Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

Archiving

Awp! Jesus joseph and mary, (I just saw God and I think he was driving a Cadilac) we need to archive badly. We've got duplicate sections (my fault). Could everyone run through discussions they were recently indovled in and sign them offas closed? As for those being duplicated, those most recently involved, could they please collapse them into a single new section? Thanks!--Tznkai 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is huge, indeed. our, uh, conflict with the vote had much to do - on my part - with the fact that there were *three* separate places that it was being discussed/voted upon, on this one discussion page. i, er, 'vote' that at minimum, all the 'article move' discussion be archived, and that discussion start fresh. (mind you, i know precisely zero about the archiving process, so i don't know what is or is not possible or appropriate). cheers. Anastrophe 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What about archiving everything, putting in section headers for current discussions (Fetal pain, Should we move? Mental health, Herbal abortion - those are the ones I see as currently active, and if someone wants to continue or re-open a topic they can certainly do so) with a brief statement starting the section saying "Archived discussion about this can be found 'here' and 'here' with links to the relevent parts of the archive? Simple enough to do. Keep the "To-do" list at top. For the Should we move? section put in Anastrophe's summary, with the additions of the others who voted in the Standing vote section. If anyone wants to change their position, they can edit and add a comment at the bottom: "Changed vote from No to Yes because (reason) (sig w/timestamp.)" I have posted some sources which have not been used or commented on, but I can re-paste them in Sources or the relevent section. Sound reasonable? KillerChihuahua 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

good idea. i would also recommend - something i've noticed is endemic to WP and i think is a shortcoming of the design (aside from the fact that users must do their own 'threading' by adding colons ahead of their entries) - i wonder if it might not be a good idea, at the top of the discussion page, to simply suggest "when starting new discussion about a new topic, please begin that section at the BOTTOM of this page". i don't know the etiquette of it, so if i'm off base, no problem. it just seems to me that info should flow downward rather than upward or in the middle. WRT to 'should we move' etc discussion and votes, i would recommend that it simply start fresh, again, and keep it all in one place. i've noted above my concern about the discussion being broken up amongst three separate areas of the one discussion page. those who wish to vote again may do so, and we'll leave it at that - skip any reproduction of previous votes, as it is a _process_ rather than an up-or-down vote as tznkai pointed out. just my 3.1415926535897932384626 cents.Anastrophe 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is is a WP guideline, found at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Always add new topic to the end of the page. No need to add a notice to the Talk page here, simply move new entries to the end and remind the editor to do that next time. (btw, that's um, 1.1415926535897932384626 more cents than I usually have, how did you get so rich???) KillerChihuahua 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't just revert, Tag too

Hey everyone. Just a reminder -- Remeber to tag a vandal's talk page when reverting vandalism. Add the warning tags (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}) on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Doing this assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. --Quasipalm 15:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is new to me, and I'm not sure I understand the instructions here. Suppose vandal 123456 gets reverted. I click on his number, and that takes me to a talk page, but it is not necessarily his unique talk page -- that number may be shared by other people who visited but did not log on. Anyway, I want to put a tag. Exactly what do I type if vandal 123456 has vandalized the article "Happy face" and I've reverted it. (Sorry to be so dense.) Rick Norwood 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tag shared IPs same as user pages. Entry should be made on Talk, not User, page. Complete instructions are at WP:VAND. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good source to find the most appropriate tag to use: Template talk:Test. And don't forget {{subst:selftest}} for self-reverters. --Elliskev 20:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the proper procedure. The recent spat of vandalism here is troubling. It comes with the territory, though, I suppose. -Kyd 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Found this handy table on a user page -- think I may add it to mine as well... --Quasipalm 04:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Testing:	{{test0}}	{{test}}	{{test2}}	{{test3}}	{{test4}}	{{test5}}	{{test6}}
- With page:		{{test-n}}	{{test2b}}, {{test2-n}}, {{test2a-n}}	{{test3-n}}	{{test4-n}}
- Others:		{{selftest}}	{{test2a}}	{{blatantvandal}}, {{multipleIPs}}, {{obscene}}	{{test4a}}	{{vblock}}
Blanking:			{{blanking}}	{{blanking2}}	{{blanking3}}	{{blanking4}}
Bad-faith errors:			{{verror2}}	{{verror3}}	{{verror4}}
Spam:			{{spam}}	{{spam2}}	{{spam3}}	{{spam4}}
Removing {{afd}}		{{drmafd}}	{{drmafd2}}	{{drmafd3}}	{{drmafd4}}	{{drmafd5}}
3RR:				{{3RR}}	{{3RR2}}	{{3RR3}}

Just to reiterate, please don't forget the subst: in front, as in {{subst:test1}}. Helps keep server loads down, otherwise whenever someone loads that user page the server needs to find out what the test1 template text is supposed to be. If there are any questions/issues involving vandals, warning and blocking don't hesitate to query me. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Surgical abortion

Can someone take a look at this edit here[1] and see if theres useful information to pull out of it? My medical knowledge is thin.--Tznkai 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"This is a rather violent procedure as depicted in medical photographs." This sentence, I believe, speaks for itself. As does this edit that the same IP, 141.161.114.74, made to Planned Parenthood. -Kyd 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated poll results

I added latest (Nov 2005) polling data from CNN/Gallup/USA Today. Limited the data to the general issue of whether abortion ought to be legal, rather than who identifies with the undefined terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as the use of those labels is a sub-debate within the larger debate about legality (previous data was from Aug 2005 and focused on undefined labels). Goodandevil 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed this text:

"The same poll found that 35% would like to see abortion remain generally available, while 63% want more restrictions on abortion (23% prefer "stricter limits", another 31% want it outlawed "except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman's life", while 9% said abortion should be banned). A July/August 2005 CBS News poll found that 28% would like all abortion to remain legal, while 68% want more restrictions on abortion (15% prefer greater restrictions, another 33% want abortion outlawed except for rape, incest and to save the woman's life, an additional 15% said abortion should be allowed only to save the woman's life, and 5% want to ban abortion altogether). [2]."

These two polls are asking the same questions. In addition, the ABC News/Washington Post poll deals with the same theme — should abortion be "harder" or "easier" to obtain — and it is newer. There is no reason to include three polls investigating the same thing. The public opinion section is a summary; ballooning the U.S. section to thrice the length of Canada, Ireland, etc. is counter to the goal of brevity, not to mention counter to the goal of representing a world-wide view. If you want to expound upon polling data in the U.S., try Abortion in the United States. -Kyd 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with paring it down (my original and stated goal). I have kept only the most recent poll and added a link to the other data (the one link has all the polls at issue on one web page). See current edit.

If "paring down" was your original goal, why include three nearly-identical polls? To stack the deck in your favour, perhaps? Then you insist upon adding patent POV nonsense like "liberal abortion laws" and "in all circumstances - the current law under Roe v. Wade" -- AFTER you were warned about NPOV, 3RR, and after the addition was moved to the page for discussion (and the formation of a consensus). There is no such thing as a one-person consensus. I am sick of having to deal with people who think themselves above the rules. This place has gone to the dogs (sorry, Chihuahua — that doesn't mean you). -Kyd 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who added this topic and explained my edits on the talk page. I only added things after you decided to selectively add data. The most recent data is also the most relevant in that it simply discusses when people think abortion should be legal. The man on the street has no idea what Roe v Wade is, so any poll asking about that sheds almost no light on his or her view of when it shold be legal. The most recent Gallup poll also notes a huge majority in favor specific notification restrictions, but I did not include that. However it belongs in this section just as much as the data you want included does. My point in the end is that the latest poll plus a link to other polls is all that is needed or helpful in this article. You have assumed bad faith from your very first comment about my edits. You also are the revert king tonight. And you did not even bother to look at the talk page or the content of the edits before qvetching. Play by the rules and can it with the "woe is me" drama.Goodandevil 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kyd, thanks for excluding me - but if I'm ever a problem let me know.

Goodandevil - it is considered good form to read the talk page prior to making major edits to an article, which you neglected to do. Kyd's point about going US_centric is well made - perhaps your additional data would be more appreciated there. As you can see from the "to do" list, this article is under considerable revision, and as you can see from the length of this talk page, a great deal of effort and discussion is going into each edit prior to its being placed on the article space. This article is inherently prone to POV edits, and the regular editors (and many of the passers-by) realize this and try to acheive consensus prior to making such fundamental changes. I suggest you follow this procedure yourself - if you have a specific edit you feel should be made, state it clearly, with your reasoning, and we'll be happy to incorporate it if consensus agrees. KillerChihuahua 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I commend you to follow your own advice. I originally removed older CNN/Gallup data and replaced it with recent data, and pared back the US section even further, noting so on this talk page. Kyd did not like that, so Kyd reverted to the old Gallup data and reverted to the lengthier US section. It was only then (after Kyd made it clear that older data that Kyd favored had to be included) that I expanded the poll data for balance. I repeat: my goal was and remains to pare down the US section and only include the most relevant and recent date. My most recent edits have made the US section among the shortest of the bunch. Goodandevil 01:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chihuahua, you've been nothing but incredibly useful so far, even though you're recent here.

