Talk:Abortion

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

To do list

Ok, the article is unlocked and there are anumber of things to work on:

The Pro-choice and Pro-life sections need to be renamed with an introductory blurb explaning the use of advocacy terms.

A paragraph on terminology needs to be written/expanded. Possibly embed into intro paragraph.

I'd like to get a breif list on prefered terminology going. Positive statements only please, I will be applying WP:NPA and WP:RPA judiciously and I invite everyone else to do the same. I will open up a new section on that.

Please add to this for other pressing matters.--Tznkai 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology preferences

Please list terminology preferences and a brief statement as to why. Extremely civil discussion is welcome, but be very judicuous about WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Tznkai's preferences.

Death - The term is reasonably sterile, neutral and factual. Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die. The only we don't know if it dies is a virus because we're not sure if its alive to begin with.
Fetus/unborn - I prefer fetus, but unborn is fine.
In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Non of this pro-choice pro-life prattle. we'll mention it once, then give a breif, neutral report of positions.
In general, sterile terms are prefered in this and in most articles. I feel this focuses on facts and allows the reader to make his or her own decisions without out interference.

--Tznkai 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MamaGeek's preferences:

Death - fine with me
Fetus/Unborn - I prefer unborn, as fetus only refers to one particular stage of prenatal development. However, when that stage is being discussed, fetus is acceptable, but I suggest using "human fetus" occasionally to distinguish from other life forms.
In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Isn't it already legal? These terms seems to imply that it is not. Comments?

Sorta. It depends on where. I assume you're from the States? It varies by country to country, and the restrictions in various parts of the US might make it as good as illegal as I understand it. We're just trying to avoid advocacy phrases.--Tznkai 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about different laws in different countries. With that in mind, I will agree to the terminology "In favor of legalization/Against legalization. You are mistaken, however, about restrictions in various parts of the US. There are actually very very few restrictions anywhere, and they can only actually prohibit abortion on minors without their parents consent, if a state so decides. They cannot prohibit it for any other circumstances, (Partial-birth abortion laws were all struck down, but they only applied to very rare abortion types anyway) only require things such as informed consent. There is noplace in the U.S. where a legally adult woman can be legally denied an abortion.--MamaGeek 14:33, 27 July 2005 (EST)

--MamaGeek 14:06, 27 July 2005 (EST)

Thats what I thought RoeV.Wade did, but I recall hearing stories about laws that interfere with the processes somehow (papers to be signed, have to gain consent from fathers). They may have just been proposed laws though, I'm not really up to date. At anyrate, we're looking at a termniology shift away from advocacy phrases as the goal--Tznkai 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- 198's preferences:

Death is not fine. We are trying to write from a neutral point of view, right? No advocacy, no loaded terms, no cheap rhetorical tricks…. This is a reasonable starting point. So, why then do we need to begin this definition by using highly questionable terminology. Stating right off the bat that embryo/fetus (EF) dies or is capable of dying insinuates that EF is a living entity in more than bio/med terms. This clause establishes the personhood, “individuality” (sic), and bestows distinct ontological being to EF. If reproductive rights/abortion industry people accept this assertion, they have already lost the argument. Hence, this is POV.
Furthermore, the usage in question is really a not-so-subtle rhetorical maneuver: the word “death” is here selected and agreed upon on the basis of a limited definition void of its full context, other meanings and connotations, and the history of its usage... The argument goes something like this: if we can agree that a living cell can “die,” then everything that’s made of living cells must “die” as well (including EF). Or, in the words of Tznkai, “Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die.” “Die” would appear to be the same word here used indiscriminately. However, in Tznkai’s example, “die” signifies three different things as its connotations vary. “Die” or “death” cannot be statically defined by the definition I suggested above; its meaning changes with its usage and depends on its relation to the words and context around it. “The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual. Remember, whoever defines/frames the terms in a debate, wins! Wiki is nobody’s patsy :)

What alternative do we have to the term death? I certainly don't think saying "the cessation of life defining characteristics" is NPOV, its silly. When I say my dog died, and when I say the bacteria died, and when I say the skin died, or I have dead skin all over me, or I say "programmed cell death" we're using the same word but we depend on the context to explain exactly what we mean. To use your own argument, saying that an EF dies does not give it personhood any more than saying bacteria or a dog dies gives bacteria or a dog personhood. The second paragraph of death points out exactly what it is. I take exception to your suggestion that "The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual." Dig through the history and you'll see I've been repeatedly attacked as prochoice sympathizer. What the hell else is an abortion? The death of an unborn human, thats pov. The expuslion of tissue. Thats POV. Both are strictly accurate, but obscure facts. NPOV does not allow us to lie or obscure. The embryo and the fetus, when an abortion happens, DIE. Period. Cessation of life. No more living. No longer living cells. Dead. Inert. Ex-cell. Whether we ascribe personhood to it, whether we are killing, that is a matter of POV and the meat of the debate. To say that an embryo dies is stating a neutral medical fact. I'm sorry if I seem heated, but I really can't see a way to remain accurate without treating abortion like the elephant in the corner.--Tznkai 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, your response in not heated and there is no need to apologize. I have tremendous respect for the work you’re doing here. Below is my counter-argument which I would like you to consider. I am NOT going to make further edits and will instead refer to your better judgment. Also, it has not occurred to me to question your pro-life/choice credentials – this really is only about the definition in question (not politics). It may be naïve of me to hope to have a semiotic discussion about such a hot issue. In any event, I agree with you when you say that “we're using the same word” the meaning of which “depend[s] on the context.” However, the context (both synchronic and diachronic) is not something that’s at our disposal to use “to explain exactly what we mean.” In other words, some of the meaning “happens” before or regardless of our efforts to explain it. It’s independent of the context WE intend to create around it. In our example here, one of the involved parties sees and refers to itself as favorable to “Life” (“Pro-Life”). The meaning of the linguistic sign “Life” in the community of language users is intrinsically tied to its binary opposite, “Death.” We think of these two signs always and already in terms of each other (whether this is right or not is beside the point here). Thus, while it may be biologically accurate to refer to the death of a cell/organ/organism, its application here also infers the logic of one and only one side in this contentious debate. You see, my suggestions here are not political or ethical in nature; I am not trying to argue either/any of the sides and would be equally opposed to adding any language that comes from the “Choice” side of the argument. My suggestions are linguistic/semiotic in nature. Thanks again for you diligent work. Cheers. 198 --198.104.64.238 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I see where your argument is going, although I disagree slightly that the context gives the argument to the pro-life camp. Ultimatly though, I think the problem is we don't have a better word for cell death other than death. Using dictionary.com's thesarus we get...

