Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological archives
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43
Topical subpages
Lead: 2006, 2007-10, 2011 Lead image To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, Use of "Death"

One more attempt

Since the lead's inline discussion tag is still there, I've came up with two versions to somehow address the related concerns above:

• "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo"
• "Abortion may be defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo", where "generally" may be inserted before "defined".

Both proposals seek to summarize and reconcile all definitions given in the note. The dropped "prior to viability" may be added in the form of "before it is considered viable". Thoughts? --Brandmeister t 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was planning on reopening this discussion too, but I decided to wait a bit. Can we hold off until Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion is closed before having this discussion? NW (Talk) 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While definitions like these deftly side-step issues, it fails to specify what happens to the abortus and how this differs from other pregnancy endings. - RoyBoy 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes--"prior to viability" is indeed highly relevant here. JJL (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevant yes. Encompassing? I'd maintain no. - RoyBoy 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys seriously need some outside eyes. Tell me how expulsion is different from removal, and how a reader is supposed to interpret that sentence? Perhaps you could also explain why it includes an obvious untruth later contradicted in the article? Please don't write for someone who already knows the subject, and please at least make the article consistent. B^e——C_ritical 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you think of this version:

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

"Removal" and "expulsion" are the same thing, the same result. This also removes the contradiction. The Intact dilation and extraction article says "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a procedure done in late term abortion," and thus abortions do occur after viability, unless that article is wrong which I very much doubt. It's not Wikipedia's call to redefine terminology in both common and legal usage. You have to cite that abortion does not include IDX. This, according to the notes in the article, has not been done, because several of the sources merely say something like "usually before fetal viability," or they simply say nothing about viability, as "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo." The sources do not justify an absolute statement as in the current lead sentence. We should not be taking sides in this debate, as a matter of NPOV. "Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it." I would personally argue that given that the usage of IDX may not be an abortion, then partial birth abortion is the only term specifically used for late term abortion, and we are dealing with an anomaly in terminology and taking sides in a debate in the process. I would also argue that you would have to source that IDX is not an abortion procedure: the burden is on that side of the debate. B^e——C_ritical 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The current version is extremely well-sourced by the top medical texts. The term partial birth abortion is more a political term than a medical one, isn't it? There may well be some inconsistency in how WP is describing things--as happens with many editors--but what you propose sounds dangerously close to OR to me: Parsing the phrases partial birth abortion/late term abortion and insisting that they follow some consistent logic, some hierarchy, that may not reflect how their usage has actually evolved. The lede is backed by extensive sources and I'm more inclined to bring less well-sourced material into line with it than the other way around. JJL (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with that, if you can have a source which says that Late termination of pregnancy is not abortion, or that IDX is not abortion. We could bring all the articles into line with that, and decide that whereas prior to 20 weeks it is abortion, after that it's termination of pregnancy or having an IDX procedure on a living fetus, or some such. But you know that won't fly. What's really OR is what is there now, which is a statement that takes sides among the various sources. But here is a source that looks good to me, as it's JAMA calling IDX "abortion" B^e——C_ritical 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that source isn't exactly the "JAMA calling...", but rather three authors who wrote a "special communication" published in JAMA thirteen years ago (Aug 1998), in the aftermath of Clinton's veto. The same issue carried Grimes' paper doi:10.1001/jama.280.8.747 (and, for a variety of controversies, a book review of Shapiro & Shapiro's The Powerful Placebo : From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician). Something more current and more authoritative would be desirable. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good source too. I don't see the problem here, we have sources calling it "late term abortion," and the sources in the article disagree. Thus, we do not take sides. Further, Wikipedia ought to have some common sense to it. It's blatantly obvious that late term abortions are "abortions." So change the text. Here's another source though Thus, late-term abortion, defined as abortion after twenty weeks, is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.1 percent of all abortions, and this is interesting. But the sources you've already gathered necessitate changing our text. B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources stating "late term" includes post-viability? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've already seen, we have sources saying IDX is abortion, and IDX includes post viability [1], viability is as young as 21 weeks and IDX is performed as late as 26 weeks [2]. That's just what I found in a few minutes, but it's pretty obvious. I suspect there is considerable secrecy here. We should ask some other editors who would know more. Also the sources already in the article pretty much sew up the case, just for example "[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen...[T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250." 28 weeks is well after viability. This is what I mean about taking sides with the sources. Several sources say 28 weeks, and viability of 90% is 26 weeks. B^e——C_ritical 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

'Viability' refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. This is well-defined but poorly measurable. The guidelines on numbers of weeks are attempts to estimate when viability will have occurred. There's no question in principle about the definition of the term but many issues in practice of ascertaining whether it has occurred without actually performing a procedure to remove the fetus. JJL (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a broad range of acceptable lead sentences, and these include both what we have now as well as the very long and wordy one that we had a few months ago that gave both the definition from common parlance and the one from medical textbooks. We could also change the footnote to say something like "The definition of abortion, as with many words, varies from source to source. The following is a partial list of definitions as stated by obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) textbooks, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Some abortion procedures, such as intact dilation and extraction, may occur even after the fetus is viable." NW (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hmm, would "usually prior to viability" be acceptable? Because that's both true and not taking sides per NPOV. Also it doesn't raise a question with the lay reader who knows viable fetuses are sometimes aborted. B^e——C_ritical 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's there now is what the medical sources say--I understand your objection but it is precisely what's in the appropriate WP:MEDRS. Changing those sources to fit what seem like inconsistencies in our personal, lay opinion would be WP:SYNTH, wouldn't it? JJL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're factually wrong about the sources, see the above discussion. B^e——C_ritical 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that wp:MEDRS has still not been read and understood. The NYTimes, Salon.com, and CTV are not reliable publishers for medical assertions. Nor are "original research", "commentary", "letters", "special communications" or other non-review contributions considered to be MEDRS, even if they are published in Lancet, JAMA, CMAJ, or NEJM. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are unreliable sources in the article, you should take them out. The argument is based on the sources already in the article, and all other links are only peripheral to the discussion. B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We require MEDRS for assertions of medical facts, not for every fact in the article. Non-medical assertions can be backed up by generic wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the sources used to back up the current lead sentence are not MEDRS? If there are any non-MEDRS there, they should be removed. B^e——C_ritical 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The lede sentence is fully supported, and reflects, WP:MEDRS, per a discussion taking place since about June of this year. (See the Talk archives.) Some have added other sources to the lengthy note on this in the article as an attempt to undercut the lede sentence. I think I don't fully understand your objection to the sources for the lede sentence. JJL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would request that you remove any sources you don't think meet MEDRS. But the sources there now contradict each other on the viability issue. They give a figure in weeks which is beyond the age of viability, yet say that "abortion" is only prior to viability. But the Wikipedia text takes sides in this contradiction. I think per NPOV we should not take sides. BTW, I do not know how some would react relative to any POV about the abortion debate(s), this comes purely from the seeming inaccuracy of the text, and I looked at the sources and saw they contradict. I also do not fully understand the objection to the JAMA source I found. (In case you think this is OR, the Churchill’s Medical Dictionary source says "usually before fetal viability."

BTW, I'm sorry for not digging through the archives, but I suspect that this issue would have been resolved if people weren't POV pushing, not that I understand how this plays into POV, I'm just guessing. I'm guessing ArbCom has now made this a safer jungle..... I'm reading a bit of the RfC here, and I see people reacting to POV or not POV, but not reacting much to being reasonable or referring much to sources. Also, I note that some of the quotes of the sources are cherry picked, for example: The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. which is what's in the note, but it goes on to say "The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state. Some premature neonates of fewer than 24 weeks or 500 g are viable," and thus it is not nearly as cut and dried as the WP text. B^e——C_ritical 06:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"usually" was a point of discussion prior as Britannica used it and this was of importance to me. I definitely welcome your continued rigor on this topic. - RoyBoy 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should ask others here whether they dispute that there have been abortions subsequent to viability? If not, then there is no original research involved in opting for caution in representing the ambiguous sources (for example, inserting the word "usually"). There may also be the option of a sentence explaining that IDX is commonly but not properly called abortion, and may take place subsequent to viability; if that can be sourced well. I very much like LeadSongDog's suggestion in that discussion "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth." We can either decide to discuss the contradictions, or to leave them out of the lead. We could also say that purposely terminating a pregnancy subsequent to viability is called X or that there is no term for it. Whatever the sources say, but we can't just leave it as it is. It's probably much wiser to avoid the issue. B^e——C_ritical 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, from memory I believe that no one disputes the fact that a viable fetus is sometimes aborted. In fact our article states that 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, the undisputed earliest age of viability. However, looking at the definitions that we have to choose from for our references, how many times do you see the word "usually"? Thoughts? As for my thoughts, as I have said all along, while Wikipedia may aim to tell the Truth, Wikipedia does not always tell the truth. We have no choice, NONE, to decide that we may alter references to suit our fancy. This policy was wisely put in place to prevent a small group of perhaps well meaning but biased editors from providing politically biased articles for our readers. That said, all those lofty words, and yet I did agree to using the word "usually". If I remember correctly, there was only one hold-out on the word, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Reading the thread I see that I said that the CDC's earliest gestation week (21 wks) before viability is achieved is undisputed. Since I am well-aware that other sources give a later date, what I should have said is that no source uses a date prior to 21 wks gestation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well put. NPOV does say "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." That's what I'm arguing here. The majority of RS say "before viability," and some RS say something like "usually." There is also the problem of legal and some medical sources calling IDX abortion. All in all something like avoiding the issue or using the word "usually" seem justified. The CDC speaks of abortion occurring at "≥21 weeks" [3].

Re the sources: there is a contradiction in the specific weeks given, for example CDC above saying "≥21 weeks", and these quotes: "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation" "definitions vary widely according to state laws" "loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy" "Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion" "Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom up to the 24th week of pregnancy[4]" "...especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced" (this last would include any age, and is one of the major textbooks). B^e——C_ritical 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the time periods for viability do vary greatly from one source to another. That is why I choose to use the CDC >21 wks date. Re "usually", I believe that policy would say that all references are not equal. Since abortion is a medical procedure, I would assume that medical sources would be preferable to non-medical sources. If my memory is correct, none of the medical sources use the word "usually". It seems to me that one dictionary does, and three give a definition that does not speak of viability. Something like that...please check and see what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well "usually" can be sourced to CDC stats, but "before viability" might be problematic as you say if we think of it as SYNTH to put together CDC stats with the age of viability from other sources. Could we just not deal with it or do you think we should try to source it? What do you mean by "medical sources?" The heading in the note is Other medical dictionaries. B^e——C_ritical 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. Let's start here: The note lists refs from MAJOR OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS and OTHER OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS----MAJOR MED DICTIONARIES and OTHER MED DICTIONARIES----MAJOR DICTIONARIES and OTHER DICTIONARIES----and ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I believe that our ref for our definition should come from a major textbook or medical dictionary, or an encyclopedia. Do you agree or disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We could do that; but in such a case we should also agree to take out the other sources that aren't of sufficient value to base our definition firmly. If we're going to exclude the other sources, then we really ought to have an explanation of what ending a pregnancy later than viability is called. This is out of respect for the reader who will know the common definition (which is any procedure preformed prior to birth to get rid of a fetus and prevent live birth). We might also say medically defined. B^e——C_ritical 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The note has grown fitfully and was used as a form of argument by various editors seeking to undercut whatever the current lede was. Cleaning it up is very sensible. Abortion is a medical procedure that, like most, is to a greater or lesser degree regulated--greater than usual in the case of abortion, of course. The definition in the lede now defines what abortion is, as a medical procedure according to the sources, and the article addresses the legal issues afterward. The definition in terms of viability is, regardless of whether one likes it or not, the definition; that's what it is. We never turned up a comparable body of sources that address the issue of how unambiguously post-viability procedures fit in--and some of what we did find alluded to the fact that many later abortions are of nonviable fetuses even though they're well past the point that for a normal development would have resulted in viability. Determining viability is hard in a case-by-case basis, as seen by the varying guidelines and laws; but none of that changes how the term is defined, just how decisions about it are made in practice. JJL (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So then, are you saying that although abortion is a medical operation, it is much more than that and as such both medical sources and non-medical sources should be used for our definition? Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be a case for legal definitions to be relevant? I think perhaps we just need to make clear what JJL says, that there isn't a term for post-viability intentional termination of pregnancy. That would clear up the whole issue. Can it be sourced? B^e——C_ritical 05:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I said. The medical defn. is clear and involves viability. It's extremely well-sourced and near-universal among medical textbooks. Is there a source for the claim that the medical defn. is incorrect or incomplete? I understand your concerns but what you are suggesting seems like synthesis to me. As to the legal matters, they are relevant but secondary--the laws are about the procedure. The legal discussion of course must be included but not in the first sentence. Define what it is first and what people think about it next. JJL (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but you have to explain that termination of a pregnancy on a post-viable fetus is commonly called abortion, but that's not the definition. You have to make the distinction out of respect for the reader. Of course, you probably can't source that it's not the definition. It's a gray area. And that fact should be explained. I think that can be sourced because it's mentioned relative to partial birth abortion. "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."[5]

Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term to non-viable fetuses. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

B^e——C_ritical 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, "Medically defined" has been suggested in the past (by me). If I remember correctly, I changed my mind because other medical/surgical procedures, appendectomy for instance, do not give a definition using the words "medically defined". As for the suggestion that post-viability induced abortions have no name in medical literature, they are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development. Gandydancer (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Medically defined" seems to me an appropriate summary/paraphrase, we don't have to use wording plucked verbatim from some source. If you can source that post-viability induced terminations are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development, then that is a resolution to this problem. But apparently no one can do that, so we have to go with some sort of split definition. Right? B^e——C_ritical 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A split defn. rather than a sourced one? JJL (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are sourced, the split one just takes into account the legal sources. This article covers more than the medical, and therefore should use sources beyond MEDRS. It has a huge section on Society and culture. B^e——C_ritical 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the lede sentence, the lede paragraph, or the whole lede (before the TOC)? Currently the lede section does provide a broad overview of the issues. For the lede sentence, abortion itself is a medical procedure. As with other medical procedures, I think we must define what we're talking about before defining a societal and legal response to it. That is the consistent style across the site--the lede sentence established what the medical procedure is even when it's something controversial. For the lede paragraph, the current structure seems to be first a paragraph on abortion as medical event and medical procedure; then a paragraph on the public health aspects; and finally a paragraph on the history and broader cultural implications of the procedure. That seems to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") including the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence ("The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject."). The lede sentence examples given there are short, succinct, and clinical. To take an example from there, "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!. does not indicate why this song is notable, but the two-paragraph lede section goes on to describe it as "one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music" and ""Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners. In 2000, "Yesterday" was voted the #1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame." That's what we're doing here. Arguably the second paragraph of the Abortion article could be shorter and the third could expand on the social/religious/legal issues, including late term abortions, but it's fundamentally hitting all the major notes and maintains a global, rather than U.S.-centric, view of the subject,as required.. JJL (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Medicine does not have a monopoly on defining words. Law defines abortion differently from the medical texts: it specifically talks about post-viability abortions. This contradiction needs to be part of the first paragraph unless we expunge everything but medicine from this article. We have to specifically state that the medical definition is different from other definitions. We could do as you say... but only by eliminating the viability issue entirely, so that the lead sentence would be something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo." But that also has problems. Alternately, my suggested lead above is an alternative. There are lots of different ways we could do this, but what we can't do is cover social and legal aspects while leaving those aspects out of the definition. B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be in the lede sentence. Covering the medical, legal, and social aspects in one sentence would be very unwieldy. Looking at the style per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence and similar articles on medical matters of social import, I think we're well in-line with Wikipedia conventions now: Define what it is, then cover how people feel about it and react to it. Other defns. merely attempt to codify social/legal procedures related to the medical issue. JJL (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't have to both be in the lead sentence as you say: read my suggested text above. The reason for giving the legal definitions as part of what it is, is that while abortions occurring post-viability don't have a name in the medical literature, they do have a name in the legal literature. This is just a way to tell the reader "yes, the medical textbooks don't have a name for such procedures, but legally speaking they are still called abortion." This isn't how people feel about them, it's what to call it. What you're saying is that post-viability abortions aren't "abortions," and that's just misleading the reader. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm open-minded on that, though "has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term" makes affirmative statements that need sourcing (How will you establish it has no name? by the trouble we've had finding one? What's the source?) and "medically defined" has always seemed awkward to me. But it's not unreasonable. If consensus ends up going that way then that's that. I don't see it generating much interest here though and I do prefer the current version. What you see as a major omission I see as a topic to be discussed later in the article. JJL (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true so how about "Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability is also termed abortion in legal and common usage." I don't think the "common usage" part needs sourcing, as it's WP:BLUE, and the legal claim can be sourced with an example or two, plus the source already in the article. B^e——C_ritical 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds more sourceable. Again, while I'm open-minded on this change I do prefer the current set-up--the three-paragraph lede covering first the biomedical defn., then the public health issues, and then the historical and soiolegal aspects--so I'm not in favor of a change. If consensus swings this way I could certainly work with it though. JJL (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember a great deal of discussion re using "medically" - to my memory I suggested it and quickly dropped it after a very short discussion. I would have no problem using it if it would help to bring closure. I also have no problem saying "usually before...", if it would help to bring an agreement. I need to resort to using the common sense and/or break the rules policy for that, but in this case it seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it was found to be insufficient (too specific) for an encyclopedic article. - RoyBoy 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to suggest a beginning paragraph which integrated the common and legal definitions? B^e——C_ritical 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is there some indication that a reasonably wp:WORLDWIDE legal definition exists? Even one that is widespread through the anglosphere? Is there any international law that pertains? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No international law. "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."[laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html] That's a clear mention of post viability abortion, calling it "abortion." I'm sure you could find other sources from other countries, but I don't have time right now. B^e——C_ritical 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, there's wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reed Boland - Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):67-89, pertinent text can be found here.

