: There is no such thing as a stable version, as the move would create considerable instability ( a change to the intro section and a removal of a section). I can be compelled on the grounds that this is innacurate, or if someone can show me content on the discussion of abortion as a whole--Tznkai 17:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No: I see nothing of value gained by this proposed action. i also register my previous comments made elsewhere.Anastrophe 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

the following was maliciously removed, with an ad hominem edit summary. if you have a problem with this, out with it, in the open, please. this is not "your" page, tznkai, and removing comments without any discussion is unethical in my opinion. begin elided text:

I have reremoved it. you can speak for yourself, but you shouldn't do so for others, especially against what the purpose of this "vote" was for. Remember, votes are nonbinding, as we work by consensus and discussion whenever possible. This issue has not reached the point where we need to vote it off to squash someone trying to 'do' something counter consensus. Any further comments directed at me should go to my talk page.--Tznkai 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

this is absurd, and passive aggressive. read the opening sentence of this section: "Okay, let's all take Tznkai seriously for a moment, and commit ourselves to a vote". apparently however, you want a vote presented here that reflects your desired outcome. Anastrophe 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record "Don't speak for others, and we're not voting for the sake of deciding, we're voting to clarify what can change our positions and what they are.)" is not an attack, ad hominem or otherwise--Tznkai 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i challenge you to cite, specifically, where i "[spoke] for others". specifically. i'm curious, is it not considered 'bad form' to arbitrarily delete text from the *discussion* page, when one does not like it? this sets a very bad precedent in my book. you are, in fact, acting as if this is "your" page. please restore the text i wrote. i wonder if you'll merely delete *these* comments as well? Anastrophe 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I and every other editor has a right to attempt to do what they see fit (within reason) to pursuing Wikipedia's goals. LKuckly, our actions can be reversed, information is maintained in histoyr. By "speaking for others" I meant your repeating of the "votes" of others. There is no reason not to wait the time for those who have left comments to repeat them as they see fit. Yes, it is bad form to remove content because of petty motivation. If you wish however, to accuse me of doing things because of such intentions, you are attacking my character, something seperate from writing this article. The discussion of my character on this page ends now. You can either drop it, talk it to user talk, file a request for comment, file a request for mediation, or file a request for arbitration. I repeat, this ends now--Tznkai 04:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

restore my text that you deleted. let others decide if it was inappropriate. Anastrophe 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be speaking for others by re-entering that text.--Tznkai 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then every time anyone pastes part of someone's earlier post it would be "speaking for others." Anastrophe is not "speaking" for me, he's just pasting my opinion along with others, clearly given, in a tidy list for easy reference. Anastrophe clearly pasted, as he included timestamps from our sigs, which was very considerate, as it made it easier to find the original entry actually made by the individual. If anyone wants to change their vote, or correct it, they can certainly do so. I'm willing to assume good faith, and if someone accidentally pastes in my name next to an incorrect vote, I'll just fix it and comment that I did and why.

