Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological archives
Untitled 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

New section draft: In art, literature, and film

Here is my draft for a new section for the abortion article. One thing I presume will need to be changed is my use of the movietrain.net for the film paragraph. If deemed necessary, it shouldn't take too much effort to ref RS movie reviews. Please edit the text, just note your changes (or suggestions) below. - RoyBoy 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, found it hard to find other notable art from other eras, such as medieval, Renaissance time periods. - RoyBoy 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Art serves to humanize the abortion issue and illustrates the myriad of decisions and consequences it has. One of the earliest known representations of abortion is in a bas relief at Angkor Wat (c. 1150). Pro-life activist Børre Knudsen was implicated in a 1994 art theft as part of a pro-life drive in Norway surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics. A Swiss gallery removed a piece from a Chinese art collection in 2005, that had the head of a fetus attached to the body of a bird. In 2008, a Yale student proposed using aborted excretions and the induced abortion itself as a performance art project.

The Cider House Rules (novel 1985, film 1999) follows the story of Dr. Larch an orphanage director who is a reluctant abortionist after seeing the consequences of back-alley abortions, and his orphan medical assistant Homer who is against abortion. Feminist novels such as Braided Lives (1997) by Marge Piercy emphasize the struggles women had in dealing with unsafe abortion in various circumstances prior to legalization. Doctor Susan Wicklund wrote This Common Secret (2007) about how a personal traumatic abortion experience hardened her resolve to provide compassionate care to women who decide to have an abortion. As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices herself and her loved ones made. In 2009, Irene Vilar revealed her past abuse and addiction to abortion in Impossible Motherhood, where she aborted 15 pregnancies in 17 years. According to Vilar it was the result of a dark psychological cycle of power, rebellion and societal expectations.

Various options and realities of abortion have been dramatized in film. In Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) an underage woman decides to keep her baby, moves in with the father and finds herself involved with drugs, has no opportunities, and questioning if she loves her child. While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple. Other films Dirty Dancing (1987) and If These Walls Could Talk (1996) explore the availability, affordability and dangers of illegal abortions. The emotional impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy alone is the focus of Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) and Circle of Friends (1995). As a marriage was in trouble in the The Godfather Part II (1974) she knew the relationship was over when she aborted "a son" in secret. On the abortion debate, an irresponsible drug addict is used as a pawn in a power struggle between pro-choice and pro-life groups in Citizen Ruth (1996).

I think this is a great idea for a section. Other things:

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Friday Night Lights

Vera Drake

The House of the Spirits

No Longer At Ease

Spring Awakening

The Sound of the Mountain

A Raisin in the Sun

The Adventures of Augie March

As I Lay Dying

Hills Like White Elephants

Most of these aren't "about" abortion, so they're not in Category:Dramatic works about abortion, but they include it. Roscelese (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The incidence rate

The incidence rate should all read per 1000, not per 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.48.227 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You might (or might not) want to source the figures to http://www.who.int/entity/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/abortion_facts.pdf (freely available), rather than PMID: 20085681 (which doesn't allow the figures to be verified without a full text subscription). It's only a minor point and I understand if folks prefer a WHO to a WHO/Guttmacher source. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortion law section - UK

There appears to be a conflict between the text and the graphic [1] used in the section with regard to the UK. The unsourced text says:

• In the United Kingdom, as in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed.

Whereas the graphic shows that abortion is legal on demand as opposed to being shown as having a restriction. Or am I misinterpreting something? Bleakcomb (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on reasons for abortion?

Would this be worth adding, somewhere near the beginning?--TyrS (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very complex issue and there are many possible reasons. It may need to be more than a "small" section. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've adjusted this section title accordingly :) I do believe such a section would be beneficial. --TyrS (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

The second paragraph of this article pretty much repeats a standard pro-choice argument, as if endorsing it (rather than merely describing it). (For example, the anti-abortion point of view is that there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.) The lead paragraph of the article should be made more neutral. Bwrs (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" abortion is found in virtually every reputable scholarly source on the risks of abortion, and so it seems proper to reflect it in our article. The positions of political partisans are amply detailed on Wikipedia, but we need to maintain a distinction between the rhetoric of pro-choice/pro-life partisans and our presentation of reputable scholarly knowledge about abortion. Since major scientific and medical bodies draw the distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" abortion (and since it is amply supported by fact and statistics), I don't see an issue with our presentation. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur, not justification for change as it stands--Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Restating one of the key arguments of pro-choice partisans as if it were fact in the second paragraph of the article is blatantly non-neutral. In fact, the neutral point of view policy states it even better than I can: “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.” Bwrs (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We are required to work with reliable sources which is not the same thing as maintaining a balance between two opposing points of view. The split between sage and unsafe abortions is found in the vast majority of reputable sources. The claim that there is no such thing as a safe abortion is a position of some anti-abortionists and can be reported as that view but it is very doubtful if it has any place in the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The safety of abortion, when performed legally and under appropriate medical supervision, is well-established. It is among the safest of surgical procedures; safer than receiving a dose of penicillin; and substantially safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Those are not pro-choice claims; those are facts, substantiated by reputable expert medical and scientific bodies.

If the safety of abortion is indeed a partisan talking point, then in this case it would appear that pro-choice partisans are closer to reality than pro-life partisans - but that's not really the issue. When we discuss the safety of a medical procedure, we rely on reputable expert medical opinion, not on some sort of artificial compromise between the positions of two political factions. I would hope that this is an obvious extension of our mission to write a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsafe abortion is what happens when the anti-abortionists win and it is made illegal. Abortion still occurs, but not with proper medical support. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the argument that “there is no such thing as a safe abortion” for illustrative purposes only. I agree that serious, respectable reference works should explain facts accurately, based on reliable sources. The writing of the second paragraph is, however, just all-around non-neutral; for example, the assertion that “[t]he frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” is one of the chief talking points of pro-choice partisans. Bwrs (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's a talking point for Opus Dei, the John Birch Society, or the Knights Templar. It happens to be true, according to experts in the field (e.g. PMID 20085681, from the World Health Organization). Are you suggesting that we downplay this well-sourced item because it conflicts with partisan pro-life rhetoric? See argument to moderation, or, as Daniel Okrent once said: ""The pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true." MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There could be another factor in the claim that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. The other factor is the life of the fetus, which always dies. Obviously, abortion is unsafe for the fetus!! But by not mentioning that little detail, the anti-abortionists want people to think that for the pregnant woman, abortion is also unsafe, see? Propagandistic misuse of the language, and lying by omission, is what it really is. V (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead need not be sympathetic to anti-abortion POV to be neutral, I've undone your template. Continue discussion here to see the issue through. I may join in, but MastCell appears to be on point. - RoyBoy 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not seek for the lead to be sympathetic to anti-abortion POV; rather, I only seek for it to be neutral (and factually accurate), as it is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides. Bwrs (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, do you have an alternative wording from "safe / unsafe". Such as legal vs illegal? Is this better, more accurate, why? Please provide a path for discussion beyond, this is wrong. However, if the sources / organizations do universally use "safe", so I'm unsure how it can be made more neutral. - RoyBoy 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I was saying, the use of language describing abortions as “safe” or “unsafe” is not the main focus of this dispute; rather, the second paragraph needs to be made more neutral as a whole. Bwrs (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not productive to complain that something is not neutral and factually inaccurate without explaining why you think that. I count 9 facts in the second paragraph:

1. Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually
2. 22 million safely
3. 20 million unsafely
4. maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions
5. unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths per year
6. unsafe abortions result in 5 million disabilities per year
7. One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure
8. Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits
9. The frequency of abortions is, however, similar whether or not access is restricted

Now, which of those nine is factually inaccurate? – given that they are sourced to recent, peer-reviewed, secondary sources of the highest quality per WP:MEDRS. Our text faithfully reflects the issues expressed there. The editors here are not in the business of substituting personal opinion for the content of the best sources, so what foundation does your opinion about the second paragraph of the lead rest on? --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the last of these items that is problematic in terms of neutrality. Bwrs (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more your concern? Also, if you are concerned with specific content, inline templates are much more helpful, as it focuses the discussion. Finally, the Culwell reference was discussed a bit a few months back Talk:Abortion/Archive_38#Culwell. There was some concern there, but I believe through looking up other citations, the fact was verified, and we were in agreement in keeping it (though I wouldn't say there is strong consensus).-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Culwell is not the sole source; for example, PMID 20085681 (from the WHO) makes a similar point. Additional sources beyond those can be found, but it's not clear to me what we're hoping to achieve. The objection seems to have nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing or content policies, but more with the fact that a single editor views a specific fact as "non-neutral". Adding more references to those we have already doesn't seem likely to change that situation. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the earlier discussion. The facts remain that: the lead paragraphs set the tone for the whole article; the second paragraph is written in the form of an argument in favor of keeping abortion legal, rather than in a neutral manner; and the assertion that “[t]he frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” is non-neutral at best. The {{POV-check}} tag is really the second-best thing; a better thing would simply be to describe the argument rather than to assert it (this is paraphrased directly from Wikipedia's content policy). Bwrs (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an argument; it's a well-sourced fact that the incidence of abortion is similar whether access is legally restricted or not. One could argue that abortion should therefore be legal, but we don't make that argument in the article as far as I can tell. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is structured as an argument for keeping abortion legal, and of the two sources for the concluding statement, one of them is written by researchers affiliated with a pro-choice organization. Bwrs (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the paragraph summarises the sections below, accurately reflecting the reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. The reliability of sources depends on the editorial and review process involved in their publication, and these are impeccable in this case. The credentials and affiliations of authors are only a concern when relating their personal opinion as "experts". This is not the case here. If you want to draw your own conclusions from what reliable sources say, we have an article on Abortion debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, I'll ask again: do you have a specific proposal for text to replace what is currently there? Nandesuka (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell. I thought that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" was the stuff of satire, not an argument I'd ever see someone making on Wikipedia. Roscelese (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are equating the argument in the second paragraph to “reality”; not I. The actual reality is that the concluding statement is, at best, hotly disputed. Bwrs (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

People have provided a number of citations (two OB-GYN journals, Lancet, the WHO) to support it; that means that if you don't think it's true, you cite something to disprove it, not cry "the facts have a liberal bias!"