Box 1. Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion 1. The wording of many laws is not always clear and many laws are silent as to upper time limits and conditions for the performance of second trimester abortion. 2. Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman. Approximately 67% of countries allow second trimester abortions only for this reason, all of which, except Ireland, are developing countries. 3. Over half of countries allow second trimester abortion for health reasons, with varying definitions of what constitutes such reasons; more than a quarter of countries specifically also allow abortions for mental health reasons. 4. Over a third of countries allow second trimester abortions on grounds of fetal impairment, again with widely varying definitions. 5. Over a quarter of countries allow second trimester abortions if the pregnancy resulted from a sex offence. 6. Only 20% of countries allow second trimester abortions on broad socio-economic grounds, and only 5% allow them on request. These countries account for approximately half of the world's population, however, but mainly because they include China. 7. Developed countries are more likely than developing countries to permit second trimester abortions on a wide range of grounds. 8. Almost no countries set upper time limits for abortions performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, and few countries set time limits for abortions performed on health grounds. Half of countries that allow abortion for fetal impairment and pregnancy resulting from a sex offence set upper time limits, ranging from 16 to 32 weeks. Most countries allowing second trimester abortions for socio-economic reasons or on request do not set time limits for them during the second trimester. 9. Many countries place conditions relating to providers, facilities and procedures on the performance of abortions, only some of which are specific regarding second trimester abortions. Some of these are intended to create barriers to access, but others aim to protect women's health. 10. Although the general trend in recent years has been to liberalize abortion laws, including during part or all of the second trimester of pregnancy, there have also been successful and unsuccessful attempts by anti-abortion activists to lower upper time limits on second trimester abortions in some countries.

- RoyBoy 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• "allowed in post-viability abortions the physician to use a technique…" Management of post-mortem pregnancy, ISBN 9780754643043 p. 3
• "late-term abortion: post-viability abortion. Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a nonspecialized health center." Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine, ISBN 9780838515358
• "Section 10: Partial-birth and post-viability abortions" ISBN 9781590317259 p. 549
• "Restrictions on postviability abortions" Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care, ISBN 9781444358476
• "all late-term or post-viability abortions" Genetic Testing, ISBN 9780471649878 p. 204
• "explaining that post-viability abortions were rare", "a ban on all post-viability abortions" Protecting the Right to Choose, ISBN 9780452285682
• "care for the fetus in post-viability abortions", ISBN 9780313306440

There's more where these came from. Can we all agree now that induced "post-viability abortions" are actually abortions, and that they are actually called that, even by textbooks used in medical schools?

The problem you have with the lead is that you're trying to deal with two separate issues: there's abortion-as-pregnancy-loss and there's abortion-as-medical-procedure. The first is defined according to viability. The second is defined by your intent not to produce a live birth.

Example: If you surgically remove a fetus because it has Down syndrome at 26 weeks with the goal of having a dead fetus at the end of the procedure, you are performing an abortion procedure on a viable fetus. If that same 26-week fetus simply died, we'd classify it as a stillbirth, not as a miscarriage.

The only realistic solution is to separate the two separate things. So you need a first paragraph that says something like this:

Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end. When it occurs spontaneously before fetal viability, it is commonly called a miscarriage. An abortion procedure is a purposeful action taken to end a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth. Although abortion procedures may be performed at any point during the pregnancy before childbirth, they are most common in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion procedure is called an elective abortion and is commonly performed for non-medical reasons. An abortion procedure performed for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion.

If that next-to-last sentence surprises you, note that "elective" refers to Elective surgery. It is the preference of all good surgeons that all therapeutic abortions also be elective abortions, because the alternative to elective surgery is called emergency surgery.

And I hate to break it to you, but "expulsion" and "removal" are not strictly necessary components for an abortion. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage has already occurred before the expulsion. (Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a missed miscarriage, since that would literally mean "non-expulsion expulsion".) Spontaneous abortion is fundamentally defined by the embryo or fetus' death, not by its removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That list of books is interesting, but it speaks only to the legal language used in US courts, not medical language. Searching gbooks on each of the entries for "post-viability", every found paragraph is a discussion of laws and court decisions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of the terms "prior to viablity" in the lead 'cause a significant number of abortions in the world occur when the fetus is viable (can survive outside the womb). Example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322601/China-forces-woman-abortion-EIGHT-months-breaching-child-policy.html

The following text written by Suzanne Carrière, director of CSSC Jeanne-Mance (CSSC Jeanne-Mance is, amongst other things, an abortion provider) explains on the 5th page how in 2010 the government of Quebec would send many women to the United States in order to have an abortion after the 24th week or 6th month of pregnancy.

She explains that only women with immigration problems, substance abuse problems, criminal records or whose fetus has difformities can abort in the province of Quebec.

All other women from Quebec that choose to have abortion after the 24th week or 6th month of pregnancy for ANY reason whatsoever will receive money from the government in Quebec in order to have the abortion performed in the United States of America.

http://partenariat-familles.inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca/DocsPDF/TexteSCarriere.pdf

The lead implies that abortion is generally performed before the fetus is viable, which is simply inaccurate. Israell (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You may feel it's inaccurate, but it is extremely well sourced per WP:V as the defn. of the term. What do you find lacking about those sources--not about what they say (the "truth"), but about the sources (verifiability)? JJL (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the point. There are many other sources (not stemming from pro-life websites) like the ones I mentionned earlier that explain how common abortion when the fetus is viable is. Therefore, the lead shall not include the terms "prior to viability". Israell (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Which ones actually define their terms? The medical sources do--they give an explicit defn. for 'abortion'. We have to be careful not to synthesize one. JJL (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatamidoing's lead is certainly an improvement over what is there, and I'm sure it is much more accurate. Does anyone actually contest that abortions occur after viability? I'm convinced that medical sources purposely refuse to discuss abortion post-viability, for example this, and that this is a purposeful omission for political reasons. However, I know that other equally RS sources such as legal ones speak of abortion post-viability. It would not be synthesis to have a lead speaking of:

• miscarriage
• therapeutic abortion
• elective abortion
• legal mentions of abortion not being restricted to pre-viablility.

All these are things we can source, and taken together form a lead which doesn't leave the reader knowing that something is fishy. B^e——C_ritical 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sooo, what are the objections to the newly proposed lead? B^e——C_ritical 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well...Wikipedia>Abortion>"Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." Certainly a departure from what any of our sources use, isn't it? How can you justify that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to get something started here. Don't look at me too hard. I'm just trying to get any lead that doesn't violate common sense. I don't want to ignore any of the valid sourcing like the legal sourcing as we're doing now. But I'm not expert enough on the sourcing in this area to really do the job right. I just came here and saw it doesn't work. I'd more like to get others who know the available sourcing to make it work than try to make it work myself. I think that's a valid function. B^e——C_ritical 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, I can't speak for the other editors that have been working for a definition, but it would not surprise me if they had similar feelings...as for myself, I think we are really lucky to have such a good editor to join in the conversation at this point. Your inexperience with this issue and your fresh point of view may be just what we need right now to help us all to try and find a lede definition. I hope that you continue to work with the others to find a solution to this most difficult problem. Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer, I hope I can help. B^e——C_ritical 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that claim, how does the lead "violate common sense"? With all the sourcing(especially those meeting MEDRS), how can one make that claim? It seems to me that common sense dictates that the sourcing and logic support the lead. "Viability" is a medical term. Once a fetus becomes truly viable, options to terminate are limited. Only in cases possible death for the patient, or coupled with extreme patient distress(health, fertility, etc.) and fetal likelihood of stillborn, are cases performed even near potential viability. So yes, along with the many here and in the archives of past discussions, I object. Based on my post here and other reasons provided in past discussions. Dave Dial (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave, it seems as if you answer your own question: it violates common sense because everybody knows that abortions happen after a fetus could be viable (whatever the wording). Just because that is limited doesn't mean it's not abortion. We need to acknowledge that fact, and we also don't need to limit our sourcing to medical. Per NPOV, we bring all RS to bear on our subject. The subject of abortion is far more than a medical issue, and the definition of the term has an apparently slightly different meaning in different RS. Since it might help, you should know I do not have any religious or ethical objection to abortion, and would be the first to counter any POV pushing from the antiabortion side of this issue. Yet I also, for example, wouldn't have a problem with mentioning "death of the fetus." I wouldn't push for it, but I would think it is accurate and NPOV unless otherwise convinced. I suspect, though I don't know, that the objection to "death" was because of its emotional appeal re the fetus. B^e——C_ritical 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying "everybody knows" something when the medical textbooks used to train physicians run counter to it is a tough sell. Abortion is a medical procedure. Like many such, there are social dimensions to its application in particular cases. If you look at the style used in WP for articles on controversial medical matters you'll find they define the procedure or medical issue first--after all, how can one understand the legal aspects before knowing what it is? JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion is a medical procedure and only happens prior to viability, except if you accept what the medical textbooks say and what the law texts say. It only happens before viability if you ignore the legal texts and what everyone knows about partial birth abortions. The medical textbooks say abortion may or may not be a medical procedure, and the law texts say it can happen after viability, and medical students know that the textbooks are talking about what they're legally allowed to do. So from your perspective, people are going to look at the law texts and say there can never be a problem, because there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion. What are those texts even talking about? No abortion can happen after viability, it's impossible. B^e——C_ritical 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your point, as far as I can make it out, still relies on the unsourced claim that there are things "everybody knows" that need to be put in the article in defiance of WP:V. You're now inferring what medical students know but don't say and positing an actual conspiracy among medical professionals. Conspiracy claims must be sourced. JJL (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, no I don't have anything to prove re adhering to sources, not with my record on sourcing policy. But I don't have any reason not to have common sense on talk pages. That's where you start, then you see what you can source. But never pretend that you don't have common sense or actually can't see the obvious, rather agree with whomever you're arguing with that yes, that's common sense, but nevertheless WP policy is as it is. If you really take a close look at my edit history you'll see that in practice a few times. B^e——C_ritical 01:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion that I "really take a close look at [your] edit history" and take into account your "record on sourcing policy" in lieu of expecting you to comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule to troll Talk:Abortion. JJL (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "death" in the definition, it might be a good idea to read the Wikipedia definition of "Life" at our article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A fetus is unequivocally alive per definition. I doubt there's any controversy there, it's just that the word is used in a special way in the abortion debate. But Wikipedia doesn't have to bend its own text to try and create or avoid political issues. I doubt "death" is necessary, I just used it as an example above. B^e——C_ritical 19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of controversy about that--see the archives from this past summer. Saying that a "fetus is unequivocally alive per definition" sans sources, or that the defn. of abortion is "obviously" wrong, is precisely the kind of reasoning rules like WP:V, WP:RS, etc., are here to prevent. JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really controversy in any real sense, regardless of any Wikipedia maneuvering. What you say is what I've been arguing over at V. I'd agree with you in all this if the medical textbooks were the only relevant sources. B^e——C_ritical 08:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So, disagreement with you is now "Wikipedia maneuvering". Until you can see the possibility of people of good will and reason disagreeing with you, discussion will not be fruitful. I don't know what you're referring to as V. Do you mean WP:V? JJL (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that "A fetus is unequivocally alive per definition"? Wikipedia says that there is no unequivocal definition of life. But if you are sure that there is, would life begin at the moment the male sperm cell and the female egg cell united (if I termed that correctly), or would it begin at implantation? Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the debate is at the level of viruses or prions, whether they can be called alive or not. A fetus meets most of these criteria, and would more if it were allowed to live: I mean adaptation and reproduction. B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There are points to be made on both sides of this. Sources were adduced on both sides this past summer. It isn't a simple matter...and your continued insistence that every issue is black-and-white according to how you see things isn't helpful. You have a clear POV on several matters that have been, and continue to be, highly contentious not just here but in the overall discussion of the issue of abortion. Until you can a.) see the possibility of another side or at least a grey area, and b.) begin backing your assertions as to what is and is not "obviously" true with sources, I don't see the point of this. If you're waiting for me to produce the sources, I have--check the archives starting from around June. But until you're bringing sources rather than just convictions and opinions, this isn't likely to be a fruitful discussion. JJL (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What a waste of time! This dynamic is part of the reason long time contributors are falling away from Wikipedia. It's wonderfully hypocritical you can spot POV in pro-lifers but can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to the debate of life; which appeared amply settled, again. - RoyBoy 02:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I look at the list of criteria for life and I see something completely different. Concerning the pre-viable fetus, which is what we are speaking of, I find that most of the homeostatic functions are done by the mother's placenta. I find that some, such as a requirement that the issue be multi-cellular, could as well apply to a cancerous tumor. And I find that potential possibilities are just that - potential possibilities. And, you did not reply to my question about when...when does Life actually begin? Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as others have here (and of course elsewhere)--it's far from clear that the fetus, and esp. the developing embryo at the earliest stages, meets the defn. of 'life'. It's a heap paradox--there's no clear, simple line at which it crosses the barrier. JJL (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well this is just getting philosophical- it doesn't matter whether life or death wording is in the article. I would say that life would begin with conception, but that's not to place any value in particular on "life." Some people can't put the value of life on a sliding scale even while eating a chicken sandwich. I guess they justify this by talk of souls, even while.... nevermind... B^e——C_ritical 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where one draws the precise line is of zero importance Gandydancer. Just as fascinating possibilities about what could be life in the context of astrobiology has no bearing on if a fetus is "alive". As to homeostasis, when someone is hooked up to life support -- for most of their vital functions -- does that mean they are no longer alive? - RoyBoy 02:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did the person that pulled the life support plug kill them?...As for the fetus, is it alive as a distinct human being at the moment of fertilization?, at implantation?, at viability?, at quickening?, at birth? Roe v. Wade said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." With very rare exceptions, our sources do not use the word death. So, I hope we do not need to again go through the discussion of using the word "death" in the definition in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't, that was just an example. B^e——C_ritical 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, killed, not difficult. Same with removing a bandage and bleeding out -- died from the wound(s), killed from medical aid removal. As eloquent as Roe v. Wade is, it is clear homeostatic control is immaterial to defining "life". Right?

