Talk:Abortion/Archive 15

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Holiday Season reminder

Its the holiday season everyone. People are doing Xmas shopping, some are Kwanzaaing. Some decide to sacrifice goats at the solitice. Whatever. Family and friends take precedence. Everyone *please* be polite and courteous and give extra time for people to voice their opinions and thoughts.--Tznkai 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

fetus, embryo, and humanesss

We have an intresting piece of polling data here: Scientifically (not morally), what is a fetus or embryo?

A - A collection of tissue, not a human (40.9%)
B - A collection of tissue, somewhat similar to a human (4.54%)
C - A collection of tissue, very much like a human, but not yet a human (22.7%)
D - A collection of tissue, wholly human (31.8%)

The oustanding discussion is: "Does this data suggest that we need to inform the reader, on this article, that an embryo/fetus is a unique human gentically, as opposed to literally, a mass of tissue that is part of the mother? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tznkai (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 December 2005.

I think it's fairly clear (and apparent to anyone who has their finger on the pulse of the average reader's understanding on the subject). We strive here to be NPOV, and yet the opening sentence by its very nature leans towards the POV of Pro-Choice by (trying to or not) clouding the fact that the fetus/embryo is human (some say human being, others say drop the word "being" because it implies personhood, and then they're fine with it). So rather than clutter this up over the meaning of the word "being", a compromise is available, and rather than say "unborn human being, known as an embryo or fetus" just say the words "unborn human, known as an embryo or fetus". This avoids a debate over personhood, and still clears the matter up and makes the opening sentence easy to understand by simplifying the scientific terms for the average person to easily understand (so they don't have to look up the meaning of every single word they don't understand). After all, this isn't a medical journal, it's an encyclopedia, made to be scientifically correct, with sufficient technical information, yet easy enough to read so the average person can get a basic understanding of a subject. Barwick 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If your answer is A or B or C or D you have missed the main point of being human. A dog or a cat is aware. A human is aware that they are aware and this crucial difference is not easily tested except by communication. Thus, those as yet unborn have not been tested for this essential element which seperates humanity from other living things. Terryeo

But that's stupid. If that's your criteria for 'human' status, babies and many children are not human. Nor are many people with learning disabilities. Skittle 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly clear you do not have the pulse of an encyclopedic article. Abortion in its most basic definition is about the abortion of a fetus, not a human fetus, not a human, not a human being. Inserting that there is unnecessary, illogical and this has been discussed before. The sentence is NPOV. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What I'm prepared to do is add "of a human fetus." to the common parlance sentence... also I'd like to merge the last sentence of the intro with the previous paragraph... simply for aesthetic purposes. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So changing the sentence to: In common parlance, the term "abortion" is synonymous with induced abortion of a human fetus. I think that is fine. As I have argued here before, RoyBoy is correct that abortion technically is not an excusively human phenomenon, so changing the opening sentence is incorrect. -Parallel or Together ? 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of a reason this would harm the article, although not everyone will agree that it has solved the problem. Sentance has been inserted. --Tznkai 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This does nothing. It goes without saying that it's discussing abortion in a human. Saying "of a human fetus" accomplishes NOTHING besides redundancy. I could say the same thing about [Amputation] in humans, and say "of a human big toe", and we'd say "no kidding" on the basis that a big toe is PART of the person. An embryo/fetus is NOT a part of its mother, it is a wholly separate human being (and I've already said we can drop the word "being" to prevent an argument over the matter). A fetus IS in fact an "Unborn human". If you can find me ONE (non-crackpot) scientist that will come out and deny (with good scientific data) that a fetus/embryo is not an unborn human at the blastocyst stage (I'd argue earlier, but we'll go with that one, and considering most abortions don't happen within 5 days of fertilization, it's a moot point anyhow), I'd fall out of my chair. Barwick 17:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The opening sentence is already a compromise. This article has been going a lot longer than you've been here, and even longer than I have been here, too. The intro is a blanket paragraph intended to be a summation of all types of abortion: animal, human, natural, induced. There is already another sentence, after that, which clarifies that the rest of this article deals with abortion in humans. Unsourced polls prove little, Barwick, even if this were a true issue of contention. The current version is concise, correct, NPOV and reader-friendly. It's taken a lot of editors a lot of effort to get to this point. Let's not mess with that. -Kyd 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with something Tznkai said in the last round, which basically was that you'd have to be fairly dense to not realize that we're talking about human fetus's here and to add that is leading the reader around by the nose (not to mention redundant.) And tempting as it is to compromise to stop the revert/edit warring, I don't think that's a good idea because it smacks of pacification and attrition of accuracy and good writing. However, I don't disagree strongly enough to pull the (highly unecessary but minor) addition. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I put a premium on peace over victory on wikis--Tznkai 13:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of this poll data? The correct answer is A. A fetus isn't a human. A fetus is human, just like my toe is human, but it's not a human. See the difference? Anyway, I find the poll to be poorly worded, and the various shades of meaning make it almost worthless. Besides, science is not a democracy ... what's true is true, and it doesn't matter what the general public thinks on the matter. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. Here comes someone on here claiming that a fetus isn't human on the basis that "my big toe is human"... apparently he hasn't read the archived discussions on this. My kidney is human too, and so is my left pinky finger, yet I can live without either of them, but they cannot live without me. In much the same way, a fetus/embryo is COMPLETELY human in every single way, he/she (we can say he/she because it's already a definite sex, male or female) requires nothing to be added unto it by anyone else, save nutrition and protection from its mother. Some come on here and claim "well yeah, he/she needs mom to live", which is a completely asinine argument, because on the same basis, my two-year old daughter needs me and my wife to live.

You're about as dense as a clump of matter held up solely by electron degeneracy. I said not a human. Your statement "Here comes someone on here claiming that a fetus isn't human" is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. What is so hard to understand about my position. I'm saying that yes, of course a fetus is human in the same sense that my toe is human. But it's not a human being. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This argument is about as poor as the person who claimed to come on here saying that a human embryo is similar to a starfish embryo because they display O2/O3 symmetry early on. To which I refrained from replying (but will here): The next time a starfish embryo turns into a human, you let me know. Barwick 17:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You two are both getting off topic. Here is a simple scientific fact: An embryo/fetus, within the gravida, is of the same species of the gravida, and is a seperate organism within the same species. (barring speciation anyway, but we can discuss chicken and eggs another day). Is there a singificant misunderstanding in the english speaking public (our readers) that we need to correct within the abortion article? Stay on track!--Tznkai 19:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether there is a material understanding in the average reader that we need to correct.--Tznkai 13:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what the poll is dealing with and the question you’re trying to answer with it have subtle differences. The poll doesn't say if it means different genetically or different in terms of independence or in terms human-ness. “Scientifically, is an embryo a human” isn’t a scientific question at all. Any scientist would respond, how do you define “a human?” By intelligence, by unique DNA, by a unique blood-system, by the ability to sense pain, by the development of its brain, by conscious actions, by ability to be self-sustaining? Etc., etc. It’s like asking, “Scientifically, is a tomato a vegetable?” Well, there’s not an answer to that because vegetable is not defined scientifically. So, while interesting, I don’t think this poll gives us information about any material misunderstanding that would require changes in the article. --Quasipalm 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly a fair criticism of the polling data, but I am intrested in your answer to the question as well, is there a material misunderstanding that needs to be corrected (by us, in this article) or do we let fetus take care of that?--Tznkai 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I say let fetus take care of it. To talk about the issues surrounding the development of a fetus into a human, or as some might say the development of a fetus as a human, is a huge undertaking with scientific, moral, societal, and practical considerations. This is because the word "human" has varying scientific, moral, societal, and practical definitions, depending on the context. If abortion should attempt to answer these questions, you could argue that birth and conception and quickening should also, since these are also events that occure during pregnancy. It's easiest to contain these discussion in noun articles, rather than verb articles. :-) --Quasipalm 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Quasipalm. fetus is linked. Anyone who can read "fetus", read "Any female mammal can experience abortion, however this article focuses exclusively on abortion in women", and now also the completely redundant and unecessary addition of "In common parlance, the term "abortion" is synonymous with induced abortion of a human fetus." which IMHO should be removed, and still not figue this out is too moronic to help and needs to go to the Simple English version of Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If the rest concur, I'd suggest Barwick take it to abortion debate and work on an edit to the terminolgy discussion.--Tznkai 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, and KillerChihuahua is right about the common parlance sentence. I don't have a problem with the addition (see above), but it is a bit unnecessary given the later disclaimer about the article being about human abortion. Especially given the continued objections (below). If you give a mouse a cookie... -Parallel or Together ? 04:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts; an abortion is the termination, or killing (for it is, even if one does not recognize it as a human being - it is still living), of a fetus. Whether it is a human being or not, it is still correctly called a fetus - and that is the best NPOV approach, and also the best one to avoid constant edit wars. The article does NOT currently say it is a lump of flesh, a part of the mother, or alternatively that it is a human being; it is up to the reader to decide that. And that is precisely what the "Abortion Debate" section refers to - that there is a great deal of debate and disagreement on what the exact state of a fetus is amongst the general population. We are not going to reach a consensus here amongst ten or so editors - so let's just use medical terminology (which seems cold, but does avoid debate by refraining from defining a moral state of being), make sure the debate section clearly defines the lines drawn and the arguments on both sides, and leave it at that.

On a more personal note - a few people here (it should be obvious from the preceding) need to watch insults, comments meant to belittle other's points of view or the seriousness and personal nature of this topic. Please act like mature contributors to the discussion, or the reality is no one will pay attention to your points when decisions are made, as it becomes obvious that the topic is not being taken seriously.DonaNobisPacem 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Word. --Quasipalm 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've done every single thing you guys have asked for on here. I came in and proposed that we change the intro topic (reasons are found in the archive if you wish) to say "resulting in the death of an unborn human being, known as a fetus or embryo". Most on here said "Of course it's human, but the word 'being' implies personhood, drop it and it's ok", I disagreed for a while and in the interest of settling the matter, offered to say "unborn human ~~being~~, known as..." (drop the word being), and THEN people come in and say "NO, we're not going to have that either..." claiming that it's unnecessary because they claimed "the average person understands a fetus is a human", I disagreed and people said "prove it and we'll change it". I proved it, and NOW they're STILL saying "NO, we're not going to change it". Is THIS how it works on here? Simply because I'm the only solid pro-life person on here, and I want the opening sentence to be a BALANCED presentation of the facts (and not cloud them behind scientific terms), does NOT change the facts.

If we are seriously interested in being NPOV in this article (which sure doesn't seem like the case, but at any rate...) then the intro sentence as it stands needs modification. It is obviously written for one of two things:

To further the pro-choice viewpoint by clouding the fact that abortion kills a unique human life, OR
Being written for a medical journal

The former does not belong on Wikipedia, and the latter is a bit too advanced for an encyclopedia. Either way, regardless of the "general feeling" on here (this is not a democracy), the average reader would best be served by the words "...resulting in the death of an unborn human, known as an embryo or fetus". This would do the following:

Remove the POV bias from the introductory article
Encourage Pro-Life readers to read the entire page instead of blowing it off as a "Pro-Choice biased page"
Make the introductory sentence much easier to read by:

Summarizing the misunderstood scientific words (fetus and embryo) in the first sentence
For a person who's heard very little about the abortion debate, it presents a summary definition of words that are at first complex-sounding to them

It also encourages people to continue reading the page, because they realize it's not going to be filled with scientific words that they don't understand, but is rather written so that the average person can easily understand it, yet is also filled with enough scientific facts and links that they can research the matter further. Barwick 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion technically is not an excusively human phenomenon, so changing the opening sentence is incorrect. -Parallel or Together ? 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't start this again, this has been gone over multiple times... nobody is coming on here to learn about abortion in pigs, or horses, or dolphins, or anything else, and you know it. Saying so is simply trying to take the focus off of the matter at hand, please don't do it. Barwick 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We are all aware of that, hence the article focuses on that subject. It in no way changes what "abortion" actually means. Please consult a dictionary and stop wasting our time. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just in case Barwick doesn't have a dictionary at hand, here's the entry from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation —compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy —see CONTAGIOUS ABORTION, TRICHOMONIASIS b, VIBRIONIC ABORTION

2 : arrest of development of an organ so that it remains imperfect or is absorbed

3 : the arrest of a disease in its earliest stage <abortion of a cold>

As you can see (I am about to "start this again") abortion technically is not an excusively human phenomenon, so changing the opening sentence is incorrect. The intro to the article already makes it painstakingly obvious that the article will deal only with abortion in humans. The first sentence, which defines abortion, must do exactly that. -Parallel or Together ? 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't argue the points I made, so you resort to a dictionary attack? This is getting pathetic. First of all, a Dictionary, in interest of being concise, does not have the space to differentiate between human and non-human pregnancy. But if you really want to continue with the "ignoring the facts I've brought up and instead grasping at straws"... then here, I'll use your same tactics:

Verb - to stop the development of a baby that has not been born, usually by having a medical operation (FreeSearch British Dictionary)

How's about we use THAT one?

This is seriously getting ridiculous, would you PLEASE bother to address the points I brought up? None of this grasping at straws trying to distract everyone from the points mentioned above, most notably that the introductory sentence is highly POV. Anyone pro-life who comes across this page will read the introductory sentence and immediately be turned off by the article. It's not even neutral. Here, you want to see what different intro articles would look like?

Pro Choice POV - "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or fetus.
Neutral, NPOV - "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an unborn human, known as an embryo or fetus"
Pro Life POV - "An Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by killing an unborn human being, referred to as an embryo or fetus"

I've already written plenty of reasoning behind this, and nobody has addresed any of those points beyond "well technically, if we're talking about my aunt's neighbor's sister's dog's former owner's cousin's daughter who's looking up an abortion for her goldfish, then you're wrong". Face the facts presented, and let's fix the current POV intro sentence. Barwick 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think my point about the definition not being restricted to humans is valid. You also said that a dictionary entry has to be concise and can't differentiate between human and non-human pregnancy which shows me that (1) you understand that abortions can occur in other mammals, (2) that you did not read that part of the definition I provided which did in fact specifically differentiate between humans in parts (a) and (b) and animals in part (c). By the way, your dicdef includes the word "baby", which doesn't necessarily always mean human (the definition includes animal infants). You are right that quibbling over specific dictionary definitions really isn't the point, though. I understand your point that people will come to the article to investigate the abortion of human fetuses. That doesn't mean that in the first sentence we have to lie to them by making a statement that is demonstrably false. I don't see how making a factually accurate statement is pro-choice biased. I do see how limiting the definition of "abortion" to only humans is factually inaccurate and therefore serves neither side. -Parallel or Together ? 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly degenerating (again) off topic. In my analysis, ignoring all statments which violate WP:CIVILITY specificly, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, we have a single editor voicing the opinion that the opening statement is innacurate and POV. This has been strenously disagreed with by the opposing parties.