One puppy's opinion - KillerChihuahua 19:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, two issues. Speaking for others is something we should *always* err on the side of caution on. Distilling it down to a vote increases the innacuracies and closes down discussion, thats issue two.--Tznkai 01:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, I admire immensely your high ethical standards and concerns for others. I honestly think you're wasting your efforts here. If no one cares but you, and you make the new list when you archive (keeping the timestamp as did Anastrophe), then you have entered your vote, you've pasted everyone elses, and I for one don't see this as an issue. This is getting silly. Does anyone else care if the short tidy list is pasted *as a brief summary* or *starting point* ? If so, register your objection. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point, probably the best thing to do is for all of us to step back and let someone else make the final decision (not myself, KC or anastrophe) as far as the voting issue stands, Kyd may be best suited being the vote sections author. As for the move, Its unpopular to be sure, but I want to see if there are specific concerns I can allay before putting the matter to rest.--Tznkai 16:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think, deep down, my answer would be "no": given the widely-understood, broader context of the term "abortion," I think even a redirect would be confusing to some. Some might not understand that "induced abortion" is an umbrella term, inclusive of all types of deliberate abortion, surgical, herbal, medicinal, and so forth. The immediate reaction to the page title might be to mistake it for a specific procedure, say, like D&C abortion, saline abortion, or "partial-birth abortion." Of course, I'm getting dangerously close to using an argument that I just spent the last week debunking: "readers are stupid and need to have the truth — ahem — facts bashed into their bomb-shelter-concrete-thick skulls." Chihuahua's proposal, somewhere above, to include information on the health effects of miscarriage (i.e. spontaneous abortion) drives home to me the potential justification for a move. We aren't writing an article about spontaneous abortion, and perhaps, in that regard, an explicit, forced division between the two subjects and their articles would help us to maintain our focus here. In the process of expanding the article, we must also streamline it and remove what isn't immediately pertinent. I say we continue our revision, writing as though an article move were the ultimate goal, and then take it from there once we're done. We've too many irons in the fire. -Kyd 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Herbal abortion: Ethics question.

Kudos to Kyd for a much improved history of abortion subsection. This brings up an ugly ethics question hwoever. As Wikipedia is an encylopedia it is, in one sense, our job to catalogue all information that is worth cataloguing. At the same time, we provide a great deal of information to a lot of people who don't have the patience or wisdom to look at other sources.

The fact that certain herbs are poisonous or are otherwise suited to inducing an abortion is clear. What is not clear to me is what we do about it. Currently the information is burried in the history of abortion section, but I'm deciding whether or not to include it in the "other methods." My instinct is to, but I want everyone's input first.--Tznkai 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Should absolutely be included... can't remember why it was removed before. With proper disclaimers (which we did have) it is notable information as people are always interested to know "alternative" methods for things. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur with RoyBoy, add to "other methods. It has been, and is currently being, used. Herbal Fertility Control: Contraception and Abortion, Herbal Abortion, and if anyone wants to go to the library, there is a Listmania list on Amazon with some sources: Listmania! Herbal Abortion. If you need more sources to cite I will add. I don't see where this is an ethics question, am I being terribly dense? Wikipedia entries don't debate ethics, they report ethics issues. The ethics are about abortion, covered in the article in the section 6, the abortion debate. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For herbs the ethics are a little different; as these methods can indeed be dangerous... and to speak of them in detail without proper disclaimers could be viewed as "promotion" of medically unsanctioned methods of abortion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "disclaimers" so much as the need for accuracy and proper citing of sources. If we report accurately the high risk of death and serious problems will be in the segment. I *still* don't see how the ethics are different - it sounds suspiciously POV to me. Are you talking about the ethics of including herbal abortions in the article? or about administering them? The first is nonsense, the second is not germane. KillerChihuahua 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Killer, you're new on this article. So I'm going to let this one slide, but accusations of POV and other failures of WP:AGF, or even hints of them don't fly around here anymore. I am sick and tired of it, and I have been removing them, and thus far have recieved no objections other than the editor such effected, IF even them. So, cut it out.--Tznkai 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, either way I want it included. :"D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznkai, for the kudos. =^.^= On the subject of herbal abortion: there is a certain prudence, a sense of moral responsiblity, involved in writing. Do we refrain from mentioning herbal abortion, apart from in a historical context, lest a desperate girl should munch some tansy and land herself in the ER? It's a thorny question, isn't it? However, I say err on the side of thoroughness -- with caution, of course. -Kyd 08:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just be careful not to write something that will get wikipedia sued. Rick Norwood 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We've got a lovley little universal disclaimer in place, so Wikipedia passes through fruedian ethics system just fine. The problem is analgous to writing down the preperation process to a pipe bomb. How detailed do we make it?--Tznkai 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Debating the ethics of including relevant, factual information with adequate sourcing is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. WP:ISNOT a howto manual, nor censored, nor an ethical manual, and as long as we follow WP guidelines there is, ipso facto, no issue. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

we're debating the ethics of writing it at all, not discussing the herbal ethics in the article.--Tznkai 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is what I was addressing, apparently I was unclear. WP is not censored. To not include relevant, factual information for which there is adequate sourcing for "ethical" reasons is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. KillerChihuahua 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