As to death discussion, did we actually have one if some still think they can redefine life to exclude a pre-viable fetus? If we cannot evoke / forge a better option that is accurate / true -- reinserting death is a last option as it may take more time than I think its worth and I wouldn't want to push away newer editors. (*shrug* damned if you do; wrong if you don't) The current "viable" definition is better in several respects and accurate with medical literature; but not true with medical practice. So close but not is absolutely infuriating, but I hold truth above placating pro-choice expectations. I unrealistically expect others to do the same. - RoyBoy 01:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, had to sleep on it to recall Roe v. Wade use of "difficult question of when life begins" is speaking to personhood. A tough nut to crack indeed, but thankfully it does not impact using death as an option. There have been mentions of deaths "common use" for the passing of a person, but I've asked several editors to clarify if that overrides / supplants deaths primary definition. I appreciate OrangeMarlin's original objection, the implication of personhood that pro-lifers cling to and infer into death. My point back was, its an organism, it can die; and pro-lifers can infer what they wish. Death is accurate insofar as what it actually means, ending of biological processes -- be it a collective of cells (a sponge, a blastocyst), an amoeba, a rat, or a person. - RoyBoy 16:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Roy, could you make an edit to Abortion showing what you would like the lead paragraph to look like and then self-revert it? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue for, and I think a concrete revision to point to will be helpful. NW (Talk) 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice to see it in action (; B^e——C_ritical 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a specific memory of asking someone (don't know who) to clarify what they meant by saying death has multiple definitions / meanings, I replied to the effect it has one (by Wikipedia), I had the last reply in the section ... cannot find it now, annoying.

Here's the diff, I could put in the effort and create a third variation; but since 2006 was a group effort I'll leave it to the fresher Becritical to try. Situating / supplementing the definition from legalese is intriguing. The only thing I've acquired from abortion talk 2011 is that the 2006 lead could potentially be improved; though I remain highly skeptical given the current lead is a verifiable downgrade, and expanding the definition with multiple perspectives can easily get mealy mouthed and/or needlessly technical. - RoyBoy 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a great improvement to me. You might not want to specify when viability occurs. I would say "commonly and legally." B^e——C_ritical 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently that's debatable, and was semi-democratically usurped in 2011 ("death" specifically), they called it a consensus ... I didn't, then edit wars etc. Anyway, if it were me working on a new version I'd finesse out the redundancies of WhatamIdoin's version (or use it as inspiration), forget the word "commonly" exists and perhaps put death somewhere unoffensive, lolz ... unsure exactly why that's funny, many possibilities. Oh and "termination" is a long unnecessary word, we like it of course as its neutral and medical... but kinda sucks at the same time, ya'know? - RoyBoy 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Obviously, I disagree; we have discussed why many a time. This had been in the article for a few months while the ArbCom case was going on; it is built largely using the Dictionary of World Philosophy reference quoted in the notes section. It's mealy mouthed, but I think a variation off it has the potential to make everyone unhappy act as a compromise. I don't remember if we discussed any fundamental objections to it; did we? NW (Talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't bad either. All I really hate is that the current one contradicts what everyone knows. B^e——C_ritical 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have this from a banned user on my talk page. I don't agree with every part of the suggested text, but I think it has quite a lot of merit, and is certainly worth posting here for consideration. We might consider using parts of it. I don't know why the user was banned, but I'm not concerned with that as long as the suggestion seems good.

"Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body. [Rationale: This is the only definition that accurately applies to every single possible instance of abortion - gestation ceases - the pregnancy does not necessarily end as in the case of a miscarriage of or induced abortion of a twin in which one twin remains intact, and absorption covers early abortions that are absorbed by the uterus rather than expelled.] An abortion that is intentionally induced is often called simply an abortion; [Rationale: Many induced abortions are chemically induced and are not "procedures", so the word "procedure" is not universally accurate.] an abortion that occurs spontaneously before fetal viability is often called a miscarriage; an abortion that occurs spontaneously after fetal viability is often called still-birth. Although intentional abortions may be induced at any point during a pregnancy before childbirth, for humans they are most common in the non-viable first trimester of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion is called an elective abortion and is commonly induced for non-medical reasons. An abortion induced for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion. While in most circumstances the pregnancy ends when the abortion is complete, the pregnancy does not end when less than all embryos/fetuses of a multiple pregnancy are aborted. [Rationale: this helps the reader understand that medically, the halt of gestation, death and removal/absorption are the three items in EVERY abortion, and that "termination of pregnancy" is not always part of abortion.] "

B^e——C_ritical 03:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bringing posts from banned users here on their behalf undercuts some of the purpose of banning them. I don't intend to have a discussion with a banned user via you as their intermediary. JJL (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You of course don't have to do anything here. But if I feel the information is worthy, I'll post it in my own name and my own judgment per WP:BAN. Just consider any such posts as being mine alone. B^e——C_ritical 08:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Variations new and old for lead paragraph

For the DWPhil def, should go with this diff. Stepping through the history, I removed "live" as birth is always alive; then there was back and forth on if the medical diff is universal or "often / typical". Fundamentally I disagree with contorting the abortion definition to use the opposite "live / birth" language of its goal; doesn't seem honest philosophically speaking. Verifiability better than what we have now though, so I'll implement it.

Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth; medically, abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human rather than non-human pregnancy.

The new suggestion is comprehensive and accurate, but wordy:

Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body. An abortion that is intentionally induced is often called simply an abortion; an abortion that occurs spontaneously before fetal viability is often called a miscarriage; an abortion that occurs spontaneously after fetal viability is often called still-birth. Although intentional abortions may be induced at any point during a pregnancy before childbirth, for humans they are most common in the non-viable first trimester of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion is called an elective abortion and is commonly induced for non-medical reasons. An abortion induced for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion. While in most circumstances the pregnancy ends when the abortion is complete, the pregnancy does not end when less than all embryos/fetuses of a multiple pregnancy are aborted.

For information, WhatamIdoing's option:

Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end. When it occurs spontaneously before fetal viability, it is commonly called a miscarriage. An abortion procedure is a purposeful action taken to end a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth. Although abortion procedures may be performed at any point during the pregnancy before childbirth, they are most common in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion procedure is called an elective abortion and is commonly performed for non-medical reasons. An abortion procedure performed for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion.

- RoyBoy 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. It's long enough to accomplish what we need without being so long as to lose the reader's attention. NW (Talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly all better, we are definitely making progress (: I do lean toward the more complete definitions though. The third option is kind of a compromise between the newly inserted improvement RoyBoy made and the wordy and accurate (RoyBoy says) second version (I will say that as someone pretty much new to this subject I found it informative/useful). However (and I leave it to people who know more do decide), it seems like we should go with a comprehensive version over an incomplete one. So if the definition can't be called fairly comprehensive, don't you think we should opt for a longer one? B^e——C_ritical 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an illusion I assure you. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical, where do you see this (#2) definition:

Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body.

As an improvement over this long-standing definition?

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.Gandydancer (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a clear source for "Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth" for the first one? The second is stylistically untenable--it's virtually unreadable. The third opens with "Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." This doesn't define 'abortion' and isn't in line with Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence. The first one is the only one that is workable but seems like mostly just a more wordy version of the consensus version there now. I'd sooner leave the current version and let people quibble about what they deem corner cases in the body of the article. No one is pretending that any subject can be treated completely and in depth in a single sentence or a single paragraph; but the current version is impeccably sourced, reasonably succinct, and clearly stated:

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.

This gives us a stylistically-compliant (per Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence), WP:MEDRS--accurate, highly WP:V opening. It defines the term, accurately and in line with how professionals who do it use the term. That seems like a success to me. JJL (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not compliant with Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph (ie. too specific), and might be a poor choice for the nonspecialist preference of LEAD#First_sentence; as the sentence strongly implies viable abortions are not possible. Did you read the content on "Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion" above JJL? - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. The current lead matches very well--and better than the other proposed versions--the requirements for a lede sentence. You can't hope to address what happens in 191 countries in one sentence. JJL (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading it is meaningless if you don't apply as you can address what happens in the world (or 191 countries) with a well constructed sentence / paragraph. We at Wikipedia have a mandate to have a worldwide view. If care is taken in the scope of a lead, for example not being too specific, you can accomplish it. If you think otherwise, stop editing leads. (I know you mean if you get into 191 specifics its not practical; my reply, therefore you avoid it by summarizing) - RoyBoy 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is my strong choice as well. I am willing, as I said above, to insert the word "usually prior to..." for those that are concerned that a very small number of abortions are post-viability procedures. Again, I strongly believe that when push comes to shove, rocks and hard places, and all, we must look to our sources rather than whatever our personal beliefs may be. Gandydancer (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an acceptable solution, "usually prior to...". Gandydancer, I don't all parts of the second lead as an improvement, especially the first sentence. But the paragraph as a whole has some very good points. I agree with you about the sourcing, but I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources. That's all. B^e——C_ritical 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a definition concocted out of political concerns at all - I see it as a medically factual definition. While some claim that hundreds if not thousands of abortions are being done on post-viable fetuses, I'd like to know where they are getting their statistics from. Our article states that 1.4% (8365) of abortions are done past 21 wks gestation and that's it - there are no further stats. Just because a handful of infants survived, and those few have a high chance of being developmental disabilities, does not mean that 21 wks is actually the age of viability. The medical community uses 24 wks as the low end, and again disabilities can be expected. We also have no stats on the number of post-viable babies with gross developmental deformities that are aborted or the number done because the mother's life is threatened. Furthermore, even the stats that we do have are questionable due to different reporting methods used from state to state.

It should be kept in mind as well that, though legal, some states have only one or two providers and many providers will not do an abortion even after 16 wks of gestation. I'd like to know who on earth, or at least who in the U.S., is providing all these post-viable abortions? I can accept that they are sometimes done for no other reason than that a woman does not want an infant - but I can only guess at the frequency it is done. Which is all anyone can do, and I would guess that it is extremely rare.

And finally, I have no concerns that the definition used by almost every major medical source is not medically accurate. My concern is that the ever-increasing political influence of the Catholic and Evangelical communities write our definition, which includes using the phrase "death of the fetus". Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Viability does not become a fixed point on the gestation timeline based on what might be written into a law. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Viability is perfectly well-defined biologically. Unfortunately we lack the technological tools to determine when it has occurred. That's where the guidelines and laws come in--not on what viability is, but on what proxies may be used to get around our inability to test for it within the 20-ish week zone where it's likely to occur. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The stats on post-viable fetuses are also immaterial! Legally can you get a 2nd-trimester abortion, "Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman." What would your preferred sources call it Gandydancer? Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally? - RoyBoy 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My post was in response to BeCritical's statement "I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources". This statement and some of his previous statements seem to suggest to me that he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency other than in instances such as rape, physically/mentally compromised fetus, very young child, a threat to the mother's health/life, and incest (which is actually more common than some people think). I am arguing against the "fact" that the health care system is doing post-viable abortions without regard for the law, and if someone suggests that I am incorrect, I'd like to see them back that statement up with some sources. Perhaps you or others consider this "immaterial", but I believe we need to work with facts, not someone's version of "but it's only reasonable!". You asked, "Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally?" - I really have no idea since I have not researched legal terminology at all. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer, "he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency..." No I don't think that at all. I just don't think that the article should make out like whatever those are, when they occur, they're something other than abortion. They are abortion, that's what they're called and the article shouldn't contradict that because an anomaly in the way medical textbook sources (though not all medical sources) define the term. B^e——C_ritical 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While the majority of that post was frustrating, conceding a blind spot in your topic knowledge is pleasantly reassuring; continued evidence of your good faith. Thank you. - RoyBoy 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, hopefully to come to agreement on what you are saying and move forward, does this correctly state what you believe: Almost all medical sources incorrectly define abortion as the removal of a nonviable fetus because of political concerns. And by "political concerns", I assume you mean legal concerns, is that correct?Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, well you're asking me what I believe which isn't strictly relevant. But I just have this big question: why would medical texts define away abortions performed (however rarely) on viable fetuses? Because they don't want to deal with the politics (letters, threats, what publishers want to put out)? Because that's all the law allows? Because they're afraid of getting shot? I have no idea, except it has to be something weird. I just can't conceive that there is a procedure which is sometimes performed, but has no name. I think it's blatantly obvious that they're called abortions, so I'm just wondering why medical textbooks refuse to name them by limiting the term to pre-viability. Any ideas? And I think that we should use other texts like legal ones to augment the medical sources, since those other sources are within the scope of this article. That make sense? So yes to your question. I don't want to break or bend WP sourcing policy, I just want to do the best we can with all our sources. B^e——C_ritical 21:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reality is a factor as well. 10 or 1,000 MEDRS does not remove 2nd trimester abortion from the topic we are trying to summarize accurately. I reiterate, we aren't defining a procedure, we are defining a topic. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, since the discussion seems to be stalled I will make a post in hope that it will help the discussion to move forward rather than go off on a topic that is not helpful. BeCritical, our opinions on the definition are quite different. I believe that if one puts all judgements about the morality of abortion aside, abortion, like hysterectomy (for instance), is a medical procedure and that is what our definition should use as the first sentence in the lede. Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion" - they define the legal considerations surrounding abortion.

We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted. So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"An abortion can occur spontaneously" so is usually not a medical procedure. That's what I was saying in response to claims that abortion is a medical procedure. "Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion"" Maybe, but guess what? It's just unacceptable to use MEDRS as a way to falsify this article. You, Gandydancer, know that abortions are called abortions even if the fetus is viable, and you won't argue that no viable fetus has ever been aborted. So let's find some way to work together so that the definition in our article doesn't deny that fact. I'm certainly for abortion rights: this is not some way of POV pushing against abortion, it's an attempt to use the relevant sourcing properly. Because the medical textbooks did not mean to deny that it's called abortion when it's done on a viable fetus, they were just restricting the scope of their discussion. We have the right as editors to use the relevant reliable sources with some discretion. That's why I want to say "In legal and common usage, the term abortion is not limited to non-viable fetuses." B^e——C_ritical 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has stalled (multiple times) because Gandydancer, JJL and NuclearWarfare have been intransigent editors. It's been so frustrating I entirely forgot the most salient point of the 2011 debate (well settled in 2006 if I remember correctly), spontaneous abortion (the most common type) isn't a medical procedure. BeCritical's fresh eyes paid off, as I hoped they would, so I have prepared a Barnstar cluster. Another editor(s) needs to endorse it to make it official. - RoyBoy 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The current lede correctly defines it as a medical event. It includes both spontaneous and induced abortions ("termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion"). But are we to pretend that this article would still be so problematic if there were no such thing as the medical procedure? It's amusing to see you promoting another editor because he is singing your song but it doesn't change the facts. JJL (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this can be covered on the article's page--there's no suggestion of it being removed from the topic. It can't all be crammed into a single sentence or paragraph though. Wikipedia doesn't work like Twitter does. The info. being discussed is in the article. We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event and it's senseless to talk about reactions to abortion before defining what an abortion is. It's a noun that refers to a certain pregnancy-related situation and that needs to be the thing defined initially. Without termination of a pregnancy being possible, there'd be no legal reaction to it, would there? JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add, these variations can/should be hybridized if that can create a suitable option. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a suitable option--the current consensus version. Of course we can consider changing it, but a suitable option is already in the article. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about abortion, which is usually not a medical procedure. And the legal reactions are, by the current definition, often to something other than abortion, which they are nevertheless calling abortion, but shouldn't be because that's not what abortion is by definition. Makes no sense at all. B^e——C_ritical 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What? You've really lost me here... Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)\

Sry, was responding to JJL "We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event." I responded to you here. The post here is saying that legal texts talk about post-viability "abortions," which don't exist according to medical texts. And that abortion is usually miscarriage. B^e——C_ritical 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly texts other than medical are relevant, because as you say, it's an entire topic, not just a medical procedure. But the medical definition can stand alone and other definitions/sources could be added. Whatever the case, we aren't at liberty to ignore RS. That doesn't mean we contradict or synthesize, just that we include all the RS viewpoints. Deciding to ignore RS so that we make this purely a medical article isn't appropriate. B^e——C_ritical 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:RS is of course not acceptable. What sources did you have in mind ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a sourcing expert here, but I at least know there are legal texts, both the legal language as in Roe V Wade and texts discussing it. There are innumerable RS news sources "Brigham provided abortions to five patients ranging from 18 to 33 weeks pregnant..." "facing murder charges in Maryland relating to abortions performed on late-term fetuses that were viable." We need to give the medical definition, then go on to state that "In legal and common usage, the term abortion is not limited to non-viable fetuses." B^e——C_ritical 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion with BeCritical, could we get some feedback on this lede suggestion?

Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. In legal and common usage, the term is not necessarily limited to a non-viable fetus. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not bad. It's rather similar to Roy and my earlier proposal, but better done I think. I suspect that others might take issue with the medical definition coming first, but I think that it's entirely appropriate to have the definition most clearly articulated by sources go first. NW (Talk) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't think we could source "The term...most commonly refers", and in any case it would be at best misleading as "most commonly" is highly dependent on context, speaker, and audience. Amongst farmers, as an example, "human" and "induced" would both be wrong. Further, the "usually called a miscarriage" is not wp:worldwide. Further, "prior to viability" should not be confused with "non-viable": after viability, it would in most places be considered malpractice to induce abortion after possible viability, (as distinct from feticide before removal of a then-assuredly non-viable abortus). LeadSongDog come howl! 23:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The first is another issue, I think, and deserves its own section. It's the wording that is currently in the article. If you have a better way to phrase it, please go ahead and make the change. NW (Talk) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My feedback is I think you should recuse yourself (Gandydancer) from the abortion lead, and JJL as well. Not simply because we disagree, but good faith notwithstanding, you're bad at it. - RoyBoy 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RoyBoy, personal attacks such as calling me "legally blind" and saying that I should recuse myself from this article because I'm "bad at it" are not appropriate and I hope that you'll stop this type of disruptive behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to slinging mud at editors who disagree with your 2005 version that you fought so hard to keep, I see. JJL (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Only 2 editors disagree with me? NuclearWarfare, OrangeMarlin among others do as well. Anyway, changing the 2006 consensus prior to establishing a new one, then replacing and reverting to an incorrect viable consensus, makes you good editors? While the 2006 "death" version is hard to verify and unexpected (hence I didn't revert the article to it) at least it is accurate, that's my motivation. If BeCritical and others make an alternative that isn't too long / confusing, *thumbs up*. JJL, I give you partial credit for convincing me an alternative is possible ... the current viable version transparently ain't it. Just as astrobiology origins does not weigh into the "is the fetus life" discussion. - RoyBoy 20:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You've swung at NW too [6]...about an hour before you made this post. If you had complaints about editors, the ArbCom case was the right time to bring them up. JJL (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And? Doesn't preclude NW from helping make an encyclopedic lead. The same, IMO, cannot be maintained for you at this time. - RoyBoy 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So, any objections to the new lead proposal? LeadSongDog's ideas aren't really objections, they would be for further discussion after the currently proposed change. B^e——C_ritical 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

While I do share some concerns with LDS, I have no objections to the latest proposal going up.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with getting to the point, and making it a good one? "Abortion is the deliberate expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb for the purpose of ending a pregnancy. Abortions also occur spontaneously as a natural process, sometimes overtly during early pregnancy. In spontaneous abortions, the term miscarriage applies. The term 'abortion' applies most commonly to refer to the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means, e.g. through surgery or drugs." I am not understanding why an article about one of the most common medical procedures in America is so devoid of medical information. I actually learned more about the process that occurs during ingestion of RU-486 from Twitter than I have yet seen put into this article. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I too think we should define the medical event and procedure first--define the term--and leave legalism until later. Your suggestion focuses on the procedure first. I've said before that we could better streamline the debate here by separating out miscarriage from induced abortion. Since there isn't legal/social/religious objection to miscarriage, that article at least could be handled in an appropriate manner for a medical event, leaving the one on induced abortion more focused. That hasn't gained traction, and indeed I see some practical issues in implementing it, so I prefer the current consensus version which simply defines abortion directly out of the medical texts in a manner that includes both spontaneous and induced cases. Laws regarding it aren't defining the term--they're stipulating when and how it may be legally performed. Saying what happens in common usage is not the primary purpose of this site--people come here for the correct usage. JJL (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What's being referred to as the "medical" defn. here is extremely well-sourced by professional-level secondary sources. The sentence about legal and common usage, with the assertion of "not necessarily", is not of the same quality--it's not a positive statement of what the legal defn. or common usage is is but rather just a claim that legal and common usage isn't always as strict. That common usage isn't as strict and precise as medical usage is a vacuous statement: Of course non-physicians won't be as likely to describe it in a technically accurate manner. That the legal usage may be different also doesn't say much to me--I'd wager the legal defn. of surgery (for the purposes of licensing surgeons, or specifying what types of damages may be awarded, say) isn't exactly what the surgeons use to describe themselves. Having the second sentence be "Lawyers and the man-on-the-street use the word differently" isn't very compelling writing. It also breaks the flow: The first sentence in the proposed change is a medical defn. Then comes a legal/common usage sentence. Then another sentences on the medical defn., and then another sentence on how the term is "most commonly" used. A better stylistic flow is achieved by having the first paragraph discuss what abortion is--from the biomedical viewpoint. We have that now. The second paragraph currently addresses safety and incidence with a brief nod to the law. The third paragraph introduces the history and the fact that there are significant legal/social/religious issues. Once again: We can't fit everything in on sentence, or one paragraph. Rather than constructing a Frankenstein lede paragraph, it might be better to discuss whether the rest of the lede section should be re-worked, or to introduce a new section (or link to a new article) later in the article discussing these issues. JJL (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. Gandydancer put my suggested sentence in as the second sentence, but I was actually thinking of it as the last sentence of the first paragraph. If we did write a section on definitions it would have to be in the lead somewhere, right? And since it's about the definition itself, it should probably be in the first paragraph somewhere. The medical definition is extremely well sourced as you say... but should be noted as being a medical definition. Since the subject is very broad and legal and common debates and understandings are hugely relevant, we can't limit ourselves to medical texts though. Since we can source that legal and common usage differs from the medical usage, is it really such a stretch to note the difference? I hear what you say about fitting to much into the lead being bad writing, but perhaps this small sentence is not too much for the reader to comfortably handle. Here is the lead paragraph as I would suggest it:

Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. In legal and common usage, the term is not necessarily limited to a non-viable fetus.

B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To my surprise, moving that one sentence makes a large difference for me--it reads much more smoothly and the last sentence now comes across like an opening into larger topics rather than a whittling away of the previously given defn. I still don't find the last sentence necessary or comparably well sourced and I still don't feel the qualification 'medically' in the first sentence is appropriate stylistically (also, it's the defn. used not just in medicine but also in veterinary medicine and biology, esp. for spontaneous abortions), and so I still prefer the current version to this one. However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference. JJL (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's amazing how much better it sounds there huh? So if you're okay with it, shall we put it in? B^e——C_ritical 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I had categorized you as a troll earlier. You've now confirmed that I was correct. JJL (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What in the world!? Are you talking to me? Did you post that on the wrong page? B^e——C_ritical 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JJL, in my opinion your remarks about BeCritical being a troll are completely uncalled for and outrageous. I well remember my first edit at this article when I changed one word and I instantly had a half a dozen editors jump all over me - it didn't take me long to realize how closely-watched this article was! And now we have a new editor who, IMO is willing and able to work with the group, and you call him a troll. Actually, if I were to be critical of anyone it would be the editors who participated in the previous discussion and are now silent. I prefer to believe that this new editor is simply being naive when he states, "shall we put it in?". I believe that at the very least you need to explain exactly why you consider BeCritical to be a troll, because who could answer your concerns unless they understand exactly what they are? I know I sure don't. Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous? I repeat that "I still prefer the current version to this one" and he replies "So if you're okay with it, shall we put it in?" That's intentionally misunderstanding me and I don't intend to pretend otherwise, especially in light of his repeated assertions that using sources is for other editors, not him. This isn't a serious attempt by him to build a new consensus--I am assuming that he's simply amusing himself at this point. I find it very hard to believe that when I wrote, again, that I prefer the current version that I was somehow being vague and ambiguous about which version I prefer. Even if I had said the opposite of what I did say, it's not the case that--in the absence, as you point out, of the opinions other editors here--it would make a new consensus. You've said on my talk page that he's a "good editor" despite being source-phobic and now suggest that he's merely "naive" in trying to claim I agreed to put in a paragraph that I didn't want put in. On my page he writes [7] "I have no idea why you'd call me a troll for agreeing with you." A reasonable editor couldn't read what I said as agreement to make a change that I had just said I opposed. Refusing to use sources and suggesting others do that work, falsely claiming agreement with his position...call it what you will. JJL (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was assuming that our preferences are equal: you prefer one lead, I prefer another. You went on to say "However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference," which meant to me you were accepting the compromise and could live with the lead as proposed. But don't call me a troll: that is a personal attack. B^e——C_ritical 23:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When JJL said "However, this is now something I find quite reasonable, even if it isn't my preference," that sounds very much like an editor accepting a compromise. Thus my response.

Re doing further research, I don't think people are really having a problem with my position regarding facts. Here's what I think:

The term "abortion" is defined, generally, by the textbooks and medical dictionaries as pre-viability."

Other sources, such as news sources and legal sources, use the term for post-viability as well.

The topic of abortion is not merely medical, but also legal and social. Therefore, the legal and news sources are also relevant, and may be used in addition to the medical sources.

We as editors also know that in rare instances, fetuses are purposely terminated after viability.

We as editors know that when this happens, it is called "abortion."

There is no argument here over how the term "abortion" is actually used.

So we have relevant sources which expand on the medical definition and which express something which we agree to be true.

Conclusion: we should use the relevant sources to note that the term abortion is not limited to pre-viability outside the medical literature.

Is anyone actually disagreeing about the facts, or are we merely disagreeing over what we ought to say in the lead and whether we should use non-medical sources? B^e——C_ritical 23:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We do not have wp:WORLDWIDE reliable sources that use "abortion" to include "postviability feticide followed by extraction" while excluding "miscarriage", yet that is what one US faction has twisted the term to mean. Fortunately, this is not the Abortion politics in the United States article. There is absolutely no excuse to allow such provincial concerns to drive our decisions. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but you're not addressing what's actually going on here. We don't need any such source, very far from it. We aren't saying "everywhere in the world, the term is not limited." We're noting that "the term is not necessarily limited," which means we merely have to establish the notability of the usage. That kind of sourcing is easy. However, I'm not so sure you're correct even were we trying to cite worldwide usage. For example this makes just the distinction I've been talking about for India. Here's one for Canada [8], and on International human rights [9], and Europe. B^e——C_ritical 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not able to read the google books link, could you cite the source more directly? Kay's piece reveals in its final lines just how polemic it truly is, though pretending otherwise: "unborn babies who were viable before their skulls were surgically crushed" indeed. The "international" and "Europe" links are again US-sourced, from BM Knoppers in AmJCompL and SCOTUS respectively. In case I haven't been sufficiently clear, my concern is that we should be using words to convey information in preference to conveying partisan viewpoint. The biomedical language is clear and unambiguous. The factional language is just the opposite. Hence, I favour the unbiased biomedical language and I think other good faith editors should too. If editors want to twist language that way on US-centric articles, they might be able to scrape together a reasonable argument for it, but not here. This is not a US-centric subject, nor article. LeadSongDog come howl! 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that terming a post-viability purposeful termination of pregnancy "abortion" is a politically motivated way to push an agenda, and that it is not termed "abortion" in other countries? And did you actually say, in effect "if you're a good faith editor you'll agree with me?" And are you ignoring the fact that the discussion here is about merely noting that in some cases, the term abortion is not limited to pre-viability, and has nothing to do with a worldwide perspective? Kay's piece could be POV- that doesn't matter, what matters is the common usage. I agree about "information," but in this case even if you're right about it being a partisan viewpoint (and I don't think you are), what Wikipedia would properly do is note the information about common usage. I don't think we should take the politics into consideration in writing here, we should just use our sources, and legal and news texts are notable enough for inclusion. That's it in a nutshell. To limit it to medical is arbitrary, and ignores the scope of the article... so that's really where we don't have a global perspective. B^e——C_ritical 09:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying we should follow the best sources available, and that localized, agenda-pushing sources don't meet that criterion, particularly for this article. I think my tone and meaning were more measured than "if you're a good faith editor you'll agree with me": discussion of this topic has been too long plagued by agenda pushers of both flavours precluding any form of consensus, so I think the best way to improve this article at this point is to discount the factional sources altogether. If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the trauma which is influencing the reactions here. Just one question though, is the language of CNN, Washington Post, and Roe V. Wade, and books on law and (what was it...) medical history really factional? We aren't talking about anti-baby-killing websites here. I can find so many sources that aren't MEDRS, but they are eminently RS. Are they too factional? B^e——C_ritical 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but they are local, in the sense that the US is only about 5% of the worlds population. The US discussion and its weirdly polar terminology should not be squeezing out worldwide perspectives. We have subordinate articles for specific national issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:WORLDWIDE mean we give a country equal weight even if it has little to say on the subject? How much of the reliable literature on abortion was written by Africans, Indians, and Chinese? Why are we citing Western textbooks? How about citing Indian, African, South American and Chinese textbooks? That's one issue. The second is that no one is "squeezing out" anything. This is the English Wikipedia. English speakers are likely to have heard their lawmakers, the laws of their countries and their reliable media refer to post-viability abortions. Briefly noting that fact, as an addition, not a "squeezing out" seems extremely wise as a way of making the encyclopedia most useful. Also, I note that post viability "abortion" is used as a term by pro-choice organizations such as National Abortion Rights Action League [10]. And here's what looks like a good legal source Abortion under State Constitutions: A State-by-State Analysis. Every response I'm doing more research and confirming my position. Perhaps you'd direct me to some source which shows me that this article really should not note the usage of the term "abortion" for post-viability? The burden of evidence is more on you than me now as far as I can see, especially since I only want to note the existence of alternate usages, not to modify the medical definition or make it less prominent. B^e——C_ritical 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably the one truism worldwide is that abortion is a medical event that can occur spontaneously or be induced. The "Reed Boland - Reprod Health Matters" source cited above, about what's covered in 191 different countries, evidently states as its first note that "The wording of many laws is not always clear and many laws are silent as to upper time limits and conditions for the performance of second trimester abortion" which indicates the wide variety of possibilities out there legally speaking. Biomedical language is much more universal than legal language. That's without even getting into translation issues. 'Abortion' the technical term has a well-established meaning (in part because so many countries use English-language medical texts and in part because that's the nature of science), but the common-language term used to describe it must vary much more widely. I don't know what language is used in pro-life Italy or in sex-selective India and China, for example. JJL (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points, that medicine is a more universal language (and it is a medical event though not a procedure). If that is the consensus here then we should drop the issue. I of course still think there is a contradiction between wishing to be global, yet not noting the broader use of the word, no matter what ideology is behind the usage. I think there's a contradiction between wishing to be global, and refusing to note the broader usage of the word in a large subset of the world. I also do not understand what possible POV would be pushed out there in society by using the word "abortion" for post-viability. But I will leave it up to others here to either drop this or continue it. Let me just assure you that to outside eyes on this article it doesn't make any sense, but perhaps I would have to have medical training to change my mind and ignore the full scope of how the term is actually used. B^e——C_ritical 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"universal language", huh? It's crummy logic for an ok lead. Their consistency comes from the bioethical constraints they choose to place on themselves. This is about comfort / common usage. Reality should be our yard stick, common usage plays second fiddle. You say "natural selection" to those unfamiliar evolution, they may say "survival of the fittest", its wrong, but why don't we change that lead to suit? It's "common usage". Oh, abortion is defined by big time PhD's and MEDRS, that changes things... actually no, it doesn't. (yes its weight, but not prominent weight in an encyclopedia context)

Good way to putting it, "medical training ... to ignore the full scope". Get comfortable with ones cultural (educational) definition of the term and ignore the rest. We need more of that at Wikipedia, wait ... no, we explicitly try to avoid it with Wikipolicy. LeadSongDog made decent points, but the legal limitations of abortion are not local, provincial etc. It is the scope of what abortion is, if the medical community would like that changed; they should make some case law. Until then, viability should be is less prominent, its our goal to reflect it.

While I take the point (from months back) Britannica used "usually" to define viability (not abortion), in so doing they accurately implicated abortion in the uncertainty of this wishful standard. My counter point to Britannica's editorial choice, is they are heavily weighted to scholars / experts in the fields. While this pays dividends in many ways (universal language), it lends itself to a bias. We need not replicate that at Wikipedia, just as Encarta choose not to. See y'all after the blackout! - RoyBoy 04:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer Two Earlier Questions with Research

Created a new section simply because my post is very large. Apologies if this is considered in poor form nowadays; I have not been an active editor for a while.

