Talk:Abortion

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

Misuse and improper definitions of the words "therapeutic" and "elective"

For anyone who spends five minutes candidly researching, this article's use and definition of the word "therapeutic" is laughably POV. Anyone serious about the article's content would fix that. I refuse to register on principle, so I cannot make the change. The article purports that abortions are "either therapeutic or elective" and then imporerly defines those terms (therapeutic, therapeutic abortion, elective, and elective abortion) as used in common parlance and by healthcare professionals. Someone with some fairminded common sense please fix!

You would need to provide refs and stipulate where the problem is.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. You folks don't care, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is correct to say that the term therapeutic with regard to abortion is not uniformly used, or accepted. Induced in contrast to Spontaneous Abortion (Miscarriage) also is refered to as Direct abortion, Artificial abortion. The reason that direct abortion is still a valid term is that it describes the opposite of indirect abortion. Indirect abortion occurs when treatment to save the life of the mother results in the death of her fetus. A pregnant woman with cancer for instance - treatment of the cancer may result in the death of the fetus, however theraputic treatment of her condition is not intended to result in termination of pregnancy. This needs to be made clearer in the section on induced abortion.DMSBel (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Indirect abortion" is not a medical term; rather, it's something made up by Catholic philosophers and refers to the removal of the Fallopian tube to end an ectopic pregnancy. "Therapeutic abortion" is the correct medical term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, both terms are in use. Indirect abortion may be synonomous with therapeutic abortion in regard to an ectopic pregnancy. But apart from the case of an ectopic pregnancy, when treatment indirectly results in the death of a fetus, the former is the more correct term. Is it not possible that there are conditions treatable, that do not inevitably result in indirect abortion? That is to say one woman might receive cancer treatment when pregnant and lose her fetus, in another case she might not, the fetus might survive to be born. If this is possible then in the first case termination of pregnancy was neither intended nor therapeutic. The cancer treatment was therapeutic, the indirect abortion of the fetus would have had nothing to do with a cancer going into remission. DMSBel (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the use of the term is linked to double effect. But in the case of cancer treatment double effect does not mean double intended effect. Please don't get me wrong here. I spell this out only to make the matter clear. In an ectopic pregnancy the double effect of removing the fallopian tube is that the embyro will be removed too (this is intentional only in the sense that it is unavoidable), the same with a hysterectomy with the fetus in situ. And this article does overlap both philosophic and medical fields (and not those alone). Currently it does not cover the whole subject adequately. DMSBel (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And lest someone accuse me of saying that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy doesn't want her baby, that is not what I am saying at all. That is not what I mean by "double intended effect" I am simply trying to explain that indirect abortion is a valid term. The issue of treatment indirectly resulting in fetal death arises for non-catholics as much as for catholics. Forgive me if I have not been articulate enough in my explanation. DMSBel (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The first linked to source (Roche, Natalie E. (2004). Elective Abortion. Retrieved 2006-03-08) states the following: Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself. There are medical factors both maternal and fetal that contribute to the decision. These factors have been termed therapeutic abortion, defined as the termination of pregnancy for medical indications... (bold mine)

Same source is not about "therapeutic abortion" per se, but Elective Abortion (that is the title of the source article). It also states that: 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. A variety of medical conditions in pregnant women have the potential to affect health and cause complications that may be life threatening." (bold mine)

Nowhere does it say to my knowledge that "therapeutic" abortion may be performed to preserve the physical or mental health of the mother, rather it states:

The guidelines [prior to roe v wade] allowed therapeutic abortion if (1) pregnancy would "gravely impair the physical and mental health of the mother," (2) the child born was likely to have "grave physical and mental defects," or (3) the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. (bold mine)

Medical indications are: Medical illness in the mother in which continuation of the pregnancy has the potential to threaten the life or health of the mother is a factor. Consider the present medical condition and a reasonable prediction of future circumstances, as well as the consequences of the pregnancy as it progresses... Rape or incest and fetal anomalies when pregnancy outcome is likely to be birth of a child with significant mental or physical defects or high likelihood of intrauterine or neonatal death are also considered.

What we have is a section that does not appear to accurately summarise its own sources. The sources also seem to contradict each other, for instance the Medscape source subsumes therapeutic abortion under elective abortion, whereas the Britannica source seems to separate the two. It would seem that it might be more proper to distinguish elective abortion in view of medical indications, and elective abortion on grounds other than medical.

These issues make tagging this section necessary.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Amen!!! This has been a problem in this article for over 5 years (and I did complain about it back then), and most recently I suggested this be changed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_41#Misuse_of_the_words_.22elective.22_and_.22therapeutic.22_2 but to no avail. Thanks for taking this seriously. In the developed world, almost all abortions are elective (meaning they are non-emergency procedures that are not medically necessary). A very small percentage of them may also actually be therapeutic. And certainly no one can argue that killing a diseased or disordered fetus is therapeutic to that fetus (such an argument considers the fetus to be a patient that is receiving therapy, but intentionally killing a patient is never therapeutic). An extremely small percentage of abortions are medically necessary to preserve the woman's life. As to preserving the woman's health, destroying a healthy pregnancy by inducing abortion does not preserve a woman's health. Rather it destroys and undermines her healthy reproductive system. It may be what she wants, but it is not therapy. Much like amputation is not therapy for the person who has a psychological need to have his healthy hand amputated. If therapy is "the treatment of disorders or disease" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Medical+treatment http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/therapy (and that is a mainstream definition), we would only be able to label abortion as therapeutic if we agree that pregnancy is ALWAYS a disease or disorder if the woman does not wish the pregnancy to continue. While some times a pregnancy is diseased or disordered, most pregnancies are not diseased or disordered, and most pregnancies that are diseased or disordered end up as spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages) that are usually very early in the pregnancy and often go unnoticed by the gravid woman. But candor forces us to admit that the gravid woman's desire to NOT be pregnant does NOT turn a healthy pregnancy into a disease or disorder. This article should reflect medical, physical and metaphysical reality, not talking points for a large lobbying group. Finally, if we want to focus on the psychological reasons that a woman might want an abortion, if it is psychologically therapeutic to induce an abortion, then this is an admission that the woman has a psychological disease or disorder (much like the man who wants his healthy hand amputated) for which she is seeking an abortion as a therapy. It seems that most people would not want to acknowledge this reality, but in all candor if a healthy pregnancy is aborted for psychological reasons, then the disease or disorder that is treated by inducing abortion is a mental one. Are we really saying that most women have abortions to treat their psychological diseases or disorders? I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

These are prior comments from earlier this year (2011) that were ignored: ----

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

2. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective surgery as follows: "Surgery that is subject to choice (election)...As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery." [[1]]

3. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective as follows: "In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent. Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time." [[2]]

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

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

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

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

The current section of this article called "Induced" [[3]] contains a false dichotomy when it states: "Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to: ... An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.".