This had the potential to be a constructive discussion. It has failed to be. Barwick, you have to understand that no matter how many hoops you think you're jumping through, that doesn't mean we think you are correct. There has been significant time spent on adequate research disagreeing and categorically refuting your points. Whether or not you agree with the conclusion, apply good faith and understand that they sincerly belive what it is they are saying. Wikipedia articles are not islands. To remain consistent with the entire encylopedia, we apply the same standards, putting a premium on accuracy, neutrality, and readability by the average idiot, approximatly in that order.

To echo DonaNobisPacem, the rest of you could have erred on the side of restraint as well. Barwick is new, the rest of you do not have that excuse. I will not go into an exhaustive listing of attacks, as that is counter to my view on discussion pages.

The current statement is factually accurate. The openning paragraph, while not perfect prose, is accurate. There is no clear bias as written, and abortion by nature, suffers from systemic percieved bias, as the choice of terminology and personal views confound the issue. This is addressed in this article! This is a serious subject for serious minds. This is not a battleground.

This discussion has reached the end of its useful life. We have an attempted compromise in place, and we have degenerated into discussions on wiki-philosphy. If you wish to continue that discussion, take it to the public pump, #wikipedia, or somewhere else. We have an article to imrpove here. Self-induced abortion, unsafe abortion, and the suggested health effects are serious problems around the world that deserve to have a neutral and accurate article that addresses them. The politically charged atomosphere here has successfully distracted us all from the goal at hand. It is not about victory over the other side, for whatever reason (they are wrong, fanatical/souless, etc), but that Abortion is a serious intersection of tragedy between countless evils. In my home state of Michigan, misinformation from planned parenthood, pregnancy crisis centers, and the advocacy machinery drove two confused teenagers to assault. The boy beat up his willing girlfriend with repeated blunt force trauma to her abdomen to attempt an abortion. When he succeded, a judge had to seperate two high school sweethearts when the D.A charged the boy with assault in an attempt that was widely accepted as an effort for political gain and to avoid abortion legal mines. An officer of the law, manipulating the law to prosecute a tragedy of accident, misinformation, and the fear of teenagers in love.

The point of that, is that this is not about being right. This is not saying that the law should've been clear to allow/disallow the kids to do what they did. Misinformation caused a travesty to erupt from tragedy. There is nothing good here. We can all agree that this situation should never have happened. We can do our small part to remove the disinformation in the world. We can't do it by bickering.

Get your ass in gear people.--Tznkai 07:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai is right. For my part, I apologize if I have added anything uncivil or off-topic. The issue has been thoroughly dealt with here and there are other things we should be focusing on to improve the article. I hope that Barwick continues to be active on this page and wikipedia in general. -Parallel or Together ? 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said, as usual. Introducing POV to the article isn't going to make reading it a better, or clearer, experience. Some people object to the presence of the word "death," but consensus has succeeded in quashing the issue, and few, with the exception of newbies unfamiliar with the established consensus here, push it. Hopefully, Barwick will learn the ropes (so far, is cooperative, doesn't start edit wars, and tries to work with everyone, although the logical fallacies and odd analogies [1] do get tiring the third time around). Good luck. -Kyd 13:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, so in the interest of "absolute, 100% accuracy for the one in a billion person who comes on here to research abortion in their dog", we're going to throw out all the reasons I mentioned above. This is a prime example of ignoring 99,999,999 people so that you satisfy the last person left. It's exactly what's going on in society today, look some of the large retailers in the US, selling "holiday" trees now instead of Christmas trees, so they don't "offend" someone (thankfully some of them stopped doing this lately when people stood up and said "that's stupid"). If that's what you all wish to do, then fine, so be it. I don't really see much point in bothering to spend my time at a place where we're going to offend 99,999,999 so we can make 1 feel included. Barwick 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Offend? Who would be offended by our accurate description of abortion? And why is "Holiday" a bad word, when indeed its 2nd definition is "holy day"; and actually is used to include others in the festivities who, god forbid, don't celebrate Christmas. I guess when people perceive a loss of influence they get upset and start focusing on weird stuff. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about offending, its about material, factual accuracy, and it neatly dovetails into neutrality of position and prose. As a side note, Holiday Trees may be an invention of political correctness, but Happy Holiday's was probably first used by Christians to refer to Christmas and New Years. For more of Tznkai's useless trivia, take it to his talk page. Everyone else, Happy December vacation period for those who get it. Now back to article writing.--Tznkai 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to my father, "Xmas" isn't an attempt to take the "Christ" out of "Christmas." The Greeks used the letter chi (X) as shorthand for Christ, so Xmas predates "Happy Holidays" and political correctness by a couple of millenia. And, FYI, there is more than one Holiday (Christmas, itself, could be divided into many: Christian, secular, consumerist -- even among those there are variations), so in this sense the anti-PC War Against Happy Holidays is as silly as the PC War Against Christmas. I disgress. -Kyd 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Focus now, people. Phrases that should not come into play on this talk page ever again:

It's exactly what's going on in society today...
As a side note, Holiday Trees may be an invention of...
Logic question - Have you ever bit your...
Well technically, if we're talking about my aunt's neighbor's sister's dog's former owner's cousin's daughter who's looking up...

I think we'd get futher if Barwick acknowledged that we understand and appreciate his points, but simply find them unconvincing in the context of Wikipedia. Reasonable people can disagree. It's time to move on. --Quasipalm 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

wrongfull abortion/medical misconduct

Is there sufficient evidence that wrongful abortion occurs frequently, and/or there are common complaints of medical misconduct in suggesting abortions.

Polling Data

Lets start over. Someone dig up the newest polling data available and lets work on it. And/or someone can pull out some stuff from archives.

That is the latest polling data for the U.S. We've updated it. -Kyd 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on Archiving

For simplicity and in an effort to restore some civility to these discussions, I've mass archived everything, then I am restoring summations of the outstanding discussions. Everything is in archive 14 if you want to grab it back.--Tznkai 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Next on the Agenda: Unsafe Abortion

On December 15, 2005 I outlined plans to add a section on unsafe abortion (or illegal abortion, although not all unsafe abortions are illegal, and thus the general title), which are now in Archive 14 under the thread title "Coat hangar abortion":

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)

Which of these two formats would you prefer? Dona exhorted us to be careful in choosing our sources, to avoid bias, and KillerChihuahua has also unearthed several sources while rooting around in the backyard, which may prove useful to this section (assessments are Chihuahua's, Nov. 15, 2005, see Archive 13, thread "Change to 'Health Risks'"):

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

From NIH PubMed:

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

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

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

My second "keep" nominee:

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

Also, there were these, with stats on mortality rates:

-Kyd 05:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between using a knitting needle to try to abort yourself in the 1700's and using a coathanger in the 1900s, and unsafe concoctions of herbs haven't changed in about 2000 - 3000 years. IMHO, we should not split. We could put in a line to state the do-it-yourself and back-alley have been around a while, but I see no need for seperate sections. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How about simply slotting in unsafe abortion under "other methods" and "health effects" expanding the sentances already made. I believe there is also a subarticle on them.--Tznkai 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, see Self-induced abortion. We need to find a way to organize everything properly.--Tznkai 19:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Should it go under "health effects"? I wouldn't want to think of "unsafe abortion" as being an actual method of abortion. But, apart from that, self-abortion, unsafe abortion, and/or illegal abortion might best be discussed within the context of the health effects they pose. -Kyd 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's a first draft:

Where and when access to safe abortion has been barred, due to explicit sanctions or general unavailability, women seeking to terminate their pregnancies have sometimes resorted to unsafe methods.

"Back-alley abortion" is a slang term for any abortion not practiced under ideal conditions of sanitation and professionalism. The World Health Organization defines an unsafe abortion as being, "a procedure...carried out by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both." [2] This includes a person without medical training, a professional health provider operating in sub-standard conditions, or the woman herself. A few reported methods of such self-induced abortion are the misuse of the ulcer drug Misoprostol, abdominal massage and trauma, and the insertion of non-surgical implements such as knitting needles and clothes hangers into the uterus.

Unsafe abortion remains a concern today due to the higher incidence and severity of its associated complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, haemorrhage, and damage to internal organs. The World Health Organization estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world anually and that 68,000 of these result in death. [3]

Good? I used the self-induced abortion article and the WHO report as primary sources. Do we need to cite pre-Roe US numbers on unsafe abortion? How about using some of the regional studies that KC found? Or would that be an example of source bloat? -Kyd 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. The availability of further sources is good but I'm not sure we need them all yet. Also, I went ahead and fixed a typo in your text. Alienus 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Health risks, reopened by Goodandevil

It seems appropriate that this section would also include discussion of "safe legal" abortions that end up killing or maiming the mother, or that do not go as planned and end up with a live baby who has been harmed by the process. Also, the danger that quacks and the worst doctors often end up as abortionists - and that often they do a disproportionate amount of the abortions in poor neighborhoods in clinics that are usually regulated less than veterinary clinics. After all, unsafe abortion is unsafe abortion, Goodandevil 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please WP:CITE if you expect any of that to be included. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Botched_Abortion/ lists several hundred women who have died while undergoing a "safe and legal" abortion. The website cites independent sources for the information. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-G-1a-uterine.html also lists independent sources that discuss uterine damage during abortion. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-G-1-risks.html highlights a prominent abortionist who discusses how dangerous every abortion is. THats just a start. 84.146.215.222 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to find an unbiased, verifiable source - say a study from PubMed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 20

December 2005 (UTC)

Brought from Archive 13 If you compare death world-wide to maternity deaths overall (which is 4%), to legal abortions in highly developed countries, (which is less than 1%) it makes for a nice biased spin for pro-choice. If you go apples against apples, though, guess what? Abortion carries a slightly higher risk of maternal mortality.

WHO reports on all maternal deaths in a combined report: [4] see table page 17. Please note that unsafe abortion is listed, safe is not.

Haemmorage 25%

Indirect causes 20%

Sepsis 15%

Unsafe abortion 13%

Eclampsia 12%

Obstructed labor 8%

Other direct causes 8%

Worldwide, the risk of maternal death is 4%. In industrialized nations the risk is .1% UNICEF Maternal mortality

Comparing to other minor surgical procedures:

laparoscopic gastric bypass operations 2% mortality (that's death rate for stomach stapling, btw)

1.8% mortality after surgery for acute appendicitis

Source: SMTD

Less than 1% mortality rate for legal abortions since 1988 (see table 19)

Source: CDC

Conclusion: In industrialized countries, legal abortion carries a risk of less than 1%. Full term delivery carries a risk of .1%. Acute appendicitis surgery has a mortality rate of 1.8%. Laparoscopic gastric bypass operations ("stomach stapling") carries a risk of mortality of 2%. The risk increases as the quality of surgical care decreases. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable for us to just find some statistics on mortality and insert them, leaving "discussion" to the reader and relivant sub articles. We already have a framework for the dangerous of legal procedures, and we're also addressing whats called unsafe abortion, as a technical term.--Tznkai 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just punched in "abortion mortality" on Google - at the [PubMed] site, the rates are pretty low based on US Centre for Disease Control - between 1972 and 1987, 240 deaths in US from legal abortion, 88 from illegal. However, there is reported evidence to suggest these numbers are much higher than reported by the CDC - in 1978, an investigative report for the Chicago Sun-Times showed 12 abortion related deaths in one year that were not reported (Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick, "The Abortion Profiteers," Chicago Sun-Times, special reprint 3 December 1978 (original publication 12 November, 1978)). There are other investigations that point to the same, up to the current day. Anotherwards - if we cite CDC statistics, as is commonly done, it would be prudent (I think) to indicate that there is evidence to show these numbers are much higher than reported, with credible sources linked.

An interesting (and seemingly NPOV) commentary with citations of some numbers for both illegal and legal abortions prior to Roe vs Wade was at [Straight Dope], written by Cecil Adams. Interestingly, it does indicate the numbers of deaths due to illegal abortions could have been as high as 6800/year in 1940, but dropped significantly by 1972, before the Roe vs. Wade ruling (could have been as low as 39 deaths, according to CDC stats).DonaNobisPacem 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Very possibly due to the birth control pill becoming available. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion#Breast_cancer

I found the rewrite by Kyd confuses rather than clarifies the ABC issue. Kyd removed mentions of positive studies and controversy, and inserted further studies rebutting the hypothesis; also adding mentions of miscarriage which is a minor issue on this subject and lastly isolates Brind as the sole voice in the wilderness. (I'm not saying that was intentional, and yeah, I see the word Others... but to say he's the one doing all the critiquing is to weakly imply, he's the ONLY one actually doing the critiquing) Which is misleading, my version specified Brind as the leading advocate of ABC and critic (of a specific study); there others who are ofters that critique ABC studies generally and even the Denmark study in question. "Refute" is also a strong word; and I don't care for it. Kyd obviously spent some time on it, so I didn't revert it all... but I did tweak it quite a bit; frankly I'm still tempted revert back to my version. Actually now that I think about it, refute is gone. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just added Howe to the mix. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already said this in the past, but I'll do it again; I want to avoid trying to get people to conclude one way or another on the ABC issue from a short overview. And force them to read the sub-article. It's very difficult here to provide the details which are necessary. For example the Denmark study doesn't use controls to account for increasing breast cancer rates over the years. (too expensive for a data set of this size) As a result, they lump all the confounding factors together (they have no choice, otherwise they would need specific Denmark studies on every single confounding factor to eliminate it individual, they don't cite any in their study)... in order to account for the increase in breast cancer rates over the decades. Of course in doing that; there is no way to know if they removed any potential increase from abortion over those years (as they have removed all birth-cohort rate differences, which increase as society modernizes, as a result of *confounding factors*). All that is difficult to relate in the breast cancer sub-section without bloating the abortion article; nor should it be there in the first place. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The original version [5] of the ABC section was tagged (by Tznkai?) thus:

"This section needs to be rewritten. It doesn't sound as if 'ABC hypothesis' actually carries any weight in real scientific circles, yet the lead paragraph all goes on about it without discussing the objections."

