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 Lead image To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, Use of "Death"

Germany/Map

Germany has abortion on choice in the first trimester (2nd and 3rd: illegal except for mothers health or life in danger). The map should be changed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.178.31 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New primary study

In this edit (without an edit summary), Ritterhude (talk · contribs) introduced a novel piece of text based on a single recent primary study. I reverted it with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Ritterhude (talk); Section is a summary of Abortion and mental health and explained to him on his talk page that this section of the article is a summary of Abortion and mental health, pointing out the {{main}} template. He has now re-inserted the text with the edit summary Recent research reflecting current scientific thinking, especially if briefly summarized, is always appropriate. The main article is arranged for long discursive sections per study.

I believe the text inserted:

1. fails WP:MEDRS, as it is a single study not reflected in secondary sources;
2. is inappropriate for inclusion in this article, since it is not a summary of the daughter article.

I am therefore seeking consensus to remove the paragraph in question. I'd be quite happy to see discourse at Abortion and mental health about reasons why a primary source that is unsupported by any secondary might be used, but here it completely fails WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Support removal, for both reasons 1. and 2., above. I will note, however, that WP:MEDRS is in many ways unfortunate, as peer-reviewed journals are superb sources of information. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removal based on reasons #1 and #2 (but am open to deleting for other reasons). I've added a supporting reference from the LA Times. Plus, someone put the info into the sub-article. So, #1 and #2 are no longer valid reasons for removal. Maybe there are other reasons, but they need to be presented (e.g. that the material was edit-warred into the article contrary to WP:BRD and without seeking consensus).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, due to changes noted above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support removal. The primary source doesn't improve on PMID 19968372, which is a review saying essentially the same thing. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I'm not sure I understand your comment. PMID 19968372 says " Most adult women who terminate a pregnancy do not experience mental health problems." JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because we already have the effect of abortion on mental health already summarised and cited to a secondary review. It is completely inappropriate to use a single study primary source when a reliable secondary exists and is already used. Adding a newspaper report of the same study does nothing to improve its reliability. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rexx, the text that you want to remove is fully supported by the cited LA Times article, which is a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Moreover, the text you want to remove is in the sub-article. So, your reasons #1 and #2 are plainly no longer valid. If you would like to add further reasons then please do, e.g. the text you want to remove is redundant, and/or was edit-warred into this Wikipedia article without consensus, and/or includes off-topic material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You see, that's exactly the problem. Having a newspaper report on a recent single primary study doesn't somehow magically transform it into a reliable secondary source per WP:MEDRS. The LA Times adds nothing to the authority of any primary source. As for the assertion that this article now summarises the daughter article, what is so special about this particular issue that it warrants repeating the same conclusion twice in this summary? The disputed text reiterates the previous two paragraphs, in particular the APA findings, which are already impeccably sourced. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with RexxS on this point. A newspaper story summarizing (what the reporter happened to understand about) an original experiment does not automatically move the information into the category of "secondary source". It's not merely a matter of adding "one" to each chain in the gossip game, so that the original publication is "primary", the press release is "secondary", a newspaper report based on the press release is "tertiary", your comment is "quaternary", my comment on your comment is (um, pentary? quintary?), and so forth. (Perhaps reading WP:Party and person would be helpful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The text that Rexx seeks to remove does not assert that the study is correct, but rather asserts that the study was done. The LA Times is a perfectly acceptable secondary source for the fact that the study was done. If the text that Rexx wants to remove is redundant, or was edit-warred into this article without consensus, or contains off-topic material, then I'll support removal. But removal would be improper for the two reasons that Rexx stated at the outset.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But nobody other than you is arguing that the text be removed because there's doubt about the study being done, or that the study is incorrect (see Strawman). The text needs to be removed because its source doesn't meet MEDRS: it's a primary study, and being reported in the press doesn't make it anything else. --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not argued that the text be removed. I have opposed removal for the two reasons that you gave. The text that you want to remove is not "in support of a conclusion" (I'm quoting MEDRS here). It merely attributes a particular opinion to particular researchers, without using the voice of Wikipedia to validate or confirm that conclusion. So, I don't see any violation of MEDRS. As I said, if you want to argue that the text was inserted into this article by edit-warring without consensus, then maybe I would support removal. Your discussion of straw men seems itself to be a straw man. Generally speaking, I get uncomfortable when we consider a reliable source like the LA Times automatically forbidden, especially in an article like this one that has political, social, and moral dimensions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody else has called for removal of the text on the grounds of the study's non-existence or inaccuracy either, so when you argue against removal on those grounds, you are constructing a strawman argument, as you well know. You don't see any violation of MEDRS because you don't accept the principle of sourcing medical claims to medical reviews, rather than individual primary studies. Remember that reliability depends on context, so while the LA Times is surely an excellent source for news of wildfires in the western US, it has no reputation for critical analysis of primary medical sources, and I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. No matter what dimensions the article may have, a claim about the effect of a medical procedure on the mental health of the person is clearly a medical claim and MEDRS applies. --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rexx, I honestly do not understand why you attribute to me the assertion that anyone has called for removal of the text on the grounds of the study's non-existence or inaccuracy. I never said anything remotely like that. Moreover, I agree MEDRS applies, which is why I quoted it. I only oppose removal of the text if you remove it based on the two points that you listed at the outset. However, I have no position for or against removal if you remove it because it was edit-warred into this article without consensus, or because it contains off-topic material, or because it contains redundant material, or because it gives undue weight to the whole issue of mental health reactions to abortion, or because it's contradicted by more reliable sources, et cetera, et cetera. If the LA Times article were purporting to give medical advice or describe medical facts, then that would be very different from what the LA Times article actually does, which is merely report that someone else has made certain medical claims.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When you bring this sort of argument to the discussion, "The text that Rexx seeks to remove does not assert that the study is correct, but rather asserts that the study was done. The LA Times is a perfectly acceptable secondary source for the fact that the study was done", you are bringing up for the first time the issues of whether the source is correct and whether the study was done. When you introduce novel issues in order to refute them, you shouldn't be surprised that I refer you to this: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position – (from lead of Strawman). My 'original position' is that the text is cited to a primary study and duplicates other text that is sourced to the 2008 report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion – a clear breach of MEDRS. You substitute the 'unequivalent proposition' that impies the study wasn't done and refute that. I'm still waiting to hear how you justify inserting text sourced to a primary study, when the preceding two paragraphs already cover the same issue and are sourced to reliable secondary reviews. It is crucial that we scrupulously apply the agreed principles of MEDRS, otherwise our medical articles will quickly be swamped by the results of every novel uncorroborated medical study that the newspapers happen to notice. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your two-point rationale did not say anything about the "preceding two paragraphs". If you would like to justify removal based on the previous two paragraphs then I am not standing in your way. I have not introduced any novel issues in order to refute them. I have simply explained why the LA Times article does not violate MEDRS: because it does not support any study, or make any medical conclusions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean you opposed removal of the text based on my request in isolation?, without reading the section Abortion#Mental health, including the preceding two paragraphs? Do you also stand by your claim that you didn't introduce the novel issues of whether the source is correct and whether the study was done? Anyone can read your comment of 23:45, 18 February 2011. For what it's worth, you added the LA Times ref 19 days after I made the request, so it's a bit rich deflecting onto the LA Times, when my complaint about sourcing could only have concerned the primary study. Are you still claiming that the Munk-Olsen study meets MEDRS in this context? If not, why aren't you asking for its removal? --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rexx, I've explained myself as best I can, and am now finished. Have the last word if you like. This matter does not justify combat, or suggestions that I have neglected to read pertinent material. I am not under any obligation to take positions about things that I don't feel inclined to take positions on. I never said that the Munk-Olsen study meets MEDRS in this context, which is why I added the LA Times reference which is compliant with MEDRS (because it does not support or reach any medical conclusions). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give way to your argument. The next time I want to include a primary study that fails MEDRS, I'll just add on a newspaper report of the study and it will become MEDRS-compliant. I trust I'll have your support for that? --RexxS (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at Rexx's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal. Source adds nothing and the second part (post-birth depression) is off-topic and a bit confusing. - Haymaker (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal. I was all ready to take this position on what I expected would be a US-centric study. In fact, it's Danish centric, an even smaller possible sample space. I would want to see something a lot broader. In proposing such a study, I would hypothesise different results in different countries and different demographics. That's OR, I know, but without broader information I can say it without taking it any further. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason that a Danish study was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine is that Denmark keeps detailed, centralized medical statistics which facilitate this kind of research. While the population of the US (for instance) is much larger, record-keeping on abortion and psychiatric diagnoses is also much more haphazard. So, in fact, the Danish registries are an ideal resource with which to address this question. Not that it bears on the topic of inclusion on Wikipedia - just by way of explaining why studying Denmark is reasonable here. MastCell ^Talk 07:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The Danish study is certainly of interest, but I would submit that a study isolated to one smallish country, while no doubt well performed, can hardly be seen to represent the whole world. Those who don't like its results could argue that they would be different in a country with historically more conservative attitudes to matters such as abortion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, but if results vary depending on the country's attitude toward abortion, then one could argue that it is a conservative attitude toward abortion, rather than abortion itself, that correlates with mental illness. (Don't worry, I'm just playing. Your point is a good one, and I agree with your overall take on the matter). MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per WP:MEDRS, our coverage should summarize the content of reliable secondary sources, such as the American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or the review from Annals of Internal Medicine. If we have space, we could consider identifying key primary sources that are relevant to understanding how these expert bodies reached their opinions, but that might be more appropriate for the sub-article. Here, it may make sense to limit ourselves to summarizing expert opinion as detailed in reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 07:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recommend we move it to the subarticle. The study was of more than 250,000 people. Thus I am sure it will appear in reviews soon. When it does we can add it here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss whether to do that when the time comes. Competently performed abortions don't cause mental or physical health problems for women, which can be stated simply and concisely without devoting half the article to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an over generalisation not supported by the data. There is a slight increase in psychiatric contact for those women who have an abortion, but the percentage is already four times higher for psychiatric contact before abortion compared with those who did not have an abortion (according to the report under scrutiny)DMSBel (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Perhaps someone would like to explain how it is possible to compare or contrast the mental health of a mother after having an abortion with her mental health having not had the abortion and given birth. The one precludes assessment of the other and makes it impossible to assess both in the one individual and the same pregnancy. In other words it is possible to assess her state of mind following an abortion, but not what would have been her state of mental health if she had decided to continue with the pregnancy and give birth. Likewise it is possible to assess the mental state of the same mother once she has given birth, but again impossible to contrast or compare that with what might have been her state of mind if she had had an abortion. Neither does the summary reflect the conclusion of the report, the summary therefore seems quite spurious and because of that I support removal. DMSBel (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Milestones of prenatal development having purported moral relevance

This article is heavy on debunking notions that abortion has adverse effects on women, but is light on the effects that abortion has on the embryo or fetus. I think this article should say more about what abortion does, and not just what it doesn't do. It's not enough to just say that an abortion causes the death of an embryo or fetus. It would be much more informative to say, for example, that an abortion after X weeks stops a beating heart, an abortion after Y weeks stops a fetus that has started to move its head and limbs, an abortion after Z weeks ends a life that stood a better than even chance of surviving to birth, an abortion after P weeks ends the life of a being in which all major human organs exist, et cetera. These are some of the developmental milestones that various legislatures, civilizations, ethicists, and/or pregnant women have deemed to be possibly significant with regard to the morality of abortion.

Now, one could respond by saying that a reader of Wikipedia could easily just go to the articles about the fetus or embryo to find out about these characteristics, but that's incorrect. Those articles do not attempt to single out characteristics relevant to abortion, and indeed there are many aspects of prenatal development that have significance for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. Any thoughts about whether this article should try to do better in this regard? There is a vast literature about the possible moral implications of aborting at various different times in pregnancy, and yet this Wikipedia article mentions none of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem funny to you? No, it's not a joke.

Giving zero weight to these matters seems inconsistent with WP:Weight, especially when you consider that the prominence of the abortion issue is mainly due to the effects on the person/ thing that is aborted. I've got some other things to do today, but will be interested to read the replies tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful at Abortion debate, but it absolutely, absolutely does not belong here. "Abortion stops a beating heart" is propaganda, not encyclopedic content. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion does not always stop a beating heart. Some do and some don't. That's biology, just like the biological fact that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. The latter could be considered pro-choice propaganda to the same extent that the former can be considered pro-life propaganda.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does this Wikipedia article discuss when fetal pain becomes possible, and when viability occurs, but not any other abortion-related milestones of development? Is it because the others occur months earlier, perhaps?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about fetal pain or viability in this article. Could you clarify what you're pointing out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The fetal pain stuff was removed a few months ago, so now the article is even more focused on the woman, while NPOV would seem to suggest a few more words about impacts on the embryo/fetus, as I suggested at the start of this thread.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The article states in its very first sentence, without mincing words, that abortion involves the death of the fetus. I don't see how one could possibly be more blunt, or upfront, about the impact of abortion on the fetus. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I addressed that sentence in my initial comment in this thread. How about if we also say in the lead without mincing words that competently performed abortion has negligible adverse health effects on women --- and then delete all that subsequent stuff about mental health, breast cancer, et cetera? Seriously, the idea that the concept of "viability" would not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about abortion is bizarre, and why not mention other abortion-related developmental milestones? For example, why not say which abortions stop a heartbeat, and which ones don't? That's simply a biological fact, like the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth when performed competently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that these concepts are very important to you personally. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, we follow sources. And if the majority of our clearly reliable sources (and WP:RSMED) seem to be biased against the fetal POV, then we should not give undue weight to those positions, even if they are The Truth and facts. It may be important for one side to focus on the fetus in the abortion debate. In court, I know the concept of viability has come up. These are all places where such content could be presented, given sources. But the content you are proposing doesn't seem to follow any known source. Such a presentation, and the language below, are simply original synthesis, seemingly strung together to present a novel POV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The notion that "viability" is extremely relevant to abortion is not my POV, but rather is a well-known fact to anyone passingly familiar with the subject. When I get a chance, I'll list some sources for you. Although you may wish to portray any facts that are the slightest bit descriptive of what abortion entails as POV-pushing, actually suppressing such facts fits that description perfectly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Some proposed language

For starters, can we insert the following into this article?

“ The death of an embryo or fetus has different aspects depending on when during pregnancy it occurs, and these developmental milestones sometimes influence the decision whether to perform, permit, or obtain an abortion.  For example, an abortion after about five months of pregnancy destroys a "viable" fetus that possibly could have survived a premature birth with modern medical technology. ”

This would be a good start. An article like this ought to mention viability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to mention viability, since this is a significant legal (and conceivably an ethical) milestone in some countries. In contrast, I'm not convinced that "abortion stops a beating heart" has any significance outside the realm of partisan pro-life rhetoric. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Like viability, the start of heart beats is a biological milestone. Just as the law recognizes viability in some jurisdictions, so too it recognizes other biological milestones (e.g. in informed consent laws). Andrew c has correctly pointed out that it all boils down to sourcing. When I get around to closely examining the sources, it may become apparent that viability is not the only significant developmental milestone that this article ought to address. (Of course, I don't agree with the part of Andrew c's comment that dismissed this entire matter as POV-pushing.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the thing is that this article basically discusses abortion from a medical point of view. The societal stuff is mostly split into separate articles. You aren't going to find MEDRS-compliant sources talking about how "abortion stops a beating heart!!!1!!one!" because the MEDRS sources on prenatal development don't tend to make it all about abortion. That's why I think this sort of thing belongs in the Abortion debate article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with this article has been consistent attempts to treat it as strictly a medical article, when in fact abortion has many other dimensions, and its prominence in the public mind is just as much due to those other dimensions. This article has a section on history, so reliable historians should be adequate as sources. It also has a section on society and culture, so reliable sources on those subjects should not be excluded either. Excluding all sources except MEDRS sources would skew this article, and make abortion seem like just another run-of-the-mill medical procedure, when in fact it's much more than that. There are other articles that have a mixture of medical and other dimensions, and we don't limit the sources to only MEDRS sources (e.g. see eugenics, pollution, overpopulation, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the subject resists being reduced to the merely medical/surgical aspect. Discourse on the topic frequently shifts between medical, legal, philosophical, theological, moral, sociological and psychological matters. It would therefore be incorrect to try and separate out these different aspects too much. That's not to say that the main article has to deal with each in depth. With regard to viability it needs to be recognised that when the debate shifts into the moral sphere, the term is more controversial and that it may be used more by one side in the debate than the other, I think we need to remember undue weight and NPOV and not over-use any term which expresses a particular POV. Note, I said over-use. The moral debate is centred on personhood and the various milestones of foetal development are brought into the discussion with reference to that and are generally not discussed in isolation from it. DMSBel (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The public moral debate about whether abortion should be legal/illegal is distinct from the private decision that women make based on whatever info they find relevant. Pro-choice people ostensibly support giving info to women about the embryo/fetus so that the private choice is informed and intelligent, and they ostensibly support the woman's choice even if that choice is to not get an abortion due to ethical concerns. Classifying all ethical concerns about the embryo/fetus as "pro-life propaganda" would therefore be incorrect, and would deny women the "choice" to base a decision on ethical grounds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking Anythingyouwant's suggested text, and modifying it a little, how about: "Milestones in fetal development represent an important aspect in the ethical discussion regarding the beginning of personhood and thus influence the decision whether to permit, perform, or obtain an abortion." Followed by brief description of the milestones with regard to brain function, heart function, and ability to survive if born prematurely?DMSBel (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking back through the thread and reading it again (I just glanced over it first time). I realise I may have been a bit quick to offer a modified version of the paragraph Anythingyouwant suggested for inclusion, and hope I did not jump in prematurely with my own version which was based around it. Question to Anythingyouwant: Whereabouts in the article were you thinking of with regards to the proposed insert? I should say that I see no reason why we should not cover this aspect at some place in the article. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't thought about where exactly it would go. When time permits, I'll look at what reliable sources have to say on this subject, and then report back here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the addition of a tag:

per current discussion? DMSBel (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Current Ref #76

Ref #76 in this revision: Web of Trust scores it as a very untrustworthy site. Is that true, and if so, can we replace it somehow? NW (Talk) 05:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment on the source, but interesting site for the scorecard. Unsure how much credibility such a site could/would/should have itself. Thanks for the link. Arkon (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's published by Johns Hopkins. What's this scorecard site that we trust it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MyWOT.com. NW (Talk) 05:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Extremely quick read on my part, but even if I were convinced, I should probably expect fairly little agreement on this point. I don't think it's a widely accepted go/nogo site. Arkon (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point is that this is obviously a ridiculous corner of Wikipedia, probably best to refute the substance not the source [edit: with another source]. (Assuming the source isn't widely known to be bunk) Arkon (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not questioning the validity of the content itself. Just whether or not the website is safe. In any case, I have swapped the link out; the new website has the same material and is definitely Johns Hopkins' website. NW (Talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good change. (Thanks for the link again, though) Arkon (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Art.,Literature and Film

Just a grammatical change to the sentence: "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." Change "herself" to "she", the correct pronoun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.169.46 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks! NW (Talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is Google's fault or Wikipedia's...

But this page is currently the second hit on Google on a search for 'murder'. See this screencap[1]. Anyone know why? The word 'murder' is used here, but not prominently. I suppose it's probably just a Google bomb. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and no, I wasn't searching for 'murder' on Google, I just found that screencap on the Internet and tested it myself.) Robofish (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the "fault" of neither. Googlebombing happens, perhaps there was a campaign we don't know about. I don't know how one goes about reporting it, but presumably there is a way (as some of the more popular Googlebombs, ie. "miserable failure" for GW Bush's biography, have been defused). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Understandably, it's not a topic Google likes to discuss, and in many cases, they've left Googlebombs alone. In recent years, as some of the more notorious Googlebombs have gotten more press, they have at least adjusted their algorithm to avoid them, so if anybody knows how, it would at least be worth bringing to somebody's attention there. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about it in the meantime? --Aronoel (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really; it's not our doing, so it's technically not our (Wikipedia's) responsibility. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What if we did this, for example, to the source code: "M<!-- -->urder"? Would that help do you think?

I think it helped a little, the word "murder" is no longer bolded in the search result on google. --Aronoel (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this a concern for editors here? Arkon (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think people using Wikipedia to promote a political opinion should be a concern. But anyway you're probably right that it's not a big deal, sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. --Aronoel (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just gotta be careful with that sort of thing, as the change itself could be seen as doing the exact same thing that concerns you. No worries! Arkon (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One could argue that the phrase "tantamount to murder" in the article, which is what is highlighted by Google, is inflammatory or gratuitous, and that a phrase like "morally equivalent to killing a live-born person" would be more befitting an encyclopedia. WP:NPOV suggests that we "try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone," so quoting or borrowing phrases like "abortion is murder" may not be the best way to achieve NPOV. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that Google could understand simple phrases seen on the web like "abortion is murder" and think the two terms are related, without any concerted effort at Googlebombing. I've seen no evidence of a coordinated Googlebombing campaign. Also, abortion is a relatively popular Wikipedia page compared to other possible second Wikipedia results for murder, like Murder (film) or Murder!, so Google may rate it highly by that score as well. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not anything we do here could affect this Google bomb...

I firmly believe nothing should be done to the article itself to affect this, whether it be removing content, quotations, etc. Reacting to such things by altering our content gives power to the creators of Google bombs and sends a message that they can have a wide effect. Kansan (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but to be clear I wasn't suggesting altering the content, just slightly altering the source code in a way that wouldn't affect the content. Anyway, I agree with the points people have made here and I don't think there is much harm going on in directing people to this article or that there is anything worthwhile we can do about it anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't directing those comments toward you at all, just to clear the air. I was more referring to the IP comment, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I got the impression that s/he implied that quotations with the word "murder" should be removed. And, I have to agree... more people reading Wikipedia is not at all a negative. Kansan (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If Googlebombs have effect, they have effect. It's not really an encyclopedia's place to hide or deny that. (It's not even been shown that there was any Googlebomb campaign to begin with.) Also, while an encyclopedia should not take sides in a dispute like whether abortion is murder, WP:NPOV says we should "try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." A phrase like "tantamount to murder," which is used in this article and is what Google has highlighted in searches for "murder," is quoting directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute. I think this issue has brought attention to a NPOV question that would be good to resolve. Perhaps "tantamount to murder" should become something a bit less heated in tone like "morally equivalent to killing a live-born person." 98.246.191.164 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the search result was a "googlebomb", it is not coming up now on my PC though. But just wanted to say that the statement "abortion is tantamount to murder" is already in a moderated tone, when compared to the emphatic statement "abortion is murder". User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions

According to the very top of this talk page, it appears the rules at this article have just changed considerably. One would have thought that the relevant discussion would have been mentioned here before the decision was made.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't really be a problem, since the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually prefer general sanctions. They're far preferable to only shutting up one side. If I had known about the discussion at ANI, my main concern would have been to limit the general sanctions to the article itself, so that discussion at the talk page continues to be as free as possible (subject to the usual rules about civility).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede Image Discussion - why archived?

Anyone know what happened to the image discussion, I haven't been at the page for a over a week. Is it archived? Closed? What was the result? DMSBel (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok I see it is archived in archive 40. How come? It was on this page for months. Who archived it? It was a live discussion, and now it is just swept away with no indication (that I can see at least) or reason given for archiving it. I'd like to assume there is a good reason for it being archived, but I'd as soon hear what that reason was. DMSBel (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it didn't look like there was consensus to do anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a weak consensus against having no image, but there was also no consensus in favor of any of the images suggested. If anyone manages to find more, we can discuss those. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A link to the "no image" discussion is here. It looks to me like more supported having no image than opposed having no image, but in any event it was closely divided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I saw it was fairly close and that there didn't seem to be any consensus as such for a lede image. I just thought it might have been better to close it and summarise the outcome. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved 10 week old fetus image beside text for theraputic abortion

Just a minor move so that the picture of the 10 week old fetus is beside the relevant text. It had been beside spontaneous abortion (ie. miscarriage) but that's not what the picture is of. It is corresponding to theraputic abortion. If reverting please discuss here.DMSBel (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion of induced abortion should come before the discussion of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), because people will be most likely looking for info about the former here, and may not even expect to see info about miscarriage. So, I swithced the two subsections. No content change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, had not thought of switching the order of the text, but seems like a sensible arrangement now that you have done it. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of the words "elective" and "therapeutic"

1. Wikipedia Elective surgery states: "Elective surgery is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately."

2. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective surgery as follows: "Surgery that is subject to choice (election)...As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery." [[2]]

3. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective as follows: "In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent. Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time." [[3]]

4. Wikipedia Surgery states: "Types of surgery: Surgical procedures are the commonly categorized by urgency, type of procedure, body system involved, degree of invasiveness, and special instrumentation. Based on timing: Elective surgery is done to correct a non-life-threatening condition, and is carried out at the patient's request, subject to the surgeon's and the surgical facility's availability. Emergency surgery is surgery which must be done promptly to save life, limb, or functional capacity. A semi-elective surgery is one that must be done to avoid permanent disability or death, but can be postponed for a short time. Based on purpose: Exploratory surgery is performed to aid or confirm a diagnosis. Therapeutic surgery treats a previously diagnosed condition."

Thus a reasonable person would conclude that non-emergency therapeutic surgery is a subcategory of elective surgery. Nearly all surgical abortions are NOT emergency procedures (in other words, they are scheduled procedures and are not medical emergencies).

It seems that this Abortion article's inartful use of the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" confuses the reader rather than clarifying important distinctions. One would use "elective" to describe a procedure based on the timing of the surgery. One would use the term "therapeutic" to describe a procedure based on whether there has been a diagnosis. The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive.

If the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" are to be applied consistently (with no politically correct definitions for procedures performed on pregnant women), then virtually all therapeutic abortions are also elective procedures. Practically speaking, in nearly all modern situataions the 2 terms will be mutually inclusive because modern medicine considers the satisfaction of any woman's desire to no longer be pregnant (regardless of the reason why she no longer wants to be pregnant) as "therapeutic", and abortion is virtually NEVER performed under emergency conditions (in other words: there are virtually no occurences in which an abortion must be done immediately to avoid a serious health risk).

The current section of this article called "Induced" [[4]] contains a false dichotomy when it states: "Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to: ... An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.".

This false dichotomy should be corrected by helping the reader understand that the 2 terms therapeutic and elective are virtually synonymous, rather than leading the reader to incorrectly think that an abortion is EITHER elective OR therapeutic. Rarely will any therapeutic abortion not also be elective.

Finally, using the term "therapeutic" also implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect, when in reality, absent any political use of medical terminology, pregnancy is a sign of a healthy reproductive system and is never a disease. There are extremely rare occassions when organs of or near the reproductive tract are diseased and an abortion could thus be therepeutic to the gravid woman (though fatal to the fetus).

Perhaps this wording would address these concerns:

An induced abortion is almost always both elective and therapeutic, meaning that it is a non-emergency surgery performed based on a prior diagnosis. Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:

• birth control (postpone or stop childbearing); ^
• socioeconomic concerns; ^
• health risk to pregnant woman;
• health risk to fetal siblings;
• prevent further development and birth of disabled or diseased fetus;

^ source: [[5]] (Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion... Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying this section is ok as it stands or that there should be no discussion what terms to use, there could certainly be improvement, however your suggestion to describe all induced abortions as both elective and therapeutic would I think confuse things further because while any elective abortion requires consent and intention, not every elective abortion is "therapeutic" as that term is defined in the article (being to preserve the life or health of the mother etc.)

I strongly agree that pregnancy in itself is the sign of a healthy reproductive system and that we should preserve that understanding and avoid language which "implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect". However your proposed change does not actually address all your own objections regarding the use of the term "therapeutic", and introduces the word "diagnosis" which might actually re-inforce the impression of pregnancy being a disease. DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are missing a very key thing here. Sourcing. I see you cite AGI, but that article says nothing about "elective" or "therapeutic", and find original synthesis in your proposed wording. That said, the source we are currently citing says this "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective", so I think we are presenting a false dichotomy. The point that emedicine article is making is abortions performed for medical reasons are called "therapeutic abortion". You may personally disagree with this, or find it somehow confusing, but without further sourcing, we have to accept this usage of the term, and not try to redefine it based on how other fields use similar terminology. It appears perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica is the source using the dichotomy (which may or may not actually be 'false'). I don't have the full text, so I cannot judge. I do think we need to consider our other source which says Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself. There are medical factors both maternal and fetal that contribute to the decision. These factors have been termed therapeutic abortion, defined as the termination of pregnancy for medical indications, including the following.. and see if we are misrepresenting it, and what we can do to bring out text more in line with the meaning of our source. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect you'll find different sources that define the terms differently. "Elective" can be contrasted with "therapeutic," which would presumably mean abortions performed due to health threats or not, but it can also be contrasted with "spontaneous," ie. even "therapeutic" abortions are "elective" because they are not miscarriages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You have both possibly not carefully digested my entire original comments. Item #4 in the original comment quotes wikipedia's own general explanation for when a surgical procedure is called "therapeutic". I am simply advocating that the use of terminology in the abortion article be consistent with the terminology used in the surgery article (which accurateluy uses the term therapeutic). The term therapeutic" does NOT mean "to preserve the life or health of the mother", and the abortion article should not use it or define it in such a way.

With regard to pregnancy, a "diagnosis" is actually a determiniation of the cause of a deviation from homeostasis [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis#Diagnosis_in_medical_practice] or of a "medical condition" [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Medical_condition], so I wouldn't avoid that word "diagnosis".

I do not think the word "therapeutic" is helpful to the abortion article, but I have presumed that people will not want to eliminate the word from the article. My proposed language is certainly sourced and is not original research.

Also, there is no need for the AGI source article to mention the two words (elective or therapeutic) as the article is referenced for the REASONS women choose to have an INDUCED abortion, which is the very subheading (Induced) of the abortion article content we are discussing.

The main reality that the article should elucidate is that virtually all induced abortions are "elective" (meaning they can be scheduled a day or a week out without any harm to the gravid female's health), and virtually all induced abortions are therapeutic (meaning they come after a diagnosis). Barring the very rare (almost unheard of) exception, induced abortions are always elective and therapeutic.

The article as it appears now contains a confusing and imprecise and inaccurate discussion of the terms "elective" and "therepeutic". The artcle as it appears now contains an inaccurate conflation of the term "therapeutic" (inaccurately defined as non-elective) with a list of reasons a woman might have an elective abortion, and a false conclusion that other reasons would make it a non-therapeutic elective abortion. The article contains false information now that appears geared toward convincing the reader that abortions are most often "therapeutic" (with accompanying langauge that implies a therapeutic abortion is medically necessary) and that abortions are not very often elective. But the research (the most comprehensive of which was commissioned by and is propagated by abortion advocacy group AGI) comes hands down against that conclusion.

I have revised the suggested NEW wording:

An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis of pregnancy). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:

• birth control (postpone or stop childbearing); ^
• socioeconomic concerns; ^
• health risk to pregnant woman;
• health risk to fetal siblings;
• avoid birth of a disabled or diseased neonate;

67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the term therapeutic abortion is not uniformly used in the sense of "scheduled after a diagnosis of pregancy" but quite often with reference to medical indications other than the pregnancy, or in addition to the pregnancy, or in the unborn baby. That seems to be the sense in which it is being used here viz the last three reasons on the list. Elective is being used in the sense of voluntary but without medical indications. Is this not generally the usage in the literature? We should go by more general sources rather than political advocacy groups. While it is not in wikipedia's scope to advance any new nomenclature, we should make sure there is necessary clarification when there is the potential for confusion. DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The MedTerms.com definition for "therapeutic abortion" at [6] is "An abortion that is brought about intentionally," which comports with the general definition of the word "therapeutic" (related to a treatment after diagnosis of a medical condition).

The American Heritage dictonary [7] defines "therapeutic abortion" as

• 1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.
• 2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.

The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine [8] defines therapeutic abortion as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently". This definition comports with the language I am suggesting because the term is independent of any serious medical threat to the mother's health (although this definition is also problematic because in practice there are medical doctors in good standing who will induce fetal demise of a fetus that is capable of living independently, and there are laws that protect such abortions).

The wikipedia article for therapeutic abortion is likewise poorly written and inaccurate in that it ascribes a colloquial meaning to a medical term, when there is no evidence that the term "therapeutic abortion" is even used colloquially. That article avoids any mention of the actual medical term of art, when that is the most common and rational starting point for an article about that term. "Therapeutic abortion" seems to be a term that is most often used incorrectly by abortion advocates in an effort to paint most abortions as medically neccessary, when the bulk of research and testimony confirms that abortion is almost never medically necessary. But wikipedia should not propagate such usage when the definition for the medical term can so easily and readily be confirmed.

In any event, the scholarly article at this link [9] asserts that "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself." This assertion supports my suggestion that the wikpedia main article convey to the reader that most typically, an abortion is elective, and that because the termination of any unwanted pregnancy is de facto deemed to be "therapeutic", therefore all abortions are both elective and therapeutic. The only exceptions are the very rare cases when a pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life.

Here is yet another revision of the suggested NEW wording:

An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:

• birth control (postpone or stop childbearing); ^
• socioeconomic concerns; ^
• health risk to pregnant woman;
• health risk to fetal siblings;
• avoid birth of a disabled or diseased neonate;

76.2.124.88 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't support your original synthesis: "An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis)." The term "therapeutic abortion" has never once been associated with "scheduled after a diagnosis". This is some novel idea you are promoting, not supported by a single source (but instead, you are mixing definition A with definition B to come up with C, something original, not found anywhere else). The exact same thing applies to "elective abortion" and "non-emergency procedure". The term and the meaning are not found in conjunction with each other in any one source. You are changing the meanings of terms based on your own understanding of how similar terms are used in completely unrelated fields. It's not OK. Sorry.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What is there now in this "Induced" section of the article is terrible. As it stands, it is a mish-mash admixture conflation that needs to be fixed if readers are to actually benefit from the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out from the last comment what the IP thinks needs fixed and what doesn't! I find the term "therapeutic" something of a misnomer when it is not being used to distinguish between abortions performed because of medical indications and those for other reasons, and don't object to it being changed or removed. All abortions that are not coerced are elective whether or not they are done to preserve the life of the mother or unborn fetal siblings. The term was useful when it differentiated between therapeutic reasons (ie when there are medical indications) and non-therpeutic. I agree that the birth control and socio-economic concerns constitute the reasons for the majority of abortions. DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Source not represented correctly

Under unsafe abortion there is currently this sentence, sourced to a NY Times article:

"however, generally equating "safe" abortion to "legal" abortion is controversial."

But the NY Times article doesn't say this. It makes it clear that the study's findings were conclusive, not ambiguous, when it comes to the connection between legal status and safety:

"Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it is legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely."

"But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, researchers said. 'Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,' Dr. Van Look said. 'And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.'"

The only mention of any kind of dispute over the study's findings is this:

"Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where abortion is illegal. 'These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,' said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.

He said that the major reason women die in the developing world is that hospitals and health systems lack good doctors and medicines. 'They have equated the word 'safe' with 'legal' and 'unsafe' with 'illegal,' which gives you the illusion that to deal with serious medical system problems you just make abortion illegal,' he said."

This isn't a "controversy." It's one person's unqualifed personal assessment of a World Health Organization study. This personal assessment certainly shouldn't be given the kind of weight it's being given in the article now. Reddestrose (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Reddestrose. You quoted the NYT: "the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it is legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely." Then the NYT quoted a pro-life source. So, the NYT didn't take a position one way or the other, but rather cited two different sources. So for us to say that there's controversy is faithful to what the NYT reported. If you will examine the other two sources that are cited for the sentence in this Wikipedia article, you will find that in an advanced country like the United States, making abortion illegal does not result in the unsafety that would occur if lots of illegal abortions were self-induced or done without access to antibiotics. In contrast, making abortion illegal in third world countries may result in much greater unsafety for women, because clandestine surgical abortions may be self-induced or lack antibiotics. I tried to write the sentence in our article to capture all of this, so please consider all three sources. Also, if you carefully analyze what the two "sides" were saying as reported by the NYT, I think you'll find that they were not necessarily disagreeing with each other about the facts surrounding unsafe abortion, but rather were emphasizing different things. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The abortion opponent that the NYT quoted is not a scientist or a medical doctor, and it would be wrong to treat his (personal and obviously biased) opinion of a medical study as authoritative. The NYT doesn't do so, and we shouldn't either. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't treat it as authoritative, and we don't. This Wikipedia article clearly says that making abortion illegal can make it unsafe for women if that causes more self-induced abortions or more abortions without antibiotics to prevent sepsis. That is a 100% correct statement that is true regardless of geographic location, and it is not based on anything that the non-authoritative source said in the NYT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should say that it's controversial unless a source attests controversy. Any new scientific study that finds that denying rights to women or gay people might not be a very productive idea is going to draw criticism from groups who oppose those rights - that's not really controversy, and our NYT source doesn't say there's controversy. Alternately, we could just make it clear that it was anti-abortion groups rather than actual scientists or doctors who criticized the study, since saying there is controversy without any other information suggests that there is scientific controversy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it might be possible to make it clearer, and I'll try. But it's significant that the NYT article didn't exactly say that researchers equate safe and legal. It just said that a pro-life spokesman asserts otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your addition of "politically" is an improvement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the two sources mentioned, and now I see the problem runs deeper. The first is over 50 years old, the second nearly 20. Both focus on the impact of illegal abortion in the US (the first mainly, the second exclusively). Why rely on outdated and localized sources when the 2007 Lancet study is recent and global? Reddestrose (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, nothing in the two cited sources has ever been contradicted. The issue of what happens when abortion is banned in a developed country is largely a matter of history, and the 2007 Lancet study does not address it. This Wikipedia article says: "An abortion is more likely to be unsafe where abortion is illegal, at least if the illegality results in more self-induced abortions or more abortions without antibiotics to manage sepsis;[75][76] however, generally equating 'safe' abortion to 'legal' abortion is politically controversial.[77]" What's inaccurate about that? Is there a WP:RS that contradicts it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (

The 2007 Lancet study found abortion is more likely to be safe in regions where it is legal and more likely to be unsafe in regions where it is illegal. It did not suggest that this connection depends on self-induction or antibiotic availability. So the 1960 and 1992 sources are contradicted by a more recent source. Moreover, the 1960 and 1992 sources focus on the US, but their findings are being presented as though they apply on a global level. It's not safe to assume that what may hold true for one country holds true for all others. In short, it would be better to present the findings of a recent, global study instead of stitching together two outdated, localized sources to present a novel conclusion not found elsewhere. Reddestrose (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article history I see the first sentence of unsafe abortion was changed yesterday. The first sentence originally read:

"One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure."

This sentence should be restored, sourced to the 2007 Lancet study. It reflects current scientific understanding. The sentence in the article now is based on outdated sources - one of them over half a century old. Reddestrose (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject"

At the top of the article there is currently a notice which says:

"This article is weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject."

All the major aspects are covered: medicine, law, history, debate, culture. Some areas may need to be expanded, but I don't think any particular aspect's coverage is disproportionate enough to warrant this notice. Reddestrose (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because whoever put that there didn't post anything on the talk page, or make his issues known, I've removed the notice.--Patton123 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)