It was asked above what word is used for late-term abortions in Italian and Chinese. In Italy, late-term abortions are legally referred to as "lo aborto" -- abortion. See Act 194: Italian|English. Unfortunately, I can't read Chinese, but the legal texts of every Latin-alphabet language of which I am aware use the same definition: abortion is the termination of pregnancy at any time, up to (and, in some cases, including) birth. If it does not result in fetal or embryonic death, then it is, legally speaking, an induced birth. I can cite verse and chapter of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and I know a decent amount of English case law on the same subject. Happy to dig into foreign languages as well, if anyone would consider it helpful. Just need the Latin alphabet.

There has also been some question as to how medical textbooks refer to the procedure commonly known as "late-term abortion," if they are not abortions. This is a matter of considerable significance to our lede: if third-trimester abortions are medically considered abortions, then our first sentence is simply, factually, wrong. If not, then the discussion must continue on its present course.

Interestingly, medical texts, whenever they discuss late-term abortions, universally refer to them as "abortions," despite the fact that this sometimes 'directly contradicts' the definitions given in their own ledes. I went back to as many of the medical dictionaries cited in Note 1 as I could and looked them up. (I looked up many others, too. I quote them wherever there was reference to "late-term abortion," "third-trimester abortion," "partial-birth abortion," or "dilation and extraction".

To begin with, here is Taber:

Abortion: The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state.

Partial-Birth Abortion: A lay term for a second- or third-trimester abortion

Here is the National Center for Health Statistics, which is cited as a source for our first definition in Note 1... yet which plainly considers late-term abortions to be a species of induced abortion. The definition we cite is a cherry-pick: we used NCHS's definition of "abortus," which excludes post-viable fetuses, not their definition of "abortion," which includes them.:

For the purpose of surveillance, a legal induced abortion is defined as an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (e.g., a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) that is intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy... Induced termination of pregnancy means the purposeful interruption of an intrauterine pregnancy with the intention other than to produce a live-born infant and which does not result in a live birth. This definition excludes management of prolonged retention of products of conception following fetal death.

Black's makes it clear that, while other procedures exist, its definition is intended only to encompass those procedures that are legal in the U.K. (thus involving the law in its medical definition), and makes only this reference to abortions past 24 weeks:

"In the USA, partial-birth abortions are spoken of but, in fact, there is no such procedure recorded in the UK medical journals."

Here is the Gale Encylopedia of Medicine:

Therapeutic abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently. Abortion has been a legal procedure in the United States since 1973.

Partial birth abortion is a method of late-term (after 20 weeks) abortion that terminates a pregnancy and results in the death and intact removal of a fetus. This procedure is most commonly referred to as intact dilatation and extraction (D & X). It occurs in a rare percentage of pregnancies.

Dewhurst, like Black, attempts to avoid making any definitions apart from those provided by British law. British law is, of course, quite clear that what we call "late-term abortion" are also be covered under the Abortion Act 1967 (which permits some) and/or the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 (which outlaws the remainder).

The Dewhurst case is particularly interesting, though, because the textbook explicitly instructs students to "NEVER use" the word "abortion." Table 12.2, Revised Nomenclature of Early Pregnancy Events, is as close as Dewhurst gets to defining abortion. Their definition includes late-term abortions:

AVOID: Medical abortion. PREFER: Termination of pregnancy

Danforth provides no encompassing definition of abortion. (Presumably, they think anyone smart enough to get into med school knows an abortion when he sees one.) It refers to late-term abortion as "intact dilation and extraction," the proper medical term for what laypeople generally know as partial-birth abortions. It does this in the chapter on "Induced Abortion" under the heading "Second Trimester Abortion Procedures":

Intact Dilation and Extraction: Procedures removing an essentially intact fetus have been termed intact dilation and extraction. Very few of these procedures have been performed in the United States.

William's Obstetrics categorically denies the existence of late-term abortions, but then describes how they are performed under the heading "abortion techniques." It places the phrase "partial-birth abortion" in scare quotes in its brief discussion of Stenberg v. Carhart, but provides no definition in its place. (I have the 21st edition, which predates Gonzales v. Carhart, so I do not know whether this was modified with the national illegalization of D&X abortions in 2003.):

Abortion: The definition of abortion is the termination of pregnancy by any means before the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive. In the United States this definition is confined to the termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks based upon the date of the first day of the last normal menses.

Abortion techniques: ...A dilatation and extraction (D & X) is similar to a D & E5 except that with a D & X, part of the fetus is first extracted through the dilated cervix to facilitate the procedure.

Stedman's does the same, simultaneously denying that late-term abortions exist while calling the late-term abortion procedure an abortion:

dilation and extraction: a form of abortion in which the cervix is dilated and the fetus extracted in pieces using surgical forceps; technique used to complete a second-trimester spontaneous abortion or as a form of induced abortion

The Collins Dictionary of Medicine reverts to form:

abortion: Loss of the fetus before it is able to survive outside the womb

partial-birth abortion: an abortion in which a live fetus is partially delivered but is then killed before the delivery is completed.

No self-contradiction exists in the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, at least:

abortion: (1) Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo;induced abortion (2) Any of various procedures that result in such a termination of pregnancy. (3) spontaneous abortion

partial-birth abortion: A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted. Not in technical use.

There are, of course, many other medical sources that do not contradict themselves in reference to late-term abortions (or ignore them outright), but I list only one. That is because what I am trying to show is that even the dictionaries that define abortion as strictly prior to viability actually agree: regardless of the technical cutoff for spontaneous abortions so defined, induced abortion is any feticidal pregnancy-terminating procedure up to birth. It just isn't legal in most Western jurisdictions anymore. So this is not a dispute over which sources are more reputable under WP:MEDRS. In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes. It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations. Our lede is medically incorrect.

It almost goes without saying, that, the instant we leave the realm of medical texts, all ambiguity and self-contradiction is dropped. Here is Becker & Becker's Encyclopedia of Ethics:

Abortion can be defined as the intentional termination of in utero fetal life after conception and before birth.

Similiarly, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

Termination of the life of a foetus, after conception but before birth. The event may be intentionally induced or natural, although it is intentionally induced abortion that is the topic of moral philosophy.

Even in the demi-medical realm of psychology, we find that the Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health, and Medicine avoids the vaguenesses to which the strict medical books fall prey. Their first sentence in the abortion article:

Although induced and spontaneous abortion both involve the death of a fetus there are important differences in these experiences.

I do not presume to suggest that the medical textbook editors deliberately made nonsense out of their own terminology in order to forward political ends. They are responsible, intelligent adults, and plus Hanlon's Razor. But the suggestion, by several of them, that abortion exclusively refers to pre-viability feticide contradicts reason, language, and their own textbooks. I can certainly understand why one editor on this page felt compelled to accuse them of deliberate editorial malpractice. For the purposes of this article, we need not speculate on their editorial motives; we need only note the contradiction and resolve it in favor of the more accurate, comprehensive, and widely accepted definition of abortion.

All this I provide for the sake of information, in response to clear queries made earlier in this discussion. Now, if you'll grant me permission, I'd like to offer my opinion on this whole controversy, as a fellow editor, not a researcher.

As a member of the original 2005-06 consensus, I cannot overstate my disappointment and displeasure with the current lede and most of the alternatives under discussion. Even if medical texts provided the definition of abortion we are currently using (and, as we discovered above, they do not), Wikipedia is not a medical textbook; it is a general-knowledge encylopedia, and the argument that an abortion is merely a medical procedure and therefore deserves strictly medical language deliberately begs the whole question of abortion. Abortion exists at the nexus of medicine, politics, morality, philosophy, culture, and law. Any lede which excludes five-sixths of the "topic, context, notab[ility], and... prominent controversies" surrounding abortion has entirely missed the point of WP:LEAD (and WP:MOSINTRO in particular). In this particular case, because the medical viewpoint carefully excludes the only reason anyone cares about or outlaws abortion -- the putative personhood of some human fetuses -- it also does grave injury to WP:NPOV. The phrase "...resulting in, or caused by, its death," which is well supported by the general-language and common-use definitions still cited in Note 1, should never have been removed. Much less should the entire first paragraph have converted into a tangentially-related Planned Parenthood talking point about abortion safety. The current lead defends the falling incidence and relative safety of abortion before we know (in the final sentence!) that anyone cares about the falling incidence and/or relative safety of abortion! I have no doubt that the editors who made these changes from the 2006 consensus copy acted in good faith. However, I cannot help concluding that the lead would have benefited enormously had there been an even number of externally identified "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" working on this change, as we had in 2006. I'm not some kind of anti-abortion diehard who'll vote down any article that doesn't include a bloody image of a dead baby in the first paragraph; I (heck, I supported "anti-abortion"/"abortion rights" language years before it was cool). But what we have in the current lede is simply bad: inaccurate, unhelpful, irrelevant, and overly narrow.

All that being said, I am well aware that I have not been an active editor in more than five years now, so my opinion is both somewhat ill-informed, and, moreover, simply does not matter all that much when this conversation has been going on for six months. I'll sit back now and watch, allow editors more familiar with the current state of the article to take up my findings and work with them, and try to offer clarification and enlightenment whenever it seems germane and I have the opportunity to do so -- at least until I am caught up on the history of this discussion dating back six months or so. Thank you, all, for the hard work you put into this article. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A brief post-script: on reflection, it is actually a very good thing that the medical texts include post-viability abortions under the definition of "abortion." Otherwise, the only legal or medical term available to us to describe post-viability abortion would be "feticide," which, in turn, would suggest that this article needs to merge with feticide. I imagine the edit wars over this would be Verdun-scale in their magnitude, making the old "resulting in or caused by its death" argument look like a pony show by comparison. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BCSWowbagger, this is the best-researched Wikipedia post I have ever seen. You say "In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes. It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations. Our lede is medically incorrect." I consider your research conclusive: we must change the lead so that it does not restrict the definition of abortion to pre-viable fetuses. Does anyone have a suggestion for exactly how we should do that? I gave one above, but considering BCSWowbagger's research, I no longer think it's appropriate, because now we can say that even the medical definition does not limit the term. B^e——C_ritical 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Critical. I've been catching up on the past six months' conversation during the past couple days, and I think I'm nearly ready to be of some use in this discussion. One thing that really troubles me, though: the 2006-2011 consensus was clearly changed. That's a pretty big, pretty longstanding consensus, which has survived despite being under more or less continuous debate for five solid years. I've popped in every once in a while just to see how WikiProject:Abortion is going (alas! still dead as a doornail) and to see if Severa has come back, so I've read a lot of those debates. They read very much like this one, only shorter. All of them resulted in either (1) consensus in favor of keeping the then-current text, or (2) no consensus. So the text never changed.

After all, it was, first and foremost, a compromise text. Over the years we've had some intelligent people drop in -- people much like JJL but with a very different perspective on what's important in the Abortion article. The JJL mindset -- well-represented for a number of years by a very smart, very fair editor named Andrew C would propose a lead paragraph very similar to what's on the article now: Abortion is a medical procedure defined as ending a pregnancy, spontaneously or induced, it is the most common surgery in the United States, etc. etc. Somebody with the opposite mindset might object and say, "Abortion is not primarily a surgery! A woman who punches herself in the belly has induced a totally non-medical abortion. Abortion is primarily a crime!" and propose something like this:

INDUCED ABORTION
(Redirected from Abortion)

For spontaneous abortion, see miscarriage.

Induced Abortion is the killing of a fetus or embryo by its mother or her proxy, using surgical, medical, or other means. Historically, it was frequently treated under the law as infanticide, which could be—depending on judge, jurisdiction, and quickening—legal, a misdemeanor, or murder. During the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, Western societies largely formalized abortion law by declaring it a distinct felony crime against the person. In the mid-1970s, however, they sharply reversed course, with courts holding, in cases like Roe v. Wade and R. v. Morgentaler, that access to abortion was "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," especially before viability or in cases in which the mother's life is threatened by pregnancy.

Today, slightly less than half the world's population lives under similarly permissive jurisdictions, while slightly more than half live under jurisdictions that, with limited exceptions, treat abortion as a felony or murder. <Insert citation from that one WHO report here> It remains controversial throughout the world, and has sparked worldwide debate between what have become popularly known as the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

...and then the article would proceed from there, largely as-is, though with a slightly different emphasis than the current version.

Now, this is all true enough. It's not POV in of its particulars, and -- although I have skipped the research for this little illustration -- it can be extremely well-cited. There are arguments to be made on its behalf. It is a very good summary of abortion from one important angle. But, ultimately, those like it missed too many of those angles, and people like JJL insisted (wisely, in my view) that a medical perspective be included on a practice which is, in the developed world, usually an act of medicine. Examples like this one, combined with examples like the current lead, were eventually boiled down to create the 2006-2011 consensus. Over the years, many proposals were lobbed at the article from both ends of the stick. Many arguments were repeated several hundred thousand times (or so it seemed). The lead paragraph grew, and, in my opinion, improved. (Example: If I recall correctly, this was the original consensus text. Here it is eighteen months later, much improved but still room to fix cites and things.) But every single argument about the core of it, especially "resulting in or caused by its death," came back No Consensus or Consensus Against Change. At least, that's what I remember. By 2009, some of the editors here today (AnythingYouWant, for example) were already active on this page.

Now, of course, Consensus Can Change, and, indeed, it must, if the encyclopedia is going to continue to grow. So when I came back and started reading, I was really interested in seeing how and why the five-year consensus had finally changed -- and changed radically -- against even the basic structure of what had been there for so long, replacing it with a complete (and, in my view, as I have expressed, inferior) rewrite.

...annnnd, I didn't find one. Actually, I found the opposite. As far as I can tell, every discussion about changing the lead substantially from its long-standing structure and content, especially the "resulting in or caused by its death" clause was met, quite clearly, with No Consensus -- and frequently a majority opposed to the proposed changes. RFC's were submitted, ArbCom was called in tangentially -- these things have been done many times before -- and the community-wide solution remained No Consensus. This was all quite normal for this page. What's surprising to me is that, from what I can tell of the record, the changes were then made anyway, with consensus occasionally declared by the pro-changers but never actually extant by any standard. And, as we all know from policy -- some policies haven't changed in six years and more -- "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." Like I said, I need to read the edit history quite closely, but, as far as I can tell, the present text is simply not supported. It was just changed one day (apparently in the 9 June 2012 edit by JJL), then edit warred over until the change stuck, on 26 June 2012.

It seems to me, and I'm open as any Wikipedian to some pushback here, that the correct course of action is to revert to the original until there exists actual consensus to change. That's policy, for one, but, more importantly, it's just the Wikipedian way -- you talk out editorial changes until you have broad agreement, even if the existing editorial makes you angry (heaven knows there's a lot on of copy wikipedia that annoys me!), and even if you never actually get the broad agreement you consider vital to making the page properly encyclopedic. We don't need to go all the way back to 9 June, because the edit war was not all bad; it prompted NuclearWarfare to do some bang-up research on the major medical dictionaries and create in Note 1, which this article has needed for years now. But I think NuclearWarfare's edit of 20 June 2012 is a good, stable starting point. There is still a lot about the June 2011 state of the intro that I frankly think is awful, which I expressed in my earlier post, but we've got to start somewhere, and that was the last stable state supported by anything resembling consensus. I don't actually see any reason not to revert it right now, but, as an interloper, I'll wait for comment from those more involved in this lengthy debate.

Going forward from the 20 June edits, I think it would be helpful to shorten and tighten the focus of the intro. I really can't see any way that we're going to get a lede that is both true and has consensus, except for the one that's currently there. "Abortion' is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." That's the only version I ever heard that included both the "termination of pregnancy" language that one group of (mostly medical-minded) editors insisted on and the "death" language that ethical-, legal-, and philosophical-minded editors considered non-negotiable, with approximately even weight. But I'm open to ideas, of course. So there's our definition.