Good, this page is the result of much consensus and is currently in the process of undergoing a concerted rewrite. As such, and in light of the recent spate of random POV edits and pointless acts of vandalism, especially by anonymous IPs (and you, today, seem to have logged out accidently during the edit war), it's only natural that some users might adopt a zero-tolerance, "revert first, ask questions later" policy to supicious edits like this one: [3]. We're subjecting pretty much every edit we're making to extensive debate. The revision lumbers forward at a glacial, almost bureucratic pace, but it lumbers forward nonetheless. I am sorry, initially, for being harsh, and I am sorry for getting sucked into a lame edit war. (Is "qvetching" the equivalent of an appeal to "play nice?") -Kyd 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to agree to assume good faith - it makes play time more fun. I do have to say that the only difference betweena c-section and the Hysterotomy is the dead baby versus live baby part. Such a significant and ugly reality is never easy to state "neutrally" (funny how the dead baby would never consider being intentionally put to death as a neutral act) without dishonoring our species and common sense. But you note how quickly it was edited and euphemised so abortion supporters would not have to dwell on the ugliness of it all. Goodandevil 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We're just as keen to remove and/or neutralize well-meaning pro-choice bias: people who change "pro-life" to "anti-abortion," while leaving "pro-choice" as "pro-choice," and so forth. It really shouldn't be all that difficult to write a balanced, neutral article on abortion, if we can all manage to keep our own personal point of view on a short leash.

Sorry, Chihuahua, for another canine metaphor. Yip yip. -Kyd 03:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed section (fetal pain)

I'd like to see the section on fetal pain restored. I think it can be presented in an NPOV way, and I think there's enough information to have it appropriately sourced. --Merovingian 22:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like if it were, in fact, presented in an NPOV way and with appropriate sources, that it should not have been deleted. If no such presentation exists, then the section should not be added. If the collaboration of other Wikipedians is sought in order to create such a presentation, a user sub-page can be established for the collaboration until it reaches the standard of inclusion in the article. Dystopos 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this and I never saw any consensus that it was POV or that it should be removed. If I remember correctly, the Fetal pain section was removed with an edit summary of per talk or something. I questioned the existence of the discussion and was told well, there is now.Being newer then than I am now, I backed off. There was never a subsequent consensus from what I could tell. Shouldn't the status quo stand until there is a consensus to the contrary? --Elliskev 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not editing this article when that was removed. My understanding is that it was poorly sourced and POV issues were a strong possibility. When you say "status quo" do you mean the current status quo, which is no mention of the possibility of fetal pain? KillerChihuahua 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Status quo is not the best way of describing it. The section was added the same day that it was removed. My point is that rather than discuss whether or not it was POV or how it could be improved, it was pulled with the edit summary along the lines of per talk - not POV. There was no per talk until after it was pulled and no discussion until after I asked where the discussion was.

Truth is, I'm not sure that it can be made NPOV, but I think it would have been (and still is) worth the effort. And, until there is general agreement that the subject of the section is POV, it should be left in...my opinion. --Elliskev 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The JAMA study was rejected as a reliable source because two of its contributors had been or were in some way affiliated with Planned Parenthood. The sources for the fetal pain text submitted by Chooserr were 2/3 pro-life sites and 1/3 dead link. It is a simple matter of holding all sources to the same universal standard. It would be improper to allow unsubstantiated claims into the article under some fuzzy idea of grace. The burden of proof lies with the editor to prove his claims before he posts. Show us a source that isn't, in some way, biased, and then we'll have somewhere to begin. -Kyd 22:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that. It's just that the content of the section was never discussed. The section was deleted under the pretense that a discussion had taken place or was underway. That wasn't the case.

If the section remained, and a discussion regarding the verifiablity of the claims took place, I'd having nothing to say once it was removed. But, that didn't happen. Maybe a compromise could have been some language about conflicting studies, i.e. what is known. Instead, what happened happened and a few users were left with a pretty sour taste. --Elliskev 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone posts something that is poorly-sourced, or borderline POV, you move it to the discussion page, and then see if anything can be salvaged from it. If it can, then you will be able to present readers with a completed, well-sourced product. In this manner, you preserve the quality of the article, while fostering community involvement. Can you imagine what the average level of quality on Wikipedia would be if we just let verifiability fly in the interest of not stepping on anyone's toes? Not very high. -Kyd 02:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is keeping something which may be inflammitory or disturbing, with absolutely no reliable sources, while we hunt for a reliable source. That is simply not going to work. We cannot post unsubstantiated assertions with no sources. KillerChihuahua 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be disturbing, but it's also very relevant, given that it's the topic of a bill in both houses of the US Congress. Doesn't it make sense to come up with some way of addressing it? --Elliskev 01:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

H.R.356 and related S.51 Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 are both in committees. The purpose is "To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child." Again, the section is relevant and should not be dodged. IMHO. At least we have a discussion about it. --Elliskev 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is, what exactly can we post? "some people think the fetus can feel pain. No one knows, and no one is really sure how to find out." Congress is not a source for the neural development of a fetus. Find a source, a good source, and we'll put it in, but right now we have nothing. KillerChihuahua 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming Congress as a source. I'm claiming that the fact that the two bills are before conngress as evidence of relevance. What can we post? We can post that the issue is being debated politically, societally (is that a word?) and scientifically. The issue is out there. I think a reader would have an expectation to find a reference to it. --Elliskev 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's merely evidence of Congress. They also currently have a bill "Kid Safe Chemicals Act [H.R.4308.IH]" but I feel no urgency to run over to some article on Chemicals and put that in the "safety" section of that article. This may be news, in which case feel free to put it in Wikinews, but its not a source of anything relevent to this article. KillerChihuahua 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I disagree that it's irrelevant, but I'll concede that there's no urgency. I don't really have anything else to add, so I'll just watch. I'm just happy that there has been some discussion. Even if it 90% me complaining :) --Elliskev 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of sources against - most sites I found cited the JAMA study, which obviously isn't good b/c of the bias, and also b/c it's been criticized for the methodology, and use of outdated information. As for sources for - What about Dr K.S. Anand [4]? He has been called as an expert witness in Partial Birth Abortion court cases in the US, as well as before the Congressional committee which should lend some credibility - and overall, seems to be highly regarded in his field. But I didn't have time to see if he had anything published yet....DonaNobisPacem 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry but it was getting too indented for me to read) He's widely published. This [5] might be of use. I dont have time to do it right now (sorry, first of month I don't have any time - its a work thing). KillerChihuahua 11:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah, the indentation can get ridiculous at times.... :)

Looks like it has potential - I am busy as well (it's an exam thing), so perhaps we have a volunteer somewhere?DonaNobisPacem 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This all seems irrelevant to me ... can a fetus feel pain? We're not sure. Can abortions be done in a manner such that pain is minimized? Yes. You can easily administer anesthetics in massive doses to the fetus (doesn't matter becuase the fetus is going to die anyway). And that way you guarantee it will be feeling no pain. --Cyde 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyde-in many countries where abortion is federally/state funded, the question of whether or not to use aneasthetic comes down to dollars and cents; so of course one asks if it's necessary. And, it is definitely no secret, that the study of fetal pain and sensory perception relates to the study of fetal personhood and their subsequent rights.

Interestingly enough, in Roe vs. Wade, when one of Roe's lawyers stated that the matter of fetal personhood doesn't matter, because of the rights of the mother, one of the judges asked if the lawyer realized that this meant that a mother who felt a living child was detrimental to her health could kill her; the lawyer responded in the affirmative, but was cut off by another judge before she could finish her response. She declined to elaborate on her response upon further questioning. But the point remains - the study of fetal personhood is important to many, and if it is determined the fetus is a person with rights, then it would dramatically effect the status of abortions, as the reasoning of the judge is sound, and the lawyer's response would most likely fall apart in court. And thus many are interested in, and follow, research in this regard.DonaNobisPacem 07:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is some further research to aid in a potential first draft:

• "Can a Fetus Feel Pain?": from Religious Tolerance.
• "Abortion Time Limits": A briefing with extensive footnotes from the British Medical Association.
• "Fetal Awareness": a paper from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in Britain. Lots of information on brain development.
• "Understanding How the Brain Develops": Basic information on neural development removed of the context of the perception of pain and of the abortion debate.
• "Embryological Development of the Human Brain": More information on neural development. Haven't read this yet.
• "A Scientific Appraisal of Fetal Pain and Conscious Sensory Perception": a paper, co-authored by Anand, on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I haven't read this, also, so I don't know how useful it might be.