afterlife, annihilation, bereavement, casualty, cessation, curtains, darkness, decease, demise, departure, destruction, dissolution, downfall, dying, end, ending, eradication, eternal rest, euthanasia, exit, expiration, extermination, extinction, fatality, finis, finish, future home, grave, grim reaper, heaven, loss, mortality, necrosis, obliteration, oblivion, paradise, parting, passing, passing over, quietus, release, repose, ruin, ruination, silence, sleep, termination, tomb, un

None of which I find particularly useful. I think a neutral presentation of facts is not a balanced view in the case of abortion. The facts give each side an advantage at certain points. The majority of abortions are elective. Fetuses die. Abortion probably helps cause depression (come on people. If having a freaking successful pregnancy causes short term depression, miscarraiges cause depression, I have no doubt an induced abortion causes depression). At the same time, rape and incest happen. Adoption programs are horrific. Abortions are done with excellent clincial standards. Ectopic pregnancies happen. All of these are pretty much the facts, each side gaining a slight advantage depending on what you're reading. We need to focus first on accuracy. To quote from WP:NPOV "The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." By avoiding partisan commentary during the bare bones facts sections of these articles, we allow people to make their own intelligent decisions. Simply by knowing information on partial birth abortion may sway people towards pro life or information on Eisenmenger's Syndrome may swing pro choice does not allow us to cherry pick facts and terms.

Ultimatly, my point can be summed up in one of my favorite phrases: Reader's Aren't Stupid.--Tznkai 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, kudos to you for being even-handed. I am happy to see that you seek a truly neutral presentation of the factual information about this topic. 214.13.4.151 15:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation update

As part of my looking into the topic, including terminology issues, Ive found some work must be done accross various abortion related articles. To organize this, we need to make an Template:Abortion sidebar, and deal with issues in their own context, for example pregnancy, fetal personhood, etc. Perhaps even abortion can be split into abortion - what it is, and abortion debate. We'll see. Sorry for neglecting recent developments here -been working on other cases, other articles. -St|eve 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion law

An anon changed the section to this: Abortion was legal and widely practiced in the United States before the late 1800's. Near the end of the 19th century, male doctors attempted to "medicalize" reproduction and childbirth, creating a professional monopoly. In doing so, they aimed to eliminate women herbalists, midwives, and other "irregular" medical practitioners, mainly women, who had traditionally provided a substantial amount of care to women particularly around reproduction. Combined with anti-immigrant sentiments and feelings of white male Protestants that their status was threatened by women's growing power (seen, for instance, in the growing suffrage movement), these male doctors were mostly successful in criminalizing abortion in most American states.

In the United States, the Supreme Court held in 1973 that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see Abortion in the United States), while the German Supreme Court struck down state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees.

Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring, although not until "quickening," the point at which fetal movements begin to be felt (5-6 months into a pregnancy). Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited, often originating with religious prohibitions in many countries. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as Canada (see Abortion in Canada).

I reverted it because I felt it was both POV and too detailed for a summary. Thoughts, comments and other ways we can intergrate things?--Tznkai 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Abortion

Anon changed this section to: Chemical abortion, which comprises 10% of all abortions in the United States and Europe, is a method used to induce abortion by ingesting drugs, usually during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Chemical abortion is accomplished by administering either methotrexate or mifepristone (RU-486) followed by administration of misoprostol. Approximately eight percent of these abortions require surgical follow-up, usually by vacuum aspiration (See below). Methotrexate may also treat undiagnosed or concomitant tubal pregnancies, or assist women who have spontaneously aborted.

A common misconception is that emergency contraception, commonly known as the Morning-after pill, sold under the brand name Plan B, causes an abortion. This is medically inaccurate, since emergency contraception only works before pregnancy begins. Pharmacologically, emergency contraception is identical to ordinary hormonal contraceptives, and work to prevent pregnancy by delaying ovulation, inhibiting sperm motility, and possibly by making the uterine lining less hospitible to implantation. Emergency contraception has no effect on an existing pregnancy, and must be taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse, though it is most effective if taken as soon as possible. Intrauterine devices, also known as IUD's, can be used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse as well.

Not going to RV this one because of WP:3RR, but I think it needs work. The content is pretty good, but the prose needs to be neutralized.--Tznkai 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the claim that it has no effect on an existing pregnancy. Is there any source for that claim? Certainly, most pregnant women are advised to avoid any kind of powerful drug, and I imagine the morning-after pill is extremely powerful.

I'd also question the claim that it's medically inaccurate to say that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. Obviously, if it succeeds in preventing ovulation, then it works simply as a contraceptive. But, if ovulation has already taken place, and if the sperm reaches the egg, then the morning-after pill does cause an abortion. I'm not sure why Anon said "possibly" (in possibly by making the uterine lining less hostpitable to implantation). Again, where is the source for "possibly"? Is there any reputable medical literature claiming that the uterus may not become less hospitable? If the woman ovulates first, has intercourse second, and takes the morning-after pill third, and if the sperm still manages to reach the egg, then the changes made to the uterine lining cause the embryo to be expelled. Surely that's a fact - nothing to do with approving or disapproving? Whether the embryo is a clump of cells or a human being may be POV, but what happens to it when a woman takes the morning-after pill after ovulation is not. Ann Heneghan 22:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted that section for the moment. I think it needs discussion here. Apologies for jumping in like this. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but hadn't looked much at this article before tonight. Ann Heneghan 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard. More editors, especially those who follow wikipolicy are welcome and wnated.--Tznkai 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here

Total Dispute

I'm out of reversions, a bit frustrated so this seems to be the best course of action.

Based off of my last good edit as a refrence point [1]

Line 1:See above. if someone finds me a neutral accurate and useful term for cell death other than the word death, enlightenme.

Line 6:Reasons for induced abortions: Unsourced claim. I happen to know personally people stupid enough to use it as birth control, I'm sure I can find documented instances of it, and so can the rest of us. That is something that happens, sad but true. Removing it fails accuracy and neutrality.

oh yeah. people who abort where there is no birth contro are not doing it because of birth control failure!--Tznkai 16:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Line 37: Opponents of abortion rights invented the term "partial-birth abortion," a term which does not exist in medical language, to describe these procedures. Probably true. Not totally relevant as we are not Wikimedicine. Certainly more neutral ways to say it. They can check the main article for the history of how the word developed. We try to avoid the term "abortion rights" and "reproductive rights" as much as possible. because of WP:NPOV.

These techniques are also necessarily used to remove miscarried fetuses from the uterus to prevent the woman from becoming infected. well then it isn't an abortion and we need refrences.

line 53: Leave the vast majority of that to the history of abortion Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Using facts as advocacy is still advocacy.