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

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

Perhaps this wording would address these concerns:

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

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

^ source: [[4]] (Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion... Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have revised the suggested NEW wording:

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

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

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

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

The MedTerms.com definition for "therapeutic abortion" at [5] is "An abortion that is brought about intentionally," which comports with the general definition of the word "therapeutic" (related to a treatment after diagnosis of a medical condition).

The American Heritage dictonary [6] defines "therapeutic abortion" as

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

The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine [7] defines therapeutic abortion as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently". This definition comports with the language I am suggesting because the term is independent of any serious medical threat to the mother's health (although this definition is also problematic because in practice there are medical doctors in good standing who will induce fetal demise of a fetus that is capable of living independently, and there are laws that protect such abortions).

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

In any event, the scholarly article at this link [8] asserts that "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself." This assertion supports my suggestion that the wikpedia main article convey to the reader that most typically, an abortion is elective, and that because the termination of any unwanted pregnancy is de facto deemed to be "therapeutic", therefore all abortions are both elective and therapeutic. The only exceptions are the very rare cases when a pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life.

Here is yet another revision of the suggested NEW wording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The very first paragraph and it contains misleading and inaccurate information: "In the context of human pregnancies, an abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion."

This sentence falsely represents what a therapeutic abortion is. Most therapeutic abortions are NOT performed because there is a risk to the gravid woman's health. Virtually all therapeutic abortions are also ELECTIVE (i.e. "non-emergency"). The current language in the article skews these facts. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) --- copy paste from earlier discussion ends here ---

I recall this earlier discussion, I disagreed with the proposed solution, but not that there was then (and still is now) a serious issue with the use of the terms in the lead and in the section on Induced abortion. I prefer to differentiate Induced abortion (synonymous with Artificial abortion and Direct abortion) into two classes of Elective:

(1) Elective (volitional and non-emergency) and therapeutic (scheduled after diagnosis) in view of medical indications either maternal or fetal.

(2) Elective for reasons other than medical (ie. birth control/socio-economic etc...)

Thoughts?DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the intro due to the same definitions and usage of these terms in it. DMSBel (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least we should correct the misleading aspects (the use of the terms theraputic and elective) of this section and the lead. This should not be incredibily difficult. It only requires that we cite the sources already used in the article, but a little more comprehensively. To that end we need to make clear at least three qualifying remarks.

• 1. Most providers (of abortion) consider all terminations to be elective (voluntary). (Roche, Natalie E. (2004). Elective Abortion. Retrieved 2006-03-08)
• 2. Therapeutic abortion is difficult to define. From Roche(2004): "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. A variety of medical conditions in pregnant women have the potential to affect health and cause complications that may be life threatening."
• 3. The term "therapeutic" abortion is not universally accepted or used.

Another matter for discussion is the use of the terms elective in the sense of (non-emergency surgery) and therapeutic (surgery performed after diagnosis). Through lack of clarification the section does not currently differentiate elective in a surgical sense, and in a volitional sense. DMSBel (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this which also needs to be made clear if the article is to be of encyclopedic quality. Therapeutic treatment may be given in the case of diagnosis during pregnancy of an unrelated medical condition. In the case of cancer when pregnant for instance there are treatments which may indirectly harm the fetus, and others which may not. "Some cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy, while others can harm the fetus (unborn baby)."[[9]]. In this case if the cancer treatment has the result of fetal demise, the term "therapeutic abortion" is incorrect. And as editors we should seek to avoid any conflation of theraputic treatment during pregnancy with abortion.DMSBel (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Massive walls of text aside, you're just plain wrong here, and you're attempting to misuse a medical source to push religious terminology. The Roche source doesn't say that all terminations are elective and none are therapeutic, it says that all terminations are elective and none are spontaneous, with some of the elective ones being therapeutic. We can discuss this distinction as well, but the dispute you're claiming, whether about the use of the term "therapeutic abortion" or the incidence of the procedure, just doesn't exist. I ask myself whether you even bothered to do the most cursory search for the term on PubMed to see if the term was in use, or if you thought that by overwhelming people with text, you would get them to believe you even though you have no evidence and indeed the case is quite the opposite. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I've just updated the citation for Roche, Natalie E. (2004). Elective Abortion, (ref 7 currently). The old content was based on an eMedicine article at a deadlink, recovered via archive.org. The equivalent current eMedicine article is now also linked. The terms "elective abortion" and "theraputic abortion" are both discussed. So far as I can tell, the term "direct abortion" derives from Vatican publications, (esp. the catechism) and not from medicine. In any case, this is wp, not wikt. The nomenclatural diversion is hardly worth this much attention. Can we focus on building an encyclopedia? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Roscelese if you'd like to remember WP:AGF. I did not cut and paste the old discussion back to this page. What you say in your reply regarding therapeutic and elective is exactly what other editors have been pointing out. I did mention the issue of direct versus indirect abortion earlier. But you will have to find a way of refering to unintended fetal demise, consequent to theraputic treatment for medical indications unrelated to the pregnancy using terminology that avoids giving the impression that the treatment was in any way intended to bring about fetal demise. Please tell me what would be religious about refering to this as "indirect abortion"? Where is the religious connotation in the term "indirect"? Granted it is used by Catholic physicians. Is that it? Well please lets hear your suggestions for how to improve the clarity of the article? Should we not at least give proper coverage of the source we are using by quoting it when it states the reasons that "theraputic abortion" is difficult to define? User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have done a PubMed search, you are right. My reason for not doing so was that it simply had not occured to me and I was working off the main source in this section (ie. Roche). I thought improved and more accurate summarising of that source would suffice. Nevertheless I have now done a PubMed search, though I am not registered with the site and therefore can only view the abstracts. There is at least one article there which uses the terminology of direct and indirect abortion unapologetically. [[10]]. But I can only view the abstract of it. Clearly the nomenclature is not uniform across all areas of medical practice, and catholic medical services are part of that. I am not saying we should use their terminology throughtout the article. I have thought about what you have said and it seems to me that the best way to tackle this would be to address the variations in nomenclature within a separate part of the article? Thoughts?DMSBel (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To whoever removed the tags (I havn't checked yet). DO NOT do so again until the dispute is resolved. It states that explicitly on the tag so you should not have to be told. DMSBel (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tags have to be based on actionable issues. "I want this article on a medical procedure to reflect a non-medical viewpoint instead of a medical one" is obviously not actionable. "Indirect abortion" is simply not a term used in the medical community. It's a theological term that we have no business including in a section of medical definitions. The PubMed source you're using to justify this quibble is an anti-abortion article by a Dominican whose other works include "Human Difficulties and Clarifications of the Church's Magisterium on Conjugal Life" and "The Christian view of love, marriage and the family," not a medical article by a scientist or doctor.