We should then have some reference to abortion as a medical issue (probably a worldwide frequency statistic; 'there are X zillion induced abortions performed every year; it is estimated that X% are surgical, X% medical, and X% self-induced), some reference as a legal issue ('induced abortion is subject to a wide variety of laws varying by jurisdiction, with some upholding it as a fundamental liberty of women, others prosecuting it as murder in the first degree, and most others in between' -- and, yes, I know those "somes" are weasel words, but this is just an example), then finally some reference to it as a philosophical/ethical/moral issue, culminating in the traditional closing statement mentioning the pro-life and pro-choice movements -- or whatever ArbCom is going to declare them.

I'm not convinced the lead needs anything else. All other statistics about maternal safety, declarations about the nature of the controversy (e.g. the Personhood movement, tidbits about the history of abortion... all that can be dumped into expanded sections in the article proper. In the article proper, those facts are valuable and can be fully explored. In the lead, they are by necessity truncated, therefore by necessity controversial, therefore inevitably the subject of edit warfare and Talk page debate. There should be an entire section on terminology. This could discuss a lot of useful terms surrounding the definition of abortion, such as viability, quickening, spontaneous vs. elective vs. induced abortion, fetus vs. embryo, and so on (though it must not get bloated). The common medical definition placing abortion strictly before viability absolutely should be included in that section. It just doesn't deserve to own the lead, partly because of its internal inconsistency, but mostly because abortion is importantly defined by more spheres than the medical.

I know I haven't proposed a specific text for the lead, but I don't feel like we're there yet... people have been proposing specific texts for months and it's gotten the conversation nowhere. How does this proposal sound as a basic framework for a lead paragraph? It's four, five crisp sentences -- five at the outside -- a few nifty citations, and done. Half the length of the current one.

So, those are my thoughts. Immediate revert to the 20 June text, and then a simplified, streamlined proposal that touches on each important facet of the abortion issue without trying to dig deep in the lead paragraph. How does this sound?

P.S. I am actually not opposed to the idea I presented in my mock-up extreme legal version of this article, where we rename Abortion to Induced Abortion and redirect Spontaneous Abortion to Miscarriage. This would seem to make sense, given the readership of this page and the overwhelming majority of its content. In addition, I was reading Dewhurst the other night, as I mentioned, and that medical text said that, while the technical term is still "spontaneous abortion," "miscarriage" is now the socially appropriate term to use with mothers who have just lost a pregnancy. So it feels like spontaneous abortion and induced abortion are increasingly divergent concepts, and even medicine is starting to recognize the social consensus that uses totally different words for the two concepts. Finally, I think anyone actually looking for information on spontaneous abortion would learn a lot more from the article on Miscarriage than they would from this monster of an article. We seem to already partially acknowledge this by linking miscarriage from our lead. I think it may be time for full separation and a retitle of this article to Induced Abortion. But that's a rather more radical suggestion than anything I've put forward so far, so I'll be especially interested in the reaction. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Those involved in making the 2006 consensus seem very attached to it. The Talk archives have been redacted enough that it'll be hard to follow the conversation, but there was first a very strong consensus that 'death' should be removed, then after NW's research there was a clear consensus that 'viable' was the way to go. No one believes that there is only one right lede except for some of those who edit-warred for the preservation of the 2006 version until they were, in many cases, banned or topic-banned; but this is a well-researched, well-sourced, and broadly-supported consensus lede. It continues to be a running theme, including in your comments, that stare decisis applies to your favored consensus version from 6 years ago but not to the one that has been in the article for 6 months despite RFCs, ANIs, and complaints about the editing of the page being taken to ArbCom and forming (part of, from case to case) the basis for the topic-banning of anti-change editors. The consensus has changed to the current version. Consensus can change again, but to state that "the correct course of action is to revert to the original until there exists actual consensus to change" is dismissive of the process of consensus-building that followed in exactly the expected way from the WP:BRD cycle. There was consensus--there was not unanimity. There still is consensus, and the two of you are talking among yourselves about how it doesn't exist because (I'll wager) editors here are tired of simple denial of the existence of the consensus and have some expectation that those who argued so fervently that the 2006 consensus was too hard-fought to ever be changed will allow a respite for this consensus and allow work to proceed on other parts of the article, which was largely held up during the consensus-building. In summary, if you're going to deny the very existence of a consensus in the wake of all that has happened then you can't expect to be viewed as making a serious effort to improve the article rather than continuing to lobby for the good old days to return. JJL (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa; hold your horses, there, JJL. WP:AGF and all that. I've stated repeatedly that I'm open to being educated on whether this new consensus really did come into existence. Can you do me the favor of pointing me to the spot in the archives were it did, so I can better understand the situation on this page? I've always been a fan of WP: Be Bold and I think WP:CON explicitly rejects the principle of stare decisis. My trouble with the current lede and the process behind it is that -- from my reading of the archive -- it never became a question of how strong the consensus was to change the old lede, because I never saw the consensus as existing. There was not only a lack of unanimity; in at least one straw poll there was a lack of majority. My reading of the RFC's etc. was that they only underscored this point. If I'm wrong, I will work within the current consensus, of course, but I will need to be educated. (FWIW, I think you misunderstand the purpose and operation of WP:BRD - the object is to identify a person with whom to engage, discuss, and compromise, not to rally support for a major change.)

I don't know how new you are to this page, but you--and anyone else--should be aware that, however this particular conversation comes out, there will never be a respite from this topic. It's been under continuous debate for five years. Work on the rest of the article must proceed around it. If you wait for it to be settled, the page will never have another word added to it again. --00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer to do your research for you, but you'll understand that that has been a frequently-used stalling tactic here. There was a clear and very strong majority in favor of eliminating 'death' and a clear consensus in favor of the current lede. I don't see any outcry here for a new consensus--mostly just you and another editor speaking to one another. That's fine, but when you talk about there being no consensus merely because others aren't sufficiently impressed by your arguments to start back in to the same argument on the short time scale of these few posts then that does not seem like a good-faith attempt to build a new consensus. JJL (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have done my research, and I reached what I believe to be a fair conclusion based on it. I understand your reluctance to dig up old things for a new interloper, but, if you're not willing to do that, I don't see that I can be persuaded by your opinion of the same material. I have to stick by my original opinion that no consensus was reached. There are a couple of places in the archives where you, JJL, announced that consensus, but it seemed to me that this was immediately refuted by the responses to you, and I did not find evidence of a consensus in the places you announced it. If I pulled up those spots in the archives myself and presented them here, do you think you'd be able to take the time to explain your thought process on those occasions? Again, I certainly could be wrong about this, and would hope that some of the other contributors, like NW and RoyBoy, will be popping back in post-blackout to offer comment. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"It's not POV in of its particulars," no, it's a nicely written example of how text can be made POV while within the facts (: This lead is very good, and maybe people would accept it if we could take out the word "death?" That word -if I'm right- will always be a sore point. I haven't read the archives: I think it's probably useful not to labor under that burden, I'm here as a fresh perspective.

"What's surprising to me is that, from what I can tell of the record, the changes were then made anyway, with consensus occasionally declared by the pro-changers but never actually extant by any standard" Well, perhaps a well publicized RfC would clear up what the wider consensus is. BCSWowbagger's research needs to be used to update the note 1. However, -BCSWowbagger seems to think we should accommodate the POVs of editors: we generally should try not to, but to make editors accommodate to the sources. Agree about a section on terminology, the proposed lead on my talk page made it very clear that such a section is needed. Separating to induced abortion and miscarriage might be a good idea, especially if it helps us move forward.

JJL, I agree with you that we should probably not use the word "death." But NW's research now needs to be added to, because our current understanding of the medical texts no longer supports "prior to viability." I do not see, however, a current consensus on the current lead, but rather a near consensus that the current lead needs change: NW seems neutral on that, I think it needs change as do RoyBoy, -BCSWowbagger, and others. Are there more than two editors here who definitely want the current lead to stay unchanged? But let's be honest: to an entirely unbiased and new editor, the current lead was just wrong. Further research, by myself and BCSWowbagger and others have confirmed that it is wrong in an entirely conclusive way both per the entirety of sources pertinent to the article and per MEDRS. Consensus will change. B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a nicely written example of how text can be made POV while within the facts Yes, exactly! Like the current one. If you narrow the scope of a large topic like abortion to include as "relevant" only the findings of a very narrow field -- be it law or medicine -- you create POV-by-exclusion. That is certainly what I was trying to illustrate in my example text, because, it seems to me, it has happened here.

BCSWowbagger seems to think we should accommodate the POVs of editors: we generally should try not to, but to make editors accommodate to the sources. I can see why you'd come off of my post thinking that, but no, not at all. I agree with you 100%. Editor POV is irrelevant and dangerous, and WP:RS is our best (perhaps only) tool in fending it off. Editors absolutely must conform to the sources. However, the sources themselves must be broad and reliable, including the full range of (to paraphrase WP:LEAD) "definition, notability, context, and controversy". We have reliability, but the current set of sources are very narrow, with overwhelming preference given to medical encyclopedias, to the exclusion of the findings of other fields with equal or greater claim to primacy in the abortion question, including ethics, law, and philosophy. I would be happy to do some research into some of the more notable texts in those fields, add them to Note 1, and we'll see what comes out of that. (Hooray! I didn't minor in philosophy for nothing!)

This lead is very good, and maybe people would accept it if we could take out the word "death?" If consensus says we need to take out "death," that's one of the best ways to do it. However, the counter-argument, which we will be hearing for the next five years if we go with that lead, is that the definition "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo" would define birth as a form of abortion. So it's not actually a good or complete definition.

Finally, what about my proposal to redirect spontaneous abortion to miscarriage, or, failing that, to its own article? Having slept on it, I'm increasingly sure that's a good idea. Look at our article: the Types section features a brief explanation of spontaneous abortion, but the Methods section, the History section, the Health section, the Incidence section, the Social Issues section, and the Debate section -- i.e., the complete remainder of the article -- has an exclusive focus on induced abortion. Spontaneous abortion does not fit well into the scope of the article. Again, I don't want to tread on any toes, so, before I open up a Move proposal, would there be any opposition to such a change? --BCSWowbagger (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support a move of this article to Induced abortion, and a keeping the redirect of spontaneous abortion to miscarriage. It seems like it would make the rest of what we have to do easier. And "resulting in or caused by its death." -------------> "which does not result in a live birth." B^e——C_ritical 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Does not result in a live birth" would do nicely, I think. And, an aside: I misspoke a little -- I know that spontaneous abortion already redirects to miscarriage. But I see you understood my proposal anyway. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested a split before but it's never gained any traction. The current lede is drawn from medical textbooks, not medical encyclopedias, regardless of what ended up in the much-edited Note 1. The pages WP:LEDE and especially Wikipedia:LEDE#First_sentence has been much discussed here. These are short, simple, declarative sentences that define the subject in an objective way. Attempting to get a lede sentence that incorporates medical-legal-religious-social-historical views in a single sentence not only won't work, it's illogical. The advice of WP:LEDE and the style of pages on similarly contentious medical issues is to define what we're talking about--the medical event or procedure--then later discuss the reaction to that. If there were no way terminate a pregnancy, there'd be no legislation regarding it. JJL (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Then let's do the split/move/whatever. I'll launch the proposal and leave it open for a few days. The short, simple, declarative sentence that begins this article has successfully and concisely encompassed medical/legal/ethical/other definitions before, and could do so again with (I believe) relative ease. But I can't prove that until I've done my research, so I'll head off and do it over the next few days. I'm pleased, incidentally, by the existence of Note 1, because it finally gives us a single place from which to put and read the various definitions. Up until now, the only way to find the recognized reliably-sourced definitions under discussion has been to read through months or years of archive. So, thanks again to NW for contributing it. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

1. "In fact, all sources that discuss pregnancy termination after the 24th week agree that those terminations are abortions, even when contradicted by their own ledes."

• Viability is not fixed at 24 weeks. Might be sooner, might be later.

2. "It is unanimously held that the medical term "abortion" includes post-viability terminations."

• This is not supported by any of the sources.

3. "Our lede is medically incorrect."

• Our lede is factually correct per the sources. The 2006-2011 "consensus" version is not supported.

Btw, spontaneous abortion is already a redirect to miscarriage. I see little reason for yet another abortion sub-article.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You really have to do a better job of contradicting BCSWowbagger's research (and my bit) than that. What you say has been specifically refuted by reference to sources above, and you have to be similarly specific in a refutation. As it is, you just seem to be totally wrong. B^e——C_ritical 05:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The concept of viability is frequently misconstrued here, it seems. We've had this discussion often since June or so. A fetus may be nonviable at any gestational age, in unusual circumstances, and each case is different. Estimates abound for when a typical pregnancy has resulted in a probably viable fetus. Some are based on time, some on weight, and others on a combination of the two--and then there's the long-standing notion of quickening. The only way to determine viability would be to actually remove the fetus from the womb and see if it survives. In lieu of that there are estimates that in many cases are reflected in laws. But viability is a biologically clear, albeit difficult to determine, event. I too don't see clear evidence that the set of all abortions may be subdivided into pre- and post-viable abortions. That's principally coming from trying to impose on certain language a rigid set of rules, as though it were an artificial language rather than an evolved one where parsing the components of a phrase may give misleading results. We have random evidence of certain usages but no statement that abortion breaks down into these two categories, and hence are in WP:SYNTH territory. The lede is medically correct; this is near-unanimous definition drawn from medical texts, not an inference based on phrases found within them. The current lede is more accurate than the previous one and best reflects what the WP:MEDRS say. JJL (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And what research? Implying post-viability abortions from the quotes above is not research; it's WP:SYNTH  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, it's not synthesis to say that IDX is an abortion technique when it's described under the heading of abortion techniques. JJL, are you saying that reliable medical sources do not refer to post viability abortion? B^e——C_ritical 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustration

As you can read here the illustration of vacuum aspiration is not correct.--WerWil (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The vaginal canal should be dilated to a much more significant degree (two inches would be reasonable), and the speculum should extend further down the canal. A tenaculum is typically used to grasp and pull forward the cervix -- this deflexes the uterus. While we're at it, showing an ultrasound probe on the abdomen wouldn't hurt!

Also, most US MVAs/EVAs use rigid uncurved cannulae, in my experience.

I'll look into producing a new image (no promises!), but feel free to suggest a replacement! The current image is not terrible, though, for giving a rough idea of how things work. Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion"

This article uses the term "pro-life".

I don't think that's a neutral term. I think it violates WP:WTW.

Some groups are anti-abortion. They like to call themselves pro-life, but that's not a precise term.

I could accept "pro-life" to describe someone who opposes capital punishment and war. But I don't think someone who kills an abortion doctor is "pro-life". Nor is someone who makes a medical decision that risks the life of a mother "pro-life".

They may believe in a lot of things. But the only thing they definitely believe in is being against abortion.

I'd like to know why they should be called "pro-life". --Nbauman (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely correct. "Pro-life" is a marketing term. Not appropriate here. I can't see too many instance in the article, but you won't have any objection from me if you removed what instances there are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Becritical went ahead and by and large expunged "pro-life" from the article. While in my personal life I refer to them as "anti-choice," I have some hesitations about this stance in the article. Starting points for concern include:

• the juxtaposition of "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" makes the article seem unbalanced.

• this has probably been covered already in the extensive archives.

• those in favor of limiting access to abortion could easily turn that around and say, "when a fetus is killed, where is its choice?" However unreasonable one finds that argument, Wikipedia isn't about assuming your view is more reasonable than theirs.

• "anti-abortion" still isn't great. Many people are against abortion in that they advocate contraception, but still in favor of abortion access when abortion fails. I personally agree it's more accurate than "pro-life," but it's not perfect.

Going to go dig through the archives. PS: Becritical, please label your edits. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a worthless triviality. No naming system is going to satisfy everyone, so we might as well just stick one that is common, easily understandable, and not likely to result in future edit wars. Can we postpone discussion on this until the rest of the article is at GA quality or better? If we don't, I think it's just going to distract us from more important issues (like the fact that the Incidence section needs major cleanup). NW (Talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pro-choice versus anti-abortion is NPOV. That's because pro-life is as noted above not a description of what they're for, as with pro-choice, but a marketing slogan. Pro-choice is actually what pro-choice people are for. But pro-life isn't descriptive of what they stand for in the same sense as anti-abortion. So let's say people aren't familiar with the political slogans, then we should use anti-abortion instead of pro-life. We can't use pro-abortion because that's not used at all and is inaccurate. Look: search for pro-life, get more right wing news sources [11], search for anti-abortion, get more left wing, and more reliable sources [12]. My guess is that more RS use anti-abortion than pro-life. B^e——C_ritical 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I searched the archives for "pro-life" and got 59 pages of rambling discussions. If you want to refer to the archives, please tell me what the archives say to support your position and where I can find it.

