Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological 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
Topical subpages
First paragraph Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, "Death" First paragraph|in intro

Including all of abortion's names

The way that Climategate is referred to as "CPU research hacking incident", "abortion" should also be called by its other equally legitimate name, "baby murder". From a pro-life POV this is baby murder and we should not be oppressed by the leftist academic/government class. We should be able to include (after "abortion") the term we use to refer to abortion, baby murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the basic argument here, because it is general WP policy to lay down redirects to an article under all terms which are commonly and unambiguously used to refer to the subject of said article. Thus, "Climategate" is a common and unambiguous moniker for what would be called (more precisely) the "CRU research hacking incident". Closer to home, WP applies the same principle in the case of partial-birth abortion (precise article title: "intact dilation and extraction," a phrase which, while hideously Orwellian, is also inarguably more precise than "partial-birth abortion").

However, while I see your general point, 71.109.157.245, I don't think it applies here. As an active pro-lifer, I very rarely see my fellow pro-lifers call it "baby murder" in public. They certainly liken it to baby murder, and abortion is certainly morally equivalent to baby murder, but they don't actually call it that. They call it, simply, "abortion." Maybe they shouldn't surrender that piece of rhetorical ground; maybe they should call it unbornicide. But they don't, and WP would be wrong to adopt an alternate name for abortion that isn't in common use.

Nor would the term "baby murder" be unambiguous, referring, as it often does, to infanticide rather than feticide. My two cents. --BCSWowbagger (not signed in on 24.245.45.254 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Well, for something to be called "baby murder" one would think it should have some direct connection to either babies or murder (or even both!). Unfortunately, whether elective or spontaneous, abortion is not murder, nor does it have anything to do with the death of a baby. This is not an ideological platform, it's fact. In many cases we are talking about some kind of feticide, as mentioned above, but this is far from the only aspect of abortion that is (and should be) addressed in the article. In any case, "killing" + "fetus/embryo" is a far cry from "murder" + "baby"... Let's not start clogging a surprisingly well-balanced article with inaccurate (and more than a little silly) terminology. 66.41.65.237 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and it is ESPECIALLY not a political forum! So all posters in this section need to chill out immensely. The term I use to refer to Nazis is "Russian target practice" but I don't think that should be in the article about it. Baby murder is a completely and utterly POV term that is not even widely used. I agree with BCSWowbagger that it should really be called partial-birth abortion since it is more commonly used (see Talk:East Germany for a similar discussion on the names of articles), but I feel I need to point out that the term "intact dilation and extraction" is the polar opposite of Orwellian. In 1984, Newspeak shortens words so that they are as refined as possible to limit any possible interpretation other than the Party-defined one. As opposed to lengthening it for scientific/euphemistic purposes (depending on your view) which is the opposite.

Also, to the IP who started this section, it shows a complete lack of good faith and neutrality to assume that because a Wikipedian disagrees on whether or not we should call it baby murder, you are being oppressed by some vast left-wing conspiracy. Furthermore, you actually said you speak from a pro-life POV and not a neutral POV, in complete contradiction of the tenets of good editing and just plain common sense. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that as a Wikipedian, your POV is meaningless here. Commissarusa (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't feed trolls (or continue forum-y conversations from over a month ago ;P ) -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Header change

Should the section with the header containing the words "female infanticide" be changed to female foeticide, for clarification? (ie. pre-birth not post-birth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetGoomba (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Safer than childbirth

There's a sentence in this article that says: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 21st week." There was previously a lot of discussion about this, because some editors felt that it denies abortion is unsafe for the embryo or fetus. So, there have been times when the sentence instead said: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer for women than childbirth when performed before the 21st week."

There was a big discussion about this in September 2007. I was not involved, being otherwise occupied. It's in Archive 29, here and here. Another option, instead of including "for women" in this sentence, would be to modify the heading so it's clear we're talking about health risks for the woman (though Andrew c has just reverted that approach). I don't really care which way it's done. Maybe there's a third way ("maternal health risks"?). But it does seem to me that something should be done.

If you like, I can go back through the history of this article, and figure out how this particular sentence and/or the heading has been phrased over the years. I do seem to recall that there has been a pretty firm consensus at some points in the past for including "for women" in this sentence (and some admins reverted changes with some pretty emphatic edit summaries).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this some more, and the person who put it best was the editor ElinorD: "Those two words don't push anything, but leaving them out does."[1] That phrase ("safer for women than childbirth") appears in reliable sources. For example, see:

McLain, Linda. The place of families: fostering capacity, equality, and responsibility, page 237 (2006): "safer for women than childbirth".

Goldstein, Leslie. Contemporary cases in women's rights, page 21 (1994): "safer for a woman than childbirth".

These sources are not implying that there's someone else who may be unsafe, but merely using the word "woman" because it fits well in the sentence. I realize that there will be objection to using the word "mother" or "maternal" (which are normal medical terms), so why not use the word "woman"?

Here’s what our third cited source (Grimes DA (1994). "The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: still risky business". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 170 (5 Pt 2): 1489–1494. PMID 8178896) says:

The three leading causes of maternal death today are pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage, and pulmonary embolism. Although comprehensive data on pregnancy-related morbidity are lacking, about 22% of all pregnant women are hospitalized before delivery because of complications. Women of minority races have much higher risks of death than do white women, and the same holds true for older women and those with limited education. For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth.

Also see:

Goldstein, Laurence. The Female body: figures, styles, speculations, page 61 (1991): "abortion is safer for the mother than childbirth".

Senderowitz, Judith. Adolescent health: reassessing the passage to adulthood, page 17 (1995): "safer than childbirth for women age 15-19".