-Kyd 08:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Failed abortions

It seems that info from this recent article ought to also be somewhere in this wiki article.Goodandevil 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it be better sourced than an unidentified number of "doctors' reports" that "up to" 50 babies a year survive abortion. Two organizations have launched investigations - that should yield less questionable data. If we do include, we should include that the investigations are pending and include the +19 to 24 weeks gestation involved. I'm concerned that there seems to be very little, if any, hard data here - so far it seems to be unsubstantiated hearsay. KillerChihuahua 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a creepy article though. The abortion was obviously performed becuase the mother did not want a child; yet the doctor messed up the abortion, and then they got what they didn't want. This is more of a case for better quality control in abortions than anything else. --Cyde 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The hard data exists: some doctors have failed to kill fetuses as was their desire and there is currently enough evidence to form a government committee to investigate the concenrs that the Royal obstetrics society and others (who are officially or publicly on record as pro-abortion) have voiced. Hard data does exist and is why action is being taken. Even abortionists feel icky about this). From the article:

In August clinicians in Manchester published an analysis of 31 such babies born in northwest England between 1996 and 2001. “If a baby is born alive following a failed abortion and then dies (because of lack of care), you could potentially be charged with murder,” said Shantala Vadeyar, a consultant obstetrician at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study. A systematic investigation of data collected through the CEMACH indicated that there are at least 50 cases a year nationwide in which babies survive abortion attempts.

Goodandevil 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you find a link to the CEMACH data direct? There is considerable discrepency between 31 over a period of 5 years, and 50 per year. thanks! - KillerChihuahua 01:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Information reported as fact by the Times of London (an ardently abortion-friendly paper)has already been fact-checked by professionals. The UK govt and the Royal College of Obstetrics has seen the data and finds it not only credible, but credible enough to pour money into addressing the problem and to speak to the press about the matter. The relevant information from the article should simply be included in the wiki article with appropriate caveats and without embellishment. Goodandevil 01:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks much, that helps enormously - I'm not familiar with UK papers, and as abortion tends to be such a POV issue, I'm suspicious of any single-source data as disturbing as this. If the Times is pro-choice, and highly regarded, tho, that more or less takes care of concerns that this is hype.

Now we have to figure out how and where to place this. At the end of Surgical abortion?

It seems the main points are failed abortion (the fetus lives), after 19 and usually after 23 weeks, and the investigation. Concur? Am I missing anything? KillerChihuahua 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not the person to start it off as I would definitely make some people unhappy. I think you have the basics. I suggest that the fetus becomes a baby or infant (all are medical terms) once outside the mom. Its absolutely POV (since it is medically incorrect, colloquially never done, and is a euphemistic practice seen only in the abortion industry and the heavily pro-abortion "mainstream" media outlets) to refer to the human as a fetus once it is living out side the womb. Give it a try and I will give you my opinion. Goodandevil 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ack, I'm not sure I'm the person to do this either, but here goes:

Abortions which fail to terminite the viability of the fetus are termed failed abortions. Recent investigations have been launched in England by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to determine the extent of the risk of this occurring. The more the pregnancy has progressed, the greater the risk. (footnote to article link)

Ok, that's first draft. Have at. KillerChihuahua 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How about:

• • An attempt to induce an abortion that results in the birth of an infant is known as a failed abortion. The more the pregnancy has progressed, the greater the risk. Some British doctors who have induced a failed abortion have faced the prospect of having to kill the resulting infant, but are voicing concern that doing so is perhaps bad medicine and may subject them to criminal sanctions. Recently investigations have been launched in England by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to determine how widespread the problem is and how to address it. (footnote to article link)

Asking for feedback here people - does anyone object to either of these versions? Does anyone feel one version or the other is better? Please discuss, let's not have this one die on the vine - thanks!!! KillerChihuahua 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Go with the first. Brevity is the key. Keep it simple, keep it short. Involved discussion of any issues occurring at a national level would be better moved to Abortion in the United Kingdom. -Kyd 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok done. KillerChihuahua 02:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems people are still trying to make constant changes...perhaps a compromise - why not change

"....in order to determine how widespread the problem is and how it might be addressed."

to

"....order to determine how widespread the problem is and an ethical response on how to treat the neonate."

I think neonate would be the correct term - it describes a fetus within the first four weeks outside of the womb. So here we recognize ethical concerns (which is, after all, the reason for the investigations), and we stick to NPOV medical terminology (neonate instead of baby). Opinions? If for/against, please explain your reasoning. Remember, I'm trying to reach a consensus that is still NPOV but will hopefully reduce the number of edits to this section.DonaNobisPacem 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My objections are mostly to violations of consensus - even if the seeming majority is only 2 to 1. It is stretching AGF to the limit for me when someone goes and reopens something that's been settled. At least, it's counterproductive, in that it distracts our valuable energies from the effort of improving the article in other ways. Anyway, your compromise is reasonable, concise, and eloquent. Perhaps it should be added to "physical health," under health effects, where there is already a discussion of failed abortion in one of the last paragraphs. -Kyd 11:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, seeing as there does not seem to be any objections - I will go ahead and make the change as proposed.DonaNobisPacem 04:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many links!

There's been a recent boom in the number of additions to the external links list. Tznkai put his foot down on this, earlier, because it had really gotten out of hand. It's getting out of hand, again, and so I guess I'm going to have to put my foot down too. I've thinned out the list, favouring pre-existing links, while attempting to keep the count even.

Here's my rationale:

• Abortion Alternatives: Pro-life options counselling. Redundant with CareNet.
• WomenonWaves.org: The "abortion ship" that services women in international waters. There's a picture of the corpse of a woman who died in a back-alley abortion on one of the pages.
• The Abortion Clinic Directory: Listing of U.S. abortion clinics. Redundant with Abortion.com.
• American Women's Services: The web site of a chain of abortion service providers on the East coast. Too local and redundant with the above.
• BlackGenocide.org African-American pro-life group. There are pictures of fetal remains on the main page.

Please feel free to suggest links you believe would be more "representative" or help think of more appropriate sub-articles for these to be moved (example: Abortion in the United States). -Kyd 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New fetal pain section

Hello all. I have tried to provide a NPOV section on this very contentious issue to satisfy both sides - believe me, it's not easy :) Tell me what you think. Brisvegas 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here this the full text of Brisvegas' contribution:

The issue of when a fetus can feel pain is a highly divisive and keenly debated one. While scientists have acknowledged that a foetus can indeed feel physical pain[6], professional opinion is still divided as to when the foetus has the necessary sensory perception to experience pain. Several academics, usually those supporting abortion, contend that only once connections to the cerebral cortex are made can the fetus experience pain; this usually occurs during the third trimester of the pregnancy, when only 1% of abortions are carried out. Other scientists, who mainly hold pro-life convictions, argue that a fetus can feel pain as early as 7 weeks, during the first trimester. The personal bias of many researchers is believed to influence their analysis of any experiments they undertake into the phenomenon. The topic has also been hotly debated by many politicians of both persuasions.

Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus originates as an electrical impulse in a body's pain receptors. This signal is sent via nerve pathways to the spinal column, and then to the thalamus - a part of the brain that relays signals from the peripheral nervous system to the cerebral cortex, where it is sensed as pain.

In a fetus, pain receptors develop around 7 weeks after conception; the spino-thalamic system at about 13 weeks. However, the connections to the cortex are established only after about 26 weeks into pregnancy. Most pro-life advocates believe that pain can be felt by the fetus when these systems are only partly formed. Most pro-choice advocates believe that only once all the connections between the receptors and brain can pain be felt - i.e. sometime after about 26 weeks into pregnancy.

In 1997, Dr. Robert White, director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, gave testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee of the Congress of the United States. He stated that, at 20 weeks' gestation, the fetus "is fully capable of experiencing pain...Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."[7]

His assertions were supported by Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, who has cited several observations to support the belief that a fetus can experience pain. These include observing a fetus "withdraw from painful stimulation", and the fact that stress hormones detected in adults observing pain has also been found in the blood samples of aborted fetuses.

In 2001, a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom contradicted these findings, stating that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain."[8]

In 2005, a meta-analysis of existing experiments concluded that the lack of functioning neurological pathways to a fetus' cererbral cortex before 26 weeks meant that it could not experience pain before then. The meta-study was criticised by pro-life groups who were suspicious of the prior involvement of several authors of the report. One directs an abortion clinic at San Francisco Hospital, while the lead author undertook legal work with NARAL, an pro-choice group for six months.