If, NW, you think it's a worthless triviality, then why did you change it? If it's trivial, do it our way.

I think it violates WP:LABEL. It's literally false. In this article, "pro-life" is not a term used to describe people who are pro-life in general, supporting animal life, or plant life, or opposing war, or supporting funding for pre-natal health care. They don't consider sperm life.

It's only used by people who are opposed to abortion alone. The only life they support is human life before birth.

It's irrefutable that "pro-life" is a term used to describe themselves by people who believe in one side of the controversy.

On the other hand, "anti-abortion" is a neutral and acceptable term. Even the opponents of abortion refer to themselves as "anti-abortion."

If we can choose between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life", which is more neutral?

If we have a term that everybody agrees on, or a term that people disagree on, which one should we use?

I think "pro-life" is WP:POV and WP:LABEL, and we should change it. --Nbauman (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it isn't exactly balanced to use both "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". I see from our article on the former that "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[24]" If we want to switch the article completely to AP style, I wouldn't have any objection to that. NW (Talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, if we aren't using "pro life", we shouldn't be using "pro choice". I would support your suggestion, although I don't have a problem with using any sourced descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good solution, agree to switch entirely to AP style as NW says. B^e——C_ritical 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't ArbCom going to bring some clarity to this? JJL (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely not, it's a content decision. B^e——C_ritical 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, ArbCom didn't, and will not, rule on content issues. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Systematic_discussion_and_voting_on_article_names which is to set the names for the relevant articles. We don't need to use those but it would provide some guidance. However, AP style is a sensible choice to my mind and I'm inclined to go with that. JJL (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like their guidance will be definitive in a few months, which will make this discussion moot. Otherwise I'd start editing other articles to match AP style, but that would be asking for a lot more trouble and be overruled once that case came to a conclusion. Also, everybody in this discussion should be sure to go and provide input once the case is opened, unless I misunderstand that description. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if they have they announced a timeline for this yet? JJL (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just chipping in my support if it's the AP style advice. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've supported the AP style for years, but, at the same time, the broad consensus to use pro-life/pro-choice (both silly terms) has held for even longer across a surprisingly large number of articles. It is beginning to break down, precipitating the current ArbCom, but, until there is a ruling, let's hold on to the current language. I don't like it, but it is a consensus much older and much bigger than us, and the process for overturning it is already underway. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is reasonable, but on the other hand the AP style may be more WP:WORLDWIDE than those U.S.-centric terms. It's a nonce issue and I don't have strong feelings--I'm hoping that ArbCom's mediated discussion leads to a clear recommendation on this. JJL (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're definitely right that it's more WW to use the AP style, so I know what I'm hoping to see when ArbCom makes its decision. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On a closer reading of the ArbCom proceeding, it doesn't look like they have any intention on ruling on content. The best we get is the mediation cabal's informal ruling, which is useless to us because too wordy for in-article use. How should we proceed? If WikiProject:Abortion were still up, we could ask there, but... how do other abortion articles treat it these days? It used to be pro-life/pro-choice based on a self-identifying terms policy WP had at the time... but I think that policy is gone now. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Abortion → Induced abortion; Relisted —  AjaxSmack  01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Move and redirect Abortion to Induced abortion. Add soft redirect with the "about" template to top of Induced abortion: "For Spontaneous abortion, see miscarriage." Remove spontaneous abortion-related content from the article. – 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason for proposal

Look at our article: the Types section features a brief explanation of spontaneous abortion, but the Methods section, the History section, the Health section, the Incidence section, the Social Issues section, and the Debate section -- i.e., the complete remainder of the article -- has an exclusive focus on induced abortion. Spontaneous abortion does not fit well into the scope of the article. -BCSWowbagger

I would support a move of this article to Induced abortion, and a keeping the redirect of spontaneous abortion to miscarriage. It seems like it would make the rest of what we have to do easier. -Becritical

I've suggested a split before but it's never gained any traction. -JJL

Support/Oppose

• Support, per above. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME actually supports this, so that we can give people what they are most likely looking for when they type "abortion." Since we can't exclude miscarriage from "Abortion," but we should direct to the article on what the reader is likely looking for. Also it will allow us to make this article less ambiguous, separating material into the categories it naturally falls into. B^e——C_ritical 05:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support because WP:COMMONNAME seems to suggest the current situation but the fact of the matter is that the article is almost exclusively about induced abortion and I see no path forward to making this an article that covers the whole topic in a balanced way. A dab page seems unwieldy unless, as was suggested last year, one wants to broaden the definition of abortion much further and I don't favor that. Having Abortion point to Induced Abortion with directions to Spontaneous abortion prominently at the top and an internal link to it in the lede paragraph is the best common-sense solution to me, all things considered. JJL (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given WP:SUMMARY and WP:COMMONNAME, "abortion" is the most appropriate title.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies when there are WP:DISAMBIG concerns, which there are here. And I don't see the application of WP:SUMMARY here. The "related but distinct" subtopic of spontaneous abortion is almost completely excluded from this article already. We could expand that coverage to give it equal weight, but we would be largely repeating text and research already done by the editors at miscarriage.
  • We would be redirecting abortion to induced abortion, if that helps. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although some of my concerns are alleviated by the concurrent suggestion of redirecting "abortion" to "induced abortion," "abortion" is still the WP:COMMONNAME in both lay and scholarly (incl. scientific) parlance. I think the concern about spontaneous abortion is handled by a hatnote and/or a brief summary with a mainlink to miscarriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (That said, I don't feel strongly about it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It would help better separate the two subjects that are currently stepping all over one another in this article. PeRshGo (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I've read the Wikipedia articles that the other editors have suggested but can not point out anything to make my decision for me, so I'm going to have to go with my personal experience: In common, everyday usage abortion means one thing and miscarriage means another. For instance, never, ever, would one read that xxx aborted a pregnancy when they were speaking of a miscarriage. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, seems helpful... unsure on redirect but we can try it and wait for complaints, should relieve some constraints on the lead and allow us to be succinct. Sorry to JJL if I didn't catch / support this idea previously. - RoyBoy 18:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure I have thought this over for the last couple of days, and while initially opposed to the idea, it now makes more sense to me. While miscarriages are very related to induced abortions, the way that the sources approach them are very different. On the other hand, spontaneous abortion does make up a small but not insignificant percentage of this article, and the way it is done seems pretty reasonable to me (three paragraphs in "Type#Spontaneous" that in addition to describing a miscarriage, allow us to quickly summarize some quick facts about an induced abortion; as well as one paragraph in "in other animals", which I imagine would have to be cut?).

  Also, could someone properly list this at WP:RM? NW (Talk) 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I just fixed the listing issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and, strangely, User:Gandydancer's argument. For those worried about inclusion of material on spontaneous abortion, i.e. miscarriage, just add a hatnote stating "This article is about induced abortion. For spontaneous abortion, see miscarriage." —  AjaxSmack  01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be fine by me--I'm less concerned about the mechanics of doing this than about the convenience of having them (mostly) separated. JJL (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack; or include a brief section on spontaneous, with a main link to miscarriage. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons above, plus common usage sees abortion as induced, and the abortion-miscarriage continuum best described in miscarriage article and mentioned only briefly here with "see main article" note. Seems WP:Undue to have its own article. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. There would be no separate article describing the differences. Abortion would simply redirect to induced abortion. NW (Talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose also common-usage, and redirecting would still be a problem because a miscarriage is an abortion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Abortion' in common parlance is medical or surgical means of removing an unwanted pregnancy. It certainly does not carry any connotation of natural abortion. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

More Sources

I have been asking that greater consideration be given in the lead and in Note 1 to the equally relevant and equally defining areas of philosophy, law, and ethics, especially the law. Not one to make a suggestion on WP and then leave it for others to follow through, here are my findings. I have bolded the sections I plan to include in Note 1, but believed that providing the full context (and, in the case of U.S. law, all the statutes) would be beneficial. I have also tried to list the weightiest definitions first, descending to the least weighty. (Black's Law Dictionary being clearly superior to anything else in tertiary legal sources, for example.)

JJL suggested that I include religion and history, so I have also included a couple of definitions from religion and the social sciences (a somewhat broader category). I admit, I didn't see either of those as especially important, so there isn't much on them. The overwhelming weight of what I have brought back comes from the law. U.S. State statutes in particular proved extremely amenable to inclusion in the Note and the lead.

I don't know that comment on this is necessary, but I welcome it. It is posted here primarily as an expanded reference to the non-medical defining authorities on abortion, and in case anyone objects, for whatever reason, to the additions I am proposing to Note 1. (I learned long ago that it is always, always, always a good idea to post all proposed non-grammatical changes to an abortion-related article on Talk before doing it. Half the time it provokes no comment and you go ahead, but the other half you save a lot of edit warring.)

Philosophy

In philosophy, I should note, an encyclopedia is generally considered more authoritative than a textbook. I was surprised by JJL's suggestion that the converse is true in medicine. Trivia, I suppose, since both are tertiary sources in any case, but I was intrigued.

abortion Termination of the life of a foetus, after conception but before birth. The event may be intentionally induced or natural, although it is intentionally induced abortion that is the topic of moral philosophy. The issues divide conservatives or ‘pro-life’ supporters, who regard deliberately induced abortion as impermissible, and liberal or ‘pro-choice’ supporters, who regard the action as permissible in a variety of cases. The liberal attitude may extend to almost any case in which a mother wishes an abortion, or may involve a variety of restrictions, including the age of the foetus. Moderates restrict the permissible cases, but the debate has not been notable for moderation. Issues arising include the nature of personhood, and its beginning; the extent of the right to life; the fragile notion of the sanctity of life; the way in which conflicting rights should be treated; and the political and social issues of who has the right to decide moral and legal policy and to enforce it.

"abortion" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 22 January 2012

(ETHICS) The intentional killing of a fetus or fertilized human egg by causing its expulsion from the mother's womb before its birth. Whether abortion should be morally permitted has been intensively debated in the past few decades and has become a major political and legal issue in many industrialized countries. One focus of the debate is on the moral status of a fetus. Is a fetus a person with a substantive right to life? The anti-abortion argument holds that a fetus is already a person and therefore should be within the scope of the moral rule that “you should not kill.” This view leads to a discussion concerning the concept of personhood, that is, at what stage between conception and birth does a fetus becomes a person? Another focus concerns the rights of the pregnant woman. Does she have a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to decide what happens to her own body? Even if a fetus is a person, how shall we balance its rights and the woman's rights? Still another problem concerns the extent to which we should take into account the undesirable consequences of the prohibition of abortion, such as poverty and overpopulation. Different sides of the debate hold different positions resulting in part from the moral principles they accept. There is currently no common basis to solve all the disagreement. Nevertheless, abortion, which was legally permitted only in Sweden and Denmark until 1967, has become accepted in the majority of Western countries.

“Induced abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy by destruction of the fetus.”
--Rita Simon, Abortion

"abortion." The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. BUNNIN, NICHOLAS and JIYUAN YU (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Blackwell Reference Online. 22 January 2012

"A term that, in philosophy, theology, and social debates, often means the deliberate termination of pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive outside the uterus. However, participants in these debates sometimes use the term abortion simply to mean the termination of pregnancy before birth, regardless of whether the fetus is viable or not." "abortion." Dictionary of World Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001.

Social Science

Induced abortion, in contrast to spontaneous abortion, is the deliberate termination of an established pregnancy. Induced abortion is a universal phenomenon, present in every known culture—literate or preliterate, primitive or modern. What has differed has been the safety of the methods used; how widespread the practice has been, especially relative to contraception and infanticide; and the role of church and state.

Abortion. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. p1-3. Word Count: 1414.

The classic definition of abortion is "expulsion of the fetus before it is viable." This could include spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or induced abortion, in which someone (a doctor, the woman herself, or a layperson) causes the abortion. Before modern methods of abortion, this sometimes meant the introduction of foreign objects like catheters into the uterus to disrupt the placenta and embryo (or fetus) so that a miscarriage would result. In preindustrial societies, hitting the pregnant woman in the abdomen over the uterus and jumping on her abdomen while she lies on the ground are common techniques used to induce an abortion (Early and Peters 1990). Although these methods can be effective, they may also result in the death of the woman if her uterus is ruptured or if some of the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus enters her bloodstream. From the colonial period to the early twentieth-century in America, primitive methods such as these were used along with the introduction of foreign objects into the uterus (wooden sticks, knitting needles, catheters, etc.) to cause abortion, frequently with tragic results (Lee 1969).

In modern society, abortions are performed surgically by physicians or other trained personnel experienced in this technique, making the procedure much safer. The goal of induced abortion remains the same: to interrupt the pregnancy so that the woman will not continue to term and deliver a baby.

One problem with the classical definition of abortion is the changing definition of viability (the ability to live outside the womb). Premature birth is historically associated with high death and disability rates for babies born alive, but medical advances of the twentieth century have made it possible to save the lives of babies born after only thirty weeks of pregnancy when the usual pregnancy lasts forty weeks. Some infants born at twenty-six to twenty-seven weeks or younger have even survived through massive intervention and support. At the same time, abortions are now routinely performed up to twenty-five to twenty-six weeks of pregnancy. Therefore, the old definition of viability is not helpful in determining whether an abortion has been or should be performed (Grobstein 1988).

Abortion. WARREN HERN. International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. Ed. James J. Ponzetti. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. p1-7. Word Count: 3288.

Both the practice of artificially terminating a pregnancy and the debate about its morality are as old as human civilization. Even the Hippocratic Oath, composed in ancient Greece, refers to abortifacents as one of the things doctors were not to administer. But the abortion question became a major political issue in the United States after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not regulate first-trimester abortions, could only regulate for the woman's health in the second trimester, and could only regulate on behalf of both woman and fetus in the third, after the fetus reached viability. The Supreme Court based its reasoning upon the principle of the right of privacy, in particular, that a woman's body is her own business and that she alone should be the one to decide if she wishes to carry to term.

Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life. Leigh Kimmel. Encyclopedia of Politics. Ed. Rodney P. Carlisle. Vol. 2: The Right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference, 2005. p517-521. Word Count: 2901.

The deliberate termination of a pregnancy, usually before the embryo or fetus is capable of independent life. In medical contexts, this procedure is called an induced abortion and is distinguished from a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or stillbirth. Abortion laws are extremely controversial. Those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” believe that the decision to have an abortion should be left to the mother. In contrast, the “pro-life” faction, arguing that abortion is killing, holds that the state should prohibit abortion in most cases. Feminists (see feminism) and liberals generally support the pro-choice side; Roman Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists generally back the pro-life side. (See Roe versus Wade.)

abortion. (2002). In The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hmndcl/abortion

Religion

Abortion is defined as the artificial termination of a woman's pregnancy.

Abortion. Menachem Elon. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p270-273. Word Count: 3278.

Medically, abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by any means before the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive; it is divided into spontaneous ("miscarriage") and induced. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbooks sometimes follow this definition. However, the practice of induced abortion requires a definition that is properly descriptive of the moral reality. In his landmark encyclical The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae) (1995), John Paul II, citing the need to "call things by their proper name," defines abortion—he uses the term "procured abortion"—as "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth" (58) (emphasis in original). Approximately 15% of recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. However, the topic of procured abortion is part of an intense debate that John Paul II calls "an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the 'culture of death' and the 'culture of life"' (EV 28). At the conclusion of his classical study on abortion, Connery notes that the trend in the 19th century of eradicating abortion has now been reversed and that "in our present society the frequency of abortion is far greater than anything the Roman or ancient world ever knew or dreamed of" (Connery, 313). Indeed, the practice of abortion is unprecedented not only in terms of numbers but in term of methods and motivations.

Abortion. M. A. TAYLOR. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p24-31. Word Count: 4063.