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "reliable sources" google search is deceptive. You listed the ONLY two books that contain your desired phrase. Yes, there are a total of two hits on google books for your preferred wording (in all fairness I've found two additional sources that have a similar wording "Abortions are statistically safer than childbirth for the mother during the first trimester" and "early abortion is 24 times safer than childbirth for women age 15-19". But, how many hits are there for "safer than childbirth" without such modification? If none of these sources feel it is necessary to add such a qualification, I feel like we are supporting a minority view, and thus violating weight, by going with the minimal sources we could google to support our preferred wording... We say in the first sentence that abortion results in the death of an embryo/fetus. DO we also need to say that health considerations for women undergoing the procedure are excluding the outcome of the POC? I think not, and the majority of "reliable sources" based on a google book search agree. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that WP:MEDRS calls for a better standard than just WP:RS in cases like this. Journal articles describing the authors' research are treated as primary sources. We look for recent reviews, and where possible, recent systematic reviews. I would suggest PMID 18319189 and PMID 19201657 as providing a more WP:WORLDWIDE perspective than the above developed world focused sources. The vast majority of maternal deaths clearly occur in developing countries. Limiting the focus to rich countries misses the point entirely. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, sure there are a lot of sources that also use the phrase "safer than childbirth". Likewise, there are a zillion sources that use the term "maternal health" and yet this article leans over backward to never use the word "mother" or "maternal", though this issue would be easily solved by writing "maternal health" in the heading instead of "health." One way we could preserve the phrase would be to write: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth for most women, when performed before the 21st week."

Can we at least please track the cited sources? Abortion is safer than childbirth for "most women". Saying so in the article cannot conceivably imply anything "pro-life." You can even say the "vast majority of women" or "almost all women" or "women in most countries" or "women in almost all countries", et cetera. The point is to be less categorical (per the sources), while also not denying (or affirming) that there may be health risks for someone else.

Mifepristone is contraindicated with adrenal failure, hemorrhagic disorders, inherited porphyria, and anticoagulant or long-term corticosteroid therapy. Surgical abortion is contraindicated in patients with hemodynamic instability, profound anemia, and/or profound thrombocytopenia. In some cases childbirth is safer (and LeadSongDog is correct to point out that the degree of relative safety also depends on what country a woman lives in).

You're correct that this article starts out by mentioning death of the fetus or embryo, but that doesn't mean it would be okay to say much later in the article that "abortion is a completely harmless procedure for everyone involved." Which is how some people will reasonably read the sentence in question.

According to pro-lifers, the phrase "abortion is safer than childbirth" is a mantra for abortion advocates.[2] Can't we use a phrase that is a mantra for neither side, and that is more accurate too?

We might also consider using the word "slightly" given that (in the U.S. anyway) the risks from both early abortion and childbirth are vanishingly small. There is less than .01% risk of maternal death from childbirth in the United States and Europe. Additionally, perhaps we should also mention that early abortion is extremely unsafe relative to being nonpregnant? Let's not deceive readers into thinking that early abortion is risk-free.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When a woman becomes pregnant, she has a choice to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term. Therefore, the comparison generally made by reliable independent sources is between abortion and full-term pregnancy/childbirth. If you're aware of reputable sources making the comparison you suggest, please point them out.

In an absolute sense, the risks of death from childbirth and from (legal) abortion are both extremely small. In a relative sense, in the US, childbirth (7.06 deaths per 100,000 live births) is about 14 times riskier than abortion (0.567 deaths per 100,000 procedures, figures from PMID 16389015). So it would be accurate to say that abortion is safer than childbirth, that it is ~14 times safer, and that both childbirth and abortion are very safe in an absolute sense.

It might also be appropriate to note that these figures assume that abortion is legal and readily available. In countries where abortion is illegal, or where it is legal but access is restricted by various extralegal means, unsafe abortions are a significant cause of death (e.g. PMID 17126724).

I don't think anyone is trying to "deceive" readers into thinking abortion is risk-free. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you said, MastCell. I agree that we would be accurate to say that both childbirth and abortion are very safe in an absolute sense (which the article does not currently say). I agree that it would be appropriate to note that the figures about the relative safety of abortion and childbirth assume that abortion is legal and readily available (which the article does not currently do). And I'll AGF and assume that no one is trying to "deceive" readers into thinking abortion is risk-free (I hope that Andrew c would AGF and assume that my Google search was not meant to be "deceptive").

Also, we should not omit that there are risks associated with early abortion even in countries where abortion is legal, like the U.S. (as the article currently does). By putting in your factor of fourteen, we could accomplish that.

But here's what I think you haven't addressed: why can't we put "most women" somewhere in the sentence that says abortion is safer than childbirth (or alternatively put the word "maternal" in the section heading)? Merely saying that abortion has minimal health risks is really a lopsided method of expression.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little agnostic about how to best present the risk level. Going back to WP:MEDRS-friendly sources, PMID 15096333 (a review from Annals of Internal Medicine) states:

Abortion is one of the safest procedures in contemporary practice. However, in some developing countries where safe, legal abortion is not available, 50,000 to 70,000 women die of unsafe abortion each year.

Which is sort of what I was getting at above, although more concisely put. That same review compares the safety of abortion favorably with that of penicillin. (The risk of dying from an anaphylactic reaction to a dose of penicillin is 2 per 100,000, about 4 times higher than the risk of death from abortion). Whether that is a useful comparison to cite in this article would be a matter for discussion; I have no strong position.

It is generally understood that abortion is safer than childbirth at any gestational age. UpToDate says as much ("Overall, elective abortion at any gestational age is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.") although I don't think it's an ideal source, and I'd rather cite the actual literature if we choose to include that fact. I'm not quite clear on what the proposed addition of "most women" refers to - is it meant to cover situations where abortion is illegal or otherwise inaccessible, where the risk of abortion is demonstrably higher? If so, IMO we should probably just come out and say as much, in the interest of clarity. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If elective abortion at any gestational age is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term, then where the heck did the "21 week" figure come from in the present article? My understanding was that abortion gets riskier as time goes by, and eventually gets riskier than childbirth. If what the article presently says is flat wrong, then I hope someone corrects it.

As for including new info, I hope someone will insert that both childbirth and early abortion are very safe in an absolute sense, given that maternal mortality in developed countries is less than .01%. This is essential for NPOV. Also, if we say that our statistics apply for "most women in developed countries where abortion is legal" then we needn't necessarily get into details about what happens in other countries, or details about the women for whom the statistics might be different (e.g. women with contraindications). All of those details could be in footnotes or via footnotes. Additionally, we need to mention that even for those "most women" there is some risk involved (which is where your factor of fourteen would be helpful assuming it's accurate), and again this seems necessary for NPOV.