Given the lack of irrefutable evidence, women will have to rely on their own convictions and conscience when choosing whether or not to abort their pregnancy.

Eight paragraphs. Eight. This is way too long for a top-tier article. Move it to abortion debate, fetus, or create a seperate article if you want to get long-winded. I'm replacing this with a shorter version, which I have been working on since yesterday, and which also relies upon broader sources than just Religious Tolerance. -Kyd 06:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the first paragraph only. You can add your text after that. Brisvegas

There are many issues in the abortion debate, and, I'm afraid, each one cannot have its own seperate section, or the table of contents would be two miles long. Coverage of the matter was integrated into physical health (as I noted in the edit logs). -Kyd 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for helping with this! I'm sorry if I'm being a little brisk. I'm just up to my eyeballs in research at the moment. -Kyd 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's OK. I still feel however, that the current section on FP is inaqequate and not enough sources are mentioned - where is the Religious Tolerance.Org ref? Good luck with this difficult topic - I will be interested to see how it progresses. Brisvegas 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Inadequate? How so? I really don't know how much further we could get into the issue: explain it, talk about when the relevant anatomy develops, etc. I've pretty much said everything you said within the first two paragraphs of your version. -Kyd 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kyd - "The impact of abortion upon the fetus is a matter of consideration among scientists and political activists." Not really - most agree the impact is that the fetus dies. I would put a smiley, but it just doesn't seem right. I would suggest new wording; "The physical and mental awareness of the fetus during abortion is a matter of consideration......," or "The experience of the fetus during abortion is a matter......." or something along those lines.DonaNobisPacem 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the initial version wasn't clear. Thanks. -Kyd 07:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Abortion

The term "respectable and scientific" profession of medical doctors was modified to "evolving." This was the same "scientific" community beginning to develop theories of eugenics, trying to "scientifically" prove inferiority of various races by said eugenics, etc., etc., etc. The community was evolving in its views, and endeavoring to be respectable and scientific - but that is no different from any other medical community going back to Greek and even Sumerian times. All sought to be scientific and respectable, based upon the definitions of their times. This seems to me a POV addition intended to make it seem like the prohibition of abortion was not based upon good intentions or scientific knowledge of the time, which is contrary to the case.DonaNobisPacem 05:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the section to its original form. The addition was speculative and largely unsubstantiated. I've read theories like this before: medicalization in the 19th century was the result of male doctors fighting to supress the female herbalists and mid-wives, and, thus, was part of the greater pre-suffrage trend toward enforced patriarchy. It's an interesting approach, yes, but it also the sort of thing that demands a bona-fide source (WP:NOR). -Kyd 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call....DonaNobisPacem 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Abortion Debate

I just tried to streamline this section while keeping it POV - section was extrememly wordy.

Next on the agenda: ABC and Physical Health

These are the next sections which need to be updated and properly sourced. Most of the current text under physical health seems good; however, it could use a bit of tweaking, in terms of clarity, and a few sources wouldn't hurt.

There is currently no information on the elevated level of risk associated with illegal and/or unsanitary abortion. Chihuahua produced a number of sources on the subject above (see the thread "Change to 'Health Risks'"). She also produced two sources on the mortality rates of abortion: Abortion Surveillance and WHO: Reduction of Maternal Mortality.

I'm probably going to delay on most of this until Tznkai and Killer Chihuahua return. In the meantime, anyone else out there willing to be a research workhorse with me? Discuss here. -Kyd 04:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm back. In the middle of finals, so this has become my stress relief (yes, I am crazy). But lets get to it!--Tznkai 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm back too, concur with Tzn. I will start with whichever you two feel would be best to tackle. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's good to have you both back. And no, you're not crazy, Tznkai: I consider Wikipedia to be a hobby myself. Anyway, I think we should start with ABC. It'd be easier to conquer the more difficult subject first. -Kyd 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Difficult how? Unless things have changed since I first went looking, there are a number of articles all taking their data from one report by one doctor, which state the risk exists, and there are lots of reports by lots of doctors and medical research groups saying "hooey." KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Difficult because I have the feeling someone's not going to be pleased no matter we write it. -Kyd 13:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Its better here than Talk:Intelligent design, at least.

ABC link is Real:

• Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer every single supporting source I've found so far has used this as a source. They are blatantly POV, issue regular newletters and press releases to keep the subject in the news. Following their Links results in self-published articles with sources, several of which I have placed in the Bogus list, because none of them support the "finding" that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

ABC link is Bogus:

• Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data Primary source on The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Winter 2005 issue
• Studies denying abortion-cancer link debunked, article on WorldNet Daily, uses primary source above
• Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk on Cancer.gov - summary, only study ever done was too tiny and uncontrolled to mean a darn thing, but get a mammogram anyway, because every woman should.
• ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk from ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists)

do you want more? I mean for Bogus, I'll keep looking for Real but as noted above, everything so far leads back to the Coalition. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The first link under "bogus," unfortunately, was authored by none other than Dr. Joel Brind and supports the ABC link, as does the World Net Daily article. However, perhaps the footnotes in Brind's paper could be used as stepping stones to other research? -Kyd 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more studies which refute the link. The souces in Brind's criticism, in particular, were useful. Some of these are PubMed, though, so I can't go beyond the abstracts:

• "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer:" 1997 study based on data from two national registries in Denmark. Large sample base: 1.5 mil.
• "Abortions and breast cancer: record-based case-control study:" a 2003 Swedish version of the above.
• "Abortion and breast cancer: a cast-control record linkage study:" What a doppelganger of a title! It's a U.K. variation upon the themes expressed above.
• "Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study:" Yet another titular mouthful. It's a Scottish version of the above three.
• "Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop:" The results of an NCI workshop in 2003. The conclusion on ABC: it is "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

Alright, I'm off to try to make some of this influx of data. -Kyd 09:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's a potential first draft:

The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or ABC for short, is a theory which attempts to establish that there is causal relationship between having an induced abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the future.

An increase of estrogen in early pregnancy helps to initiate cellular differentiation in the breast in preparation for lactation. If this process is terminated before its completion in the third trimester, whether due to induced abortion or miscarriage, more "vulnerable" undifferentiated cells will be left than there were prior to the pregnancy. It has been proposed that this might lead to an elevated risk of breast cancer in women who undergo an induced abortion or experience a miscarriage.

Numerous studies have examined the potential of such a link. In 2003, the National Cancer Institute held a workshop, which concluded from findings in humans and other species that it is "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." [9] A 1997 study which compared information on 1.5 million women from two national registries in Denmark found the correlation to be negligible to non-existent. [10] Two studies in the United Kingdom, one conducted in 2000 in Oxford and the other in 2004 in Scotland, had similar results. [11] [12]

Others, among them Dr. Joel Brind and the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, continue to maintain that induced abortion is indeed a factor in the incidence of breast cancer. Dr. Brind has criticized the methodology used in many of the studies which would seem to refute an abortion-breast cancer association. [13]

Thoughts, comments, or complaints? -Kyd 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a theory does not "attempt to establish", and I'm not sure ABC even qualifies as a theory. I suggest:

The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or ABC for short, is a controversial assertion that there is causal relationship between having an induced abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the future.

or something similar. Are there any doctors other than Brind who support this idea? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. "Theory" was a poor choice of word. Generally, I try to adhere to NPOV by cutting out words like "controversial," "majority," "minority," etc — but in this case it does seem warranted, given that Brind seems to comprise the entirety of the minority opinion. Here's a list of Medical Groups Recognizing Link from the Coalition for Abortion/Breast Cancer. Many of the groups listed, from their very names, are obviously partisan and/or religious groups (and, thus, the fact that they'd be supportive of ABC is, perhaps, more indicative of an ideologic manifestation rather than considered medical opinion). -Kyd 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Color me conservative, but what about keeping the current opening sentence: "The controversial abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis posits an association between having an abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer. " or "The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or ABC for short, is a hypothesis which posits a causal relationship between having an abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the future. If'n ya dun like "posits" on account of it is too ituhlektewal, replace with "suggests". KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "causal relationship" is indispensible. We need to note that this hypothesis does not merely posit an association, or correlation, between the two, but rather that it seeks to establish that induced abortion (and, thus, miscarriage) are a cause of breast cancer. A thorough reading of Carl Sagan, and ilk, has driven home in me the important difference between correlation and causation. -Kyd 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Elective abortion

I am moving this to discussion for the time being. What follows is a rather lengthy rationale for my recent reversions.

Goodandevil believes we should divide the AGI statistics into "elective" and "therapeutic." This was defended in the edit logs as "follow[ing] the NPOV definition in the article." Here are the actual definitions from the article:

"Therapeutic abortion: An abortion performed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman."

"Elective abortion: An abortion performed for any other reason."