The tag was present for months. So, I rewrote it. Explain the hypothesis and discuss the evidence. It was difficult, though, because most of the research is either against ABC or inconclusive. The fact that this subject has more to do with politics and less to do with science makes it even harder to cover (Why does miscarriage never factor into the public health campaign? Sure, one can't choose to have a miscarriage, but, at least, a "If you've had a miscarriage, have a mammogram" message would be warranted, if pregnancy interruption is a risk).

As for removing mention of "positive" studies, is this to what you're referring?

"The majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and some have been demonstrated to be statistically significant, but there remains debate as to their reliability because of possible response bias."

What interview-based studies? We need a clear source. Nor was was there a source on NCI (that took an hour to find — alone). As for Howe, I'm with Tznkai -- newer is better, and 1989 is a long time ago in the world of science. Not moot, perhaps, but it certainly shouldn't be mentioned before two much newer studies (1997 and 2003).

You remember in high school, when the debate teacher made you argue in support of one thing, when you were actually against it? Now, imagine it's science class, and the debate is heliocentrism versus geocentrism, and you're forced to defend the latter. Agh! -Kyd 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin. For the NCI link you could have merely checked the Abortion-breast_cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis#NCI_workshop! If you want a few interview based studies you also find that in the ABC article; and/or consult Brind's meta-analysis which you cite; or you could have asked me. The lack of cites here was a conscious decision on my part... the easiest thing is to simply cite Brind's analysis.

I entirely agree it has more to do about politics and science, but of course you should realize that cuts both ways. I already spent months on this issue, and the fact its called "hypothesis" (rather than theory, or even link) I think accurately portrays its status in the scientific community. Simply put for negative results you cite, I can bring up positive and indeed ambiguous results; I simply think you didn't care to look hard enough for positive results; and/or are a little misguided on what constitutes good research. That was illustrated by the 1.5 million women mention (yes all the news org's and Planned Parenthood and even the researchers themselves trumpet the number); but it has no scientific value, as its the women who actually have breast cancer who are pertinent to the studies findings.

Yes newer studies a typically more robust than much older ones (1989 is old, but not really old... keep in mind epidemiology is far more established than say genetic research), so that's lazy thinking even though I agree with it. For example in Abortion-breast_cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis#Spontaneous_abortion I cite a study from 1976, I go onto cite one from 1993 because I know the newer is better attitude is out there and I've encountered it before by fervent pro-choicers fed up with pro-life pseudoscience. My point is the 1993 study isn't necessary; because good research is good research, whether its 5 or 25 years old. In summation, you didn't have to reinvent the wheel Kyd. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and epidemiology doesn't lend itself to "heliocentrism versus geocentrism" analogies. Not sure where you were even going with that; but I could take a guess and tell you my story. I thought the ABC link was pro-life tactic with the disingenuous and biased Brind in the lead. However, when I came across this article and confirmed how poor her research was it forced me to re-evaluate the situation on the evidence and scientific debate alone, and I was surprised at my findings. The public support ABC has in the scientific community is essentially nil, but I'd maintain that has more to do with politics than the actual science; and I wanted Wikipedia to focus on the science. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, you're not happy. Whoever posted that tag wasn't happy with the original version, and the article is undergoing a make-over, so it has to be covered. If you want it done differently, do it yourself. I through here. -Kyd 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:"( - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just make sure the new version distinguishes between correlation and causation (Yes, I actually read people's user pages, particularly their Babel boxes). -Kyd 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That was me trying to break the ice with humour, BTW. :-) -Kyd 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't leave!!! X"( <--- RoyBoy crying! Man 'o man, I've dog gone and done it now. Humour, I'm a funny guy... ummmm... what do you get when you mix a few months of journal research with Wikipedia, an overbearing know-it-all jerk to people who want to help named RoyBoy. :"D

Sound advice, but in keeping with my overbearing posts on this matter which have not helped Kyd stay in the least *sigh*, I would point this section out in the ABC article:

A later study in 1987 [6] further explained their previous findings. After differentiation of the mammary gland at the time of first full-term pregnancy of the rat, the rate of cell division decreases and length of the cell cycle increases, allowing more time for DNA repair. [7]

While indeed positive ABC studies indicate only a correlation; the above is a scientifically sound causative mechanism for breast cancer (as abortion and even preterm delivery [8] do not allow full differentiation). Of course, the matter is further complicated by how much of an increase it comes to anyway. If its less than 30% for most women (who have abortions before 12 weeks), is it even worth mentioning? Most people (epidemiologists and scientists) think not, and I'd agree with them so long as we don't overstep ourselves and say, there is absolutely no ABC correlation. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly territorial. Edit wars, among other things, put me in a defensive mood. But, it's probably better writing with more user input, rather than going it alone. -Kyd 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of ABC section

New Kyd version:

The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or ABC for short, is a controversial hypothesis which posits a causal relationship between having an 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]

Old RoyBoy version:

The controversial abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis posits an association between having an abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer. The proposed mechanism is based on the increased estrogen levels found during early pregnancy, which initiate cellular differentiation (growth) in the breast in preparation for lactation. The ABC hypothesis states that if the pregnancy is aborted before full differentiation in the third trimester, then more "vulnerable" undifferentiated cells would be left than prior to the pregnancy, resulting in an elevated risk of breast cancer. The majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and some have been demonstrated to be statistically significant, but there remains debate as to their reliability because of possible response bias.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), it is "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." Those findings have been disputed by Dr. Joel Brind, a leading scientific advocate of the ABC hypothesis. Nevertheless, gaps and inconsistencies remain in the research as the "ABC link" continues to be a politicized issue.

New version collaboration

The controversial abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis posits a causal relationship between having an induced abortion and a higher risk of developing breast cancer in the future. An increased level of estrogen in early pregnancy helps to initiate cellular differentiation (growth) in the breast in preparation for lactation. If this process is terminated, through abortion, before full differentiation in the third trimester, then more "vulnerable" undifferentiated cells will be left than there were prior to the pregnancy. It is proposed that this might result in an elevated risk of breast cancer. The majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and some have been demonstrated to be statistically significant, [13] but there remains debate as to their reliability because of possible response bias.

Larger and more recent record-based studies, such as one in 1997 which used data from two national registries in Denmark, found the correlation to be negligible to non-existent after statistical adjustment. [14] The National Cancer Institute conducted an official workshop with dozens of experts on the issue, between February 24-26, 2003, which concluded from its examination of various evidence that it is "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." [15] These findings and how the Denmark study statistically adjusted their overall results have been disputed by Dr. Joel Brind, [16] an invitee to the workshop and the leading scientific advocate of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. Nevertheless, gaps and inconsistencies remain in the research, and the subject continues to be one of political and scientific contention; although the current scientific consensus is there is no ABC link.

I don't care for "Consequently..." it strikes the wrong note for some reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it implies a direct relationship... and although I think there is one (from Brind's review of the workshop, the Denmark study was key to their conclusions), it's not something we need to go into here. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I just make edits to the above version, then? -Kyd 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Back from walking the dog, go right ahead. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true! He never... oh. You meant... never mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO!!! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's good to see a little humour. We've been working like dogs, after all. -Kyd 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So I'm curious, does this version address the original comments concerns? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It has received puppy approval. If Kyd is still talking to you, we might be able to get approval there as well. I think Tzn is letting us plod on our own down here right now. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry, my mental situation is unstable. To make it short, my father had a stroke (he's expected to make a full recovery), but the family has been thrown into chaos. Will jump in when I can.--Tznkai 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, Tzn. Take as long as you need. We'll look forward to having you back on the team.

As for the revision, I'm fine with it. Actually, I didn't have many qualms with the original version -- although I thought it would help to add some sources, and quote some of the research that has been done. If you could find a source on the interview-based studies, or even quote the results of one, I think it would really help to balance the section. Otherwise, it's good. -Kyd 09:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My grandfather had a mild stroke just last month; I wish you all the best Tznkai... may his recovery be swift.

I added a pro-life link summing up interview based studies from 1981-1996. I couldn't find a link to the original Brind quarterly document; but at first glance the list seems accurate. Hopefully it won't be problematic in the future with pro-choice readers/researchers. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gonna be bold and put the new version into the article; I'm still unsure if I'll copy it into the ABC article as the lead. Actually I guess I should before going on vacation, then revert it if I don't like it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I awkwardly added in the current scientific consensus. Although by no means unanimous; I don't think its accurate and encompassing to how science regards the ABC link... but it does seems to be the popular view and the word on the street. Until we hear otherwise I consider it barely NPOV. (I'm thinking of Dr. Daling's research and comments in the ABC article) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One problem I've seen thus far. There is no mention of the hypothesis's origin. Was this deliberate?--Tznkai 18:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, not deliberate; I've simply never come across a history on the origin of the ABC issue. Pro-life sites cite a Japanese study (Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63) as being the first ABC study. They (Segi et al.) may speak about the background/impetus for conducting the study. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has two items which might be worth pursuing; one, confirms the date of 1957 as the date when an ABC link was first mentioned, and the second, a political interference with the accurate reportiong on the NIH site: Breast Cancer Risks The site is a political one, bear in mind their postion is Govt. Reform and its a Democrat site, so they are inclined to criticise the current administration. I saw this while looking for a date, but it might be worthwhile to track back to who made the decision on the NIH site change - if there are political axes being ground here it might merit a brief mention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, English study published in 1957 (apparently study was done in 1948 [17] which was on Japanese women who had induced abortions. M. Segi, et al. "An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan," GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April 1957. Some info on the current situation/debate is on a Wisconson law review site, or was I should say, as it is only available that I can find in Google cache at this time [18] and finally, see Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate That Never Happened (subtitle) has information which may be useful. Have fun, every place I found this confirmed RoyBoy's id of it as the first mention, and said "abstract not available" if it mentioned an abstract at all. its universally mentioned by pro-life sites, no details given except the "three times more likely" assertion. No data on how many women, variables, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Two great links, I'll add them to External links. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that by adding the scientific consensus to the opening paragraph I've contradicted the conclusion that states the consensus is inconclusive. I'm going to remove my addition to the intro paragraph; and justify it by saying that the "no link" conclusion is US centric. Perhaps I could even say as much in the conclusion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of pregnancy

Can the definition of pregnancy be explicitly stated? Currently the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology defines pregnancy to begin at implantation, and I think this is relevant to the discussion of abortion. Additionally, it may be more accurate to word "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation before the pregnancy occurs" as "Certain forms of birth control prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum." and follow that with the current medical definition of pregnancy. Wanfactor 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If the beginning of pregnancy is defined as implantation, how is the sentence "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation before the pregnancy occurs" inaccurate? I think the facts as you have presented them don't support a lack of accuracy, although I see the point you are making (I think). If the wording is a little off, it could read "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation, which is the beginning of pregnancy according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecoloy." Obviously I am not writer, but I hope the gist of what I am trying to say is coming across. -Parallel or Together ? 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the medical profession defines pregnancy to begin at implantation, not everyone uses this definition. Many people assert that pregnancy begins at fertilization, and in fact many sources would say that life/pregnancy begins at fertilization. The difference in definition of conception is important to the abortion debate since a substance that does prevents implantation is not considered abortifacient under the definition of the American College of Obstetricians, but can be considered an abortifacient if pregnancy begins at fertilization. Wanfactor 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article currently uses the medical definition and is consistent, I see no need for a change. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It uses the current medical definition in North America. Where a medical definition of a word is different than commonly used definitions, a clarification as to the definition used increases the understandiblity of the article. Wanfactor 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it different from commonly understood definitions, and is the specific not made clear in the content? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So called "biased" links

It would probably be more helpful if the links were divided into "sympathetic to abortion" or "anti-abortion" (or whatever terminology), rather than claiming they're all just "biased". I don't think there's any problem with having so-called "biased" links here, but there should be an even distribution of pro and anti sites, and they should be labelled as such.

Incidentally, the "just facts" site is labelled as biased - I wasn't sure if I could decide which way it's supposed to lean? Stevage 13:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It leans unsympatheic, to use your terminology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to strongly object. 1. The usefulness of doing so is incredibly minimal and 2. leads to the kind of thinking applied above, which, while valliant, isn't a simple application of NPOV and 3. leads to disaster and escalation. This is not conjecture, this is history.--Tznkai 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At one point, there were about 20 outside links to pro- and anti- sites. It got out of control, as people would be inserting external links on a daily basis, many of them inappopriate (inflammatory sites, shock sites, self-promotion). The pro-/anti- count is currently an even 3 to 3. Labelling "pro-life" and "pro-choice" was also problematic: one would frequently be changed to an epithet, "anti-choice" or "pro-murder," while the other was left alone. -Kyd 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Media Bias

I'm counting down the hours before I head up north, but the following section was removed from the ABC article:

The book What Liberal Media? (ISBN 0465001769) by Eric Alterman examined media bias. Alterman makes a detailed case against conservative assertions that the media has a liberal bias, and that actually the opposite is true for some subjects. However, Alterman points out that on hot button social issues such as the death penalty and abortion most journalists are quite liberal, because as the sociologist Herbert Gans explained, journalists are naturally reformist given their choice of profession. In chapter seven (What Social Bias?) Alterman cites the comprehensive (Pulitzer nominated) study by David Shaw called "Abortion Bias Seeps into News," (Los Angeles Times, January 19-22, 1990) which showed that the media was slanted in favor of legal abortion. Alterman notes Shaw's findings were "accepted, and editors, reporters, and producers alike did their best to implement changes in their coverage."

I've always known it was an awkward fit, and had discussions in the past about it... it being removed by yet another editor just confirms it. However, I like the balancing nature of the paragraph; and I think its written fairly well... I'm wondering where it should go; here or debate or does it have no home? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has a home in the abortion family or articles, no--Tznkai 06:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the place for it is the article on the abortion debate. Rick Norwood 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

upon further reflection, possibly Abortion in the United States as well--Tznkai 17:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep a clear distinction between information about abortion and beliefs about the morality of abortion. Beliefs, whether by newspapermen or the public, need to stay in the "debate" articles, or they will overwhelm the factual articles. Rick Norwood 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll put'er in there. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mental health addtition

Women who have an abortion face a 248 percent greater risk of suicide, accidental death or homicide in the following year, according to a newly released 13-year Finnish study.