I certainly don't "have to" find a way of referring to "unintended fetal demise" etc. etc. If it's not an issue that MEDRS care about, why should I? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look Roscelese, sooner or later if you work on this article you are going to have to stop side-stepping issues raised with it. You can jump from PubMed to MEDRS to... The issue is actionable. The article is not solely a medical article either. Let's get that straight, if in doubt look at the list of projects that it covers. If you want to flog the dead horse of "this is just a medical article", that is up to you. I won't be wasting anymore time trying to persuade you. I'll just engage with the editors who want to improve the article and make appropriate corrections. DMSBel (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you cut out the incivility and stop cherry-picking sources to support your predetermined conclusions. One solitary article by a non-scientist with a religious agenda does not become the bible of our article just because it's archived in PubMed. It wouldn't do so anyway, but particularly because so many other articles disprove your claim that the real distinction is elective-indirect and not elective-therapeutic or elective-spontaneous, there's even less reason to pay it any attention. You should know better than that. We have plenty of articles on religion and abortion, including Catholicism and abortion, where you can prate on about "indirect abortion" to your heart's content. But this article is based on reliable sources, which, in sections about medical aspects, such as the section under discussion, have to conform to MEDRS standards. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll apologise if there was incivility in my post. But you are the one who brought up PubMed. There is no point accusing me, after you brought it up, for doing the search there and finding an article. You seem to be going to extremes here saying that I want to use a single PubMed article as "the Bible" for this article. I don't. Let's calm it down. We can leave that source aside, if you object to it. Let's focus on the source we are using and get it properly summarised.DMSBel (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also there is a 1RR on this article so I'd be careful about removing the tags again, before the dispute is resolved.DMSBel (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See how you said "one article"? And, since you claim to have searched the database, did you also see how many articles by actual experts use the terms you're claiming are not in use, while approximately five, including this one by someone with no expertise at all, use the term you wish to insert? I accept wholeheartedly your oh-so-generous offer not to use the article in question, but that just leaves us in the same place: you're trying to make changes to a section on medical terminology using theological terminology + your personal opinion.

I'm well aware of the 1RR on this article, but thanks for making clear your intent to game the system in the hope of inserting a non-medical POV into the medical sections of the article. That's very helpful.

If you have any real proposals for improving this article, such as clarifying the "elective (with subset therapeutic) vs spontaneous" vs "elective vs therapeutic" distinction, kindly lay them out. "But the medical section doesn't reflect religious views!" is a silly complaint when the article already mentions religion and when there are entire articles devoted to religious views. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making up remarks and then quoting them as though I had made them. I did lay out some provisional thoughts on clarifying the sections above. DMSBel (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you've made a suggestion that isn't based on your own idiosyncratic language use at best (an abortion performed for health reasons is "elective" and not "therapeutic" if it isn't an emergency, for example), a gross misrepresentation at middling (Roche's "all terminations are elective," for example), and blatantly false at worst (the term "therapeutic abortion" is not generally used, for example). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I said I had offered some provisional thoughts. I also requested further input, ending my post "Thoughts?". Three times in your last post you misrepresent what I said, and that after you made up statements that (in your mind) seemed to sum up my position and then quoted them as if I was saying that. With regard to your claim that I was saying the term "therapeutic abortion" is not generally used, I never said that at all. What I did say was that the term was not universally accepted or used. There is a considerable difference in meaning between "generally" (a word I did not use) and "universally" (the word I did use). A term might be in general use but not universally (ie. by all people without exception) accepted. All this I was and still am prepared to civilly discuss with other editors, even you Roscelese when you stop misrepresenting me and going to extremes.DMSBel (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the proposed revision of the current wording:

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

birth control (postpone or stop childbearing);

socioeconomic concerns;

health risk to pregnant woman;

health risk to fetal siblings;

avoid birth of a disabled or diseased neonate;

67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice that no one wants to engage this comment:

Amen!!! This has been a problem in this article for over 5 years (and I did complain about it back then), and most recently I suggested this be changed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_41#Misuse_of_the_words_.22elective.22_and_.22therapeutic.22_2 but to no avail. Thanks for taking this seriously.

In the developed world, almost all abortions are elective (meaning they are non-emergency procedures that are not medically necessary). A very small percentage of them may also actually be therapeutic. And certainly no one can argue that killing a diseased or disordered fetus is therapeutic to that fetus (such an argument considers the fetus to be a patient that is receiving therapy, but intentionally killing a patient is never therapeutic).

An extremely small percentage of abortions are medically necessary to preserve the woman's life.

As to preserving the woman's health, destroying a healthy pregnancy by inducing abortion does not preserve a woman's health. Rather it destroys and undermines her healthy reproductive system. It may be what she wants, but it is not therapy. Much like amputation is not therapy for the person who has a psychological need to have his healthy hand amputated.

If therapy is "the treatment of disorders or disease" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Medical+treatment http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/therapy (and that is a mainstream definition), we would only be able to label abortion as therapeutic if we agree that pregnancy is ALWAYS a disease or disorder if the woman does not wish the pregnancy to continue.

While some times a pregnancy is diseased or disordered, most pregnancies are not diseased or disordered, and most pregnancies that are diseased or disordered end up as spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages) that are usually very early in the pregnancy and often go unnoticed by the gravid woman. But candor forces us to admit that the gravid woman's desire to NOT be pregnant does NOT turn a healthy pregnancy into a disease or disorder.

This article should reflect medical, physical and metaphysical reality, not talking points for a large lobbying group.