"In the United States, during the period when abortion was mostly illegal, many thousands of women were estimated to have died every year from complications of unsafe and illegal abortions." Unsourced claim, not relevant, Amero-centric, and dripping with prochoice rhetoric. The passage "Studies have found that in developed countries where abortion is legal, the risk of serious physical complications of an abortion is less than 1%. In countries where abortion is illegal, this percentage is much higher, although the exact figure is unknown. This is likely due to the inherently dangerous nature of unregulated illegal surgery by doctors of dubious skill." covers all of that without the lurid detail.

Physical health Section is argumentative. Its arguing against an invisible opponent.

Line 78: " do not establish a causal link between abortion and mental health problems" Readers aren't stupid. Report the facts, straight out, and use all of the ones avaiable. We can't just cherry pick. We let politicans do that, not wikipedians.

Actually, I would argue that readers ARE stupid. Most laymen don't understand that correlation does not imply causation (a lot of scientists forget this too) I don't think that mentioning that these studies do not establish a causal link is unreasonable. Perhaps we should remove any studies which do not establish a causal link? Lepidoptera 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have special issue with this study: "According to one study of 1,884 women conducted by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion are 65% more likely to be diagnosed with clinical depression around eight years later." The information doesn't seem to have a source, and it sounds like a poor imitation of the third study listed. Is its inclusion nessecary? Lepidoptera 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Line 102: Why Include NARAL Pro-Choice America? The article isn't great and It isn't as major of a player as NOW< ACLU and planned parenthood. In fact, may be we should just remove all the examples alltogether.

I've spent a lot of time protecting this article from pro-life POV, and I will protect it from pro-choice pushing POV just as strongly.--Tznkai 04:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to note that your current slate of edits in fact evidences your desire to eliminate POV. I find it rare among folks at wikimedia (editors claiming neutrality who are actually editing in a neutral fashion). Kudos to you. I have a strong POV, admit it, but also understand that facts are the important thing. I am comfortable that a neutral presentation of the facts will always favor the pro-life POV, which is why abortion advocates hate to deal with the topic honestly. Best of luck to you in your attempt to keep things even-keeled. 214.13.4.151 15:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went a head and did a mass reversion as seen here [2]. This highlights that certain sections could stand improvement. Remember though that abortion is a SUMMARY article not a detailed analysis of all things abortion, not a forum for the debate, not a platform for advocacy.

Looks like I broke 3RR in the process. Going to report myself. Play nice while I'm gone kids.--Tznkai 16:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Contraception

Is the inclusion of the term "human" nessecary? Dogs can have abortions too... I'm just wondering if there's any particular reason that's there.

On a side note, I removed a reference to the morning after pill under the chemical abortion heading. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy and was not relevant to the subject. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the morality of EC in general, but whether or not life starts at fertilization or does not, abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy starts at implantation. Lepidoptera 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points. The inclusion of human will be needed, because no one really cares all that much about general mamillian pregnancy. Perhaps a statement that "this article focuses on human abortions" will fix that. As for the morning after pill, we still need to include it somewhere in the article. While it may not technically cause an abortion, it is still very informative and useful to include it in the article. From a non technical perspective, an abortion is a prevention of a succesful pregnancy. The morning after pill does that. I suggest we make it a new section with the note "...while not an abortion per se...".

Welcome to the article Lepidoptera, enjoy your stay.--Tznkai 15:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of abortion doesn't make sense Tzukai; since that would bring condoms etc. into it as they too "prevent successful pregnancies". As our lead says, its the termination... not prevention that counts; and we should note pregnancy (at least medically) is defined as beginning at implantation. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms essentially prevent actual sexual intercourse. The morning after pill is a termination of pregnancy process. I think, even if technically incorrect, this is quite reasonable. I agree that we should note that pregnancy begins in a medical sense at implantation.

As an aside, I believe the morning after pill, in general is a really stupid idea, so I'm not totally unbaised.--Tznkai 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms make intercourse safer; I would hope they don't prevent it. :"D Indeed the abortion pill can interrupt the process; I say can because a significant percentage of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway. Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, a succsessful condom use means you are going through extremly aggressive mutual masterbation :P (Wow my spelling sucks!). The point is, technically correct or not, its reasonable to think of the Morning after Pill as an abortion of a pregnancy.--Tznkai 18:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention the morning after pill than we must certainly mention Intrauterine devices (IUDs). Before the legalization of the morning after pill, you could go to the gynocologist and have an IUD inserted after unprotected sex. This method is actually far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill, but it's also expensive (around $400- $500)- although you can leave it in for up to 12 years after for effective pregnancy prevention. Birth control bills can be used in exactly the same way- before the pill, you could just go to your gynocologist and get a pack of bc pills for $17.50. I have several packs of BC (Alesse) which I am no longer on, and should I have unprotected sex, I could take 5 of the active pills as soon as possible, and another 5 12 hours later for the same effect. The advantage of the morning after pill as opposed to using the birth control pills is that bc pills have very high levels of estrogen, which causes nausea. Lepidoptera 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. My knowledge is a little thin on this aspect of the abortion issue, but I will try to stick it in somewhere.--Tznkai 17:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better. Write it up yourself. I will be shuffling things around (I don't hear a lot of complaints on me improving the prose and organization) but I will do my best to keep your additions in.--Tznkai 17:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tried it. I wasn't really sure where to put it, but I hope that's okay. Lepidoptera 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 added "in a medical sense" under this section- is this really nessecary? Can you have an abortion in a non medical sense? RV unless anyone can provide a reasonable argument why it should be there. Lepidoptera 21:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain my reasoning:

If abortion is defined only as "ending" a pregnancy and if that in the medical sense is defined as beginning with implantation, then the passage is correct in saying that the ma-pill does not cause an abortion.

However, morally these are equivalent: whether an implanted embyro is aborted (medical abortion) or whether an embryo (I know this is not the correct term) not yet implanted is kept from implanting. Both result in his/her death.

This moral equivalence is included in this passage and hence I thought it best to refer to the abortion that does not occur as "abotion in a medical sense". This clearly defines what is meant here: medically no abortion, but morally the same issue.