Using a term like "for most women" would kill two birds with one stone, if you will. It would not only help achieve the NPOV goals described above, but would also help us to avoid saying the equivalent of "abortion is very safe," which may not be quite accurate from every point of view (i.e. death of a tiny human being is involved, so something unsafe must be going on).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Re: 21 weeks, it appears to be based on a Guttmacher Institute fact sheet, which is in turn based on PMID 15051566 from the CDC. Figure 1 of that article shows mortality by gestational age, but the abscissa only goes up to 21 weeks - presumably because abortions after 21 weeks are extremely rare and data is lacking. I assume that the "21 weeks" figure was inserted here out of caution, since the cited source only shows data through 21 weeks. On the other hand, the UpToDate authors were probably willing to extrapolate existing data beyond 21 weeks, but as best I can tell that is a matter of expert opinion rather than hard data. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have consensus that it would be okay to fix up this section of the article in one way or another. Do we need a draft at the talk page first, or shall one of us just go ahead and edit the article, subject to change? And which editor would like to take the lead? There's no sense having multiple first drafts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're agreed on what needs to be fixed. In any case, I'm going to step back - it might be good to hear from some other editors on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe Andrew c or others have some thoughts about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for making revisions based on better, medical sources for the purpose of accuracy and WP:MEDRS. I consider the initial issue raised here unimportant, and I don't think we need to give a nod to the view that "while abortion may be safe for pregnant women, abortion isn't safe for the tiny human being" anywhere in this section. That is not to say that I may not be convinced otherwise based on new, significant WP:MEDRS. But I really don't think it is a good practice to come to an article with a POV, then go looking for sources. We should be following sources, and representing majority views, and taking not of weight were applicable. All that said, I'm all ears to proposals. And feel free to make bold changes to the article as well (anyone!) As it stands, it seems like there is basic agreement that there may be some technical adjustments needed to the figure concerning safety, and perhaps a clause added about relative safety of both procedures. This is a bit technical, and I haven't looked into any of the sources, and have been busy with other matters, so I'm probably not a good candidate for a re-write. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, if I were to insert into this section that, "abortion has a low risk for everyone involved, relative to childbirth" then that would be fine with you? It implicitly denies that there is any significance to the death that occurs. Arent' we supposed to be NPOV? I think we should steer as far from such statements as possible. Anyway, I'll go ahead and try some bold changes when I get a chance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can give the reader a minimal degree of credit and assume that they understand the impact of abortion on the fetus. It seems awkward and repetitive (at best) or polemical (at worst) to belabor this point in the "health risks" section. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor should we go out of our way, at all possible opportunities, to use phraseology that denies anyone is involved but the woman. Neutral phraseology should be acceptable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that principle, but I do not agree with your application of it here, nor with your concept of "neutral" language in this instance. I don't believe that an objective (or even minimally literate) reader, reviewing this article, would conclude that it "denies" that abortion harms the fetus. I will withdraw and await additional input. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since I've weighed in an abortion discussion, has it ever been outlined/debated when we draw the line in the sand for the fetus' health matters, if ever? I regard the fetus as a welcome parasite, meaning that in the end indeed it is the host that matters, and that is what we write towards. On the other hand, acknowledging the "death" of the fetus is appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be a health risk, rather a result. Also, obviously an abortion is for a women, not a fetus. So grammatically that follows, I think. - RoyBoy 04:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking a 4th time found an issue, every"one" involved, determines the fetus is an individual. That is not the case, a fetus has the elements of an individual, but they are in development. There is a difference. - RoyBoy 04:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial point here seems to include women on the phrase, it's reasonable and I don't see the problem of making that change. Although it should be already implied to most of the readers that abortion causes the death of the baby other consequences can't be suddenly ignored when saying it's safer, otherwise it may imply the fetus has the same chances from dieing during the pregnancy process compared to the successfulness of the abortion procedure in killing the fetus.

Another point raised is that abortion is only safer when done in specific conditions.

RoyBoy, your position that the "fetus is not an individual" is not a NPOV, others disagree. From the medical POV human fetuses are usually cared as humans with individual characteristics and needs. Most individuals are also "in development" during a large part of their lives after childbirth--Nutriveg (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's closer to NPOV than the alternative. An individual is a separate entity, a fetus is not (attached to mother-to-be). Disagreement does not alter this. Medical POV is merely a reflection of their individual characteristics (elements mentioned above). If I am missing something I'd be curious to know, but to even infer a fetus is an individual is less NPOV than clarifying they are not yet. - RoyBoy 20:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The opening of the lead paragraph makes it clear that the death of the foetus is involved. It's not an implication but an explicit statement. That is nowhere hear on the same level as an implication - in your opinion - that because we do not explicitly refer to the woman, that the foetus might be as likely to survive the abortion process as to survive pregnancy. The longer I think about this point, the more it sounds like a pro-life talking point. I can imagine the sneering tone, "Yeah, abortion is safer... for the mother." That's the problem I see with it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I do hear claims like " in the first days there's low probability that an embryo/fetus will result in a successful childbirth", some methods described in the intro (like herbal abortifacients, the use of sharpened tools, physical trauma, and other traditional methods) aren't very much effective and an unskilled reader may not know the significant efficacy difference between those methods. So mentioning the woman should avoid other implications by some readers.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed two sources from the Guttmacher Institute that supported the phrase because that's not a neutral source, I'm unaware of who Grimes is, the author of the other source, so I can't say anything about. That 1994 article conclusion does not support the text, it's a US review, it says "for most women" and can be used only to compares risk of mortality, not other health risks.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• To go back to a request for sources from Anythingyouwant regarding the relative safety of abortion vs. childbirth: Elective Abortion] from eMedicine states: "At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term." MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will get around to re-working this section of the article in "due" time. If you have further sources regarding the other issues we've discussed in this talk page section, please feel free to share.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Contraception substitute