Finally, if we want to focus on the psychological reasons that a woman might want an abortion, if it is psychologically therapeutic to induce an abortion, then this is an admission that the woman has a psychological disease or disorder (much like the man who wants his healthy hand amputated) for which she is seeking an abortion as a therapy. It seems that most people would not want to acknowledge this reality, but in all candor if a healthy pregnancy is aborted for psychological reasons, then the disease or disorder that is treated by inducing abortion is a mental one. Are we really saying that most women have abortions to treat their psychological diseases or disorders? I don't think so.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd already responded to your proposed wording, but I guess I hadn't. No, it is not suitable, because your definitions of elective and therapeutic are both incorrect. The rest of your comment is anti-abortion, anti-woman soapboxing that does not merit a response and may indeed merit redaction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I did respond, in fact I tagged the section in question. There was a cut and paste of old discussion back to the talk page which did not help the flow of the debate. The issue of the terms Elective and Therapeutic can be resolved as I said by summarising more comprehensively what the medical source we are using states. When abortions are performed surgically then surgical categories do come into it and therefore the section needs to make more clear the sense in which Elective and Therapeutic are being used. DMSBel (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Usually I don't agree with a topic-banned editor, but this article is POV. Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die? That wording was placed there years ago by anti-abortion editors. Time for a new consensus actually based on science, not the wishes of the right wing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OM, you say a lot of stupid things, but this beats them all! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say again that this sort of derisive comment isn't at all helpful. JJL (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

By that token, is your comment helpful? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally against tagging this article. There are always going to be people who think some aspect of it is non-neutral, but it doesn't make sense for this highly-viewed article to constantly be tagged. I've found that this article tends to attract people who edit heavily and obsessively over short periods of time in service of a specific agenda, so when they're especially active it might make sense to have a temporary tag until things quiet down. Overall, the quality of this article has declined steadily over the past year or so, largely because spurts of activity by such editors have overwhelmed any slow-but-steady improvement by people with less of an axe to grind. But I digress.

I don't have a strong feeling about the wording re: "death" in the lead. Or rather, I don't think it's worth litigating under current conditions. The article suffers from more substantial flaws which should probably be the focus of our effort. Fighting over the word "death" should be a bone that we throw to agenda-driven editors while we work on improving the actual substance of the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor MastCell wrote: "Fighting over the word "death" should be a bone that we throw to agenda driven editors..." I must say I am stunned to see someone come out and say something so inflamatory. It can't really go without a remark. Such a comment reflects an attitude that is completely at odds with WP:AGF. It reflects a desire to turn a page which is already under general sanctions into a battleground. [[11]]. It is quite unacceptable behaviour at any time, but especially pernicious on this page and seemingly calculated. Given tendency for things to become heated, and for misunderstanding to occur. I would like to hear other editors thoughts on this, what can only seem to be incitement. I am not going to take the bait (what else is a bone) to get involved in an edit war. I hope other editors will, in spite of the deliberately inflamatory comments and edits made above by these two editors refuse to likewise become involved in an edit war, but rather wait to see the views of Admins on this. This behaviour is quite appalling. If either editor wants to explain or retract the remarks they should do so quickly.DMSBel (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked... I find MastCell's post appropriate for a talk page. It did not make me feel incited, inflamed, or appalled. I do not feel he was trying to encourage an edit war or attempt to heat things up. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, abortion causes "death", of the fetus in almost all cases, and on some rare occasions, of the mother. This is not "POV", just biological facts. I haven't noticed many editors claiming that antibacterial is "POV" because it states that "bactericidal agents kill bacteria". Words such as "kill" or "death" simply imply the cessation of life, so much as even single celled organisms such as bacteria are deemed to have. If we stated, in Wikipedia's voice, that abortion "murdered" the fetus, that would be POV, because it would be taking a definitive position on a very hotly contested moral issue. It should certainly be noted that abortion opponents believe that the killing of a fetus is "murder", and that proponents believe that it isn't, because they don't regard the fetus as sentient or human, notwithstanding the presence of "life" in purely biological terms. Lastly, no surgical procedure is perfectly safe for the patient. Any major intervention presents some risk of death or severe injury. Like it or not, abortion is no exception. It's not at all likely that the mother would die, but it has happened. There's sufficient published data regarding safety records that this risk can be stated with some reasonable level of precision. Chester Markel (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

"Seriously, how can something not living die?" That's a joke, right Orangemarlin? According to biological science, even a single human skin cell is "living". No sane society would be prepared to accord that single skin cell human rights, but that's a moral judgement, not a scientific one. Obviously, if bacteria "live", so too must a human fetus, or even a single sperm or egg cell, in biological terms. I prefer a neutral, scientific description of what abortion is all about in the introduction. The moral dispute, i.e. what arrangement of human cells is necessary constitute a person, what's sentient and what isn't, should be described later, without Wikipedia endorsing any particular position, per WP:NPOV. Chester Markel (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Either the POV tag should be removed or we have to admit that for subjects that are hot-button political issues in the U.S. it can never be removed. It's not apparent to me that either side has 'won' on this page; appropriately for WP style, it reflects things pro-choicers both would and would not want here and things pro-lifers both would and would not want here. That's pretty much NPOV overall, even if there are segments that may need to be further neutered of opinion. On 'death', surely we can agree that that is a contentious word to use here. I don't know of evidence to support the view that a blastocyst is alive, or that it would be usual to speak of one 'dying'. For those who feel that 'life begins at conception' this may be true but the fact of the matter is the very abortion debate shows that many don't feel that way. I surely don't think there's a crisp, well-defined point at which a fertilized ovum crosses from living tissue to alive in the usual sense. If we agree that mainstream opinions on this issue vary then WP policy is to either report both sides or neither. Highlighting the link to Beginning of pregnancy controversy (and possibly adding material on the 'death' argument there) may be the best approach. JJL (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we don't determine the content of science articles on the basis of what political activist groups want. We use reliable sources instead. The termination of a fetus is very clearly described in the medical literature as "death"[12]. The moral and political debate over abortion is not characterized by pro-choicers disputing basic medical and biological facts, but instead contending that a fetus is not "human", a "person", "sentient", or entitled to rights. Whitewashing basic scientific facts established by WP:MEDRS to serve a politically activist agenda is deplorable. Chester Markel (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

The ovum is already alive. A cell can be alive. You're talking about when it possesses rights (or a soul) or something, which is a moral or legal question. Life is a biological (i.e. scientific) issue. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, did you mean to revert both changes I made, or just the one on death? Second, something can be living tissue without being 'alive' as the term is usually understood. If I lose an arm in a thresher accident, would you say my arm has 'died'? If those ova had been removed in a surgery, would we say that each egg had died? The cells in the arm or ova have experienced cellular death but that's not how one phrases such things. Saying the embryo has 'died' is POV. Surely it's apparent that this is something about which sizeable segments of the population disagree, in any event, so I don't see how a case can be made for having it in the first sentence of the lede. JJL (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant just to revert your edit about death.