Law: Courts

Surprisingly slim pickings here. Courts frequently take the definition as read, so, while a definition might be implied by, say, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, one is rarely stated. Here is one I found, from a state appellate court:

A person commits an abortion when he uses an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance with the intent to procure a miscarriage of any woman. Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 38, par 23-1., qtd. in People v. Hoffmann, 260 NE 2d 351 - Ill Appellate Court, 1st Dist, 3rd Div. 1970

Law: Statute

British law defining abortion is rather simpler than U.S. law, so I'm going to start there and do Europe before circling back to the U.S.'s massive weight of statutory law. It seems there is exactly one statute that defines it (the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)), exactly one statute permitting it under some circumstances (the Abortion Act 1967), and a zillion tiny, totally unimportant amendments modifying the statutes to comport with innovations in the NHS and so forth. Here is the U.K. definition/original prohibition on abortion:

58. Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.
Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life.

59. Procuring drugs, &c. to cause abortion. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude. Offences Against the Person Act 1861: 1861 c. 100 (Regnal. 24_and_25_Vict)

The effect of this law was modified/explained by the Abortion Act 1967 to render unpunishable most abortions, creating a space for legal abortion. It is not clear to me whether current U.K. considers the abortion definition of 1861 unenforceable or redefined. If the latter, I have not uncovered a succeeding definition.

Canadian law was voided, more or less, by R v. Morgentaler, but the definition remains on the books:

287. Procuring miscarriage (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Woman procuring her own miscarriage (2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, version in force as of 2 Dec 2011

Italian law, already mentioned, uses the terms "abortion" ("lo aborto") and "voluntary termination of pregnancy" ("Sull'interruzione volontaria della gravidanza") interchangeably.

German abortion law does not include formal definition, again using "termination of pregnancy" ("Schwangerschaft abbricht") interchangeably with "abortion" ("Abtreibung" or -- interestingly -- "Schwangerschaftsabbruch") (German Criminal Code section 218.)

Same goes for France (Code of Public Health, Art. L2212-1, L2213-1).

Where abortion definitions have proliferated is here in the States, where a complicated legal situation has bred explicit definitions all over the place (thanks to NARAL for pointing me in many of these directions):

"Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus. Montana Code, 50-20-104.

Oregon statutes never use the word "abortion," but switch between "termination of pregnancy" and "fetal death" depending on context. Only "fetal death" is defined. More trivia than anything, but interesting all the same:

“Fetal death” means death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy. The death is indicated by the fact that after such expulsion or extraction the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of the voluntary muscles. Oregon Rev Stat. 432.005.5

More:

"Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth. CA Rev Stat §123464

"Abortion" means the intentional termination of human pregnancy for purposes other than delivery of a viable birth. ID Rev Stat 18.604.1

"Abortion" means an act committed upon or with respect to a female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether directly upon her body or by the administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner, with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female. DE Stat Title 11 § 654

"Abortion" means the deliberate termination of an intrauterine human pregnancy after fertilization of a female ovum, by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child. LA Rev. Stat. Title 9 §2800.12(B)(1)

Feticide is the killing of an unborn child by the act, procurement, or culpable omission of a person other than the mother of the unborn child. The offense of feticide shall not include acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman or her legal guardian has consented or which was performed in an emergency as defined in R.S. 40:1299.35.12. Nor shall the offense of feticide include acts which are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment. LA Rev. Stat. Title 14 32.5(A)

"Abortion" means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.

(6) "Fetus" and "unborn child" each mean an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

(7) "Abortifacient" means any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device which is known to cause fetal death when employed in the usual and customary use for which it is manufactured, whether or not the fetus is known to exist when such substance or device is employed. Ill. Stat. 720.510.2 (1975) (earlier Illinois law already cited above)

"Abortion" means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus. Indiana Code 16-18-2-1

"Abortion" means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with intent other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus TN Code 37-10-302

"Abortion" means the intentional termination or attempted termination of human pregnancy after implantation of a fertilized ovum, and includes any and all procedures undertaken to kill a live unborn child and includes all procedures undertaken to produce a miscarriage. "Abortion" does not include removal of a dead unborn child. UT Statutes 76-7-301

"Abortion", the intentional destruction of the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother's womb or the intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead or dying unborn child; MO Statutes 188.015

"Abortion" means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy, by any person with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child; OK Statutes 63.1.730.1

Texas appears unwilling to settle on one definition:

"Abortion" means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of a female known by the attending physician to be pregnant, with the intention that the termination of the pregnancy by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the fetus. This definition, as applied in this chapter, applies only to an unemancipated minor known by the attending physician to be pregnant and may not be construed to limit a minor's access to contraceptives. Texas Family Code § 33.001.

In this code, "abortion" means an intentional expulsion of a human fetus from the body of a woman induced by any means for the purpose of causing the death of the fetus. Texas Family Code § 161.006(b)

"Abortion" means an act involving the use of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device developed to terminate the pregnancy of a woman if the act is done with an intention other than to:
(A) increase the probability of a live birth of the unborn child of the woman;
(B) preserve the life or health of the child; or
(C) remove a dead fetus. Texas Family Code § 170.001.1(b)

"Abortion" means an act or procedure performed after pregnancy has been medically verified and with the intent to cause the termination of a pregnancy other than for the purpose of either the birth of a live fetus or removing a dead fetus. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. Texas Health and Safety Code § 245.002.1(b)

"Abortion" means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with intent other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus. KY Rev. Stat. 311.732.1(c)

"Abortion" means the termination of a human pregnancy with the intent other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus. Abortion does not include medical care which has as its primary purpose the treatment of a serious physical condition requiring emergency medical treatment necessary to save the life of a mother. IA Code 146.1, in part, cit. in 135L.1, 707.8A

"Abortion" means the use of any means to intentionally terminate a pregnancy except for the purpose of causing a live birth. Abortion does not include: (1) The use of any drug or device that inhibits or prevents ovulation, fertilization or the implantation of an embryo; or (2) disposition of the product of in vitro fertilization prior to implantation. KS Stat 65.6701, cit. at 65-67a01

"Perform an abortion" means to interrupt or terminate a pregnancy by any surgical or nonsurgical procedure or to induce a miscarriage as provided in § 18.2-72, 18.2-73 or 18.2-74. VA Code §16.1-241 (NOTE: the referenced sections provide for the lawful circumstances of abortion in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively)

As used in the Revised Code, "abortion" means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus or embryo. Abortion is the practice of medicine or surgery for the purposes of section 4731.41 of the Revised Code. OH Rev. Code Title 29 § 2919.11

"Nontherapeutic abortion" means an abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency. OH Rev. Code Title 1 § 124.85.A(1)

"Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth. Rev Cd. of Washington State, RCW 9.02.170

Abortion means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead unborn child, and which causes the premature termination of the pregnancy; Nebraska Criminal Code 23-326.1

“Abortion” defined. As used in NRS 442.240 to 442.270, inclusive, unless the context requires otherwise, “abortion” means the termination of a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce the birth of an infant capable of sustained survival by natural or artificial supportive systems or to remove a dead fetus. Nevada Rev. Stat. NRS 442.240

"Abortion" means an act, procedure, device or prescription administered to or prescribed for a pregnant woman by any person with knowledge of the pregnancy, including the pregnant woman herself, with the intent of producing the premature expulsion, removal or termination of a human embryo or fetus, except that in cases in which the viability of the embryo or fetus is threatened by continuation of the pregnancy, early delivery after viability by commonly accepted obstetrical practices shall not be construed as an abortion; Wy. Title 35 Section 6.101(a)(i)

'Abortion' means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant. The term 'abortion' shall not include the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device employed solely to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as a result of a spontaneous abortion. The term 'abortion' also shall not include the prescription or use of contraceptives. GA Code, Title 15, Section 11.110.1

Abortion shall mean an operation to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a nonviable fetus. The termination of a pregnancy of a viable fetus is not included in this section. Hawaii Rev. Stat. §453-16(b)

In this section, “abortion” means the intentional destruction of the life of an unborn child, and “unborn child” means a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive. WI Stat. 20.927

“Abortion” means the use of an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant or for whom there is reason to believe that she may be pregnant and with intent other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the infant after live birth or to remove a dead fetus. WI Stat 40.98

“Abortion” means the use of an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant or for whom there is reason to believe that she may be pregnant and with intent other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the infant after live birth or to remove a dead fetus. WI Stat 48.375(2)(a) and s. 253.10 (2) (a).; used again in 939(2)(a) except defining "induced abortion"

And here is an old statute, simply because I was curious about the language of my home state prior to its repeal in the 1970s:

"Abortion" includes an act, procedure or use of any instrument, medicine or drug which is supplied or prescribed for or administered to a pregnant woman which results in the termination of pregnancy. MN Statutes 617.18; Repealed, 1974 c 177 s 7

Some 35 U.S. states (according to NARAL) have statutory language prohibiting abortion under various conditions (unenforceable under Roe). I read their statutes, and nearly all define illegal abortion using text virtually identical to these:

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless [insert possible rape/incest/life/health exceptions here], shall be punished by [insert punishment here]

Any person who willfully administers to any pregnant woman any drug or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means to induce an abortion, miscarriage or premature delivery or aids, abets or prescribes for the same, unless [exceptions] shall on conviction be [punishment].

Law: Text

"1. An artificially induced termination of a pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus. 2. The spontaneous expulsion of an embryo or fetus before viability;" Garner, Bryan A. (June 2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492.

The spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus. As used in legal context, the term usually refers to induced abortion.

Abortion. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2005. p13-26. Word Count: 9830.

The ending of a pregnancy before its natural term

COMMENT: The legal limit for abortion in the UK is currently 24 weeks. The procedure may also legally be performed up to 28 weeks if there is evidence of severe foetal abnormality or if it is necessary to save the life of the mother, although in practice this is rare. After this time the foetus is considered viable and may not be destroyed.

abortion. (2007). In A&C Black Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acblaw/abortion

for legal purposes, termination of a pregnancy before it is complete, with the purpose of destroying the embryo or foetus. In English criminal law, procuring an abortion was a FELONY and indeed it is still criminal, subject to the provisions of the law permitting abortion which appeared in the UK in the 1960s.

abortion. (2006). In Collins Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/collinslaw/abortion

abortion The termination of a pregnancy: a miscarriage or the premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb before the normal period of gestation is complete. It is an offence to induce or attempt to induce an abortion unless the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, as reformulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and the Abortion Regulations 1991, as amended by the Abortion (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/887), are complied with. The pregnancy can only be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, and two registered medical practitioners must agree that it is necessary, e.g. because (1) continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (or of other children of hers) that is greater than the risk of terminating the pregnancy, or (2) there is a substantial risk that the child will be born with a serious physical or mental handicap. However, doctors are not obliged to perform abortions if they can prove that they have a conscientious objection to doing so. A husband cannot prevent his wife having a legal abortion if she so wishes. Compare child destruction.

"abortion" The Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Michael Kennedy. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of St. Thomas. 22 January 2012

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; esp : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy

2 : the crime of procuring or performing an illegal abortion <a conspiracy to commit ~ — W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr.> — see also Roe v. Wade and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in the Important Cases section

abortion. (1996). In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/mwdlaw/abortion

The termination of a pregnancy by the removal, by surgical or other means, of an embryo or fetus from a woman's uterus. Until 1973 abortion was considered a crime unless performed by physicians to protect the life of the mother. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973) that a woman had the right to choose abortion to end a pregnancy through the first trimester. In the latter stages of pregnancy, danger to the life of the mother could still justify a legal abortion.

Source: Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abortion

Here is an interesting (and relevant?) distinction drawn in British law of which I was not previously aware:

abortion n. The removal of an embryo or foetus from the uterus at a stage in the pregnancy when it is deemed incapable of independent survival (see viable ). Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (s 58) abortion is a criminal offence unless carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 , which sets out the grounds upon which a termination is legal (s 1). Generally, a termination is lawful if the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks and if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman than having an abortion. In some circumstances a termination is permitted after 24 weeks, for example if there is a substantial risk that the child if born would be seriously handicapped or if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. The abortion must be carried out in an approved hospital or clinic and two medical practitioners must certify that the termination is necessary for one of the reasons set out in the Act. The distinction between abortion and contraception is a crucial one. A recent case, R (Smeaton on behalf of SPUC) v Secretary of State for Health [ 2002 ] EWHC 610 (Admin), [ 2002 ] 2 FLR 146, ruled that use of the “morning after pill”, which prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg in the womb, did not constitute an abortion. Doctors are not obliged to perform abortions if they can prove that they have a conscientious objection to so doing. A husband cannot prevent his wife having a legal abortion if she so wishes. Compare child destruction .

child destruction An act causing a viable unborn child to die during the course of pregnancy or birth before it has an existence independent of its mother. If carried out with the intention of causing death, and if it is proved that the act was not carried out in good faith in order to preserve the mother's life, the offence is subject to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Governed by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (s 1), this offence fills the gap between murder (the unlawful killing of a living being) and abortion , which is the procuring of a miscarriage.

"child destruction" A Dictionary of Law. by Jonathan Law and Elizabeth A. Martin. Oxford University Press 2009 Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 22 January 2012

Amusing

Not actually including these anywhere, but I found these and was amused. In case anyone feels the urge to write some abortion poetry:

abortion
•ashen, fashion, passion, ration
•abstraction, action, attraction, benefaction, compaction, contraction, counteraction, diffraction, enaction, exaction, extraction, faction, fraction, interaction, liquefaction, malefaction, petrifaction, proaction, protraction, putrefaction, redaction, retroaction, satisfaction, stupefaction, subtraction, traction, transaction, tumefaction, vitrifaction
•expansion, mansion, scansion, stanchion
•sanction
•caption, contraption
•harshen, Martian
•cession, discretion, freshen, session
•abjection, affection, circumspection, collection, complexion, confection, connection, convection, correction, defection, deflection, dejection, detection, direction, ejection, election, erection, genuflection, imperfection, infection, inflection, injection, inspection, insurrection, interconnection, interjection, intersection, introspection, lection, misdirection, objection, perfection, predilection, projection, protection, refection, reflection, rejection, resurrection, retrospection, section, selection, subjection, transection, vivisection

"abortion" Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 22 January 2012

A failure. As dyspeptic Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) said of Charles Lamb (1775-1834): “Poor Lamb! Poor England! when such a despicable abortion is named genius!” Abortion has only recently begun to escape the taboo that became attached to it as a result of its association with a formerly illegal operation. For years, newspapers refused to print the word and Hollywood censors kept it out of film soundtracks. The customary evasions were criminal operation in the United States and illegal operation in the United Kingdom. Miscarriage also was used frequently in lieu of the other term, as in the film version of John O’Hara’s Ten North Frederick (1958). The taboo was strong enough that it even affected miscarriage. Thus, in Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind (1936), Rhett Butler tells Scarlett, “Cheer up, maybe you’ll have a miscarriage,” just before she tumbles down the stairs and has one, but in the film that was made from the book (1939), Clark Gable mentions only the possibility of her having an “accident.” Today, despite the decriminalization of the procedure (Roe v. Wade, 1973), advocates of women’s reproductive rights still honor the old taboo when they say they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion, or that they favor therapeutic interruption of pregnancy. See also squeal.

abortion. (1989). In Rawson's Wicked Words. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/rawww/abortion

Back-alley

I changed unsafe abortions to back-alley abortions Pass a Method talk 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? Unsafe abortion is the term that is used almost unanimously in the highest quality sources. NW (Talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the reasons women have abortions? Why is it too detailed? Do you have a proposal? Pass a Method talk 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing would be needed for those being the reasons, and I do wonder if that is more detailed than is desirable in the lede. JJL (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The information is provided, sourced, at Abortion#Personal and social factors. Can you think of a way to better summarize the addition? I don't think yours was entirely in keeping with Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text. NW (Talk) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's also more in keeping with WP:NPOV and a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective. JJL (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Society and culture section

Every subheading in the Society and culture section goes to a separate article except for Art, literature and film. I wonder if it'd be better if that section were shorter and went to a main article that could have a broader and more representative selection of art, books, and films. As it stands now I'm unclear on why those particular items--which seem slanted toward recent U.S. material--were chosen. I'm not particularly qualified to write such an article, but what's there now doesn't seem adequately inclusive to me. JJL (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)