See the words that I've bolded? It's called a loophole. It means that all of the things that Goodandevil classified as "elective" could fall under this article's definition of "therapeutic" (the current definitions, for what it's worth, seem to be mutually contradictory, which is something we might want to address in the article overhaul).

It is unhelpful, unencyclopedic, and POV to "lump" statistics together in a conclusive manner. Elective abortion, in the context of this article, should refer to any abortion that is not forced or coerced (such as under China's one-child policy or forced abortions on disabled women). Beyond this, it is not our place to define what is or what is not an "elective abortion." Some would classify abortions in the case of rape or incest as being "elective" (i.e., the abortion wasn't medically necessitated and thus having it was a matter of choice); others would classify abortions for social indications as being "therapeutic" (i.e., negative circumstances in the woman's life necessitate the relief of a therapeutic abortion). The simplest solution, then, is to just present the numbers without drawing conclusions for the reader.

The following text has also been removed for discussion:

"In developed industrialized nations, abortion is overwhlemingly an elective procedure (for example, 98% of the abortions in the U.S. are "elective", while 2% are considered "therapeutic")." [14]

The article cited is an aggregation of abortion statistics filtered through a biased lens (Read the article. "Extreme," "convenience," etc., etc.). Johnston concludes that abortions for social indications are "elective" and thus we have the the 98%/2% figures. As helpful as the Johnston archive might be, otherwise, a "statistic" is based upon his opinion, and not fact, isn't very helpful to the article. The "statistic" could even be changed if we adjusted our definition. If no abortion other than one to preserve the life of the woman is to be considered therapeutic, then 99.8% would be elective; if any reason for having an abortion could, in some way, be considered therapeutic, the number becomes 100%. If we want to include data on reasons for abortion in the U.S., it would be better to consult the primary sources.

-Kyd 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

to add to the "to do" list...

I don't know how this got dropped, but it still needs to be addressed.

In short, a lengthy debate occured a while back about changing the introductory sentence to the following:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an unborn human being (known as an embryo or a fetus).

The reasoning included a few points, a few of which were:

- If you're talking to an average person, which of these two do you think is the best way to describe an action. "Let's juxtapose orbicular muscles and have a reciprocal transmission of carbon dioxide and microbes". OR, "Let's kiss". The average person is going to say "wtf did you just say?" if you choose the former. And that same thing happens when they read the first sentence of this article. The average person does not understand (when we're talking about a human pregnancy) that embryo/fetus means human being.

- Many testimonies of women who have undergone abortion did not understand that the embryo/fetus inside them was in fact a distinct, unique human being, and not simply a lump of tissue. They did not understand that when the doctor said it was an embryo/fetus, that meant it was a human being. And, unfortunately, in some cases, doctors and abortion clinics have outright said to a woman "it is just a lump of tissue, nothing more", when in fact that is not the case. And as these women find out that it was a human being, many of these women have horrible mental problems, and some have even committed suicide. A short three words in the definition of abortion could have prevented these problems if these women had seen that definition prior to their abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with adding inaccurate POV to article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Inaccurate POV you say? Well, nobody's disproven me on this before, so, go ahead and disprove me then. Show us all how what I've said is inaccurate. You show me how an unborn fetus is not a human being, and you show me WHAT it is then.

There is considerable debate on when a fertalized egg makes the transition to "human being" - Catholics I believe hold that it happens at conception; others believe with the first breath of life; and there are positions everywhere in the middle, with autonomous viability being a common position. Your stating it as "fact" is very POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 06:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) No, once again, you find me a scientist that will dispute the FACT that a fertilized human egg and sperm is in fact a human being. And if by chance you can find a respectable scientist who'll do that, then you tell me what that "thing" is. It's not a fish, it's not a snake, it's not a frog, it's not a bacteria, it's a human being, and nothing else. Simply in a different stage of development from my two-year old daughter, and a different stage from you and I.

This was never a serious issue upon the table because it is nothing more than an unproductive distraction. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Case closed. -Kyd 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 06:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) No, it IS still a serious issue on the table. It is not an "unproductive distraction", it got tabled because people on here couldn't face the facts that were presented, and instead started personal attacks against me, which led to it being moved to the archives.

The simple fact is this: Wikipedia isn't a medical journal, it isn't a scientific journal, it isn't an engineering spec sheet, it is a webpage that is read by the average joe. And time and time again it has been shown that the average joe does not understand that an embryo or fetus is in fact a human being, as opposed to "just a lump of tissue" as they've been told. And just as my example where I've said the same thing by saying "Let's juxtapose our orbicular muscles and have a reciprocal transmission of carbon dioxide and microbes" and saying "Let's kiss", the simple fact remains that both are scientifically correct, but only ONE is going to be both easily understood AND scientifically correct.

It got tabled, Barwick, because it was a red herring. Jargon-free translation: a waste of time. We've been over this before and it took us nowhere the first time around. -Kyd 07:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

we had an established near consensus, with a single user dissenting as I recall. Barring new arguments, I think we're done--Tznkai 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)No, no consensus was made, rather a group of people who could not dispute my facts that I proposed adding to the section, except for that they didn't want it in there for whatever personal reason. If a statement is in fact *true*, and makes the article easier to read, then it should be included. See above paragraph with the "let's kiss" example.

LOL! The reasons were explained in detail to you; and don't transpose your faults on others. The statement is indeed true; if one were foolish enough to consider their (personal) definition of what a "human being" is to be the exclusive truth. In fact, it doesn't make the article easier to read, hence a very good reason to K.I.S.S. and not include it generally speaking. We could include it as part of "controversial terminology" and explain, just as we did for you, why that term is nonspecific and presumptive POV. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You STILL haven't answered the question, if it isn't a human being, then WHAT is it? I've already stated it's not a snake, and it's not a bird, nor is it some sort of bacteria, so it must be human of some sort. And it is not simply "human life", for my liver is "human life", and every cell in my body is "human life" but is not "me" on its own. The "fetus/embryo" is "itself" completely unto itself. Unlike my left kidney which needs the rest of me to form "me" (and I can still be all "me" without my left kidney), a "fetus/embryo" is still completely "itself" without the addition of anything else to it, it therefore is in fact more than just "human life". It is a human being, completely unto itself, wholly separate from its mother and father, except to give it care (just like my two year old daughter requires our care). Barwick 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick, no one is disputing its "human", the question is whether its a "human being", a person, something that science has a hard time defining.--Tznkai 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My toe is just as human as any other part of my body. What's at issue here is what defines a human being or a human life. Many people do not think that embryoes or fetuses count as full-fledged human beings. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A detailed study on when do "human beings" begin is here (yes it's a pro-life source, obviously, but it quotes neutral sources): http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html Barwick 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick, you're missing the point. This is a massivly contentious debate. Whether or not science has been misused by politicans (as it always is) and advocacy groups, the ideas of human personhood and member of human speciescare diffrent. It is perfectly useful in abortion debate to discuss this further, but in the main article, we've already tried having a terminology section, and it didn't work to well.--Tznkai 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this before. You've constructed the same strawman again — an untenable "opposing" argument to be easily refuted to the benefit of your own. No scientist would say that a human egg isn't, genetically, human, inasmuch as a snail egg is snail or a quail egg is quail. Personhood, however, is another ball game entirely, and using language that suggests otherwise would be misleading and unencyclopedic. -Kyd 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. The point is, very few people realize that when we're discussing human abortion, a fetus/embryo is a human being. The majority of people out there, if asked "Scientifically, what is an embryo 1 week into pregnancy", and given a multiple choice question, would respond "mass of tissue". This is in fact NOT true, and summarizing the definition of the two to say "human being" would clear this matter up quickly and without complication. Barwick 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please turn in your Abortion article editing badge. You clearly cannot be NPOV on this issue so your continued involvement will only lead to unpleasantness, much gnashing of teeth, and absolutely nothing productive. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What is this? Seriously, what is this crap some people come up with on here? "Oh, please turn in your editing badge..." You show ME how I was being "POV", go ahead, do it... I've merely stated a FACT that the vast majority of people out there do NOT understand that fetus/embryo is a human being. And (here's where I come in with POV) YOU are the one being POV in demanding that it not be placed in the article, lest some women realize the truth and begin to oppose abortion on the basis that it isn't just a "lump of tissue" like they've been told (aka lied to about) before. It's the simple truth, there is a concerted effort out there to present abortion as "not killing a human, but just preventing a lump of tissue from developing into a human", to make it so their consciences can accept abortion. If you deny that, then all I need to do is point you to the arguments made in this very section right here.