KC, stop using WP:NPOV as a bludgeon. This is meant to be a serious discussions on the implications and extent to what we write. Complete uncensorship would include shock images. There is a balance to be made for all the conflicting needs and judgement calls to be made--Tznkai 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully I must disagree. If someone were to suggest shock images, I would register my opinion that shock images are inherently POV, precisely because they are shock images. I would of course be open to hearing why I might be mistaken. KillerChihuahua 12:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

childbirth carries risks, and is dangerous. legal, surgically induced abortion carries risks, and is dangerous. illegal, surgically induced abortion carries risks, and is dangerous. self-induced abortion with impromptu 'tool's carries risks, and is dangerous. having a friend kick you in the belly while pregnant carries risks, and is dangerous. consuming various herbal abortifacients carries risks, and is dangerous. what part of the formula am i missing that would lead to removal of herbal abortifacients? Anastrophe 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Its a detail level thing. Everyone has heard the stories about physical trauma, but less so on the risks of herbal abortifcation.--Tznkai 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

how does that argue in favor of removing information, if that's the case? it is precisely that - if indeed fewer people are aware of abortifacient herbs and the risks therein, it argues to *expanding* the section, rather than removing it, does it not?.Anastrophe 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai and all here: I apologise if I in any way seemed to be using NPOV as a "bludgeon" and I am indeed being serious - it seemed to me by responses that I must have been unclear in how I thought NPOV applied, and I was attempting to clarify. That said, No one has as yet told me how leaving out a method of abortion which is common enough to have a Listmania list on Amazon is something Wikipedia should censor from an article which is about abortion. If the issue is that less people know of the risks of herbal abortion, then as mentioned here already by several people, health risks should also be added, which I would expect anyway as the risks are considerable and well documented.

If I err, please let me know. If I am ever unclear, ask and I will try to clarify. That said, it really isn't necessary to accuse me twice in one section of the same thing, and out of chronological order, without waiting for me to respond, especially as your second accusation followed immediately after a post which I had begun with "apparently I was unclear". KillerChihuahua 21:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I came on to strong, but seeing NPOV cited causes a kneejerk reaction after a while. Now as for this, I do not disagree on its notability, and I remind you all I mentioned I was leaning towards including it in the first place. I wished to gauge everyones opinions and thoughts. At any rate, I again bring up the pipe bomb analogy. Pipe bombs are notable. We know what they're made out of. We know how they are prepared. (well, I don't, but Wikipedians do). The question remains should we. Now, pipe bombs are used almost exclusivly for terror and murder, and abortion is not a tool of terrorism generally, but the question of moral and ethical restraint becomes relevant. I'm fine with naming the herbs as long as we classify them as poisons (which they are), but we suggests not including preperations of abortifcant concoctions if we should find them.--Tznkai 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and offer a little suggestion: since WP:POV is so central to keeping Wikipedia from becoming either pro-this or anti-that or schizophrenic, it will be cited. If you are so sensitized that "it sounds suspiciously POV" is taken by you as an accustaion and results in responses like "I'll let that slide this time" then you might need to remember everyone here is just trying to make a better article, and biting usually isn't the way to accomplish this. I would remind you to remember WP:FAITH but you would probably take it ill (minor humor).