Str1977 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "Some consider it the moral equivalent of an abortion". It's redundant. Lepidoptera 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the revert: I think we should just stick to "potentially" because statistics are very fuzzy. The first issue is that the chances of pregnancy from a single incident of unprotected sex are very low to begin with- during the second and third week of the cycle (where fertility is much higher), only about 8 percent. EC, the morning after pill in particular, can in many cases prevent ovulation since its composition is the same as BC pills which work by preventing ovulation. (For IUDs, the issue is more complicated, since there's some debate as to how they work in general) This pushes the possibility of zygote death after taking EC very low. Hope the way it is now is to everyone's liking Lepidoptera 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are totally clear, What stage of development are we talking about when implanation is prevented?--Tznkai 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Implantation? By the sounds of it I would assume it would be at an embryonic stage. Considering that most embryos don't hold to begin with, I'm not sure it should even be considered abortion if it's what I think it is. I'll have to check. user:lucavix

Yup, preventing implantation is preventing an embryonic zygote from sticking. Most embryos don't hold as it is, which is why we normally only have one child at a time instead of reproducing in litters. user:lucavix

It's a common occurance to have multiple eggs in the womb? I thought it was relatively rare to have 2, let alone more. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon to have as many as 4-12 release per month (depending on the woman). Even if fertilized there's only a 2-25% chance (depending on virility, health, sexual disposition, age, and rather or not a woman is ovulating) that an embryo or zygote will hold. At least from what I've recall from the Discovery Health Channel. I may be wrong however... user:lucavix

Implantations most commonly occur at the blastocyst stage, approximately 5 days after fertilization, although it can occur a bit later or a bit earlier. Embryo is more of an umbrella term, so it probably works best. Lepidoptera 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you think about it, this whole process is weird- women are most fertile SEVEN DAYS before they actually ovulate which means that sperm have to get there and stay there, waiting for the eggs- and then pounce on them. Then it's an average 5 days of development before the embryo to be able to implant itself. Consider then that the MA pill works at a maximum of 5 days after sex (but that's really stretching it) and we're at around 12 days after intercourse to become pregnant during maximum fertility and at average time of implantation. So if the MA pill prevents implantation so well, why does it only work that soon after sex? (And it's still only 75% effective after just 72 hours!) It makes me seriously doubt that the MA pill ever actually does prevent implantation. Now, the IUD is far more effective (99.9% instead of 75.0%), probably because it DOES prevent implantation. I'm surprised everyone has jumped on the anti MA bandwagon and not the anti IUD one. Lepidoptera 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article in use:

Fixing Debate on abortion laws section. Possibly renaming the section.

The problem: This current organization is the result of a compromise/me stuffing change down people's throats. It worked for a while, but its also highlighted some problems.

A couple of the sections are completly stagnant. considering these reflect current law trends, I consider that a problem.

The end goal is to harmonize as much as the section as possible, reducing the subsection count and giving a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate treatment of the debate.

As a courtesy, feel free to leave suggestions and comments here, but do not edit the article until I am finished please. I hope to get this done within 36 hours, as this is a major overhaul.

As this article has been relativly stable for a while, I hope that is not a problem.--Tznkai 05:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks like the section was easier than I thought, but he article as a whole is a pain. I'm heading to sleep soon, and will remove the in use tag. I intend to restore the two removed sections and do other significant improvments. Feel free to edit and comment on what I have done already.--Tznkai 07:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the before and after [3]

removed subsection: pending reinsertion.

Current status of abortion law

Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring. Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. In the United States, the Supreme Court has held that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see Abortion in the United States), while the German Supreme Court struck down state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as Canada (see Abortion in Canada).

Removed subsection 2

Abortion has been a bitterly-fought political issue, particularly in the United States. The controversy in the U.S. started in 1973 with the case of Roe vs. Wade, when the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a constitutionally protected right, as part of the greater right to privacy. Specifically, it ruled that states could not forbid a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months (the first trimester) of her pregnancy. The United States Supreme Court is largely considered the gatekeeper of abortion rights in the United States, and as a result, the possibility of the balance of the Court shifting towards a more conservative body became an issue in the 2004 US Presidential Election.

In many other countries, abortion is less of a political issue. For a long time, it has not been a mainstream political issue in the United Kingdom. In the lead up to the 2005 General Election, Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservatives, stated that he, personally, might support a reduction in the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but the issue was not included in the party's manifesto for the election.

Inuse #2

Will be applying the inuse template as soon as I get home to a stable internet connection. Doing a major reorginzation starting around 2:30 EST. See embbedded comments. Voice objections and comments now or hold your peace until I'm done please.--Tznkai 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC) RL is being uncooperative. Edit postoponed until tomorrow--Tznkai 19:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the morality of abortion

The beginning of personhood: Also phrased "the beginning of life", when is an unborn human considered a person? See also fetal personhood
Universal human rights: is aborting an unborn human a violation of human rights?

I think both of these questions are leading, but I changed the second one as a form of balance, especially since the second topic is redundant: obviously, when an fetus is considered a person, it's a violation of their human rights to abort them, so the second question is unnessecary. I think the section as a whole is unbalanced because there is no mention of the ethics of forced pregnancy/birth- is it ethical to force someone to undergo massive body changes and discomfort/pain, and possibly drive her to actions which my result in her death? Perhaps my wording wasn't neutral enough, but I thought it added balance. Can you suggest something better? Lepidoptera 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lepidoptera, the 2nd question is only redundant if you adhere to the concept of human rights. I do and I guees you do and many many more do so as well and hence this might seem redundant. But ask the Chinese government and they will tell you differently. Also IMHO there are many people in west that do not fully adhere human rights, even without disputing it conciously, but through acting differently. (Not they are right in that.) Str1977 22:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera... we've had this discussion in excruciating detail before; as human has two meanings. We've been more than fair in allowing "unborn human" to pro-lifers; since it is entirely correct and undisputed that the fetus is a homo sapien sapien; but it is entirely disputed as to whether it is an individual "human being" (alternatively, "human forming"). If the "human" question is left open; or answered by both perspectives then that should be fine. (BTW, if this doesn't help my bad, I'm just reading the talk section for now.) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera,

the preceding post by RoyBoy only illustrates the fallacy of the "pro-choice" view. To justify it, he has to stretch logic by saying that "human" is not the same as "human" - he is allowed to have his POV, but it is illogical nonetheless. But I don't want to stir up that old debate (which isn't really a debate anyway) again.

as for your question: it is ethical to force someone to endure discomfort over against the preservation of a greater good, in this case another human life. Str1977 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not always the most eloquent; clearly I have failed in some way. The point of contention is about when a human (our species) becomes an individual being (human); and you are not allowed to misrepresent the key philosophical disagreement on this issue. My and your POV's be damned!!! Using "human" without context, and at this point I think its intentional, removes the distinction... a distinction pro-lifers do not see; and that's fine for their POV, but not for this article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem, Roy, with your eloquent. And granted, what I stated above is merely my POV and you yourself admit that that's fine.