The survey also found the suicide rate among women who had an abortion was six times higher than for women who had given birth in the prior year and double that of women who had miscarriages.

The researchers studied data from the years 1987 to 2000 on all deaths among women of reproductive age, 15 to 49.

While the risk of death among women who had given birth in the prior year was lowest, death from suicide, accidents and homicide was highest among women who had an abortion in the previous year.

Women who had been pregnant had less than half the death rate of women who had not been pregnant. The risk of death for women who had suffered a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy did not noticeably differ from women who had not been pregnant.

The findings confirm other studies carried out in the United States, as well as Finland, that showed an increase in the death risk of women who have abortions.

In 1997, a government-funded study in Finland found that women who had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die the following year than women who had given birth.

Furthermore, researchers looking at death records linked to medical payments for birth and abortion for 173,000 California women discovered there was a 62 percent higher chance of death for aborting women than delivering women over the eight-year period that was examined.

The study also found that the increase in the risk of death was from suicides and accidents. It showed a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide and 82 percent higher risk of death from accidental injuries.

Government health officials in Finland found in a recent study that 94 percent of maternal deaths involving abortion could not be identified by merely looking at a death certificate. This discovery applies to the data published by the Centers for Disease Control in the U.S.

Also, previous studies draw links between women who get abortions and an increase in substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, suicidal thoughts, psychiatric illness, relationship problems and risk-taking behavior, which could easily lead to death by suicide or accident.

[[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47705]]

First off, I am skpetical of this data, so I'd like to verify it mysel first. Secondrly, and equally important, this massive deluge of data violates WP:NPOV via undue weight.--Tznkai 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This addition was ripped verbatim from the [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47705 World Net Daily article]. I've done the homework for Liz xox, and WMD, who both failed to provide sources. Make of this what you will (although, IMHO, Reardon's bias should be taken into consideration):

"Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000:" probably the 1987-2002 Finnish study quoted in the first paragraph.
"Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study:" published December 6, 1996. Is this the "government-funded" 1997 Finnish study mentioned in the article? Its findings are already quoted in the current version of the mental health section.
"State-funded abortions versus deliveries: a comparison of outpatient mental health claims over 4 years:" Is this the Reardon California study quoted?
"Methods for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987-2000:" The last Finnish study quoted in the WMD article?

-Kyd 18:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Health effects

I would think that we'd want to lead with the most relevant information, and save the lists of details for later in the article, as per the inverted pyramid. A list of all risks is boring and uninformative. Worse, it's misleading if it doesn't include prominent mention of the fact that many of these risks are negligible for early abortions but quite serious for late ones. In fact, listing risks without explaining this fact would serve to make abortion look more dangerous than it really is, since the vast majority of procedures are performed early in the pregnancy. Likewise, carrying a pregnancy to term is also risky. I don't have a citation handy (so I didn't say anything to this effect), but I seem to remember reading that an early abortion is, on the whole, safer than giving birth. Failing to mention this would once again make abortion sound more dangerous than it really is. Is our goal to give an honest explanation of abortion's health risks or is this an excuse for partisan abortion-bashing? Think it through. If you want to dispute the factuality or relevancy of these additions, this is a good place to do it. Until then, I've reverted the text. Alienus 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be rewritten (the article is also undergoing a major rewrite — as a perusal of the talk page beforehand would've revealed). It is wont for a sub-section on unsafe (i.e. back-alley) abortion, especially in the presence of fetal pain, breast cancer, and mental health treatments. However, most of your additions, though valid, are redundant with information in the first paragraph of "Physical Risks:"

Your edits: "Early abortions are safer than later ones... As with any medical treatment, success depends on the competence of the practitioners. The risk of abortion must also be balanced against the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term."
Redundancies (emphasis mine): Each phase of the abortion carries separate risks, and practitioners are not in agreement as to the best methods of mitigating those risks. The degree of risk depends upon the skill and experience of the practitioner; maternal age, health, and parity; gestational age; pre-existing conditions; methods and instruments used; medications used; the skill and experience of those assisting the practitioner; and the quality of recovery and follow-up care. A highly-skilled practitioner, operating under ideal conditions, will tend to have a very low rate of complications; an inexperienced practitioner in an ill-equipped and ill-staffed facility, on the other hand, will often have a higher incidence of complications.

-Kyd 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, the person who keeps reverting my changes is unwilling to come here and discuss the matter.

As it happens, I did look through the talk page and noticed that there is an interest in doing a major rewrite. I support this. Until then, however, there's still room to clean up what's here. Moreover, whatever improvements we make now could be preserved.

As for redundancy, this is an argument for removing the second place that the information shows up, not the first. I'm concerned that, by unintentionally burying the key points deep in the article, where fewer people will read, we're being misleading.

Another misleading issue is how to evaluate risk. As I tried to emphasize in my recent addition, the only meaningful comparison is between abortion and childbirth; either of these is itself more dangerous than not having gotten pregnant. The recent text on mental health risks makes this error particularly badly. It also confuses correlation with causation: those women who choose abortions are self-selected for being unhappy with their situation, and are much less likely to be in a long-term monogamous relationship. To report on this study without mentioning this criticism would be biased. Alienus 07:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not responded, because I feel that Kyd has done a more than adequate job, and my edit summaries were self explantory. These sentances were removed, verbatim, during a major collaboration ( I remember, I helped spearhead it) to revamp the health section. It achieved, by some strange miracle considerable consensus. If you look through the archives you'll find that the pregnancy vs abortion statistics are dubious, and again, we don't prescribe any sort of advice.--Tznkai 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The prior existence of a consensus does not invalidate arguments that disagree with it. Alienus 09:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. But the arguments used there, and the arguments used now have proved it both invalid and thus unsound.--Tznkai 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

alienus wrote: "[...]and are much less likely to be in a long-term monogamous relationship." do you have a citation for that claim? Anastrophe 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can easily cite support for the claim that women who choose abortion are much less likely to be married, but can't find immediate support for the odds of them being in a long-term monogamous relationship without being married. I suspect it's out there if I spend a little more time, though. In the meantime, here's a quote from about.com: "Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married". If you really doubt what I said, we could change "in a long-term monogamous relationship" to "married". What do you think? Alienus 09:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being dense, but is that germane to this article? This is an artilce about abortion, not a sociological study. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Progress report (and suggestions)

Opening paragraph: A point of much contention — particularly from new editors, and ones unfamiliar with the goings-on of the talk page, as it is the first thing that they read. Can we rewrite or revise this text to avoid such spats?
Spontaneous abortion: This hasn't been touched.
Induced abortion: This hasn't been touched. It probably needs to be tweaked and updated with the latest data from AGI (and, perhaps, ancillary sources).
Methods of inducing abortion: Text needs a rewrite and proper sources. This is a very technical section. We might need to enlist the help of someone slightly more "in the know." It might also be that we'll have to devise a new format beyond the current chemical/surgical/other in order to accommodate new information. Perhaps we could have new sub-subsections for specific procedures to make navigation easier (i.e. Surgical abortion: Dilation & curettage, Intact dilation & extraction, Saline abortion, etc)?
Health effects: Partially-completed. See individual sections for more.

Physical health: Needs rewrite and sourcing. This section is too loose. The prose needs to be brought together, so that it is informative, accurate, understandable, but also has some semblance of "flow" — which, in my humble opinion, it currently lacks, as it seems more an assemblage of disparate paragraphs.
Unsafe abortion: This section — encompassing "back-alley" abortion, self-abortion, illegal abortion, etc., and its incidence and effects — needs to be written and sourced. Can I earmark this as the next on the agenda?
Suggested effects (breast cancer, fetal pain, mental health): Done.

History of abortion: Done.
Abortion debate: This, so far, has not been touched. The current version is pretty good.

Public opinion: Polling data from additional, preferably non-Western, countries is needed.

Abortion law: Done.
Sources: This needs to be updated. Some of the sources used here aren't even used in the article any more. It would be nice to do away with this sort of citation: "100% of abortions are performed on women [19]." Links listed, as such, in the article, should be properly cited under this section.

Want to add anything to this combination progress report and outline? Please do so after my post. -Kyd 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats for the overiew. Unsafe abortion has its own article, so we probably should improve that first. I'll be targeting that myself, and its going to need considerable oversight once write up the section (if you thought arguments over the intro was bad...) Health effects takes up to much time and energy for me, as we can see below, I'm loosing patience faster than I should. I think incidents at home tell me I should reduce my involvement there. We have a number of related topics to tuch upon, and some hard resarch to do. Induced abortion overview and methods though, should probably be our top priority, as this where the hard facts are. I'd like to roll the health risks into each methodlogy, and leave "health effects" to things that effect all abortions.--Tznkai 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alienus's addition.

I have removed (again) the addition extoling the reader to compare the risks of abortion to the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term. As an aside do NOT mark reversions of this nature minor edits. Thats for vandalism, spelling, and grammer only. For the record, here is the addition:

Moreover, a meaningful evaluation of risk must compare abortion with carrying the pregnancy to term, as opposed to against never having gotten pregnant in the first place. In the United Kingdom, about 1 out of 100,000 women who have early abortions die, as compared about 9 out of 100,000 women who carry their pregnancies to term. Figures for other countries are similar.

This addition has been addressed in the past, has been addressed clearly in edit summaries, and has been clearly addressed on this talk page. I see no compelling reason to allow it in the article. I will, however address each point (again) to make it clear

This is a violation of WP:NPOV: It spoonfeeds an opinion:"must compare abortion with carrying the pregnancy to term"
This is off topic and argumenative: "...as opposed to against never having gotten pregnant"
This is a violation of WP:NOT: Prescribes medical/ethical/moral advice
This is a violation of WP:NOR: Same said advice has no citation backing it beyond a simple opinion, see WP:NPOV violation.
This is a minor violation of WP:CITE: this does not quote a reputable source as addressed by KC and KYD in the archives.

Do not restore that paragraph again until you have succesfull addressed these please. I will not revert it again myself but leave it up to the other editors to avoid an edit war and appearance of bias.--Tznkai 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming this is indeed relevant, a more unbiased way to present it would be to merely present the facts and let the reader decide on a conclusion. For example:

In the United Kingdom, the fatality rate of the woman in early abortions is 1 out of 100,000 and the fatality rate for normal live births is 9 out of 100,000. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The consensus reached last time is that those statistics, once verified would be better served in abortion debate, but I'm sure we can address that again if you feel we need to.--Tznkai 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

They probably do belong in abortion debate, but the death rate of abortions is definitely notable in the abortion article. I think the issue here is whether or not to balance out that statistic by pointing out that it's 9 times higher than just giving birth. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

When making medical decisions, we don't ever consider the risk of a procedure in isolation. Instead, we compare it to the risk of alternative procedures and of not doing anything at all. To present the risk of one option while censoring any mention of the alternatives is inherently misleading and POV. However, I do agree that we should mention the death rate, so as to put some hard numbers on what would otherwise be nebulous, and that we should let the numbers speak for themselves, rather than editorializing. Let me give it another try. Alienus 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would really rather you not until you address the entiretly of the above, including the dubious nature of your statistics--Tznkai 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The text has been modified to just state the facts and not prescribe anything. As for the numbers being "dubious", I don't see why you say this. You said on my talk page that these numbers only refer to medical abortions in a first-world nation, as opposed to the more dangerous alternatives, but how is that a problem? Alienus 18:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced of its relevance and placement, but more important at this moment is your source isn't a primary source, as in a medical study, and doesn't seem to source either! In fact, you didn't even source in the current version of the article, but if you fixed that, the study itself is dubious.--Tznkai 18:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, you are determined not to be convinced. Fortunately, you're not the one I need to convince. Rather, it is the consensus of editors that matters, not the opinion of one. You call it dubious simply because you dislike the conclusion, which makes you partisan. Don't like the study? Find some more. Show me that there are better studies with significantly different numbers, please. Alienus 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you intend to accuse me of allowing my POV to interfere with my judgement, you'd better have more evidence than this. My record[20] speaks for itself. Furthermore, article talk pages are NOT the place for these acusations. The burden of proof is on you for wishing to add the data, the article you had cited is poorly cited (read, not at all). And finally, you have not convinced me, or anyone else as far as I can tell.--Tznkai 02:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is. It seems in general the statistics take the worldwide pregnancy failures and compare it to the first world abortion clinics. Not exactly a great set up.--Tznkai 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have numbers for death rate during induced abortions in third-world nations, those would have a place here. I'd be particularly curious about China, since it has the policy of forced abortions. Alienus 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're looking for Sex-selective abortion and infanticide We still need to figure out how to handle that here--Tznkai 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking for what I said: death rate from abortions outside the US and EU.