Concur with Tznkai on not adding concoctions: WP is not a recipie book or how-to. KillerChihuahua 11:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we are in all this, but as I recall the herb paragraph was in a historical context... with mention of Peter of Spain], who I wrote a stub for to mention him here. Maintaining the historical perspective (or at least mention) I think is a good thing, as it keeps it within the primitive medieval ... this is how we use to do things; that and labeling them poisons I feel is ample warning. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture survey

Pictures are something this article has lacked for a while, with the exception of Kyd's map. This has been a boon to us, because we've managed to avoid a huge set of POV debates oer them in the time I've been around. That having been said it puts a cieling on the article quality we can achieve. Lets brainstorm and set some ground rules for what we can have. The last suggestion we heard was for tools. I think that might actually work.--Tznkai 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

in what way is the existing image inadequate? The quality of an article is found in the words, not the images at least wrt to contentious political issues, as opposed to articles about French Impressionism. as it stands, this article appears to be a pretty remarkable example of consensus building and compromise, on one of the two or possibly three most contentious topics in popular discourse. i don't see how additional images will illuminate the issue further. The article is less about a medical procedure than it is about a divisive cultural issue. just my 3.14159 cents.Anastrophe 04:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree strongly. Abortion is not about the cultural issue, we leave that to the debate article. Abortion is a top tier survey article--Tznkai 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not imperative that the article feature images. But images, in conjuction with strong written text, could help to elevate us to Featured Article quality. Here are some obvious things we'd want to avoid:

Shock images: Images intended to shock the viewer into a specific conclusion about abortion. No snapshots of aborted fetuses or victims of back-alley abortions. It'd be both indefensibly POV and an affront to good taste.
POV images: Some otherwise neutral images, within the context of the article, could be interpreted as POV. Such as a fetus (I can't think of a pro-choice analogue right now).
Copyrighted images: This should be obvious. Do we want to get sued?

I think the images we select should be thematic. A picture of the medical instruments used to perform an abortion could be used to illustrate "Methods of Abortion," a picture of protesters on boths sides could be used for "Abortion Debate," and so forth. I've spent the last two days searching the internet for something with which to illustrate History (no luck!). I would really like to find an example of a Victorian ad, or, otherwise, a Medieval or ancient drawing featuring abortion, the preparation of an abortifacient potion, etc. -Kyd 08:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures belong in the articles on embryo and on fetus, not here. Pictures of medical procedures cannot help but be shocking. Rick Norwood 16:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We can avoid medical procedures for the latest abortion terms, but drug induced should be fine, and we can simply have a picture of a metal tray with the tools used for the other procedures, as well as a snapshot of one of the pills, etc.--17:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO pictures are not necessary in any way. I concur with Anastrophe's statement above. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The statement referenced is "i don't see how additional images will illuminate the issue further. " KillerChihuahua 17:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I said I wanted to find an example of a clandestine 19th or early-20th century ad and I think I might've succeeded. Scroll down to the middle of this discussion of turn-of-the-last-century sexual ethics on Encylopedia Titanica: here.The text, at the very bottom of the ad-column, reads: "Dr. Caton's Tansy Pills! The most reliable remedy for ladies. Always safe, effectual, and the only guaranteed womens' salvation. Price [illegible]. R. F. Caton, Boston, Mass." Another ad boasts the ability to "enlarge" "certain parts." Also, as a miscellaneous highlight of my search, here's a link to a humourous Victorian postcard dealing with birth control, among a slideshow containing various pictures (some potentially offensive). No information on who would own the copyright of these or other similar images. -Kyd 02:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Minor note: Tansy is a migraine cure, also used since the 1500 for menstrual cramps, not an abortificant. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)~~ Sheesh, I was thinking of feverfew, sorry... Tansy is indeed an abortificant. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's okay. I didn't even get around to reading your post until you'd corrected yourself. -Kyd 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

change to "Health Risks"