What are you trying to say - that people will come to this page and not understand that it is primarily about human abortion? I guess they might if they don't make it through the introduction, which includes this sentence: "Any female mammal can experience abortion, however this article focuses exclusively on abortion in women." If your contention is that all embryos that are aborted are humans, I would direct you to the first part of that same sentence. To respond to your earlier comments about an embryo not being "a snake or a bird" - anyone who comes to this page and hasn't already figured out that any embryo or fetus being carried by a human is going to also develop into a human won't be able to figure out pretty much any other sentence in the article either. -Parallel or Together ? 02:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying, I don't know. Here is my point:

When someone comes here, they know they're 99.99% of the time, looking at an article about abortion in humans. That's obvious.

What they DON'T understand however, is that a "fetus" or "embryo" IS in fact a human being, and is NOT simply a mass of tissue. Here's why:

• People for the last couple decades have been describing a "fetus" and "embryo" as "just a bunch of tissue". Because of this, the average man and woman out on the street THINKS that a fetus or embryo is "just a bunch of tissue", or "part of its mother" as opposed to a wholly unique human being. Unlike anyone else that's ever existed on this planet, and unlike anyone else that ever will exist on this planet. This article does NOT get that point across, and I've presented an EASY way to present that fact. Two words. Extremely simple and extremely effective. Barwick 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are presenting as "fact" what is actually a highly charged debate/disagreement. In other words, that is POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we're in understanding, being that this is the sixth or seventh time you've articulated this idea — and the sixth or seventh time that our logical objections have fallen upon deaf ears. -Kyd 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, I think i'm tracking something here. Barwick, I have to disagree with your assumtion that people don't understand that a fetus is unique genetic idenity human tissue. And if they do not understand it, the wikilink will take care of it. I'm afraid if people do not have the knowledge that fetuses have unique human DNA, and are unwilling to read the wikilink, theres nothing we can do within the abortion article. We can't assume ignorance and fill it in, that leads us to leading people around by the nose.--Tznkai 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tznaki: since you're one of the few on here who seems to want some balance, I'll speak to you.

• The average person on here comes in with pre-conceptions about a topic
• The average person on here doesn't follow every link to get a more in-depth understanding of the topic, ESPCIALLY when they THINK they know about something already.
• The average person THINKS that they know what an embryo or fetus is, and they think it is a "lump of tissue that will develop into a human being". They do NOT know the fact that it is "a wholly unique individual, solely in a different stage of development from you and I". The latter is the more accurate description, and the easiest way to sum that up is to say "an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an unborn human being (referred to as an embryo or fetus)".
• The average person believes a fetus or embryo is NOT yet human, because that's what they've been told. Wikipedia NEEDS to clear this up, and only calling it a "fetus" or "embryo" is ok for a medical journal, but NOT for an Encyclopedia that the average Joe comes to to learn at. Barwick 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree strongly with your lack of faith in the average reader. Since you're on the minority side of this, I'm going to put the burden of proof on you. Find me data that shows a massive misunderstanding of the average reader that fetuses are not individual humans and we'll do something about it.--Tznkai 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick, I understand your point perfectly, but you seem to have missed mine. The first line, which you have a problem with, states that "an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." This means the embryo or fetus of any animal. I also included this sentence before, but you chose to ignore it: "Any female mammal can experience abortion, however this article focuses exclusively on abortion in women." You can't change "embryo or fetus" in the opening sentence to "human being" because that would be an incorrect definition on that point alone, regardless of whether you view a human embryo to be equivalent to a human being. The later sentence makes it clear that this article deals with abortion in women, but the opening sentence has to stay as is to be an accurate definition: any embryo or fetus from any mammal can be aborted. I understand that you fervently believe it to be a fact that embryo = human, but many editors have said that they see that as merely an opinion. Maybe you should look a little deeper into it. -Parallel or Together? 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Induced Abortions Statistics

The statistics in the "Induced Abortions" section are misleading.

It lists "Rape, Incest, Other" as 2.1% of all abortions, which is VERY misleading.

The fact is, less than 1/2% (.5%) of all abortions are done for rape/incest combined.

This should be fixed, as it is VERY misleading.

I'm not even going to go into the breakdown of "fetal problems" and "threats to mother's health", but considering *anything* qualifies as "health problems", suffice to say that in most of those circumstances, the life of the mother (or child) is nowhere near in danger, but rather her "well-feeling" is in danger. I've even personally witnessed a woman who had her 4-5 year old son standing right next to her and when asked if she had any other children, she replied "Oh no, I didn't want to go through that [pregnancy] again". A "qualified" reason to list "mother's health" as an abortion.

At any rate, the breakdown needs to show: Rape/Incest: < .5%, and "Other" 1.6%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Those figures are well sourced. If you believe them to be inaccurate, please WP:CITE your source, which of course needs to be from a NPOV recognized source, not a pro-life or pro-choice advocacy site. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) You want a non-biased source? The statistics that are quoted there are from the Guttmacher Institute, don't try to tell me that THAT isn't an unbiased source.

At any rate, fine, here's my source: Aida Torres and J.D. Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Aboritons?" Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 4 (July/August 1988) p. 170.

"International Family Planning Perspectives provides the latest peer-reviewed research on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. This quarterly emphasizes contraception, fertility, adolescent pregnancy, abortion, family planning policies and programs, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and reproductive, maternal and child health. Staff-written summaries help you keep up with new developments in the field, while special reports and viewpoint pieces inspire new approaches to shared problems. All articles include summaries in Spanish and French. ISSN 0190-3187" That one? The one that's a Guttmacher Institute Periodicals publication? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The AGI is a relialbe source. They have an agenda, but they've yet to be accused of outright lying. As for your source barwick, 1988 doesn't cut it.--Tznkai 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

0.5% plus 1.6% is 2.1%. This isn't misleading: it is, at worst, a case of the "lumping" of two small-percentage statistics. If clarification is in order, fine, as the article is currently undergoing a revision, and we're scrutinizing all of its sources. As for the anecdote, non sequitur. I find many, if not more, "selfish" reasons for having children than for not (I've witnessed a man say, "I hope it's a boy this time," in front of his expectant wife and three daughters). But this is a personal observation, which has little bearing on the subject of abortion, and even less on how this article should be edited. -Kyd 03:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)It is misleading, because one of the most common defenses I hear for abortion is "well, they are done a lot because of incest or rape". Lumping "Incest, Rape, and Other" together actually QUADRUPLES the apparent number of abortions that are done for Incest or Rape. It is misleading, and "other" is ALWAYS cited as its own number, and never with something else. It is a simple way to misrepersent findings. If rape/incest is such a small percentage, than it is simply included in "other" without any mention, OR it is presented as its own data. Heck, I could find one person who had an abortion because her mom had green hair that told her to do it, and present that as .0001% of the surveyed population, combine it with "other" and have 2% of the people who got abortions for the reason: "Mother had green hair/Other". Is that TRULY representative of the reasons women got an abortion?"

Clumping rape/incest together with "other" simply inflates the statistics to make it look like rape/incest is a common reason for abortion, when in fact it is not, and that needs to be stated.

This .5% figure doesn't come from the same study as the rest of the figures. You cannot just mix and match the statistics like that - I'm guessing that the .5% number comes from your 1988 source, and it would be (statistically) wrong to subtract it from the "rape/incest/other" category of a completely different 1998 study. If you find another accurate and recent source that you feel better represents the latest data, then you bring that complete set here and we can discuss it. -Parallel or Together ? 06:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of statements have been removed wholesale to remove possible accusations of my bias. It was off topic, and involved negative personal commentary, and other things irrelivant to the goal of writing the damn article. If anyone wishes to restate their points, please create a new topic and do so.--Tznkai 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC) In response to the request by Parellel or Together, here is the complete results of that survey: The study is cited below the link, the original table is linked to below, and look at the 2004 survey results (there's an 1987 which showed 0.4% - 1.3% as a range of uncertainty based on extrapolated data from a 1998 report, and a 2004 survey also):

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Finer, Lawrence B., Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Sept. 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118, on line at AGI [15].

While the focus on here is on rape and incest, it should also be known (although I don't know how to represent this in statistics) that the "mother's health" includes what she believes may be perceived physical or mental problems she may have, however unlikely they are to occur. But like I said, I don't know how we can represent that unless we fund a study ourselves to differentiate between the reasons. And in the case of "possible fetal health problems", while that is sometimes given as a reason, it has been documented (and I know women who've gone through this) where at the slightest sign of anything not being 100% correct, the doctor actually encourages a woman to think about abortion because the baby "might have a health problem", when in fact there are no problems at all with the child. Basically, there was no verified health problem, but the doctor recommended it anyhow. Again, I don't know how to represent THAT one in statistics, it's hard to track down except by personal experiences.