I was under the impression that the mother death rate was also for the United Kingdom. Anyway, I still don't like the comparison because, yes, abortion is safer for the mother, but if everyone did what was safer for the mother the human race would go extinct in a generation. The justification for abortion should be that a new baby is not wanted, not that it's safer. (after two edit conflicts) --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, abortion doesn't particularly involve mothers. It involves women with unwanted pregnancies. Some of them happen to be mothers and some go on to become mothers, but calling them mothers now is as biased as calling fetuses "unborn babies". Sure, though some abortions are mandated by medical need, the primary motivation for abortion is that the pregnancy is not wanted. However, women in such a position can be scared into carrying to term if they're given false statistics that make abortion sound more dangerous than giving birth, which turns out not to be the case at all. I want this article to be honest, not misleading. Alienus 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alienus, I think many of us would agree with you. But as others have pointed out, given the controversial nature of this article, any figures which are not backed up from a primary source are simply not acceptable. I think the figures are needed here since if we are going to discuss safety, we need to compare the risks (without editorialising) to the risks of carrying the pregnancy to term. We can't quantify overall risks but we can hopefully quantify mortatility. Ideally we would also want to include figures from a number of different countries but this may not be possible due to the general low legality of abortions in many developing countries. Nil Einne 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) " a meaningful evaluation of risk must compare abortion with carrying the pregnancy to term, as opposed to against never having gotten pregnant in the first place" Respectfully I strongly disagree. Only those already pregnant are faced with the choice and or prospect of an abortion. I did a good deal of reseach comparing abortion to full term delivery and other minor surgical procedures, which has been ignored. I did not do that because I thought the comparison was inept. Alienus, I respect you utterly, but that position makes no sense whatsoever to me. Comparing abortion to not getting pregnant is, IMHO, a silly position. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's what he was saying, actually....DonaNobisPacem 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. I'm saying that, in looking at the risk of induced abortion, we can't meaningfully compare it against not having gotten pregnant, we have to compare it against the risk of carrying the pregnancy to term. Clear enough? Alienus 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

just ignore anything I've typed today... today has not gone well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. Alienus 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New article fork

I'm not sure, but I think we could make a pretty good article on abortion statistics, where we can collect them, and address the significant discrepancies in reporting that we face. It sounds like a fun, and challenging prospect. If anyone is willing to help, drop a note on my talk page--Tznkai 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of statistics? --Quasipalm 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. However, like Quasi says, we'll need to outline what kind of statistics this'd involve. But, anyway, I wouldn't mind -- but I'd like to finish with my work on this article first. Call me single-minded. :-) -Kyd 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Republic "Action Alert"

FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mental health

The user Liz xox takes issue with the current version. Here is the revision she made:

"It is indisputable that some women will experience negative feelings as a result of elective abortion. However, whether this phenomenon is significant enough to warrant a general diagnosis, or even classification as an independent syndrome (see abortion debate), is a subject that is debated among members of the medical community.

A study conducted by Finland’s National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, that was published in the European Journal of Public Health, found significantly higher suicide rates and death rates, among women who had an abortion, versus women who had given birth. Although the correlation existed other factors were determined to have possibly inhibited some of the results.

“The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly shows, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.” 12"

Spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, is known to present an increased risk of depression in women. [21]"

The edit summary was as follows:

"Actual text from Finland study quoted, vs. a summery that could possibly be biased. There were no links that were unbiased to support the conclusion that abortion reduces suicide."

The wholesale removal of information which suggests the potential for positive mental effects of elective abortion is, in combination with the addition of information which seems to pad the negative correlation, likely a violation of WP:NPOV. It's only fair to attempt to present both sides of the issue. If you have objections to the manner in which one side is presented, then, please, the manner to address that is by improving it. What sources are in question and why do you feel that they are biased? This sort of information will help other editors work out how potential problems might be addressed. -Kyd 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Free Republic user calls for war on Wikipedia

On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanzaa) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that explains how busy I've been on Kwanzaa lately. Its usually fairly dull there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that a lot of the responders on that site have criticized the idea of POV vandalism. Some easily swayed members may try to attack articles, but hopefully they will be more than balanced by sensible Free Republic members making useful contributions to the Wikipedia. --DDerby-(talk) 08:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Free Republic link brings one to a blog post that invites people to make contributions to Wikipedia in a polite fashion. Is that a war, or rather an attempt to encourage people of all stripes to edit Wikpedia so that its content is truly the result of balanced editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 January 2006.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~ Deskana (talk page) 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That link encourages people to politely edit non-controvertial topics so that when they start vandalising controvertial ones, they will be seen as a credited editor, which will reduce the chance of their controvertial edits being reverted. Look at the comments underneath the blog post. There's nothing polite about it, really. Deskana (talk page) 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

136.215.251.179 seems to be the user Goodandevil's IP [22]. User Herostratus asked Goodandevil if he is Notwithstanding from the Free Republic forum on his talk page. [23] This is something I have also wondered, as the Free Republic member Notwithstanding, who initiated the editor recruitment on that forum, makes a characteristic mention of abortion and Kwanzaa, articles on which the Wikipedian Goodandevil has a history. Just a thought. -Kyd 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I read the link and it was a message posted on Free Republic talk page by a private user. It should not be likened to Free Republic and it was not endorsed by Free Republic (merely because it didn't choose to delete the users message) anymore than whatever we say here is endorsed by Wikipedia. Just thought you should know, because it looks like you didn't read the page very closely.Gator (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it didn;t say anything about vandalism or "far right wing POV vandalism" that was your assumption and you revealed your own biases. It was calling for conservtives to edit more on those articles. I don't like the approach myself but to term it "far-right POV vandalism" is unfair and needs to be stated.Gator (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mental Health SECTFACT dispute

I've flageed the Mental Health section under {{sectfact}} as its factual accuracy is currently disputed.

I want this GONE in 48 hours if humanly possible, and I think the rest of you agree with me. We need hard facts, we need the balanced. As an overview of what we should be getting at we need

To note the positive effects of removing unwanted pregnancy
To note the negative effects of experiancing an induced abortion
To provide the raw data
To make the above readable.

For anyone who thinks I'm too heavy handed about this, I apologize, but we've managed to keep this article dispute flag free for a long time and I'm unhappy about breaking that record.--Tznkai 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I say we let those who take issue state their objections before we go a changing anything. After all, most of the regular editors don't take issue, so we shouldn't fix what isn't broken. I'm going through a lot of stuff in my life at the moment, and the time I do have to dedicate to Wikipedia, I don't want to have to be revisiting matters I thought were closed. -Kyd 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate fact that nothing on Wikipedia is ever closed, but take some time off. I would like a list of reasons why one version is prefered over the other.--Tznkai 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep sect-fact up for a bit while we incorperate the new data, but I'm working a bit slower than usual. Anyone else can feel free to take as stab at it as well--Tznkai 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When is sectfact going to disappear? Its been almost 2 weeks. Can I help?136.215.251.179

New Mental Health Study Results

From Australia and New Zealand: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17718868-29277,00.html Abortion increases stress: study "HAVING an abortion as a young woman raises the risk of developing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, a new study shows...The findings also tip the balance of scientific evidence towards the conclusion that abortion increases psychological distress rather than alleviating it, he said." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.210.72 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 January 2006.

on it--Tznkai 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Critics in Australia have already noted that the study did not look at the women's lives or medical history prior to recieving an abortion, news story here--nixie 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good research. I think this shows that the study is questionable, so it should not be mentioned without a disclaimer so broad as to make its supporters wish it hadn't been mentioned in the first place. Alienus 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking it over, it looks like an non conclusive study that suggests that abortion can be stressful (duh!) we'll factor it in since its recent news, but it looks like its still a cluster of facts with no real direction right now.--Tznkai 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the study: "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health?" -Kyd 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's it.--nixie 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical definition

Let me explain my recent edit: The Medical profession does not classify things like the "morning after pill" etc as abortion or rather termination of a pregnancy, since technically there is not yet a pregnancy before implantation (mother and embryo are still seen as apart). I don't think however a classification as "emergency contraception" is a medical one, since contra-ception is meant to prevent conception, which at that time has already taken place. These a strictly technical classifications and hence they should be applied strictly. The moral issue however remains unaffected by this. Str1977 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd like to find a way to maintain the wiki-link. Also, not just pro-life groups find it the equivlent.--Tznkai

I added pro-life because "many" sitting there by itself seemed too ambiguous. I personally doubt "many" people consider it the Moral equivalent; but if its otherwise, my bad. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I cannot think of anyone considering the moral issue (as opposed to the mere technical one) and not consider pre- and post-implantation as morally equivalent. I can understand that some argue about personhood etc but why implanatation should change the moral ramifications is beyond me. Well, there we have the mess. Str1977 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given the issue too much consideration, but my immediate thinking on it is that the viability of the embryo is an unknown quantity (ie. miscarriage occurs when implantation fails, for various reasons); so emergency contraception just as often isn't effecting a viable pregnancy. As to implantation itself changing the morality of things... well without implantation there is no growth/differentiation; which as far as I'm concerned is part of the moral spectrum of abortion. Indeed, a mess that I think makes moral judgement difficult to say the least. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Others disagree, and they tend to be on the pro-life side of the equation. As far as they are concerned a unique DNA strand in a fertilized egg is an individual being; and any moral ambiguity is out the window at that point (as per the pro-life doctors conference). It seems illogical to me to think significant pro-choice groups would consider EC morally equivalent to an abortion as they generally subscribe to a moral spectrum philosophy on the matter; hence stopping of the pregnancy earlier is preferable from their perspective. What matters here is not the actual morality of it, but the perceived morality by those in question. I think its reasonable to assert pro-lifers see no distinction while pro-choicers would. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First, the morning-after pill can prevent fertilization in the first place. Second, if fertilization does occur, it can prevent the egg from attaching to the uterine lining. There is some ambiguity about whether pregnancy is taken from fertilization or implantation, but I thought the medical community had settled on the latter. Cites? Alienus 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, I understand the link problem and thought about this as well, but haven't yet come up with a satisfactory solution. It is a loaded term after all (hence a hidden link, e.g. blahblahblah, will not do). However, I agree with your comment about "not just pro-lifers". In fact, I guess the number of people who really would condemn abortion post-implanation and accept it pre-implantation is fairly limited and the "moral equivalence" goes both ways.

Alienus, then the line is drawn between the two functions of the "morning-after-pill". I didn't think about its dual nature so it probably wasn't the ideal example. But in principle the issue remains. As for the definition, I personally would opt for conception, but I can understand how one arrives at implantation by applying the strictly technical reasoning I described above. Though I am not sure whether all medics everywhere subscribe to this. Anyway, the moral issue remains unaffected. Str1977 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If the medical community says pregnancy starts with implantation, then that's that. The Pope is entitled to his own opinion and can say it starts with fertilization, then perhaps we could report this, but not as a medical opinion. Likewise, if doctors call it emergency contraception, that's what we should call it, though we might mention the views of those who claim it is abortion or its moral equivalent. Therefore, we should call it emergency contraception and report CITED disagreements with this characterization. NPOV doesn't mean letting medical laymen (however clerical they are in another field) to define medical terms. Alienus 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest inserting my view instead of the medical definition. I am mostly concerned with the ethical dimension and, as I stated before, this issue doesn't change with the defintion.

"Emergency contraception" however is another problem, as it is a loaded term. Even if medics use it (and I don't know if they do) it is medically incorrect.

And we don't need to drag the Pope into that. (unsigned by Str1977)

A quick Google got:

"What is Emergency Contraception?

Emergency contraceptives are methods of preventing pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse. Emergency contraception is often called "morning after contraception" or "the morning after pill" but these terms are misleading because emergency contraception can be used before the morning after or up to five days after." [24]

I'm sure I can find other examples of medical use of "emergency contraception". Since pregnanacy is defined (by doctors, not priests) as starting with implantation, the morning-after pill us medically correct. If you disagree, find me an unbiased doctor to cite.

Given this, what precisely is the argument against calling it emergency contraception? Alienus 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, could you please stop your clerical references. It doesn't help the discussion at all.

Now, the question is whether this classification is used by some official medical body, as the definition of pregnancy obviously is, and not just individual doctors (who can never be unbiased, one way or the other).

The argument against calling it "emergency contraception" is that some means that prevent the implantation of an already conceived embryo (or rather zygote) is simply not contra-ceptive but rather contra-implantive. In so far as the morning-after-pill is prevent conception (assuming that it is), it is a contraceptive - in so far as it does prevent implantation it is not. Str1977 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop unlinking emergency contraception. I can't imagine a reason you would do so except for strictly POV reasons. If you think emergency contraception is POV then edit that page, but as such, it definitely deserves to be linked from the article on abortion fer chrissakes! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Str1977 has been editing this article longer than you have, has proven to be a valuable and levelheaded contributer, and though we disagree I am MORE than willing to give Str1977 the benifit of the doubt. I highly suggest you do the same.--Tznkai 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

He also reverted "woman" back to "mother" ... I'm waiting to see if that was a mistake on his part. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I retained the link, though unseen, while reflecting on a way of including it. But since you complain (and unnecessarily curse), I will set up a visible interim solution. Str1977 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers, Tznkai. What do you think about my interim solution. It certainly leaves room for improvement but at least now no one can say that a link is missing.

Cyde, though I am not happy with the mother vs. woman issue (it's certainly not as clear-cut as you think it is), the change occured in the muddle of reverting something else (which has happened to you too, I assume?)

Since the issue has been raised, I want to ask: has there ever been a consensus on mother vs. woman (vs. gravida (as per 214..)?

Str1977 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that doctors call it EC. You can take it up with them, but this article is going to stick to medical terminology. Alienus 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, which doctors? All doctors? Any doctor's federation etc? Anyway, it is included for the moment. And do you have any issues with the term "parial birth abortion"? Just asking. Str1977 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some more changes. First of all, the contraceptive pill, while usually preventing pregnancy by thickening cervical mucus and blocking ovulation, can also stop implantation. Second, since many of the women taking the morning-after pill might not become pregnant even without it, it cannot be IDENTICAL, whether morally, physically or otherwise, with abortion. With abortion, the woman knows for a fact that she's pregnant and is terminating that pregnancy.

As for partial birth abortion, as the article states, this is not a medical term in the first place. I showed sufficient verification that the morning-after pill is called EC by doctors. If you want to debate this, take it to the EC page, which we no longer censor the link to. Alienus 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What you have done is given some quotes. Anyway, it is included now.

As I was working on fusing my and and Tznkai's versions, you made an edit supposedly removing POV. However, it was quite the contrary, as you removed the basis of the definition of pregnancy (the medics) turning it into the dogmatic "because because pregnancy starts at implantation". You also introduced POV by saying that the equivalence was seen only by "some" and further qualified that by referring to the pro-life camp. As I have argued above, this is not true. Str1977 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, first of all "identical" is not "equivalent". This is about the moral issue and morally it makes no difference whether your kill the unborn by preventing implantation or by removing the implanted embryo. I am intentionally using these strong words (with no intention of changing the article accordingly) in order to make it clear for you what the equivalence is. A lack of knowledge can occur on either side of the "implantation" fence. I am ignorant of this new element of the defintion of abortion (that the woman must know for a fact that she's pregnant).