Your arm would be alive for a short while and a bit later it would be dead, with a fuzzy transition period inbetween. As for frozen ova, I would say they are alive, but your mileage may vary on this (see deanimation for a laugh)- it doesn't affect the issue here, though. I think you are wrong about the POV aspect - what people disagree about (as has already been explained by another poster) is whether the death is "murder" or not, not whether the death has occured. Germs die, but it ain't murder. The question is whether the embryo's death is murder. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is in fact whether or not this is an appropriate and commonly employed definition of abortion, and it isn't. JJL (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't how editors subjectively believe "one phrases such things" or whether it can be asserted without evidence that "sizeable segments of the population disagree". We simply use the terminology most commonly employed in WP:MEDRS. There are over 65,000 Google Scholar citations[13] for the phrase "fetal death" being used to describe the termination of a fetus. This compares to only 169[14] results for "fetal termination".Chester Markel (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Look at those hits, though--they are not what you claim them to be. Just from the first page alone, every single one of them refers to intrauterine fetal death not caused by medical intervention (due to the woman's smoking, obesity, etc.). I don't see any evidence that the term is being widely used as you claim (referring to planned abortion). Searching on "abortion" shows the same--termination of pregnancy is being used in medical articles, not 'death' (unless it's of the mother). You're arguing against yourself with the Google Scholar database. JJL (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We use reliable sources to build articles. We don't determine NPOV based on whether it has a little to annoy and a little to keep happy, we decide if it reflects the content of it's sources, and if those sources are reliable and properly cited. DMSBel (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL if you are in doubt just go by the medical literature. DMSBel (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am. It says things like this: "Abortion is defined as the interruption of pregnancy between conception and the 28th week of gestation." (DM Potts - British Medical Bulletin, 1970 - British Council). [15]; An abortion is defined as the termination of an intra- uterine pregnancy before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. (D Warburton… - American Journal of Human Genetics, 1964 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) [16]; "In this paper, equine abortion is defined as pregnancy loss prior to 300 days gestation; it remains an important source of wastage to equine breeding enterprises". (KC Smith, AS Blunden, KE Whitwell… - Equine veterinary …, 2003 - Wiley Online Library) [17]; "Abortion is defined medically as the expulsion of a nonviable foetus—that is, one not yet sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus—from the uterus." (M Trout - Temp. LQ, 1963 - HeinOnline) [18]; "In the Netherlands spontaneous abortion is defined as the spontaneous expulsion of a fetus before 16 weeks of gestation". (G Christiaens… - The Lancet, 1984 - igitur-archive.library.uu.nl) [19]; "Unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion is defined as three or more consecutive first trimester pregnancy losses with the same partner in the absence of anticardiolipin antibodies or genetic, hormonal or uterine anatomical problems." (JB Smith… - Journal of reproductive immunology, 1988 - Elsevier) [20]; In Italy, a spontaneous abortion is defined as a prod- uct of conception that is delivered spontaneously before 180 days (ie, 25 weeks and 5 days), without reference to the absence of life. (JF Osborn, MS Cattaruzza… - American journal of Epidemiology, 2000 - Oxford Univ Press) [21]. These are from the first three pages of Google Scholar hits for "abortion is defined". I found none that included the word "death" or "dead" or "deceased" etc. in the definition. It's POV to add 'death' here when it isn't commonly used in defining abortion in the actual literature. JJL (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:VER and WP:NOR restricts editors to the meaning of sources, not their exact words. It's very clear, from the medical literature you just cited, that the fetus does die - otherwise you'd have a viable birth, which isn't what abortion is all about. Your proposal that Wikipedia refrain from describing fetal death as death, in the context of abortion only, is directly contrary to WP:NPOV, because it involves recourse to euphemisms to advance a political position. Over 65,000 Google Scholar citations[22] clearly show that the death of a fetus is normally described as just that in the medical literature. Per WP:NOT#CENSORED, Wikipedia does not use euphemisms to dance around what some apparently regard as unpleasant facts. Chester Markel (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

You're advocating WP:SYNTH because it's "clear" to you that it means what you' believe it to mean. Nobody says it that way, so there's no reason to add it. What's wrong with the actual language used--terminate a pregnancy, expulsion of the fetus? It's not at all obvious to me that this results in a death--quite the contrary. Adding that adds something contentious and unsupported without clarifying anything. Do you have comparable sources to those cited that clearly indicate a medical opinion that the fetus or embryo dies? JJL (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, WP:NOR has been amended to warn against the precise misrepresentation of the policy that you are now advancing: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Ergo, restatement of the facts contained in sources in new language is acceptable, encouraged, sometimes necessary to avoid copyright violations, and isn't original research, synthesis, or any other breach of content policies. If it's not at all obvious to you that expulsion of the fetus results in a death, then perhaps you should improve your skills in interpreting sources. Your argument that anything other than the actual language used by sources is original research, would result in massive copyright violations and an inability to write free content. We are stuck with the information contained in sources, not their words. Chester Markel (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, you ask whether I "have comparable sources to those cited that clearly indicate a medical opinion that the fetus or embryo dies?" Although you're probably going to move the goalposts, there are 689 Google Scholar results[23] for the exact phrase "fetus dies" being used in the context of discussing abortion. Since your argument has been scuttled on its own terms, I expect to hear no more of it. Chester Markel (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To provide one specific example out of the many available sources in the search results, [24] states that "If the termination of pregnancy occurs before this period, and the fetus dies, it can be inferred that the infant had not yet reached viability." Chester Markel (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

[25] also uses the exact words "fetus dies" in discussing the outcome of an abortion procedure. Chester Markel (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And there are 2,500 Google Scholar results[26] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion. [27], for instance, describes a specific manner of inducing abortion: "The first method involves injecting saline solution or urea into the amniotic fluid, which causes the death of the fetus." [28] also describes "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome. Of course, you probably already knew this... Chester Markel (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It gets better, though. According to RS such as [29], the precise chronology of the death of the fetus is an essential element of a completed, legal abortion in the United States. If the fetus doesn't die before detachment from the mother's body, then the result is considered a birth, not an abortion, such that customary medical assistance for the grossly premature delivery must be provided, lest the involved physician risk criminal charges being pressed. Now what was this Orangemarlin was saying about "Abortion does not cause death"? Chester Markel (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Even members of the United States Supreme Court, in writing the majority holding in Stenberg v. Carhart which invalidated an anti-abortion law, plainly recognized[30] that

Our earlier discussion of the D&E procedure, supra, at 5-7, shows that it falls within the statutory prohibition. The statute forbids "deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-326(9) (Supp. 1999). We do not understand how one could distinguish, using this language, between D&E (where a foot or arm is drawn through the cervix) and D&X (where the body up to the head is drawn through the cervix). Evidence before the trial court makes clear that D&E will often involve a physician pulling a "substantial portion" of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus.