Barwick, if you could, please sign at the end of your comments, it makes it easier to read. If the last bit about doctor encouragement is true (and I myself am skeptical) there should be some data on it somewhere. If so, its definatly a valuable contribution to both the main and debate articles. However, we need *hard* research, at the very least a reputable collection of anecdotes numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. This is a very strong claim, and needs to be supported vigerously.--Tznkai 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Barwick, thanks for finding the 2005 study. We'll tackle the health discussion in a diffrent section, but this is good data. If you can find me the stuff on medical misconduct and standards for health, we can NPOV and insert.--Tznkai 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gathering up personal testimonies about what you asked. If I can find any statistics (which I think will be harder to find than a needle in 10,000 acres of hay) then I'll post them.

Testimonies of misconduct:

http://www.seghea.com/pat/life/mystory.html

This one has some misconduct testimonies mixed in, I couldn't separate them, but they're there http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/BabiesNotSlaughtered13.htm

Another testimony is the person I personally know, I've already recounted her story here, I don't think she wants her name used.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/abortion.html

I've got to run now, but there's countless testimonies out there about doctors suggesting abortion when in fact there is nothing wrong with the child, just the pregnancy was not 100% "normal". Barwick 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll move through these and see if they pass a legitimacy litmus test, and see if we can establish how common the complaint is.--Tznkai 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Do a search for more, I didn't search very hard, I guarantee there's many more out there like that, it's not an uncommon thing, considering one lady I know very well has had a similar testimony, and if she wasn't pro-life, she might have consented to the abortion and thought nothing of it, never realizing her baby was perfectly fine, THAT is why it is hard to find statistics on it, especially without looking at pro-life sources. Barwick 17:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact alone that one of the testimonies is in an HTML file titled "Babies Not Slaughtered" should sound your alarm bells, Tznkai. If you look at it, you'll find that it's on an anti-abortion site, Abortion TV, which also hosts shock pictures. The last anecdote is delivered 2/3rds of the way into what is actually a pro-life essay. Anecdotes, in and of themselves, are insufficient as a form of evidence. Any scientist will tell you this. So, perhaps, it would be better to look for sources in the forms of news articles or court documents. I know there are legal precedents for the claim of wrongful abortion. In fact, there's already an article on the subject here on Wikipedia: wrongful abortion. It has been tagged for clean-up for the past four months. Here is a revision I did, which didn't satisfy the article's masters, but has some good, accessible sources nonetheless. -Kyd 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's going to be extremely difficult to find a court case on when a doctor wrongly suggested an abortion, for the reasons described above, and from a site that isn't pro-life, and I'll recount them here:

• A person who isn't pro-life is much less likely to oppose the doctor's recommendation that they have an abortion, and therefore they are much less likely to go through with the pregnancy, which is the only way women find out that there was nothing wrong with their child in the first place.
• A woman who is pro-life and goes through with the pregnancy (against the doctor's recommendation) dosn't have any case in court, becuase the doctor never did anything to harm her or her child (at least not physically). Many women have documented that they considered a lawsuit against the doctor, only to find out from the lawyers they were seeking for advice, that they couldn't win the case since nothing was done. Barwick 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're making sweeping generalizations about human nature that are in no way pertinent to the article. Are we seeking to document the phenonmenon of wrongful abortion, or aren't we? As for court cases: Baker v. Gordon, 759 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988), Johnson v. United States, 810 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1993), Breyne v. Potter, 574 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002), Martinez v. Long Island Jewish Hillside Med. Ctr., 512 N.E.2d 538, 538 (N.Y. 1987). -Kyd 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We're going to have a hard time establishing its a significant occurance, so I'm focused more on the prevelance of the complaint. A sentance along the lines of. "A concern that frequently comes in abortion debate is that of wrongful abortion, where doctors have been accused encouraging abortions without sufficient cause." We need to find out exactly how common the complaint is first, and how legit the people saying it art.--Tznkai 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

New statistics paragraph

I'm bracketing off a new subsection to work on a revised statistics section. Scanning over the AGI study [16], I noticed that we've managed to spectacularly fail in mentioning that there are multiple reasons that women choose to get an abortion. Unfortunatly, as always the statistics focus on US, but those are still notable and are the most up to date statistics we seem to have found.--Tznkai 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks Barwick for bringing that study up! I think it is way too US-specific to be included as the only information (in other words, I'd like the statistics already in the article to stay), but the information is definitely good - it is recent and it is notable. I agree that it should be included in the article in some form or another. -Parallel or Together ? 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stats and Biased Sources in General

1. There does need to be a better presentation of this data.

2. Because "Rape" or "Incest" are often red flags used to garner support for legal abortion, it is important to give accurate data and not lump the information in with other categories. Rape or incest very rarely the reason for abortion, and this article ought to be clear about that. Lumping it in with unddefined "other" is not beneficial to the reader's understanding of this issue.

3. Similarly, a chart showing global data and data for selected countries would be helpful to show that reasons can vary by country.

4. Barwick, welcome aboard. The prevailing bias in the English speaking wiki-world is definitely to love abortion. That bias is apparent amongst most who edit this article, and as such any neutral presentation of information is (very biasedly) categorized as having a pro-life bias. Having said that, pro-life people also need to ensure they are truly opting to present factual information or a neutral presentation of various views. Because abortionists are always pro-abortion, any scientific data about abortion and most experts in the field hold a pro-abortion bias - that makes it hard to preserve neutrality in this article. Same for any "journalism" sources - journalists and editors are committed to support legal abortion, and their bias is obvious in their news coverage - which again makes it hard to keep this article neutral.

5. But some people, like Tzankai, do seem to truly seek a neutral article.

6. Stick around, Barwick - your presence is most definitely needed here!!!!

7. Public opinion polls in the US consistently reveal that a majority of the people think most abortions should be outlawed. Most Amreicans think abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy poses a severe physical health threat to the mother (not a mental health threat). That is not debatable - that is a reality. Pro-life views are MAINSTREAM, no matter how many times people tell you otherwse.

8. Its high time most others who edit here realize that FACT. To adopt the view that "abortion is always a valid choice" (that most editors here seem to adopt and argue when discussing bias within the article) as if it were the neutral view is to adopt a POV that is held by many and rejected by many.

9. The paradigm needs to change. NPOV in this article should reflect that pro-life and pro-abortion views have popular support and are both mainstream views. NPOV should also acknowledge that virtually all people who work in the abortion industry are pro-abortion and hold a pro-abortion POV. Same for most journalists and most newspapers - they admittdly have a pro-abortion bias.

10. That bias should be acknowledged by all and taken into account when editing and determining bias.

11. Thank you, Barwick, for your contributions.

Goodandevil 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodandevil, this is not the Abortion debate article. Please take this there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV means checking all misgivings about the so-called "liberal medial" at the door. This sort of initial mindset, here, is only going to be unhelpful and counterproductive down the road. -Kyd 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV means acknowledging that editors and journalists of most publications, unlike the general public they supposedly serve and represent as journalists, support abortion - and that their bias enters into their reporting and editing. Same with the abortion industry. Its not about liberal or conservative, its about bias that favors abortion, and recognizing its pervasiveness within news outlets and abortion practitioners or activists (who are most frequently quoted in abortion stories as if they held the prevailing or correct view). Goodandevil 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussing the bias within this article, among its editors, and within the sources used for this article is definitely appropriate for this discussion page. Such discussion will remain here where it belongs. My concern is not that the article should contain the debate, but that the article should be written with a neutral POV that does not accept that abortion is good or bad and accepts that either or both views may be legitimate. Goodandevil 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please limit yourself to concise, specific suggestions, not essays filled with vague accusations. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos!