My point was that there are two POVs here (mine and yours) - one is assuming that human == human, the other is assuming that human =/= human. Both are present. Let anyone decide for themselves which is more reasonable.

I for my part cannot see why I should distinguish, you think differently.

I was not misrepresenting, just using some focus.

Str1977 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other (=/=) recognizes there is one meaning is being obfuscated. You're providing the antithesis of focus. I'll put it very simply; when you ask someone if a human is self-aware; they will say "sure," but they will have forgotten it's possible to be physically/genetically human and not be self-aware. There is an assumption "human" means a conscious individual similar to you or I (a person); we have to be clear here in order to avoid that misleading assumption stemming from common use of "human" which everyone uses in their daily lives. For it does not account (nor even consider) early development or exceptions such as comas and other brain damage. There is no "stretch logic" here; just an understanding words sometimes are not clear or specific. Which is exactly the focus of this discussion; replacing an ambiguous "human" with the more specific "person". - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Roy, that you don't see or don't want to see the stretch logic. Otherwise you couldn't hold to your POV as you do. And note that we needn't discuss this endlessly. I'm not disputing the article as it stands. Just pointing out the "flaw".

Consciousness is a perfectly arbitrary condition for "human being". Anyone can think of some category according to his wishes and this has happened in the past. With horrendous consequences. Or it can happen unconsciously: a murder has IMO already deprived his victim of his/her humanity before he murders, at least unconsciously.

Are those in "comas and other brain damage" not human beings?

Early development? When does someone begin to be human? I say conception, since from then on it's just natural growth, fed by nutrition, but nothing changes. If you provided some other point where a leap might occur to humanity, you'd surprise me.

You and I were once embryos too - when did we begin to be humans?

Str1977 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, but it has little to do with word ambiguities. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this discussion is fascinating and all, but I lost track of the part where we're talking about the article.--Tznkai 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tznkai, you're right. I'll shut up on this one. Str1977 19:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even a greater good? The very nature of the abortion debate is insidious. Every tagline or question you ask is full of loaded terms. I did my best to keep it as neutral as possible, but I welcome improvements. Note that the new structure is designed to completly eliminate prochoice/prolife sectioning, leaving that to the main debate article. Ithink this is a major improvment --Tznkai 17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an improvement. I was referring only to the points touched upon here at the talk page. Str1977 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point was: The questions to think about ONLY consider the morality of abortion from the point of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. The morality of abortion asks two questions: From the point of the view of the women, and the point of view of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. So where is the former? Lepidoptera 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where you're going with this. Will work on it, but its implied in the individual liberty parts of the questions. --Tznkai 03:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that it is a question of liberty- instead, a question of property (remember, the US constitution grants us the right to life, liberty, and property). It's a question of defending your property- legally and morally speaking, your body is your property. If any one or anything invades your home or tries to hurt you, you have a right to defend yourself with force- even lethal force. In the case of rape, physical damage is usually low as opposed to, say, even getting punched in the face- but your body is your property, and if someone tries to rape you, you have a right to shoot them to make them stop if you have the opportunity. So the question really becomes: if someone attacks your life, liberty, or property, to what extent can you defend yourself? If someone were to tie me down, give me injections of estrogen every morning to make me throw up, and shove a rock up my uterus every day for 9 months, and then at the end of the nine months cut me open to remove all the rocks, I think I can use lethal force to prevent them from doing that, even though they're a full grown adult with the same rights as I do. And when that person is not in fact a person but a proto human who depends soley on my body for sustanence and cannot live on it's own, then it's even clearer to what extent I can defend myself. I personally would have difficulty killing a rapist, because they are as fully human as I, and while I have no desire to be raped, it's a relatively short period of discomfort, although there is the potential of pregnancy/STI's. I find the prospect of pregnancy and birth far more horrifying than the action of being raped, so the morality of abortion in my mind is not even questionable. (And yes, maybe if you hadn't had sex, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant, and maybe if you hadn't walked down a dark alley alone at night, or worn that short skirt,you wouldn't have gotten raped either- but regardless of what you could do to prevent an attack, the situation still remains) Anyway, just a rant, but thought it would add an additional perspective. 65.96.72.221 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

There are several forms of birth control that some consider the moral equivalent to abortion because they destroy an embryo prior to implantation. Prior to 1976, a 'contraceptive' was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of sperm and ovum (fertilization). In 1976 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists changed the definition so that a contraceptive was redefined as anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst embryo, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Those who believe that life starts at conception believe that forms of birth control which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo in the uterus end a human life. The most controversial of these forms of pregnancy prevention is currently the Morning-after pill, which is legal in a number of countries and has recently been legalized in the United States and in Canada.

This is very good, but I think Its a little detailed for this article. --Tznkai 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this history bit is intresting, but i think it'd do better in the main article. It could problably use a little expansion though. What do you think the best summarizations of the views of each side is?--Tznkai 14:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion in the Mental Health area

The first study states the same material as the third study with less detail, and it has no source. It's unnessecary. Lepidoptera 14:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Lepidoptera[reply]

Ahkay. I don't think I have an objection then. Anyone else?--Tznkai 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable "Study"

The source of the "study" showing an increased rate of premature birth is unlisted, and the argument is questionable. Many "studies" are conducted by biased groups such as the "Focus on the Family" institute. Only empirical studies with empirical evidence should be listed on topics that invoke such strong positions on each side. Due to the nature of the debate there is, after all, a large potential for the manipulation of information to present a biased result. Sources and a list of subject material and "evidences" would be preferable when such claims are made.

Furthermore, no number of premature births resulting from "post abortion" damage was given, nor an initial percentage, so the "increased risk" may well seem more serious than it supposedly is. Moreover no information was given to indicate the cause of such a phenomena, what type of abortion "causes" premature birth the most? Is it considered premature birth when a fetus or embryo simply doesn't hold? The utter lack of information regarding this "study" makes it appear designed to scare young women from considering abortion a viable option. --LucaviX 12:30 AM. August 10'th 2005

Since the study is listed as the 2nd footnote; I'm unsure if responding to the rest of this is even necessary. Is there something wrong with the reference provided? Also I had to reword the entire section to this version, because previously it was worded to scare women. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucavix, can you be more specific with your problems with the study? I think we're pretty screwed if we're dependant exclusivly on unbasied sources for our data. In fact, I don't think we'd have any. By providing the refrence, the reader can determine the worth for his or herself.