If even justices repudiating a law restricting abortion have no quarrel with the obvious fact that abortion produces "death of the fetus", then what's the motivation for certain editors to continually deny this well-cited aspect of the procedure? Chester Markel (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

And here's what an uninvolved editor had to say[31] about the position you're taking, JJL:

Yes. The issue of whether an embryo or a fetus is a "person" legally is what the abortion debate has been about. No one with a lick of sense on either side of the issue argues that abortion doesn't kill. That would be asinine. If an editor actually makes that statement, they should be topic-banned, as they are obviously not competent to be editing that subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're saying that there exists an editor who isn't following the discussion on the Talk page who disagrees with me, so I'm wrong? JJL (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll support JJL's topic ban, if it comes to that. He's just not listening. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, so now we should start banning editors for a talk page statement that obviously shows them to be not only incompetent but even asinine by someone who has not even been involved in this difficult article. If one looks at the biological requirements for life, it certainly could be argued that an abortion can not cause a death since the issue did not fulfill the biological definition of life. In my opinion this is a reasonable statement for a talk page and far from anything that would suggest that it constitutes a reason to ban an editor. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with OrangeMarlin's statement, but if I did agree would I too be judged not competent to edit this article? Gandydancer (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I did say if it comes to that. - which I doubt it will since s/he is engaging in debate. BTW one of quotes JJL cites says: Abortion is defined medically as the expulsion of a nonviable foetus—that is, one not yet sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus—from the uterus. which clearly implies that it is alive inside the uterus. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow. It might be able to breathe outside the uterus--does that imply it can breath inside it? Also, talk of a ban when I have made two edits--one of which was to fix a reversion error, and hence not a substantive new edit--is clearly an attempt to intimidate. This is a significant violation of both WP:AGF and WP:OWN, let alone WP:CONS (including most notably that consensus can change). This, combined with an interpretation of WP:NOR that would ban any use of quoted material under any circumstances in a patent attempt to gut WP:SYNTH of its force--despite the fact that I was only suggesting a paraphrase based on the commonly-occurring terms in definitions of the procedure--is just page-guarding. I'll be frank: You (plural) are probably tenacious enough to outlast me with your uncollegial and uncooperative efforts to maintain a contentious point in the lede. Wikipedia's administrative structure is broken and I can't fix that. Meanwhile, the new sources adduced all use the word 'death' (and/or its variants) near the word 'abortion'. But using the very method suggested by Chester Markel clearly bolsters the point that it's not usual to see that term used in defining abortion in a medical context. (As noted in the following section, it also conflicts with the commonly-used language that refers to "survivors of abortion": If a live birth is the result, there was in fact no abortion by the defn. in this article. Since abortion refers to the medical procedure itself, this isn't useful. The surgery is the same regardless of the result. Today in the news it is reported that a hand transplant failed--but it was still a hand transplant operation despite that fact.) Adding 'death' is at best synthesis and at worst POV-pushing. Threatening to seek and support bans against new editors of a page, and alleging 'Lack of competency' (below) rather than failure to agree, is not in keeping with policy or with the best interests of a freely-edited encyclopedia. JJL (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that "the new sources adduced all use the word 'death' (and/or its variants) near the word 'abortion'" is simply an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have cited sources that use the term "death" in defining abortion itself. For example, "The first method involves injecting saline solution or urea into the amniotic fluid, which causes the death of the fetus." [32] United States Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, certainly no opponent of abortion, describes "death of the fetus" as an essential, defining element of an abortion procedure, based on the testimony of medical experts considered by the court: "Evidence before the trial court makes clear that D&E will often involve a physician pulling a "substantial portion" of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus."[33]. The remainder of your argument constitutes your own original research showing you don't believe death occurs, and misinterpretation of various WP:MEDRS to claim that, because they don't happen to use the word "death" in describing abortion, they are claiming that no death occurs, or not asserting that it does, despite the plainly obvious fact that a source can describe a death without using the precise language "death". That argument, bogus as it was, has now been further refuted by the fact that some RS do use "death of the fetus" or similar direct variants of "death" in describing the fate of a fetus as a result of an abortion procedure. Your claim that my interpretation of WP:NOR "would ban any use of quoted material under any circumstances" is also a misrepresentation, since I merely argued that WP:NOR does not require direct quotations. The implication that not using exact quotes or close paraphrase would "gut WP:SYNTH of its force" is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy.

The issue of topic bans arises when editors approach a subject with outrageous misstatements of fact, misreadings of sources, or misrepresentations of policy. For example, Orangemarlin claims[34] that "Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die? That wording was placed there years ago by anti-abortion editors. Time for a new consensus actually based on science, not the wishes of the right wing." Does Orangemarlin include medical journals and Stephen Breyer, quoted above, within the ranks of "the right wing"? The assertion borders on ridiculousness. Similarly, claims that anything which isn't a verbatim quote or close paraphrase is original research/synthesis, is disruptive. Mischaracterizations of WP:MEDRS are none to pleasant, as is insistence against all odds that abortion does not cause "death of the fetus", when I've already presented sources which use those exact words to describe a specific abortion outcome. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for political activism supported by original research and tendentiousness. This needs to stop. Chester Markel (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