I like to take some time everynow and then and congratulate people on jobs well done. Excellent job on the fetal pain section. While itinally against having it at all, you've done a great job and I'm convinced it should stay. Feel proud everyone.--Tznkai 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to be working with you again. The format suggested by Dona for the health effects section certainly made the FP addition that much more feasible. -Kyd 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, KYD - my original suggestion was a bit unwieldly, you guys have adapted it well. On the positive note, other than outright vandalism, I've noticed a lot less POV changes on both sides of the issue - that should be a good indicator of NPOV status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaNobisPacem (talk • contribs) 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, looks marvelous. And I helped with a stray period! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Every bit counts. You get a gold star for being helpful. -Kyd 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

He gets a gold star and the puppy who fetched all those sources gets nothing? (whine) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You get a star-shaped chew toy. -Kyd 02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ROFL, thanks much! I'd have settled for a pat on the head. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, be a good girl, and help me dig up some more sources in the internet's backyard. -Kyd 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Coat hangar abortion

An anonymous editor added something about a coat hangar abortion to the article. I didn't think it was appropriately handled and so I reverted it, but I do feel that this is sufficiently noteworthy as to intelligently merged into the existing article somewhere. I do remember in the novel Cat's Eye by Margaret Atwood a coat hangar abortion was performed, if you happen to need an example from fiction (although it is very real, and very dangerous). --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Coat hanger abortion is breifly alluded to in "other methods", there may be a way to expand on it as it is a common term arriving in discussion, but I'd like some actual occurance numbers.--Tznkai 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Coat hanger abortions are/were extremely rare, and in fact if it is to be mentioned as a reason abortions were legalized or should be kept legal (for the very mention of a coat hanger abortion is an argument towards legal abortion), then it should also be mentioned that when abortions were illegal, doctors still performed them and they were in fact much safer on average than they are today. Because if a woman had complications from a doctor's performed abortion when they were illegal, that doctor was stripped of his license. And so they were much more careful to ensure nothing went wrong.Barwick 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. What exactly do you mean when you say, "doctors still performed them and they were in fact much safer on average than they are today." When you say "them", are you referring to "coat hangar abortions"? I don't think doctors ever did such a thing. And let me try to understand your stream of logic ... X should be illegal because if a doctor does X, messes it up, and gets caught, he loses his license, whereas if X is legal, messing up isn't such a big deal? I don't think you've thought this through. If a doctor "messes up" an abortion and endangers the life of a patient he sure as hell is going to be in trouble. One of the arguments in favor of abortion is that when it's illegal you just see many many back-alley abortions that are hella dangerous. But none of this is why I wanted to include coat hangars into the article in the first place. I wanted to list it as simple historical fact. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to discuss the phenomenon of unsafe abortion. We could take a two-fold approach: modern and historical, with illegal abortion and its effects upon the Western world being discussed in "history of abortion," while the increased threat and associated risks of continued unsafe abortions are presented under "health effects." Or, perhaps, it would be better to have one, all-inclusive section on "unsafe abortion" under "health effects"? Let's decide upon a course of format, first, and then we can begin the sourcing process. -Kyd 03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I do know that one has to be very careful in examining info/statistics in this regard - numbers cited by the pro-choice movement, if to be believed, would have established unsafe abortions prior to the legalization of abortion to be the leading cause of death of women of child-bearing age in the US (essentially any abortion could have been regarded as unsafe prior to legalization, as it was unregulated)! If I recall correctly, numbers cited to the media would have put it at about 10% of deaths of women of child bearing age were due to unsafe abortions.

Actual statistics at the time of Roe vs. Wade actually showed few deaths from illegal abortions each year - although there may have been large numbers of women with complications, statistics/studies in the seventies/eighties showed complication rates (ranging from infection, sterility, future risk of ectopic pregnancy, etc) to be as high as 25%, not exactly indicating that legal abortion was any safer. I'd be happy to dig up some of those stats, but it will have to wait until after Christmas.DonaNobisPacem 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

When I did my earlier research (I think its archived now) I found a common thread - illegal abortion deaths are always drastically underreported, because they are illegal. This was in virtually every report, from the Death and Mortality at NIH, from the reports on PubMed, to the CDC, etc. We cannot get accuarate statistics because they do not exist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[Abortion report] from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC. See Table 19 (at end) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dona, most issues could be resolved through creative wording: "It is estimated by some authorities that umpteen women per annum died as a result of unsafe abortion in the United States before Roe. v. Wade." We could cite both the broad and conservative numbers, too, if it'd help. Roughly, I remember a conservative estimate of 200 per year, in the U.S., and a greater estimate pinning it at 2000 to 4000. -Kyd 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true - I was referring more to figures that came out in the 5-10,000 range, which are disputedly high.DonaNobisPacem 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at Straight Dope]'s article - it has sources in the article, and it is a good read for this issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mother's health

We seem to have had an intresting discussion brewing on the definition of health. While it isn't our place as editors to define whats a legitimate definition of health, do we need to have an on article discussion of it? or simply wikilink health and let the readers figure it out?--Tznkai 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Wiki article (as well as the WHO definition?) is a bit off - they imply that "health" is a positive term, whereas I have always understood "health" itself to be a neutral term that defines the current physical and mental condition of the body - hence your doctor will say you are in "good health" or "poor health" (although, to confuse the issue, one could always say a person is "healthy," implying "good health." Eargh!).

However - for the purposes of this article - I think that both the Wiki article, as well as my understanding, boil down to the same thing: a "health" effect of abortion would be an effect that either negatively or positively influences your physical and mental condition. Is there really the need to discuss it beyond that for the purposes of this article?DonaNobisPacem 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to "Aborted Children"

An anon user has twice now tried to insert a link to "Aborted Children". I reverted his changes on a couple of criteria:

1. The site doesn't do anything to advance the topic at hand.
2. The site is decidedly NPOV.
3. The site could be classified as a shock site.
4. The link was added solely to try to "discourage" abortions by showing unpleasant pictures of the results.
5. The link is innapropriately named. These aren't aborted children, they are aborted fetuses. Children are typically at least three or four years old .. before that you'd call them toddlers, and before that, babies or infants. There's no such thing as an "aborted" child, only a murdered child. The link did not actually contain pictures of murdered children (and that wouldn't be relevant anyway).

In addition ...

• Pictures of most surgical operations are going to appear to be disgusting to most people. You could replace a lot of those pictures on the linked page with pictures of, say, appendectomies, and the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Just because pictures of something can be shocking to ones sensibilities is not a reason to prohibit that practice. Images of appendectomies would gross out most people too but clearly appendectomies shouldn't be outlawed.

--Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is such a simple, rational decision, that so much explication seems almost needless. However, it's definitely in keeping with our (loosely) established policy on images. It has, I believe, been determined that shock pictures (whether pro-life or pro-choice - yes, there is at least one photo used in pro-choice circles to shock the viewer) within the article or hosted on external links are unacceptable. -Kyd 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(except of course in popular songs like Silent Night with its "round yon Virgin, mother and child" used to describe Mary and the infant Jesus, or a pregnant mother described as "with child", or a woman who is pre-menopausal being described as in her "child- bearing" years, etc. etc. etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.215.49.6 (talk • contribs) 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion survivors

An anonymous user added the following:

Some abortions fail, resulting in gain of life and abortion surviver syndrome, faced by Gianna Jennssen, Amy Charlton, and Sarah Smith.

This edit was reverted by HistoryBA with the edit summary: "What?? Who are these people?"

There is an article about Gianna Jessen here on Wikipedia. Information about Sarah Smith can be found here. Information about Amy Charlton can be found here. There have been others, e.g. Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Heidi Huffman, and Christelle Morrison.

While I agree with HistoryBA's revert (the information was just stuck in, out of context, and was not worded carefully enough), I do not think it is inappropriate to include the information that these things happen. Gianna Jessen, for example, has been very much in the news recently in the UK and Ireland.[17] AnnH ^(talk) 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Failed abortions is covered. I'm not sure adding Gianna Jessen and the others in this article is appropriate. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be prudent to simply add in that it is possible for the infant to survive the failed abortion, that there are known cases, and provide link(s). As it is, the failed abortion section simply states that the doctor finds himself in an ethical dilemna; it lends weight to the ethical considerations and the investigation happening in Britain at this time by indicating that there are known cases of the infant surviving, and in fact surviving into adulthood. Suggested phrasing:

"The ethical dilemna faced by doctors in the event of a failed abortion is a serious one, as there are known cases of infants surviving a failed abortion and living into adulthood. This also influences the abortion debate. [[18]]"

The link I picked was a random one, the first that googled with Gianna Jessen's name - we could discuss what link(s) to use.DonaNobisPacem 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I too think that this would be a good section to add in with links to survivors. It shows that children can survive abortion, and also shows the consequences of that abortion on that child. Yes, it will tend to lean to the pro-life side, but it's a fact of the procedure that it does happen, and its consequences should be mentioned. Barwick 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If added, I concur w/DNP that it needs to be brief, state it is extremely rare, and be an extension of the current failed abortions bit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If any one survivor is especially famous, notable, AND newsmaking, we'll wiki link them. (A famous survivor from a failed abortion is...) Otherwise, we'll spruce up the failed abortion/abortion survivor sections but leave out the wikilinks.--Tznkai 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you fail the abortion the first time, just try again. Easy as pie. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, I would very much appreciate it if you would try to curb your tendency to be flippant. This is a serious subject. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

U.S. polling data

New Dec 2005 poll by the NYTimes is out. That data will be the lead data. Link to other data on a comprehensive polling data page. Reference to Roe v Wade is not only helpful, it is necessary for anyone to understand what the impact of following the will of the people would be (in this case 59% do not support the current interpretation of Roe v Wade). Goodandevil 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the poll article / data so we can evaluate. If its just a NYT Readers' poll, it is inherently flawed as it does not represent an accurate cross section of the population. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)