Also, very sneaky, you are, claiming that it's an "argument" rather than a fact only slightly more complicated than "the sky is blue." Roscelese (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The concluding statement is not “complicated,” but just because something is not complicated does not make it true. If it really were proven true by sound scientific methodology, after all, the debate over keeping abortion legal would be over by now. Also, you are right that the concluding statement (taken in isolation) is not an “argument”; rather, it is the whole of the second paragraph that is written non-neutrally. Bwrs (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs: this is all a bit too diaphanous for me to grab on to. Perhaps instead of arguing whether in the abstract if the existing language is "not neutral enough", you can make a specific, concrete proposal for a rewrite? What text, specifically, would you replace the existing paragraph with? That might be easier for editors to evaluate. Nandesuka (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph could be kept short: “Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these performed under conditions safe for the mother, and 20 million unsafely. While maternal mortality seldom results from abortions performed by medically-trained providers under hygienic conditions, abortions performed by unskilled providers or under unsafe conditions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year.” Then, the “abortion debate” section could contain a paragraph saying something to the effect, “One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure. Forty percent of the world's women are able to access medical or surgical abortions within gestational limits. According to abortion-rights proponents, however, the frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted.” (And if opponents of abortion have some counter-argument, briefly mention it.) Bwrs (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, while I deeply appreciate your interest in keeping the language fair and balanced, I don't see this as an improvement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To put it simply, in the lead you want to replace the phrase "safe abortion" and attribute the statement about similar frequency of abortions. There is considerable prior discussion on these sort of suggestions and it would help if you looked them up. The phrase "safe abortion" is used regularly in the sources and contrasted to "unsafe abortion". It is unnecessary in the lead to define these terms, since their meaning is clarified within the main text, and reflect the definitions found in many sources. The lead is required to summarise the main points of the text, and it is not appropriate to over-elaborate detail contained there. The hard evidence of the sources also supports the contention that the frequency of abortion is insensitive to access, and for that reason it is stated, not attributed, in the lead. Perhaps it would be more productive to examine and improve the section Incidence, if you feel that the counter-arguments from opponents of abortion have sufficient mainstream reliable sources to support their inclusion. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly concerned with your classification According to abortion-rights proponents. Where are you getting this? What evidence do you have that peer reviewed journal articles and statements from the World Health Organization should be reduced to According to abortion-rights proponents? I understand that you are uncomfortable with these finding, and that perhaps you personally disagree with them. However, to my knowledge, we have no evidence that they originate from "abortion-rights proponents" and such a classification clearly is used to belittle the sources (which are entirely reliable, and of quite high caliber, in terms of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines). Maybe I am not examining the sources critically enough, so I'd like to see your evidence that the sources require such a qualification as "According to abortion-rights proponents". And if these findings are controversial or not factual, I'd like to see conflicting sources which hold opposite conclusions. Without such sources in place, we have no policy based reason to question them. We can't insert our personal views or distaste for sources into an article. We only follow sources, whether we like their conclusions or not. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy itself requires that Wikipedia attribute biased statements rather than assert them in our own voice. There may be expert opinion that the frequency of abortion is insensitive to access, but certainly no hard evidence. (We could, however, tweak the wording used to attribute the statement.) If it was indeed scientifically proven, the abortion debate would be over or, at least, would take a far different form than it does now. At the very least this finding is extremely controversial. Bwrs (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is a biased statement? Please cite your sources. Your personal opinion doesn't matter. Furthermore, what is your evidence that all of the sources discussed on this talk page (and the two we use in the article) only represent "abortion-rights proponents"? Maybe your proposed wording above was a bit careless, could you suggest another wording that meets your idea of NPOV "attribution", that also doesn't go above and beyond what is found in cited sources? Finally, I don't follow your reasoning in your last sentence. Regardless whether or not statistically the legality of abortion historically has effected the rates, on a global scale, there still may be valid moral, religious, and ethical reasons to oppose abortion. I don't think any pro-life individual would "give up" and decide God stopped sanctifying life, just because laws haven't been able to stop it in the past. The abortion debate is not over because of this statistical analysis.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, you're not qualified to judge the bias of a source simply on the basis of your personal opinion. That job is reserved for reliable secondary sources reviewing the source in question. To use your own logic, if any such secondary source existed, it would have brought here by now and the text amended. You really need to start bringing some quality sources to the table if you want to see any change in consensus for the current wording. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed another unsupported tag. The point of these POV templates is to get editors discussing POV at the talkpage. That's already happening, no tag required. Now could somebody please cite the WP:MEDRS source that they think would justify changing the lede and tell us what change it would be used to support? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the purpose of the tag is to bring in discussion from users with all different points of view, and most of the participants in the current discussion have similar points of view, the tag should stay to allow for a broader discussion. Reliable sources for both sides of this debate exist but I shall leave it up to somebody with proper training in statistical methods to select the best ones. (I presume that such people exist on all sides of this debate or, ideally, somebody who has no point of view on it at all.) Furthermore, the meaning of the {{POV-check}} tag is far milder than that of the {{NPOV}} tag, even if they are similar in appearance. Bwrs (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{POV-check}} tag is for use when no discussion is taking place (see Template:POV-check/doc and WP:NPOV dispute#Adding a page). The {{POV}} tag is for use when there is a genuine dispute in a article that is reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view; its purpose is to attract a broader range of editors who may be able to help arrive at a consensus where none exists. That template documentation states "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." I see no dispute here that meets those terms; and I'll ask again what "high-quality reliable sources" contradict the sources used for present text? You need to understand that an NPOV dispute can only occur when equally high-quality sources arrive at different conclusions, not when you personally disagree with a reliable source. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy requires that evidence be selected and used in a neutral manner, which the second paragraph does not, and also requires that we assert facts about opinions rather than opinions as facts, which the last sentence of the second paragraph does not. However, rather than have me select those sources which are best in my opinion to illustrate the existence of an opposing point of view (merely acknowledging that it is controversial should not be controversial?) I would prefer flagging the article for the attention of more expert, disinterested editors. Hence the tag. Bwrs (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how a peer reviewed, statistical analysis published in a reputable medical journal somehow turns into an "opinion"? Is the methodology flawed? Did they make errors, or perhaps sampling bias? When it comes to NPOV, it almost always involves balancing multiple views. You have yet to demonstrate any conflicting views on this topic. It sounds like you know of such sources, but are refusing to provide them to us, because you'd prefer the article to be flagged, instead of fixed?? We need to work to fix articles, not to "tag and run". -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV defines “fact” as “a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources.” The assertion that “The frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” may or may not be true, but it does not fit the definition of facts as being statements about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. Furthermore, this dispute is not just about that one statement, but about the second paragraph as a whole, which encapsulates one of the pro-choice movement's main arguments in a nutshell but in Wikipedia's voice rather than in a neutral manner. And it can be resolved simply by breaking up the paragraph, moving the controversial part into the abortion-debate section, and tweaking the wording a little bit. Bwrs (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy requires a "careful selection of reliable sources ... for producing articles with a neutral point of view". Fortunately for medical articles we have specific guidance on how to achieve this in WP:MEDRS and I'd recommend reading it. This articles scrupulously complies with both NPOV and MEDRS. The NPOV policy actually says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources". As there is no dispute among reliable sources, the last sentence is asserted as fact. I should warn you that continually attempting to create a dispute based only on your personal opinion is likely to be viewed as disruptive. I am willing to AGF so far, but you are going to have to bring forward for examination the sources on which you are basing your views – I assume your views are based on sources, aren't they? --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not seriously arguing that there is no serious dispute about the truth of the statement, are you? Again, maybe it really is true, but if you assert that its truth is not seriously disputed, the burden of proof that it is not seriously disputed is on you. Furthermore, the second paragraph as a whole is a classic pro-choice talking point, and I have offered a suggestion on how to re-word it to make it more neutral. Bwrs (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, it is a fact that the incidence of abortion is similar whether or not access is legally restricted. It would be an opinion to conclude that abortion should therefore be legal - and we do not endorse such an opinion anywhere in the article, as far as I can tell. We report the fact. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a clear argument that abortion should be legal, even if you do not directly state it. Bwrs (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So let us be clear:

• You have been told that an NPOV dispute occurs only when reliable sources disagree and you have been pointed to the policy.
• You still maintain that a dispute exists, based so far on only your personal opinion, not on any source.
• You have been asked numerous times to state the reliable sources that contradict the cited sources, but have failed to do so.
• You now suggest that a burden of proof lies upon others to find sources that may not exist. If such sources exist then you may find then and make your case; yet if they do not exist, you require proof of non-existence for others to make their case – a classic argumentative strategy which ensures your demands can never be met. If you claim sources exist, then the burden of proof can only be upon you to produce them.
• You claim that the second paragraph is a "classic pro-choice talking point", but what is your source for that claim? Your own personal opinion again?
• You claim that the second paragraph is a "clear argument that abortion should be legal", but what is your source for that claim? Your own personal opinion again?

You are entitled make your own interpretations of the neutrally presented facts, but to require that Wikipedia must change its policies to accommodate your discomfort will never be acceptable. I trust that concludes our discussion until such time as you see fit to bring forward MEDRS-compliant sources supporting your claims. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Thanks!

I searched the Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup5, and found one major edit by Jagged 85. Tobby72 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit actually seems pretty good. I've tidied the cites somewhat and tagged some of the weaker points, but 85 seems to have drawn upon a high quality source (ISBN 0195160010, google preview available) and given a reasonable representation. If I were to fault the edit, I'd say it neglected the social/legal dimensions discussed in favour of the purely medical-history dimension, but it was the History section after all.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The frequency of abortions is, however, similar whether or not access is restricted."

I'm really going to have to ask to see the citations for that one. - Schrandit (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they listed already? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085681 - RoyBoy 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Species

The first sentence ends with "other species". That's true, but wouldn't it be more precise to say "other mammals"? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. Certainly some fish species (e.g. the common guppy) are live-bearing and sometimes abort.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept that. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Various snakes bear young alive, also. http://www.xcalak.info/visit/uk/reptiles-uk.shtml V (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

True to text

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this change. The comment reads "true to text", but it's about a movie, so I'm not sure what text is being referred to. I would genuinely appreciate it if someone would explain. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at User:Schrandit's other edits, I'm guessing it's an attempt to insert POV language. Roscelese (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to look at the edits than to try to ascribe motives to other editors. The text "keep her baby" was originally part of the addition of the Art, literature and film section by RoyBoy on 13 August [2]. It was then changed to "carry her pregnancy to term" by Dylan Flaherty on 6 September (edit summary: "neutral") [3], reverted by Schrandit on 7 September ("true to text") [4], and re-reverted by Andrew c on 11 September ("what text is this true to? see talk") [5]. *Shrug* We really need to replace edit-warring with proper discussion. I suppose the answer to Dylan and Andrew's question is "true to the text originally written" – but as that sentence is unsourced, that doesn't really help decide which phrase is best. In my mind, it depends on whether the mother either made a decision to carry on with her pregnancy, or made a decision after her baby was born to keep it. I couldn't resolve that by reference to IMBD, so I'd suggest that finding a reliable source may be the best way to decide the question. If there's no reliable source that supports either view, then I'd reluctantly suggest deleting that sentence as WP:OR. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The character does give birth and raise the child, but I think you must recognize that in the context of the article, "keep the baby" has a different connotation - perhaps "carry to term and raise the child" would be appropriate? Roscelese (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking when I changed it. I realize that any change here is bound to be controversial, so I'm not surprised or bothered by the fact that it was reverted. What confuses me is the stated reason, which just doesn't make any sense to me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My logic is intent but in the end I have no preference, tweaked it to better reflect plot. - RoyBoy 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, it's a pity that the section omits mention of "Up the Junction", possibly the most influential book and film, which dramatises the issues surrounding illegal abortion in the UK in the early 1960s. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see any reason to object to it being included. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs there. Roscelese (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Add it soon? - RoyBoy 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm researching good sources to try to give some context. Actually, I was wrong in my linking above; the book was first dramatised on TV as part of the BBC's Wednesday Play series in 1965, and that was what I was remembering. Here's part of a paragraph from BFI Screenonline:

• "This spirit of social intervention peaked with Nell Dunn's 'Up the Junction' (tx. 3/11/1965), which included a vividly realised scene of a back-street abortion that caused howls of protest. The drama was timed to coincide with a parliamentary debate on the Abortion Law Reform Bill, and as such attempted to intervene in the political process ... This opened the series up to accusations that it was deliberately contravening the BBC's pledge of impartiality."

Perhaps I'm trying to over-elaborate, and I'd be content with anyone adding something while I think about it. The movie was rather flawed, compared with the book, but sources are easier to find online for film reviews, e.g. NYT. Should be enough there to get some flavour of the subject and of the impact it caused on the UK abortion debate. Both of those sources should stand up as RS. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, that whole section needs rethink. Most of it would be better placed in Abortion debate than in the medical article.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's much more relevant to the main article than to the debate article. However, has there been consensus against establishing a separate article on abortion in art/literature/drama/film/whatever? Roscelese (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find anything in a quick search of the archives, and in any case wp:consensus can change. A content fork (without inserting any particular POV of course) would seem to make sense. WP:WikiProject Books might be helpful too.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think the structure should be? By medium, or by subject? (Ie. "film," "literature," vs. "stories about abortion providers," "stories about women who have/consider abortions" - the latter, I think, could perhaps also include a list, without elaboration, of stories in which abortion features but is not a major part of the story (The Godfather II, for example). That could be too subjective, though. Roscelese (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.112.50.92, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the "Induced" section, I believe that the following sentence;

"A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in many ways. The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as it ages",

should be changed so that 'as it ages' reads 'as he or she ages,' or something along similar lines.

The reasoning being that an embryo or fetus has a gender. A babies gender is determined at conception by the sperm. 71.112.50.92 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will change this to "which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses." to skirt the issue. Nandesuka (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call here, "pregnancy progresses" is probably more accurate anyway - the former wording makes it [the fetus] sound like a wine or something... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate and misleading translation

I'm sure this must be a regular problem on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is dealt with or where I can find a discussion about it. As I specifically noticed the problem with this article I thought I would try discussing it here. A friend of mine recently needed information about abortion, however she is Georgian (the country near Russia). I read through the English version of this article and then handed the laptop to her - she switched to the Georgian language and I saw the look of horror on her face as she read. Because the Georgian version of the article (which is much smaller than the English version and has no references at all) includes this (translated by google): 'Artificial abortion negatively affects women's health, the psyche, the nervous system, often cause irritation, inflammation genital organs, hormonuli function and menstrual cycle disorders, infertility and early siberesa (Childlessness women of all reason 30%). Particularly harmful during pregnancy, the first abortion.' This is obviously quite shocking to read, quite different from the English version and totally unreferenced in all its claims. I see there is obviously a difficutly in making sure the various translations of the page are to the same standard, but in this case it seems it would be better if the Georgian language page didn't exist at all! (You can access the Georgian language page here to see the small size and lack of references: http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%90%E1%83%91%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98 Sorry if this is the wrong place to try and discuss this issue, but I really couldn't see anywhere else to begin. ABMalone (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes sometimes Wikipedia is worse than nothing. Sorry to hear about this. It is sometimes hard to keep controversial topics accurate. I am unable to speak that language and thus unable to help. Please remove the wrong stuff on that page by using the edit button and providing the reason in the edit box that appears. Wikipedia is created and maintained by volunteers like you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Juno grammatical problems

There's this line about the movie "Juno": "While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple."

It's an incomplete sentence and has a pronoun without an antecedent ("it"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.34.181 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this is awkward, so I tried to fix it. I don't think anyone will object to the change I made, although maybe someone can improve on it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo choice

I've been thinking about this photograph. It's a very clear, professional medical photo and it's certainly relevant, but it's bothered me from the first time I saw it, yet I never could put my finger on why. It's still bothering me, so I'm going to try to.

1. It's not from anything like a typical abortion, since this one was was done as a side effect of a hysterectomy. This leaves the woman entirely unable to become pregnant again, unlike a typical abortion.
2. Also, in a typical abortion, the embryo is torn to pieces by suction or is scraped off from the uterine walls, reduced to pieces. Here, it's entirely intact. This makes the photo highly unrepresentative. It does not show the real output of an abortion, which is a collection of parts that the abortionist has to check carefully to ensure that nothing was left behind.
3. The motivation for this abortion is purely medical, not elective. The poor woman had cancer and could not be treated without ending her pregnancy. It's a tragedy, but very different from the much more common motivation of simply not wanting to have a baby. Again, not representative.
4. While it varies by country, 10 weeks is to the right of the central bump of any histogram. To be representative, we should show a younger embryo. The timing for the surgical diagram at 6 weeks is about right. While I'm on that image, I have say that it was hard to follow, even though it was nicely done. Maybe a less schematic view, like a real photo of the procedure, would be better.

As usual, I'm not going to be bold by editing this article. I'd just like your feedback: Am I nuts to be bothered by this image? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. When I had a suction aspirator abortion, the end product looked like a strawberry milkshake.Ermadog (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. If there's some agreement that this photograph is inappropriate, what would be the right next step? We could remove it or replace it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some representative images at Embryo#The human embryo. It might be appropriate to for someone to start a new page, or section on an already existing page, on the controversy surrounding if and how the anti-abortion forces misuse images for allegedly propagandistic purposes. As I am currently busy with another abortion related article. If someone else wants to start that, I will help out by pointing to sources for the "yes, they do misuse it" side. Once that page is created, we could remove all similar images to that section, letting readers make up their own minds about how relevant the image is. btw I once picked up the product of a stillbirth in the course of my job cleaning out a delivery room. It was all rubbery and floppy and not at all baby-like.Ermadog (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a discussion in the archive Abortion/Archive23#A picture of abortion. It doesn't seem to have resolved the "it's not representative" issue.Ermadog (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not willing to remove it unless there's some consensus behind the change. So far, there hasn't been any disagreement, but also no agreement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, I have seen enough "retouched" abortion images from the "pro-life" side to be generally suspicious of any photo whose source cannot be traced, especially anything as pristine as this. I may have missed it, but I don't see any indication of this doctor's affiliations. We know how some of the most famous fetus pictures, the ones by Lennart Nilsson, in the world were staged. Here is an online exhibit of the development of the technology of fetal imagery Making Visible Embryos; and here is a compilation of relevant text excerpts from the exhibit An Abridged History Of The Imagery Of The Human Embryo. That file contains an excerpt from a "pro-life" Manual advising campaigners to show only the pictures that look like babies - because otherwise they might change their minds. The "pro-life" crowd know full well what they're doing when they promote propagandistic imagery in place of honest discussion. For a discussion of how "The Silent Scream" was cobbled together, have a look at Facts Speak Louder Than the Silent Scream. A scholarly discussion of the evolution of "pro-life" propaganda can be found here: [www.uffl.org/vol%204/cassidy4.pdf The Movement and its Message - Pro-life Educational Campaigns and Their Critics]. I don't have any particular problem with this image. It is within the age range for typical abortions; and, quite frankly, it doesn't look all that human to me. It looks like a Grey Alien, only pink. I've seen lots of blood and guts in my days as a delivery room cleaning lady. I've also slaughtered lots of chickens, slugs, crabs, etc. I can see how it would upset some, especially city folks with little acquaintance with such things, and also young and impressionable people. So, I'm undecided and was hoping for some more feedback. Ermadog (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo is amazing, and a good addition to this page. It is not gory or shocking. It has always been strange to see that abortion was the only medical procedure or occurence in wikipedia that did not include a photo of the procedure or occurence. Glad that it now does! Erma, are you advocating that a "strawberry milkshake" (to borrow your term) abortion image also be added to ensure balance? I agree.

The map

Hi. Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sdukeminloodwig3, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The following sentence located in the Abortion article is not an unbiased scientific statement, but rather extremely biased towards the pro-choice stance: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely." This statement only makes sense to those who do not think killing a fetus involves danger; as the entire point is to intentionally put the fetus in a situation so dangerous, that it is ultimately killed. This is analagous to stating that Nazi concentration camps were "safe" because the Nazis most often did not accrue damages to themselves. Of course the flipside is that the statement "All abortions are unsafe" is also biased, because it assumes the opposite. the only way to fix this issue within the Abortion article is to remove the statement entirely, or edit it to be nonbiased. It could easily be changed to to the following statement that most everyone could agree on: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring without negative bodily health effects to the mother, and 20 million that do accrue negative, and potentially fatal bodily health effects to the mother"

I expect this to be kicked back by a pro-choice person claiming that it is already a clear fact, and that there is no bias, but hey I figured I might as well try, considering how obvious this one is.

Thank you for your time. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a few hours to spare, you might want to read the discussion archives (see the top of this page). You'll find that we've been over this question before, including this recent discussion. We follow the terminology of reliable sources, where possible choosing ones with a wp:WORLDWIDE perspective. In this matter, we used the terminology adopted by the World Health Organization, about the best such source that I can think of. You might also have a look at this edit which User:Andrew c made on 3 June 2010 to see some efforts to downplay the term you object to. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also enjoy reading Godwin's Law and/or Reductio ad Hitlerum.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the pro-choice stance is institutionalized, and has become entrenched within the viewpoints of official organizations? If you go to the WHO website, you will find that they support the need to offer "safe abortions" to women that want them. This would only be possible if the WHO supports the idea of legal abortions. This is not unbiased. Therefore, by citing WHO as a source, you are not making your point stronger in terms of demonstrating neutrality, but rather quite the opposite. If an organization was completely unbiased regarding the abortion debate, it may do things such as observe and present data regarding abortion, but it would certainly not openly suggest that abortion should be "safe" and readily available to women who want it. How is that neutral? That aforementioned viewpoint assumes that the common anti-abortionist viewpoint, "abortion is murder" is wrong. Neutral entities cannot take sides within the abortion debate, without themselves losing their neutrality. But I guess I may be missing the point. If I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter how biased something is, as long as comes from an official organization, right? Let's forget about WHO and all the other "neutral" organizations out there regarding this abortion issue for just a moment, and focus on the actual sentence that started this discussion. Let's analyze it for a moment without assuming WHO, or organizations like it, are infallible. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The WHO definitely promotes the idea that medical interventions, including abortion, should be done in the way that is least harmful to the patient. Its that nasty old Hippocratic oath. You seem to think that this necessarily means they are biased or taking sides, but in much of the world there are far more nuanced understandings of the debate. Where a third-world mother in a war zone has high-risk multiple pregnancies, should she risk her own life and perhaps those of all her dependents in a attempt to survive carrying them all, or is surgical reduction a "safer" choice? In societies that blame and punish rape victims, is it "safe" for those victims to give birth to their attackers' children? If those women would instead choose amateur or quack abortionists over trained professionals, would the aborted foetuses be any more "safe"? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is also possible that there is no such thing a "pro-choice stance", other than in the minds of those who label themselves "pro-life" (and vice versa). The fact is that such mindsets are far from a universal phenomenon. In many countries no such debate exists, or has long since been sidelined as unproductive. It is very difficult for me to take such perspectives seriously, but perhaps that is because I live in a country where views on abortion are not constantly couched in those sort of terms. It may well be that the WHO has a bias, but why not rationalise it as a scientific bias (as opposed to an unscientific bias), as seems likely from my point of view? Why should any individual editor's view determine what sources are suitable? Once we start allowing our own world-view to become the filter for sources, we lose the pillar of neutral POV that Wikipedia depends on. So how do we proceed – by the consensus that we use the use the best quality sources available, as described in WP:MEDRS. We don't start judging the sources because what they say makes us uncomfortable in our world-view. We put that aside, and rely on the processes of publishing in quality literature, of peer-review, of editorial oversight, of authorial reputation. The WHO may be seen as biased from a particular point-of-view, but that bias is the same bias that will be seen to exist in mainstream literature, and it's not our job to judge that, but merely to accurately and neutrally report what we find in the best sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in conclusion, it makes no difference if WHO is biased or not, because they are an official organization, so we must take their word as an authoritative source. I realize that it doesn't matter how biased the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. But seriously, do you agree that an abortion can only be "safe" if one does not consider the dangers involving the fetus to be worthy of of our concern? I am not saying the proposed stance is right or wrong, but it is certainly extremely biased, because it chooses sides regarding a key and central element of the abortion debate. It doesn't matter if the WHO says it or not, the sentence is biased and everyone can see it. It is convenient for people who do not see the dangers of the fetus to be worthy of our concern, (at least to the point of including it in statistics), that organizations such as the WHO appear to agree with them. This allows one to completely dodge any direct analysis of the sentence itself, and just say "The WHO said it, if you disagree you are wrong, end of story." I challenge anyone to actually analyze the sentence itself to look for any biases (such as the obvious ones I have pointed out), without reverting back to the "WHO said it, I agree with it, any bias is irrelevant, case closed" mentality. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, since bias is a perception of the viewer, the correct phrasing is "It doesn't matter if I perceive the WHO as biased or not, because it is an authoritative source". You are correct in stating that it doesn't matter how biased you think the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. I do agree that abortion, by its very nature, results in the death of a fetus or embryo, so it is illogical to consider the safety of the procedure in terms of that outcome. I accept that you think the sentence is biased, and that everyone who shares your mindset can see that. I would also accept that those who share your mindset, but are of the opposite view (what you would call 'pro-choice') may not see the sentence as biased. You obviously haven't accepted that others, like myself, don't see the issues as 'pro-life/pro-choice', and that they might see the sentence as unbiased, simply because it conforms with what reliable sources say. I completely disagree with your assertion that a reader viewing the sentence has to evaluate it as 'choosing sides', or that it is a key and central element of the abortion debate. The central issue for me is whether a woman has an abortion in a setting that renders it "amongst the safest of medical procedures", or in one that demonstrably leads to serious and sometimes fatal sequelae. That is the issue addressed by the sentence. I'm not sure what value you believe there to be in including statistics for the mortality rate for fetuses in abortion. Surely it is implicitly assumed to be 100% by definition? I'd suggest that as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is required to "dodge" analysis of reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, everybody's amateur detective work is elevated to the same status as academic peer-review and the oversight given to documents published in the scholarly mainstream; and that's no way to write an encyclopedia. That is the "end of story", and I'm sorry if you see it as closed-minded to respect the consensus on how we work here. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that statement could be could be considered somewhat biased by anti-abortion advocates. According to the article, "One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure." I did find a source claiming that legality is less of an issue than sanitation, since most illegal abortions are performed in undeveloped countries. Here it is, for whatever it's worth. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/world_abortion_estimates.htm Amyrillis 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyrillis (talk • contribs)

"Source" =/= "study." Even if the "source" weren't an anti-abortion organization, it doesn't even make an attempt to cite research. Roscelese (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a jot what label you care to put on the publisher, that opinion piece falls far short of meeting WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. Contrast that with Shah & Ahman 2009 (the source cited in the article), which is peer-reviewed, published in a reputable scholarly journal and clearly explains its methodology and results. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New page: History of Abortion Law Debate

I have created a new page for the Wikipedia abortion project. I had found myself incorporating the same material to various pages in the project and, under the advice of RexxS, I decided to create a whole new page. This allows for some welcome pruning in the larger abortion pages. In the history section of the main abortion page, I plan to excise everything up to the 19th century, as this is where the history of the modern abortion laws begins in the West. I will just summarize the pre-history as briefly as possible, and add a see also tag pointing to History of Abortion Law Debate.

The current page is lacking in information about the evolution of abortion law from its earliest formulation in the non-Occidental historical texts. Many of these texts are widely available from reliable sources on the internet; so, I was able to present that material fairly and in an encyclopedic fashion. But researching the evolution of abortion laws in non-Occidental historical jurisprudence is beyond my capabilities. I wouldn't know where to start.Ermadog (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Them Dead, Dead Fetuses

Dylan Flaherty's recent change restored a versions which seems to have been arrived at by consensus, and on that basis was proper. He adds "we should discuss this". The top of this talk page shows where in the archive this discussion has taken place. I have not had time to review 5 whole archives' worth of discussion, but did a quick review of the opening arguments and the 2 proposals in archive 4. I am not happy with the end result.

There does seem to be consensus regarding the POV introduced by the word "death", in that it begs the question of what kind of death we're talking about, which begs the question of whether the fetus is a human being/person/human life (these three terms are not coequal). What I don't see addressed is the matter of focus. The current wording, drawn from a legal text, "expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death" focuses on the precious, precious fetus instead of the entirely irrelevant "meat envelope" that happens to be surrounding the precious, precious fetus. Why not just drop all reminders of the meat envelope and expunge the word "uterus" as well?

An exhaustive list of alternative definitions has already been considered here: [6] Inexplicably, the definition in the lead sentence in the lead paragraph of a general article on abortion is drawn from a legal text. If we scroll down to the bottom of the article, we see that this article is categorized in medical and ethical, but not legal categories. A consensus seems to have been arrived at in the archives to the effect that no specific field, such as medicine, be considered as offering an authoritative definition of abortion in a general article. But the legal definition was chosen anyway. Why?

When I want to gain a general sense of a word's meaning, I look for consensus using a multiDictionary such as alphDictionary, which is capable of searching 1,060 English dictionaries online. A search on abortions returns 29 under General, 7 under Business (law) plus one hack, 2 under art, 11 under Medical, 2 under Science (natural abortifacients), 1 under Tech (veterniarian), 1 for Computers, and 2 under Miscellaneous (philosophy and dreams). Guess how many times the first entry is "termination of pregnancy", "end of pregnancy", "cessation of pregnancy", etc followed by "expulsion of conceptus" as the secondary meaning.

(Remarks withdrawn as they had been written under the impression that "embryo" does not cover the pre-implantation products of conception. Ermadog (talk))

I would suggest we review these definitions from MedLine Plus (US gov't source) "A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries...The term miscarriage is used often in the lay language and refers to spontaneous abortion.)" See, no mention of the inconvenient meat envelope, although it is implied in the term "pregnancy". Or this "An abortion is the spontaneous or induced loss of an early pregnancy. The period of pregnancy prior to fetal viability outside of the uterus is considered early pregnancy." from eMedicine The phrases "loss of a fetus" and "prior to viability" imply that the parasitic growth is indeed dead as a doornail, has shuffled off its mortal coil, has rung up the curtain and joined the choir invisible, and is now up in heaven strumming on a harp with JHWH or Zeus or somebody and generally is a dead parrot and we should all throw a huge humungous wake and celebrate its passage to the Other Side, where it will evade a life of mortal toil on this earthly plane; and we will all one day join him/her/it in singing the eternal praises of the Cosmic Muffin, Cthulhu and the Ghost of Christmas Past. There is no more need to emphasize the death of the fetus any more than there is need to draw attention to the fact that my prize roses came about in part due to a merciless slaughter of countless slugs. If you insisted on doing that in my garden, I'd shove my cane up your nose and chuck you out.

If someone familiar with the archives could point me to the section in the archives addressing the matter of focus, I'd be much obliged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is based on a false premise. If you think about it, I'm sure you'll recognize that referring to the death of the fetus (or embryo) does not imply that it is a person.

For example, a pregnant dog is not a person, and the canine embryo inside it is also not a person. If the dog's pregnancy is aborted, the fetus dies, but it was never a person and never would be. No matter what species we're talking about, the fetus is composed of living cells and when an abortion is involved, they wind up dead. If the fetus dies, this leads to an abortion. If it is aborted, this leads to its death. Whether it's a person, non-person, potential person or even a potential pet is irrelevant to whether it was alive and is now dead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My argument is not based on a false premise; and this point is made in the archived discussion, where, as I said, my point was actually acknowledged as valid. Context provides meaning; and in this context, we are talking about human life. We are talking about the actual life of the prospective mother, whose body is undergoing a process known as pregnancy, as well as the actual life of a potential human being called the conceptus, which is merely a growth within the prospective mother's uterus. The term "death" here takes on connotations that favour the "pro-life" position which asserts that the fetus is an actual human being. Therefore, the use of the term "death" in this context is a form of logical fallacy known as argument from assertion, specifically argument from implied assertion. Any number of euphemisms could be used to blunt the force of this argument; but, editors here have made a very conscious and deliberate choice to employ a term which pushes POV. There is generally not as much emotional baggage if we use the term "death" in reference to a dog fetus. Most of us dog lovers, while regretting the incident, would just get over it. But most of us also recognize that there is significant difference between dog life and human life. The clinical definitions I have provided manage to make the point that the fetus is dead as a door nail without resorting to emotion-laden verbiage. Why can't Wikipedia?Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You did say that the conceptus is actually alive. When something that was alive ceases to be alive, we call that death. Therefore, it is entirely accurate to speak of the death of the fetus or embryo. Now, if we called it a baby, that would be biased terminology. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I did say that the conceptus is alive. You obviously didn't read what I said after that; so, I guess I'll just repeat it - although that's probably a waste of time since you obviously didn't read it the first time: Context provides meaning; and in this context, we are talking about human life. We are talking about the actual life of the prospective mother, whose body is undergoing a process known as pregnancy, as well as the actual life of a potential human being called the conceptus, which is merely a growth within the prospective mother's uterus. The term "death" here takes on connotations that favour the "pro-life" position which asserts that the fetus is an actual human being. Therefore, the use of the term "death" in this context is a form of logical fallacy known as argument from assertion, specifically argument from implied assertion. The debate is about what kind of life it is, not whether it's alive. Now, what part of that did you fail to understand? Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ermadog, your original post was very much damaged by a cut & paste error you made that left an unclosed tag, hiding everything afterwards. I did my best to restore the original, but you're going to want to double-check the words to make sure they are what you wanted to write.

I appreciate your rollback and apologise for the sloppy proofreading. I have no excuse; I must have been tired. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't roll back the entire edit, I just corrected the broken part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've read your entire message, where you go into the exhaustive list of definitions, I find myself exhausted but unconvinced. Calling a fetus a "parasitic growth" does nothing more than make your bias painfully obvious. And it doesn't help that you don't seem to understand the medical terms you use; for example, you confuse fertilization with pregnancy.

I have a file on my hard drive containing common uses of the term "parasite" It is a compilation of meanings obtained by searching on parasite at alphaDictionary, which is capable of returning entries from 1,060 English dictionaries. The scientific definition requires that an organism be a member of a different species; but, the medical definition does not. The entries from general usage dictionaries are evenly split on this point. Here are two that apply: 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism; 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return (Webster's 11th). The fetus is most definitely a parasitic growth. It derives it nutrition directly from the host body's food supply from within that host body; it derives its entire substance (with the exception of a small amount of paternal DNA) directly from the host body's substance; and its metabolism is directly entwined with that of the host body and often has a detrimental effect on the woman's health (the fetal brain doesn't even begin to take over the most basic of bodily functions, breathing, until week 34). It most definitely is living in a relationship of biologic parasitism within the body of the prospective mother. I wouldn't use it in a wiki article, because of the emotional baggage; but, I use it in wiki talk because it is an accurate presentation of my argument. I have withdrawn my remarks about the secondary meaning not applying to early drug induced abortions because I was under the impression that the term "embryo" does not apply to the pre-implantation organism. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A parasite is a son who won't get a summer job, not a fetus that has nowhere else to go. As for drug-induced abortions, whatever the morality of the morning-after pill, it does not technically qualify as an abortion because there is no pregnancy until implantation, which this pill prevents. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A parasite is also, as I have demonstrated, anything living in biologic parasitism with another organism. If you believe otherwise, you have a lot of dictionaries to correct. As for the morning-after pill, many "pro-lifers" do believe the conceptus is a human being right from the moment of conception and that the pill is therefore an abortifacient. The pre-implantation organism is a product of conception. Ermadog (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I am one of those pro-lifers, but I can read a dictionary and I try to be fair and neutral.

As it happens, I read more than one dictionary, for the purpose I have previously described: to gain a consensus of current usage. That's why I use alphaDictionary and look through all the entries from all the relevant dictionaries. For instance, for abortion, I omit the tech dictionary. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this entry, there are three definitions. Of these, the first and last are metaphorical, based on similarity to a biological parasite. The second references the related term, "parasitism". That entry offers three more definitions. The first and last are circular, but the second is very clear and relevant:

"an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures" - emphasis added

Two or more kinds, as opposed to a human woman and her human fetus. I rest my case.

I addressed your "two or more kinds" point above. Please re-read it. Hint: it has something to do with the consensus that can be obtained at alphaDictionary. You don't get to choose just one out of many listed definitions and claim it is "the" definition. You pick the one that is best for the context. The definition I use has equal currency with the one you chose. The metaphoric sense is quite appropriate when using the adjective "parasitic" as a modifier for a noun when a reference to the relationship of biologic dependence is intended. The relationship of the conceptus to the prospective mother is indeed parasitic, for the reasons I've enumerated. btw the first definition at Merriam-Webster is not metaphoric. It is the historic definition dating back to ancient Greece, where it originally referred to a class of priests officiating at certain religious feasts. The modern scientific meaning originated metaphorically and over time took on the more precise meaning found in science texts today. See also Websters 1828 or 1913, both of which are online. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As for conception, that term has two related meanings: fertilization and implantation. There has been a shift over time from the former to the latter, for reasons both medical and political (and some of this is controversial). Medically, pregnancy is now defined from implantation, so the morning-after pill cannot technically be considered an abortifacient, although you're right that some people jump from "morally equivalent to abortion" directly to "identical to abortion", which is a simple factual error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Extreme "pro-lifers" are trying to have the conceptus declared a full legal person from the moment of conception Concerns over ‘Personhood’ Physicians, families detail their worries of Amendment 62 These referenda have failed before, but they keep trying. I should note that children do not have full personhood at law until they reach the age when they can enter into legally binding contracts. I take it you are not one of those "pro-lifers". Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to let what I wrote before stand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the point I've made about the term "death" is acknowledged as valid in the archives, where the present formulation is acknowledged as being an unhappy compromise, I will continue to raise this point. I'd like an explanation of why editors think "loss of the fetus" is less neutral than "death of a fetus". I would also like an answer to the question I raised about why we are using a legal definition instead of a general definition. I would also like to know why we are using a definition that focuses on the fetus instead of on the woman in whose body the pregnancy is taking place. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Loss" is a dishonest euphemism. It's not like we misplaced the fetus; we know exactly where it went. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess Oxford, American Heritage, and MacMillan are all dishonest dictionaries. These guys all think "loss" means destruction, especially death of a loved one. And that's only the first three of the 31 entries returned with an alphaDictionary search. Ermadog (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still a euphemism. I can lose a pen, but an organism actually dies. Pens don't die, except metaphorically. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Destruction, listed as a meaning of loss in many dictionaries, is not a euphemism. "Prolife" however, is a euphemism. "Life" is a general term. Therefore, "pro-life" is a general term. You likely don't defend the lives of the bacteria you slaughter with every breath (there are branches of buddhism that do revere all life forms and offer eternal prayers on their prayer wheels for all life); so, we know that you are really pro- human conceptus. So, don't talk to me about euphemisms when you use them yourself. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the discussion is productive with regard to editing this article, so I'm going to remind us both that this is not a forum and let you have the last word with regard to the earlier discussion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be producing a Request for Edit, in accord with Wikipedia guidelines for consensus, as soon as I have finished digesting the contents of the archives, unless I can see that my concerns have been addressed there. Ermadog (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the discussion concerning the first paragraph, and thus "death" issue can be found in the subpage and 5 archives, found here Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Hope this helps your archive search. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, if you've followed this discussion, you know that I am aware of where the archives are, and that I've raised some of the points in that discusssion, some of which you were involved in. You will also see that I have raised some specific questions with regard to that discussion. I would welcome any attempt on your part to direct my attention to specific sections where these questions are addressed in the archives. I am also fully aware that there is no common ground between those who want a total ban on abortion and those with any other position. Either the fetus is a human being, in which case killing it for any reason other than self defence (i.e. the pregnancy itself fatally threatens the mother's life), in which case all the usual sentences for homicide should apply, or it isn't. Where there is no common ground, there is no possibility for meaningfull discussion. All one can do is describe as fully as possible what the points of disagreement are. In civil society, the majority of the discussion takes place in the middle ground, where people don't want a total ban, but neither do they want complete decriminalization. Either the fetus is a part of the woman's body and thus no one's business but her own, or it is a proper object of discussion of civil society at large. There are few points of discussion possible between these latter two camps, either. It's a connundrum. Ermadog (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't sure if you had seen the subpage archives in addition to the regular archives. That said, I have not been following the discussion, sorry. It's a case of TL;DR. What you wrote regarding the debate in the public sector of America and finding "common ground" seems off topic and not relevant to this article. We should be guided by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not by the greater moral/political debate in society. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy can be terminated in several ways. When it is terminated by a live birth, you don't have a successful abortion. When pregnancy terminates because a live fetus dies (naturally or because it is killed) and is then expelled from the uterus, that is an abortion. When the live fetus' is removed (spontaneously or through outside intervention) and dies in the process of removal, that is also an abortion. When one of two twin fetuses dies (naturally or because it is killed) and is expelled from the womb, that is an abortion, but the pregnancy continues. Many abortion definitions in medical dictionaries also do refer to the death of the embryo or fetus. The current line that mentions death is necessary to provide an objectively accurate definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Citations 4 and 5 and the statements they support be removed due to their conflicted interests?

Citation 4 is from Planned Parenthood International, citation 5 is from the Guttmacher Institute; while the Guttmacher Institute is no longer formally connected to Plan Parenthood it was originally started by Planned Parenthood, named after one of Planned Parenthood's former presidents/leaders of Planned Parenthood International, and still holds Alan Guttmacher in high regard, calling him an "Inspired leader

Patient teacher

Reluctant boss

Irreverent skeptic

Indignant advocate

Irrepressible boat-rocker

Old Testament prophet

Compassionate friend" and "much more". Guttmacher's site also points out that "no one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission" than Guttmacher. I Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher are both biased sources, and all facts supported by their citations should be pulled until put under review for non-biased citation, except for those acknowledged rather than challenged by those of the opposing point of view (example: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html ).

Furthermore the idea the legality of abortion not effecting abortion rates is illogical, and blatantly false. Rather than argue this in depth, I'll cite this blog post, who argues the case well and cites the Guttmacher Institute for his numbers. http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/

"Abortion in Ireland, for example, is illegal in most cases, whereas across the pond in England and Wales it is basically legal (though with more restrictions than in the U.S.). According to Guttmacher, the abortion rate for Ireland in 1996 was 5.9. For England and Wales, 15.6. That is, by Guttmacher’s own numbers, the abortion rate for England (where abortion is legal) is several times what it is in Ireland (where it is not). Presumably the lower Irish rate is not due to the country’s fanatical devotion to sex education and contraception."

"In the first year after Roe v. Wade, some 750,000 women had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every four live births). By 1980, the number of abortions had reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off." Why would abortion rates increase after Roe v. Wade unless the legality effected the frequency of abortions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Citation 4 is actually from the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, which seems to a well-cited scholarly journal, published by Elsevier, with the expected standards of [editorial oversight and peer review]. Citation 5 is from International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, which is published by Guttmacher, but still seems to be well-cited and has normal editorial review, with a named Editorial Advisory Board. I take it that your objection to the sources is based principally on who the authors are and the publishers. The best thing I can suggest is to find some equally good quality recent sources, published in a journal that meets our concept of a reliable source, which contradict the statements that those cites support. You may find it helpful to read WP:MEDRS, which outlines how we differentiate the best sources from stuff that anybody can write in a blog.

That brings me onto the blog you referred to. If BlackadderIV were to be an acknowledged, public author in the field, then his opinion would carry some weight. If he were to publish his essay in a scholarly journal subject to peer-review and editorial oversight, then we could use it as a source. Unfortunately, neither of those appears to be the case, so it's not really much use to us. That is, other than to illustrate a line of thought: that making something illegal reduces its incidence. I could point out that murder is illegal everywhere, but its incidence varies hugely throughout the world, which seems to indicate that factors other than its illegality determine incidence. The point is that homicide, as well as conception, often seem to occur without premeditation - which reduces the deterrent effect of the consequences. It's perhaps simpler to ask for some reliable source that supports the blog's suggestion, as that would save the arguments.

I don't share your characterisation that the legality of abortion not affecting abortion rates as "illogical, and blatantly false". Ireland is a particularly poor example, since it is relatively simple to cross the border into Northern Ireland where abortion is not illegal. Do you really think that doesn't happen? As for the experience of the USA (or the UK for that matter), do you really think the number of abortions pre-1973 was close to zero? Of course, nobody knows what the number was. I think you'll find the figures you quote are for reported abortions, and I don't find it at all unlikely that the number reported rose and then levelled off, once reporting no longer lead to prosecution. I would have thought that the experience of Romania would be far more instructive in terms of the effect of legislation on abortion rates (or even more so on maternal mortality ratio). The point is, of course, that illegal abortions don't show up in "abortion rates", because people are not going to report illegal abortions, but they do show up as in the MMR, where reporting is rather more difficult to avoid. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Protetion

Abortion is a huge contriversy. there are many people who would change it to suit the own opions. I think it should be semi-protected. Another solution iis to have certian people check this every day to check for vandlism. Wikiagoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Article is already semi-protected. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)