"Use of other methods (e.g., overdose of various drugs, insertion of various objects into uterus) for abortion is very dangerous, carrying a significantly elevated risk for permenant injury or death compared to abortions done by physicians." while i happen to believe this is probably right, without cititation i don't see it as explicitly NPOV compared to the previous version. i would recommend reverting until a citation can be supplied.Anastrophe 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really feel the need to pull a specific citation on this one. Overdoses are by nature dangerous. Insertion of objects into your body, especially those which are unclean or SHARP is dangerous. Do you have a serious objection that 99.1% of people who can understand that sentance will agree? Thats damn close to consensus. We hardly need citations for everything, least of all that overdosing on a drug is more dangerous than a trained physian giving you a measured amount of hormones.--Tznkai 20:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tznkai. Points that are obscure need references. To reference this is like the warning "Coffee is sometimes hot," on coffee cups. Rick Norwood 20:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Tznkai and Rick Norwood. A cite is not needed for the patently obvious. "Overdose and hangers are not paralel to surgery" is fairly obvious. KillerChihuahua 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

not to be argumentative, but more often than not, when someone says "it's obvious" is when i begin to question it. that's all this really boils down to. i happily withdraw my objection. Anastrophe 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, darnit, it *is* obvious, but your question got me looking for a source anyway, so off I went to Morbitity and Mortality Weekly Report, and while they report all kinds of data on abortions, I cannot find anything yet on abortion related deaths. They must have it buried, I know they track it. I'll keep looking. KillerChihuahua 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what they have: "In 1998 (for which data have not been published previously and the most recent year for which such data are available), nine women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion." This is inconclusive IMHO, elsewhere it is mentioned that people don't necessarily report illegal abortion, and the deaths are not registered as related to illegal abortion. We may not be able to find any reliable information about this. KillerChihuahua 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, at the end of this page, in Table 19, are fatality figures for the years 1972-1998: [[15]]. Tables 2 through 18 have number of legal abortions, reported grouped by various methods. The math is done for you in Table 19 on mortality rate to the mother in legal abortions. There are no statistics on illegal abortions, so the mortality rate is unknown. KillerChihuahua 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

that's pretty much what i suspected. it seems intuitive that illegal/unsanitary/extreme measures taken to abort are likely to be more dangerous than legal, sanitary surgical or chemical abortion. illegal abortion implicitly would go unreported in the main. additionally, illegal abortion is rare since roe v. wade (another assumption, but one that seems intuitive). it's the opposite of the 'better reporting' bias that for other maladies can suggest increases in incidence, where in fact it's increased awareness and diagnosis that partly led to higher reported rates (i'm thinking of skin cancer for example). i think this one has to fall to the 'reasonable man/woman' test. removing a mole with a kitchen knife is implicitly more dangerous than having it removed by a physician. unsanitary/illegal abortions (by whatever means) are implicitly more dangerous than abortions performed in a sanitary clinical environment by trained physicians; any reasonable person can understand the overarching principles involved.Anastrophe 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, we all agreed it was patently obvious and didn't actually need citing, I think we have total concensus on this one. I had to give it the old college try tho, because it would be nice to have a source in case someone protested. KillerChihuahua 19:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Everybody cheer! I have found sources for the increased risk of illegal abortions. Mostly localized, but with a range of locations.

Abortion : A Public Health Problem in Myanmar I know its Myanmar, but the subject is about what they call "clandestine" abortions, and the horrifically high rate of septic infections leading to death. Harvard Med.

From NIH PubMed:

Estimating clandestine abortion with the confidants method-results from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Pattern of morbidity and mortality following illegal termination of pregnancy at Nnewi, Nigeria which is a small study but oh my... we're not quoting a lot of this one I don't think, but as a ref... "Serious complications were cervical laceration, pelvic abscess/peritonitis, ruptured uterus, transection of the sigmoid colon and ileal/jejunal lacerations. The mortality rate was 6% "
Unsafe abortion: a neglected tragedy. Review from a tertiary care hospital in India. Not one of the better ones but has a clear conclusion.