To explain my reference to PBA: if you are referring to authority in the field to define what terms to use (here: Emergency Contraception - though haven't yet provided a clear link to such a universal definition), than you would have to accept that another authority (legsilature) defines the terms in another field (law). I am only asking to find out whether you are consistent. Str1977 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It can't even be morally equivalent because, even if I were to grant that EC is somehow abortion, there is necessarily a difference between knowingly aborting and potentially aborting. Consider that killing someone by shooting into a crowd at random is not the same thing as stalking that person and assassinating them. Anyhow, I've made my point here and will leave it for the legal scholars to debate elsewhere. As for PBA, it's a political term that has made its way into legislation. Alienus 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, pregnancy was a medical, not clerical, term, so "is defined by the medical profession" is, at best, redundant, at worst, POV. Likewise, I know there's "pro-life" literature that equates EC with abortion, so I feel comfortable pointing out that this view is associated with that camp. I've explained why, on a logical basis, EC cannot qualify as abortion. Some people, unfortunately, are immune to logic. Alienus 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked it was Alienus who is consistenly beating up a clerical straw man and there was a Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. Your explanation however is far from convinving. Str1977 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's not the clerics, then who exactly is defining pregnancy as starting with fertilization? Remind me.

Now, your recent reversion was wrong on many levels. I'll list some:

1) The morning-after pill is just a larger dose of regular hormonal contraceptives. Women who are "on the pill" sometimes ovulate and that egg sometimes gets fertilized. It's not common, but it happens. When it does, the anti-implantation side-effect of the pill kicks in, preventing pregnancy.

2) Since when is zygote capitalized? Do we now worship the Holy Zygote?

3) Who defines pregnancy if not the medical community?

4) How can preventing a pregnancy be morally equivalent to ending one?

5) How can aborting a pregnancy be morally equivalent to possibly aborting one?

6) What makes you think you'll win an edit war here?

Consider these questions before you revert that text again. Alienus 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, Remove I dunno, about 80% of your comment here as it is uncivil, borderline personal attacks, and speaks very poorly of your character. We are NOT here to discuss our point of views, no matter how factual they are. It is an undsiputed fact, no matter whether they are right or wrong, that many people, smart, level headed people, consider EC the same question as Abortion (to wit, how much right do we have to prevent a new individual from occuring, that, barring accident and human inteference, might well exist). Furthermore, REVERSION IS NOT THE ANSWER. Try to incorperate other's edits into something constructive!--Tznkai 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

well, i've jumped in and tried to tackle the factual, NPOV wording of the section in question. i'm not daily involved in this article. however, sometimes a 'fresh set of eyes' can interpret things differently than those wrapped up in it. i am neither pro-life nor pro-choice, since those are absurdely simplistic stereotypes; and while abortion is not exactly a nuanced issue, the range of people's emotions approaching it is. insisting that medical definitions are the only definitions that 'matter' is a POV, and an intolerant one at that. abortions were occurring long before doctors were treating mental illness with leeches, so let's not pretend that medical science is 'settled'. there, i had my say, on the discussion page, not in the article! Anastrophe 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I like it minus a small tweak I made. Thanks for the contribs, a new set of eyes is always good to have--Tznkai 03:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent)

Indeed, reversion is not the answer, which is why I've avoided reverting. Of course, when all someone does is revert your work to a state that you've already corrected, there's often nothing left to do but revert back.

And in that spirit, I've made some further changes to remove the bias and add some accuracy. First, most women who take EC wouldn't have become pregnant, so there's no net effect. Women can only become pregnant at certain parts of their menstrual cycle, after all, and a small leak in a condom isn't always suffcient, even assuming both people are fertile. Second, the morning after pill is just a larger dose of the regular contraceptive pill. In fact, sometimes it's physically the same pill, only the woman gets more than one. Other times, it's packaged for EC use and is a single pill with a dosage equivalent to a few days of regular pills. That's why it very often acts to prevent fertilization. When fertilization does occur then, just like with the regular pill, the hormones can prevent implantation. Finally, it would be NPOV to hide the fact that it's the pro-lifers who are most likely to equate EC with abortion.

I'd still love to hear whose definition of medical procedures we ought to use if not those of medical personnel. Please, I'm all ears. Speaking of which, falsely accusing someone of personal attacks constitutes a personal attack. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Alienus 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"2) Since when is zygote capitalized? Do we now worship the Holy Zygote?" is snarky at best, insulting at worse. and "6) What makes you think you'll win an edit war here?" is also very worrying. This discussion is not about what is correct or incorrect in some grand comsic sense, but what is the best way to get the neccessary information into the article in a compact, non biased way. Throwing this solely at the pro-life camp certainly doesn't help, and not everyone excepts the medical definitions, wehther or not they should. --Tznkai 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What you call snark, I call a sense of humor. Likewise, I take pride in warning you off from an edit war. In short, I can sleep easy tonight. Alienus 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Ok, help me out here: Do you really think that equating EC with abortion is NOT linked to pro-life? Yes or no? Alienus 03:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to adress the attacks previously delinated first, and I think anastrophe andles it pretty well.--Tznkai 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

" Finally, it would be NPOV to hide the fact that it's the pro-lifers who are most likely to equate EC with abortion." i presume you meant POV, not NPOV. however, i challenge you to define "pro-lifers". lumping everyone into stereotypical groups accomplishes nothing. i'm vehemently against abortion, and i would never interfere in another person's decision in that regard. so, which am i? Anastrophe 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

An individual with a genuine opinion.--Tznkai 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(lost in the indents, so I'm resetting) 1) I'm not even bringing up my stance on abortion because it just doesn't matter. What matters is that I care about the truth and dislike censorship. 2) I'd say that pro-life includes those people who oppose legistlation that forbids abortion, yet are themselves against it. However, the nuances of that position are best handled in the pro-life article, not here. 3) My question remains unanswered, so I'll ask it again: Am I nuts to think that equating EC with abortion is connected with opposing abortion? This is a simple question, so give me a direct answer. Alienus 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no diea about your sanity but equating EC with abortion is not indicitive of opposing abortion, and if you don't believe me, I'd ask you to prove it. Find me a source that supports your claim--Tznkai 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See, I knew that if you had your back against the wall, you still couldn't say with a straight face that there's no connection. Instead, you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. That's a losing move, unfortunately, since it's a burden I can easily shoulder. As the emergency contraception article quotes, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists is on the record in claiming EC is abortion. Therefore, I will restore the part about this being a pro-life view, with citations, unless you can show otherwise. Thank you for playing. Alienus 05:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

your combativeness is unappreciated. Secondly, a single pro-life group equating the two in no way proves the claim "particularly by those in the pro-life camp." A proper source, such as a newspaper would say "The vast majority of people who think that EC is abortion also consider themselves pro-life, or something similar.--Tznkai 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the sore loser who pours a sectfact on the results to taint them. How special. I don't think you're in any position to speak of attitude or character. Alienus 05:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you take a break from editing this page until you can do it without personal attacks. Keep the discussion civil. Pollinator 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to keep editing this page and let the facts speak for themselves.

As quoted on the ReligiousTolerance.org:

- Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient."

- Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo."

- On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that "Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility."

I think this is sufficient basis for removing the sectfact and leaving the reference to pro-lifers being associated with the notion that EC is abortion. If you disagree, please explain why. If there is any substantial dispute, let's put it to a vote. Otherwise, I'd say it's time to lay this issue to bed. Alienus 06:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I've tried to appear when a little balance needs to be sought on the page - I've scanned all the comments above, and read the offending portion of the article, and have the following comments to make:

First, the comment "in neither case does it qualify as abortion....." etc seems to me to be a sentence written in frustration over wanting to express one's view. Second, the pro-life reference even if true is unnecessary: this is not a social commentary. Third, if one looks at the wikipedia entry on pregnancy, it admits in the article (which seems to be well written) that the definition of when pregnancy begins is a confusing issue; and it is important to note that despite the medical community's views on implantation, they date the start of a pregnancy from the last menstrual date OR the date of conception. The definition used is also one of the Western medical community; I am not knowledgeable to comment on the definitions used in other areas of the world, and do not presuppose they have adopted Western terminology. So let's keep wikipedia consistent, admit it is a contentious and unresolved issue outside of the medical community - and in that spirit, I propose the following (hopefully NPOV) rewrite:

"Certain contraceptives (colloquially known as a "morning-after pill") may be used to provide emergency contraception. The pill works by either preventing fertilization of the ovum or implantation of the zygote. Although in Western medical communities implantation is often defined as the start of a pregnancy, for those who date pregnancy from conception this is seen as a form of abortion."

Cheerio, all! DonaNobisPacem 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add - I'll leave this on the talk page for a wee bit, to allow for discussion.DonaNobisPacem 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The link I cited (and you deleted) included the following text:

"Religious conservatives and pro-life supporters, alone, classify EC as abortifacient medication. This is consistent with their unique definition that pregnancy begins at conception." (emphasis added)

Given this, how can we pretend to be NPOV when he hide the fact that this position is so strongly associated with the pro-life movement and so out of touch with medical usage. We're not talking about a five paragraph diversion, just a short, accurate phrase that removes bias. In fact, I'll edit it now to show you how it ought to look. Alienus 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

you are still intent on inserting a specific POV, where none is necessary. you can, by your same measure, justify changing it to read: "This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion, though this is rejected by the pro-choice camp". stop playing games. the sentence, unembellished, says the same thing, without inserting a POV. Anastrophe 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

i have reverted your most recent edit. i challenge you to provide a justification for not employing the example i noted above. there is no NPOV way to say that one is more acceptable than the other. the only compromise woudl be to torture the sentence further, by saying BOTH. here, let's walk through it, shall we?

the simplest version:

This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion.

first torture of sentence:

This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion,
particularly by those in the pro-life camp.

second torture of sentence:

This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion,
though this is rejected by those in pro-choice camp.

final torture of sentence, "balanced", but ugly as shit:

This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion,
particularly by those in the pro-life camp, but rejected by those in the pro-choice
camp.

And back again to the first - simple, elegant, says precisely the same thing, without being an ugly, tortured piece of 'prose by committee':

This particular use of contraceptives is sometimes equated morally with abortion.

simplify. words to live by. Anastrophe 07:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

removed moral because ethical, social, legal, practical, and a whole host of questions can be applied, not just moral ones. Also, I apologize to Cyde and Alienus for reprimanding them on the talk page, as this is both against WP:NOT standards, and my own personal policies.--Tznkai 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Doing some research - the reference to "morning after pill" should probably be removed - EC also includes the copper-containing IUD [25].DonaNobisPacem 08:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) That's actually a very easy challenge to meet. See, there's the pro-choice side and the pro-life side, but there's also the medical side. The issue here is that, according to the medical side, CE is not abortion, but the pro-life side disagrees. The pro-choice side is sticking with the medical side, as should we. This is, first and foremost, an article about the medical procedure known as abortion. It is not the abortion debate article.

In any case, the language is pretty tortured right now, and part of my changes had been to correct this. I've put back the language-fixing parts and left out those parts still in dispute. However, I do not consider this dispute settled, and fully intend to replace the deleted parts once there is a consensus to do so.

Which brings us back to the question: What's wrong with admitting that equating EC with abortion is a pro-choice thing? I'm not even saying is exclusively so, just characteristically. In fact, I'm not the one saying it: I have citations from people like Hsu. Alienus 09:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the abortion debate article. Thus I think the mentality that there is a pro-choice side, a medical side, and a pro life side is rather problematic, not to mention innaccurate. I'm not sure if reliigious tolerance is considered a credible source, I'll get our refrence monkies to answer that question. Whats wrong with it, is that this, as you said is not the abortion debate article, and its not really useful. The purpose of the sentance is to inform the reader why EC isn't in this article, but in the EC article.--Tznkai 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You should address that to Anastrophe, who is arguing that any mention of the fact that equating EC with abortion is a pro-choice thing has to be somehow balanced by mentioning that the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. My view is that we should stick to the medical facts. If we want to speak of how some people interpret or disagree with these facts, we should attribute this so the bias can be noted. Imagine if the medical community said EC was abortion but the pro-choicers said otherwise. In that case, would it be balanced to say that some people disagree with the medical community, but not mention who? Same issue here, in reverse. One of the things we're NOT supposed to do is state things without attribution. In this case, we know precisely who to attribute this view to, so why are we afraid of doing so? Alienus 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Both normal and emergency contraceptive use is sometimes equated to abortion."

Who equates normal contraception with abortion? I know that, for example, the Catholic church opposed both, but I don't think they equate them. This is another example of why we shouldn't speak of "some" when we can instead attribute these ideas to specific people and groups. Alienus 09:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that attributing is a good idea. This time I would argue its pretty useless and anything short of exhaustive detail is incredibly innacurate. Let the EC, and abortion debate articles handle it.--Tznkai 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To explain slightly better. Religous conservatives tend to to equate contraception with abortion, as does Humanitus Vitae. However, so do some pro-choicers, except with a diffrent conclusion (women's rights) So now we have religious con, humanitus vitae, and feminists. Then we need to split religious cons into the applicable religions,, jsutarting with Xians: Xian Prod, Xian Ortho, Xian S. Bapt Xian N. Bapt, Xian Methodist, the conservative moments within each and see which apply. Feminists, the same. THEN after we're done with all the advocacy groups, we get into genuine indvidiauls. To create an acurrate picture would be impossible.--Tznkai 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a complete picture. I'm asking for a single, verifiable attribution showing that someone out there equates contraception with abortion. Do you have one? Alienus 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall a number of feminist position statements along the lines of "Abortion is a woman's choice just like birth control. Its her decide what to do with her own body" I can dig them up if you like. My point is, that any accurate attribution does a disservice, degenerating into choas rather quickly. Its not held solely by any one group, or even one end of the spectrum, its something that happens because people think in a certain way. Sometimes is just fine. If you want a source, I can dig up some statistics that prove that people do think that Contraception, EC, and abortion are in some way equivelent.--Tznkai 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting again)

Of course you could find a quote saying that women should have access to both contraception and abortion, but that doesn't in any way equate the two. For an example of equating, look at how the quoted pro-lifers equate EC with abortion by asserting that the former is an example of the latter. I don't know of anyone who says contraception is a type of abortion or abortion is a type of contraception. In short, I think your last change introduced an inaccuracy by reporting a view held by nobody. Alienus 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, let me explain.

A woman has the right to do what she wants wit her body
Abortion is a woman controling her own body
Contraception is a woman controling her own body
Therefore, women have a right to abortion and contraception

we have all seen this line of logic multiple times. Similarly, we also hear invective along the lines of "People want to take a way Abortion for the same reason they want to take away contraception, to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Likewise, Humanitas Vitae equates the two as a prevention of life. The view is held by various people on various sides. Thats why I think "sometime" is as good as its going to get.--Tznkai 09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok...

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body
Abortion is a woman controlling her own body
Showing her face (as opposed to hiding it behind a veil) is a woman controlling her own body
Therefore, a woman showing her face is equatable with abortion

As this argument shows, just because two things are listed under women's rights doesn't mean you can equate them. To equate is to say that one thing is an example of the other. Just because B and C are examples of A doesn't mean B is an example of C or C is an example of B.

In short, I question your logic. As for Humanitas Vitae, you'll need to show citations. In fact, you have a wonderful opportunity to add to Wikipedia, since this stance or group doesn't even have an article.

As it stands, though, I see no verfiable support for the last sentence of the paragraph you added. 09:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good logic, merely that its logic that has been provided. Humanitas Vitae is probably a butchered mispelling of the Catholic enycial that defines its still current stance on abortion, contraceptives, etc. and I'm explaining that "sometimes is equated" is considerably better than "used by pro lifers" or any variation because of its incredible inaccuracy.--Tznkai 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I was the one who brought up the fact that the RCC opposes both contraception and abortion. It opposes them for the same reason, but does not equate them. In parallel, I think both okra and licorice taste bad, but I don't say the two are the same thing.

In other words, it's not that they're making a logic error andf you're neutrally reporting their stated view. Rather, it looks like you're making a logic error and therefore misreporting their view. This is precisely why I asked (and am still asking) for some sort of attribution. If you remember, I do have attribution for pro-lifers equating EC with abortion, so I'm on very solid ground here. As it stands, I think we'll need to fix that last sentence so as to remove a false claim. Tell me how I'm wrong. Alienus 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Humanitas Vitae, as I recall (pardon me for not being able to slog through the latin quickly) does equate the two, as a violation of God's plan for sex, life, birth, etc. The reason they object stems from the same reason, a certain understanding about sex, life, etc. Say, The culture of life. As for the afor mentioned feminist argument, I am reasonably sure that feminsts have infact said that abortion and contraception are the same issue because its all about a woman's choice, sidestepping all other issues. This is an equivlency in their brains, in their words, and in their actions, whether or not it is in some cosmic sense.--Tznkai 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[26] That isn't a great example, but it highlights at the very least an attempt to link to two as the same struggle.--Tznkai 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already explained why this is not the case, but I'll explain again. What you can show is that some people offer the same reason for their support or rejection of both, not that they equate the two. I think I've been quite clear on this. Alienus 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I failed to understand then. If the reasons stem from the same source, it is often because, and in these two examples, clearly stated that it is because the moral question is essentially the same for both abortion and contraception. That is certainly one type of equivelency--Tznkai 10:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(another reset)

The issue is magnitude. Your sentence reads "Both normal and emergency contraceptive use is sometimes equated to abortion." This makes it sound as if using contraception is morally equal. To understand why this is a misinterpretation, consider the fact that it's illegal to beat someone unconcious and also illegal to beat someone to death. Both are illegal for the same reason but the latter is considered to be more serious. In the same way, a priest would see the use of a condom as bad, but not nearly as bad as abortion. Now, perhaps you can find some Catholic master of hyperbole who says otherwise. If so, cite him and you're set. Alternately, change the text to read "The use of emergency contraception is considered by some to be a form of abortion", which is completely verifiable, as per Hsu. Alienus 10:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how the sentance endorses the moral equivlency view, merely notes it exists. It in fact, doesn't even say its morally equivlent, just that sometimes, it is equated. It speaks not of frequency other than an implied enough to be noticable. It doesn't say who, because as Iargued earlier, lots of people say so. I agree there is a question of magnitude, but lots of people don't. RCC for example, and Feminists groups for another. Most people probably fall inbetween.--Tznkai 10:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See, now you're mixing up different issues. The original issue is that, as cited, many pro-lifers say that EC is abortion, based on their non-medical definition. In this way, they genuinely equate EC with abortion; no ambiguity here. However, your rewrite throws in prophylactic contraception along with emergency contraception, then equates both with abortion.

The only way to avoid outright error is to reinterpret this to mean that they are in some way morally equivalent, but even this is not supportable. Yes, the RCC says that all birth control (except for FA) is sinful, but I do not know of any support for the claim that they consider these in some way equal. Likewise, many pro-choicers (and not just feminists) say that the same underlying rights apply to all forms of birth control, but that still doesn't mean equating them. Basically, you've created a dilemma for yourself, where there are two interpretations available to you and neither one appears to be true.

At this point, I think the way to avoid the problem is to unsay the falsehood. Let's just change it so that it doesn't mention prophylactic contraception. Alienus 10:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the text to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Note that, rather than speaking of pro-life or anti-life, I stuck to the more specific issue of when pregnancy begins. I also tightened up the text so that there's a logical flow to it, as opposed to a series of loosely connected sentences. Now, tell me, is there anything objectionable about this text? Alienus 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

as it is 6 am over here, its good enough. Time to let others jump into the debate anyway.--Tznkai 10:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting)

I dropped the "instead" because I didn't see what it was instead of. Do you? I'm going to drop it again for now, and leave it to you (or whoever else jumps in next) to clarify what it's instead of. Alienus 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On moral equivalency of contraception/abortion from the Catholic point of view - the key point to remember is that any contraceptive pill (ie, the normal and emergency contraceptive) works by both inhibiting fertilization, and preventing implantation if fertilization occurs. As the Catholic church views life as beginning from conception, if fertilization occurs and implantation is prevented, then from the Church's point of view one has intentionally killed, or aborted, the new life, as in medical or surgical abortion. Thus, depending on the circumstances, contraception and abortion can be viewed on the same footing when a contraceptive works as an abortifacient.DonaNobisPacem 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not factually correct. Hormonal contraception typically works by a belt-and-suspenders approach, in that it has multiple layers of defense against pregnancy. The first layer, which is usually all that's needed, is that ovulation is interfered with. Without ovulation, no egg is available for fertilization or implantation. The second layer is that it interferes with fertilization by causing cervical mucus to thicken, trapping incoming sperm. Only if these two fail, and only if the egg does happen to get fertilized, it can prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. In that last case, it would fit the clerical definition of abortion, though not the medical one. To complicate matters, there's more than just one type of pill and not all of them offer all modes of defense, so the argument may not hold universally. On top of that, there is the issue of probability that I raised earlier. Women are not given abortions unless they can show they're pregnant, which means that a woman asking for an abortion knows for sure that she is killing an embryo. In contrast, a woman taking hormonal contraception (either prophylactic or emergency) does not know for a fact that she is killing an embryo. Instead, she knows that the most likely effect is that she's preventing conception to begin with. This is even more likely with prophylactic use, of course, since there's no race to get into the ovary ahead of ovulation.

Anyhow, the correctness of the Catholic view is not the primary issue. What matters is whether there are valid citations to show that both forms of contraception are considered to be morally equivalent to abortion. I haven't seen any such thing thus far, however.

In regards to citations: the following is a vatican statement equating use of the morning-after pill to prevent implantation as morally equivalent to abortion [27].

Also on the vatican.va website:

"[at the] International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 5-13 September 1994)...a move was made to introduce the novel and equivocal expression “emergency contraception” as a pretext for medically induced (by pills) early abortion. The Holy See, with the support of Argentina, Nicaragua and some other countries managed not to have this expression approved.(5)."[28].

Also on the vatican.va website:

"...the present practice of "emergency contraception" and use of the RU 486 pill cannot be considered applications of family planning and even less as the exercise of an alleged reproductive right. These abortive practices, camouflaged as means of contraception, are clearly contrary to national legislative system which grant legal protection and safeguards to life from the moment of conception."[29].

And lastly, from lifesite news...

"Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo warned about the abortifacient nature of the morning after pill in 2001. “It is very grave that an attempt is being made to confuse public opinion with ambiguous terms,” he said, as reported by Zenit News. “The process of human life does not begin with the embryo’s adherence to the maternal womb, but before, at the very moment of conception. Hence, to talk about ‘impeding implantation in the uterus’ is nothing but a euphemism in an attempt to disguise abortion.”"[30].

There's your citations! DonaNobisPacem 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add - because the argument is made in the above that emergency contraception can be considered morally equivalent to abortion in its explicit intent to prevent implantation IF pregnancy has occured, the same would apply to any contraceptive that has that potential (as do most common contraceptive pills).DonaNobisPacem 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So what's your proposed phrasing to include Catholic as a primary group which holds this view, and to add they also hold this view of the pill (in order to add perspective)? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know these are all Catholic citations - Alienus had just asked for a citation to show someone considered them to be equivalent. As for non-Catholics.....

1.) American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [31]

2.) From religioustolerance.org "Pro-life agencies and many -- primarily conservative -- faith groups [as well as] Canadian Physicians for Life [are] opposed..." [32]

3.) From Association of Pro Life Physicians [33]

And on, and on - I would agree that the view primarily encompasses the pro-live movement (although not exclusively so), but would not identify the Catholic church as the primary holder of this position, as other religious and secular pro-life groups hold the same position. DonaNobisPacem 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(another indent reset)

I asked for "citations to show that both forms of contraception are considered to be morally equivalent to abortion". You've offered citations to show that EC is considered (by religious/pro-life groups) to be a form of abortion. We already established this. In fact, this all started with my inclusion of a phrase pointing out that this view is generally held by pro-lifers, and I dug up the same links to defend it. Unfortunately, this simple fact kept being mistaken for POV. We still don't have anything that says that regular contraception is morally equivalent to abortion. Alienus 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm back from my brief Wiki-break. Do I think pregnancy begins at implantation or conception? Definitely implantation. You can fertilize an egg in a Petri dish, but this doesn't make the dish pregnant. A pregnancy will never begin to progress if the egg doesn't implant somewhere. So, the issue, to me, is not whether emergency contraception is a form of abortion, but if denying the zygote the opportunity to implant is the moral, not medical, equivalent to evicting one that already has.

Alienus, I appreciate your enthusiasism for the subject. However, pitbull editing — clamping down on one thing and not letting go - is annoying and counterproductive no matter which POV it serves. I can understand the instinctive desire to not back down. Tznkai is a lot more moderate, and a lot better of a negotiator, than I am. I've become embroiled in edit wars which crossed well over 3RR, because I maintain both established consensus and article quality first, and try to accommodate and address minor complaints from editors unfamiliar to the article second. That said, I still don't see the purpose of stating that it's mostly pro-lifers who equate EC to abortion. The break-down of personal views on abortion is a lot more complex than just the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy. In writing the "public opinion" section, I made a deliberate effort to sidestep the whole pro-choice/pro-life trap, and allow the bare figures to speak for themselves. -Kyd 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, petri dish pregnancy... well said. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposedly more moderate, but Kyd certainly is witty. I think that well said. We have historically done our best to avoid pro-life pro-choice like the plague. I believe we cut it down to one instance each in the article, something I am very pleased with.--Tznkai 03:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent for sanity)

1) Pregnant petri dishes aside, these people really are saying that EC is abortion, not that it's morally equivalent. The latter could be argued for, I suppose, but the former is simply an error causes by a rejection of medical terminology motivated by ideology. In short, this may not be the issue to you, but it's the issue to them. Given that it's their issue because of their ideology, it seems to dishonest to mention their conclusion while concealing their motivation. I don't think we need to even spell it out, just mention that this is the official policy of various "pro-life" orgs. The reader can then draw inferences from this neutral, accurate information.

2) Yeah, I'm not really enthusiastic about this subject, but I do stick to my guns so long as they're loaded. If that makes me a pit bull in your eyes, so be it. Hell, I won't even take insult. However, I also don't see it as motivation to change my ways. Perhaps you can't teach an old pit bull new tricks. Then again, pit bulls have strong bites.

3) I prefer to avoid edit wars. However, I'd sooner fight one than back down when the facts show that I'm on the right side. In any case, as I comment elsewhere, I agree that the article starts off muddled and needs tightening. Such a process may well move this issue out of scope. Alienus 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any enthusiasm about this subject, but I do tend to stick to my guns unless I find good reason not to.

The medical profession has embraced abortion and is pro-choice. If the establishment medical profession has that POV, it makes no less a POV. The POV that EC is not equivbalent to abortion, regardless of whether that POV is claimed to be based on science or medicine or whether it is the prevailing view, is a held by PRO-CHOICE people. So, if the EC issue must include references to the POV of those who make certain professional judgements (such as pro-life physicians who are pro-life BECAUSE THE SCIENCE in their view supports their conclusion about abortion or EC, etc), then all such POVs must be treated the same. In other words, the article must clarify that the medical definition was created or changed by pro-choice people. 136.215.251.179 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:CITE for that opinion, Goodandevil? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The AMA is pro-choice. It is the most notable medical association in the USA, if not the world. [34] 136.215.251.179 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

136..., that might be so, but we still need to stick with the common medical definition (with properly stating that it's the definition of the medical profession) and at the same time state what the moral issue is (and that defining pregnancy this or that way makes no difference morally). Str1977 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"CONCEPTION is the implantation of the fertilized ovum." - from the ACOG Terminology Bulletin, Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus, Chicago, American College of Obstetrics ad Gynecology, No. 1, September 1965. This simply shows that as abortion and contraception began to become political issues, doctors who supported both started changing definitions to advance their moral and policy views by ensuring the science was re-framed to support those views.136.215.251.179 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here [35] is a well-documented article that explains the historical evolution of the terminology. The medical terminology was manipulated to coincide with the doctors personal moral views. Its simply factual - and while these definitions are now the prevailing view (because unlike the majority of people who do not morally support abortion on deamnd, the doctors who control the profession do), the genesis of the terms are relevant to note when discussing current definitions. The simple fact that such definitions are fluid is NOT POV - and it WILL appear in any neutral article. So that begs the question of whether this article will end up as a neutral one. 136.215.251.179 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the history of the term is germane to this article. Regardless of the proces of determination, it is the terminology used. You have not provided a cite otherwise. KillerChihuahua^?!?