I think we give Lucavix 24 to respond before removing the objection comment? --Tznkai 14:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to how the "study" is presented, the lack of any evidence provided to support the "study", the lack of any provided source, and the lack of information in the "study" (such as what the initial statistics for premature birth and the utter lack of information as to how this "study" was even conducted). This almost seems no more than propaganda, and not a "study" at all. There are all kinds of "studies" out there that are no more than opinion pieces and use skewed or false statistics. Furthermore the entire study seems deliberately engineered to scare women away from considering abortion as a viable alternative, by leaving out information such as what the actual probability of premature birth might be ( for example, saying that there's a 70% increased risk that something bad will happen doesn't say much if the risk is extremely miniscule, at say .007, to begin with). Unless some sort of source is provided or more information is provided about the "study" or more information regarding the content of the study is provided, the objection will remain. --LucaviX 10:03 AM. August 10'th 2005

Lucavix, the study is linked. we don't have room to exhaustivly document each study. Thats what refrences are for. They can research the Pregnancy article as well. We don't have the room to lead our reader's by the hand and give them the research. We've provided bloody hyperlinks for them already. Readers Aren't Stupid.--Tznkai 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Links doesn't even work and the other is a propaganda page by Peter Bowen who is a self described "pro-life" Politician. His agendas are also suspect, and his sources are slanted and far from scientific! The objection holds. -- user:lucavix 11:51 AM August 10'th 2005

Not sure about the second one, but the first one is the PubMed database, one of the more impressive and rigerous databases of medical sceince outthere. I'll let another editor with more expertise take it over from here--Tznkai 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least have the initial statistics for premature birth listed or the objection is going to stay there. The entire piece is totally slanted, unless more information is provided to balance the objection must remain. -- user:lucavix

Which link doesn't work? What "initial statistics" do you want... a baseline rate from the study, or preterm rates for France or the world in general? I presume the goal being to clarify the percentage differences in real numbers in context of how many women have preterm deliveries? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help with the reserach then? --Tznkai 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source appears to be Dr Caroline Moreau, an french anti-abortionist who has stated that embryo's are sacred. His entire findings are subject and should be reviewed with the utmost scrutiny. -- user:lucavix

At some level LucaviX, we suffer GIGO. We summarize what other people say. I don't have the medical expertise to crticize Moreau's methods. To do so violates WP:NOR anyway. You need to find a balancing notable view criticsing her work.--Tznkai 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Caroline Moreau's arguments are slanted, Dr Caroline Moreau has taken clear "pro-life" positions. Dr Caroline Moreau's findings are subject and lack secular or empirical evidence. Dr Caroline Moreau's findings are being presented as fact. Conclusion: Dr Caroline Moreau's argument should either be removed or edited such as to remove anti-abortion bias. Suggestion: Include information purposefully left out, such as the initial probability of a premature birth, or remove Dr Caroline Moreau's unscientific argument entirely. Unless solid evidence is shown to support Dr Caroline Moreau's claims, said claims are removed, or more information is given to dull the anti-abortion edge the objection must stand. -- user:lucavix

Futher information. When asked "A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which is the largest provider of abortions outside the NHS, said that women seeking terminations were not told of increased risks of premature births “because so far, they have not been established". It appears that the "findings" of Dr Caroline Moreau's "study" aren't even conclusive. This should be noted if the "study" is to remain.

Removing it or arguing against it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The letter and spirit of both rules prevents us from using our own doubts about someone's integrity and evidence. IF her findings were published by the medical community, they were published by the medical community. As for the statistics, I don't have them on hand. do you?--Tznkai 17:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No but in case of clear bias alterations should be made. Dr Caroline Moreau should not have her "study" presented as incontrovertible facts. As for the medical community publishing her findings, what medical community? Just because specific sites or magazines may publish it doesn't mean that the medical community by and large accepts the findings. From what I can tell the medical community in general holds that the link has not been established. Dr Caroline Moreau's study is entirely biased and slanted, and the methods used are subject. If you want I can go fish up all the biased studies on abortion I can find and flood the entire page with them, since the merits of an argument don't seem to matter. Either the article must be removed or it must be elaborated upon. That it is presented as if it were factual without any evidence is unacceptable. Evidence is required, and no evidence is provided even among any of the links I can possibly find. All that's out there seems to be opinion full of anti-abortion bias without any evidence to support the paper statistics given. -- user:lucavix

I'm pretty satisfied so far with your additions, I made some tweaks. For example, you are in absolutely no position to put "study" in quotations, I don't care if you find proof of bias in the study, which BTW was published in the BJOG, and no that doesn't mean I turn my skepticism off, but it does mean it is a peer reviewed study, and you had better get use to that. I also request a reference regarding the doctors politics; it would be best if you could put a link after sacred, which contains her saying that. Thanks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/premature_birth.cfm Premature birth occures at a rate between 8 to 10 percent in the united states. So a 5% increase is significant if the "study" is actually valid, which considering that abortion clinics do not inform patients of the increased risk of premature birth because they consider the findings have not been established as valid, is doubtful.

Whoever put the above, please sign it using ~~~~. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved, objectivity returned, equasion balanced. Please do not remove my comment regarding the link between bacterial vaginosis and premature births, the above link actually validated it. user:lucavix 1:27 Pm August 10'th 2005

I made some tweaks, and your note on vaginosis is a great start, but leaves more questions than it answers. Did Moreau account for that in her study? Is vaginosis effected by abortion? Are infection rates equivalent or different for women with and without an abortion history? If equivalent then it wouldn't effect the results, if different, then in what way. As of now I'll put your link at the end of your note, but there is a bit more work to be done on it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

214.13.4.151 removed your background to Dr. Moreau, which is a questionable move without discussion beforehand. But if its reinstated I would like to see a reference regarding her position on abortion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that was me. Roy, and if I havn't mentioned why I did it earlier, I'lld o it now: we are not in the psoition to critize the motivations our source data. To do so fairly, would require us to do it to everyone, an idea I do not wish to entertain as it would make this page a huge back and forth. Second, if I read the pubmed entry correctly, Moreau was not thoe only other of that study. Leave her motivations to her own page, if she gets one. This article is on Abortion, not abortion debate adovcates.--Tznkai 19:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad if that is the case. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do a google for it then? And no, Dr. Moreau didn't account for bacterial vaginosis, the entire point of Dr. Moreau's "study" was to make abortion seem dangerous and immoral. It is roughly a rebuttal and should not be removed as it actually has factual evidence to support it, unlike the "study" Dr. Moreau conducted. Bacterial Vaginosis can be caused by sexual activity (some bacterial infections can be spread through sexual activity like an STD), hormonal disorders, rape and physical abuse, and supposedly by stress, maybe stress caused by an aborton or hormonal changes caused by an abortion could cause it, but it could also be treated. user:lucavix

You can't be serious, yes I have Google... but your pushing for these changes; I don't mind your boldness but you had better put up or be quiet. Yes I'm sure Dr. Moreau study is made of sugar and fairy dust on your say so, seriously this is very interesting stuff you are bringing up... but it is lacking!!! No references for Moreau's views, and no indication as to how much the "concluded" Bacterial Vaginosis accounts for premature births... is it confirmed as the main cause, or just a factor, studies and percentages please? Your holding us to a high standard, we are repaying the favor. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR prevents us from ignoring studies because *we* happen to think they are wrong, especially when a peer reviewed journal lets them in.--Tznkai 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is the burden of the inserter to fact check all of his/her statements, including refrences if requested.--Tznkai 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When a "study" lacks evidence (and I dare you to try and provide any evidence whatsoever for Dr. Moreau's Claims, which until I came along were presented as though they were facts written in stone) it should at least be noted that the study is inconclusive, and given that the vast majority of the medical community does not seem to accept these findings they shouldn't be presented as though they were absolutely true. I can get a LOT of "studies" out of magizines and off of websites to push a view, but at the end of the day if there aren't any facts to back up the "study" and the vast majority of people dismiss the "study" then the "study" should be presented, at the very least, as inconclusive. As for providing evidence of Dr Moreau's bias, if you can read french I'll try to pull something up for you. user:lucavix

That information is welcome on her page, and its POV to say they are "pushing" a view, they could also be publicizing a view and/or results. Similarly pro-choice publications will not be shy about relating results they agree with. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove that the study has evidnce or lacks it. I am not a doctor. I am not an expert. I do know that experts reviewed the study and put it in a peer reviewed Journal. That is an observable fact. You say that the majority of the medical commmunity disagres. great! Prove it! Give me an article that says "the medical community has discredited this study" and I will gladly insert it into the article myself! Thats the way WP:NPOV and WP:NOR work!--Tznkai 19:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny because I am an expert and, it is impossible to prove a negative, that a study lacks evidence, but I dare you to search. Search for evidence and you will find none. You ask me to prove that the majority of the medical community disagrees? That's a NEGATIVE claim the burden of proof is on the one asserting the positive, that they accept his claims. The best I can do to prove a negative is this. The "study" was inconclusive, that's why abortion clinics DO NOT inform women of the risk of premature delivery after an abortion. If the study was accepted abortion clinics would be bound by law to inform them, or they'd get sued so much that they couldn't stay functional. Find me one abortion clinic that assures women of such an increased risk. In reality all you have is a french anti-abortionist taking questionable material that could be evidence of a link to Vaginosis and saying "hey this is caused by abortion" and where's the proof? There is none! user:lucavix

Also, please give a list of names of "experts" (not some institution that's in someone's pocket) that gave it a peer reviewed journal! All you have is a canadian politician and a bunch of "pro-life" advocates. So by getting cozy with a canadian politician she gets her article in a journal, it's not like it's that hard to do. I can get some stuff from Time magazine saying that time doesn't exist and that there are multiple universes but that doesn't make it true.

PS: Just because Peter Bowen is able to get an article in a magazine, supposedly to support his political agendas, doesn't make it true. user:lucavix

Another note: One reason it's impossible to provide a public rebuttal from the medical community as a whole is because this "study" is widely ignored by the medical community. In fact about the only people who seem to discuss this subject, besides us, are "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" interest groups and politicians like Peter Bowen who pander to those interest groups. user:lucavix

A final point worthy of note. If the medical community by and large accepted the "study" made by Dr. Moreau don't you think it's odd that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at Nichd.nih.GOV, an official united states government medical site, never mentions abortion as a cause of premature birth under http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/premature_birth.cfm ? user:lucavix

Wouldn't be the first time the medical community is slow in reacting to emerging information... prions anyone, maybe a little nature vs. nurture for good measure? Politics cuts both ways, but your additions are appreciated and have, I believe, more accurately reflected the current state of affairs. I will place your background information in an article about Caroline Moreau. As to inconclusive, I'm unsure if you can justify that word. Something else might be better, such as controversial, or... not accepted *shrug*, just spitballing. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, 1: The "Study" is inconclusive, as many of the claims made are made on shakey grounds. Much of the evidence for Theory A could just as easily support Theory B for example. Also no actual solid scientific evidence has been provided to support the claim that abortion causes premature delivery. 2: The Medical community by and large fails to even recognize the "study." It should at best be treated as an inconclusive theory, but more fittingly a controversial claim. If the "study" were conclusive don't you think more than a magazine article wedged in by Peter Bowen (again supposedly to pander to his base) and a handfull of "anti-abortion" sites would cite the "study"? user:lucavix

The day I stopped thinking like that is the day I came a step closer to objectivity. It is indeed impossible to prove a negative, but I find the lack of coverage by others just as telling as coverage by those. People will attack things they don't like (pro-lifers), but people will also protect and ignore things that put in question things they support. (pro-choicers) Both have the best of intentions; but both will unintentionally hurt those they seek to help as they dogmatically pursue their views. (pro-life, delaying abortions increasing complications for women — pro-choice, some women regretting their decision and health impacts only becoming clear with long enough abortion histories)

That can be particularly seen in the "nature vs. nurture debate" in years past; where the scientific (and media) climate was hostile to studies supporting nature because of the equality philosophy which pervaded the culture that wanted people to be born equal. Causing a significant amount of guilt on parents who were told by experts their nurturing was at fault. Does this prove anything one way or the other, heck no, neither do your observations above. What it does show is things are more complicated than many attempt to make them out to be.

Even if Moreau is an anti-abortionist, does everyone on that study share that sentiment? It's important to note potential biases if we can, but we must focus on the science even if others haven't. Anyway back to the subject at hand, I'm not arguing to say its "conclusive" or proves a link, but the results are statistically significant, and saying its inconclusive seems to contradict that – without good reason – at this time. Maybe we can keep inconclusive, or change it to controversial and add statistically significant somewhere. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want percentages for theory A and theory B; just throwing it out there to cast doubt is insufficient. We can note theory B, but it won't remove theory A unless there is a good reason. Furthermore if there was a known mechanism for a abortion-premature birth link we wouldn't be arguing over epidemiological studies; the fact there isn't one is arguing from a negative. Not found does not mean not there, you know that, I know that, so don't bring it up. (wow, that's the most nots I've written in a sentence in a long time) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is.... a "real" encyclopedia or even a magazine article about abortion wouldn't even footnote it. Maybe that's because the universities and media are all controlled by the "liberals" but who knows. This guy is right though, a lot of these studies are not considered reputable. The consensus of the medical and scientific community is that abortion, done by a doctor, is perfectly safe and has no effect on future pregnancies. Lepidoptera 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this given the study is relatively recent? I like you and have found your contributions to be above par, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just slipped up in all the excitement. I did too, thinking 213 did something Tznkai took credit for. Let me be perfectly clear here: abortions like any procedure is not perfectly save. Frankly pregnancy is no small matter for a woman's body; so it is not hard to imagine messing around with it can have concequences, especially after 7-8 weeks. What they are, dunno, but to minimize them by assuming its trivial does a disservice to us all. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite whatever philosophical views you share and whatever arguments you make, it doesn't change the cold hard secular fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting Dr. Moreau's "Study". You have not provided any. All you have, in the end, are bold claims, and a politician named Peter Bowen who props up a "study" that panders to his base. As much as you twist and moan, it does not change the fact that the medical community by and large fail to even recognize Dr. Moreau's study, nor does it invalidate the alternative theories, rooted entirely in secular, empirical evidence, that BV tends to be the primary cause of premature births. Impartiality to the secular facts will not stand. I do not argue against this "study" because I am on some "pro-choice" side of the debate. I object to the "study" because it is a bad argument, based upon bad science, propped up by a politician with a clear agenda, and unrecognized by the vast majority of the medical community. I have as much apathy for illogical arguments from the left as I do from the right. But alas, balance has been found. The "study" WILL be flagged as inconclusive and the name of the source WILL be listed, and the alternative secular, non-biased, physically proven alternative that BV is the primary cause of Premature Births will be listed. user:Lucavix

Unless your from the BJOG, or have a inside track there, the above is an insult. "Fact(s)", "empirical/secular evidence", saying those things does not make them materialize. I haven't said the alternative is invalid, I want actual studies to clarify how much of a factor it is; the current reference has a few non-specific sentences on the subject and calls for more research, hardly robust "empirical/secular" evidence. And I love the reversal that it is we who are making bold claims. The section was worded strongly before; you have tweaked strongly in another direction... which is fine so long as its properly supported. I'm rapidly losing my assumption your working in good faith and assertions this is how it will remain is curious. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Everyone. REWIND.

We are not here to discuss truth.

Let me repeat.

We are not in the position to dictate what is true. Got it? Not you, not me, not little Freddie down on the corner.

We are not in the position to criticize the Peer Review journal for publishing something we think is crock. We are not in the position to applaude them for publishing something we agree with.

We are not here to take sides.

We are here to write an article. We write the article by providing sources. We write the article by summarizes and reporting the hard work and research of others.

Wikipedia is not the collection of religious truth, nor is it the collection of secular truth.

It is an encyclopedia.

--Tznkai 23:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The physical, secular facts remain "truth" regardless of how the human mind twists and skews them. This is not a matter of some god's word, this is a matter of what the unflinching, impartial, secular realities are. At least, that's what this is about for me. user:lucavix

I suggest you read WP:NPOV WP:NOT for a quick read on what Wikipedia is about then sir. Your input is welcomed, but it must be tempered by the unified direction we share.--Tznkai 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm all for being fair, but this article is Biased and anything but Neutral. It has been edited to make it fair, and it will remain edited. Moreover, providing FACTS shouldn't be viewed as some kind of biased attack. The fact that the "study" is inconclusive is evidenced in the fact that the medical community by and large does not recognize it, which is evidenced in some of the html hidden links in the altered and corrected version. Also the SOURCE of the information will remain. Lastly the Factual Alternative that BV is the primary cause of premature birth will also remain. None of these things are biased, and all of these things remain factual. You seem to be suggesting that impartial secular facts are somehow biased. user:lucavix

My problem is we have yet to see the evidence BV is the primary cause, those are your words. Just point us to the scientific evidence for that position. Your reference is short, and vague, and calls for more research. That indicates to me the BV needs to be toned down as a possibility, not the likely alternative. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a little perspective. 1. Not one of us is in the position to dictate what the article Shall Be. 2. In the short time I have been editing this article (oh, about three months) I have seen it been accused by a lot of people for diffrent reasons for being biased. Those usually came in two types. Strong point of view persons who were willing to work with everyone else, and strong point of view people who wanted people they disagreed with kicked out of the article. I think I can speak for most of the abortion article regulars when I say we are not duly impressed by people throwing around their weight on what the truth is, and what facts are without atleast the willingness to discuss and do the needed homework.--Tznkai 00:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has been edited to be nonbiased. The article will remain edited. Minor modifications can be made, however it must remain nonbiased. I have violated no rules. I have only sought to enforce the rules. The current version will remain with the amendments made. This is nonnegotiable. Where you stand on this issue is clear, but the bias of the article has been neutralized, and will remain so. user:lucavix

Attempts to maintain a "pro-life" bias in the article are futile. Neutral and fair amendments will remain despite attempts to censor out the name of the source and limit the obvious notation of the fact that the topic is controversial.

Attempts to strong arm the situation will be equally futile. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It always amuses me when I'm accused of being pro life. 214 could probably provide plenty of evidence I am not.--Tznkai 00:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically it means we are doing something right; even though we did miss that clarification initially; too bad, I'm usually more careful than that... could have been fixed quick if somebody hadn't been so fixated on discrediting the entire study without sources. But the current version might not be right either, as the 10% and 15% might not reflect France rates. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai you are violating the article to push a prolife agenda, you must at least leave in the name of the source. If you continue to be abusive you will be reported. I am not strongarming, the rules favor me in this. You have abused the rules to push your anti-abortion agenda long enough, the bias of the article will be neutralized.

If abusive equals asking for properly sourced claims; then I'll put on a wife beater and take out my belt. This kind of brow beating might work in the classroom, but will get you nowhere and frustrated very fast on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate you're not enjoying your stay; because we can certainly use people with your intelligence and expertise... but the attitude can stand a little reverting. LOL! Whew... there was some bad jokes in there; exactly what I needed for a little release. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly removing the name of the source, one Dr. Caroline Moreau, is abusive. No reason has even been given for this, it's as if Tznkai is doing just to snub his or her nose. There is nothing Biased about revealing the source of the study. And by the way is it biased to say that a subject that has sparked so much controversy is controversial? Tznkai has removed the point that the study is controversial as well, why? It can't be to maintain a standard of fairness and impartiality. Look, all I want is to KEEP IT IMPARTIAL I have a HUGE problem with how it was initially presented and I also have a huge problem with the idea that a source should be hidden, What is Tznkai trying to hide about Dr. Caroline Moreau?