This edit was reverted under claims of "The cited article really doesn't say that at all." but the information is mentioned in the top of the reference.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the whole article but - due to being unfamiliar with the formatting - didn't notice the "pull-out" at the top. I don't know who added the pull-out or why, but it doesn't sum up the rest of the piece. The article provides hard figures about abortions but does not mention use of abortion as an alternative to contraception, even at the very end of the article where a spokesman for the Family Education Trust provides a conservative interpretation of the figures:

“ But Norman Wells, from the Family Education Trust, which researches the reasons behind family breakdown, said that the high abortion rates were an “inevitable consequence of a society that has made an idol of sexual pleasure”. He added: "It is not ignorance of contraception that leads to alarming rates of teenage abortions. "The contraceptive culture has made girls feel they have a right to have babies to order and to do away with any that would interfere with their chosen lifestyle." ”

In other words, the article doesn't say what you said it says - no mention of abortion as an alternative to contraception - and it doesn't even say what it says it says. It certainly doesn't refer to some abortions as being "inadequate." It just has an attention-grabbing sub-headline. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Guttmacher purge

I'd like to discuss this further. How specifically does a peer reviewed journal like Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health not meet WP:MEDRS, feel free to quote the specific portion of the guideline. Many places we are even clearly attributing the publisher, which we don't do with many other sources, which I think help qualifies the source. I think deleting sources, without replacing them with a substitute source is a form of disruption. Is this content inaccurate at all? Is it simply guilt by association, or do we have bad content in the article? I'd like to discuss the specifics of these edits, and work together to improve the article, and find suitable replacement sources, if that needs to happen, or argue that our current content and sourcing is accurate and within policy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is even more alarming is a source from The Lancet was removed because of the authors association with the GI. When do we ban citing The Lancet? Maybe I'm missing something here, which is why we have talk pages, but I'm concerned by the purge, and thus reverted it until further discussion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sources as non-MEDRS

Nutriveg has been removing citations to publications from the Guttmacher Institute on the grounds that they are not MEDRS compliant. I have questioned this on their user Talk (composite diff:[3]), since I feel this is a user conduct issue, but they asked that it be discussed here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health is a journal published by the Guttmacher Institute which is an advocate group supporting abortion, so a questionable source in this article context because its lack of neutrality in this matter. I also removed primary sources replacing with tertiary sources as possible, as well text that was not clearly supported by the source conclusions. I might have accidentally removed sources from other Journal (The Lancet) that were just stored in the Guttmacher website, I'll check for that. Let's try to use WP:MEDRS compliant sources from now.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The lancet source is a primary research for the calculation of unsafe abortion, the article was also produced by Guttmacher Institute employees. Can't we find better WP:MEDRS compliant sources?--Nutriveg (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a mistaken and wrong-headed application of WP:MEDRS. I'm not aware that the accuracy or validity of data published in Perspectives has ever been seriously called into question. It is a respectable, well-cited, peer-reviewed journal - in fact, one of the leading scholarly journals on family planning and contraception. Since our goal is to create a serious, respectable reference work, it seems misguided to exclude a significant amount of scholarly literature on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, find a secondary/tertiary source citing that Perspective article and we can cite that secondary/tertiary source as defined in WP:MEDRS. I've never objected to that and it wouldn't be that hard.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't actually say that we can only use secondary sources, and it always pains me to see it abused to justify the knee-jerk removal of any "primary" source. The guideline says that we need to use primary sources carefully and avoid abusing them to undermine or "rebut" the conclusions of expert bodies and reputable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:MEDRS says:

"Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. "

I was trying to improve the article in that sense. If Perspectives is as reputable as you say it's NO PROBLEM to cite another source citing that article.

Current use of those primary sources go beyond the WP:MEDRS when it says "should only describe the conclusions of the source" that's not the case for example of that first Perspectives article and it ommits informations found in other articles, like this other study that point to still high abortion between blacks and the unaccounted number of "early medical abortion". So let's use secondary/tertiary sources and avoid those problematic primary sources.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet another conflicting source "Among the 46 areas that reported data consistently during 1996--2006, decreases in the total reported number, rate, and ratio of abortions were attributable primarily to reductions before 2001. During 2005--2006, the total number and rate of abortions increased". So let's keep citing unreliable primary sources?--Nutriveg (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These sources don't conflict with each other, so I'm not sure why you consider any of them "unreliable". This one says US abortion rates declined through 2005. This one says the US abortion rate declined through 2003, which is clearly consistent. This one says that US abortion rates dropped through 2005 (see Fig. 1, again, consistent with the earlier studies) but took an upturn in 2006 (a year not addressed in the earlier studies). Note also that in 2006, although the number of abortions increased, the ratio of abortions to live births did not. In other words, there were more pregnancies across the board in 2006 - more live births, and proportionately more abortions as well. I think this points up the need - spelled out in WP:MEDRS - to read primary sources carefully. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Less reliable would be a better word when comparing primary and secondary/tertiary articles, primary sources may occasionally be used with care, we shouldn't base articles on them.

By WP:MEDRS we don't interpret primary articles as you're doing above, we only cite their conclusions.

Citation of Perspectives go beyond the article conclusion, and BTW is naive to take chinese official numbers for granted.

Perspectives, omits high abortion between blacks and the influence of unaccounted number of "early medical abortion" cited in the conclusion of this other study

The conclusion of the CDC source says: "decreases were attributable primarily to reductions before 2001" which was as well omitted by Perspectives that had data from data time. The same CDC conclusion says "During 2005--2006, the total number and rate of abortions increased" so current data shows that the trend is inversed.

So when we mention primary source studies "Abortion incidence in the United States declined 8% from 1996 to 2003." a lot of information is missed which usually is not the case for secondary/tertiary studies that compare multiple studies to avoid inaccuracies including of the primary articles methodology and data selection.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

... in terms of secondary sources, this summary from the World Health Organization goes through 2003 at least. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you cite a pamphlet in a scientific work of yours? I don't know to which Journal would accept that. This doesn't fit WP:MEDRS--Nutriveg (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a MEDRS-style secondary source. I gave you one (an information page from the WHO, which is an international expert body). So now you have peer-reviewed journal articles, supported by information from an international expert body. That's sort of what MEDRS was designed to encourage. And by the way, if I were writing a manuscript for journal submission, I would cite primary sources - other journal articles - exactly like those described above, which you found unsatisfactory. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that informational pamphlet is not a secondary source by WP:MEDRS. "Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed".--Nutriveg (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, not only with your specific interpretation of this source (which I think falls under synthesis of evidence by a reputable expert body), but also with your general approach to interpreting WP:MEDRS. I'll leave it at that to give others a chance to comment, if they wish. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As yourself pointed above that source is a summary, a brief note, it's not even published it's just a one page (double sided) pamphlet. If you still have a problem understanding it's not a secondary source by WP:MEDRS definition we can bring the discussion about it somewhere else.-Nutriveg (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the WHO fact sheet is a secondary source. It explains in the last column that it is a version of a larger, fully annotated version, available from a link at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/en/ and that lists the sources it summarises. The principal survey used is described at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/2/08-057828-ab/en/index.html, which in itself is a secondary source. The data on the fact sheet is completely relevant to this article, and the WHO is a reliable publisher. There can be no valid reason for objecting to the use of the fact sheet here. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Identification in footnotes of affiliation or position for sources

Generally speaking, I'm not for removing Guttmacher sources in the footnotes. However, I do think it would be appropriate in each one of those footnotes to append a very brief statement like "This organization is a pro-choice group" or (if being pro-choice is not part of their primary mission) "This organization takes a pro-choice position." Same for pro-choice individuals, and same for pro-life organizations and individuals, in this article. The readers can then make of it what they will. A disclaimer was previously discussed at this talk page here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A great deal of the scholarly literature on family planning and abortion is produced by groups that "take a pro-choice position" on some level. For example, the World Health Organization (among other major bodies) lists "improving access to safe abortion and high-quality postabortion care" among its public-health goals. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the relevant US expert body) and its UK counterpart both support access to safe, legal abortion as part of family planning. The American Medical Association supports individual doctors in their choice to perform or not perform abortion, and has repeatedly filed amicus briefs on behalf of groups seeking greater access to abortion ([4]). The New England Journal of Medicine frequently publishes editorials and news items critical of the US pro-life lobby's efforts to restrict access to abortion. I don't think it makes sense to start footnoting these and other reputable, scholarly sources in a way that seems designed to push the reader in the direction of skepticism of their findings. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The WHO doesn't promote abortion or its legalization, Guttmacher does. "The Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable women (...) exercise the right to choose abortion" The WHO has many goals, Guttmacher has specific ones. It's clearly an abortion advocate group. We can't take their data or analysis for granted.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Improving access to safe abortion" (WHO) and enabling women to "exercise the right to choose abortion" (Guttmacher) are semantically equivalent to me. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Both WHO and Guttmacher have pro-choice positions, and ought to be identified as such in the respective footnotes. See, for example, Ruth Ann Dailey who is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (January 21, 2008): "contrary to the Guttmacher/WHO study's squishy estimates and ideologically driven claims, legalizing abortion can dramatically affect its numbers."[5] Readers of this article need to be aware of the sources' potential leanings. Additionally, since we're talking about primary versus secondary sourcing, there's another significant distinction to be made: sources that are available online and those that aren't, and we need to use less of the latter (because only certain editors have easy access to them, and readers cannot easily fact-check our interpretations of the offline sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It's clearly an abortion advocate group. We can't take their data or analysis for granted. And why is that? Can you cite specific Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Do you have sources which question the validity of our cited sources, or is this entirely based on Nutriveg's personal opinion? Seems like original research. As for semantics, I agree with what MastCell wrote directly above this post. As for the topic header, I think it is a terrible idea to attempt to label all our sources and add disclaimers of sort. If we are using bad sources, we should consider changing them. If we have conflicting sources, we should describe the conflict, if notable, in prose. Anything's proposal above seems unnecessary.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MasterCell, the WHO may be interpreted as pro-abortion but it doesn't say that clear, access is different of right. WHO main goal is defined as "reduce unsafe abortion". While Guttmacher defines abortion as a right and has a mission to expand the exercise of such "right".

Andrew c, Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field"

I've no objection in using secondary/tertiary sources that cite the Guttmacher (pro-abortion POV) sources but by WP:MEDRS I disagree of the current use of such POV oriented sources in this article.

The Guttmacher Institute itself defines its mission as "expand (...)(the) exercise (of) the right to choose abortion". Abortion is not qualified as right in a large part of the word if you're unaware of, Guttmacher Institute mission of expanding the exercise of such "right" isn't equally neutral. Does anyone here really disagree it's a pro-choice organization?--Nutriveg (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In some ways, I would prefer if we would cite research papers from NARAL than from Guttmacher, because readers would more easily recognize that NARAL has a bias. This is a short article, so we should be able to find sources that are not sketchy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that scholarly, peer-reviewed literature from Perspectives is "sketchy", nor do I think that material from the World Health Organization is "sketchy". On the contrary, I think such sources form an essential part of any serious, scholarly treatment of abortion (as opposed to a basic he-said, she-said reiteration of political talking points). MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks, newspaper reports, and scholarly articles in publications that guarantee neutrality are not "he-said-she-said".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And I don't object to those, of course. I'm saying that we should not exclude a substantial portion of the scholarly literature on abortion (without which I don't think we can write a serious, scholarly overview). MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear: "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints", so secondary sources that fill that definition should be used, not primary sources, specially those supporting a specific point of view.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to marking sources as suboptimal in this article, if everyone agrees that the same information in another source would be okay.

Nutriveg, any reason why the Trupin source has been removed? I thought it had some good info about contraindications for both medical and surgical abortion. And the Tchabo source had some interesting info about overall risk of maternal death.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of marking sources if they aren't good enough they shouldn't be used to support article text.

We may add information about contraindication, but I prefer to use better sources, will try to find some.

I added the information about maternal death.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Marking the sources may not be the best way, but it may be an acceptable compromise between yourself and MastCell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg's interpretation of MEDRS has been questioned by quite a few editors, not just myself. I would rather wait for more input than have this turn into a contest of who-can-shout-the-loudest or who-can-post-the-most-often. Also, tagging sources with our editorial impression of their "bias" is an extreme and (I believe) unprecedented attempt to editorially lead the reader. I don't think that a "compromise" involves meeting these positions halfway, since I think both are rather extreme. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to add our editorial opinion about a perceived bias in sources, because that is our opinion, and nothing more. We only report what reliable sources say. If sources conflict, we simply present both viewpoints in a neutral way with a weight according to their prevalence – that's what WP:NPOV requires. It is a serious mistake to try to exclude a reliable source because it is a minority viewpoint; it is an equally serious mistake to attempt to characterise the POV of a source according to our own view. If a reader wants to learn about the POV of a particular institution, then the Wikipedia article on that institution is the place for that (and such information will also be cited to reliable sources which describe that POV). --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to "mental health"

I'm confused as to why the section on "mental health" risks is so much longer than the section on general health risks. It is unanimously agreed by reputable expert bodies that abortion does not cause mental health problems. I think we could say this is in a sentence or two, or a paragraph at most. Right now, our section on health risks gives substantial undue weight to this issue, well in excess of that given by independent, reliable sources. Is there any interest in trimming this section down to a more proportionate representation of available information? MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. The same might be said for the section titled "Selected issues of the abortion debate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't carry mental risks for most but it has exceptions. The WP:UNDUE is not about size, but content. The problem is that the remaining of the health risk section is so small. I improved the mental risk section a little bit---Nutriveg (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.

The above is from the article Pro-choice. I'd like to see this article (Abortion) use the more neutral terms oftener, and reduce the use of the pro- terminology, which so obviously is political framing. ("Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life").

I've met Europeans who laugh at the pro- terminology. Reducing the use of it will make the article more global.

I'll make a couple such changes. --Hordaland (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see someone taking this stand. Yes, the pro- words are pure, manipulative POV tools. Go for it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for immediate support. When I started this thread there were 6 instances of "pro-choice" and 8 instances of "pro-life". Now there are 4 of each. --Hordaland (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes not much difference to me. Generally, I don't like stupid euphemisms, and vague modifiers, so there's something to be said for using the word "abortion" to describe people who take a position about it. On the other hand, self-identification is important too. Anyway, you're removing a lot of wikilinks. Maybe you could use a piped link: anti-abortion, pro-abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that wikilinking a term once in an article is enough. Sometimes the term will be wikilinked in a caption as well as the first occurrence of it in the text.

Let's not introduce a term "pro-abortion" as people don't advocate for more abortions than they believe are desirable/necessary, as that term could be construed. Reproductive rights people usually say that the woman/girl involved must make the final decision about abortion. Hordaland (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Euphemism is reasonably clear, but we do generally accept that the names by which groups self-identify should be respected. I think Hordaland has found a reasonable compromise between the two. Given that redirects are free, I would suggest all the various names can redirect to whatever target title is accepted. Perhaps Abortion debate is a sufficiently neutral target? I suggest that direct language could simply explain terminology, such that

Supporters and opponents of a right of access to lawful abortion are groups that respectively have characterized their positions as "pro-choice" and "pro-life". These groups strongly correlate to - but are significantly different from - the groups that support or oppose a right of lawful access to effective contraception.

(with suitable refs)LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, this terminology thing is no big deal to me. But I would like to point out that the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" (or "anti-abortion") would be somewhat misleading. Everyone supports people exercising their rights, and the question here is not whether anyone should exercise their rights, but rather whether the right exists. So, if it were me, maybe better names would be "abortion rights believers" and "abortion rights nonbelievers". That's not how they characterize themselves, but if we go by how they characterize themselves then we'd be sticking with "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, no matter what two terms we use, it will be an oversimplification.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While most people support the exercise of their own rights, many are not so enthusiastic about other people doing so, particularly when those rights have an associated cost to them (individually or, in the case of insured medicine, collectively). However, I would agree that it is essentially a question of oversimplied terminology. I suspect that few care so much about natural rights as about legal rights in this discussion, but that is just a guess. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Even in a legal sense, there are non-believers (i.e. people who think that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional). But whatever terminology people use is pretty much okay with me (within reason!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the terms pro-choice and pro-life are very common in English-speaking countries other than the USA? I know that American groups self-identify with these terms, but I wonder if they are immediately understandable for all others? I suspect not. Hordaland (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, common enough in Australia, but used by the bodies thus described as political tools through making the opposite side seem less reasonable when the prefix anti- is added. The terms are out and out POV in themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Health risks rewrite

I've taken a shot at rewriting the section on health risks. The previous section had several shortcomings (IMHO):

• Numerous one-sentence paragraphs
• Spotty overview of health risks, with focus on isolated factoids and no clear summary
• Written in a somewhat opaque style
• Did not address the difference in risks between "safe" and "unsafe" abortions, which is of great importance to a worldwide (as opposed to Western) overview

I'll leave it open for comments and changes. I think the new version is a bit better (obviously), in that it clearly delineates the difference in risk between "safe" and "unsafe" abortion. It also provides a more organized overview of risk - both the absolute risks and relative risks for abortion and childbirth are given, and they are juxtaposed (as they are in virtually all scholarly sources on the topic) rather than presented in isolation. I think I've emphasized that there are actual risks associated with abortion, to address the charge (above) that the article made it sound like abortion was entirely risk-free as opposed to merely very safe.

I've tried to avoid sourcing material from websites of organizations like Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher. While these websites have ample and high-quality information, their association with the pro-choice viewpoint in the US always renders them problematic. I've tried to go for review articles, WHO material, etc supported by some key primary sources which illustrate the conclusions of secondary sources.

There are still some areas that need work. For example, the specific health risks of medical abortion (at least those that differ from surgical abortion) remain to be spelled out, pending a good source. Additionally, the "mental health" section should be condensed and probably conflated with other non-risks like breast cancer. I'd welcome any updates, new sources, or comments. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good and thorough and sourced. I thought you had devoted a good amount of space to medical abortion. Thanks for taking the time and effort. Kodus. That said, I found it a little awkward to have the parenthetical phrase (requiring surgical abortion) twice in the same paragraph. And now we have two sections in the article called "unsafe abortion" so direct linking will break (and should we be discussing the health risks of unsafe abortion before discussing the topic of unsafe abortion more generally?) I may have some more comments later, but overall, an improvement for sure. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got time right now for a detailed critique, so this will be brief.

I do not see any need for this article to contain two separate subsections titled “unsafe abortion”. Much of this newly overhauled section is redundant. For example, the new material says: "Medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol is effective through 49 days of gestational age." But the article already says, "When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medical abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention." Why so much redundancy?

I do not see any reason to completely exclude information about contraindications, especially for medical (i.e. non-surgical) abortion. We have previously discussed a source that details the contraindications for both medical and surgical abortion.[6]

I support the statement that for most women abortion is safer than childbirth, when performed according to recommended protocols. But why now omit that the risk of maternal death is slight even for childbirth? This hugely slants the article. We've discussed this at this talk page repeatedly, so should we conclude that the omission from the article is deliberate? All of this material was in the NPOV (but reverted) edit I made to this section of the article, including the statement that abortion is safer than childbirth (not just early abortion or surgical abortion). Now that material is omitted. This is not just a matter of emphasis, but of complete omission.

Additionally, we're not writing a textbook here, so I would think you would be able to find accurate sources that are available on the internet for free, via Google Books or Google News Archive, or Google Scholar, so that other editors can look at them. Did you look and were unable to find them? If so, doesn't that say something about the non-notability of the information being cited?

When saying that abortion is safer than childbirth, I would prefer if we hedge a little bit, as our frequently cited author (Grimes) does. He says: "For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth" in his article "The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: still risky business", Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., Vol. 170, pages 1489–1494 (1994), pmid 8178896. Is there some reason to depart from what Grimes says here?

I object that this article devotes so much space to rebutting notions that could easily be rebutted in much less space (health risks, breast cancer, fetal pain, effect on crime rate), while not addressing a primary reason why women may decide not to get an abortion, namely the alleged indicia of humanity in the embryo or fetus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys both identified the duplication of "unsafe abortion", which I have to admit I missed. I agree that we should streamline and combine those two sections, though I'm not sure at a glance how best to do so. I do think that a discussion of health risks needs to detail the distinction between "safe" and "unsafe", but perhaps we can shorten/merge somehow.

Anythingyouwant identified duplication of the timeframe for medical abortion. I admit that I missed that redundancy as well; it's not essential to repeat the timeframe for a discussion of health risks, so it could probably be excised from the "Health risks" section.

Contraindications are not the same as health risks. In fact, there is no health risk to someone with a contraindication, because they won't be eligible to have an abortion. That's not to say that there is no room for a discussion of contraindications to various methods of abortion, but it didn't seem to fit properly in "health risks", since contraindications to the procedure are clearly distinct from health risks caused by the procedure.

I don't think I have omitted information about the small risk of maternal death from childbirth. In fact, I gave precise and properly sourced figures for the exact magnitude of the risk, just as I did for the risk of abortion. The reader can see (rather than simply take our word for it) that both absolute risks are slight. If anything, I've emphasized the safety of both childbirth and abortion by providing absolute risk estimates, while also mentioning the relative risks of the two (as reliable sources do).

Quality of information is not synonymous with its free availability. Any overview worthy of a serious, respectable reference work will necessarily be based on the scholarly literature. In many cases, the scholarly literature is not freely available online - although it is generally freely available at any halfway-decent library, thanks to our tax dollars at work. I looked for the best available sources - as in those in high-quality journals, those that dealt with the topic at hand directly, and those that are frequently cited by reputable authorities - and this is what I came up with.

Most sources don't "hedge" at all when saying that abortion is safer than childbirth - I actually hedged by saying "through 21 weeks", because a lot of expert sources make a blanket statement that abortion is safer at any gestational age. I don't think it is an accurate representation of Grimes' article, or of the scholarly literature in general, to excessively hedge here - if anything, we're understating the degree to which reliable sources hold that abortion is safer than childbirth.

As to space, we go where the sources go. For awhile, there was a lot of literature addressing the (non-)link between abortion and breast cancer. Likewise with the supposed mental-health sequelae of abortion, and fetal pain. I'm not as familiar with available sources on the impact of views on the humanity of the fetus on the decision to have or not have an abortion, but I agree that this would be a relevant topic for this article to discuss. If you have some decent sources in mind, please lead the way. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit has several problems.

• There are specific articles for Unsafe abortion and Medical abortion so much of that edit belong to other articles. ::::* Concerning surgical abortion it gives undue balance to mortality risk as a health risk, since that risk is minimal, but the first paragraph only talks about it.
• The statement that complications is rare is not supported by updated sources, complication risk is low but they are common due to the high number of abortions. Botha, Rosanne L.; Bednarek, Paula H.; Kaunitz, Andrew M. (2010). "Complications of Medical and Surgical Abortion". In Guy I Benrubi (ed.). Handbook of Obstetric and Gynecologic Emergencies (4 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 258. ISBN 978-1605476667. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Complications are not well represented and the presented solution is deceptive. (Botha, 2010)
• Procedures details, like: description of aspiration, places where they are performed and antibiotics should belong to the procedures section.

So I'm reverting that major change. Please add unrelated text to specific sections/articles and make other changes incrementally.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your major change as well, as MastCell's first 3 bulletted points above discuss the shortfalls of your version. I'm not going to talk down to you and ask you to make changes incrementally. Bold edits are to be encouraged, and I think MastCell's went a long way to improve that section. The section is how it was for quite a long time before the recent edits. It is the longstanding consensus version. There is no consensus for any change (Nutriveg or MastCell's) so we revert to default. What can we do to address everyones concerns and perhaps find a harmony between the two versions?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we can continue to edit wildly and pray out edits don't get reverted, in lieu of discussing our differences :Þ -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues raised by MastCell and moved unrelated content elsewhere. That previous version (where I started from today) is closer to that older version where incremental changes were made since then. Beyond that I don't like putting specific numbers to maternal death since that number varies yearly, IIRC it's currently around 0.4 for abortion and 2.5 to live births. I refuse making straight comparisons of maternal death because those are not statistically adjusted (age, risky pregnancies,...), both numbers are very low and comparing near "zeros" is stupid.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c's deletion edit note implies this is going somewhere else, but that doesn't seem to have happened.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion and mental health already mentions the Johns Hopkins University's 2008, as is information regarding economic and decision issues. Did I delete any content which isn't covered already at Abortion and mental health in more detail? Or am I missing your point entirely?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

← To address Nutriveg's concerns:

• I agree that we should avoid duplication of content. But I don't see how we can accurately discuss the health risks of abortion without drawing some sort of distinction between safe and unsafe procedures (I think there was general agreement on that). Do you have any suggestions about how to cover this distinction in the "health risks" section? That might be more useful than reverting.
• Mortality is the most prominent health risk, both as a matter of common sense and as a matter of weight in reliable sources, so I think our coverage reflects that weight (whatever Nutriveg's personal opinion of it might be).
• If you want to add information on non-lethal complications, feel free. The rate is very low. The source you favor (Botha 2010) states: "Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization." If you'd like to include that sort of information, be my guest.
• If you wish to use different language to discuss the frequency of side effects, then propose some rather than reverting the entire edit. For example, it might be more precise to say that the complication rate after abortion is very low (perhaps citing the numbers given by Botha in my bullet point above). We could add that although the rate of complications is low, abortion is a common procedure and therefore it is "not uncommon" for gynecologists to encounter women who have had complications from abortion. Personally I think this is a bit silly - the article should probably be written from the perspective of the individual reader rather than the practicing gynecologist - but whatever.
• I'm not sure what you consider "deceptive"; elaboration might be useful.
• If you want to move specific details of the procedure, please feel free (doing so does not require a blanket revert). I think some minimal level of detail is necessary, since the risks may vary depending on which procedure is used, but I agree that most detail should be in the "procedures" section.
• I'm interested in the comparisons made by reliable sources. Those sources repeatedly and commonly compare the risk of abortion to that of childbirth, and so this is the appropriate comparison for article, regardless of whether Nutriveg personally finds it "stupid".

Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Answering

• Your separation of safe vs unsafe was already incorporated to introduce the specific articles.
• Mortality is not the most prominent health risk in this case, it's negligible so there's no reason to be lengthy about that.
• That source said despite the low risk of complications incidence is common due to the high number of abortions not rare as you early said. The current text uses the same terms of that source "low".
• I didn't revert the whole edit, you that rewrote the whole section. I incorporated those relevant changes in this an other specific articles. I'm against citing numbers since they vary from country, year, source and method. Most of the sources, like Botha is US centric.
• Your text mentioned only one trivial medical procedure that would be necessary in case of abortion complications.
• I may not be the most appropriate person to move those procedure descriptions to the appropriate section or article, the article is already big and it doesn't need to repeat itself.
• As I said those comparisons weren't statistically adjusted (for age, risky pregnancies, ...) and dividing anything to zero results in a large number. According to your 0.56 per 100000 maternal death number, abortion would be almost 3 times more deadly than vaginal birth. These comparisons don't carry relevant death risk to worth comparing, less a direct (unadjusted) one.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article you mention in your last bulletpoint (PMID 18455140)? It notes a maternal death rate of 6.5 per 100,000 births, which is very close to the figure we cite. You must be looking at the rate of maternal death causally related to mode of delivery, which for vaginal birth was 0.2 per 100,000. That statistic reflects only deaths which (in the authors' opinion) could have been avoided by going to C-section. It does not represent the overall maternal death rate. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Do you understand the difference? It's a subtle point, but it nicely points up the reason why WP:MEDRS urges against cherry-picking primary sources. You've gone to a primary source which has nothing to do with abortion and pulled out a number. As it turned out, you've incorrectly interpreted the paper, which is a risk when you employ papers to make a point that the authors themselves don't make. If we didn't double-check your assertion carefully, we might have made a similar error.

That's why I'm citing papers which specifically address the safety of abortion as it relates to childbirth. The numbers are actually quite consistent if you read carefully. But even that issue becomes superfluous if we choose sources which directly address the questions at hand, rather than trying to pull numbers from unrelated publications to buttress our personal viewpoints. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'm not trying to use that source, I just used it as an example it's not worth to compare such near zero numbers. ::::I just read the article abstract, I don't have access to the whole article but it says "The rate of maternal death causally related to mode of delivery was 0.2 per 100,000 for vaginal birth" not "The rate of preventable maternal death causally related (...)" as you stated above. Sure there are other causes but it's just an example we can't make a direct comparisons (without adjust) since the causes of maternal death are restricted to specific factors. --Nutriveg (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't expect to use comparisons in the article but just as an information see what I've found "After the 19th week of pregnancy the maternal death rate due to abortion is greater than that of childbirth"

Jones, Richard Evan (2006). Human Reproductive Biology (3 ed.). Academic Press. p. 429. ISBN 978-0120884650.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Contraindications

The info about the risk of childbirth was in a parenthetical that was not apparent on a first read, so I fixed it.

Regarding the assertion that contraindications do not involve health risks, I disagree. If a person with contraindications for medical abortion gets a medical abortion then the risk is abnormally great, just like if a person gets an abortion in an unsafe operating room the risk is abnormally great (or gets an abortion where they are illegal). Also, I have not suggested hedging any more than Grimes has.

Regarding the idea that I would take the lead on writing a section that addresses alleged indicia of humanity that cause some women to not get abortions, I would need some kind of assurances that doing so would not inspire accusations of POV pushing. That's why I would prefer if someone else would get started on it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest any sources that you would consider appropriately encyclopedic, to assist in writing it? MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I usually accumulate sources in the process of writing a section. But I think it's common knowledge that many people find significance in such things as when unique DNA is formed and/or when the heart starts beating and/ or when the shape and form become characteristic of humans and/or when movement begins and/or when the first electrical activity can be detected in the brain and/or when the chance of survival to birth becomes very probable and/ or when the mother can feel kicking and/or when survival outide the womb could be possible. These seem like the primary alleged indicia of humanity that cause many women (and men) to either completely oppose abortion (of their own offspring or offspring of others), or alternatively encourage abortion sooner rather than later in pregnancy. There are zillions of reliable sources out there. I feel like I would be just as susceptible to accusations if I named sources, as if I drafted the section myself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)