Fact: related definitions have been fluid. Fact: this fluidity has coincided with a public policy debate in which such definitions are crucial to winning that battle. Opinion: the definitions settled upon were not simply based on science but on advancing moral views about pregnancy, abortion, conception and sexual repoduction in general. Changing definitions indicates controversy and possible linguistic manipulation - very relevant when relying on new definitions so heavily to bolster certain views. 136.215.251.179 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical definition part II

Alright. Lets refocus here. This isn't about NPOV, this is about keeping the article focused properly. EC is not abortion. Some people think it is. We need to get people who think it should be here, to where it is. Meanwhile, it fits very nicely in the rubrick of the Pregnancy that ends/neverbegins but X happens is actuall called Y paragraph. Do we still need to note that some people think EC=Abortion? If so, why, and how much detail? We need to keep down on bloat, don't forget--Tznkai 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the current version, which never mentions "morals"? If not, shall we move on to more productive discourse and edits? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is good enough, but evidently (see above) Alienus disagrees.--Tznkai 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The current version is ok, but when I read it to a friend, they were confused about what sort of people might reject the medical definition of pregnancy. Only when I explained that this was a view strongly associated with pro-lifers did a light go on in their head. Currently, it reads "there are those who believe pregnancy should be measured from conception and consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion". Perhaps we could clarify the basis for their rejection of medical definitions briefly enough that it doesn't derail the article, but instead illuminates a confusing portion. I'm not going to change the article right now, but let me offer a proposed change right here for feedback. How about, "there are people, often pro-life supporters, who believe pregnancy should be measured from conception and consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion". How's that? Alienus 22:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

rather than reading one or two lines to a friend, why not let that person read the whole article, which discusses the abortion debate in some detail, thus rendering the "often pro-life supporters" a pointless POV addition. earlier you stated "The pro-choice side is sticking with the medical side, as should we.". is that a fact? i was under the impression that the pro-choice side of the issue had to do with the question of individual freedom/liberty - you know, CHOICE, not 'we stick with what doctors say'. I know personally someone who is pro-choice, but who still experienced regret and sadness after an abortion, because she still felt - even being pro-choice - that she was killing a potential person. but the reality of her situation did not allow (in her opinion) for the addition of a baby into her life, so she made a choice. it had nothing at all to do with what medicine says. Anastrophe 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Life is short, so I read the article up to there. I don't see how anything later in the article clarifies matters. You'd have to follow the link to the controversy page to get a real clue of why some people just don't want to use words as they're defined.

I'm not really interested in arguing pro or con abortion, since it's irrelevant and POV to do so. What we need to do is focus on what the role of the doctors is. There is no medical statement on whether EC fits in with any given person's beliefs about reproductive issues, but there is one on what does constitute an abortion in the first place. 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought - the EC page has a section on the controversy over its use and its definition as an abortion (which could definitely use some work, but I digress) - why not state for the record on this page in the abortion debate section that for many pro-life/religious groups emergency contraception is regarded as a form of abortion, because of the issue on when life/pregnancy begins, with a link to the EC page, and drop the reference entirely from the intro? I believe it was kyd who pointed out that the intro is a bit hap-hazhard, certainly by featured article standards - this would help remove clutter from the intro, and put the statement where it most likely belongs.DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur--Tznkai 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have kept away from this page for a few days. I won't comment on some statements above that I think to be unwarranted but only comment on the version as it currently stands:

"Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. ... Medically, the use of contraception (including emergency contraception) is not considered to be abortion; however, there are those who believe pregnancy begins at conception and consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion."

I am still not satisfied with this. We agree that the first sentence gives the medical definition as it now stands and as it has been adopted by medic's associations. They have done this for proper "technical" reasons. A woman that is pregnant is a woman who's carrying someone in side of her. They could have also taken "conception" (assumed it hasn't occured in the woman), as the embryo is already inside of her before implantation. But be that as it may, they have taken their choice, a reasonable one, and we should adhere to it.

However, the sentence "however, there are those" - though no incorrect word for word - is misleading. It suggests that a disagreement about the definition of pregnancy leads to an equation of "emergency contraception" with abortion. That's not true. Even if I accept the current medical definition of pregnancy, the ethical issue is not affected. The reason for considering the termination of an embryo pre-implantation as equivalent to terminating one post-implantation is not based on definitions of pregnancy but the defintion of when human life begins. Therefore my suggestion is to change the sentence into

"however, those who believe human life begins at conception, consider emergency contraception to equivalent to abortion."

I left out "ethically" or "morally" as Tnzkai suggested that there is another (practical) equivalence involved. I don't know what he meant and am asking him to explain.

Also note that "equivalence" is IMHO the more correct term. Yes, in common parlance one hear "is abortion", but I think that's a colloquial usage of abortion not entirely in line with the definition we give above and not based on any deeper reflections.

Two more things:

I think the first sentence "Pregnancy is defined ..." should be moved down to stand immediately before the "Medically, the use of contraception ...", as it is not connected to "premature birth" or "still birth". Also, in moving it, we could make a better grammatical link to the "the use of contraception" bit, e.g. "Pregnancy is defined ... and hence the use of ...".
Can I please hear from those that have not spoken on this whether "emergency contraception" is a neutral or a contentious term and how we should use it.

Thank you for your consideration. Str1977 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I'd prefer to change

"Medically, the use of contraception (including emergency contraception) is not considered ..."

to something like

"Medically, methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergeny contraception, are not considered ..."

That IMO better clarifies the issue. Str1977 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just taking a quick break from my studies to say that I fully agree with Str1977's suggestion. "Emergency contraception" is certainly not a neutral term. Contraception means "against conception", and it all hangs on what "conception" means. It was, AFAIK, traditionally always used to mean fertilization, although the latter is preferred in scientific text books, and the former is used more in religious texts. Since conception is not a medical term, it didn't have a precise medical definition, and, while it is still used to mean fertilization, but is also sometimes used to mean implantation. (Such a change would certainly seem politically motivated to me.)

An extract in the Wikipedia Fertilization article says:

The term "conception" commonly refers to fertilization, but is sometimes defined as implantation or even "the point at which human life begins" and is thus a subject of semantic arguments within the abortion debate.

Since the word "conception" has become controversial, then the expression "emergency contraception" must also be controversial. In my view, the traditional meaning (conception = fertilization) is still the more common one, as when a woman talks about conceiving on her wedding night.

I also agree that "equivalent to" or "morally equivalent to " would be better than "a form of". And Str1977 is quite right in stating that the people who oppose anything that will prevent implantaion of the embryo are not motivated by the belief that "pregnancy" has started, but by the belief that "human life" has started. (The same people would oppose the destruction of test-tube embryos.) AnnH ^(talk) 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the "emergency"? Medically, an emergency is an injury or illness that requires an urgent need of medical attention to alleviate an immediate threat to one's health.[36] If a woman has sperm inside of her, medically speaking there is no emergency. There may be a personal desire to quickly address the matter, but is is NOT a medical emergency. Fertility is a sign of health. Contraception, medically speaking, is not actually health care - rather it is elective medical treatment (similar to elective medical treatment to make one look younger). Contraception by definition always inhibits the normal natural state of reproductive health. The exception is the rare case of a woman actually suffering from a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous to her health. 136.215.251.179 09:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro proposal

After examining the intro sections of homosexuality, intelligent design, and capital punishment, I am convinced that ours is not up to snuff. Those introductions succeed not only in defining the subject, but also in setting the tone for the entire article. The current introduction to abortion is loose, disorganized, without much sense of flow. Perhaps all of the more specific definitions — spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), induced abortion, elective, surgical, and therapeutic abortion, as well as discussions of premature birth, stillbirth, and emergency contraception — would better be moved to a "definitions" sub-section? -Kyd 01:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems scattered. HOw could we organize it so that it flows? Alienus 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call, you have my support. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For starters. let's move the bulleted items to the correct sections below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. Now we can work from here. BTW, just thought the whole pro-choice/pro-life thing is the kind of thing which should be outlined in the intro and left from there. -Kyd 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt I stpped on your foot, but in that, I prefer our old solution of saying "there is a contraversy" and leaving the rest in the abortion debate section. I do like what you've done thus far though--Tznkai 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob. The intro is the first thing which visitors will read. We should probably wait of the input of other editors before we go and tinker with it too terribly. It's a lot less overwhelming, though, now that everything has been set in its right place. -Kyd 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro reads that "In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of the procedure became the subject of intense debate...." - the debate is much older than the 20th century - it would be more accurate to simply state that "The ethics and morality of the procedure have been the subject of intense debate..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonaNobisPacem (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 January 2006.

How about "featuring in 20th century politics?" As I don't think it was ever a campaign point before 1900s--Tznkai 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Turned "intense debate" into "intense political debate." This should clarify the matter until we think of a way to sum up the other umpteen centuries of debate in one or two sentences. -Kyd 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, Tzn and Kyd. Abortion has been an issue off and on for a long time, since the Romans anyway, but that's dusty stuff and better relegated to History of abortion. I like Tzn's tidy phrasing of the current situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. and Kudos for Kyd for getting us off our ass and fixing it. maybe I should pass the unofficial Tzarship on. (I'm joking about there being a Tzarship. Really)--Tznkai 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We know you are. Its a Tznship. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro guys! That reads a lot better. I hate to keep mucking it up - I would have to disagree with the US comment, though - take a look at Chile...and Portugal, and the EU response in regards to them...and...I think it's best just left at intense political debate. DonaNobisPacem 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Perhaps I should change my name to Tznkyd? The transplant is a little rough around the edges. The intro needs to be expanded, perhaps to cover more of the article, as the introductions to homosexuality and intelligent design do. Also, the definitions section needs to be cleaned up a little, although I'm in no mood to do so right now. I'm moving onto unsafe abortion, for which I've been clamouring, because someone's gotta take the initiative. -Kyd 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the intro is perfect and free from any need for further tweaks, but it's much better now. Good work, people. Alienus 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PARTY TIME!!! I have extra Strongbows from new years... anyone? ;"D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at it further, I'd suggest two tweaks, changing centuries to millennia... and clarifying why the 20th century saw an open dialogue on the issue. Perhaps:

In the 20th century, as a result of safer modern abortion techniques and feminism, the ethics and morality of abortions became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

So long as the technological and sociological changes are explicitly stated. I also took out links I felt aren't completely necessary. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

the only problem is this counts as original research (feminism and safer abortion) unless cited, and I wonder if it isn't to much detail.--Tznkai 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it in then notice your post here so I reverted; I tend to think of it as "state the obvious". - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to you and to me sure, but others may talk about the "collapse of soceital values" or what not. My concern is in stating it X was caused by Y, we're supposed to cite why, and we've got another contentious debate waiting to happen in the intro. I prefer to avoid detailed causes, but thats my own style. Lets see what the others think.--Tznkai 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'd think that would fit snuggly and tie into (from their perspective) feminism. I don't see it expanding beyond that; but I cannot disagree a cite would be handy to have... moreso to keep it from being expanded upon and bloating the intro. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image and link standards straw poll

There has, for some time, been an informal rule, established in the practice of multiple users, prohibiting the inclusion of "shock images" in the article or links to external sites which contain such material (whether pro-choice or pro-life). Let's resolve this once and for and and seek to establish a hard consensus on the matter. Also, feel free to comment on what level of enforcement you believe would be appropriate, if any, such as whether any standards should apply only to this top-tier article or to all subjects throughout the abortion spectrum. Consider, too, the issue of context: could a "shock image," itself, be inappropriate, while an image of an activist holding a sign containing a shock image might not? -Kyd 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, this is what is to be understood as a "shock image":

Alleged photographs of aborted fetuses sometimes used among pro-life advocates (Warning:example).
Alleged photographs of women who died from unsafe abortions sometimes used by pro-choice advocates (Warning: example).

I'll leave it to other editors to help edit or expand upon these guidelines. -Kyd 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Support the creation of image and link standards

Support. Shock links and images contribute nothing to the subject of abortion and are little more than an open-door invitation to POV. This is an encylopedia, not a pamphlet. -Kyd 08:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the creation of image and link standards

Oppose Breaks be bold. It may make this article easier to work with, but regular editors need to learn the rules of thumb, and smackng down new editors can be a bad thing. Ronabop 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose 84.146.224.186
Oppose--143.200.225.101 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

First off, there is no need for a unique rule for this article. Checkout other wikipedia articles with shocking or graphic images or links: vasectomy, castration, Female genital cutting, episiotomy, safe sex, breast implants, My Lai massacre, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, Lynching, Rwandan Genocide, and Torture. Billions of people embrace abortion. Billions of people abhor it. Hiding the details of what an abortion entails - the physical process by which it occurs - smacks of censorship and also paternalist protection. Are we really of the mind that people can't handle such links? Or that it is good to try to keep people away from such factual information? And if you find that pro-choice sights never provide such information, then all the more reason to wonder why their goal is to hide what occurs during an abortion. It is, after all, one of the most common surgeries there is. Seems that people ought ot have details about what happens when they visit the abortionist. Again, we are talking about LINKING to such information. People would have to opt in. Not sure why folks are against providing readers with more information. Is a [37] sterile un-bloody medical drawing of how to conduct an abortion a banned shock image? Is a black and white fetal ultrasound a banned shock image? In light of the controversy over the legality of abortion, why is it a good thing to hide the process by which an abortion is accomplished? It certainly seems that excluding factual scientific information because it disturbs some people's political views is not what we want as a policy. Why are we banning things that shock people? Is "how shocking" a criteria by which we ban information? I was shocked to see emaciated (walking skeletons) holocaust victims the first time. And amen! What a good thing that was - it helped me understand what the holocaust was. Why is "shocking" equated with "must not be seen since it HAS to be propganda and we can't have any of that"? Historicaly, some of the most shocking images have been the basis for people understanding an issue. And again, the suggested policy won't even allow medical diagrams.

Sometimes pro-lifers also use shocking images of women maimed or killed through LEGAL abortion.84.146.246.151

This vote is a false dichotomy. You are painting this as a vote that only impacts "gross-out" images - when in fact your view is that NO image at all of abortion or its by-products should be permitted. And you are hiding the fact that countless other wikipedia articles contain similar images and links. 84.146.224.186

Kyd, the pro-life site you list is not of ALLEGED abortions, it contains ACTUAL abortions (see: Image of child aborted at 9 weeks [38], authenticated by a pathologist).84.146.206.84