And the one that seems a obvious "keep" for citing/footnoting:

Health benefits of legal abortion: an analysis. which has the wonderfully useable "illegal abortion may carry a risk of death as much as 30 times that of legal abortion"

My second "keep" nominee:

Address Unsafe Abortion from WHO. Quotes: "WHO estimates that globally, one maternal death in eight is due to abortion-related complications" and "Morbidity: Between 10 and 50% of all women who undergo unsafe abortions need medical care for complications. The most frequent complications are incomplete abortion, sepsis, haemorrhage and intra-abdominal injury, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus." with footnotes of breakdowns by Region (Asia, Africa, Europe, etc.)

There are more... that just seemed like enough. If anyone wants me to look for something specific which these dont cover, just let me know. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Statistics

In the US, there are good statistics available from the CDC at Abortion Surveillance. Worldwide statistics can be found at Abortion statistics and other data, which is a secondary source but seems to be a solid one, and which cites its primary sources.

What other sources are needed? In other words, what do you need sources to cite for? I'm actually fairly good at finding sources, and hopefully will be able to help in that area of the "to do" list. If I can help, just let me know what is wanted. KillerChihuahua 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Havn't gotten a chance myself, but we were going to update all the statistics if we can. If you would, please coordinate with Kyd, she's very good at this sort of thing. Of particular intrest to me is our opening statistics in "reasons for an abortion". CDC and AGI are my favorites (AGI is reputable, as I recall they keep all their statistics, just advertise the ones favorable to the pro-choice cause)--Tznkai 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, sources! Generally, I try to avoid biased ones. I rejected an additional source on public opinion in the U.K., a poll conducted by MORI, because it was commissioned by British Pregnancy Advisory Services. I would really, really loathe to have to reject AGI on the same grounds. Really, though, I don't have any particular line of expertise. Mostly, I just plumb the depths of Google until I turn something up.

Any pointers for the "Mental Health" section? I'm considering mounting a rewrite. -Kyd 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about completly collapsing the health risk section myself and divying up the content into the methods sections. Other than ABC and mental health ramifications, we don't have anything thats supposed to address (induced) abortion as a whole. I left some links in the content drop off, glad to work with you on it.--Tznkai 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I can get you urls to decent sources with relevent information, but the issue is, doesn't seem to be any data whatsoever that doesn't come to the same conclusion: Abortion by itself (without other factors) has no discernable effect on mental health. I can find you tons of sources that all say that. I can also document that some early studies which were flawed showed mental health problems resulted, but those have been debunked (if all your abortion cases are underage rape victims, you're probably going to have some therapy that doesn't have a heckuva lot to do with the abortion itself.) What do you want/need? Be specific. thankee - KillerChihuahua 11:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I read what I wrote, yes we should certainly do this, precisely because of the flawed studies. We should mention them, and that they are flawed and why, with proper citations. These studies are inaccurate, known to be inaccurate, yet are being quoted irresponsibly by people with an agenda. Concur? KillerChihuahua 12:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would hesitate to actually quote statistics known to be wrong. I think it is sufficient, in the statistics section, to attribute our statistics to some reliable source, and to mention that this source is reliable, while many quote statistics known to be false in order to support their own point of view. Rick Norwood 14:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I must be going through a spate of unclear postings. I thought that I said We should mention them, and that they are flawed and why, with proper citations made it clear that I was not suggesting we actually quote statistics we know to be wrong. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

KC, thats better suited to the Abortion Debate article, I'd take it up with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tznkai (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

thanks much for the suggestion. I went to Abortion debate... IMHO that article could use a "cleanup" tag but with all those people working on it, it would just inflame people. They have questionable assertions with no sources, their "religion" section only deals with Christianity (and its not like its hard to find the Islamic position!), etc, etc. I don't think they need another fish in the fryer right now. I don't really have the spare time to try to help there either, I'm already involved in several articles, and this one (Abortion) has a great group who are really digging in and making progress. Maybe y'all can all trot over there after this one reaches FA status *grin*. KillerChihuahua 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives