Jump to content

Talk:Abortion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.5.176.81 (talk) at 04:40, 11 July 2011 (→Previously involved editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:WP1.0

Archive
Archives
Chronological archives

Untitled

Topical subpages
Notable precedents in discussion



Straw poll on lede sentence

I agree with the suggestion that it would be useful to have a straw poll on the viable-vs.-death issue for the lede sentence. The current version reads: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.. The proposed change was: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the fetus is viable. I suggest that involved editors indicate that they either Support Current for the current version containing 'death', or Support Viable for the proposed version if they prefer it (or something similar to it that omits 'death'). Neither sentence need be the final form of the lede, of course, but this would help us better see if there is sufficient support for a change to merit continued discussion and possible mediation if needed. JJL (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Before fetus is Viable":

  • Oppose No new reasons put forward, already debated, as other editors have said to you, "before the fetus is viable" is factually inaccurate. Fetal death is spoken of frequently in reference to both spontaneous abortion and induced abortion, both as cause and result. Straw polls don't overturn an existing consensus, and can't act as a new consensus. Waste of time. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. 1. Women can and do have viable fetuses aborted (by doctors) in some jurisdictions in the world. 2. "Before fetus is Viable" is always accurate only if the common understanding of "viable" is ignored and contrived to mean "no longer viable 'cuz the doctor destroyed the previously viable fetus before it was removed or expelled". 3. Question is not posed neutrally by JJL and voting area presents options in reverse order compared to JJL's question narrative that precedes it. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neverthless, its confusingly backwards regardless of who introduced it. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For "spontaneous" it is per Uptodate "Spontaneous abortion (SAb), also known as miscarriage, refers to a pregnancy that ends spontaneously before the fetus has reached a viable gestational age" PMID 11023804 Still looking into elective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"An induced abortion is the medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before the time of fetal viability." AND "The interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons, is usually termed elective or voluntary abortion." (Williams Obstetrics, 23e, Chp 9) NW (Talk) 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability" from [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Abortion#Notes. NW (Talk) 18:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to suggest this definition: 'The majority of major medical texts define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the fetus is viable. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Version:

Why do you say this a medical article? It is an article about a social/cultural/political/religious/philosophical/legal/medical/veterinary/biological topic. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OM, find a reliable source that says the fetus is not alive. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiably wrong in every way possible, but if actually accurate then I put Abortion#Art.2C_literature_and_film in the wrong article, OM please direct me to where it should go. Also point out how a medical ref trumps a dictionary to assist a generalist encyclopedia achieve an accurate compromise. I'm not interested in pulling a Britannica in our lead, which is the minimum required to have any semblance of accuracy. - RoyBoy 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Simply opposing the current version won't cut it. Opposers need to propose a suitable alternative, a form of words which communicates the same factuality because that is not what is in dispute. But we've been there tried it got the t-shirt... I'd offer as a clumsy alternative : "by terminating the life of the embryo/fetus". But would that would only refer to induced abortion. Following Plain Style guidelines, that could be simplified to "by killing the embryo/fetus" (but untrue in reference to spontaneous abortion). The other alternative is keep it pretty much the same but include the term developing: "resulting in or caused by the death of the developing embryo/fetus". None of these three phrases are totally synonymous, but the last is to me the plainest, most neutral, and factually accurate of the three. Is there a better word than "developing"? I suggest it adds a missing nuance to the first sentence that would deal with other issues raised. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose death I believe that Wikipedia policy obliges editors to avoid personal opinions and use information from only the best available sources. For a small group of editors to stray so far from the references and completely change the definition of abortion to one that endorses the belief that life begins at conception should not be acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is silly; it is analogous to claiming that "Abraham Lincoln died" is likewise not acceptable because that wording endorses the belief that there is no afterlife or that Lincoln is not experiencing an afterlife. All of the medical/veterinary/bological sources are in agreement: only a living offspring (of any species, at whatever stage of pre-natal development) can be aborted, and such an abortion ends in the death of that previously living abortus. If an abortion is threatened spontaneously or an attempt is made to induce an abortion - but the fetus ends up being born alive, then the abortion has failed (and the pregnancy has been terminated by live birth). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to interpret the results of the straw poll if arguments about whose position is "silly" were moved to another section. JJL (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just think of the difficulty inflicted on the interpretation process by arguments about which comments should be "moved to another section". Lawdy, lawdy! 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current The ending phrase of the current version sounds rather awkward and I believe the sentence would sound better if "resulting in or caused by its death" is removed. On the other hand, the detail "viable" is controversial and I don't think it belongs in the first sentence. I would suggest Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is Delivery.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62 is right: Zhao's abortion definition is so flawed because it includes the birth of all of my nieces and nephews, all of my neighbors, the entire Yankee infield, and the Broadway cast of RENT! 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC
Oh, I see. In that case, I support using "viable" in the definition. A link to Viability (fetal) can be added for clarity.--EdwardZhao (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Doctors abort viable fetuses every day (hundreds of them). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you have a reliable source to back up your claim about incidence of post-viability abortions? MastCell Talk 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. http://www.slate.com/id/2219531/ Its a mainstream piece that highlights and praises the post-viability abortions done by slain late-term abortionist George Tiller. A group that helps women find abortion providers sponsors this link http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late%20abortion.html where a woman can search locally for late-term providers, many of whom offer post-viability (24+ weeks, 25+ weeks, and 26+ weeks LMP) abortions. The Viability (fetal) link mentioned above by Zhao indicates that "50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive". Let me know if you want additional sources. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want additional sources that address the question, not more sophistry. None of those supports the idea that "hundreds" of post-viable fetuses are aborted "every day". That sounds to me like pro-life hyperbole rather than fact, particularly given your track record to date. In fact, the Slate piece emphasizes the rarity of post-viability abortion, so either you read it and decided to misrepresent it or you didn't read it. But I'm open to being corrected if you have a source that actually supports your claims. MastCell Talk 21:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He failed to mention that the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are done for women who might die if they don’t have one, fetuses who wouldn’t survive outside of the womb, and fetuses with such extreme abnormalities that they’d best be terminated before full term. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good calls. - RoyBoy 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Roy. Slate helps us do the math (18,000 late-term abortions annually after viability) http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/pagenum/all/#p2 :
  • Only 1.5% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy," notes Vanessa Valenti at Feministing. She's right. Women and clinics deserve credit for acting earlier and keeping that number down. Still, 1.5 percent of 1.2 million abortions per year is 18,000 very late abortions. How long should the abortion decision clock be allowed to run?
71.3.237.145 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer, do you have a reply to 71.3.237.145? - RoyBoy 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dare say I could come up with a lede that might solve the problem, or at least the first few sentences of a lede. But the issue here is whether solving the problem for NPOV editors will be enough. For that reason I think a few questions are in order to see if it would be a waste of time. I'll ask these below. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As applied, the use of the term "products of conception" above (instead of the well-understood and accurate term used ubiquitously in the bio/med/vet/legal discourse and in everyday discourse: embryo or fetus) is silly. But the use of it does drive home the point that this article is NOT a medical article, and that intentionally euphemistic and murky medical terms used primarily by abortion-minded doctors and activists are NOT appropriate in the lede. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on what may or may not be "silly" is worthless and has no place here. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has a valid point, but Artifex may not have been wanting to use the euphemistic phrase in the article. I prefer a plain style which describes things as they are. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "death", and "viable" too. This is the wrong place to decide what "life" is. 60% or more of fertilized ova never implant; medically and legally a pregnancy never starts. Do these blastocysts "die"? Has an abortion happened? BTFOM, and you and your doctor and your clergyman too. Rewrite the lede to use neither term. PhGustaf (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree we are not defining life here, I can tell you those blastocysts die, just as surely as the sperm and egg die if they do not join. A pregnancy is the feeding of a biological growth. Before it plants itself into the uterine wall it isn't biologically alive? Just a sack of remixed chemicals, while this chemical soup can justly be seen as just that... the egg doesn't die as it normally would if it remained empty. Biological processes, however rudimentary, are occurring regardless. - RoyBoy 07:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "death" The majority of references don't use this word to define abortion. Wikipedia's definition should be in line with what the references say. Right now Wikipedia's definition is aberrant because it uses a word very few references use to define abortion. If the majority of references we looked at had "death" I'd support it staying there but since they don't I say the word should be taken out. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Viable When we transplant organs from someone with a beating heart and ventilated lungs we are not causing "death" as the person is already technically "brain dead'. The same is true with abortion we are not killing a human when we abort a fetus as it has been agreed that the fetus is not a living / thinking human. Some thing when we do a hysterectomy or bowel resection even though we are killing human cells we are not killing humans. Thus the more WP:NPOV version would be viability.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support death factually accurate and supported by sources – Lionel (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you put your comment under the section for "viable". Thanks. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been some work on the brain birth/brain death parallel: E.g., [2] D G Jones, The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death, J Med Ethics 1998;24:237-242; [3] D G Jones, Brain birth and personal identity, J Med Ethics 1989;15:173-185. JJL (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have made my point clear before; I oppose the status quo, mostly because I feel that it does not adequately reflect the consensus of the sources. NW (Talk) 00:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we need to reflect the best quality source. We are to reflect the literature per WP:V and there is consensus for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly support "death" and strongly oppose "viable". In any event, absent consensus, the sentence needs to be reverted to the longstanding version, per item #1 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page. "Death" is a pretty strong word, and we don't say in the tonsillectomy article that the tonsils die. But WP:Euphemism argues against sugarcoating, and the stability of this article favors "death" as well, so I mildly support "death". Whatever becomes of "death", I strongly emphatically vociferously oppose "viable". The notion that abortion is physically impossible during the last few months of pregnancy entails an unusual use of the word "abortion" that is contradicted by a vast number of reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Viable The overwhelming description the sources use state nothing about "death", but do in fact give language that describe expulsion "before fetal viability". That is what the opening sentence should read, "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before fetal viability". This straw poll, although showing that most do support this language, should not overrule Wiki policy. The sources state this language, not the "death" language. So it should be changed. Dave Dial (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

It's been over 48 hours. I make it 10 in opposition to 'death' and 6 in support of 'death'. Not all of those who oppose 'death' clearly support 'viable'. JJL (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you have convinced who? The problems with "before viability" grow larger all the time, not least that its factually false. So you have no alternative wording, but another fait acompli was tried last night, by changing the first sentence before you even tallied your straw poll. So do you guys even really care about either factuality or consensus. Just level with the rest of us? DMSBel (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think saying "you guys" helps--I'm not allied with anyone, but I am in agreement with some and much less so with others. Take your anger to the person who did the actual edit, though based on all the discussion and sources and stonewalling against change here I think it was quite reasonable. I don't see any problems with "before viability" and I think that all that's growing is the volume of your complaints. JJL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the totals are more like 10-8 in favor of death, so we should revert back to the previously established consensus.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to hear from others as to how they read the responses. It's clear that consensus for 'death' has been lost and that net opinion is currently against it. That's a good reason to work on establishing a new consensus, and 'viable' seems to be the leading candidate. JJL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Would you revert. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or instead of edit warring, we could work from these results towards a new version of the lede by discussion. JJL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 7 for death. I think it premature to claim a change in any event, and additionally I do not see a consensus to adopt "Viable." – Lionel (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also another against, for a tally of 11-7 as I read it. The weight of opinion is against 'death' and seems to be for 'viable'. We should start from there. JJL (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it 11-9 in favor of keeping death in the lede.71.3.237.145 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacting incorrect report of result. JJL (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I say again--please explain your reasoning here. JJL (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do not understand how you reach this conclusion. Here's what I have. I'm counting the following as opposing 'death': JJL, LeadSongDog, OrangeMarlin, Gandydancer, EdwardZhao, ArtifexMayhem, PhGustaf, Friend of the Facts, NW, Doc James, Dave Dial. I'm counting the following as supporting 'death': Michael C. Price, 62.254.133.139, 71.3.237.145, 67.233.18.28, Haymaker, Lionel, Anythingyouwant. That's 11-7 against 'death'. Not all who opposed 'death' supported 'viable'; one person only mildly supported 'death'; and one person (RoyBoy) only indicated support for going to ArbCom. If you count him in the 'death' category then that makes it 11-8. If someone feels that I have mis-assigned or over-looked them then I hope he or she will say so. But, please explain how you reached your conclusion. JJL (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, the confusion comes from your bias and inability to phrase a neutral poll. Self-proclaimed victories are always unconvincing. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How surprising to hear someone from the side receiving less support now claiming it was a problem with the poll. The wording was quite simple and the issue was clear. If you were confused then you should have asked for clarification. It seemed to me that everyone knew what we were talking about, but it was clearly stated nonetheless. There is more opposition to the use of 'death' than there is support for it. But let's here from 71.3.237.145 as to how he reads things. He's even found more total votes than I have! JJL (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you hear and see what you wish, and nothing else. Others complained of your role as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner, but I suppose you didn't hear that either.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is abundantly clear there is no consensus to change the lead from "death" to "viable". A majority vote has never represented consensus. And everyone here knows that. Editors who continuously revert should be extremely cautious: this article is subject to 1RR and is being watched by admins and they may construe this type of behavior as edit warring and block offenders. – Lionel (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is abundantly clear there is no consensus at all. However, the results of the straw poll show a majority against 'death' and significant interest in 'viable' as the alternative. What do you suggest as a constructive way to move forward, given this information? JJL (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing before we proceed is that 2006 consensus version remains as the lede until there is a new consensus. Without agreement on that point, then we have bad faith edit warring by those who ignore the article FAQ and edit as if there is a consensus for a change.71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly question regarding the "viable" alternative - is it not considered to be an abortion if a pregnancy is terminated and the baby killed after viability? If there is a huge hangup on "viable" or "death", why not just put a period after "uterus"? --B (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you put the period there, then every born mammal on earth would have been the result of an abortion so defined [a live birth is also the termination of a pregnancy]. ;o) 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be acceptable to me as a compromise. The concern that has been raised is that that could also be construed as the definition of a normal pregnancy. I think "terminating the pregnancy" makes it sufficiently clear, but 'viable' is what's used in the vast majority of professional refs. on the subject so I do find that preferable. JJL (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On whether the fetus is alive

Here's some sources that support a contrary view to the sources indicating a fetus dies. They take different stances on the details but make it clear that there are WP:RS that back up the claim that a fetus cannot be said to be alive, or to die. Here's one that goes pretty directly to my position, which is indeed somewhat philosophical: [4] T Kushner, Having a life versus being alive, J Med Ethics 1984;10:5-8 : "In an attempt to provide some clarification in the abortion issue it has recently been proposed that since 'brain death' is used to define the end of life, 'brain life' would be a logical demarcation for life's beginning. This paper argues in support of this position, not on empirical grounds, but because of what it reflects of what is valuable about the term 'life'. It is pointed out that 'life' is an ambiguous concept as it is used in English, obscuring the differences between being alive and having a life, a crucial distinction for bioethical questions." The brain birth/brain death parallel has been explored by a number of authors, and they have reached varying conclusions on it. [5] D G Jones, The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death, J Med Ethics 1998;24:237-242; [6]D G Jones, Brain birth and personal identity, J Med Ethics 1989;15:173-185. In somewhat more florid language, there's [7] Gareth B. Matthews, Life and Death as the Arrival and Departure of the Psyche, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, Apr., 1979, which points out that "When does life begin?" is one of the great philosophical questions. A neuroethical approach is taken in [8] Michael S. Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain, Dana Press (April 29, 2005). In [9], N Pfeffer, What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: a focus group study, - Social Science & Medicine, 2008, comments on "the difficult issue of how and when an aborted fetus 'dies'" in the context of tissue donation. An interesting Oct 19, 1975 NY Times article [10] discusses a case in which a miscarriage led to a biologically, but not legally, live birth, and the ensuing debate led to the hospital canceling the bill for the care it provided for 48 hours to a legal non-entity. The life/death issue is complicated. JJL (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are attempting to define person-hood, with its legal and moral implications it is interesting. The lead isn't doing that. If the lead say "his/her death", "their death" you'd be on topic. But the lead specifies "its", it is an IT. A biological growth that dies, like a tumor, not a legal person. You are repeatedly going off topic, yes we get it, you feel death implies person-hood. Not the case. Though I find this research impressive, its application is misplaced. - RoyBoy 07:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite...as I keep saying, the biological tissue is clearly composed of living cells and undergoes cellular death, but I don't believe that throughout the post-conception period there's clearly an organism that is capable of undergoing organismal death. The "it" appears to me to refer to an organism, not a clump of cells. I believe (in line with some of these refs.) that the quality of being a living entity--be it a human or other animal at issue here--is a fuzzy issue. JJL (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, if I missed it above sorry. So this isn't about "life" at all, it is about "organism". Could have saved us some time. Broadly defined by Wikipedia, organisms are an "assembly of molecules functioning as a more or less stable whole which exhibits the properties of life". I presume here we define "stable" to mean what would suit our side of the discussion; you would say it's rapidly developing so hardly stable, I'd say it is self contained and is developing normally, so it is stable. Moving on to "any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction". What I would speak to here, is that reproduction isn't about being fertile (if that was the case toddlers wouldn't be organisms), it speaks to something more fundamental, of stable cell division reproducing cells and leading to continued growth and development. With that said, are you able to acknowledge an embryo is an organism, or are you under the mistaken impression organs have to be formed?
Yes, I've been drawing this distinction from the beginning. Your comments go to the heart of where you and I disagree, I think. I see a slow transition toward the fertilized egg becoming an organism in and of itself without a well-defined point of change--a fuzzy, heap paradox sort of situation. The lack of stability is evident to me in the vast changes it undergoes, for just one point, and more generally "the properties of life" opens up a whole set of issues. Implying I'm 'mistaken' where we disagree ins't helpful, is it? JJL (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would have my genuine sympathy if you hadn't said: "Do embryos adapt and evolve?" Now we have: "an organism in and of itself"... I've just rigorously spelled out for you an embryo, let alone fetus, easily meets the criteria for an organism. An embryo is "capable of growth and reproduction" -- stay specific -- how am I incorrect with reproduction if you consider a toddler an organism? - RoyBoy 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to continue this, or would you be courteous enough to acknowledge we explored "organism" in 2006, because ... we did. - RoyBoy 15:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you did in 2006. That consensus has been lost. New sources and new editors have been introduced. Wikipedia is not static and is meant to be improved. You are very enamored of that magic time, but you need to let it go. If in 2001 the consensus had been for 'viable', would you have never tried to introduce 'death'? JJL (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of courtesy noted. This is typical tendentious behaviour - a complete inability to admit any error, under any circumstances, no matter what the evidence says, even down to not admitting that the subject has been covered previously. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 2001 I would have been naive enough to think death was an inappropriate, even pro-life definition of abortion. To answer your question directly to clarify, I never introduced death, I did become bold and coordinate a collaborative environment that selected it as the best option and an important (yet accurate) compromise. Something essential to genuine improvement to Wikipedia. By the way straw polls don't meet that criteria. - RoyBoy 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just appreciated the irony of you extolling the ambiguity of life (which doesn't apply here), but are supporting "viable" which is ambiguous in it's own right. Indeed medical community embraces it, so? This means it isn't ambiguous? - RoyBoy 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fundamental confusion of facts to think that viability is ill-defined. It's when the fetus can survive outside the womb. That's a yes-or-no question. What's ambiguous is the range of gestational ages and weights various authorities give for when it's likely that a fetus is viable. The moon has a weight, but I can't tell you exactly what it is because I can't directly weigh it. We can get pretty good estimates though. Viability has a crisp definition, but determining when it has occurred without actually removing the fetus and testing it is difficult, and varies case-by-case. JJL (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am muddled here, it's crisp "Marked by clarity, conciseness, and briskness", but then it varies, based on likelyhoods of various opinions / benchmarks and in the end we rely on estimates. That isn't crisp JJL. If we had a mechanism large enough, the moon is weighable, until then estimates will do. But we don't pretend those estimates are completely accurate, caveats and clarifications are added to clarify that. - RoyBoy 14:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Viability is well-defined. But it's like many things that are difficult to test for. Any one of us may have a small cancer growing in us right now. It either is or isn't, but unless it's big enough for an MRI or other test to find we won't know. In principle you could always remove the fetus from the womb and see what happens--impractical and unwise for obvious reasons, but it shows that survivability is well-defined. The fact that it's hard to predict by indirect factors such as gestational age and weight doesn't change that fact. Viability has a short, easily understood, one-line defn.: Ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. Unlike 'death', it's simple and unambiguous. Do you not see the difference between something being well-defined and the difficulty of performing Nondestructive testing? JJL (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sophomoric examples are unhelpful. As survivability varies from one fetus/mother to the next, from one environment to the next, it's well-defined but not verifiable. You almost seem to understand this at the end with "nondestructive testing", but somehow incapable of coming to the conclusion yourself. Frustrating and strange. - RoyBoy 15:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter if it's (practically) verifiable in a given case? It's well-defined. It's certainly verifiable--it just wouldn't be feasible to do so on a human. On an animal you could test viability in any case but removing the developing fetus from the gravida's womb. This is perfectly scientific. I think you want a test that could be used on a given woman prior to performing an abortion. But that that's currently difficult to do with certainty doesn't change the fact that removing the fetus would result in either survival or non-survival, so that viability could be ascertained. Viability is well-defined. I think you don't find the definition useful in making a determination of whether an abortion should be performed because we don't yet have a simple test for that. That's an entirely separate issue. I'm discussing a concept while you're looking for a test. And again, insults like 'sophomoric' aren't helpful--please stop. JJL (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is too easy and presumptuous to define viability in any "crisp" and precise way, it ends up failing very quickly because biology is unpredictable (the spectrum you mention). Viability is in-line with medical procedural consensus, but out of line with the larger reality. As an encyclopedia we handle larger reality first, especially in a lead. For myself, I'm not concerned with "determination of whether an abortion should be performed", that's a moral judgement that has no place in the lead -- and is up to those involved in that individual case faced with tough choices. Not acknowledging viable abortus is inaccurate/incomplete in the lead, if we attempt to do so, we end up with weasel words and bloat and some confusion. If I see further examples of poor rationale, I'll label them differently going forward. - RoyBoy 18:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Viability is crisply defined--the fetus either survives outside the womb or it doesn't. When you say "viable abortus" then I understand that you're arguing against the medical defn. of abortion, but to the extent that you're saying that the concept of viability, in isolation from abortion, is ill-defined, that simply isn't so. Please don't be defensive. I know you cherish the former consensus and have strong feelings favoring the use of 'death'. I suggest you re-commit yourself to the classic advice given to new users: "Your contributions can be edited mercilessly." We are improving the article and hence WP itself. You mustn't become too attached to your own words and your own POV. There is not only one, or even only one best, way to write the lede. JJL (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I "cherish" the previous consensus because, in the end, it was well done. Recent edits and arguments have rarely approached that level of collaborative insight.
Let us take for example "the fetus either survives outside the womb or it doesn't". Are you being intentionally obtuse here? No, it isn't that simple! When an abortion procedure occurs, and is done correctly, an potentially viable fetus becomes (or ensured to be) nonviable. Setting that obvious point aside, it is also a complex calculus of medical skill and technical resources available at the time.
Does a premature infant born from 21 to 28 weeks and dies in Afghanistan mean it was truly nonviable? Attached to my POV? You broke my irony meter, congrats! You're clearly part of the problem and not the solution. - RoyBoy 19:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that question is answered in a well-sourced manner, and best discussed, at fetal viability. JJL (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? Viable is in the lead of this article. Ohhhh, here is the punchline: "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." Explain, in what dimension is that crisp and worthy of inclusion (especially by itself) in an encyclopedic lead? - RoyBoy 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may occur earlier because it's a well-defined but hard-to-determine point. You're still conflating being viable with estimates of when it has likely occurred. It used to be that we couldn't determine gender before the fetus left the womb. It's still the case that we can't do that with viability. We can estimate when it's likely to have obtained but can only determine it via an experiment that, while it could be performed, would be inappropriate on humans. I don't see the issue you're having with this. JJL (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is its a hard-to-determine point, ergo it cannot be "well-defined" in reality. You can medically define it at 500g, but it's a guideline in the sand (regardless of it being the well reviewed consensus of experts) that has no actual teeth in reality... it does legally etc etc, but for a real pregnancy it being "well-defined" has no practical meaning on the spectrum of mother's health / medical technology available / doctor's competence. - RoyBoy 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that those numbers are meant as estimates of the median viability point--where 50% of fetuses would survive and 50% would not--but of course they're also round numbers. I agree that in any particular case near the 20 week or 500g mark it would be very unlikely that a physician could make a confident prediction, barring some medical problem that clearly indicates non-viability on other grounds. Do we agree that viability is well-defined in principle but hard to determine around the 20 week/500g point in practice? JJL (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, medically it is well-defined; but you're 50% clarification reiterates it isn't verifiable, something missed with most non-medical reliable sources (Britannica didn't miss it, so they used usually). Add to that viable has legal (depends on jurisdiction) / biological (abnormalities) variability that makes it a confusing and complex concept. Stating it is the medical definition we are using improves things (because this is not a medical article), but it has so much baggage it defies summary style. Death has far less. Some experienced editors have commented pro-life rely on the baggage (dual meaning?) and emotion of death to infer personhood (Guy and maybe Doc James), or that I've allowed myself to be fooled by them (Orangemarlin).
I agree that is the 'intent' for pro-lifers with "death", but Wiki-editors focus this and gloss over the notion viable is simply a poor choice for an encyclopedia; and that viable denotes pro-choice / ethical medical 'intent' for abortion. I do not care we "intend" to abort non-viable fetus', I care about what an encyclopedia should... accuracy and summary style. If we cannot in good faith verify every late-abortion was nonviable, then the definition is worthless. The weight of reliable sources would appear to indicate otherwise, but we need not replicate their mistake(s) or follow a consensus that would rather clinically define a topic that has two sides to it; viable doesn't present both sides. Medically that is not a concern, encyclopedic-ly I assert it is. Redefining what the abortion article is -- to increase our comfort level -- seems silly to me; but certainly preferable to pretending viable works without caveats. - RoyBoy 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely that 'viable' is not adequately defined (or has too much baggage), or that is not easily understood. Claiming that the medical community is mistaken is a broad claim that should be sourced to sources that comment on this fact and should not be merely inferred by comparing other sources. It's one thing to say that sources conflict, but your claim is much bigger than that: Your claim is that the medical side is wrong. That's OR or at least synthesis until you have sources that criticize the medical defns. as mistaken, not just different. JJL (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't wrong, they define it as it should medically be done. That does not mean abortion actually conforms to how it "should medically be done". As we are an encyclopedia, we have a broader scope to define. If we fail to do so, then that is our "wrong" / fault. Their scope does not dictate ours, unless you want to contend otherwise as Orangemarlin did? - RoyBoy 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the straw poll

In my opinion, the results show that there is considerable interest in rephrasing the first sentence to remove 'death' from it. I suggest we leave the current 'viable' wording in place while we work to form a consensus on how to handle the lede (which may or may not involve the concept of viability when all is said and done). I also suggest we delete the FAQ #1 entry as it no longer reflects the current state of affairs. JJL (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see you are running your own poll, running you own tally and drawing your own conclusion! DMSBel (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and then I made some suggestions that we could discuss. What's the problem that you have with that? JJL (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to alter the lede, nevertheless it was changed. Such editing is bad faith editing. You don't change the former consensus version without acheiving a new consensus version - especiually on a lede that has such a history of lengthy discussions and hard work to forge what had been the consensus version for over 5 years, with no new arguments having been made. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change it. I agree with the change and think there's good cause for making it, but it's inappropriate to take me to task for things I did not do. The length of the previous consensus is immaterial--and all the more so now that we see how it was defended (by stonewalling and name-calling until those with opposing views gave up in disgust and left). If you think no new arguments have been made then you're not really engaging with the posts here, esp. NW's new sources and the arguments that they represent mainstream medical thought. New arguments have been made, but perhaps they have not been heard. JJL (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd reiterate, from my perspective they need not be followed after being heard several times, as we are not a medical reference. - RoyBoy 08:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed--but we are supposed to be accurate and un-original. The vast majority of the major references don't use 'death'. Isn't that a strong caution against us doing so? Surely the physicians writing these texts are aware that 'death' is a possible description here. It's conspicuous infrequency of appearance should make us leery of using it here. Viable is a simple term that we can link to a description of--and it's a simple issue, whereas death is a complex, many-faceted one. If death is to be discussed it should be philosophised on later in the article. JJL (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly one of your best posts on this subject. Did you want me to clarify again why "conspicuous infrequency" has occurred, and how death is dead easy (if tumor growth can die, so can a uterine growth), viable in contrast is very complex. This is the essense of why I've found you impossible to deal with, but again, exceptionally well written post. Hope for you yet. (PS: no need to philosphize on whether an embryo is an organism) - RoyBoy 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: That's been clarified repeatedly, but always as OR and never in a sourced way. I have asked several times for sources that state that the medical community knows 'death' is the right description but avoids it for whatever reason(s). I understand that you think you understand why they do, but surely you see that you're asking us to trust your personal opinion over the relevant professional source material? JJL (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well small confession here, I was pretty sure we had done our homework in 2006 on that, but couldn't figure out where (made me realize we needed to do better on summarizing the previous consensus). When GTBacchus came into the discussion I was relieved to hear we had in Archive 18 with the subject Uterine 2. But at the time I was low on sleep and ill. I gave up trying to understand that section (and archive) and hoped someone else would step in to clarify what it meant in a larger context, but it didn't happen so I decided to rely on aspects I did understand to maintain the consensus. If I thought it would turn this discussion I'd have brought it up again, but I'm still uncertain how to accurately interpret, let alone weigh Uterine 2 in relation to how abortion is defined today. I would say that if we misinterpreted "Uterine 2" that would be a basis for overturning the 2006 consensus. - RoyBoy 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks; I see the relevance of the quoted material attributed to Dr. Tietze. I also understand some of the objections mentioned in the archive--that it's (apparently) a primary source and, more importantly, that while he calls for this it isn't clear that his (and others') advice was followed and is the cause of the defn. in use. It also refers to a a particular means of contraception (IUD) that prevents implantation, if I understand the context properly. JJL (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing death from the lede?

Before we go any further I think a few questions need to be asked:

  • 1. Those opposing "death" in the first sentence. Are you opposed to any mention of fetal death in the lede?
  • 2. If there is consensus that the first sentence needs changed, and "death" is removed from that sentence, but not from the lede, will you continue to push for its total removal from the lede? Remember the lede is not a definition but an introduction.
  • 3. How do you propose to differentiate your definition of abortion from delivery?

I see no way things can proceed without candid answers to the above questions. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could proceed in the obvious way: refashioning the first sentence, possibly but by no means necessarily using the previously suggested 'viable' version, and then moving on to any other issues in the article. If by 'lede' we mean not the first sentence but the whole introduction prior to the TOC then while I think discussion of the complicated issue of life and death better occurs in the body of the article it doesn't follow that the word 'death' cannot appear in the introduction, especially if it's expanded upon later on (or, of course, in the uncontroversial sense of maternal death). At this point this probably wouldn't be my preference but without suggested wording it's hard to say. I don't see a risk that the medical defn. of abortion will be read as if it includes normal delivery. I gather that editors were very concerned about that possibility last time but the concern seems to be much less with the current group of editors. JJL (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that editors were very concerned about this possibility last time, but a new set of editors does not remove that concern. You seem to think this operates on the basis that once a year we can reboot the discussion. It doesn't. Previous discussion is there for the benefit of all current editors, anything that was a serious concern to previous editors is still a serious concern.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It`s not just normal delivery that is at issue. Consider PMID 20840264. It discusses outcomes for extremely low birth weight neonates, that are only "viable" in the context of a modern NICU with advanced interventions. Their births and subsequent deaths should not be conflated with abortions. Conversely, full-term deliveries of evidently viable pregnancies still sometimes result in unintended perinatal "death" (for want of a better term) by asphyxia. That first breath is enormously significant both in biology and in law. Our wording should not obfuscate. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first breath oxidizes chemicals which had kept the fetus sedated and anesthetized during the third term of pregnancy, allowing consciousness to arise for the first time. Some would consider that a significant event. My statement is based on findings by David Mellor and his team, "The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269314 The most up to date consensus shows that the fetal brain is insufficiently developed to experience pain prior to week 24, and probably not before week 29. Since the fetal brain shows no coherent brainwaves at this point, it could be considered brain dead. Ermadog (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No point in mentioning "death of the fetus" in the lede until the article has a section discussing what that means, and what the implications are. Is there controversy about the meaning of words like "life" and "death" in terms of pregnancy and its end? Are there people out there saying that the fetus isn't "alive" and that ending a pregnancy (via abortion) does not "kill" the fetus?
Is all this a way of pussy-footing around the controversy over whether (as "pro-lifers" call it), "Abortion is murder"?
I think we have the cart before the horse. As an engineer, I'd say we need to decide what has to go on the cart, build that cart, load it up - and then craft a concise description of the horse. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog, unless I am not understanding your point, I'm not seeing the problem. If for instance a woman would miscarry a 24 week old fetus and it showed any signs of life it may be placed in intensive neonatal care, in other words machines would give the premature neonate the support that till that time had been provided by the mother/placenta (and it could not survive without it). If the neonate subsequently died it would be termed a non-viable birth and be considered a miscarriage/abortion. If it survived it would be considered a live birth of a premature infant. If a clearly viable fetus suddenly dies, it is considered a stillbirth. Now I do see a little problem, perhaps: Is the neonate considered alive during the hours or days that it survives on life support? Well, I would think that clearly it is alive untill it dies. Or maybe it's not really so clear after all? If one wants to wander down that lane of thought all sorts of problems start to crop up just as in the problems surrounding life support for brain-dead people. Dead or alive? In my opinion, all the more reason to simply use a definition that clearly states what the majority of medical sources term as an abortion without getting into "excepts" and "howevers" and such. If it was good enough for them it should be good enough for us. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too am all in favour of sticking to the definition used by the predominance of the best-quality current biomedical sources that we can find. But some here are clearly not, challenging the idea that wp:MEDRS should pertain and wishing to craft a Wikipedian definition. My previous comment was intended for and should have been addressed to that group. Sorry I neglected to make that explicit. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before viability

We have a number of excellent sources that support that abortions (either spontaneous or induced) occur before fetal viability. Procedures or fetal demise outside this period is not an abortion per the CDC, WHO and medical texts.

  • "An induced abortion is the medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before the time of fetal viability." AND "The interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons, is usually termed elective or voluntary abortion." (Williams Obstetrics, 23e, Chp 9)
  • "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability" from . ISBN 9780071472579. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • For "spontaneous" it is per Uptodate "Spontaneous abortion (SAb), also known as miscarriage, refers to a pregnancy that ends spontaneously before the fetus has reached a viable gestational age" PMID 11023804 Still looking into elective.

Our definition needs to reflect the references. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, permit me to be straight and plain in reply - It doesn't matter how many sources you have or what your own subjective view of them is, call them "excellent" if you want. But I ask you do abortions not also take place after viability? This is simple, you can try "before viablity" if you want, it will rightly get shredded as factually inaccurate, and without consensus once you change it. How do I know? Because its already been tried.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No abortion do not take place after viability. And this is true for both spontaneous and induced. Read the references.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't substitute your own definition for that used by the sources. That it has been tried before is no argument against it now. That isn't how WP works. The best sources refer to viability. If we don't then our value as a reference is greatly reduced. If we're the only one using a term in a certain way then we're not doing what we should be doing. JJL (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against it is not that it's been tried before, it is that it is factually inaccurate. Our value as a reference is in factual accuracy. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your mere assertion that they don't doesn't make it so. The lower limit of viablity is earlier than the legal limit up to which abortions may be performed in many jurisdictions (including the UK and many States in the US), so abortions are performed post-viablity. Editors attempting to make the article a description of some utopian fantasy should give it up already.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide references so we can discuss them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: do you think that Williams Gynecology is wrong? NW (Talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that 62.154 and Doc James are talking past each other. @Doc, do you really intend to say that the end of a pregnancy that happens in between viability and birth is not an abortion, that it is an intervention which should not be done by reputable practioners, or something else? @62, have I caught your concern? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Yes after fetal viability it is known as "Induced fetal demise" or "Spontanous fetal demise" not an induced or spontaneous abortion. Ref [11] So with current medical practice the "abortion procedure" dose not result in the death of the fetus as the fetus is already dead due to "induced fetal demise" WRT legality in most areas of the world induced fetal demise is unethical and illegal except to save the life of the mother. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've just confirmed abortion post-viabilty! Thanks. Abortions performed after induced fetal demise would also be after viability by your explanation. DMSBel (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you see the quotes around "abortion procedure". We go by the ref provided.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast, the ref. you provided says nothing about "induced fetal demise". DMSBel (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also this "abortion procedure" so called, what does it involve? The expulsion of the fetus from the uterus? DMSBel (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it is unethical and illegal in many parts of the world, but putting quotes round it not does stop it from being an abortion. Unless you mean that before viability, in an abortion the procedure results in the death of the fetus, but after viability the "abortion procedure" is performed after induced fetal demise? So in Merriam/Webster they have it spot on then. DMSBel (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of what I think, it's a case of viability ranges from an earlier time (23 weeks) than the upper legal limit on abortion in many places (UK 24 weeks, US 26 weeks), therefore the source is wrong if it states that abortions are not performed after the fetus is viable. Less than 1% of abortions in the UK are after 22 weeks (thats still nearly 2000 abortions a year, figures as of 2005, BBC News article [[12]])62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If you believe that Williams Obstetrics is wrong, you should email the editors and talk to them about it. It's a gold standard in OB/GYN (per an Wikipedia administrator/licensed health care provider). You simply cannot say that a source is wrong because it contradicts a lesser quality source. (Yes, the BBC is a lesser quality source in this context.) NW (Talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing the BBC as a comparable source, it's daft to pit the two against each other. What does Williams obstetrics say on fetal viability, at what range does it say viability starts, at how many weeks?62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Williams OB doesn't even attempt to wade into that, so far as I can tell. UpToDate suggests 22-25 weeks, but acknowledges that it is a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction as well as a case-by-case matter. I don't think that matters though. Even if a woman attempts to terminate her pregnancy at, say, the 26th week, I don't believe that we can call that abortion without engaging in original research. NW (Talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Fetal Viability : Williams OB doesn't even attempt to wade into that, so far as I can tell. - Some Gold Standard then!! DMSBel (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in so much original research here that if you write it all up we can award you a Ph.D. You're guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are not even attempting to fight sources with sources. If it's the "gold standard", then it doesn't matter if you personally disagree with it unless you are claiming so much expertise in the matter that you qualify as a superior source. JJL (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, that's quite funny, since your entire argument that the fetus is not alive is pure original research. I have asked at various times for one source that says the developing fetus is not alive (i.e. dead); the silence is deafening. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you look at Talk:Abortion#On_whether_the_fetus_is_alive. JJL (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Williams Obstetrics most certainly mentions fetal viability, at length: "[...] infants born at 22 to 25 weeks. Currently, depending on many factors, this gestational age range is considered the limit of viability." That is only the first of many mentions in the "Diseases and Injuries of the Fetus and Newborn" chapter. (Won't cite page numbers as mine is an older edition.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very helpful to have someone with a copy at hand. So 22 - 25 weeks is the lower end of viability? DMSBel (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fvasconcellos. I'm using an online copy through AccessMedicine.com, which I haven't read in full. I had searched via their internal search feature, and "fetal viability" didn't come up in any of their books. Thanks for pointing that out. There's also a section in Chapter 36 titled "Mortality and Morbidity at the Lower and Upper Extremes of Prematurity," that begins "The tremendous advances in the perinatal and neonatal care of the preterm infant have been found predominantly in those infants delivered at 33 weeks. With survival of increasingly very immature infants in the 1990s, there has been uncertainty and controversy as to the lower limit of fetal maturation compatible with extrauterine survival. This has resulted in continual reassessment of the threshold of viability...It appears generally accepted that births before 26 weeks, especially those weighing less than 750 g, are at the current threshold of viability". NW (Talk) 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also have "Abortus. A fetus or embryo removed or expelled from the uterus during the first half of gestation—20 weeks or less, or in the absence of accurate dating criteria, born weighing < 500 g." Further clarifying the position of the medical literature. Williams Obstetrics, 23e >Chapter 1. Overview of Obstetrics Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article :). NW (Talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly we have 8 high quality WP:MEDRS compliant sources that support the current version of viability. Enough said :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right, keep pumping that water out, your sinking fast here. Guess you don't want this to go to an AN/I either?DMSBel (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I'd give it up now, you have already told us that abortions are performed after induced fetal demise and that that only takes place after viability. DMSBel (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we are going by what reliable sources say. I am not here to Wikilawyer. If you have reliable source you wish to present do so. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should give it up before you mess it up more. DMSBel (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he's told you that you may rely on his opinion as a WP:V WP:RS, it doesn't matter (what is your interpretation of) what he said. What matters is what the source said. I don't think he's claiming you should listen to him as a source. If his explanation doesn't elucidate matters for you, consult the actual source and engage it. JJL (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not my interpretation, just what Doc James said. Don't try to re-factor it, it will be spotted. You guys are a joke. Just give it up already. DMSBel (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the insults and negativity help here. JJL (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, according to Doc James, after a fetus is viable its not called abortion, its an "abortion procedure". Abortion is only performed after the fetus is dead, brought about by induced fetal demise, an unethical practice that should not be confused with abortion proper, which starts while the fetus is alive. Did I get that right? DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you guys need to check your Gold Standard OB/GYN reference - Williams Obstetrics I believe its called. DMSBel (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this how you got topic banned? You are not helping. Please stop. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No "this" is me trying to figure out how 2 + 2 = 5. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That only works for large values of 2. humor ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about 22 is less than 24? DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please AN/I this for the Wikipedia Community to see, I am off to bed. DMSBel (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the abortion article is going to be used as pro-abortion propaganda then you folks will probably want to re-write the late-term abortion article so that it also includes the same false information (that abortion of a viable fetus is not an abortion). Right now it includes this line, which disagrees with your campaign material: "Late-term abortions are more controversial than abortion in general because the fetus is more developed and sometimes viable." Any attempt to add this "only before viability" bullshit is an attempt to hide the controversy. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will try to address that. Looks like the refs at "Late term abortion" need updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This ref uses the term "Late termination of pregnancy" Graham, RH (2008 Jan). "Understanding feticide: an analytic review". Social science & medicine (1982). 66 (2): 289–300. PMID 17920742. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, you might find it wiser to avoid any appearance of WP:POINT DMSBel (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learned some new things, and it's good to see Doc James here. Indeed Wikilawyering sucks, but I'm reading this Wikipedia:MEDRS#Summarize_scientific_consensus, as MEDRS has been used frequently of late. It states: "Finally, make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." While I'm sure several here would be confident in wording and referencing viability (with or without caveats in brackets), it is hard to think such important issues can be communicated clearly in a lead sentence without weighing it down. I believe Britannica makes the best attempt possible, but still relies on weasel "usually" wording to provide necessary ambiguity to a term that actually isn't clear. Sure, we commonly understand it as surviving outside the womb, but is that with or without ICU? I've stated above, a non-viable baby in Afghanistan could be viable in developed countries. - RoyBoy 08:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to survive does indeed depend on where you are. That's a matter that has already been settled at Fetal viability: "The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of longterm survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years." and "During the past several decades, neonatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the limit of viability has moved earlier." The statements are sourced at that page. To me this is sensible: Appendicitis is survivable, and shortsightedness is correctable, but probably not if you're alone on a deserted island. The statement is made under the assumption of modern medical care. Anyway, we don't need to address that issue here; if you think a different defn. of 'viable' would be better, that page would be a good place to raise an objection. Viable is the preferred term--if there is concern about its meaning then we have a page for it, just as we do for Death (which has its own similar issues--Brain death, etc.). JJL (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, death doesn't have similar issues, that's why it was chosen. Brain death - so you are under the incorrect impression organs have to exist for something to die / be considered an organism. Relying on a sub-page to define another article isn't correct. - RoyBoy 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of editors on this page disagree with you about 'death' being the appropriate term. I never said anything about organs and don't know why you've started bringing that up. The point is that 'death' itself is used in different ways at different times, unlike 'viable' which has a strict and unambiguous yes-or-no meaning. Physicians and scientists prefer it for a reason, after all. JJL (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately this isn't a democracy, or are you implying a simple majority denotes a new consensus? Cause that's wrong too, right Orangemarlin? The brain is an organ, so you brought it up. Actually the point is on this talk page watching someone recent fumble around what is life/death/person/organism isn't necessary for the article, it was covered in 2006. As to viable being strict, you're incorrect (which is okay) and being ideological (not okay, as its been shown viable abortions can occur). - RoyBoy 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to work toward a new consensus. You need to acknowledge that the old one is dead (no pun intended). It doesn't matter what was covered in 2006--no one is bound by that, and no one has certified that group of editors as being authorized to hold teh page hostage to their decisions. You need to let go. I can see your point of view w.r.t. viability in the context of abortion but not w.r.t. the concept itself. It's well-defined, as the sources found on the viability page support. JJL (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (edited--lost an important 'not' JJL (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I'll take that as a yes to my consensus question, I know what I need to do. I like puns though... hmmmm. - RoyBoy 20:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roy I strongly disagree with your statement, "watching someone recent fumble around what is life/death/person/organism isn't necessary for the article". IMO it is your group that attempted to fumble around with that issue, and as I have previously said, only fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It is this group who have wisely avoided that fool's errand by insisting that we must rely on our references to supply the definition rather than produce our own. If you can show me even one other Wikipedia article where editors changed the definition of anything to so drastically differ it from almost all of the references, I'd like to see it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost good point, but we didn't fumble (ie. confuse, obfuscate, move goal posts, merge / fail to clarify / outright deny) concepts being discussed as recent editors have. As such we were able to work together on a compromise that worked. Your question on Wikipedia precedent is curious, I doubt I would find an example, but as we are not a medical reference; you are presenting the weight of the sources (more accurately their editorial style) in a false light to begin with. Or is that not relevant to you? - RoyBoy 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyBoy Keep in mind that I have never called your group a bunch of fumblers as you just called the present group. I have several times spoke of the previous group with respect. However, if you are going to indulge in labels, I only returned the label. This group deserves just as much respect as the previous group. As to your suggestion that medical definitions are a product of "editorial style", well now that's an unusual idea, isn't it? Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that false? Almost all use 'viable', almost none use 'death'. That's an extremely compelling argument on its own, and saying we are allowed to change things is a very weak one. JJL (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, I can't imagine what the basis is for the belief that the accord reached in 2006 so was so perfect. It's all well and good to be pleased with your work but you've taken it to quite an extreme. You're not allowed to declare parts of a page closed to new editing--you don'wt WP:OWN it. JJL (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A word used in Encarta and a medical dictionary is extreme? Try again JJL, actually no, don't. You appear oblivious to what I am declaring, you don't form a consensus (new or otherwise) by a straw poll. Or does Wikipolicy only apply to me? - RoyBoy 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you--I described "an extremely compelling argument" and you're talking about whether or not a word is extreme. This is non sequiter. While a straw poll doesn't make consensus, having a majority against you should suggest that your previous consensus is in need of a serious reconsidering. JJL (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would if you added something fundamentally new to the discussion, more votes is more eyes focused on a straw poll header under the impression a consensus of sources is the pertinent matter, the former is not extremely compelling. ;') My mistake on extreme, apologies. - RoyBoy 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your version were to be undeniably accurate, there's more than one way to say anything. New editors might wish to make a stylistic change. You can't embargo all changes to (part of) an article. JJL (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I/we can if they are Boldly pushed through contrary to established consensus. I didn't stop your edits to the lead, I allowed you to learn from your own mistakes and made it plain it could result in actions being leveled against you. As it was clearly inappropriate, if you don't see it that way its a result of being new. You can't walk into a new controversial situation and expect to know what you need to out of the gate. - RoyBoy 00:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer I'm also waiting for your reply to 71.3.237.145 above on 1.5% of abortion happening after 21 weeks; or should Wikipedia simply ignore this? - RoyBoy 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyBoy I don't reply to a lot of posts. I have no idea which post you speak of. I have, however, post re that issue. Please read my posts and you will find the information you are looking for. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No luck, is it in an archive? You actually almost convinced me viable was sufficiently accurate. But no response here leads me to believe its a grey area we have to choose to ignore to maintain verifiability and accuracy for "viable" by itself. - RoyBoy 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have posted regarding this issue and I will do so again. As you may know from reading this article, thousands of genetic mistakes commonly occur in the developing embryo. Many of these alterations are so severe that the embryo cannot survive and it is passed, often as a large clot. But some genetic mistakes actually are not so severe as to cause the immediate death of the embryo and it continues to grow into the fetal stage and would actually result in a live birth or perhaps a stillbirth. A paper has been offered wherein it was stated that a severely mentally handicapped fetus or one that would die soon after birth can be considered a non-viable fetus and I believe that anyone with any moral integrity at all would agree with that. And then there are other strange physical deformities that are difficult to look at for even seasoned hospital personal. I'm not sure how they handle this today but in my experience from years ago, we considered them a stillborn whether they were dead or not and no attempt was made to extend their life. That too is as it should be and if the deformities can be picked up before birth it is much better for all concerned rather than make the parents go through the heartbreak of losing a full term infant. And then there is a third class that are profoundly retarded but physically viable who can survive for years. I have a fair amount of experience in that area and I can tell you that these individuals have a life of endless suffering and if their condition can be discovered before birth it would be an act of kindness to abort them. Now I really do not know what percent of these fetuses that are aborted at an age over 21 wks have this condition or that condition, or how many of the mothers lives may be compromised if they were to carry the fetus to full term, but you don't either and until you have that information in hand I wish you'd just shut up about it. I apologize for saying "shut up", but I am just sick to death about this whole "viable" controversy. Gandydancer (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "shut up" is the worse thing you've done here, then you have far more self control than most, certainly more than I. You may need to teach me sometime. The above is profound and is written in a way I've never seen before, so thank you, and it affirms my pro-choice position. Agreed, I was sick of it many many moons ago, but occasionally well intentioned lead editors are interested in going through it ... again, and again. The lack of information in hand, has no bearing on how inappropriate "viable" is for an encyclopedia. I'm not being insensitive, I'm saying viable in common medical / public parlance is understood to mean about 20 weeks. However, now we have an additional neurological/genetic defects caveat to communicate. I can, more than ever, appreciate why Britannica used "usually" in their definition!
Most importantly, you are understandably frustrated, annoyed and maybe even disappointed at my presumptuousness. Ironically that's why I've (eventually) taken the position I have on viable. It is bio-ethically presumptuous to think abortions are always conducted on-time and with clear ethics (ie. sex-selection). I am disappointed with otherwise thoughtful and sophisticated people presuming to know the totality of a subject with such complex circumstances, motivations and outcomes being acted upon a rapidly changing entity (embryo / fetus). Medical references can (and should) take the position they have, as they are obligated to communicate best practice(s) and use clinical terms in a medical setting. Wikipedia's obligation is accuracy in a summary style, and if possible ensure "other perspectives are fairly represented". I sincerely hope you understand, and I apologize for possibly upsetting you. - RoyBoy 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to concern yourself that you may have upset me. I'm sick to death about a lot of things, the current political situation for one, but it doesn't follow that I'm upset. I may find it absolutely absurd that anyone could go on and on insisting that the word viable is too technical a term to use when my 12 and 15 year old grandchildren understand exactly what it means, but that does not mean that it upsets me. It just makes me think that the idea is stupid. It has been suggested that we use "usually before the fetus is viable" which I feel would be an excellent compromise, but you and others continue to argue that viable is too technical and vague. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not verifiable. Kids understanding viable means survival outside the womb, doesn't mean they understand it can vary from country to country based on interventions available. A non-viable fetus in the 3rd world can be viable elsewhere, depending on specialist doctors and equipment on hand. This variability is the reality of biology. Do you disagree? Doctors let alone kids can't exactly tell us which 50% of fetus' are viable at week 20, but kids much younger than 12 truly understand death. Add to that fetus' that are technically viable but wouldn't survive long after birth because of various abnormalities. Not exactly a clear and pedestrian concept. Or am I missing something? - RoyBoy 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's some progress I guess since it is now agreed that a 12 year old understands what viable means. Now I guess that we'll need to be certain that they know what "usually" means and I feel certain they do. Would you agree? Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it isn't progress. Kids like adults think they understand viable -- but they don't -- yes the concept is easy to understand, as JJL points out again below, but the reality isn't clear at all. How do I put this more directly, going ahead with an abortion procedure does not make a fetus defacto non-viable. You have read my reference that says there is no standard procedure before 28 weeks to determine viability. This means from ~19 weeks til ~27 weeks there is a grey zone for modern medicine. Non-modern skews that timeframe. - RoyBoy 03:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question: I know most newspapers strive write for a certain reading ability audience (e.g., an 8th grade reading level). Is there a WP policy or guideline for what age/reading level we are targeting? Viability is verifiable. You could do it on monkeys: Remove the fetus and see what happens. It's just that with humans there's a practical problem--not a scientific one. You keep mentioning the problem of viability varying by country but as per the sources found at Fetal viability the concept is well-defined: Survivability assuming modern medical care, not just what's available in country. That's a standard defn. as I understand it--if you can't get modern treatment for anything then you may die unnecessarily of it. We draw this distinction in this very article by mentioning that abortion is safe when performed properly but that that isn't always how it's done. Kids understand that some cancers can be treated but that if it isn't done then you'll die. That doesn't change their treatability. Sure, physicians can't tell us which 50% will survive--any more than they can tell us which smokers get lung cancer. A 12 year old knows smoking is dangerous and knows a 90 year old who smokes constantly. The notion of LD50 and its variants is standard in biology. It isn't at all different in this case that it is in any other medical case. The term is well-defined which is why it's used in a technical context. JJL (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, there is no target age just a goal of general readability, which I imagine is grade 11 or 12; but specifically for the lead of an article its preferable to keep it straightforward. JJL I stress its not verifiable on a case-by-case basis, unique to each pregnancy because of the many variables involved (health of mother for example). As to treatability, deciding to have an abortion does not automatically change a late-term fetus into being nonviable. Or does it? - RoyBoy 03:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here. Viability is a yes-or-no issue in principle and in any given case. However, in a specific medical procedure a physician must go by guidelines because it's impractical to determine viability with current technology. This isn't really different in this regard from other medical procedures--you might end up performing an appendectomy because all signs point to it being a case of severe appendicitis only to find out once inside that the true problem is something else. Someone who is given 6 months to live statistically beats the odds. I think you're focusing on clinical guidelines for estimating when viability is likely to have been obtained. Is it really different from all the other protocols physicians use? If you observe A, B, and C, then do D? JJL (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I concur, but reality is less well defined. Physicians ... are you inferring all abortions are performed by ethical doctors in a clinical setting? As they aren't your starting point is not sufficiently inclusive, at least for a generalist encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we make distinctions like this for other surgeries? I grant that's it's a much more common occurrence in the case of abortion than most cases, but I wouldn't want to define any surgery by what unqualified and/or unethical practitioners do. JJL (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, I really got to give you credit here man... you are sticking with it, that's better form than Gandydancer. Surgery... also implies a skilled (competent) third party is involved in the procedure. This also is not always the case with self-induced abortions happening; this is also unique to abortion (and dentistry I guess). To address your larger point, that we should not define what is a common -- safe -- practice by the exceptions. It does appear foolhardy, but if the goal is the same for all abortions (regardless of viability), we as a generalist encyclopedia are encouraged (I say required) style wise to choose the lowest common (accurate) denominator for the lead. I've been reassured in a number of ways and angles (from repeated change attempts) we got the right compromise. Indeed not perfect, however I can live with my discomfort with death to acknowledge abortion isn't a purely surgical / medical topic. Abortion intertwines larger questions of ethical bounds for doctors, practitioners, women and society. "Viable" isn't true to this complexity. - RoyBoy 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.5% is still 15,000-20,000 in the US and 600,000 worldwide per year. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked RoyBoy to provide even one instance of a Wikipedia article in which the definition was so different from the references and he responded, "Your question on Wikipedia precedent is curious, I doubt I would find an example, but as we are not a medical reference; you are presenting the weight of the sources (more accurately their editorial style) in a false light to begin with". Well, I've taken a few IQ tests and it seems that I am, at least according to the tests, extremely intelligent. Bur for the life of me, I cannot figure out his reply. Can anyone out there help me out? Gandydancer (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that we're not a medical reference is being taken as license to reinvent the meaning of words. That's unreasonable. JJL (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NW has added 14 more references for the definition that are not medical sources. If that is actually his concern, that should take care of it. If not, he will continue with his complaints.Gandydancer (talk)
Kudos to NW to be certain. Their adoption of medical terminology certainly buttresses your position regarding RS & WEIGHT, but the origin of my medical source objection is Wikipedia:Style#Technical_language, and that "usually" should be used to encompass exceptions. Something I find unacceptable and unnecessary given we have "death" available. - RoyBoy 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reinvent the meaning of words? Funny coming from someone who has tried to narrowly define/interpret life, organism and death in ways to be consistent with a previously held position. - RoyBoy 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't sort out that a uterine growth (ie. embryo) is life? - RoyBoy 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think RobBoy is right here. This whole discussion, in its present round, is putting heads in a spin. Variations between cultures have been cited with regard to supposed advocacy resulting from the use of "death" in the lede first sentence. But that's actually beside the point as its funeral customs that vary, views on an afterlife or cessation of existence that vary, views on intelligent design versus evolution that vary. Conception/Fertilization is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism
First International Symposium on Abortion statement:
"The changes occuring between implantation, a six week embryo, a six month fetus, a one week old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. There is no point in time between the union of the sperm and egg , or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant, at which point we could say that this was not a human life".
The onus is on JJL to refute the scientific consensus of the last 50 years that has continually re-affirmed this. DMSBel (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for this quotation? I'd like to see it in context. JJL (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another quote from your site:
Q. What about a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest?
A. This is not a reason for terminating a pregnancy. Rape or incest is never the fault of the child; the guilty party, not the innocent party must be punished. The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape/incest, in fact it exceeds it! A child is a child regardless of the circumstances of conception. If the rape/incest victim is unable or unwilling to care for the child, there are numerous childless couples who would pay for the pregnancy and then adopt the child, if it is unwanted. Many agencies cater to this need. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did they say that at the International symposium on abortion?DMSBel (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me more about this symposium. When did it occur, who was in attendance, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find out for you more detail.DMSBel (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was held in Washington BC, in 1967. Attendees ranged across fields including genetics, obstetrics, gynecology (about 20% catholic minority). Sorry it will take me a little longer to find actual names, assuming I can find it on the internet. DMSBel (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh approach needed

I have changed the lede replacing the phrase "before viability" with "resulting in or caused by fetal demise". I realise "demise" is something of a stilted euphemism. The issue of always and every of course comes into it, and one editor User:JJL has had an issue with that. But that is also problematical to "before viability", as another editor has confirmed from a MEDRS source. It seems to me although I'd appreciate other editors thoughts, that "before viability" is the more problematic phrase here. We could of course try most often before viability, resulting in or caused by the death of the embyro/fetus which would not exhaust the definitional sources. When we have a reliable medical dictionary which uses the term "death", this would not be synth. DMSBel (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Demise" is a mealy-mouthed euphemism. Better than "viability", though! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its not great. Wish there was another way of saying it, "resulting in or caused by it's death" is the least euphemistic in this case. DMSBel (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent consensus version of the lede should not have been changed because there has been no agreement that there is a new consensus version. We have exchanged a clear term (death) for a cloudy euphemism (demise). What is more, "fetal demise" is widely understood to mean stillbirth (a form of spontaneous abortion), but globally human abortion is induced several million times each year. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fetal Demise" is spontaneous. A new term was coined by practitioners: "induced fetal demise", which is intentional feticide as the first step in an induced late-term abortion. This "induced fetal demise" aka "feticide abortion" is most certainly performed on viable fetuses (as verfifed by many WP:MEDRS). For some reason the AJOG article http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2809%2900620-6/fulltext#sec2.3 chose to isolate the term feticide and redefine it to apply only to viable fetuses, but this goes aqainst Stedmans, which defines feticide as any intentional intrauterine killing of the embryo or fetus. In any event, although this article is helpful to editors in some ways to try to better understand the topic, such nascent medical jargon in one AJOG article cannot redefine the word feticide and thereby force wikipedia's hand to accept the absurd notion that an abortion of a viable fetus is not an abortion at all. This is not a medical article.

  • "Viable": no way because it contradicts MEDRS and the geat weight of evidence is that hundreds (likely thousands) of abortions are performed eash year throughout the world on viable fetuses. As was noted above, Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2219531/ highlights and praises the post-viability abortions done by slain late-term abortionist George Tiller. Also noted above, a group that helps women find abortion providers sponsors this link http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late%20abortion.html where a woman can search locally for late-term providers, many of whom offer post-viability (24+ weeks, 25+ weeks, and 26+ weeks LMP) abortions. The Viability (fetal) link mentioned above in this talk page indicates that "50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive".
  • "Fetal demise": no way because it contradicts MEDRS and common understanding that fetal demise is spontaneous.
  • "Death": there is no MEDRS that contradicts this and a dead offspring is the only thing that is common to every instance of abortion. Please keep in mind that the lede covers abortion, not just human abortion, and that offspring or young is an appropriate scientific, biological, medical and veterinary term for developing progeny.
  • As noted above, this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004276 in the journal Contraception written by a doctor working for Planned Parenthood verifies that feticide (also called induced fetal death in the article) is part of abortion. She refers to the surgical abortion and refers to one step in that process as feticide and refers to the induced abortion involving the death of the fetus. Of course, feticide literally means the act of "fetus killing" (analagous to homicide or infanticide).
  • Stedmans defines feticide as: "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus. Also called embryoctony."
  • Stedmans defines the suffix -cide as: "1. Killer. 2. Act of killing."
  • Random House unabridged dictionary 2011 defines feticide as: "the act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion".
  • As was noted above, this abortion clinic website http://www.cherryhillwomenscenter.com/abortion.aspx describes a late-term abortion this way to their potential patients. Note that the abortion clinic uses the word death to describe the state of the fetus after the doctor administers a fatal injection to the fetus:
For patients that are 18 weeks pregnant or more by LMP, the physician will also administer a medication called digoxin on the first day of the abortion procedure. Digoxin is administered directly into the fetus to induce fetal demise (death). This is administered at 18 or more weeks in a pregnancy in order to prevent a live birth and also to ensure that the fetus is unable to feel any part of the abortion procedure. Medical evidence is unclear as to the exact time a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, but some studies point to a time around 20 – 22 weeks. We feel that administering digoxin is the most humane thing we can do in order to ensure that the fetus does not experience pain during the procedure.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of website links, but the overwhelming preponderance of the medical sources goes toward viability being the key idea. We do have sources that call into question whether 'death' occurs (see the "On whether the fetus is alive" section above). I see a lot of arguing that the defns. given by the medical community are wrong but not quality sources explaining that that's so--that they're knowingly using the wrong defn. It seems like synthesis to me. The WP:WEIGHT of sources is clear: Viability is the issue. Why are we making our own, special, out-of-step defn.? JJL (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the question of whether a fetus is a person or entity that has rights with the question of whether a fetus is alive. There is no debate about whether a fetus is alive. The use of the word death in the lede to describe what happens in every abortion (of fetal bovines, humans, canines, felines, etc.) is only controversial for people who wish to avoid stating or reading what is a biological fact. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, JJL continues to confuse the notions of life and death with notions of personhood. It's a waste of time debating with him. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that JJL can't acknowledge that the Cherry Hill, NJ, abortion clinic tells its late-term abortion patients quite clearly that the clinic doctors will perform a feticide expressly "in order to prevent a live birth". Well, that is because sometimes such fetuses are viable and are born alive. If on the talk pages JJL can't even agree that this abortion clinic is admitting that it sometimes performs feticides on viable fetuses, then we can't consider JJL to be editing in good faith. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clinic website--are you claiming that that is a WP:RS? Because unless you are, it isn't worth engaging the issue. If you are making that claim, then please be specific. JJL (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that, JJL. I am providing the link to demonstrate that it is not unusual or mean to use plain English to explain what abortion is. If an abortion clinic uses the word death to explain what happens to the fetus on its webpage (that is designed to assist women contemplating an abortion procedure), then complaints that wikipedia's use of death is somehow biased/false/inappropriate are hard to accept as good faith assertions. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently take any disagreement with you as an act of bad faith. No one has disputed that some sources use the term 'death' in describing (some types of) abortion. But the WP:WEIGHT of medical opinion is clearly in favor of 'viable. It's inappropriate because it's not how abortion is defined. JJL (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) While the best refs say before viability would be willing to compromise at "most often before viability" Induced "fetal demise" is specifically in late termination of pregnancies as thus the current wording is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to propose "almost always before viability". We're fussing about a fraction of 1% of abortions. PhGustaf (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhGustaf, I see you've reverted the article to impose your "viable" view, claiming that this is the new consensus. Where did you get that claim from? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It's not just one person's view that 'viable' is the best term--we've established that that's the overwhelming view of the medical community, and are trying to follow WP guidelines by falling in line with it. Since 'viable' has majority support in the real world and on this page, it might be fruitful to try to work with it rather than claiming victimhood status as things are 'imposed' upon you. JJL (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of discussion we need to be having. I prefer the standard medical wording. I think it's understood that in biology and in medicine there are always difficult cases that don't neatly fit the definitions. Biology is not mathematics. JJL (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard medical wording is found in Merriam/Webster Medical Dictionary. There is no need to maintain your painful agnosticism on the issue. DMSBel (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The position that that wording is "standard" is completely untenable. It's been shown to be wholly false. You may not agree that 'viable' is correct, but it's wholly standard. It's the mainstream, modal way of describing the matter. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to JJL) This is why I argue that the best definition may well be, "The majority of medical texts define...". As I have already said, of the 1% of abortions done on post-viable pregnancies, the vast majority are done to remove a severely deformed fetus that would not live at birth or be utterly unable to exist in the way that one would call it a human person, or to save the life of the mother. One could argue that if a mother dies, the fetus will die as well. Of course if you wait till the fetus is certainly viable and the mother dies, is it ethical to exchange one life for another? Certainly the medical texts were well aware of that scenario, but they still went along with the definition of "before viability". I don't feel that we have to reinvent the wheel here. If it works for every medical textbook except the one that can be purchased for 99 cents used at Amazon, it should work for Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to second-guess the medical texts as to why they define it as they do, but as we all know it's hard to have fully strict defns. in the life and medical sciences. Did penguins have to be classified as birds? What is the dividing line? Certain terms are used certain ways and we should document, not re-engineer, their use, I'd say. But, I'm by no means averse to having this sort of discussion, which is clearly moving in the right direction. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about my above post, I could as well argue that if most medical texts use that definition, would our definition need to state the obvious and state that that's what they state? ...perhaps not... :P OK, I think I've changed my mind...for now... Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's typical WP style to do that unless we are drawing a contrast between a medical meaning and some other meaning. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see I have been incorrect to replace "caused by or resulting in its death" with "caused by or resulting from fetal demise". Thankyou to 67 for giving considered thoughts on this, together with research. Maybe it should be said at this point that any sort of attitude of epistemological nihilism towards the question is totally out of place here. What we can find from looking up a simple medical dictionary, we should be able to find on Wikipedia. I shall change the wording back to the previous consensus version. DMSBel (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But your one medical dictionary is out-of-step with all the other ones...some of which are recommended for medical students, whereas your sis not. Beyond the fact that it agrees with your preconceived notions, why should that one dictionary be elevated over all the others that differ from it in a specific, consistent manner? JJL (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late-term abortionists on post viable abortion:

The following doctors have made it clear that they have witnessed abortions of viable fetuses and/or that late-term abortions at the viable stage are typically done for purely elective non-medical reasons (the opposite of what some have been baldly asserting, which is that post-viable abortions are almost always done for anomalies or serious medical implications). Of course every doctor has different experiences. I invite someone to post other doctors on record to the contrary.

  • Abortion procedures are performed on viable fetuses and the proof is that annually dozens of them survive their attempted abortion - Dr. Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at London's St. George’s hospital, commented on the UK government's Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) report that 50 babies a year are born alive in the UK after botched National Health Service abortions (as reported by London's The Sunday Times, November 27, 2005) as follows: "They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation. . . I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine. . . If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks."
  • Slain late-term abortion doctor George Tiller stated in a speech to the National Abortion Federation in April 1995 in New Orleans that very few post-vaiability abortions were for complicated medical reasons: "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."
  • Late-term abortion doctor Martin Haskell (who invented partial-birth (D&X) abortion) has flatly denied that most late-term abortions are for fetal anomalies or some other serious medical probelm. He actually noted that nearly 100% of the 28+ week abortions he performed were purely elective: “Two of the criticisms that I’ve been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that-in the case of the D&X-that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure versus the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”
  • Also admitting that most late-term abortions are done on healthy fetuses and healthy women was the voice of the abortion provider lobby during the "partial birth" abortion debate, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who told the New York Times in 1997: "When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."

67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of these unsourced bullet points does not use the term 'viable'. In some of these you're conflating viability (ability to survive outside the womb) with the numerical estimates of when it's likely to obtain. Some fetuses aren't viable at 30 weeks (say, in a case of a stillbirth). Viability is defined by survivability. That's hard to test and so it's helpful to have time/weight estimates of when it may have occurred. But your Haskell quotations, for example, doesn't comment on viability. Perhaps he didn't believe that those fetuses were viable. Similarly, for Fitzsimmons, maybe a 5 week old fetus would be termed 'healthy' too though it isn't viable. Viability is not equivalent to 20 weeks (say)...it's equivalent to ability to survive outside the womb (WP's article on it states simply: "Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus."). But answer me this: If your point is so obviously true, what is the reason for the fact that a clear majority of major medical texts defines it in terms of viability? JJL (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone actually performing abortions would know that the "procedure" results in the death of the fetus. They are rather closer to the reality of the situation. If a woman going for an abortion asks "will the fetus be dead before you remove it?" the abortion practioner can't hedge on the question. DMSBel (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Dr. Haskell, the man many think invented the "partial-birth" abortion procedure, has stated that 100% of the 28+ weeks viable abortions that he has performed were purely elective with no "fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure". Some here won't acknowledge this fact. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agnosticism on the issue in an abortion clinic. There should not be any on Wikipedia.DMSBel (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft to replace current "death note section"

Below is the proposed new notes section for "death" in lead:

While "death" has negative connotations, this is appropriate for the subject matter and acknowledges the controversial and bio-ethically difficult nature of abortion. It makes no judgement -- morally or legally -- regarding personhood. Alternatives with medical consensus have been proposed, why they were not chosen is outlined below.

The majority of medical sources define abortion as a procedure occurring before viability:

  • The National Center for Health Statistics defines an "abortus" as "[a] fetus or embryo removed or expelled from the uterus during the first half of gestation—20 weeks or less, or in the absence of accurate dating criteria, born weighing < 500 g." Cunningham, FG; Leveno, KJ; Bloom, SL; Hauth, JC; Rouse, DJ; Spong, CY, eds. (2010). "1. Overview of Obstetrics". Williams Obstetrics (23 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-149701-5.
  • "[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable". Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "51. Legal and Ethical Issues in Obstetric Practice". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh (eds.). Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.
  • "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced." Kottke, Melissa J.; Zieman, Mimi (2008). "33. Management of Abortion". In Rock, John A.; Jones III, Howard W. (eds.). TeLinde's Operative Gynecology (10 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-7234-1.
  • "Expulsion from the uterus an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability (20 weeks' gestation or fetal weight <500g). A distinction made between [abortion] and premature birth: premature infants are those born after the stage of viability but prior to 37 weeks." Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0683400088.

Viability is, by its nature, not verifiable on a case by case basis:

  • "Loosely defined, the term viability is the fetus' ability to survive extrauterine life with or without life support. A number of landmark US Supreme Court decisions dealt with this question. In Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989), the court upheld the state of Missouri's requirement for preabortion viability testing after 20 weeks' gestation. However, there are no reliable or medically acceptable tests for this prior to 28 weeks' gestation." Trupin, Suzanne. "Elective Abortion". Retrieved 26 June 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |middle= ignored (help)

Abortions -- both elective and medical -- do occur after 20 weeks gestation (trying to find direct stat page, ideally with sex selection tied in):

As an embryo / fetus is an organism, its demise/termination can be accurately described as death:

This best follows Wikipedia's goal of providing reliable, accurate articles in a summary style.

So any comments? - RoyBoy 16:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you copy the current article into a sandbox and show us what your proposal would look like? I'm trying to visualize it but I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your proposal or not. NW (Talk) 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the move NW, I was waiting until I stabilized it, but I'm glad you're still bold and getting things done. I don't understand current article, effectively I'm streamlining your note section that is live and putting it in a ... ummm, a death rationale matrix. :"D However, this matrix can be leveraged for an alternative to death. Renamed section to clarify my intent to replace current note section. - RoyBoy 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry about that. And I'm afraid I'm still not totally understanding it. Could you show your proposed changes on User:NuclearWarfare/Abortion notes sandbox? NW (Talk) 17:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - RoyBoy 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for "As an embryo / fetus is an organism"? I looked at this proposal in the sandbox article. When you say "Alternatives with medical consensus have been proposed, why they were not chosen is outlined below", I see that this is an effort at compromise but at this point the weight of opinion favors choosing 'viable' and I would prefer continuing to work in that direction. I still don't see an argument for the superiority of 'death', which this proposal seems to presume. JJL (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged we needed to do better to summarize the choice of "death" above alternatives. This is the culmination of hybridizing 2006 consensus with the dominant valid objections reintroduced recently. The key here, is the acknowledgement from 20 weeks to 28 weeks there is no reliable method to determine viability. WHO notes late period abortions happen. The rationale goes, as it did in 2006 but now with a WHO ref, that there is abortus that is viable. If we agree here this is accurate, how would this be addressed in accordance with WP:policies and Style? - RoyBoy 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So after all this, it reads to me that what you've 'acknowledged' is that you need to do a better job of explaining why you were right all along? This isn't an honest attempt at reaching a consensus...it's a condescending and less abrasive defense of the older version. To more directly respond, even if had reached such agreement, a complicated matter such as this is best handled later in the article with a Late Term Abortions or similar section. JJL (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my answer to that is use "death", you can have an alternative, but if it just involves using "viable"; I've shown above that isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 18:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown that to your satisfaction, but I'll need much more to be willing to go against such overwhelming medical and scientific consensus. What other sorts of alternatives might you find acceptable? We may be able to find a middle ground. JJL (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at Britannica, I do not see one. - RoyBoy 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see any possibility of compromising, and you feel one tertiary source outweighs an avalanche of secondary sources, then you're not playing by the rules. JJL (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see it (ie. weighing down the lead with trying to define viable medically/legally/practically, and noting exceptions on top of that), but it's bad summary style, what I don't see is a requirement to do it that way. I remind you, you removed the pre-existing summarized compromise. As to rules, people will evoke policy (to the exclusion of others) to get what they want, and ignore them when its convenient. Like you did when y'all replaced death initially, and like you did when you replaced it now with a straw-poll "consensus"; if you're consensus holds under policy review I'm conducting then I'll accept it (Britannified of course, you should get on that). The thing is I will ensure Wikipolicy is updated to reflect what actual policy is, because it rejects your actions at this point in time. (Wikipedia indeed, can always change)
As to an avalanche of secondary medical sources, are you honestly going to pretend I haven't addressed that? Medical sources have a clinical style, they overtly frame abortion in a style appropriate for medical professionals dealing with patients -- and provides a guideline for abortion's intended use. Wikipedia does not define things based on intentions, but strives for reality (aka. accuracy), nor do we censor for a good bed side manner. Your narrow interpretation of Wikipolicy (and selected words) makes you ill suited to edit controversial articles, period. I bare in mind this doesn't make you wrong, you should bare in mind popular support does not make you right. - RoyBoy 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you don't see it as a requirement to do it a different way--but I'm in the same position. The case I'm hearing is that the sentence with 'death' is the only possible way, and I don't agree with that in this particular case or in the general case. Replacing 'death' initially was, I think, a reasonable application of WP:BRD. Regardless of whether you agree or not, here we are. But here's the claim I continue to see made but treated as so obvious it need not be sourced: "Medical sources have a clinical style, they overtly frame abortion in a style appropriate for medical professionals dealing with patients -- and provides a guideline for abortion's intended use. Wikipedia does not define things based on intentions, but strives for reality (aka. accuracy), nor do we censor for a good bed side manner." I don't feel the medical sources are overtly framing abortion in a certain style, only appropriate for dealing with patients, only for some 'intended' use, at odds with reality, or censored. That seems to be a personal opinion. Having sources that use 'death' doesn't make the case that medical texts are guilty of all these sins. Can you provide sources that say the medical texts are wrong? There are sources that show some historical documents have been falsified, or written in hagiographic style, for example. Where is the sourced, not synthesized, evidence that the medical sources are wrong? I think this goes to the core of (part of) our disagreement: I believe this is obvious to you, but it's counterintuitive to me. JJL (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge "death" is hardly the only way for an encyclopedia to define abortion, but even with Britannica's (and others) best efforts, these clarify to me how viable is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As to the core of our disagreement, we can explore further in Talk:Abortion#After_the_straw_poll. - RoyBoy 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, this looks just like the old consensus with some tweaking. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, the 2006 consensus was done by a group of anti-abortion editors (at least the discussion reads that way). No way. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise there, since everytime OM sees a contrary view he always assumes bad faith, ascribing it to ignorance, stupidity or a different political stance. Which is quite funny since he is still maintaining that the fetus isn't alive. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you'll admit to being very guilty of what you've just accused him of? This is hardly a welcoming environment for editors new to the page, or who hold differing opinions. JJL (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry JLL. I'm used to Price's continued snarkiness and immature commentary. Since he doesn't have much knowledge in this matter, he must resort to childish namecalling. We have a clinical diagnosis for that. He does know a lot about geology, so Price is quite helpful to me in those articles. I don't get the dichotomy. LOLOrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JLL, OM: Rather than slap each other on the back, your time would be better spend finding a source that says the fetus is not alive. You inability to find such a source speaks volumes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there's a section for that already on this page, above: On whether the fetus is alive. JJL (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A section that illustrates jjl'S inability to distinguish between biological life and legal life (personhood). -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree at this point that you aren't actually considering the sources--you're just defending your territory. JJL (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think what you like, but we don't agree. And I did look at the sources, although no doubt you can't believe that. How can anyone look at the sources and not agree with you, eh??? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it would lead to a more fruitful discussion if you addressed the specific sources rather than saying hey indicate I don't understand something that you do. JJL (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no sources that say the developing fetus is dead, there's not much to discuss. BTW, your stock sinks lower everytime you misrepresent what others editors say. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tweak that was already found wanting, and remains so. No one needs to convince you of jack. - RoyBoy 20:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't limit us that 5 years ago other people thought different things. JJL (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable, but misinformed.
  • Are you or I better suited to delineate what is truly "different" between now and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years back? We didn't sit still for 5 years until you rolled in and picked a good time for a straw poll with some well-intentioned but misinformed and bold admins.
  • Does 5 years passing change this wisdom?
- RoyBoy 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In fact, I'd go less far: It's the 2006 version with a different, expanded set of notes buried in the fine print. The straw poll shows that 'death' is not preferred and shows much support for abortion 'viable' (edit). Let's use the straw poll for its intended purpose--to start a discussion from that point. JJL (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But JJL, you did not do this, you launched in without either straw poll or discussion. The lede now stands in contradiction to what you want to discuss. Straw polls are not a good way to start debate, an RFC is the standard way. I'm sorry but throughout this it looks like you wanted to get a fast change, then force anyone who objects to that to follow the etiquet you failed to follow to restore the consensus version! JJL wrote: "straw poll...shows much support for abortion". A strong pro-choice feeling? Maybe it does. Are you saying this article should reflect the personal POVs of whichever group of editors is in the ascendency on the talk page? Could you tell me how that would result in a stable article? Clearly it would not. DMSBel (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my comment as I had intended 'viable' there. I think this article should reflect the professional opinions of experts in biology and medicine. I think the case has been clearly made what that means. If you have an issue with WP:BRD, this may not be the best place to raise it. JJL (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that there is not death of cells. What is being said is that when terminations are pre viable there is not a death of a conscious human being. Just as when people transplant organs of a dead person in the West this is not considered murder as the person was not an alive human even though the cells are alive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to conclude we would not say organ transplant results in death as we would consider death has already occurred. Abortion does not result in a death of a human as a human consciousness has not yet occurred. So stating that abortion causes death is somewhat misleading without clarification. Similarly when one aborts a dead fetus abortion does not cause death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could say "resulting in death of human cells" but even that for abortion carried out on cells already dead would not be correct but would be clearer than simply stating death.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Every mammallian pregnancy at its beginning must have an offspring alive inside of a gravida. If the offspring ends up exiting the gravida alive, we have a birth. If anything happens such that the offspring does not exit the gravida alive and intact, we have an abortion." Please explain any disagreement with that summary (that I assert applies to every mammallian pregnancy). If your argument is that my assertion is wrong, then I assert that you have huge problems with basic biology. If your argument is that you agree with these facts, but you think they should be phrased in some way different than the 2006 consensus lede, then more discussion might be beneficial. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My disagreement is that this isn't big enough...and that "does not exit the gravida alive and intact" does not clearly imply death, if the embryo/fetus wasn't alive to begin with. Also, that the medical sources are in such unanimity on the matter. This is one reason 'destruction' is used by some sources. [unsigned comment left by JJL] 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"Destruction" is used as a euphemism by those doctors who don't want to be candid, which is likely done both to avoid disturbing their own or their patient's mental state and/or to use language that does not invite legal scrutiny. While those may be good reasons for doctors facing those situations, wikipedia is not censored and should use candid accurate language rather than euphemism. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for saying that it "is used as a euphemism by those doctors who don't want to be candid, which is likely done both to avoid disturbing their own or their patient's mental state and/or to use language that does not invite legal scrutiny"? Without such a source, this is just your personal inference and can't be used to disregard the sourced defns. I know you feel this way, but I don't see anything to support your opinion as to why the professional refs. don't say it they way you personally would. JJL (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the mountains of objective evidence (from WP:MEDRS and other WP:RS) that a non-living fetus is properly called a dead fetus, argumentation to the contrary is tortured POV pushing:

71.3.237.145 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches for phrases and legal opinions are not much against the carefully analyzed sources that have been shown to be among the most widely used by the medical community in training health care practitioners. JJL (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of anything you type, it is false to assert that it is partisan or POV to refer to the scientific and medical and legal fact of the death of a fetus as the death of the fetus. No matter how many times you explain what your POV is, the fact is that "death of the fetus" is a mainstream and well-understood way to talk about what happens in an abortion. Laymen use that phrase, doctors use that phrase, lawyers use that phrase, scientists use that phrase. But you don't like that phrase. You won't even acknowledge that it is a legitimate and mainstream way to describe abortion. And if you can't acknowledge that, then it is pointless to discuss the issue with you because you have entered the discussion with a closed mind. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that I've seen JJL refuse to use the word death in the body of the article, I know I sure have not. This discussion is only about the definition used in the lede, nothing more. Because Wikipedia has no expert editorial staff to decide what definition to use, we rely on the best of the best to provide that information and reference to that. Most of us are not physicians, let alone the best in the field of medicine. The only expertise that any Wikipedia expert can claim is to be an expert on Wikipedia policy. If an editor states he or she is an expert on anything but that, they still need to offer published reports that verify their statements. You will need to accept that because that is a fact. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a reasonable section or subsection to have lower in the article--it's clear that views vary on the matter. JJL (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would have no problem using death lower in the article where it can be put in proper context and the different opinions bother cultural and social can be elaborated on. Having it without such context in the lead is WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE. Especially since we do not have top quality sources supporting the position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the centrepiece of the whole controversy surrounding this particular procedure, hence it must not be glossed over in the intro.
The "pre-viability" claim however is (at best) nothing more than a misleading generalisation, taking what may hold true for some abortions (and even there, it is hardly fundamental to it) for all. The article is not called "abortion before viability" but simply abortion. Str1977 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "centrepiece" of the controversy around viable in that they feel that viable fetuses are being aborted or is it that they feel that people are being killed? Gandydancer (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: repeated change to non-consensus lede

There is a long-standing consensus lede. We are now discussing whether a new consensus version might exist, but so far there is no new consensus version, yet some editors keep changing the lede. This is not being bold - it is bad faith tendentious edit warring. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to such a discussion taking place. How would you suggest we proceed? JJL (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We proceed on the talk page, not on the article page. You could assist in that by encouraging editors to leave the long-standing consensus lede alone unless the first achieve a new consensus leded. Several times now you have participated in the edit war by editing to polish the changed non-consensus lede. To state it plainly: you have been complicit in the edit warring behavior. If you are willing to stop doing that, then I am happy to assume good faith on your part. Are you so willing? 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing the page to change the grammatical case of one word? No, I'm not willing to agree to stop doing that. It's noncontroversial. (No has said that 'viability' is preferred over 'viable'.) Setting preconditions isn't a helpful way to start. However, I'm prepared to leave the lede as it currently is if others are. JJL (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the bad faith I was noting: the current lede is the edit-war non-consensus version and you snidely "agree" to leave it as it is if others will. Proof of your tendentiousness.71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked. Is there a way to move forward without me agreeing to preconditions you have set? JJL (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's stop referring to one version as the "consensus" version and the other as the "non-consensus" version. That's silly and rhetorically dishonest. Clearly there is not, at present, a consensus for how the lead should look. One can reference previous discussions, of course, but not for the purpose of trying to shut down the current discussion. MastCell Talk 16:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we stop to call the version that has been standing here for years and which was the result of hard content discussions and which achieved consensus anything else but the consensus version just to please those that without any justification try to replace it by a version that is both factually incorrect, POV pushing and self-contradictory. If anything, this would be "rhetorically dishonest".
How can anyone oppose the mentioning of death and at the same time include the (false) claim about viability. If the fetus is not-viable, then obviously it is alive and therefore can also die. If pre-viablity were a prequisite of an abortion, the fetus' death is the logical consequence of the procedure.
Str1977 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've just asserted as "false" the definition used by almost every leading medical reference. Also, the point of the term 'viable' is that it is not that case that "If the fetus is not-viable, then obviously it is alive and therefore can also die", as we have been discussing here. To say "without any justification" is quite dismissive of all the discussion and sources here. Being the mainstream medical defn. is surely some amount of justification, wouldn't you agree? JJL (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, before you accuse other editors of being dismissive, please read throught the archive, you'll save yourself a lot of time in the long run.DMSBel (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orangemarlin has been violating the general sanctions on the Abortion article

Section does not belong here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Orangemarlin has violated the general sanctions that have been imposed on this article. [NB: Orangemarlin's talk page has been protected and reverted and thus I cannot leave this warning on his talk page. That is why the warning is being left here.] Orangemarlin has committed vandalism and is edit warring by reverting the lede to include language that does not enjoy consensus and has been rejected for years by the consensus of editors. The most recent reversion was 24 hours and 3 minutes after his last reversion. Such behavior is both tendentious editing and a violation of the 1RR rule that applies to this article ("subject to 1RR (1 revert per 24 hours per user per page)"). In addition, because on June 21 OrangeMarlin warned another editor that abortion articles are subject to the 1RR rule and is therefore aware of that 1RR rule, Orangemarlin has breached 1RR after knowing that the topic is subject to 1RR, and therfore Orangemarlin has violated the formal requirement to discuss any reversions made on pages in the topic on the abortion talk page. The following is an inclusive chronology of all editing done by OrangeMarlin to Abortion and to Talk:Abortion:

What is more, OrangeMarlin has been disruptive in this topic area by engaging in that same excessively uncivil personal attack ("My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary") against another editor. The special sanctions that apply the abortion article allow an administrator to impose actions for edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, 1RR and not using the talk page when editing the article. Therefore I ask that an administrator impose extraordinary sanctions on User:Orangemarlin. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My itchy nutsack asks: "Please point out the 1RR violation." Oh, you can't. Talk discussions NEVER count in 1RR or 3RR unless, let's be clear, if I were reverting comments. AND...1RR is per 24 hours. I believe I went 24 hours and about 10 minutes between edits. So, please read up on WP:3RR. Your obsessiveness with me is a bit frightening. I'm actually concerned that you will harm me. Please stop the canvassing and stalking. Any more threats against me, and I will ask that you be sanctioned. OK. Stop the fucking threats. The bore the living shit out of me, but your activities are becoming very concerning to me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Giggle. Please link to any and all threats I have made against you.) The 1RR violation was to the Abortion page. The talk page is included in the chronology to demonstrate that you did not discuss your changes to the article before or after making them. You just made the change. Because you were aware of the special sanctions, you must abide by them. Waiting 24 hours and 3 minutes to revert the same sentence is likely a violation of 1RR. Does your vulgar adolescent behavior normally accomplish what you desire? If it works here, I will be quite surprised. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your obsessiveness with me is awfully touching. But I don't date anonymous individuals on Wikipedia. I find your flirting style to be a tad juvenile. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi all. I believe that the admin noticeboard is probably the wrong place to get outside input on the matter. Accordingly, I have left a message on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. All editors here are invited to take a look at the post there and comment if they see fit. NW (Talk) 13:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting some measure of help would be good. At this point, esp. as the IP SPA accounts continue to be blocked, I'm comfortable saying that those favoring 'viable' sufficiently outnumber those favoring 'death' that the 'viable' form of the lede is what we should be going with as we continue the discussion. JJL (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want them to resolve the dispute. I wanted to understand if Wikipedia is now a democracy, JJL here again maintains it is. I thought JJL was misinformed; if shown otherwise I will change Wikipedia policy to suit. Careful what you wish for. - RoyBoy 03:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To date, wp:NOT#DEMOCRACY has not been disposed of. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my understanding. Apparently "consensus can change" means you can push ahead with selective enforcement of policy, contrary to policy! Love it. - RoyBoy 23:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that when the matter was first brought up new editors were repeatedly informed that the 2006 consensus was perfect and could not be changed, it's amusing to see you raising this defense when on the other side. JJL (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOLz... so immature and impatient. @NW: I seriously question your admin credentials being on side with JJL, you are suppose to check (slow down) inexperienced people wading into topics out of their depth; in your defense you're too involved to have perspective. @both of you: You didn't check the previous consensus in any serious way, you go ahead and change the consensus because you didn't like it. So yes, we repeatedly tell you there is little new you are bringing to the table apart from being unfamiliar with consensus and how Wikipedia actually works. Expected for JJL, not for others.
@JJL: Compromise is rarely perfect, I presume you are aware compromise was key from my posts above? "other side"? Are you under the impression we need to convince you or your ilk (kind) of anything at this point. Fortunately my amusement is more informed than yours. The lead may remain changed, but it'll be from a process much better than a quick straw poll after a "I JJL (therefore everyone) can't figure out if the fetus is alive/personhood begins/organism or whatever the next word is that lets me continue to pretend I'm exploring an issue I already made up my mind on" ... fiasco. You remember that, it was awful for lots of people at talk:abortion -- lets say -- who been here more than a year. *British heckling on* Shame! SHAME! *British heckling off* - RoyBoy 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to have discussions on this Talk page without disparaging and attacking other editors, I suggest you take a break. Otherwise, it's going to be you that finds out about certain Wikipedia policies that you are ignoring. Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging and attacking, where's that? Or are you skipping over multiple missteps in policy, procedure, courtesy, philosophy, biology, evolution, reality, English language etc etc. A break is good advice, you should take a break from being blind to context, lest you think my comments vindictive -- rather than observational. If I'd written only the first paragraph you'd have a point I suppose. So DD2K, what would you call editors that push an edit through in weeks that contravenes a consensus that's existed for years and has been defended many times and in many ways? So long as they are civil (in your eyes) that's what counts? Have something to contribute or find another article you can positively effect, because it appears Abortion won't be your cup of tea presently. - RoyBoy 07:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing to me how attached many of the older editors here are to their consensus. You're reacting like people are trying to steal your pension fund. Remember WP:MERCILESS? The old consensus may have been the best agreement the group of you were able to get but it wasn't the best possible. You have to be willing to relax your grip and let the article be edited. Courtesy is your argument? I certainly think you (plural) could stand to shine that light on yourselves. Reality? Apparently you know the WP:TRUTH better than I do? This is a weak defense. The sources are aligned against your position--overwhelmingly so. That's the reality. JJL (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "medically defined" to the viable version of the lead, I'm not warring to maintain the "one and only true version". Medical texts do not burden themselves with the legal variability of viability, and they define viable according to their best practice. We should avoid technical language when possible, as we aren't defining a best surgical practice, but rather a topic that encompasses hospitals and war torn jungles. - RoyBoy 02:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ #1

Given the disappearance of the consensus for 'death' in the lede and the clear weight of opinion toward 'viable', this no longer seems appropriate as phrased regardless of what ultimately becomes of the lede. I'm editing it to simply say please don't change the lede without discussion. Actually, I'd be inclined to remove it altogether, but for now I'll just reword it. JJL (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to: "1. Should the first sentence/paragraph of the article be reworded? This is a contentious issue. Please see the archived discussions on the Talk page, and refrain from changing the lede without first determining that there is consensus to do so." I think this should work with any wording in the lede. JJL (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a frequently asked question should not be addressed, so I am puzzled at you saying you'd be inclined to remove it altogether. Your unilateral actions are really becoming quite concerning. You are a clearly involved editor, I don't think it is good for you to be making alterations to the FAQ, given that you have not shown a lot of interest in the archived discussion. The basis of the FAQ is basically what has been asked frequently over the last five years. Changing the FAQ does not change what has been asked, it just risks making it unreflective of the discussion.DMSBel (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current version says essentially the same thing, but in a slightly more general way. Right now 'death' isn't even in the lede sentence so the FAQ entry wouldn't make sense as it was. I understand someone may revert it post-protection, but for now doesn't this accomplish the same thing in a way that reflects the current reality? JJL (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Run that by me again? The FAQ is for the purpose of addressing questions frequently asked on the talk page, and throughout archived discussion, basically from the time the page was started. It has nothing at all to do with the current wording of the article. You didn't know this?DMSBel (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll run it by you again. The old version of FAQ #1 read: "Should the first paragraph of the article be changed to remove/reword "death?"" Currently, that word doesn't appear in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. This makes it a very unlikely question as worded--that someone would be wondering if they should remove a word that isn't there. I'm betting you won't get that question right now. On top of that, a majority of those polled actually did favor removing it, so the response was also not in accord with the current situation. While the discussion isn't over, the broader wording makes more sense. It includes the old case in particular, should 'death' reappear. If you're concerned about the archives, perhaps you can suggest a FAQ entry worded "Should the first paragraph of previous versions of the article have been changed to remove/reword "death?"". JJL (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the wording of FAQ1 has been altered several times by involved editors. I think that is bad practice, whatever they are betting on. I know what I'd be betting on. Also you said earlier you asked someone to add up your straw - poll, can you point me to that please. DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "Tally" subsection. JJL (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair you did tot it up yourself, although you asked others later how they read it:
It's been over 48 hours. I make it 10 in opposition to 'death' and 6 in support of 'death'. Not all of those who oppose 'death' clearly support 'viable'. JJL (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
you'd have been wiser though to leave it for an uninvolved editor to close and tot up. There was an issue with the poll narrative too, and it changed in the middle of the poll. Not a very firm basis to conclude anything from is it, let alone assume either support nevermind consensus. DMSBel (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in the 'viable/viability' version of the lede sentence

This sentence has gone back-and-forth between ending in "...before fetal viability" or "...before it is viable" (linking to Viability (fetus) or Fetal viability in either case; the latter has now become the main version and so the current link should be changed to avoid the redirect). I prefer the latter form, but it appears both ways in the sources. The two versions are obviously equivalent, but does anyone have any reason stylistically to prefer one over the other? JJL (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-iterate my comment below here regarding lede stability - it is has reference to what you have just said, though I don't object to you having moved it to a new section. The current version has stability only because of full page protection, and it does not enjoy consensus. With regard to the issue of style, in so far as it does not touch on meaning, it is rather beside the point at this stage. The real issue is not with fetal, but with "before...viability". You see because on the grounds you should be able to see that the term "viability" is even more problematical according to your own rationale against "resulting in, or caused by its death". I am surprised you cannot see this yet. DMSBel (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our normal practice is to avoid redirects by piping directly to the target article, but wp:redirects are cheap. So whether the piped link is viable or viable has no substantial impact on the reader's experience except for the appearance of redirected from Viability (fetus) below the title on the target page Fetal viability if the second option is used. Either way, I can think of very few things less worthy of a fuss.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think avoiding the rd is a no-brainer--it's just that what was the rd and what was the target switched during this discussion and about the time the page was locked so it ended up going from direct to rd. But fetal viability vs. it is viable may or may not matter to someone is what I was thinking. JJL (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, what surprises me is that you continue to edit as though there are no other discussions taking place elsewhere on wikipedia with regard to the editing of this article, I think you should throttle back a little if not a lot, till other issues underlying this are resolved. DMSBel (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new section to discuss a minor matter of wording in the version of the lede that is currently in place and that has been the subject of discussion. I indicated in the very section heading that I was referring to this particular version of the lede. I don't understand your objection. As we continue to discuss the two versions, wouldn't it be helpful to know what we're talking about? JJL (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to know what we are talking about while we are continuing to discuss the earlier consensus version and the proposed version. Discussion is as another editor pointed out for the discussion page, not the article itself. This page does indeed operate under a BRD cycle. Would you like for other editors who have already debated this to re-join the discussion? DMSBel (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also running two discussions in parallel in different sections might risk re-polarising the issue. If you insist on doing this, it would be better to proceed under one section, simply titled Lede First Sentence where we discuss the sentence in toto. Its basically easier to follow developments that way. DMSBel (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to that. JJL (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Death' in the lede

I've moved this to a new section because I am hoping to have the above one used to settle the wording of the 'viable' version of the lede sentence. The 'death' version seems to be well-settled by its adherents. JJL (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I might ask what you are hoping to achieve by settling a not so new sentence in contention to the one which has consensus (what you refer to as adherents)? Do you then intend to play the two against each other? Or what exactly? GK Chesterton once quipped, there are two ways to get home, one is to walk all the way round the world till you arrive back at the same place, the other is to stay there. We have already walked all the way round the world on this, you'll find that if you look at the archives. All you will be doing is taking a group of editors around again with you, while you say "oh wait I never thought of this before!" and they all reply "we have!" DMSBel (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, If I may make a couple of observations:
Firstly as you know the stability of current lede is due only to full page protection. It is also true that the earlier wording "caused by or resulting in its death" was protected from time to time, that wording however remained fairly stable while signed in users could edit the page.
If you don't mind may I ask you a couple of questions regarding your objection to the earlier consensus version? In your edit summary you asserted that the use of the term death was "clearly advocacy". My difficulty through this discussion has been following your thinking process. You seem (correct me if I am wrong) to be seeking a new rationale for altering the lede (the first sentence at least). If there is a problem with it that is perfectly fine. However I wonder if you might re-consider whether you have been set on the wrong track early on in the discussion? My difficulty is understanding the rationale you went towards, that there is a fuzziness with certain terms. If there is fuzziness would it not prevent clear discernment of advocacy? Perhaps not, but would you mind making visible your thinking process on this before your edit. The reason I said before your edit is that often once a notion captures our attention, it can subtly influence our evidence seeking. Sometimes its true that a wording strikes us as incorrect, but I, if not other editors, would be interested in what led to your view that it was advocacy, if there was anything other than OrangeMarlin's comment. In asking I want to make clear that in itself there is nothing wrong with following another editors comment, but OrangeMarlin's initial comment was not, and has not been credibly demonstrated to be either factual or verifiable in MEDRS. It no doubt is his view. But I wonder how he could credibly defend a claim of advocacy in view of comprehensive debate and discussion which considered many possible alternatives. I wonder if his comment has set you on the wrong track. One other question: would the term fetal death in your view always be advocacy, or is it just in the part of the sentence "...caused by or resulting in its death"? DMSBel (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of things I felt and continue to feel are wrong with 'death', but the available length of the edit summary limited my ability to say them all. Given the difficulty of defining 'life' and 'death' biologically and medically; the contentiousness of the words as used in the abortion debates (pro-life or pro-death, "baby-killing", etc.); the myriad legal and psychological issues associated with personhood (which can be conflated with life/death, as in brain death vs. cardiac cessation); the differing views on the matter across cultures; and the general murkiness that such a multi-faceted set of meanings brings with it, I felt and feel that 'death' is too laden with conflicting and nuanced meanings to use without much greater discussion of its senses here. (After the lengthy discussion here, however, the secondary medical sources introduced by NW have become a large part of the basis for my position.) I can't speak for any other editor's views, and I wasn't editing because of any Talk page comment here. I must say that while I appreciate the civil tone, the suggestion that someone else "has set [me] on the wrong track" comes across as quite condescending--more because of the statement that my track is wrong than that I'm easily influenced. The continued implication that disagreement can only arise by error is distressing. As to 'fetal death', it clearly appears in the literature and may well have a role to play in the article--but then, I don't oppose having death in general discussed in the article. I just think it's not well-suited to the lede: Another term is more standard and very specifiaclly defined. JJL (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary is indeed not the first place to try and explain your objections, or to attempt to overturn a well established consensus. After you have brought concerns to the talk page and there is discussion over whether there is in fact a problem, then the edit summary can briefly indicate any change, and reason for it. The reason for all this is that objections based in "feeling" (as you have said "you felt and continue to feel") are inarticulate. There is nothing wrong with feeling something needs changed, but the degree to which a personal point of view enters into that feeling is difficult to quantify - that is why I addressed your rationale. The "fuzziness" of language is rather a tricky rationale from which to argue that a sentence is "clearly advocacy", however strongly one feels it is. Are you not using your own WP:OR when you refer to "general murkiness...", to argue there is "clear advocacy", if so that seems rather bizarre. You are arguing from the term "death" as being multi-faceted in its meaning, but at the same time saying that it has a clear ring of advocacy to it here. Advocacy in regard to what in particular? That's why we cannot debate the term in isolation. My contention along with other editors both past and present is that it has a medical ring to it in context (part of its multi-faceted meaning), therefore cannot be clearly advocacy. Can you perhaps understand why editors feel so strongly that a lengthy debate be not so lightly dismissed as though those editors are not around now, or that they did not adequately look into these matters. Several of them have re-joined the discussion. Would you value fuller participation from more of the editors involved in the earlier consensus? DMSBel (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel I'm being "inarticulate". Here's my position: the clear WP:WEIGHT of the major secondary sources is overwhelmingly toward the use of the term 'viable' and the absence of the term 'death'. We should reflect that in the lede. A more nuanced discussion can occur in a section later on in the article. JJL (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nothing is being "lightly dismissed"--we've had a lengthy discussion, lots of new sources, the views of editors who both have and have not been here for a long time, a straw poll, and requests for help from other Wikipedians (e.g. Dispute Resolution, AN/I). The majority of editors are opposed to the use of 'death'. I don't see any effort at all to compromise by the minority who continue to support 'death', while those who do not have been willing to do so (see NW's comments below, or the repeated suggestions that a new section could be added to reflect this disagreement). If no change to the lede can ever be acceptable to you, then discussion doesn't serve much purpose, unfortunately. I've asked before about what would be acceptable compromise language from those who favor 'death' and apparently there is none. B suggested leaving out both 'viable' and 'death' as a compromise. I said that'd be acceptable as a compromise, though I don't prefer it; Doc James suggested a compromise along the lines of "most often before viability" and Gandydancer suggested "The majority of medical texts define..." which were also was met with willingness to discuss by me but gained no traction from the 'death' side, even as a point from which to begin a discussion toward compromise. Your current comments--arguing about arguing--seem to me just another attempt to stonewall. If you're unwilling to compromise and in the minority, then it can't be a surprise that things aren't going your way. Let me ask plainly: Can you imagine compromising on the presence of 'death' in the lede? On the introduction of 'viable' there? JJL (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again JJL, this is all rooted in your misunderstanding of consensus. My difficulty is that you did not approach this in a attitude of "lets discuss this". You went ahead and changed the lede and only entered into discussion when several editors called the edit into question. Initially you said the medical sources left you in doubt, but strangely ignored the ones that mentioned "fetal death". You argued from a number of angles in succession, started a straw poll, then counted it up yourself. You have not bothered over all this time to start an RFC on this to see what the wider community thoughts are on what you are proposing. Why is that? An RFC is the standard way to approach this. DMSBel (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an RFC. As to what's standard, please let me direct you once again to WP:BRD: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus". I changed it once, it was reverted, we discussed. Standard approach. The attitude among those championing the former consensus comes across to me as a.) you can't make any changes without our permission, and b.) that permission will never be given. As to arguing a point from many angles...that's actually considered good science, and this is a scientific matter. As to counting the straw poll myself, I explicitly asked others to do so. And once again: Telling me that the difficulty is "rooted in (my) misunderstanding" isn't helpful. Could we disagree without it being the case that I am clearly in the wrong? JJL (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the matter of consensus this might be at the root of the problem

  • At the time of your edit the FAQ clearly said the term "death" had been debated, and no it could not be removed from the lede without a new consensus established. I don't edit the FAQs I think it is bad form to do that if I am involved in any way. Like yourself I am relatively new to the discussion, yet I have been here for several months. When I came to discuss on this page initially it was simply out of interest in what was then a current aspect of discussion which was already well into being debated. I added my comments. Thats all anyone can do. Advancing a new consensus means persuading at least some of those involved in an earlier consensus, either that they did not address a important issue, or if they did that something new has come up which means the matter needs to be re-discussed. I am still not clear what you think you have unearthed that either was not discussed or that represents an important new discovery. The attitude of those previously involved in the discussion has been lets see if we have not already discussed this. There has been no reluctance to give consideration to any genuinely new insight into the issue. You simply cannot claim that you have not been listened to. Let's address the issue you have, that means lets look at it.

Advocacy in the use of the term "death" in the lede's first sentence.

Question: If reference to fetal death was further into the lede would that address your concern with advocacy? In other words do you regard all definitions that mention "death" to be advocacy ipso facto?

To be clear on this as succinctly as possible what is it that is being advocated in your view? DMSBel (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the term 'advocacy'. I don't think you've been reading my posts. I'm not a priori opposed to any mention of (fetal) death in the lede. Do you have a more specific proposal? JJL (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I bring up advocacy is because it was your initial objection in your edit summary:
04:51, 9 June 2011 JJL (talk | contribs) (93,264 bytes) (this is clearly advocacy--"death" is a highly charged term here and not a medical one (does an embryo 'die'?))
You have claimed that other editors are not permitting a change from the consensus version or allowing a new consensus to be advanced. In reply I say maybe initially there was not a lot of enthusiasm from editors to re-open this, so lets examine the concern about advocacy. A couple of editors have thrown the term "stonewalling" about in the discussion. That is a rather emotive term to use in debate, especially to editors who have re-discussed something year after year. Yet if there is an issue here it should be looked at in depth and all issues of advocacy addressed. Lets do so one at a time. It would help if you could delineate your specific concern, by stating what in your view is being advocated by the use of the term death in the first sentence of the lede? DMSBel (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're well behind where the discussion is. Based on the sources NW presented, the defn. involving 'viable' appears to be strongly preferred by the relevant professionals, while that involving 'death' seems to be deprecated. That's what we've been discussing, and what was being addressed in the straw poll. You're denying stonewalling at the same time that you're asking to set aside 20 days of discussion to start over again. It is now I who must ask you to read the archives and get up to date with the discussion. To put it another way, I advocate that you do so. JJL (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of where the discussion is now and where it began in this round of it JJL, if we lose sight of where it began we no longer know what we are discussing, or why we are even discussing it. Are you saying that you no longer think it is advocacy? You see regardless of where the discussion is now, this has to be addressed. I am just puzzled why when that was your initial objection you seem reluctant to discuss it now. What are we discussing if not that? Why are we looking up sources and trying to find alternatives that have not been tried? DMSBel (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we looking up sources? What are we discussing? We're discussing 'viability' in the context of the sources provided by NW. I've addressed your concerns about 'advocacy' as best I can. In light of the sources, we have come to 'viable'. JJL (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have not actually told us what was being advocated. I'd have thought that was easy enough, if you perceived clear advocacy in the lede. Going by archived discussion re-introducing "viable" takes the discussion back considerably. I understand it was first considered about 5 years ago. But the problem as you know is not just with the term viable, its with the term "before viablity". DMSBel (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromises

Well, my original goal in coming here was to settle a dispute, and I fear I have only exacerbated it. In the interests of trying to move on, here are a few compromise versions: [13], [14], [15]. Tell me what you guys think, or suggest your own. NW (Talk) 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still inclined to go with the medical defn. and add a section on defns. and/or death later on in the article, as suggested here [16]. We don't need to fit the whole article into the lede. Giving a defn. and then undercutting it isn't what's done, typically, on WP--it's not standard style. I think progress is being made here--it would be good to have a discussion of how 'death' could be worked in later on in the article and see if we can get some kind of agreement on the medical defn. up top and tweaks, caveats, and varying opinions further down. I think that's a pretty standard approach. JJL (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, if there's agreement that this is the way to go then I certainly won't object. It would be nice to bring this to a conclusion. JJL (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who, as in who is actually trying to fit the entire article into the lede? How are we undercutting our definition? You think progress is being made here? Progress towards consensus, doesn't come about by ignorance of what has already been debated. Consensus is determined across the whole of the discussion - thats the standard approach. Otherwise you are setting up the article to be based not on Reliable sources, factual accuracy, verifiability, and least of all on consensus. Not good. According to your understanding of consensus (basically who is here now) there can never be one, or it will always be in flux. I am not saying consensus can't change, but it doesn't remain in constant flux, especially when its been debated and re-established five years in a row. If every editor edited like that, I'd hate to be an Admin. Your saying in effect there can never be a firmly established consensus formed even for your own version. DMSBel (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to link to those NW. You might have company in that I cannot say for sure how well I have helped the discussion. Still we each hope if we are neutral something we say might help. I really don't have any issue with the earlier consensus version which was "...expulsion or removal of an embryo/fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death".
The reasons I have no issue with it are that
1. the first sentence is general in scope and not specific to induced abortion.
2. "death" is not a clear advocacy of personhood
3. "death" is neutral in comparison with "killing"
4. I understand the issue was debated from every angle, and I have enough confidence in those editors who have debated it to assume they looked at the options thoroughly.
5. It's been brought up in tit for tat fashion by OrangeMarlin.
If there is really something new to present in regard to this, could we have it? DMSBel (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much NW, at least your trying. I'd suggest using the following:

The medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it is viable.[note 1] This terminology does not encompass the abortion topic.[note 2]

Note 2 would contain:

The word abortion is derived from the Latin word aborior (ab (from, away from) + orior (rise, get up; appear), translated in English as to miscarry.

The medical definition for abortion is based on "viability" which is, by its nature, not always verifiable: "Loosely defined, the term viability is the fetus' ability to survive extrauterine life with or without life support. A number of landmark US Supreme Court decisions dealt with this question. In Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989), the court upheld the state of Missouri's requirement for preabortion viability testing after 20 weeks' gestation. However, there are no reliable or medically acceptable tests for this prior to 28 weeks' gestation." Trupin, Suzanne. "Elective Abortion". Retrieved 26 June 2011.

Abortions do occur after 20 weeks gestation: "The second trimester of pregnancy (also called mid-trimester) is the period from 13 to 28 weeks of gestation. It is subdivided into an "early period" (between 13 and 20 weeks) and a "late period" (between 20 and 28 weeks). Worldwide, 10%–15% of all induced abortions occur during the second trimester." Cheng, L.. "Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion : RHL commentary". Retrieved 26 June 2011.

As an embryo / fetus is an organism, its demise/termination can be accurately described as death: "[T]he termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". "Medical Dictionary". Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved June 15, 2011.

While this definition has the advantage of including late-term abortions and avoids the legal/biological ambiguity of viability, it is controversial as it may suggest the fetus is independently alive. (I am unsure if killed is necessary at the end)

And a rewritten "Etymology and definition", get your head examined with: "asserts that a fetus is a life that may be killed". Huh? I'll drink until I forget you wrote that drivel, you deserve that much. asserts = fail NW.

The word abortion is derived from the Latin word aborior -- ab (from, away from) + orior (rise, get up; appear) -- translated in English as to miscarry. The medical definition for abortion is based on "viability", however a few sources use the "death" of the fetus as the marker. While this definition has the advantage of including late-term abortions and avoids the legal/biological ambiguity of viability, it is controversial as it may suggest the fetus is independently alive... to those who cannot read the first sentence of the death article at Wikipedia! Which is significantly easier then to fully understand viable, that may or may not require a masters in bio-ethics."

My version isn't great either, and maybe this section is redundant and can be integrated into my note 2 refs? I've tried that right now in note 2 draft for kicks. - RoyBoy 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that in suggesting we add " to those who cannot read the first sentence of the death article at Wikipedia! Which is significantly easier then to fully understand viable, that may or may not require a masters in bio-ethics" to the article and saying to another editor "get your head examined" that you are attempting to be humorous. It isn't working, and it makes it quite plain to me that you have no interest in reaching a new consensus. If you're going to mock someone suggesting a compromise then you're certainly not working to help build a better article. JJL (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mocking NW in particular (sorry if it came off that way, I acknowledge his efforts above), but rather anyone insufficiently NPOV to acknowledge "death" isn't the end of the world (doesn't mean they need to agree death belongs in the first sentence), and as a consequence are making the lead less "better" (medical style and longer than necessary). I have transferred my intellectually valid humor below note 2. - RoyBoy 12:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word death has two meanings, and is beloved of the anti-abortion faction precisely because it enables the old bait-and-switch between the two (I won't call them pro-life as the implied suggestion that doctors are somehow anti-life is absurd). Viability is unambiguous in context, whereas death is emotive. I would prefer technical to emotive language in any discussion of a contentious topic like this. Just my £0.02 of course. The discussion below looks good-tempered enough. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Guy said. Optionally, something along the lines of NW compromise 436847438...
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus that does not result in birth. or maybe ...live birth.
Just my 0.032134 US$ - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2006, that proposed "compromise" was the first time I ever agreed with pro-life at Wikipedia. It stands out in my mind as a result. At the time we concluded, pro-choice is so steadfast to contort away from death, they will define abortion with the opposite of what it is, for positive effect. Defining it by what its not, is grammatically awkward and dishonest. - RoyBoy 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I'm not an awkward dishonest pro-choicer. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be glad if Wikipedia can avoid it. - RoyBoy 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JzG! Long time guy! I'd love your £0.20 on the following. Technical language is not preferred, death is indeed emotive just as the abortion issue is, that's why it was chosen. Can you clarify the two meanings of death, I'd assert death is perfectly defined once. Most importantly for me, viability has way more than 2 meanings (legally, biologically, ethically) and it does not actually define abortion; rather it defines medical intent for abortion. Late-term abortions do not fit it. - RoyBoy 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have waited a few days before commenting, in the hopes that you would strike out some of your nonsense above. I am disappointed that you chose not to do so. But moving on then.

death is indeed emotive just as the abortion issue is, that's why it was chosen—that's nonsensical. We shouldn't be basing the way we write articles on how passionate people are on the subject; if that were the case, The Holocaust would be far too blandly written a million times over. A user below suggested something along the lines of [17], which sidesteps the whole issue somewhat nicely I think. What would you think of that? NW (Talk) 03:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Holocaust controversial? I don't get the analogy in relation to -- one accurate word -- in the lead (to present both sides with biological reality and include exceptions you concede exist). Perhaps someone should call someone else a Nazi to auto-lose the discussion. I'm disappointed too (Holocaust), you don't like anything above? - RoyBoy 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the sidestep, inventive and great attempt, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Looking here it is opening with generalization of the third definition, or the fifth definition here. Opening with a minor definition doesn't seem to work, I will put "medically defined" in the article for now. - RoyBoy 02:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise suggestion from DRN

One suggestion [18] from DRN is that we consider avoiding using either term in the lede sentence. I think part of the difficulty is that this article addresses both spontaneous and induced abortions despite a clear focus on the latter, but I gather there's little support for changing that. (Please speak up if I'm mistaken about this.) Is there a good wording that avoids either term but still says what's in the sources? JJL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Miscarriage is where Spontaneous abortion points and that that page's lede sentence defines the two terms as being synonymous. The defn. used there is essentially the one proposed here, but without the specific term 'viable': "Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving independently, generally defined in humans at prior to 20 weeks of gestation.". Does this wording help address any of the concerns about the term 'viable'? I wouldn't object to seeing the Abortion page state the matter in a manner like this in the lede sentence. As suggested at DRN, it avoids both terms, and as it spells out what exactly it means it may address the concerns of those who find 'viable' too medical-sounding. For the exceptional cases we could refer the reader to Late termination of pregnancy (and see Late-term_abortion#Definition). JJL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As another note, WP editors on these other pages define abortion without recourse to using the term 'death'. I take this as evidence against the claim that due to WP's special nature we are somehow obligated to use it, and against the claim that the prior consensus was somehow ideal. It can be, and has been, done using a viability--based approach, though not necessarily using that specific term. I'm willing to compromise at not using 'viable' in the manner that editors at other WP Pages have done--including at the page that covers what some editors here consider the most problematic case for 'viable'. JJL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its easy to have subsequent thoughts after having made a comment, and there is nothing wrong with adding those, but would you please not indent your own comments immediately following one another - it makes it look like you are replying to yourself. Indenting distinguishes between one editors comments and another's replies. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the DRN comment it in fact makes two suggestions: Rewrite first sentence to
a) Exclude either term
or
b) Use both terms. DMSBel (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that several suggestions have been offered by those that believe that it is not correct to keep death in the definition because almost none of the references use it. So far a group of editors have refused every suggestion. Would it be possible to open a section where they could offer suggestions that they would agree to? If it turns out that they will accept only the previous definition we need not go on discussing a compromise. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said, this is one suggestion from one editor. It's not all he, or others, have said, but I thought it could be a fruitful avenue to try. Feel free to start a section on another approach. JJL (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that none of us really know why we are discussing this. Advocacy? OK - lets discuss advocacy in the article. DMSBel (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing this up but it isn't clear to me what it is about 'advocacy' you want to discuss, or even what kind of advocacy you mean. I think most of us know what and why we are discussing: The sources that clearly point to 'viable' being the preferred term and the near-absence of 'death' in quality sources. I'm at a loss as to how to make it clearer that that is the point at issue. JJL (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon your arrival on the scene one of your first edits mentioned that "death" is advocacy. Regardless of the countless WP:RS and other references that use the word "death" to define and describe abortion (including a major abortion clinic website that uses that word to discuss what happens to a fetus), your initial claim was that it is an advocacy word. Those wanting to remove the word from the lead initially (and continuously until very recently) based that change on their claimed desire to remove an advocacy word, and refused to acknolwedge that death/dead/die are accurate terms used by doctors/vets/biologists to describe what happens to a fetus when ceases to grow/develop (in fact, those editors were invited to acknolwedge that but would not). It is good to see that there is some movement to admit that the death of a fetus is part of every abortion. Once editors can acknowledge that this has been verified, we can then discuss how and where to state that important fact. And it is very important because without that death, the expulsion/removal of the fetus is considered a birth. It seems that negatively defining abortion as "removal of a fetus that does not result in its live birth" is unnecesarily wordy and complex when the affirmative "removal of a fetus caused by or resulting in its death" is simple, covers all possibilities, and is always accurate. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what is being discussed. That is the rationale that you and some other editors are attempting to piece together. But advocacy is where you started us, and why I insist on asking you what is being advocated, by the consensus version (not the current version) of the lede's first sentence? DMSBel (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer what you're saying sounds a lot like, "If you don't like duck, you're rather stuck!" Or perhaps "If you'd like duck, you're rather stuck!". I would have no objection to either viable or death in the first sentence medically nuanced and correctly phrased, if we were dealing with a simple medical article. Abortion however is not a straighforward, or solely medical topic, and resists being reduced to one. That said I still have hope that the issue can be resolved. As an editor who in the past has attempted to see the issue as others might view it, recall in the picture discussion you were able to recognise that the early stage embryo was seen by some people as a complete human being (I hope I got you right and that I am not putting words into your mouth) I wonder if you might consider the DRN suggestions: Use both terms, a possible way forward, or droping both terms, which I think leaves the definition rather vague, but your thoughts? DMSBel (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well folks "be excellent to each other!" and take it easy. :-) DMSBel (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DMSBel, I don't remember my words in the photo discussion, however, yes I may have well said that because that is what I believe. I have said in this discussion that if I were to have miscarried a child I would have grieved in much the same way that I would have for a full-term birth. It would not be as deep a grief, of course, but a lot of crying never the less. If I had miscarried a child at one time, the beautiful photo that was being used for this page would have brought the grief back in much the same way that a parent that loses a child of any age never gets completely over the loss. On the other hand, I have many friends who feel completely different. Some of them have had abortions and they have not sensed loss or grief at all. This does not mean that I am more intelligent, or moral, or loving, or anything else, it only means that we are different. It also does not mean that if one of my daughters had decided to have an abortion I would have discouraged her, in fact I would have strongly supported her if she decided to abort an unplanned pregnancy. I feel that all women should have the right to their own decisions about when to start a family, if ever, and the right to limit their family when they feel they hardly can afford and care for the children they already have. I hope that I have fully explained that I believe that it is possible, and in the case of abortion, of the utmost importance, to be able to see an issue from another's point of view.
You state that the definition for our article must not use a medical definition because it is actually broader than only the medical aspect. However this issue has come up in the past and NW furnished us with more references which are not of a medical nature and still the word death is absent. Your comments?
You have suggested a definition using neither death nor viable. Could you submit a possibility? Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested a definition using neither death nor viable, but maybe you misunderstood me, or I failed to make myself clear. I have said dropping both terms would leave the definition vague, that to my mind is not good in an encyclopedia. "before it is viable" / "before the fetus is viable" is not an equivalent to "resulting in or caused by its death". However both presuppose the life of the embryo/fetus. Thats why I support a version that can incorporate both [viable] and [death], but not "before viability" or "before it is viable". DMSBel (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not both presuppose the life of the embryo/fetus. Some people believe that life does not begin till birth. You can not tell those people you are right and they are wrong just because God told you so. Maybe they have a different God that told them life begins at birth. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No scientist or physician believes that a fetus (including an embryo) developing in the womb is not alive. The issue you bring up needlessly (because no editor in favor of "death" has ever relied on it or brought it up) is whether the living fetus should be afforded personhood status (rights). When discussing the state of organisms and parasites and mammallian fetuses, the typical langauge used is alive/living or dead. Non-living things (whether classified as parasites or organisims) are not treated as patients. Yet in Western medicine, doctors are legally and ethically bound to treat the fetus as a patient unless the mother affirmatively declares that she wishes to abort the fetus, and even then the doctor must treat the fetus as a patient until the actual abortion procedure begins, and even then if the fetus ends up alive outside the womb because an induced abortion attempt has failed the doctor must treat the baby as a patient. The medical profession is not thereby conferring personhood on the fetus prior to birth, but rather the profession is simply recognizing that the fetus is alive and is capable of being treated as a patient while in the womb (and must be so treated until such time as the doctor takes affirmative action to end-the-life-of/cause-the-death-of the fetus). Many in the profession will defer to the mother's decision as to whether that life of the fetus will be artificially terminated. After ensuring that the fetus (having been re-classified as an unwanted parasite or organism) is dead, they will then remove it from the uterus (although some abortion procedures are designed so that the act of removal itself is so destructive that it causes the death of the fetus). This is all medicine and science and not at all dependent on any ideas about personhood or any religious ideas. If you review the entire dialogue for the past 3 weeks, not one person has mentioned or implied personhood (rights) or religion as a basis for the word "death". It has always been an appeal to medicine/science/law and the broader context of abortion as a part of the culture. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer: Nice WP:OR. But false. Viability means being able to survive if born prematurely, reaching viability requires growth, which requires life.DMSBel (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all the better you can do how can I even debate you? How can I attempt to start all over again from page 1 of this discussion. You just lead us round and round. I don't think you're doing it on purpose but that is exactly what you are doing. We have discussed again and again that everyone is well aware that cells, etc., are alive - they are "born", they grow, and they die. We are speaking of "personhood life" here, not the life of a cell or an organ. One does not say the baby's liver is alive or dead because it had or had not grown to a state of viability. If you still can not get that clear in your mind I do not see how you can be considered able to go on with this discussion. I can say that I for one am totally unable to continue to discuss this with you and from the looks of things pretty much everyone else has given up as well. Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who says we are speaking about "personhood life"? You are imposing that POV onto the clinical and scientific and legal fact of death. Certainly the medical profession is quite clear that the fetus dies, and uses "death" to refer to both induced death and spontaneous death.
Your argument apparently is "death" implies personhood. But it does not. It states that in an abortion a living fetus (regardless of what status you afford to it) must die, otherwise the "termination of pregnancy" is always a live birth.
Death can mean many things. But to qualify death in the lede by noting "biological" would then highlight the POV that the fetus is not a person, just as some other qualifier might highlight the POV that the fetus is a person. Either qualifier would be wrong.
Clearly in the profession of medicine, the fetus is treated as a person if the mother does not indicate she wants to abort, and spontaneous abortions (of a wanted fetus) are often situations where the mother considered the death to be same as if the child had died after being born alive. So "biological death" is POV and improper.
Biology considers the cessation of life of any organism to be its death. When a biologist observes that an organism has ceased to be alive, this observation is typically called death.
71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to be what this editor from the photo discussion said:

The British GMC policy does not address whether a fetus (or for that matter a sperm or blastocyst or zygote) is an internal organ or structure, so I don't think we should assume that the policy would be applicable here. Under British law, a 10-week fetus is equivalent to a tonsil in terms of legal status, which is another reason for us to hesitate before using the GMC policy to erase numerous prenatal images (including featured images) at Commons. In any event, the image in question is not simply a fetus, but rather a fetus internal to an amnion (the latter surely being an internal organ or structure).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Is a Fetus alive Gandydancer? DMSBel (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this has been discussed again and again and I refuse to be led round and round in the same circle any longer. If you really did want my answer to that question all you'd have to do is read my previous posts. In fact if you really want to know what I think about any aspect of this discussion, please just read my previous posts because it's all there and I am not going to keep repeating it over and over. Gandydancer (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I appreciate that you do try to look at the issue from another angle at times, you also finished one of your comments: "OK, I think I've changed my mind...for now...". It's a little difficult to determine which way you are facing after reading that. Basically I most often see a pro-choice sentiment in your posts though they tend to go off on a tangent at times. Asking people to repeat things is something you have done quite frequently in the discussion, especially sources. From what I can gather you do indeed understand that an embryo / fetus is alive, or at least that life begins before birth. DMSBel (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, the issue is central here, and, as has been previously pointed out, you are one conflating life/death with personhood. That is why the argument is circular. As has been stated Who says we are speaking about "personhood life"? You are imposing that POV . If you think the fetus is not alive then find a reliable source that explicitly states the developing fetus is not alive. I've asked for such a source a number of times and none have been supplied. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Kushner ref. does that. What is it about that source that you find unreliable? JJL (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Try again. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree this has been previously discussed. This section was meant to discuss the compromise suggestion from DRN - why don't we all try a little harder to stay on topic. If you still have problems with other issues perhaps you should add your thoughts/requests in the appropriate section. Gandydancer (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I reject the suggestion, since the developing fetus is alive and can therefore die. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like a living toenail that is injured and dies, like living skin that dies, and like a living kidney that is ill/injured and dies. "Alive" and "dead" are common terms used to describe human tissue.
  • Of course typical terms used by the general population when referring to a human or animal fetus are "alive", "living" and "dead.
  • Certainly doctors refer to a fetus as alive (and treats the fetus as a patient) until a pregnant woman states that she wants an abortion, and if such a fetus is stillborn, they will refer to it as "dead".
  • Even people who are abortion lobbyists refer to the wanted fetuses among their family and friends as "alive" or "living" (and if there is a miscarriage as "dead").
  • Abortion in every single possible clinical situation is ALWAYS "the expulsion or removal of a dead fetus from the uterus".
  • Abortion does NOT always terminate a pregnancy (e.g. selective reduction).
  • Abortions are performed on at least tens of thousands of viable fetuses each year (many for sex selection in countries where male babies are desired).
  • There are billions of people who think that killing a viable fetus is murder, and hundreds of millions who think any abortion kills a person.
  • The article lede cannot be forced to couch the basic explanation of abortion using a lexicon that doctors performing abortions use when speaking to women seeking induced abortion.
74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lede opening sentences in light of DRN suggestions

Following on from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) suggestion that we might try to find a version which either avoids both terms or uses both terms, ie death | viable/viability, I offer the following as a basis for further discussion.

The [subject] of abortion is one that ranges across many [fields], as such it is not limited to solely legal, medical, philosophical, bio-ethical, or theological considerations. Abortion is the cessation of embryonic or fetal maturation and the [the ending of nascent life], prior to natural ending of pregnancy at birth, and often before viability. It is caused by, results in or preceeds [embryonic/fetal death]. It includes expulsion or removal of the embryo/fetus from the [uterus] [womb]. It may be termed either spontaneous (miscarriage) when due to embryonic/fetal demise, or induced when an abortificient or other method is used. Medical reference works vary in their definitions [add footnote]. Debate about the beginnings of meaningful life, moral personhood is sometimes polarised...

[....] words/phrases that may need to be discussed further. Where two [….] are together, the terms/phrases are fairly synonymous and it is suggested that either one or other is used rather than both.

The above is only a suggestion for the first few sentences of the lede.

I believe this removes the problematic and inaccurate notion of abortion refering only to abortions done before viability, and leaves open the option of whether or not to include “death”, which has been considered for a long time a good compromise, and enjoyed consensus, and is less emotive than references to “kill” or “killing” and in this version is in the third sentence rather than the first. Most editors here have not objected to any mention of death. But only to where it carries an inference of advocacy. The issue of pro-choice/pro-life advocacy is not limited to the lede of course. But we should deal with one thing at a time here. And lets avoid [[19]]. I hope this helps. DMSBel (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open-minded but we'd need a much less wordy version, I think. This moves the "caused by or resulting in its death" language further down but the very language is still problematic. If 'death' is to be used in this context then its heavily laden meaning must be acknowledged (and then expanded on later in the article). Is this format based on something from another, similarly contentious article? Spontaneous abortion is "natural" but I think the "...at birth" is reasonably clear. I don't think the medical references vary very much: The truly medical ones are all but unanimous in using 'viability'. I certainly prefer the one-line definition and then later discussion of at-the-edge issues further down in the article approach. Readability is certainly one of our goals and to start by acknowledging (correctly) that it's a tough topic sort of dodges the requirement to tell the reader what we're talking about. I like the form in the currently protected version: It's short and to-the-point and in agreement with the medical community. To my mind it's not that the subject of abortion ranges over many fields--induced abortion is simply a medical procedure. But unlike most medical procedures, there is significant commentary on it from many fields. The Catholic Church doesn't condemn appendectomy but does condemn abortion. They're both medical procedures but one draws the attention of, and criticism from, the outside world. I mean that it isn't so much that the "subject of abortion ranges" as that "a wide range of academic disciplines study abortion" (which is also clearly inadequate phrasing). JJL (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not based on any other article. It is an attempt to find a version that manages to address all the issues. It is not intended as a definition but as a suggestion of how the first few sentences of the lede could read while at the same time trying to be more precise and less vague. I am reading your post but not having a lot of success understanding you in places : The version I have suggested starts not by acknowledging its a tough topic but by acknowledging the scope of the topic is wide, so I don't know what you mean by dodge. Once the scope of the topic is acknowledged it moves right into what we are talking about, which is not induced abortion solely, or a procedure solely, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the article, and is likely at the root of this dispute. Some editors are reading the start of the lede (incorrectly I believe) as though it was speaking about induced abortion specifically. Your alternative wording "a wide range of academic disciplines study abortion" I have no problem with and it could be included easily enough, its not all that inadequate. But is that your issue? "Theological" is not limited to Catholic theology, so that seems a little off on a tangent. I don't think we need to craft a lede to get back at conservatives or catholics, we just need to describe things as clearly, plainly, accurately and honestly as possible. DMSBel (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to JJL, is the mention of embryonic/fetal death problematic to you because of the very fact that it is mentioned at all, or because it is mentioned without further elucidation in the article? If the latter would you then be happy with a section specifically in which embryonic/fetal death is addressed in more detail?DMSBel (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of it in the lede would need to be qualified since it's nonstandard and open to wide interpretation. I'm thinking of something like "...which some view as a 'death' though others do not" or the like. That could be expanded on at great length later in the article. JJL (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a medical source in existence which states emphatically it does not view abortion as either caused by resulting in or preceeding fetal death? The article is not supposed to be mixture of WP:OR and medical sources. The silence on "death" in one source and the addressing of "death" in another does not make them contradictory. It is better to craft a description from several complementary sources which don't emphatically contradict each other. Synth is also a problem when sources are selected which studiously avoid something in exclusion to other reliable sources which don't. DMSBel (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given some above that point out that while one view is that life begins at conception, there are conflicting views as to when life begins (e.g., "brain birth"), and some that contest the very notion that an embryo is an organism that could be considered alive. JJL (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That rejecting sources that mention "death" is a form of WP:SYNTH is made clear in this quote from an article in California Medicine: The Western Journal of Medicine
"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected." [[20]]DMSBel (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have the journal name correct. That says in 1970 that older ideas were being supplanted by new ones. It's been over 40 years now so I wonder what the author would have to say in 2011? In any event, this goes precisely to my point--that the view of "death" is ill-defined. As this author puts it, new ideas are being accepted but old ones are still around. Isn't that exactly the sort of conflict that makes use of the term 'death' difficult absent any further context? JJL (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry its been renamed, I corrected the title. It's now just Western Journal of Medicine (WJM)[[21]]DMSBel (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what further context should there be?DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I am not saying that it is deliberate WP:SYNTH. But just that things seems to have resulted in WP:SYNTH in the current lede, rather unintentionally. DMSBel (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how a quite literal transcription of the modal defn. used in the literature could possibly be considered synthesis. JJL (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the earlier consensus version of the first sentence would be synth, because your earlier suggestion that it seemed like SYNTH has thrown a few editors into confusion. Synth is the result of putting together a combination of sources to draw a conclusion that none of those sources explicitly draws. But in the sources we had footnoted, there was one (a basic medical dictionary) which explicitly defined abortion as:
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
therefore in the lede there was not any drawing of a conclusion not already stated in one of the sources cited. So no WP:SYNTH. So why change the lede? However in the current version a piece of information is omitted from the lede, that at least one source provides, and no other source denies. It also gives the impression abortions are only performed before viability, which is misleading. The problem was solved when the footnote was added to the earlier consensus version. DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why change the lede? Really, you're asking that? Look, you're not even being serious. I don't know which editors you think are confused or where you think I said the old version was synthesized, but at this point it's quite clear to me that you're just playing rhetorical games and not trying to reach a compromise of any sort. You opened up a section allegedly to look for a compromise when in fact you're just suggesting that we have to return to the old version because you still have that one favored source that agrees with your language. There's no point to this. JJL (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am asking that in regard to the first sentence, because I did not see any particular problem with the version we had as far as the first sentence was concerned. I had added a POV tag, which I explained in edit summaries and on the discussion page was in reference to other editors bringing up concerns with the terms theraputic and elective. OM threatened to open up this whole can of worms, in tit for tat fashion sometime earlier (I have the diff. of what he said), in response to the mere mention I made of it being better to hold an RFC on an image in the article at the time. You joined just after he tried this. I had added the POV tag to the lede but not with reference to the term "death". OM took advantage of that to open up the issue of the word "death" but that was not the reason the POV tag was on the lede at the time. You did claim a synthesis and I can quote the diff here. And I am taking this seriously.DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier comment of yours to RoyBoy: Your claim is that the medical side is wrong. That's OR or at least synthesis until you have sources that criticize the medical defns. as mistaken, not just different. JJL (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We are maybe misunderstanding each other. But there most emphatically was no synth in the earlier consensus version. One source supplements the others. Thats great is it not? We don't need to be agnostic. Rejecting a source for no good reason is POV. DMSBel (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But then there is this also: "Much of what I see argued in favor of bringing in 'death' reads as WP:SYNTH or undue WP:WEIGHT to me."
JJL, if there is a problem with something it will fall within the boundaries of one or the other. And you will know which it is when there is a problem. Just casting around for violations because you like one version, and don't like another is not good. DMSBel (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by modal definition. DMSBel (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most frequently occurring, as in Modal score. JJL (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I would like us to understand each other as best as possible, but I'd prefer if we could invite a couple of other editors who have some linguistic background before we proceed further. Have you any objections? I am thinking of Ludwigs and Ed Poor.DMSBel (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not reason to use a modal definition in the lede for abortion. The whole reason the lede has read as it does since 2005 is because the editors have consistently over time reached the consensus that other definitions were inadequate and inaccurate and thus should not be used in the lede. OM, JJL and the other johnny-come-latelys have approached the article as if they have information that has not been considered by editors over the years as the 2006 consensus has been re-affirmed again and again. That a few editors in June 2011 had a pissy-fit is not a reason to change the consensus when (a) no new information has been brought to the talk page and (b) the dozens and dozens and dozens of editors who have considered the lede over the years have not been asked what they think of upending this applecart because a few people have arrived thinking they are brilliant. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! It's a well-established fact that if a decision has stood for 6 years any johnny-come-lately that thinks they know better than a decision that has stood the test of time (6 years) and been reaffirmed again and again and has no new information to add, should stand! This was true when the wemmon-folk wanted the right to vote and the nee-gras said they didn't like being slaves and it's still true today, by gawd. I also think we need to go back to kings and queens rather than this voting for different administrations every 4 years. Hog wash! Just a bunch of upstarts thinking they are brilliant and trying to upset the applecart. Balderdash! Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2006 version is out. We're not talking about that any longer. Based on the new information and discussions, the best-supported version currently uses 'viable'. Discussion of just leaving the 2006 version alone for time immemorial has ended. You need to get up to speed. JJL (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, we most certainly are talking about it, we have been talking about it for several weeks. You started by talking about. And we are still talking about it, and quite right too. Seems we are all up to speed here except you JJL. You don't resolve things by saying "we are not talking about this anymore". You are not talking about it now maybe, but any resolution to this dispute cannot avoid talking about it. There is a bigger problem with your behaviour JJL than the version of the lede you are against.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the problem here is that JJL is damning with faint praise[[22]], nearly every suggestion. Once again the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death" was the compromise. I have no objections to moving it to the second or third sentence. But I will not support pro-choice advocacy by omission of basic factual information found in a easily available medical dictionary. JJL has argued that other sources are not incorrect, but different. I disagree that Merriam/Webster Medical Dictionary has to evaluated on the basis of what other sources do not say, esp. if those sources are simply "different", that it is impossible to do so. Each one of those sources confirms Merriam/Webster as far as they go. Leaving all agendas aside, "caused by or resulting in its death" meets basic verifiability requirements and has consensus. This information should therefore be mentioned in both the lede and with further elucidation in a section of the article.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I will not support pro-life advocacy by using the information found in only one of the multitude of references we offer. You need to fight your battle in the blogs, on the streets, in letters to newspapers, in petitions, and in any other way you choose, but you may not turn Wikipedia into an abortion battleground and expect to win. Gandydancer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one thing that's nice about using the language that the physicians have settled on--it's scientific and noncontroversial. We avoid being seen as pro- or anti- anything by simply using the best medical defn. available and not claiming that they are engaging in some grand conspiracy top keep the WP:TRUTH from us. JJL (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, caught up yet with where embyrology was fifty years ago?DMSBel (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original lede should have been better referenced, yes. That was a failing, but not an irremediable one. It is not grounds to completely change it to a far more contentious version. We just add a tag that more sources are needed when a statement is not well referenced. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary definition. We can't find another compromise, because the earlier version was the compromise. When will you see that? Would you prefer "Abortion is the killing of unborn babies"? Do you see what I am getting at? Can you not see what a compromise the version you are complaining about was. It's no more good editorial practice to try to railroad through a version that lacks support, than to try and cement an earlier version in place. But that was not what editors were trying to do, they were trying to see if your proposal had been discussed and what the reasons were that it was not adopted before. DMSBel (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This gentleman is correct and who could deny the sound logic here? Look at it this way: The former group compromised and said that abortion results in the death of an embryo or fetus when they could have said it is the killing of a an unborn baby. Perfect logic. Think perhaps of the Three Fifths Compromise and then some trouble-makers came along and decided 3/5 wasn't good enough. Happens all the time. Anyone should understand that 3/5 was a great compromise compared to making the darkies zero or one, since that was out of the question. Sound logic and worked perfectly till some upstarts upset the applecart. Really, who doesn't long for the days when logic ruled and the women-folk and the darkies knew their place, other than them, of course. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking past each other or what JJL, I find you very difficult to understand at times. You undercut your own rationales, then move on to other ones, then forget what you said in the past. I don't know how to discuss this with you. DMSBel (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I missed where JJL forgot what he said in the past. Could you please point that out? Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wasting editors time! DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what the WJM article is talking about. You are turning this into a complicated mess, for what? I can understand someone who writes in broken english, even though their grammar is bad. I don't take the view that language or some terms are even half as "fuzzy" as you claim. DMSBel (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What terms and language do you speak of here? Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask JJL, he made the claim! DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: I know that a fetus is alive before viability. I don't need to wait till medical definitions catch up with what most people knew 50 years ago.DMSBel (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What branch of science led you to that knowledge? Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Embryology.DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The language used in most med. refs. carefully avoids the philosophical issues associated with when life begins and just keeps itself to what's scientifically knowable. Going beyond that is not just leaving science, it's leaving what any group of people could hope to agree upon. Claiming to 'know' medical facts that the medical community does not claim to know is highly problematical here. JJL (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not problematic. Conception, Fertilization are not philosophical issues! Or someone should tell doctors. Really!DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're turning to philosophy now, let's use sources from philosophy dictionaries. Let's start with the one in the article: ""A term that, in philosophy, theology, and social debates, often means the deliberate termination of pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive outside the uterus. However, participants in these debates sometimes use the term abortion simply to mean the termination of pregnancy before birth, regardless of whether the fetus is viable or not." "abortion." Dictionary of World Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001."

But I forgot, sources don't matter; we don't have to wait until sources catch up to what we know is right. NW (Talk) 03:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJL doesn't want philosophical discussions in the lede. Not sure if the end of your post was meant to be irony ;-) but I agree with you which is why the Merriam/Webster definition cannot be ruled out. It provides information other sources don't and doesn't contradict other sources. Science does not move from knowledge back to ignorance, there might be a paradigm shift every few centuries, but that's based in genuinely new insights and discoveries. So far embryology still tells us fertilization and conception bring about an organism with a new genetic code, which manifests all of the following: Growth, Response to Stimuli, Organisation and Metabolism. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody keep an eye on these editors. And be nice to the IPs. Goodnighty :-)DMSBel (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion is not just a medical term

I agree with the spirit of the compromise suggested by DMSBel under The Lede opening sentences in light of DRN suggestions and agree that it is currently too wordy.

Rationale:

vocabulary.com
Abortion is a surgical procedure that ends a pregnancy. In the United States, the public debate over a women's right to have an abortion is a complex and heated political issue.
The words abort and abortion can also apply to non-pregnancy related topics. If you are in the middle of a jewel-heist and the alarm on the vault is tripped, you and your partners in crime might opt to abort the plan and run while you can, debating whether the plan's abortion was a good decision or not later.

I would suggest we need a more general definition of the term "abortion", which would lead into the qualifying sentences currently present. Here are some examples:

3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity. -American Heritage dictionary

3. arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest -Merriam-Websters


(biology) Arrest of development of any organ, so that it remains an imperfect formation or is absorbed. Any fruit or produce that does not come to maturity, or anything which is interrupted in its progress before it is matured or perfect. The act of aborting a project, a mission, etc, before it is completed. (art) Something ugly, an artistic atrocity. -Wiktionary

▸ noun: failure of a plan abort -- (the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed; ``I wasted a year of my life working on an abort"; "he sent a short message requesting an abort due to extreme winds in the area ) -Wordnet


3. the failure of a mission or project, -Collins

References to "aborting the mission" are so prevalent in popular culture that I do not feel I need to provide a reference. I would guess that most people here have heard the term in video games, movies, or TV shows dealing with war, spy missions, under cover police work, etc. NASA documents describing the biomedical experiments conducted during the Apollo missions employ the term "abortion" when referring to the failure of plants to produce pollen. NASA Technical Memorandum 58217[23]

All of these definitions were obtained by spending 5 minutes at alphaDictionary online[24], which searches over 1,060 dictionaries allowing us to obtain a consensus of usage. This includes entries from older sources, such as Webster's 1913[25] and Britannica 1911[26]I consider these sources to be current as long as there may be people alive for whom these sources would have been their primary reference on matters of English usage. The search produced results from concise dictionaries, not from the multi volume versions that are produced once or twice a century. My copy of Webster's Third New International does not have any entries that I would consider significantly different from those shown.

To add depth to this consensus, I also consulted Online Etymology[27]

abortive

late 14c., from L. abortivus "pertaining to miscarriage; causing abortion," from abort-, pp. stem of aboriri "disappear, miscarry," from ab- "amiss" (see ab-) + oriri "appear, be born, arise" (see orchestra); the compound word used in L. for deaths, miscarriages, sunsets, etc. The Latin verb for "to produce an abortion" was abigo, lit. "to drive away." Not originally used to imply forced or deliberate miscarriage; from 14c.-18c. stillborn children or domestic animals were said to be abortive. Also see abortion. Related: Abortiveness

We can see that the general sense of the term is arrested development, or a failure of a process to come to its natural or intended fruition. The emphasis is on process, not on the fruit of that process.

I suggest we take our cue from the biological definitions, which, unlike medical texts, are strictly technical. Medical texts, especially those directed to the public, tend to intersperse lay terms with technical terms, thus giving undue weight to terms such as "baby", "mother", "death", etc.

I would suggest that the first sentence of the current article be replaced with:

"The term "abortion" generally applies to any process which terminates prematurely. Most frequently, it applies to biological processes, especially pregnancy."

You can work in the "death of the fetus" thingy wherever you wish - just not in the definition. I will take up the death v viability dispute in a separate comment section.Ermadog (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting observation. (I would've added that computer programs frequently abort.) My first thought was that it was more of a Wiktionary approach, but then I looked around and found, e.g., Destruction. I do think handling both spontaneous and induced abortion at the same page is a (small) part of the difficulty we're having. Even if making Abortion a broad defn. of the term in its whole or a disambiguation page was done we'd still have the issue of induced abortion eventually. I'm not sure what I think; I couldn't find uses of "abortion" on WP in a cursory search that weren't either in this context or in music. JJL (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity. -American Heritage dictionary
Since my proposed change would simply replace the current lede sentence, I don't see this as an attempt to avoid the induced v. spontaneous question. The very next sentences deal with these issues. I'm unclear as to the relevance of a search on "abortion" in WP. I'm addressing current usage of the word as described by a consensus of dictionaries. This consensus shows that abortion is any arrested development or cessation of a process. As applied to human pregnancy, the term "abortion" would then be properly applied to the pregnancy itself as the process under arrested development. the term "pregnancy" necessarily includes the conceptus, as you cannot be pregnant without a conceptus being present. (You can be pregnant without a fetus being present).
I don't see the difficulties as stemming from spontaneous v induced abortion. I see the problem as two groups having two completely different conversations about the same topic. The strict anti-abortion crowd wishes to make the rights of the fetus paramount; while, the strict pro choice crowd deny that the conceptus has any rights at all in the matter (at least in the earlier stages). We're just talking past each other. The insistence of the anti crowd upon the inclusion of "death of the fetus" is an attempt to keep the discussion focused on what they consider to be the "victim" of abortion. This is why I proposed a broad definition of the term "abortion" as the introductory sentence. The various ancillary issues follow, and are properly discussed in the body of article. Ermadog (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand I see your point and don't actually object to going that way, though I think it'd be a big conversation. But I think that, realistically, many of the other issues would be principally discussed in linked articles, not further down in the main article, and most searches would land on them initially, losing this context where it is needed. The point of searching for non-medical uses of abortion was that I wondered if the term was being used/discussed in its other senses here--such articles would need to be linked to and context for them provided. This is an interesting approach and I'm open-minded. If the main discussion of biological abortion remains here then it could be helpful. If it ends up mostly being a glorified dab page to aborting computer programs, aborting major projects, etc., then I don't think it'd help much, though it might still be sensible for WP to have such a page, perhaps.JJL (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing a detailed discussion of the various permutations of the term "abortion" outside its designation of a process of interrupted pregnancy. That would properly belong in a disambiguation page. I was simply proposing a more general definition to replace a currently contentious one. As you yourself noted, "One suggestion [22] from DRN is that we consider avoiding using either term in the lede sentence." My definition shows how the more general meaning applies to human pregnancy.Ermadog (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest -Merriam-Websters

As you know, this is an encyclopedia article, and the lede is an introduction not a definition per se, so we don't need to be so concise as some of these definitions. Most people coming to the page will know it is either about spontaneous or induced abortion or both. Abortion originally refered to both intentional abortion and miscarriage, (so if I understand you correctly) it would be rather strange to begin the article with the third definition below, especially when there is nothing in the article specifically about organs or body parts. If there is consensus for separation of articles on abortion and miscarriage, I think abortion could possibly then be merged into Feticide with a redirect. But any separation would be too controversial on this article without an RFC in advance. If a return to the earlier consensus version with some minor changes does not solve the issue, more clarification early on in the lede should help.
1.a) Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. b) Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Also called induced abortion.
2. See miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.DMSBel (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would imagine I would want to introduce the article with "the third definition below", when what I actually proposed was "The term "abortion" generally applies to any process which terminates prematurely. Most frequently, it applies to biological processes, especially pregnancy."
Here, the term "process" is a broad category which includes pregnancy as one of the sub categories. Thus, my discussion is broader than the concise definitions to which you refer. When a military operative proposes to abort a mission, he is not generally proposing to terminate a pregnancy. When a computer operating system proposes to abort a process, it is not generally proposing to terminate a pregnancy. Do you really believe that the broad public has not heard of this type of usage?
As for merging "Abortion" with "Feticide", "Abortion" is the general category; "Feticide" is the subcategory. Furthermore, "fetus" is only one subcategory of "conceptus". The feticide page should be merged with the abortion page, if any merging at all is to occur, especially since the feticide page focuses on the narrower aspect of law.Ermadog (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But your rationale begins by skipping over the first two definitions (above), to reach a conclusion that, arguing on the grounds of "what definitions are there?" is impossible. It's a bit like math in that you can arrive at an answer, but that does not make the answer you have arrived at right. Something seems to have gone awry and I think its because you began by not considering the two main senses of abortion - ie. spontaneous and induced. A wikionary definition can disambiguate a variety of senses more easily so perhaps these other senses (abort mission) (abort program) could be introduced into the the wikionary definition. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I "skipped over" nothing. I derived a general sense of the term "abortion" by surveying current usage and looking for a common thread. You do know what "general" means in this context? I thought I had spelled it out when I mentioned categories and subcategories. Process is a general category which includes pregnancy. The fact is that pregnancy can be thought of as a process transpiring within a woman's body and ultimately producing a baby, or it can be thought of as the production of a baby, leaving out the woman. I think most people reading the Wikipedia will be aware that pregnancy necessarily entails the production of a conceptus as a byproduct. Since it is the characterization of this byproduct that is the point of contention, one solution is to leave it out of the description.Ermadog (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something with: cessation of embryonic or fetal maturation and the ending of nascent life. The "thingy" as the editor refered to it about "death" really seems to be unavoidable. And there is little support for its removal entirely. But we should go back to the consensus version and then discuss possible alterations. DMSBel (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I suggest that the issue of fetal death should be avoided. It simply doesn't belong in a general definition of the term "abortion".Ermadog (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that it seems that there is growing support for keeping the matter of fetal death in the lede, and less support now for "before viability". I agree with JJL in that it would be necessary to address fetal death in the article also.DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all. I mostly see you talking to yourself here. The suggestion from DRN was to compromise by omitting or keeping both terms. I don't think anyone prefers that we do either of those things, but it seemed worthwhile to discuss the possibility in the spirit of compromise. Your comments have made clear that compromise isn't what you want--you want to have it your way despite being in the minority of opinion here. JJL (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those new to the discussion, there is in fact majority support for the removal of 'death' from the lede and for having it discussed, if it is, later in the article; and, the 2006 consensus featuring it is no longer in play and the current wording in the protected version of the page has the best support--all the more so if one excludes the comments of SPA IPs and the repeatedly blocked and banned. The best available sources do not use 'death' and overwhelmingly use 'viable'. JJL (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two things to note here, one is a failed straw poll that had a narrative change in the middle, this rendered it incapable of assessment. Even if it could be used to find consensus (which by Wikipedia definition of consensus it can't), one involved editors tallying and interpretation of the poll is not neutral. Secondly the issue of death in the definition is completely separate from it in the lede. And there is no way to absolutely remove it from the lede, without violating the current consensus, and ending up basing the article on subjective editor preferences. WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT Its use in the article continues to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY DMSBel (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The change occurred immediately after I posted it. I was the only one who had voted at that point. After the reorganization of votes by RoyBoy he added his comment and I modified mine. No one else was affected by any changes. This is hardly the "middle". But as this seems to be very bothersome to you, feel free to address the issue with RoyBoy or an admin if you feel he was intentionally trying to disrupt the discussion or interfere with the poll. The word 'death' has been removed from the lede. You may not call it consensus, but that's what the majority of editors has settled on, based on the best sources around. Continuing to make misstatements doesn't change things and isn't fruitful. JJL (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL I have to say your preference for precision in communication is great. When I said "middle" I was imprecise, what I meant was after it was started. I have no issue with RoyBoy's change. But as I said in advance of the poll it would not declare any new consensus. You need to go to the policy discussion pages JJL if you'd like to make a proposal that wikipedia content should be based on a simple majority. DMSBel (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I say below that I am unable to come to a conclusion as to exactly what the poll problem is and why I have felt it is just sour grapes. Now you change the subject and say well I said it wouldn't make a new consensus anyway. Please make a statement that is precise which states your reasons that the poll was not properly done. Certainly one would think that we could conclude at least this part of the disagreement rather than drag it out into eternity. One is supposedly expected to have good faith, however I tend to guess that you would have quite a different opinion if the poll had turned out to be in your favor. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Wikipedia is not a democracy for starters. Then the meat is the preponderance of sources use viable, they are medical sources. It provides no compromise or acknowledgement of larger issues and the broader reality of abortion, which isn't always on-time, by a doctor, in a clinic. Does an abortion make a fetus defacto nonviable? - RoyBoy 00:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was proposing that the whole issue of the fate of the conceptus be dropped from the lead sentence, in favour of a more general definition of the term "abortion". I have read this current talk page, as well as several pages from the discussion archived in 2006. I truly hope consensus has actually been achieved. However, as previously noted, I will be adding my 2 cents to the death v. viability discussion in a separate comment section. Ermadog (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its removal or keeping in the lede first sentence is being discussed. We have no way of determining if consensus for the current version was ever achieved. The straw poll could not determine it ipso facto even if there had not been a narrative change in the middle of it, both in the formulation of the poll and in the article. Thats why the only way out of the current problem (a page protected non-consensus version of the article) is a restoration of the earlier consensus version, and further discussion, on the position of "death" or "fetal death" in the lede.DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I forgot. "Consensus" in Wikipedia, achieved by the first people to write an article is written in stone. Silly me.Ermadog (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such comments are unhelpful and risk re-polarising this when other editors are attempting to bring sides to an understanding of each others position. Nobody is saying the earlier version cannot be discussed or changed. But neither has any editor a right to demand change. DMSBel (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought this comment was directed to me. Then I remembered: I never demanded change. Neither did any other editor. Also, you're not talking to me anymore.Ermadog (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I think you'll find that it was you who said you saw "no point in answering my questions. Have a nice day", I'll certainly hold open the option of reading your posts and replying to them. Best:-)DMSBel (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: Abortion is not just a medical term. That is why the lede should not simply be a repeat of a medical definition that is couched in medical jargon (words that are not always readily known to non-medical people). For instance, "loss" (meaning death) and "destruction" (meaning death or killing) are jargon used by medical professionals, but there are more clear and effective words to use outside of a clinical setting. For instance, a doctor might refer to a newborn as a "baby" when consulting with the child's mother, but would call him a neonate when discussing the medical situation with other professionals. Likewise a doctor might answer a woman asking about how long the elective late-term abortion of her fetus will take: "it will take a few days to extract all of the tissue", whereas his answer to a woman whose wanted fetus has died in utero might be "it will take a few days to deliver your baby". The WP article should not use jargon without explaining what it means or when non-jargon words can be used to more concisely. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is "loss" jargon? If I say "I lost my business" anyone with a grasp of English will know I mean my business failed or was taken away for some reason. Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reason "loss" is not appropriate in the article is because "loss" conveys an incomplete meaning and does not apply to some abortions. A "loss" is typically understood to be something unpleasant or undesirable. "Loss" would apply to many spontaneous abortions and some induced abortions, but would not apply to most induced abortions. "Destruction" also conveys an incomplete meaning and does not apply to some abortions. "Destruction" would apply to induced abortions that dismember or crush the fetus, but would not apply to many spontaneous abortions (and possibly to some induced abortions) where the fetus remains bodily intact. Both "loss" (unintended or unwanted death) and "destruction" (intentional killing or annihilation) are specific types of death. Since abortion can be intentional or spontaneous, the general term "death" is the most succinct and always accurate word to use because it covers what must happen to the fetus as part of every abortion, and does not suggest anything but the cessation of life. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what hospitals that you worked in that used some of the bizarre terms that you suggest, but I've been around the hospital block more than a few times and I never heard medical professionals speak in the manner "your" docs and nurses do. Just for starters, "loss" - that's a word for condolence cards not medical professionals. Destruction is medical jargon? you can't be serious. Where are you getting this stuff from? Gandydancer (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, give the IP a opportunity, ask for sources by all means. At least as I read his comments he is saying both "loss" and "destruction" are specific types of death. I agree with the IP in regard to loss of meaning through unneccessary abstraction. And I'd like to hear him out if he has anything else to say, so please be give him the chance to make his point. :-)DMSBel (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "death" is the best way to describe abortion how come the other references we looked at earlier rarely used that word to define abortion? The fact is that the majority of sources don't use "death" to define abortion. Why should Wikipedia use a word other references almost never use to define abortion? There's no good reason. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following dictionaries mention in the basic primary definition the death/destruction of the fetus or that the fetus must not be born alive:

  • Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (Amazon.com's best selling medical dictionary and the dictionary NIH provides online at MedLinePlus)
  • Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Amazon.com's best selling dictionary and the default dictionary for the prestigious Chicago Manual of Style)
  • American Heritage® Medical Dictionary
  • American Heritage Science Dictionary
  • American Heritage Dictionary
  • Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary (not related to Meriam-Webster, "any deliberate procedure that removes, or induces the expulsion of, a living or dead embryo or fetus")
  • MacMillan Dictionary
  • Collins COBUILD English learner’s dictionary

71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, 'not being born alive' doesn't imply death if you don't believe the fetus was alive beforehand. Also, is the '''<big></big>''' really necessary? Having bigger sources doesn't mean having more or better ones. JJL (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On finding compromise

Reminders to all: wp:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Edits that actively seek to build a text upon which all (or nearly all) can agree are the ones we are looking for. Given that such text will never represent either polar position we should wp:EDITFORTHEENEMY. Consider the smallest change to the other's preferred text which would make it (just barely) acceptable in your own view. Concede the largest change to your preferred text which will leave it (just barely) acceptable in your own view. Acknowledge others' efforts to find compromise, but do not expect others to acknowledge yours. That is how this can ultimately be resolved. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - I think it's a good one. For starters, I will attempt to present the situation from the other's point of view.
Six years ago the community worked long and hard to come to an agreement for the definition for abortion. Every possible issue was presented, including all the issues in the present debate, and we eventually decided on a definition that we could agree upon. This definition has been questioned several times, however the 2006 definition has held firm, further giving weight to my belief that we came to the correct decision.
It is presently being argued that the word death should not be used in the definition. Initially it was argued that it was not appropriate because since it has never been proven that the fetus is alive as a separate person from the mother, it could never be proven that the fetus could experience death. It was argued that an embryo/fetus is alive only in the same sense that a human organ is alive, but a fetus did not have "personhood" any more than an organ does. However, while on the surface this may sound like a good argument, in fact a human fetus has the potential for personhood while an organ does not. There has been an attempt to complicate this issue when as a matter of fact it is quite simple, as any basic biology text will tell you: The life of any organism begins at the moment it is conceived.
The discussion then moved to a period of discussion regarding the references to be used for the definition. Interestingly, none of the major medical texts use the word death. However, it has been pointed out that our article about abortion should and does discuss not only the strictly medical aspects of abortion, it looks at it from a much broader viewpoint, and for this reason a medical definition is not appropriate for the article. Many other references were then offered, again the word death was not used in the definition, however given the well-known fact that there is a tremendous amount of controversy surrounding this term it would not be surprising that published sources would choose to stay out of it. One may view the rightness or wrongness of their decision as they wish, however as editors of Wikipedia it is our duty to not let controversial issues sway our decisions in the same way that a commercial publisher may be swayed.
OK, this was done rather quickly and I'm sure I could improve it, but all in all is this about right? I encourage any help to improve this short overview. Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure I am understood, please do not rewrite my overview with your suggestions - just offer changes that you would like to see and I will rewrite it if "the others" agree with you. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, no major embryology text claims that an actual human being is present in the zygote. This is because scientists are able to discern a difference between actual and potential. It also reflects the fact that "human being" is not a scientific term, but a philosophic one, not subject to objective verification. As long as we have majority support for embryonic stem cell research, we have evidence that the general public does not consider the conceptus to be a human being from conception. As long as we have voters in the US consistently rejecting attempts to define the fetus as a person from conception, we have evidence that the general public does not consider the fetus to be a person from the "moment" of conception. As long as we have majorities refusing to support outright bans on abortion, we have evidence that the general public does not believe that the fetus is a human being from conception.
The use of the term "death" in this context does indeed bias the discussion, is an example of the use of weasel words, and comprises a question begging fallacy. It should not be used in the lede sentence.Ermadog (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ermadog, would you mind not bringing up that just right in the middle of this. Stem cell research takes the whole thing off on a tangent, I don't mind discussing it at some later time, but Gandydancer is trying very admirably to help each side see the others viewpoint. I take it you mean you are refering to the lede first sentence though, not the lede. In any case it is not a weasel word, whether it is advocacy can be discussed. If anything leaving it out would be tergiversation [[28]]. With it in it represents at the least a verifiable assertion, that is not a weasel word at all.DMSBel (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since DSMBel is no longer reading my posts, I will address this to anyone else who had difficulty figuring out what my point about stem cell research was. It was a point about public opinion of the status of the fetus, specifically, whether the fetus should be considered a person from the point of conception. This is a valid point to make when discussing whether the term "death" in the context of fetal destruction, biases the discussion in favour of treating the fetus as a person from the point of conception. I will continue to make it. And, yes, "lede" and "lead" in this context are interchangeable.Ermadog (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, why don't you just quit the childish comments re DSMBel. Secondly, he is correct, this information has no place here. It is hard enough to stay on track in this discussion without stem cell research news added just because it's "interesting". Gandydancer (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the stem cell comments are on point regarding whether or not we view the fetus as a living human organism, but there's no need to resort to arguments when the sources align themselves so nearly uniformly in favor of 'viable'. JJL (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't deny that it was on point, etc., but did s/he have to introduce the idea here? There seems to be plenty of other places where that information would be appreciated but it seems to me that this was the last place s/he'd want to place it if s/he'd actually read the (damn thing) to understand what this section was all about. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Since we are not face-to-face it does not come across that I am not at all so PO'd as it sounds! :-) Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GandyDancer, yes it sounds to me a pretty good summing up of things from I joined at least, and concurs with archived discussion to the best of my knowledge. I'd say anyone arguing something "can never be proven" isn't talking scientifically at all. In any case absolute, final, unassailable proof the fetus is alive is not required WP:TRUTH. Verifiability is, and we have that in spades[[29]]. The only thing left to discuss is how to introduce it. DMSBel (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case following your example of writing for the enemy. I'd say that the removal of "caused by or resulting in its death" was done with good intentions, and the lede may need to be re-worked to introduce that in a better way. JJLs edit was not exactly greeted with great enthusiasm. His interest in removing pro-choice and pro-life advocacy is commendable.DMSBel (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DMSBel, there was an edit conflict as I was adding this:
I see I forgot the issue about whether or not the straw poll was done properly. I will look through the discussion or perhaps one of the other editors on this side of the argument could suggest that addition to my/our overview? My goal is to write an overview that "the others" find fully and fairly expresses their point of view. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I come at this with a moderate pro-life viewpoint, but I also accept women have to make a choice, I prefer that to be an informed choice.DMSBel (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't anticipated a history of this discussion discussion, but I suppose it might be useful. Thank you both for a good start. Would someone from the "for death" supporters care to make the reciprocal explanation of the history from the "for viability" perspective? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that perhaps it may be best to do one at a time? I strongly feel that one at a time would go a long ways to keep the discussion on track, something that has to this time been extremely difficult. Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, wp:NODEADLINE and all.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had something to add regarding that, but I agree one thing at a time works best, we aint all multitasking :-), I'll save it for now.DMSBel (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I have been through a period of philosophical skepticism in the past, and have had to mentally "re-tool". This debate has kind of brought back bad memories, but I still am just on the verge of sanity :-). DMSBel (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about how to include the poll controversy from the other's point of view and I am having a little trouble. In truth, while I have been careful to read most of the discussion, I have for the most part ignored that controversy because I felt it was just so much sour grapes. JJL, could you or anyone else present an account coming from "the others" POV? On the other hand, if only DMSBel and I are interested in approaching our problem from this point of view I will abandon my efforts here and work on other ideas that the group feels to be more productive. Gandydancer (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can actually do it from another's point of view, but let me say this: We had discussed the possibility of a straw poll earlier and had seemed to agree that it might be of value but also that it wouldn't define consensus and that consensus isn't as simple as 'majority rules'. I posted a straw poll and voted; RoyBoy refactored it and commented; others voted, and I tweaked my comments after the refactoring. A deadline for voting hadn't been specified as I didn't think it was that formal. When it seemed to me that voting had petered out I posted a tally; two other editors posted that they found a different number of votes and a different conclusion as to which viewpoint had achieved more support (Michael C. Price and 71.3.237.145--I believe the later was relying on the former's tally but am not certain); I listed by name whom I had counted against each side and invited 71.3.237.145 to explain how he reached his tally. (I had invited others to post their tallies when mine was questioned.) The other editors did not explain how they had reached their conclusions, and no one else provided a tally. After this a couple more votes were cast, if memory serves. The tally showed, in my opinion, a clear majority in favor of removing 'death' (I had it at 10-6 initially while Michael C. Price reported it as 10-8 in favor of retaining 'death'. Two votes after the tally gave 11-7 against 'death' as I read the results.) Some people voted twice--in favor of one and in opposition to the other--but I did not find it hard to gauge the support/opposition for 'death'. It was clear that not all those who opposed 'death' supported 'viable', however. I didn't consider this consensus but did consider it to mark the end of the previous consensus. Some editors accused me of bias and of phrasing the poll in a non-neutral way. When the tone of the conversation did not improve, another editor made the change to 'viable'. JJL (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT CONFLICT AND I WIL INSERT MY POST) JJL if you justify your POV in this section the other side will only respond with their POV. I think I may have asked the impossible of you at this point. I have asked "the others" to make a clear statement re their problems re the poll in another section and perhaps we may go from there. The idea for this section is to show that we are listening to the other's viewpoint and really do understand how they see the situation. It has not been long enough for all of the "others" to respond in this section and one editor (and I commend him for his efforts) with "the others" POV has responded with a couple of his concerns which are not yet addressed. Perhaps the poll needs more discussion outside of this section to be certain that all opinions have been expressed and then we may come here and attempt to show that we do understand their POV? On the other hand, this may all well be a nutty idea on my part... I do know that it is an extremely useful tool in some situations. I will say again, if other editors do not respond I will not continue with this effort. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the assumed POV of JJL's camp; they like abortion and don't like abortion's association with "death" in the lede - all the trawling for (irrelevant) quotes, denying the life of the fetus etc etc is just a painful demonstration of post-hoc cognitive dissonance. How do I know this? Because I'm pro-abortion myself, but I believe in honesty, plain talking etc etc.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I agree with JJLs comments regarding the straw poll. I could only remember that a narrative change had occured and was not sure at what point, but I think JJL is right that it was fairly early - There was a change from voting for "death" to voting for the "current version" which at that time if I recall correctly included the phrase "caused, by or resulting in its death". I had no problem with that. The methodology in tallying the poll though caused me concern because I knew JJL had a fairly strong view on the matter. Basically one could count it a few ways. For instance -
the number in favour of "death" and the number in favour of "viable"
or the number against "death" and the number in favour of "viable", (biased towards "viable")
or the number in favor of "death" and the number against "viable" (biased toward "death")
You'd get different results each way!
I don't particularly like polls on these controversial issues, because they tend not to convince anyone. And we are not voting on two equivalents. It needs to be done by a completely neutral editor, and there needs to be agreement by all on who does it, how long its for etc., otherwise it just polarises the debate and positions become more entrenched. DMSBel (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 71 has made some suggestions on my talk page. I'll copy them here: 1)something about the behavior of several editors who changed the lede without respecting the FAQ (and also changed the FAQ) and 2) the fact that not one death editor has argued anything about personhood and instead has relied upon science and medicine and 3) the most popular English-langauge medical dictionary includes death in the definition (it is the top medical dictionary at Amazon and the online dictionary used by the NIH's MEDline.

OK, how about this for 3):

But while it has been argued that the overwhelming number of medical texts do not use the word death, it should also be noted that the top-selling medical dictionary used by non-medical professionals does use the word death in the definition.

I don't understand what you mean in 2). Actually I don't understand 1) either but that is because my understanding of FAQ is very poor. I will try to learn more... As for the previously discussed supposed poll problems, so far I am completely unable to write anything because as I reread that section, it seems to me that the complaints only came after the "score" was tallied. If someone had a problem in the set-up, which was admittedly poor (though it seems it was set up by Royboy?), they should have made their complaints known rather than just go ahead and vote. I also can not see how the wording changes altered the total and I believe that is completely out of line to question JJL's integrity. I may have to conclude that I am unable to speak for "the other" in that case. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my post, I want to make it perfectly clear I am not suggesting that Royboy set up a crappy poll so he must be to blame, blah, blah, blah. I'm not even sure he set it up. We were all doing the best we could at the time and no one is to be blamed. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tto clarify, JJL I think setup the crappy poll, I tried to assist (with headers); but I didn't do much better... then someone else removed my headers. PS: A straw poll has little place on Wikipedia, let alone controversial topics. - RoyBoy 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, The problems with the poll question (as it was posed) were noted almost immediately: "Question is not posed neutrally by JJL and voting area presents options in reverse order compared to JJL's question narrative that precedes it." [at 11:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)].
Regarding suggestion 1: the "death" editors rightly note that the "war" is the result of rude behavior by editors who changed the long-standing 2006 consensus lede without first acheiving consensus for the change, ignored the FAQ that cautioned editors not to do so, and ignored the special "general sanctions" on the abortion article. It is difficult to see good faith in that behavior. The article has been frozen on a non-consensus version due to rude behavior by these editors.
Regarding suggestion 2: There is a recurring claim that those who want "death" in the lede are advocates against abortion. But not one editor has argued that death should be used "because its killing a baby", etc. Instead, such editors have been saying "regardless of what you think about personhood, a growing offspring always dies and it is censorship to avoid stating such a basic bio/med/vet fact out of political correctness." You do cover this a little, but I think it is hugely important that the argument for "death" has NEVER been about policy advocacy.
71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ#1 has been ping-ponged several times, and like ping-pong I can hardly keep track of it! I'd say going for the FAQ close after an article change, without very good reason is very bad practice. It should be representative of questions asked in the discussion from the start, without the answer giving the impression nothing can never be changed. An answer may need to be in several parts. It should however give a clear answer if things have been discussed. I think more than most things the FAQ requires neutrality. It should state if a consensus has been repeatedly debated. It should be not be used to attempt to erase from memory what has been asked! Phrasing the questions to reflect a current state of the article might be unwise. I wonder if this can be surrmounted in some way?DMSBel (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I understand that at least one "pro-death" editor understands the NPOV implications of the use of the term "death" in discussing the fate of the conceptus in abortion. Uncle Ed explained it to DMSBel on his talk page/ I take "Yes, re implications" to mean that DSMBel does understand how "death" can bias the discussion:

When a contributor wants an idea removed from an article, it's often because of the implications of that idea:
Abortion causes the death of the fetus
The fetus is human
Causing the death of a human is "homicide"
Homicide is sometimes a crime
Therefore, abortion is sometimes a crime
This conclusion is opposed by those (pro-choice?) who assert that elective abortion is rarely or never a crime (or that it should be legal).
Does the implication thing help? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes re implications, but nascent is more nuanced than that: beginning to develope or come into existence is a closer definition. 13 DMSBel (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs)

The fetus is a dead parrot

The History of abortion law debate shows that the status of the conceptus has never been in debate. The ancient Greeks were well aware that the conceptus was alive. The key questions revolved around what came to be known as hominization or ensoulment, that is to say, at what point does the conceptus become a human being. In the West, the Catholic Church eventually settled on quickening as the event signalling that ensoulment had occurred. The debate changed in the late 18th century, when some medical doctors began to advocate for a ban on abortion, claiming scientific knowledge of "when life begins". Since then, the debate has suffered from a lack of clear definitions.

The conceptus is most definitely alive, in the sense that it is composed of living tissue. It is also human, in that it is the product of a human organism. In a very general sense, it can be said that the conceptus is human life. But by these criteria, my big toe is also "human life". My big toe also exhibits a capacity for independent life whenever it cramps up. Better yet, my gut displays a routine capacity for independent life, in the form of homeostasis. The fetus doesn't begin to develop homeostasis until week 34, at which time it begins to regulate its own breathing.

Modern science can tell us a great deal about neonatal development (see Neonatal perception); but, what it can't tell us is when does a conceptus become a human being. The anti choice advocates routinely rely on pronouncements from embryology to claim the contrary. They claim that embryology does indeed tell us that conception or fertilization is "the beginning of a new human life".

But these are weasel words. There is no clear declaration that "a human life" equates, in the scientific literature, to "a human being". I have challenged dozens of anti choice advocates over the years to produce a scientific definition, drawn from any recognized science reference text, for the term "human being". I have searched the internet for one. I don't believe there is one. There is also no clear indication that the term "the beginning of a human life" necessarily implies that the status of human being has already been achieved. On the contrary, some embryologists refer to the conceptus as "a primordium of a human being" See Moore at http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html). Most embryology texts clearly indicate that fertilization is merely the beginning of a developmental process.

There is also no clear definition of the terms "human being" and "person" in law. Neither of these terms existed when the common law definition of homicide was formulated in England, in the Leges Henrici Primi of 1115 CE, which was the basis for the formulation of the Born alive rule. (See Murder in English law). These are the precedents which still prevail in common law countries at the federal level. The Canadian parliament has twice refused to give the fetus legal status as person. Abortion has never been treated as homicide in Britain.

While a number of states in the US have succeeded in declaring the fetus to be a human being for the purposes of the Unborn Victims of Violence Acts and similar legislation, none has succeeded in declaring the fetus to be a person from the moment of conception. Here is what one judge declared on the matter, "Judge Schreier said that although doctors must use the term 'human being,' it can be used in a "biological sense" and not an "ideological" one" -Planned Parenthood v, Rounds Civ. 05-4077-KES, August 20, 2009. Attempts to treat the fetus as a person in so-called "fetal abuse" cases have also consistently failed. Courts will prosecute: but, few convictions are secured.

To understand how the term "human being" is understood by the general public, it is usefull to use a multidictionary such as alphaDictionary, which searches over 1060 dictionaries to provide us with a consensus of common usage. We find that the first definition usually equates "human being", with H. Sapien which is not a definition, but a scientific classification. A being must be defined before it can be classified. When we search on Homo Sapien, we typically find "man", "modern human", "mankind", etc. When we search on these terms, we find "human being". We are thereby faced with a logical fallacy known as "circular reasoning". To break out of this circle, we look at the 2nd definition, which is typically "person".

"Person" is usually defined in philosophical terms, for example:

3, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child. Consider what person stands for; which, i think, is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection. (locke)

Consciousness arises in the newborn when its natural occurring sedatives are oxidized by the first few breaths taken outside the womb. See, "The importance of 'awareness for understanding fetal pain", David Mellor, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269314

The term "death" in association with the destruction of the conceptus carries an unspoken assertion that human life is being destroyed. (Argument by assertion, especially unspoken assertion, is a logical fallacy.) As long as no clear distinction is being made between "human life" and "human being" is made, this also constitutes a logical fallacy of equivocation.

Ultimately, the question of what kind of life exists in the human uterus is a philosophical one, not answerable by science. This is why abortion is a matter of conscience. Freedom of conscience is protected in democracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I could not get past the part where you said your big toe was a human and independent life (when you get cramp in it). I love reading posts but I don't keep reading if they get ridiculous. You should have saved that revelation for the end, as it is you lost me before you got going. Do you draw eyes and a mouth on your big toe? When you get cramp in it does your brain receive this information as discomfort? Therefore it is part of you and cannot be a conceptual metaphor for a mother and fetus. Your are taking the most generic definition of abortion and trying to use it to encompass everything that is described by the term abortion, when the topic here is not so wide as that. [User:DMSBel|DMSBel]] (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are no longer reading my posts, I see no point in responding to your questions. Have a nice day.Ermadog (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself, Ermadog. Agree with DMSBel.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Resistance is futile. DSMBel is the Borg King. Ermadog (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ermadog, you were arguing from the sublime to the ridiculous, and peppering your post with rhetoric like "anti-choice". Basically you do not seem to have caught the notion of what the previous section was about, which is probably why you had to start a new one. Basically definitions in most dictionary move from the more specific to the more generic, the most generic definitions cover such a wide range of things, that they are little help to us here. There is certainly a fallacy in any argument that because the generic definition states abortion is "cessation of growth..." we must therefore be talking about the same thing in reference to a fetus as in reference to something else. Another reason an organ cannot be a conceptual metaphor for a fetus is that an unborn baby may have a different blood group from its mother. Blood in your toe is the same blood group as that in the rest of your body. What would happen if you needed a blood transfusion and were given the wrong type? Hemolytic reaction![[30]] Therefore there is a maternal/fetal distinction, in other words we are refering to a mother and her unborn baby. Make sense? User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphor, from MacMillan as retrieved by alphaDictionary: "a word or phrase that means one thing and is used for referring to another thing in order to emphasize their similar qualities". I listed the similarities between my big toe and a generic fetus. Those similarities exist in the real world, and not merely in my imagination. My metaphor is apt in the current discussion; because, the "pro-death" camp keep emphasizing that the fetus is alive in a most general sense of the term and that it is human. My big toe is also alive and human. Therefore, it makes sense to me that the big toe is an apt metaphor for the fetus in this sense. If you'd read the rest of my post, you'd see that I then went on to an even more apt metaphor: the human gut. The human gut is alive, is human, and has independent existence - homeostasis. It also has its own primitive brain. See, "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 77 November 1984, Editorial: Muscle innervation of the gut structure and pathology" jrsocmed00217-0007.pdf The degree to which the fetus has any homeostasis is debatable. It is entirely dependent on the metabolism of the host mother in the earliest stages. It does not even begin to regulate its own breathing until week 34, which is the earliest stage at which the the fetal brain shows signs of coherent brain waves. See "Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385 As for "arguing from the specific to the generic", Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Ermadog (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MacMillan Dictionary - abortion: a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how it says 'not born alive' without referring to death--as though the question of whether or not it was alive, and hence could die, was at the least a complicated matter, and so they decided to state it as a negative instead. JJL (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the similiarities between your big toe and this?:[[31]] Except that it has toes too!DMSBel (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I listed the similarities twice now. Maybe third time's the charm. The fetus is composed of living tissue. The living tissue is human. My big toes is composed of living tissue. My big toe is human (It's not a duck's foot.) You are still ignoring the fact that the human gut is an even more apt comparison, possessing, as it does, both independent life, homeostasis, and a primitive brain.Ermadog (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite humorous to read that a lede that was painstakingly formulated

after lengthy and intense dicussions among dozens of editors and that considered

every single argument now being made and that has withstood the test of time is a "dead parrot".

71.3.232.238 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) (consolidated by - RoyBoy 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It might be helpful if you were to format your comments as paragraphs. The old consensus has been reconsidered and found wanting. Comments like this don't advance the discussion in any way. You're simply lamenting the fact that WP is not set in stone. Even paper encyclopedias have new editions. JJL (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing seems intentional, I partially consolidated it. - RoyBoy 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the lead sentence of this article continues to be the subject of edit-warring indicates very strongly that the prior consensus version that endured for many years should be restored until a new version achieves consensus. That's what WP:BRD is all about. Sadly, BRD seems to apply at all articles except this one (unless enforcing BRD is occasionally to someone's POV advantage).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for a 3rd party to do that, guess I'd be waiting a while. - RoyBoy 00:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise #6

Compromise # 6

If we are going to introduce our subject with the words "Abortion is medically defined as", then we must provide a definition which includes viability, rather than death, because that reflects the consensus of evidence as to what the medical references actually state. I believe that point has been proven in the previous discussion. However, I also feel that we must include a qualifier along the lines suggested by NW in his 1st compromise suggestion: "This definition is not universally accepted".

Royboy has objected that the medical definition is too narrow, and have suggested we use a more general discussion. I have also suggested a more general discussion, one that allows us to drop the fate of the fetus from the lede entirely. PoorEd has suggested that fetal death can be discussed in another section, and I support that idea.

Additionally, DRN has suggested a compromise which avoids both "viability" and "death", which are the terms under contention in the lede.

In my post "Abortion is not just a medical term," I provided a number of current definitions that are general in nature and can be applied here. the ones I favour most are:

3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. -American Heritage dictionary

3. arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; -Merriam-Websters

My compromise, which incorporates some of NW's suggestions, is:

"The term "abortion" generally applies to any process which fails to come to fruition, especially biological processes. The term can be applied to any pregnancy which does not result in live birth, either in humans or in other animals. Several medical definitions are detailed below.[note 1] Abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy, or can be induced, in humans and in other species. In the context of human pregnancies, an induced abortion may be referred to as either therapeutic or elective. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy; spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.Ermadog (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets do one thing at a time. Forget about Therapeutic / Elective for now. I'd have prefered you to participate in the writing for the enemy exercise. Gandydancer seems most neutral, and NW has acknowledged his involvement, though he has helped the discussion also. At the moment I'd rather Gandydancer facilitated the discussion of a compromise. Your also skipping over the mention of destruction when it appears [[32]] Not facing these issues doesn't help the discussion. I can accept a compromise that includes "often before viability" in the definintion, but the absense of a mention of fetal death, I cannot agree to. I won't change my mind on that. I am open to discussing position and precise phrasing of death but not total removal of information that meets WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RS. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing Therapeutic / Elective. I included that material because it is already in the lede and I am proposing no changes to that material. I am also not proposing that I facilitate the compromise. I offered a draft compromise for discussion, based on the expressed interest in a lede that offers a more general discussion of abortion as its introduction to the topic. The question here is: how general should we make it? As for you claim that I am "skipping over" the fate of the fetus, I have twice suggested that the fate of the fetus could be discussed elsewhere in the article. I have endorsed PoorEd's suggestion that the topic deserves its own section. I don't "write for the enemy", as I consider that a polarizing excercise. I would prefer to see a more general discussion of the meanings under dispute here, each in its own section. I fail to see how a discussion can progress when there is unclarity in basic terms.Ermadog (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Death' is already out and 'viable' is already in. It isn't much of a compromise you're suggesting. The medical sources remain clear on the matter--viability is the key issue. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the defn. is universally accepted as a medical defn., so I think we can't say it's medical and then say "This definition is not universally accepted" without pointing out that it's non-medical sources that might differ. I'm not sure how to word that. This is the problem with trying to fit every possible nuance into the first sentence (or two) of the article. JJL (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you have established that it is universally accepted. However, you have established that a consensus exists. My general discussion avoids the problem of including every nuance in the lede.Ermadog (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The acceptance if so nearly universal that it's difficult to avoid this wording. I do agree a clear consensus exists for the 'viable' version. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is false because you ignore the medical definitions from various sources including Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, which is the 6th most popular medical book at Amazon.com:
  • Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary on MedlinePlus - MedlinePlus, the National Library of Medicine's consumer health web site, has expanded to include an online version of Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. "We know that including a dictionary will be very helpful for consumers," says Eve-Marie Lacroix, Chief of the Public Services Division. "Consumers don't always know how to spell medical words, or they come to MedlinePlus with a phrase their healthcare provider has written on a piece of paper and want to know what it means. We received feedback from many users telling us that they'd like to have a dictionary added to our collection of online health information." Nearly 2 million unique visitors access MedlinePlus each month; they view over 15 million content pages. "We're delighted to begin this relationship with MedlinePlus and the National Library of Medicine," said John M. Morse, President and Publisher of Merriam-Webster Inc. "Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary introduced a new concept in medical dictionaries, and we welcome the opportunity to introduce one of our finest reference products to a broader audience." The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary contains definitions for 60,000 words and phrases used by health- care professionals. Designed to be easy to read, it offers the right spellings of medical terms, a pronunciation guide, and biographies of individuals who have given their names to the language of medicine.
71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've established that the sources used by the medical community use 'viable'. Amazon is a measure of popularity, not reliability. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have not established any such thing. If you wish to be on record claiming the definitions used by the most trusted dictionaries in the US are not worthy of significant weight, then you are not even trying to act in good faith. Death is a fact of every abortion (and this has been verified by countless RS). You cannot produce any RS that states that death is NOT a fact of every abortion. You have the burden of proof.71.3.232.238 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.". Per Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." The textbooks trump dictionaries (tertiary sources). JJL (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A living dog fetus dies as part of every spontaneus canine abortion

The key distinction between (a) the stillbirth or miscarriage of a dog fetus, and (b) the live birth of the dog fetus , is the death (at any point prior to emergence from the uterus) of the dog fetus. If the fetus emerges alive, we have the birth of a puppy. If the fetus emerges dead, we have a spontaneous abortion. The naked (unvarnished) description of abortion (as a biological, medical, veterinary issue) is about objective facts and has nothing to do with personhood (personhood is treated as a subjective aspect of abortion). The only argument for death in the lead has been science/reality: if you don't have death, you don't have abortion. This is no small fact. The naked truth objective facts about a human fetus is that a human fetus is by definition a human offspring that doctors MUST treat as a patient unless and until the mother asks for an abortion and the abortion procedure begins. Up until the moment the abortion procedure starts, the doctor MUST treat the fetus as a patient. And obstetricians refer to a fetus as alive unless a woman asks the doctor to rid her of the fetus. Obstetricians also refer to the stillborn or miscarried fetus as dead when the mother wanted the child to live. By all thorough and objective factual accounts, if the fetus exits the womb dead - and ONLY IF the fetus exits the womb dead - then it is AWLAYS an abortion. If the fetus exits the womb alive, it is ALWAYS a live birth (though some abortion providers do sometimes redefine abortion to include the infanticide of those infants who are accidentally born alive during a botched induced abortion). There is plenty of WP:RS to confirm that the fetus dies as part of every abortion. That some sources are not thorough and gloss over this very important and controversial fact is no reason for WP to do the same. In fact, WP principles militate against such daintiness and censorship. By the way: fetus (as correclty used here) is a broad term that includes the embryo at its earliest stage. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other pregnancy end-cases exist, such as when the pregnant female dies, or when the foetus is resorbed, never exiting the womb. Do we not consider these to be abortions? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The child can fail to be born alive because of problems at delivery. Some continue to search for a mathematical defn. that precisely marks every case as either clearly falling within or without the defn. of the term but such is not appropriate in many biological circumstances. Lots of disorders are diagnosed by certain symptoms interfering with one's life--clearly a subjective matter. It isn't as simple as some would like it to be. JJL (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry could you clarify what you mean by "...falling within or without the definition of the term". Which term are you refering to?DMSBel (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Abortion'. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, the 2006 consensus lede sentence applies to every single abortion (incoluding the unusual permutations of abortion). Some editors object to that definition not because it is inaccurate, but because these editors think it violates NPOV. The unmet challenge for those editors is to provide some convincing evidence of the NPOV violation and to come up with an equally clear and concise definition that applies to all abortions and is NPOV. So far, this has not been done. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's simply inaccurate. The weight of solid medical evidence is that that is indeed the case. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In both absorption and the death of a gravida, the fetus stops living (dies). They would seem to be forms of spontaneous abortion in which the fetus dies. What is your point? The point that I make (and that the CDC verifies below) is that an abortion - whther spontaneous or induced - always involves the death of a fetus. I don't see how these medical facts can be labled as advocacy of any non-objective information. The objective facts of what happens are neutral. Leaving out a basic fact is not neutral. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to feel you've discovered something that the mainstream medical community has missed. JJL (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a little more research to see how common the term "intra-uterine fetal death" and related terms appear in medical literature, and to see how best a compromise can be reached without advocacy:
Intra-uterine Fetal Death:
Different classification systems for the cause of intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) are used internationally. About two thirds of these deaths are reported as unexplained and placental causes are often not addressed.[[33]]
Intrauterine fetal death is sadly a common occurrence and one which all labour ward personnel should be trained to manage[[34]]
Fetal Death:
The cause of fetal death can often be determined through gross and histopathologic examination of the fetus and placenta. Determining the cause of death is important because sooner or later parents will want to know "Why did this happen?" and "Will it happen again?" Answers to these questions are often impossible without information gained from pathologic examination. [[35]]
This is all I have had time to come up with at the moment. But if other editors can find more references it would help to see how medical literature uses the term death in a neutral way.DMSBel (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coding Cause of Fetal Death Under ICD-10

The Centers for Disease Control is a non-partisan medical agency of the US Government. The CDC issues procedures for doctors to use when recording health events (used by the CDC for statistical purposes). The 2011 PROCEDURES FOR CODING CAUSE OF FETAL DEATH UNDER ICD-10 candidly distinguishes between the term of art "fetal death" (which applies only to spontaneous death of the fetus) and an induced abortion (which applies only when a fetus dies during an induced termination). The Procedures note that the induced expulsion or extraction of a spontaneously dead fetus should not be classified as an induced abortion, and clarifies that an induced abortion cannot occur on an "already-dead fetus" because an induced termination is not "one in which fetal death has already occurred" (this is another way of stating that the fetus must be alive at the beginnning of an induced abortion). For this reason, the Procedures note that the term of art "fetal death" does not include a fetus that "died" during an induced abortion.

The CDC Procedures highlight two things pertinent to our discussions:

  • A) "Fetal death" is the term of art used whenever the fetus dies spontaneously in utero (even if doctors later induce its removal).
  • B) "Induced" abortion is an abortion performed on a not already-dead fetus.

Item "A" above verifies that every spontaneous abortion involves the death of a fetus.

Item "B" above verifies that an induced abortion is always performed on a fetus that is not already-dead.

A good encylcopedia editor will state this clearly and concisely.

Here are relevant excerpts (all bold emphasis has been added) from the CDC Procedures:

  • Abortions: All induced terminations of pregnancy should be excluded from the fetal death file except when the fetus was known to be dead before the procedure and when the induction was performed for the sole purpose of removing an already-dead fetus. The term "induced termination of pregnancy" implies an induced termination of a pregnancy in progress, not one in which fetal death has already occurred.
  • As NCHS and the States are trying to get the best count of fetal deaths that occurred, NCHS and the States do want to include those induced terminations where the fetus died prior to the induction procedure, and exclude those where the fetus died during the induction procedure.

71.3.232.238 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is all good source material, though perhaps not wp:WORLDWIDE. I'd conclude it will be helpful for the body of the article. But the above discussion is about the lede, which necessarily must be succinct, not comprehensive. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...resulting in or caused by its death" is pretty succinct, would you not agree? Succinctness is fine if its not at the expensive of information. I think we can work on a relevant part of the article, once the consensus version is restored. That would give the context currently lacking. DMSBel (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marvelously compact. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a wonderful gesture of good faith if JJL or Gandy or Leadsong or NW would restore the most recent consensus lede sentence (the 2006 version). 71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'viable' version has consensus. JJL (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I agree. I have refrained from making any changes myself.DMSBel (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2006 consensus for the right wing anti-abortion lobby that is prevalent on Wikipedia, sure. But not a real consensus. NPOV lede (what a fucked up word, since this isn't a newspaper) should stay. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because you say so? DMSBel (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently only because OM says so, since he has provided no argument at all, just an assumption of bad faith. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way OrangeMarlin thanks for looking back in on what you opened up, what did you call it a few months ago "a shitty can of works"? Correct me if I am wrong.DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and its not the "sh##ty" I am bothered about, its your threatened tit-for-tat which violates WP:BATTLEGROUND on a contentious article made in responce to the mere mention of an RFC. User:DMSBel|DMSBel]] (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like OM. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on edits, not on editors. See wp:TPG#YES. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When someone claims there is a "right wing anti-abortion lobby that is prevalent on Wikipedia" which justifies their non-consensual edits, that merits commenting on here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to a policy or a guideline to support that assertion? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS & WP:AGF, for starters. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out a part of those which says this is the place for comment? I don't see it.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are some definitions listed at Ermadog's link:

  • MacMillan Dictionary - abortion: a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive.
  • Collins COBUILD English learner’s dictionary - abortion: a medical operation in which a pregnancy is deliberately ended and the baby is not born alive.
  • Cambridge University Dictionary of American English - abort: to end a pregnancy esp. by an operation before the baby is ready to be born.

71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following dictionaries mention in the basic primary definition the death/destruction of the fetus or that the fetus must not be born alive:

  • Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (Amazon.com's best selling medical dictionary and the dictionary NIH provides online at MedLinePlus)
  • Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Amazon.com's best selling dictionary and the default dictionary for the prestigious Chicago Manual of Style)
  • American Heritage® Medical Dictionary
  • American Heritage Science Dictionary
  • American Heritage Dictionary
  • Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary (not related to Meriam-Webster, "any deliberate procedure that removes, or induces the expulsion of, a living or dead embryo or fetus")
  • MacMillan Dictionary
  • Collins COBUILD English learner’s dictionary

71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, I use alphaDictionary to obtain a consensus of current usage. You haven't established any consensus here. You have randomly chosen several definitions that fit your agenda. The last time I searched on the term "baby", I found that half of the dictionaries include the unborn; whereas half either did not mention it or specifically excluded the unborn. Many defined "baby" as "infant". Dorland's Medical Dictionary has, for infant, "the human young from the time of birth to one year of age." Ermadog (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire: What has been established is that the consensus among the top four most commonly referenced English-language dictionaries in North America is to mention the life, death, or destruction of the fetus in the basic abortion definition. At some point you will have to deal with that fact. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ermadog you said the IP has randomly chosen several definitions that fit his agenda??? Surely selecting sources at random would be neutral. It's just that random selection was used to come up with Note 1 apparently. Would random selection not be a sufficiently neutral way of selecting sources to avoid POV? DMSBel (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! keep up the good research, knowing how other reliable sources address this is invaluable. DMSBel (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to disabuse some of the editors of the notion that medical jargon should prevail when the medical jargon is designed to allow calm professional discourse rather than to provide a clear layman's explanation. If you are about to kill a fetus (or cut off a breast, or lance aboil, or sever a testicle) as part of your professional duties, at least you can discuss the unpleasant task in terms that don't highlight the most gruseome elements of the task. It makes perfect sense. That is precisely what clinical language does: it puts what are often disgusting procedures or descriptions into language that is clean and clinicial - and thus more palatable. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what clinical language does. The references selected were ones used by the medical community and for the medical community. Clinical language is used to describe something as precisely as possible so as to communicate it clearly, unambiguously, and in such a way that practitioners in different geographical locations will use the same term in the same way so that communication is meaningful. You're making assumptions that fit your goal--but not the facts. JJL (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP 71.. No problem with the gist of what you are saying. It's just that I'd say that one of the issues with the lede is that it currently uses easily misunderstood language in places. In that regard there is an issue with "before it is viable." Whether it is jargon per se is open to question. Jargon can be both easily misunderstood, or at times completely incomprehensible to anyone outside the circle which uses it. For instance:Champagne tap-- Reference to the bottle of bubbly a junior should receive from his consultant after achieving a bloodless lumbar puncture. Now known in the new NHS as a shandy tap. Or Crackerjack referral-- It's Friday, it's five to five, it's... " These are british examples of medical slang by the way. Some of them are humorous. But back to viable
Viable [adjective] - World English Dictionary
1. capable of becoming actual, useful, etc; practicable: a viable proposition
2. of seeds, eggs, etc) capable of normal growth and development
3. of a fetus) having reached a stage of development at which further development can occur independently of the mother.
You see the difficulty here is with whether it means capable of reaching a stage of development, or having reached a stage of development.
Even if taken in the sense of having reached, we know that the phrase "before it is viable" is not good enough for the purposes of an encylopedia article. It should be changed to "often before it [or a fetus] has reached a stage of maturation medically refered to as Viability."DMSBel (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately we have Fetal viability to remove any possible doubts. JJL (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a picture that whatever has been said about factual accuracy or simplicity that's not the main reason having "death" in the definition is so important to some people. It seems to me that it's really about casting abortion in the same light some people see it -- "gruesome," "disgusting," "killing a baby" etc. Well it's not Wikipedia's job to do that. We just neutrally report what other references say. No euphemisms or dysphemisms or spin of any kind. If other references use "death" to define abortion most of the time we should use it too, but if they hardly ever do then we shouldn't break suit just make people with strong opinions happy. Frankly it seems to me that trying to find one definition of abortion that fits every case -- spontaneous vs induced, selective reduction, postviability -- is a lost cause. We can't realistically cram every possibility into a single sentence so why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? We should go with the definition that the majority of references use but frame it so that we can explain some of the complexities later in the article. Like "abortion is **commonly defined** as the termination of pregnancy by the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus before viability." That's reflecting what the majority of references say but it leaves us room to cover stuff that doesn't fit in that general definition later on. Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same could be said for "before viability" - this could be seen avoiding the inconvenient fact of late-term abortion (ie after viability). POV barks loudest at other alleged POVs. You were saying?DMSBel (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the heart of the matter--whatever your POV, using the overwhelmingly most widely used definition cannot possibly be considered biased. Argumentation can occur later in the body of the article. Some here want their own personal defn. of the term--that is highly unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal? - RoyBoy 02:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the the definition should include a caveat like "commonly defined as" so there was room to cover exceptions like lateterm abortions later on. The fact is that most references define abortion as taking place before viability. We can't just invent a new definition because we think it makes more sense any more than we can say Pluto isn't considered a dwarf planet because we want it to stay a planet. Also I'm finding your tone impolite and bordering on personal attack. Friend of the Facts (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. No one mentioned baby killing until you introduced it single-handedly so you could use it as a strawman.
  • 2. The 2006 consensus version applies to every possible abortion situation, so it is fruitless to claim that we can't come up with a universally applicable definition.
  • 3. You are dismissing the most widely recognized and relied-upon English language dictionary (Merriam-Webster) as well as three other widely relied-upon dictionaries (American Heritage, Webster's New World Collegiate, and MacMillans) or else you are acknowledging them but claiming that the langauge they use violates NPOV. This is simply ridiculous and won't ever win consensus.
74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why selectively post three dictionary entries that all use "baby" if one is not trying to say that's what abortion involves?

2. I don't think a loose agreement come to by some anonymous Wikipedia users five years ago is so significant any change to this article's defintion is unthinkable. Even the US Constitution isn't written in stone like that. Besides five years ago they seem to have been trying to define abortion to cover every possible situation at the same time. But other references don't try to do that and it's not Wikipedia's job to try to fix things or reinvent the wheel. We should just report what the majority of references say. Also doesn't what the references say trump consensus? Otherwise if enough people got together you could have Wikipedia articles saying tomatoes are a vegetable or Pluto is still considered a planet despite that not being what most references or experts say.

3. The reference survey Nuclear Warfare did earlier showed the majority don't use "death" to define abortion. Basically it looks to me like there are some users here cherrypicking the minority of references that use "death" because they think it's important for Wikipedia to use that word because it reflects their personal opinion. Again that's not Wikipedia's job. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor said the IPs dictionary references were chosen at random. Agreed we should say what abortion involves more clearly. Anonymous users? Your name is? Or in other words remember not to call the kettle black. :-) Also the discussion of the last several weeks shows its not unthinkable to discuss this. But you are confusing thinkable with will automatically be done to please whoever drops by. Interestingly NWs survey was a random survey too.DMSBel (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He said they were cherry-picked, and those are dictionaries and hence inferior sources. JJL (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't intended to suggest there's anything wrong with going anonymous, just that Wikipedia is an internet site where anyone can join so by its nature it's informal. Anything some essentially random folks on a website decide about abortion doesn't carry the same weight as if say a panel of WHO doctors sat down to consider something and then came out with an official statement or policy on it. So basically I don't think this discussion from 2006 should be treated like holy writ. I get not wanting to constantly reopen closed debates because if that's what happened it'd be impossible to do anything else, but five years is a long time and the level of objection to "death" means it deserves reexamnination. Friend of the Facts (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was suggested by one of the outside editors (DRN? ANI?) that this consensus should be reviewed at least annually. JJL (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep discounting out of hand the definitions in the two most popular dictionaries in the USA (both of which include death/destruction of the fetus in the primary definition). And you also have ignored the absolutely clear language used in coding guidlines for "fetal death" that the CDC issued for use by all doctors in the USA: "NCHS and the States do want to include those induced terminations where the fetus died prior to the induction procedure, and exclude those where the fetus died during the induction procedure." The CDC acknowledges that induced abortions always involve a fetus that dies. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly the above doesn't consider the OED definition 1.a. which elegantly avoids "death", "live", "viable", and the whole question of which comes first. We could learn from that.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That version changed considerably from the 1989 version in OED2.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's Medicine.net's MedTerms entry, which also avoids "death", "live", "viable" and the question of which comes first, but in a different way.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wikipedia should change too, then. JJL (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May we please use the 1547 version (Abhorsion is when a woman is delyvered of her chylde before her tyme) instead of arguing so much? :)

I have added the Oxford English Dictionary to the list; thanks for the link. NW (Talk) 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please post the OED definition(s) here. As to Medterms.com, "exit", "loss", "lost", makes abortus sound like an escaped pet without a collar. Literally and technically the definition is top notch for abortion. Though completely bypasses the dominant understanding "abortion" refers to "induced abortion", so doesn't seem suitable to me initially; but maybe Wikipedia's summary accuracy is to take "abortion" literally. FYI Medterms was already glanced at. - RoyBoy 02:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW provided me with the OED content below. - RoyBoy 03:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The act of giving untimely birth of offspring, premature delivery, miscarriage; the procuring of premature delivery so as to destroy offspring. (In Med. abortion is limited to a delivery so premature that the offspring cannot live, i.e. in the case of the human foetus before the sixth month.)

b. fig. Failure (of aim or promise)

2. Biol. Arrestment of development of any organ, so that it either remains a mere rudiment, or is entirely shrivelled up or absorbed.

The above is actually the OED2 definition from back in 1989. The current one is as follows (I omit the pronunciation, forms, etymology, and history from the entry):

abortion, n. 1.

a. The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Med.) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result either of natural causes (more fully spontaneous abortion) or of a deliberate act (more fully induced abortion); the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; an instance of this.
In modern general use the unmodified word generally refers to induced abortion, whether caused by drugs or performed surgically, and the term miscarriage is used for spontaneous abortion.

contagious, missed, vacuum abortion, etc.: see the first element.

b. fig. Failure or abandonment of a scheme or process; an instance of this.

2. An aborted or miscarried fetus; an abortus (now rare). Also fig. and in figurative context: a person or thing not fully or properly formed; an ill-conceived or badly executed action or undertaking; a monstrosity.

3. The imperfect offspring of an untimely birth, or any dwarfed and misshapen product of generation; hench fig. the nugatory or empty result of any action.

LeadSongDog come howl! 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary Oxford defiintion you have supplied above includes two interesting phrases:
  • "expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus" - developing implies that the thing developing has to be alive (only a living embryo or fetus can be described as developing - in medicine, develop means "to progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle" according to Stedman's
  • "early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus" - loss as used here is a synonym for death
71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're just making things up here. 'Developing' doesn't imply something has to be alive ("developing appendicitis", "developing the radiological film") and 'loss' doesn't imply death ("loss of an eye", "loss of hearing", "loss of balance"), even in a medical context. JJL (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the most widely referenced dictionaries in the English-speaking world, all of them either imply or state that the aborted fetus was alive prior to the abortion or dead after the abortion:

  • Oxford
  • Merriam-Webster
  • American Heritage
  • MacMillan

71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 71, but you are mistaken. Bolting in an exhaust pipe is phase in the development of an automobile on the assembly line, yet that doesn't mean it runs, or even that it necessarily will once the key is eventually turned. What you are doing above, reading between the lines at "...impliest that...", is perfectly acceptable for readers, but not for editors. It is the very clearest case of wp:OR. We can leave that inference to our readers, just as the OED does. If anyone is expert in making clear the meaning of words, it is lexicographers, and those at the OED are the best of the best. For us to assume that they did not know how to convey their intent would be the very height of gall. However, if you really think they did not know how to get their intent across, I suggest you let them know so that they can improve their next effort. Be sure to let us know how they respond. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could not be more wrong. The medical definition of develop has nought to do with bolting in exhaust pipes.71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should have known that would be taken literally. This discussion is getting increasingly off-topic. The essence, though, is (to borrow from Einstein) that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". We do not need to explicitly say whether or not a foetus is alive in order to define abortion. "Foetal death" is a term of art which is explicitly mutually exclusive of "live birth" and of "death". A single pregnancy can only result in one of the three outcomes (multiple pregnancies obviously have other possibilities). Many but not all reliable sources (lexicographic, medical, legal, and demographic) use those three terms with those meanings. If, as it seems, we cannot come to agree to use those terms with those meanings, let us then agree to not use them at all in the lede. The body text can of course be more explicit about the distinction.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This point is well-taken. If we can't agree, then aren't these terms best avoided? Readers won't have the benefit of all this nuance. JJL (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of contradiction of source by the phrase "either therapeutic or elective"

Source used in article states most providers consider all abortions elective.

The ability to define therapeutic abortion performed for maternal indications is difficult because of the subjective nature of decisions made about potential morbidity and mortality in pregnant women.(bold mine)[[36]]

Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself.(bold mine) [[37]] DMSBel (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Therapeutic abortion" is a medical term meaning abortion done for medical reasons and "elective abortion" a medical term meaning abortion done for personal or social reasons. Of course all abortions are "elective" in the sense of being consented to because short of China women can't be forced into it. But the same can be said for any other procedure or treatment. The distinction is based on medical necessity not patient consent. Facelifts are still called "elective surgery" even though people dying of cancer have to consent to chemotherapy they need to save their lives. Friend of the Facts (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New first sentence

The new first sentence doesn't "serve to disambiguate abortion terminology and and types" like the hidden note at the end of the first paragraph says the first paragraph is supposed to do. It's also redundant with the third paragraph which basically says exactly the same thing about abortion being of interest in politics and religion etc. Also was this change discussed? I admit I've been a way a few days and missed some stuff that's been going on here but it doesn't seem to have been brought up in the last few threads . Friend of the Facts (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was no consensus to change the first paragraph from its status prior to the edit war that began a month ago. Tweaking it now is simply making the article itself a sandbox. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed on my user talk page, but I tend to agree with you (per MastCell's comment on my talk page). I'm taking it out now until we can discuss it further. NW (Talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes tweaking may not solve the problem. But I cannot revert to earlier consensus version, an Admin will have to do that. So I made a couple of discussed and non-controversial changes. I have no problem with going back to the 2006 consensus version (of the lede), as consensus for the unstable version proved impossible to establish. The change I made was presented on this talk page (see section above)[[38]], following on from some DRN suggestions, and in the light of them. It was pretty well sign posted. I had offered a discussable suggestion for how the first few sentences could read. There was a little discussion and no objection to beginning the article with a statement on the scope of the subject of abortion. Its the first I knew of an embedded (not hidden) note regarding disambiguation, but those are common in articles. I'll check after I finish this post, but did the note say the first sentence had to disambiguate terminology and types? If so it would be an impossibility without writing a huge sprawling mess of a sentence. Sorry re-reading your post as I write. You said note states disambiguation in first paragraph required. Ok. The first paragraph still does that to the same degree it did before I made my edit, with the new opening sentence. If better disambiguation is needed no problem, but Elective/Therapeutic is being discussed currently as the source used indicates no "either/or" disjunction between the two. "therapeutic" abortions are also elective (chosen), they are not performed without patient (maternal) consent as far as I know. DMSBel (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current "definition" sentence: "Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus often before it can survive outside the womb" is as clear as mud (while removal/expulsion is often before viability, it is also often after viability and then it is called "live birth"). If we substitute "birth" as the first word: *"Birth refers to the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus often before it can survive outside the womb" the sentence is just as accurate (when removal/expulsion occurs before viability it is known as "still birth miscarriage", and when it occurs after viability it is often called "live birth"). 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. Per ref 11 (Concise Medical Dictionary from Oxford U), one can only call a process stillbirth after 24 weeks after conception (presumably viability). NW (Talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the correction - and my point stands: the sentence is crapola and meaningless. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, at least you are on record admitting that viability is presumed after 24 weeks. In the USA there are 18,000 induced abortions annually on fetuses 24 weeks and older. The doctors who perform these late term abortions consistently acknowledge they are almost always elective and rarely medically indicated. In India there are tens of thousands of late term abortions each year, mainly for sex selection to prevent the birth of females.71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for the claim that there are 18,000 induced abortions annually in the US at >= 24 weeks' gestation? The best available statistics suggest that there are ~18,000 induced abortions at >= 21 weeks, which is quite different ([39]). Could you comment? MastCell Talk 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be apples and oranges? Guttmacher's 1.5% is "21 or more weeks" "from the last menstrual period". That would be 21+ weeks gestational age, or equivalent to 19+ weeks from fertilization, if my arithmetic is correct. The CDC's 2007 surveillance data shows 1.3% of 827,609 reported abortions were at or after 21 weeks gestation. The MMWR also discusses the reporting discrepancies with the considerably higher AGI figures, and how they vary by state. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My point is that whether one uses the CDC's statistics or Guttmacher's (which are more complete), neither one supports the IP's claim. I guess my larger point is that I'm not sure why I should take this particular IP seriously, given how fast and loose they play with facts in service of their agenda, but I'm waiting for a clarification of the above. MastCell Talk 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using terms like "agenda" is bad faith please see WP:AGF 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making false statements and failing to correct them when called out is evidence of bad faith, at least to me. Particularly when the falsehoods and misrepresentations consistently serve to advance a specific political agenda. Of course, I may have missed something, which is why I invited the IP to source their claim. Curiously, they've gone from making ~20 posts/day to complete silence since I asked them to back up their claims with facts, though. MastCell Talk 18:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "making false claims" is bad faith too, please see earlier link. The pro-life movement never politicised the debate. Not done your history? Facts, you'd like facts? Give the boy the facts! 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that seems a bit incoherent to me. I'll wait to see if the IP had an actual source for their claims. MastCell Talk 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could have just asked "is there a source for that?" because you don't know. The IP has been very good with sources. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did exactly that, as you should be well aware. The IP has been uncharacteristically silent since, despite being "good with sources". MastCell Talk 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since the IP is back to deluging the talkpage with threads, I'm going to take his conspicuous silence here as a refusal to address or correct his apparent misstatement, and adjust my interactions with him accordingly. MastCell Talk 23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unsure what 71.3 is looking at. Here is the WHO article source for 10% abortions happening in the 2nd trimester. Unsure where high estimate of 15% came from, let alone 1.5%. - RoyBoy 00:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have all been had

B (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Template:Formerly
He's kept you all debating a rock-solid consensus [based on compromise] and presented absolutely no new grounds [[40]] to challenge it except his grudge that the article doesn't reflect his own POV WP:BATTLEGROUND He started a petty tit for tat that he'd threatened some weeks earlier [there's a diff of this currently on a senior admins talk page]] in response to the completely proper suggestion that an RFC be held on a picture then in the article. Even MastCell couldn't be bothered to take him up on it. You may not mind this, you may not care that 3 weeks of your life have gone by and you won't get them back. Others do. I am heartily sick of this. I have no agenda here. But if this is not a matter for the community to discuss sanctions over, very little else is. Only two admins have seriously bothered to try and sort things out here, NW, and RoyBoy. It's a stinking mess, which interestingly is what OM threatened to make it. Time to end it. DMSBel (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm my own person. I don't care if he is here or not. The new consensus version is a great improvement over the old one. It's more accurate and much better sourced. You still seem to think that this is a personal attack on the editors who supported the old version. It isn't. It's the nature of WP. Your words will' be edited. JJL (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus over the new version, which has already changed several times. A single straw poll does not equal consensus. DMSBel (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it was because of a single straw poll--indeed, I didn't claim consensus after the straw poll. A consensus has evolved since then. Remember, consensus need not mean unanimity. JJL (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may not be familiar with all the discussion of this JJL DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I would not be surprised if OM tries his usual tactic and files this as a personal attack. Lets see what happens now.DMSBel (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the talkpage and editing environment have become a stinking mess (as you put it), but I think there's more than enough blame to go around. Orangemarlin has made relatively few contributions to this talkpage, and they're easily ignored if you choose. On the other hand, you and a certain IP have been somewhat more prolific in filling this talkpage with what I think we'll agree has not been especially useful argumentation. I also question whether starting yet another thread on this already-overburdened talkpage, with the sole aim of disparaging another editor, is the most productive way to improve the editing environment. MastCell Talk 19:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It's another part of the distraction effort--attacking editors, not arguments. JJL (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not how much he contributes, its what he starts up. JJL shouldn't have to come up with a rationale and argue for OMs asinine (frankly speaking) notions.DMSBel (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is belittling. Please stop. JJL (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But whatever you meant by your initial response, you'd might want to gauge the level of frustration over the current debacle. I asked for no change to a consensus version of the lede. The last three weeks have been me trying to find out whats up with editors. DMSBel (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL is not to blame and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt MastCell. DMSBel (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALso regarding ignoring OMs comments. He doesn't need to take a pissy-fit at the mention of an RFC.DMSBel (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP community's hands now. DMSBel (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't up to involved admins in ongoing discussions to act as admins. They (almost always) know better than to do that. If there's an admin action needed, someone uninvolved will do it. But the idea of attacking an editor for disengaging from an IDHT discussion for a while is pretty funny. There ought to be a FAQ on that somewhere. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must think we are fools!DMSBel (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, what could lead me to think that? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring : A deliberate attempt to divert a process of inquiry by changing the subject. This section should be collapsed as such. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this would not be diverting an inquiry??, interesting logic. But then again "my opinions are worthless". 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMSBel aka 62.254.133.13, I apologize for the worthless comment and still find this section off topic. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. If someone wants to close it no problem. It won't change my thoughts on what started all this. DMSBel (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor obsessed with me. Would you quit trying to get me to sleep with you? I'm sorry that you thought I was gay, but I'm not. You are not my type, in that I prefer beautiful women with IQ's in the triple digits, not a sex-obsessed little twerp with an IQ that is exceeded by my nutsack. Wait, my nutsack said that it was insult to compare it to you. Besides this isn't eHarmony or Facebook. Good luck trying to hit on someone else around here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All, because of comments like this one by Orangemarlin, and this one, I will be drafting a user conduct RfC on Orangemarlin here. If you are interested in participating, please put that page on your watchlist. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww, Cla69, I said I don't want to fuck you. Quit stalking me you coward. LOL OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section does seem to be an extended personal attack on Orangemarlin and to a lesser extent me. It's about the debate itself--in fact, about presumed motivations for having the debate--not about the topic of the debate. JJL (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I didn't blame you" - I was trying to put you at a distance from OMs conduct, as not party to the enabling of it. Strange kind of personal attack, must remember not to make that sort again.DMSBel (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some further thoughts about fetal life and "death" in the lede.

In its earlier compromise/consensus version some readers may have had to make a presupposition accomodation (linguistic term) of a kind when they reached the phrase "caused by or resulting in its death". Most people are willing to do that in non-controversial matters. For instance if you were reading a book and had not noticed it was raining and someone said to you "It stopped raining", you would not reply "But you haven't said that it was raining". In the book What is Meaning: Fundamentals of Formal Semantics, Paul Portner writes:

::Unless you want to dispute the idea that it was raining, the co-operative thing to do in such a situation is to act as if the presupposition that it was raining had been in the Common Ground, discreetly adding it and moving on. (page 187)

In the earlier lede the presupposition the embryo/fetus is alive is presupposed in the meaning of pregnancy and it is taken for granted that for any reader who still does not obtain that presupposition that they can make an accomodation when they reach the part of the sentence "caused by or resulting in its death".

I wonder if expecting readers to make this type of presuppositional accomodation is really so out of the question, although admittedly it is asking a bit more than for someone to act as if the proposition "It was raining" is common ground. It will not be an issue for many readers, and we do make these accomodations in ordinary communication. That there are fields of medicine such as Peri-natal Pediatrics[[41]], [[42]] indicates an acknowledgement of nascent human life within the medical profession and that it is held to be the case that there is no radical disjunction between before and after birth except in terms of environment (intra-uterine or extra-uterine). The existence of this branch of pediatrics confirms the view that birth is an event in life, not the beginning of it as this article in JAMA states [[43]]. To me this indicates that there is a fairly common presupposition or understanding within Medicine and particularly Pediatrics, that most readers are quite able to accomodate when reading the article, and that the earlier definition (with the term "death") was not non-standard, even though it could have been better referenced. Any objections to restoring it? DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMS, I am wondering, why do you think the U.S. Supreme Court said this:
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am wondering why they said that too. But I live in the UK. Seems to have been pretty well established in this discussion, then again its been going on for five years, I guess the US Supreme Court couldn't spend five years on it! DMSBel (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objections to restoring what, exactly? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says in my post. Hang on I'll find the exact version. DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the first sentence (as of 8 June 2011):
  • Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.[2]
[In simple words, abortion is termination of pregnancy either through some accidental case like a miscarriage or by choice, when a fetus or an embryo is medically terminated. It is the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, which kills the unborn baby.] [Note: I am not sure if this is a direct quote from the book or a paraphased summary, I am trying to find that out for sure, please bear with me, it comports with actual explanation in the book that life begins at conception though). (Dutt T, Matthews MP (1998). Gynaecology for Lawyers. Routledge) DMSBel (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book from which that quote is taken, has been reviewed in medico-legal journals, and received the following comments:
"It is undoubtedly excellent as a work of reference and the contents list itself gives any non-medic a thorough grounding in the area to be covered under the general title of gynaecology. The content is well researched and informative. It is also easy to read." -- Medico-Legal Journal, Vol 67, 1999
"This is worth its weight in gold to any medneg practitioner experienced or otherwise... Highly recommended." -- Medical Litigation, June 1999
I guess that is why it was used as a source in the article. DMSBel (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These comments would be more helpful if we knew who made them. Was it endorsement by the editorial board? A book review by a single reviewer (which would not generally be a peer-reviewed item)? An ad? Some journals publish "my favorite text on..." opinion pieces. In any event, to say "I guess that is why it was used as a source in the article" sounds to me rather like citing Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. Surely the fact that a book by and for lawyers says "kills the unborn baby" isn't as compellinga s references by and for physicians... including the fact that the term 'baby' is plainly misused here. JJL (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there again you show you have commented before knowing what you are talking about. Why would you think a book called Gynaecology for Lawyers was written solely by Lawyers? I am puzzled. It's part of a respected medico-legal practitioner series (Routledge-Cavendish). As it is it happens to be written by two authors one a Consultant Gynaecologist. Its currently just titled Gynaecology. It more than meets the basic criteria for a reliable source. Not sure what you mean by "endorsed by an editorial board"? Articles in JAMA don't seem to be, or need to be, to meet WP:RS.
The series editor Walter F Scott[[44]], is a General Practitioner with the following qualifications:
  • Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery
  • Bachelor of Law (Hons)
  • Diploma of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
  • Member of the Royal College of General Practitioners
Are you suggesting this fails WP:RS in some way? If so you are ridiculously setting the bar so high, no possible source could meet it even if it was from the most respected university on earth. Abortion is a Medico-Legal subject, of course not solely - this source is better equipped to deal with that aspect than any other currently in use in the article. The Medico-Legal series the source is from is unique and unparalled. That said, it would not be correct to use it as the only source. It certainly seems to rank very high though from the medico-legal perspective. DMSBel (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that you hadn't given me enough information to form a conclusion ion its reliability because you don't know how to cite scientific journals and don't seem to grasp the different types of articles that can appear within them. Why is this source unique? JJL (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I do give you enough information, I just have, if you had read my last post and followed the links you'd know the answer to your question, but I said it was a unique and unparalled series. So you seem to be not reading my posts. Anyway if you want the answer to your question its in my last post. DMSBel (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to begin a discussion about the very semantics of language--as though that notion was somehow uniquely relevant to this page--is a particularly extreme attempt to return the debate to the beginning by forcing a discussion of the philosophy of language. We can't re-invent the English language here. This is a stalling tactic. JJL (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not a stalling tactic, but thats the second time you have refered to other editors wanting to discuss things as using "stalling tactics". If discussing this is a stalling tactic, what are editors who refuse to discuss that matter engaging in? Semantics is relevant, we are discussing a definition. Though I agree that the issue of definition is not solely to do with semantics. But it's a neglected area and there is no consensus for the current lede, if you want to find if there is consensus for your version, you need to run an RFC. Can you say why you have not done that? The article is of importance to several projects, there may need to be wider discussion. DMSBel (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As I've indicated previously on the Talk page, our language now matches that used in other, related articles here. JJL (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Which ones you been changing? (humor) DMSBel (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 8 June 2011 version of the lede first sentence, was the the consensus/compromise. It's not set in stone. But it will take a lot more to change it than what has been so far presented. Would you like to freeze your own version in carbonite? The current "definition" does not even serve the purpose of a definition which is to differeniate between similiar terms. Currently it does not distinguish between live birth and abortion. Either formal (dictionary) or extended definition can be used, perhaps a formal one in the lede, and an extended one further in the article. Or we can simply use a descriptive explanation which draws from non-contradictory sources. If that is the route then an acknowledgement in one source of what another is silent on (or makes no emphatic refutation of) makes them supplementary to each other. I suggest we use Merriam/Webster and one other major medical dictionary. ThoughtsDMSBel (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're being very repetitive. The suggestion that we only use the one dictionary that agrees with your preferred wording out of a great many that have been discussed here that do not is simply an "I want it my way" approach. The strong majority of similar sources do not agree with that definition. JJL (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL you are the only one who "wants it your way", and is repeating proposals considered in the past before a compromise was reached. Find a mirror, and look in it please. DMSBel (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DMS said; "Semantics is relevant, we are discussing a definition." I certainly would agree. In fact, I believe that semantics are very important. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are important because they have been somewhat neglected, not because they are the only thing which matters. Bringing up semantics is not turning the discussion wholly into a semantic one. It would be impossible to do so. DMSBel (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we are ignoring semantics when we use the phrase "before it can survive outside the womb" Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elucidate further?DMSBel (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an awkward construction, where a simpler one is available. JJL (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know a simpler one won't suffice. The more simplistic or generic it becomes the less it serves to tell us anything in particular. DMSBel (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything of the sort. I agree with the professionals--the current version minus 'usually' (with caveats placed in the body of the article to indicate any opposing views) and with 'viable' in place of the longer phrasing is how the term is actually defined. JJL (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem. You can't possibly object to one editor who argues against that and presents reliable sources (as were already in the earlier consensus version), as you began from a position of arguing from your own assertion, without source, evidence or consensus, but only preceded by another editors asinine comment (made in tit-for-tat fashion) already passed over by an editor who has been on the article longer than you have JJL, and who might have been likely to take it up if he didn't know something of the article history. I agree with the consensus on the lede first sentence that stood from 2006 until at least 8 June 2011 (and in my view hasn't been nullified). I won't question without very, very good reason something re-established by consensus several times as the best possible compromise in light of the options. Based on the medico-legal explanation of abortion, refuted by no other MEDRS, and which also concurs with Merriam/Webster Medical Dictionary. There cannot be a change (of the kind you seem to be proposing) that would not at the same time mean the bar is set so high that no other source currently used in the article could reach it and thus disqualifying current sources as unreliable. The best option is to leave the lede as it was as of 8 June 2011, until there is a RFC, or review. You might want to discuss elsewhere about whether wikipedia needs an {advocacy?-discuss} inline tag, if there is not one. Such a tag would in any case be only applicable to advocacy groups, not to my mind at least, non-partisan medico-legal sources.DMSBel (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that its much more than just awkward, its very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either say why, or refrain from commenting, this "its very misleading" without explaining your view on why it is misleading gets us nowhere.DMSBel (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading because it distorts the meaning of the definition used by 22 of the 24 references that we have used for it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a technical term and we shouldn't shy away from giving the proper definition, as per the overwhelming majority of the sources (regardless of what editing has occurred to the current list in the article). JJL (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if either of you understands exactly what the other is saying. As for a standard definition there isn't one as such as could be called standard. The Merriam/Webster one given that it is used by MEDLINE, seems to be as close to standard as we can find in a medical dictionary. It seems quite POV to not want to use it because it mentions death. DMSBel (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to correct my numbers - I see that the references are much changed since I last looked at them. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we have gone from bad to worse for the definition. I took a good look at all the definitions and they just do not use the phrase as we are using it. It came up a few times, 4 I believe it was, but even still it was always used a little differently. And I believe that they had good reason for not using that term, survive, at least in the way we are. It's an interesting situation. Look at the definition for survive: intransitive verb 1)to remain alive or in existence : live on 2)to continue to function or prosper 3)to remain alive after the death of <he is survived by his wife> 4)to continue to exist or live after <survived the earthquake> 5) to continue to function or prosper despite : withstand <they survived many hardships> — (survivor is the noun) However when the term is used in fetal viability, it means to reach a stage where one moves from "nothingness" to "survival" rather that from life through a deadly crisis and then to go on with life. Anyone follow me? I may be wrong or I may have not explained it very well. Of course, perhaps both! Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you. The current language is a back-door way to get in life/death as much as possible, in contravention of the medical language. I too feel the language used by physicians in their reference works has been carefully chosen and that this has nuances that are not desirable in the defn.. -JJL — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst chasing after a definition for "lifetime risk", I stumbled upon an excellent source which explicitly compares WHO to CDC nomenclature in these matters. I believe a careful reading may be helpful and informative.

Even better, an earlier version from 1980 (pp.389-390 pertain) is PD-USGov so we can quote to our hearts' collaborative delight! LeadSongDog come howl! 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJL,Yes, I agree. I believe that by attempting to to get rid of the term death we have tried every which way to compromise and ended up with what we've got - original research. But sometimes compromise is not an option. The fetus is either alive or not alive. Only God knows for sure and apparently some people feel that they have direct communications from Him. As far as I'm concerned "God" said what ever you want to think is just fine as long as you don't tell anybody else what to think. If this issue again comes to a straw poll vote I will never vote for what we've got even if it breaks the vote to the point that the "death" votes would win. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of consensus is not the same as no knowledge on the subject. Any discovery in science is a given. It is as true before the discovery as after. Consensus takes a little longer to be sure. Medicine is not agnostic on when life begins. Best practice requires where there is lack of consensus to, "err on the side of caution", ie. do no harm. This is normative in the medical profession in regard to pregnancy both with reference to a mother and her fetus. For instance before delicate and risky fetal surgery (not abortion) Tocolytics are not administered if the risk is higher for the fetus inside the womb than if delivered, such as may be the case in intrauterine infection, unexplained vaginal bleeding and fetal distress. DMSBel (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that has not been following this would wonder what the hell I am talking about "alive or not alive". Obviously it is alive in one sense. I mean Life, not life...Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the preponderance of WP:MEDRS provided in the notes. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to not be so sensible as it will only cause confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My bad. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, if you're saying that the "death" version of the lead is superior to the current version, I agree. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better only in that it did not screw around and hide behind words that say the same thing in a cowardly and sneaky manner. A 12 year old understands what viable means and I'm sick of hearing the excuse that an adult does not. We are not a panel of experts here. If anyone is so brilliant that they need to share their vast knowledge, let them go work on the physics articles or such where they need to at least show that they have some skills. It takes no skill what-so-ever to work on this article so for crying out loud you'd think you would be humble enough to agree that our definition should not be something that we just make up. Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're never going to convince me that A 12 year old understands what viable means and I'm sick of hearing the excuse that an adult does not. since I misunderstood what it meant earlier (and I'm 51), or at least that's what someone else said! Viable means many things (e.g. "viable option"). But I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed--that's what we have tried to do, but it's slipping backward piece by piece. I would certainly favor a return to 'viable', sand 'usually', because that's what the sources clearly say. JJL (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article begins by addressing abortion as a biological event related to pregnancy. The article narrows down to human abortion, and even moreso to induced abortion. IN the begininng, when the basic definition mentions life, everyone needs to step back and remember that the definition is not species-specific, and is not even a medical definition. This is a biological, veterinary, and medical definition - and even goes beyond that. All biological, veterinary, and medical resources agree:

  • A pregnancy initially requires a living horse/pig/human embryo/fetus inside of a female horse/pig/human (normally within a uterus).
  • The end of the pregnancy occurs when the horse/pig/human embryo/fetus exits the female horse/pig/human.
  • The horse/pig/human embryo/fetus can exit the female horse/pig/human either dead or alive.
  • If the horse/pig/human embryo/fetus exits the female horse/pig/human dead, it is an abortion (miscarriage, still birth, induced abortion).
  • If the horse/pig/human embryo/fetus exits the female horse/pig/human alive, it is live birth.

There are dozens of MED:RS that confirm this and have been cited repeatedly on this talk page since 2005. Please post citations of MED:RS that negate any of the above facts. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since you're back (and talking about "facts" again), could you go two threads up and answer my question about some other "facts" you've cited? Thanks. MastCell Talk 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Not human specific. Convenient. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give the IP a break. MastCell you don't give a toss if there is a stat. corresponding to what the IP stated. I know your type, keep pushing IPs around. "Wheres it say this?", "wheres it say that?". Then when you're shown you find something else wrong with it, or you just remain silent. Wise up and give the rest of us a break. Goes for other editors who are at that game too. DMSBel (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such cynicism, and from someone who was just recently criticizing my failure to assume good faith (see #15). I'm willing to let the IP spout whatever rhetoric he wants (clearly, the talk page guidelines were long since beaten into submission). But if he cites a "fact", then I'd like to know whether it's truly a fact. I'm old-fashioned like that. In the best case, the IP provides a source and I learn something. In a not-so-best case, I've at least given him a chance to correct a false statement, before I conclude that he doesn't give a damn about facts and should be ignored.

Incidentally, if you read WP:V (which, admittedly, not many do these days), it actually insists that we as editors ask "Where's it say this? Where's it say that?" But again, I'm old-fashioned. MastCell Talk 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my cynicism hopefully it has not advanced too far. Maybe you do in fact want a published stat. to confirm what the IP said. But we'd get a lot further in this discussion if we all would just acknowledge the sources we have, including the ones we don't particularly like are the ones that are probably going to be used for this article. Ruling out a respected medico-legal source would only impoverish the quality of sourcing generally across Wikipedia. Not having followed this discussion from earlier years I somewhat accepted at face value a un-informed comment or two earlier in the discussion regarding Gynaecology for Lawyers as not ranking well amongst authorative sources. Well if that is the way wikipedians rank sources, they have set the bar higher than pretty much every source currently in the article! Seriously. I have seen this before - editors saying in disdain in effect "That?! source" in regard to a source with very nearly impeccible credentials, simply because it confirms a particular POV they don't like. By all means we need to careful in regard to sources. But quite simply put, the problems with either Merriam/Webster, or Gynaecology for Lawyers, or some of the other sources given in support of "...caused by or resulting in its death" are more to do with the POVs of a few editors and nothing whatever to do with reliability of those sources. Having found out what a source says, you can't just then retort "I don't like it" WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're right WP:V does not seem to be read by many these days. Could you tell me on you're reading of that if there is anything in the lede first sentence that is not verifiable, in a reliable source? (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give the IP a break? After four-months break time is over. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artifex, when you joined this discussion you made one of the best posts in the discussion at least in my time here. You didn't take sides, but you made it clear in your post we should not obfusicate the issue. There has been a lot of discussion in between (as well as before), but I think some of your basic comments still have some weight in the discussion. The IP has not been saying anything that is outside the scope of the medical profession's normative view in regard to the status of both fetus and mother as patients, or indeed that contradicts your first post here (as I understood it). Tendentious editing is one thing, but thats not what we have in the case of the IP, he simply wants acknowledgement of what is common knowledge in Medical practice.DMSBel (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However you should keep details of my posts in context. Early on there was a debate about when Life begins. The sources supplied didn't hold water so I rejected the argument, finally declaring "that dog won't hunt" (and it still won't). The argument as changed. Currently I'm looking for a policy or guideline and supporting argument that the consensus lede using death overrides the majority of medical texts that don't phrase it that way. The same rehtorical questions, requests for negating sources, claims the article is not medical, is not human specific, google word searches provided as sources, that this or that terminology is meely mouthed or euphemistic, the source doesn't talk about xyz, etc. repeated over the past month in the 398 [45][46][47] edits by the IP and 469 [48][49] edits by you are not helping me find a solution. Right now I see a simple issue of WP:MEDRS verses WP:CONSENSUS and WP:MEDRS is winning. I am listening but patience is not a death pact. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I can't quite understand is why you are looking for policy arguments to remove verifiable and reliable source information. Do you think the silence in definitions of abortion indicates a agnosticism in the medical profession with regard to pre-birth life. It's strange how hard a few editors are trying to remove this. "...resulting in or caused by its death" comports with the sources we have. DMSBel (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this all across WP--an editor finds one generally reasonable source that agrees with his viewpoint and insists it be given equal weight with the multitude that don't. I've seen numerous editors all over WP state things like "all verifiable information must be included in the article". The most annoying part of this discussion is that no one is saying that the less commonly occurring views can't be discussed further in the body of the article--just that they don't belong in the lede. It's a matter of the weight of sources. Since this is a definition, it isn't surprising that different authorities define and use it in different ways. But there's a strongly modal phrasing, and it's before it is viable. JJL (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, your spin fails yet again. There is a field of forensic pathology that conducts "post mortem" exams (aka "autopsies") of fetuses that were intentionally killed during induced feticide abortion procedures. Post mortem means "after death" - autopsies can only be performed on a fetus that died. Forensic pathology has as its main goal to understand what led to the subject cadaver's ill-health and death. There is another field of medicine that focuses on fetal therapy and fetal surgery, wherein the fetus is clearly treated as a living patient. Of course I don't expect any acknowledgment from you of these facts of life and death. But I am posting these facts for the record. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the OR/synthesis aspect of this: Why don't the physicians who write the textbooks know what you do? JJL (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the generally reasonable source you refer to? I have asked you JJL repeatedly about inclusion in lede and body of the article. About your specific objections, limits of your objections? You won't give a plain answer. The problem as I see it and as at least one other editor has noted, is that you have a cognitive bias. Now, I never took issue with the definition in all the time I have worked on this article. I have waited before acting on concern from other editors towards other aspects of the lede and sections, that I agree with. Basically because I know my own views on the matter, and I don't want them to bias my actions and some of the issues raised need broached carefully, and I need to do further reading at times. I see no way at all that a non-partisan medico-legal source could be advocacy. I asked you about this, but you backed away from the advocacy claim. I really am not sure how to convince you. Fallacy from silence meet fallacy from ignorance! And you are basically arguing it seems to me - no knowledge without consensus, which is altogether back to front. You seem to also be putting epistemology before ontology. DMSBel (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that lawyers aren't advocates? JJL (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if you'd try that little trick with words. To late, you had about three opportunities to say what you meant by advocacy. Each time you backed away. Whats concerning is that you know you are playing games, and you know that the lede has consensus with "death" in it, and you know that you are wasting editors time, and that you are on a mission. Do you think no-one else sees this? Take my word for it they do. And you know what, you'll have a topic block soon if you keep this up. DMSBel (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do we actually know today, that eclipses what experts in embryology told us 50 years ago? And it better be relevant to the issue of when life begins. DMSBel (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument rests on 50 year old science, despite all the up-to-date references that have been provided? What we know is that what once may have seemed very simple to some is much more complex than first thought. (This is not to say that I agree with your assumptions about what was widely believed 50 years ago.) That is, I presume, one reason why so many sources avoid such unsettled and complicated issues. JJL (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It simple JJL, things don't move out of the domain of knowledge like that. Belief was not needed to know this 50 years ago. What was knowledge then is knowledge now. I am not going to keep arguing with you. Stop changing the lede to the version that there is no consensus for. DMSBel (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "usually"?

There's too much activity between long-involved users for me to get involved in the discussions already here, but what's the problem with saying "usually before it is viable"? Viability comes around the end of the second trimester or early third trimester. Abortions can occur in the third trimester right up until the moment of birth. To say all abortions happen before viability is a blatant falsehood. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the lead should refer to death, not viability.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, "death" only occurs after "live birth" by definition. Perhaps you meant "fetal death"? In any case it ought to be obvious by now that neither wording will gain consensus for use in the lede. We have very reliable sources which manage to define the term without reference to "death", or "fetal death", or "viability". We can keep this very simple, as in "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth." Leave the whole discussion of viability, induced/spontaneous, premature birth, and all the other complications for the article body. They are ancilliary to the fundamental idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Leadsong, you are wrong: forensic pathologists conduct post mortem exams (autopsies) on fetuses who were killed during induced-feticide abortion procedures.74.5.176.81 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But pregnancies can end with spontaneous absorptions, which are not abortions. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted MCP,s edit since only 1 reference of the 24 we offer uses the word death in their definition. Gandydancer (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Gandydancer's revert, for the following reason: There are no MEDRS which refute either the earlier medico-legal source used which states: "At conception (the union of a sperm and an egg), a new individual is created" [Gynaecology for Lawyers - Medico-Legal Practitioner Series (1998 Routledge/Cavendish)] page 19.
or Merriam Webster Medical dictionary definition :  : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a): spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b): induced expulsion of a human fetus [[50]], they therefore more than meet WP:RS and MEDRS. DMSBel (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming all that were true, the 'death' phrasing does not have consensus--indeed, consensus is clearly against using it. Even if all that were it wouldn't mean it must go in the lede. It also fails on the WP:WEIGHT consideration. JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, consensus is not clearly against using it. Either give this up or ask a neutral uninvolved editor to run an RFC. DMSBel (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, your stock sinks lower everytime you claim consensus for your view, just the IP's does when they open a new talk page section. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My stock hit bottom as soon as I edited your precious consensus, didn't it? JJL (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a serious issue in regard to a mere new consensus assertion versus actual established (by neutral Admin) new consensus, which would require an RFC, so far I see only JJL and a couple of other editors even arguing that there is no-consensus. Who in their right mind wants to get involved in a game of consensus ping-pong. "Now we have it", "now you don't" scored by individual players or each side bringing their own umpire!. I agree the FAQ should not set any current wording in stone, but it should address what has been asked in regard to particular terms.DMSBel (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't require an RFC. The consensus here is clearly against the 'death' version. Can we move forward from there? JJL (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSong, if death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat and brain function, isn't life defined by the presence of a heartbeat and brain function? The fetus has a heartbeat and brain function, and abortion ceases these, therefore abortion is the death of the fetus. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the cells, tissues, other are cultured for research, stem cells or otherwise, or other uses (i.e. not killed, destroyed, etc) is it still an abortion? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it causes the death of the embryo, yes, though it's not referred to as an abortion - it's referred to as death. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is supported by even a substantial minority of the professional-quality sources we have, though. As has been discussed here in great detail, the 'life' issue is very complicated at the least, with many conflicting views. I don't agree with yours, for example. JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, the medical definitions are not relevant. The issue is about clarity (and accuracy), not some mealy-mouthed surgeon's euphemism. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can't believe you actually wrote "the medical definitions are not relevant". Medical opinions on a medical and/or surgical procedure (or medical event in the case of miscarriage) aren't relevant? Abortion is first and foremost a medical matter--indeed, it's only a medical matter, but one that happens to elicit commentary from a wide variety of non-medical communities. The reaction to it is surely an important topic to cover but we are talking about an aspect of medicine and the cultural/religious response to it. As to accuracy, we've established that the medical community--not just one lone surgeon--thinks it's based on viability. JJL (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't the medical textbooks say that, then? JJL (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good question and this page has already provided some answers. Did you miss that? There are various rational reasons that these "textbooks" use imprecise legalisms and sophistry. The bottom line is that most basic abortion descriptions written for abortion practitioners employ imprecise language and euphemism - and some simply defy the unassailable biological facts verified by reams of RS (as has been shown here since 2005 with endless MEDRS and other RS). One does have to ask: "Why would some "textbook" authors writing for certain audiences contradict known biological and medical facts?" Such a lack of integrity by such authors has got you bogged down in defending such defiance of unassailable fact. Word-smithing of the definition for abortion so as to hide any unpleasant science seems to be Orwellian newspeak (and would seemingly be against wikipedia policy, no?). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying that it's a conspiracy among all major medical textbook authors but I don't see any verifiable sourcing of that--just that it's obvious to so many of you who prefer 'death' in the description. Since virtually all major sources use 'viable', I'd think you could source the claim of such a conspiracy. If not, it's just your own personal opinion--and that's WP:OR, however common-sense it is to you. Let's see the sources that support the claim that physicians are knowingly writing false things in the texts used to train the next generation of physicians. It isn't enough that it's clear to you that that's so--it must be sourced. Otherwise, you're arguing against an avalanche of first-rate secondary sources on the matter. JJL (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IVF embryo in a test-tube is not a "pregnancy". If the life/development/growth of the embryo is aborted, it is not an "abortion" in the mainstream sense of the word, which is always related to pregnancy (seems I agree with NYyankee's view of the basic science). Any removal of tissues or stem cells from a living embryo is an embryonic vivisection, which (I suggest) necessarily ends the life of that organism, which is a human offspring (offspring is a widely used technical term for an embryo or fetus), regardless of whether one sees that offspring as a person or not. The point is, the embryo was alive and then dies due to the vivisection. If I donated blood (or a kidney) one day, and died a day later, I am dead even if my blood (or kidney) is alive inside another person. Of course if the vivisection does not kill the embryo (I suppose that might be possible) and it still maintains the normal life function of an embryo such that it could implant inside a uterus and continue its human development cycle, then it would still be a living offspring, so there is no abortion. But if its truly a clump of dismembered and mangled living cells that do not resemble an intact embryonic offspring, then it seems that it would no longer be an offspring, though the cells that remain would be "alive". 74.5.176.81 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who might not know (and I have encountered many who don't know, but think they do), the only time an embryo is destroyed (killed) as part of embryonic stem cell research is when a new embryonic stem cell line is created. The extracted cell is then replicated in labs - an almost infinite replication. The people who do most of the "embryonic stem cell research" use these replicated cells, which are not embryos, and never were in any embryos. The vast majority of these researchers never even get near any embryos, let alone destroy them. When a researcher uses such a cell line, she does not destroy (kill) any embryos. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered Collection of Definitions

This section is reserved exclusively for a running list of abortion definitions following the format used for #1 with comments in the section that follows labeled "Comments on each Numbered Definition". Please ensure any definition you leave is NOT signed, as the list is designed to be an objective neutral list. I will be housekeeping this section for compliance with the format guidelines that I have outlined here. Please do not leave any comments of any kind in this section (just definitions). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2008. abortion: 1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as (a) : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage (b) : induced expulsion of a human fetus (c) : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy.
  • 2. Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, 2005 (also used as the "MedlinePlus" online dictionary by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, a division of the National Institutes for Health). abortion: 1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as (a) : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage (b) : induced expulsion of a human fetus (c) : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy.
  • 3. Merriam-Webster's Legal Dictionary, 1996 (also used as the online legal dictionary by "FindLaw For Legal Professionals", a Thomson Reuters website). abortion: 1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; esp. : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy.
  • 4. Oxford World Dictionary, 2010. abortion: 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks: the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.
  • 5.MacMillan Dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive.
  • 6.Collins English learner’s dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a pregnancy is deliberately ended and the baby is not born alive.
  • 7.Cambridge University Dictionary of American English, abort: to end a pregnancy esp. by an operation before the baby is ready to be born.
  • 8.Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, abortion: any deliberate procedure that removes, or induces the expulsion of, a living or dead embryo or fetus

Comments on each Numbered Definition This section is reserved exclusively for a running list of comments following the format used for #1, in numerical order using the corresponding definition numbers from the section "Numbered Collection of Definitions". Please keep all comments for one definition together. I will be housekeeping this section.

  • 1. Plus: The only definition that applies to EVERY abortion, but does not incorrectly apply to any live births. Plus: Absolutely mainstream source. Could not be more mainstream, actually. Plus: Most popular US dictionary (best-selling and most relied upon). Plus: This publisher also uses the same definition in its medical dictionary and its legal dictionary - which means the definition has been vetted by professional editors of specialty dictionaries as appropriate in those specialty dictionaries, as well as in a lay dictionary. Plus: Dictionary recommended and relied upon by the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the bible for most US editors and publishers. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Plus: The NIH trusts this medical dictionary as its online medical dictionary for MedlinePlus. Plus: Could not be more mainstream as a medical reference website.74.5.176.81 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Plus: FindLaw For Legal Professionals and the consumer version of FindLaw trusts this as its online medical dictionary. Plus: Could not be more mainstream as a legal reference website.74.5.176.81 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Minus: Definition includes every induced live birth. Plus: Does not make false claims about viability, properly applies to abortions after viability. Plus: Mainstream. Plus: Faulty (because it defines induced live births), but better then those definitions making false claims about viability. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

STOP creating new sections. WP:TLDR. You're pissing everyone off and undermining your own position. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an editor claiming that only one resource mentions death/destruction/life. I am documenting that such a claim is simply not true. I appreciate that some people don't want accurate information to inform the lead and so they will attack my style rather then my content - and I appreciate your caution. However, it will be useful to have all the definitions/sources to be in one place (and right now that place is not the article footnotes or notes section). Your tone is not civil, by the way - and your comment would be better at my IP talk page (as WP:TLDR suggests). I suppose I can be bad cop and you can be good cop if you think that will work - let me know.74.5.176.81 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to Michael. If it were up to me, you would have been prohibited from opening new threads a long time ago - what you're doing is completely counterproductive and has rendered this talkpage largely unusable. How about you stop creating new threads, and go back to finish up some of the discussions above? About 3 threads up, you made what I think is a false statement. I've asked you to support it several times now. Would you take someone seriously if they made apparently false statements and then ignored requests for clarification? MastCell Talk 23:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we semiprotect the talk page? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list of dictionaries doesn't stack up well against the earlier lists of textbooks used by professionals to train professionals. Asking that they all be gathered back here again seems to me to be yet another stalling tactic. JJL (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your spin is tiresome. This is not a medical article. It is a broad article covering mostly non-medical aspects of abortion as a social/political/legal/philosophical phenomenon. Certainly the framing used by "textbooks used by professionals" is framing for professionals - but broad non-medical wikipedia articles (such as this one) are NOT written for that same purpose. In fact, the framing used by mainstream sources should carry more weight than that framing of medical textbooks. There is so much more that is wrong with your comment, but it has all been posted here by other editors in the past month and whenever this topic has been discussed on this talkpage since 2005. And it has frequently been abortion supporters who have been most eloquent at insisting that this article must not be censored and must be factual and candid and void of euphemism and squishy walking on eggshells terminology. 74.5.176.81 (talk)

Stop the horseshit about opening new sections. People open new sections on talk pages. Just stop the whining. And I will answer questions as I see fit; when all other questions above (that several editors have consistently dodged) are answered to my satisfaction, I will consider addressing questions others have of me. The content of the article does not hinge on the nit you wish to pick, anyway. The bottom line is that viable fetuses are aborted every year by the tens of thousands. A tiny fraction of viable-fetus abortions are to prevent death or serious injury to mother or to a seriously deformed/diseased fetus. In fact, most of them in the west are late- choice birth control, and in Asia most of them are sex selection abortions that are performed to kill females fetuses. This is all unassailable fact which has been verified repeatedly on this talk page with no acknowledgment by most of the "viable" crowd. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. Death might not be so bad. There is still a lot of good stuff we can cover. You make a good point on the numbers... I think we do around ~3,700 a day in the US, that should have some good positives right? Good for the economy, jobs, taxes and such. Yeah. Here I was thinking abortion just wouldn't be any fun with death in the lede and that if we could just gloss over that the topic would be back to its old self. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we shouldn't speak so plainly about X because X is such a widely practiced and universally accepted thing. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caterpillar: Recite.
  • Alice: Oh. Yes sir. How doth the little bumblebee improve each...
  • Caterpillar: Stop. That is not spoken correctically. It goes: How doth the little crocodile improve his shining tail. And pour the waters of the Nile, on every golden scale. How cheerfully he seems to grin, how neatly spreads his claws. And welcomes little fishes in, with gently smiling jaws.
  • Alice: Well, I must say, I've never heard it that way before.
  • Caterpillar: I know. I have improoooved it.

Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alice = Science.
  • Caterpillar = Euphemism.
74.5.176.81 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUELu8o5KJg Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stability in the lede

The old version with 'death' in it no longer enjoys consensus; consensus is squarely against the use of 'death'. We do need to get some stability in the lede, however. An RFC has been suggested but to be perfectly frank I fear it'd be just another drawn-out process after which the lede would be still subject to edit-warring if the 'death' version did not prevail, given the tenacious clinging to the old version I've seen here. Some editors are emotionally invested in it. For the sake of stability, would re-inserting "usually" before "before it is viable" be enough to keep a version in place while discussion continues? JJL (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. But you have not done an RFC. The straw poll did not reach any consensus, and you are proving to everyone watching the page how tendentious you can be. Needless to say I won't get into an edit war on this. DMSBel (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJL, if there is truly consensus to remove "death" from the lead, then simply remove "death" from the lead. Anything further than that requires consensus as well. I and several other editors do not support "viable" in the lead, for several reasons. My own reasons include that most non-technical definitions do not have anything to do with viability, and furthermore we could say with equal accuracy that most abortions are performed before quickening, which occurs before viability. Why are you insisting on jamming "viability" into the lead sentence when there is no consensus to do so? It's very disruptive, IMHO. For more info about how the editorial process is supposed to work, please see WP:BRD, which unfortunately is frequently ignored at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that what we have is a consensus to remove 'death' but that the support for inserting 'viable' is not as strong. With 'death' gone it seems that something else needs to be in its place and the usual defn. involves viability. I am happy to work on the matter of the lede--indeed, I suggested we give consideration to the "use neither word" suggestion from DRN. The current version is acceptable to me in the name of stability as we continue to discuss the matter. JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, does the current lede (rev by Anythingyouwant) work for you? For what it's worth I'm OK with it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant I have no problem with what you are saying, but it needs said that JJL is sidestepping holding an RFC and won't say why. As the article is of interest and importance to multiple projects and the lede first sentence was stable until 8 June 2011, nothing less in my view is sufficient. If we don't set a proper example here, new editors may think they can set up a new consensus by merely questioning an old one, and presenting no new reasoning. We all know that a single involved editor cannot assert consensus or lack of it. Current definition is essentially the same as that for a live birth. Would you mind running a RFC?DMSBel (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I just said why in the opening paragraph of this section. I've said the same previously...and that I don't object to someone else starting one JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a reasonable compromise while the discussion continues. If this is what it takes to get stability, I'm OK with that as a stopgap measure. JJL (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL your only problem has been the word "death" even when we had sources and found more sources verifying it, that strikes me as POV, and you ignored the suggestion from the DRN to use both terms. And what does "as a stop-gap measure" mean?. Am I the only one who finds JJL hard to understand. I have asked you how it is advocacy, and what is being advocated but you won't answer. Advocacy seems to me to be more about affirming as correct statements made by advocacy groups. Saying something like the "The Guttmacher Institute is correct when they state..." is advocacy, using a medical dictionary definition isn't.DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of suggestions at DRN. I brought what I thought was the most promising one here. Others could've brought their own. Your complaint is, in essence, that I tried to do something to help achieve a stable consensus. JJL (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DMS, as you know we do not have more and more sources that use the word death. We have 23 sources for our definition and only 1 uses the word death. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has stated that ENCARTA used "death" in its definition. Surely you are not arguing that the fetus doesn't die in an abortion? There is no question anymore as to when life begins - science knows the answer - at conception, ask any high school biology student. If an abortion doesn't result in the death of the fetus, its not an abortion.
Going by this guide to writing definitions[[51]], I see nothing wrong with including "...caused by or resulting in its death". I cannot see how we have a definition without that. DMSBel (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not been able to explain how you know when life begins when even the U.S. Supreme Court does not. Again, to quote them from Roe v. Wade: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate.
Check out the very recent Indiana ruling: Federal court decides life does begin at conception. [[52]]DMSBel (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds like the matter of death in abortion is controversial and contested, then. JJL (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it has repeatedly been suggested that the word viable is too hard to understand while death is easy. I have now asked 5 kids between the ages of 12 and 15 if they understand and not only do they understand what viable means, they are stumped as to why the adults that are posting here do not understand. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly reliable sources. Anyway, viable is simply WRONG. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the entire medical community is wrong...assuming you're right. JJL (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should know by now the "medical community" isn't writing an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 04:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was their answer, maybe they should edit this! The issue is that "death" and "viable" are not alternatives, can't be played against each other. You can't replace "...caused by or resulting in its death" with "before its viable", the latter is simply half-factual. Abortions are performed before and after viability.DMSBel (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@JJL, Thanks. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the lede back to include death, since it is only accurate, plain-English definition around. Without death, the definition was including live births. And "viable" is simply wrong. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those supporting 'viable' say it's well-supported by the a clear preponderance of the sources. In supporting 'death' you and some other editors make unsupported claims about what is "accurate" or "wrong". That isn't helpful. I support 'viable' because the sources do. JJL (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to uninvolved administrators

Why do you just sit around and do nothing when edit-warriors change longstanding material in this article without consensus? If you do nothing, then the only recourse seems to be for competent editors to continually use 1RR to restore the consensus version via a slow-motion edit-war. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is an endless slow-motion edit war between entrenched users on both sides. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that reverting to the earlier consensus is edit-waring, when no new consensus is established. DMSBel (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verb conjugation 101:
  • I am a competent editor continually using 1RR to restore the consensus version.
  • You are an edit-warrior changing longstanding material without consensus.
To an uninvolved admin, all of you look like querulous individuals shouting at the top of your lungs with your fingers firmly plugged into your ears. All the more so when you pretend there's a "consensus" version in the face of an obvious lack of consensus. I don't think your claims to the moral high ground are as self-evident as you think they are, which is probably why no uninvolved admins have stepped in to act as you want. MastCell Talk 03:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, you seriously believe there is consensus to insert "viable" in the lead's first sentence, which has consistently excluded that word for years? Perhaps no uninvolved admin has stepped in to sanction us "querulous" folk because such an assertion on your part (that you are defending consensus) is not credible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Should the lead sentence say that abortion occurs before the fetus is viable or not? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously involved editors

No, because abortions don't always occur before viability. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Basically for the same reason above per Michael C Price DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes As this is the wording the best sources use. They do not use the term death for reasons previously discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the overwhelming majority of professional secondary sources (see the collapsed Extended content section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42#Reboot:_Definition) use the 'viable' defn. and most of the others do not use 'death'. JJL (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding the two major statements at discussion. Uninvolved editors may also be interested to read the sources currently in the article. NW (Talk) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some editors have a problem with actually listing what we are discussing:
I support the first one by the way, but I also don't think it makes any sense for positions to be rehashed. We had this conversation a few days ago; I think it's safe to say no one changed their mind. Let's just wait for the second subsection to be filled out. NW (Talk) 23:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone that wonders how the references break down to numbers that use/do not use viable or death, this is pretty close: Nine use the term viable. Of the others, 2 use age of gestation, 3 use "survive" and 1 somewhat uses that term, 2 use destroy or destruction, 1 uses death, and the rest use something other. Also, it should be noted that the definition did include the word "usually" at one time to include the fact that in a small percent of abortions the fetus is viable at the time it is aborted. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Without the word "usually", inserting "viable" would deny what millions of reliable sources say: late term abortions do rarely occur after viability, e.g. to save the life of the mother. But if we insert the word "usually" then the sentence becomes misleading because it would be just as accurate to say that most abortions occur before the second trimester; plus the sentence would not say what it is about abortion that makes it different from live birth. More generally, I could support changing "death" to "demise" but would oppose doing that without consensus. Everyone hating an aspect of an article (e.g. the word "death" or the entire lead sentence) sometimes doesn't justify changing it. Even if every editor at an article unanimously hates an aspect of the article, changing that aspect of the article may nevertheless be disruptive if there is no consensus about how to change it. Some editors may want to completely delete that aspect, whereas other editors might oppose deletion but disagree among themselves about what modification would improve the article. In such a circumstance, discuss rather than edit, at least if the hated aspect has been a stable or prominent feature of the article for a long time, or was previously supported by consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually okay with "viable" in the lead if its clear this is a medical definition. But of course, my position is Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia, not a medical text, so this makes death preferential despite its negative emotional dynamic. - RoyBoy 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No. None of these seventeen WP:RS definitions for induced abortion mentions viability [emphasis added]:

Dictionaries

  • 1. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (USA's most relied-upon dictionary) abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 2. MacMillan Dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive.
  • 3. Collins English learner’s dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a pregnancy is deliberately ended and the baby is not born alive.
  • 4. Cambridge University Dictionary of American English, abort: to end a pregnancy esp. by an operation before the baby is ready to be born.
  • 5. Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, abortion: any deliberate procedure that removes, or induces the expulsion of, a living or dead embryo or fetus
  • 6. Oxford World Dictionary, abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks
  • 7. American Heritage Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Specialty Dictionaries

  • 8. Merriam-Webster's Legal Dictionary, (online dictionary for "FindLaw For Legal Professionals"). abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 9. Webster's New World Law Dictionary, abortion: The intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or fetus.
  • 10. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Abortion: Termination of the life of a foetus, after conception but before birth.
  • 11. American Heritage Science Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Secondary Legal Text

  • 12. Gynaecology For Lawyers, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.

Medical Dictionaries/Encyclopedia

  • 13. Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, (online dictionary for NIH's National Library of Medicine). abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 14. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo.
  • 15. Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, Abortion is a generic term for pregnancies that do not end in a livebirth or a stillbirth.
  • 16. WebMD/MedicineNet, Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

Secondary Medical Text

  • 17. Williams Obstetrics, [Abortion] means induced pregnancy termination to destroy the fetus.

74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these are tertiary sources (and see also the discussion of dictionary defns. at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42#Dictionary_survey), and that many take pains to avoid the term 'death' that is in contention. The crux of the professional-quality secondary sources that turned the discussion to 'viable' may be found in the collapsed Extended content section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42#Reboot:_Definition. JJL (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mislead. First, the list of 9 sources you point us to includes 2 tertiary sources. Of these 9, only 4 mention viability in the definition for induced abortion. Of these four, 2 are tertiary sources. That means you have pointed us to only 2 secondary sources that define induced abortion as always before viability. Such deception makes your stock keep going down. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors

  1. ^ . p. 9780071472579. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Dutt T, Matthews MP (1998). Gynaecology for Lawyers. Vol. 14. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-85941-215-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |series-title= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=438856638"