In any case, Baseball Bugs was first editor to suggest the prospect of topic bans for editors who take your position[35]. Even uninvolved editors recognize the deeply problematic nature of the "abortion doesn't cause death, WP:RS and WP:NOR be damned" claims. Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I don't see that the opinion of judges trumps that of physicians in a matter not of law but of medicine. A source has been cited that shows that someone thinks that one abortion method results in death. Where's the sourcing for the claim that a.) they all do, and b.) this is a necessary part of the defn. of abortion? Suppose your position could be shown to be true (which I don't believe possible). How does that make it so that it must be included in the first sentence of the article? Not every fact about abortion can go in sentence one. But your position has problems that run deeper. Where is a claim of embryonic death in every instance of abortion involving an embryo? The distinction between fetus and embryo is usual for humans. Is it death if implantation is prevented--perhaps not by medical means, but simply because it fails to occur? Is that an abortion? With defns. of abortion varying, and some people speaking of "abortion survivors", you have a tough hurdle to jump in showing that all abortions always result in a death. JJL (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I expressly stated earlier that the opinion of justice Stephen Breyer was based on medical expert testimony, not a personal pontification. Moreover, the two sources of which I provided examples in my comment above were not the only instances in which, in prior comments, I've observed that "death of the fetus" or similar language has been used to describe abortion outcomes. The bar you're setting for establishing anything about the definition of abortion is impossibly high. If I note the 2,500 Google Scholar results[36] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion, you can say that the results are mere coincidences. If I cite specific sources, and show how they've used "death of the fetus" or similar in describing the result of an abortion, you can claim that any reference only shows that death is an outcome of a specific procedure described, or is only an element of one of many definitions of abortion. How could anything about abortion be shown to the standard you're applying? If the source is about a certain type of abortion, there are others. If the source describes abortions generally, there are other descriptions. And, as further goalpost shifting, if I somehow manage to show that a sufficient number of definitions of abortion state that "death of the fetus" is an outcome, there's the matter of the sources not expressly stating that "this is a necessary part of the defn. of abortion". Rarely do sources which define terms or describe processes actually say that certain elements are "necessary" - it's simply implied that the definition or description contains the necessary features. That "all abortions always result in a death" could never possibly be proven with any number of reliable sources, since any reference worth the paper it's printed on will recognize the possibility of exceptions sufficiently to avoid such categorical language (not all abortions "succeed", for one.)

The most irritating example of goalpost shifting, however, is your claim that, even if it (implausibly) could be shown that abortion results in the death of the fetus to your satisfaction, you would still object to the inclusion of such language in the introduction: "How does that make it so that it must be included in the first sentence of the article?" The most detailed discussion of sources is wasted time if you are steadfastly against any mention of the fact that abortion causes the fetus to die, WP:RS be damned. If you believed that fetal death simply wasn't important enough to describe, you should have admitted this from the beginning, rather than starting a debate about references of which no possible outcome could change your mind.

Although only facts themselves, and not their importance, needs to be established via reliable sources, I did describe a source above which notes the significance of fetal death to abortion. Consistent with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT pattern of commentary, you've ignored it. To reiterate, [37] describes how the exact chronology of the fetus' death is essential to a completed legal abortion. Chester Markel (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

And your fetus/embryo distinction goalpost shift is no more helpful than any preceding it. There are 759 Google Scholar results[38] for the exact phrase "death of the embryo" in the context of discussing abortion. If I use the entire search result as evidence, you can claim that none of it is relevant, or only specific sources should be examined. If I cite particular references, you can knock each of them down as too specific. You state that establishing my position is something that you "don't believe possible". That, in a nutshell, is precisely the problem: no evidence will ever be considered sufficient. Chester Markel (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

You rely heavily on Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS for your arguments. You want to have something like "...resulting in death of the fetus" in the defn. Most clearly stated defns. in the medical literature don't appear to include that. That's why your position is so untenable. The commonly used defns. employ "termination of pregnancy" or "expulsion", not "death" (or variants thereof). As you seem to concede above, there are exceptions to what you perceive as the rule that a death must occur. Hence, including "death" isn't going to make for a very good defn. Would you disagree that abortions always terminate pregnancies even though they may not always results in deaths? If so, we're getting closer to reaching consensus. JJL (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL, would you agree that it is the intent of an abortion to kill the fetus? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I'd say that the purpose of performing an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. In most cases that means a living birth will not occur. In the case of an embryo I wouldn't refer to that as the 'death' of an organism. (Of course the individual cells that constitute the embryo die.) No death certificate is produced; even the Catholic Church considers a funeral optional for miscarriages. It's not viewed as the death of a separate individual. It does involve the death of cells in the women's body, but not a 'death' overall. JJL (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent is still to kill, albeit sometimes with regret (e.g. in an ectopic pregnancy). Death certificates record the death of people, not organisms or cell, and are therefore red herrings to the biological facts. I see you are still claiming otherwise. Show us a source that says the fetus/baby doesn't die in a miscarriage. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for me to do that. You're the one who wants it in. The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it's a standard, defining part of 'abortion' (it isn't) and occurs every time. As to 'life', there's living tissue and then there's an independent living organism. If it's stating that removed tissue experiences cellular death, I don't see the point. If it's claiming an organism dies, that's highly contentious. Also, it's probably time for an outdent or new section. JJL (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That is evasive; you are the one claiming that fetuses are not living and thereby advocating the removal from the lead. Demonstrate the claim or shut up about it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing evasive about it. You've asserted that the intent of an abortion is to kill, which presumes an entity that can be killed (and hence experience death). That's highly contentious. As we are working through Wikipedia:CONS#Process, presumably, the WP:BURDEN does not fall on me to disprove your claim: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. " Whomever restored 'death' bears the burden of showing it is a defining aspect of abortion. That still leaves the issue of whether it merits inclusion at this early point, but that's then a stylistic issue. I've seen lots of cites showing some credible sources think some forms of abortion result in 'fetal death'. But as has been pointed out, the article covers a broad swath of abortions--including early spontaneous abortions. If a morula fails to cavitate and is miscarried, has a 'death' truly occurred? I don't see the evidence for that. JJL (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL: The burden is actually on you to defend your swtich to a new definition such as "termination of pregnancy" which has been very carefully rejected for years by consensus. Pregnancy terminates all the time with the birth of a baby. Successfull surgical abortions are also performed regularly without the pregnancy terminating (this happens in a selective reduction abortion). Viable fetuses are also from time to time intentionally aborted, so any mention of viability is also not proper in any basic definition of abortion. This is all knowable from secular medical and non-medical literature. Why do you pretend otherwise?71.3.237.145 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why so many editors who wish to retain 'death' in the lede make pejorative comments such as "Why do you pretend otherwise?" so frequently. Disagreeing with you shows I lack good faith? That hardly seems a reasonable conclusion given the comments here that this was a difficult compromise to reach the first time around. In any event, I understand your points about exceptional circumstances. It is a difficult matter, esp. as some things that one thinks of as miscarriages rather than abortions are, strictly speaking, spontaneous abortions, and we have discussed the medical procedure so much here. Looking at your list of special circumstances: Would you consider a so-called 'botched abortion' in which the pregnancy is terminated by delivery of a live baby an example of an abortion? JJL (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this article's limited view of pregnancy which I will adopt for the sake of this argument:

• medically speaking there is no abortion unless there is a pregnancy.
• a pregnancy begins when a living embryo implants
• a pregnancy can only end by live birth or abortion (natural or induced)
• there is no pregnancy if there is no living conceptus in the mother
• abortion includes any ending of pregnancy (natural or induced) that is not due to live birth
• the key difference between the two general categories of how pregnancies end (live birth or abortion) is the life or death of the conceptus
• all forms of abortion are associated with the biological death of the organism known as the embryo or fetus

Any suppression of the word "death" is simply due to a desire to tiptoe around an issue that is painful to many. But this article is about facts, not making everyone comfortable. To discuss the biological medical fact of the embryo's biological death is different than referring to abortionists in an editorial fashion as "baby killers". I ask for a source that confirms that the embryo or fetus does not always die as part of the process of an induced or spontaneous abortion (in fact, you won't find any). 71.3.237.145 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of competency is not the same as vandalism, or deliberately disruptive editing. Nevertheless if an editor won't listen, it does waste other editors time (more time than correcting hit and run vandalism). Not that we should not at times have thorough discussions, but I prefer constructive discussions. Chester Markel and Michael C. Price among others have however shown a good degree of patience in explaining to JJL that conveying the meaning of sources is what is important. To quote Christopher Lasch: "Bad academic writing avoids concrete (literally solid or coalesced) words and phrases as assiduously as it avoids active voice, and for the same reason: it seeks to convey an impression of scientific precision, of painfully acquired learning and scholarship, of Olympian detachment from the commonplace facts of everyday life." (Plain Style: A Guide to Written English, Characteristics of Bad Writing p.78) The quote is now going on to my own user page. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While the word "death" was initially suggested by right-wingers, in the end it achieved the Wiki-consensus as it was short (summary style) and accurate. The alternatives are longer, technical, and ultimately seemed unnecessary. I became comfortable with the word, recognizing "termination" and the like were left-wingish, what turned me personally was recalling Wikipedia is not a medical text. The abortion article makes extensive use of medical terminology for accuracy and neutrality. Death notes why this subject is controversial, I don't see anything in the above which is new (except for a banned editor being involved). In the end, "termination" frames the entire abortion article as a medical procedure. It is a bit more than that, as an encyclopedia we should -- in good faith -- acknowledge that reality. Of course that doesn't necessitate it being in the first sentence... but might as well tackle it sooner rather than later. - RoyBoy 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This perspective is helpful--thanks. JJL (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, bare in mind it is a synopsis of months of editing on an issue years in the making; an issue I see not only as resolved, but showing the Wiki-process at its imperfect best. - RoyBoy 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I might mention that of the 8 dictionaries cited here (several of them specialized), only one uses 'death', and only in one of its meanings. Using 'death' in this context certainly isn't mainstream. While I understand that Wikipedia serves a broader purposes, the lead sentence here purports to define 'abortion' and seems to overstretch to do so. JJL (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. You acknowledge this immediately after; then blindly reverse by contending it falsely defines abortion; despite clarifications otherwise. Not liking something doesn't make it incorrect. Your overarching "mainstream" point is of some interest, I believe that equates to political correctness, which again is not Wikipedia's primary concern. But that's a discussion for elsewhere, this is a very inanimate equine. - RoyBoy 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL That dog won't hunt. Working on a version of the lede that includes "death" and improves the quality of the article will. I think using it in the first line is a bit sterile and not very inviting but I don't have anything better. Write for the enemy if you must. Just make it better. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to move forward

It's time to move on from this. We have one editor, JJL, who claims that the description "death" is contentious (he is the only one who makes it contentious), who argues endlessly, shifting his position yet admits that even if he accepts the standard definitions of life/death (which he doesn't, of course) he would still object to the restoration of years-old text. JJL continually shifts back and forth, muddling cellular and organism death as it suits him, yet all these definitions agree that the developing embryo/morula/fetus is alive.

JJL, in a presumption of bad faith, has explicitly implicitly rejected mediation; that leaves us with ANI. Thoughts? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In what should come as a surprise to no one, it's a simple lie that I rejected mediation. JJL (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's bad faith to claim this is a lie.71.3.237.145 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Webster's Medical dictionary: abortion = "1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus, :::a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation, b, induced expulsion of a human fetus"
• Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate"
• Webster's Medical Dictionary: stillbirth = "the birth of a dead fetus - compare live birth"
• Webster's Medical Dictionary: fetus = "a developing human"
• Webster's Medical Dictionary: embryo = "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"
• Webster's Medical Dictionary: unborn = "not yet born: existing in utero <unborn children>"

— Preceding :::unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145(talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011(UTC)

Do it....sigh... ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Death is not contentious, do it. - Haymaker (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

I daresay there may be different definitions of abortion, just as there are different definitions of Palestine and Palestinian.

• The term Palestine and the related term Palestinian have several overlapping (and occasionally contradictory) definitions.

I am absolutely neutral about this, and as an amateur linguist I am sensitive to the different ways people can use the same word (see definitions of fascism, definitions of terrorism, and other "definitions" articles at Wikipedia).

Here is one viewpoint or POV:

• Abortion is defined medically as the expulsion of a nonviable foetus—that is, one not yet sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus—from the uterus." (M Trout - Temp. LQ, 1963 - HeinOnline)

But in other usages of the word, we find that even a viable fetus can be aborted (see Abortion#Induced). Much of the liberal-conservative dispute in the US is over the need / desirability / morality / ethics of this. (Oddly enough, I actually have no personal position in this, for reasons that are far too long to go into.)

I hope none of the contributors to this article will try to score points by choosing a particular definition of abortion and then drawing conclusions from it. It will be more productive to describe the various definitions that published authors use.

We can describe the laws of various countries (or divisions within a country like a Canadian province or a US state, when this differs from national policy). Law is usually pretty clear (well, maybe).

We can also describe medical practices and policies in various places and at various times (see the History of abortion article).

As for the morality or ethics of abortion, this should be the easiest thing to describe. Since we know that Wikipedia takes no sides on ethical and moral issues, all we have to do is identify and describe the significant ones. As we all probably know, the main split is between the "pro-life" (or anti-abortion) movement and the "pro-choice" movement. A major sticking point here, of course, is the idea that human life has sanctity, and there is a closely related argument about the propriety of "ending a human life", which relates directly to the question of what a human life is and specifically when it begins.

I used to be an active member of the Mediation Committee, so I'm wondering whether I should try to 'mediate' or just jump in and contribute after the article is unlocked. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is helpful, thanks. I've grown pessimistic about WP's dispute resolution methods so I don't know what to say in answer to your question. Ordinarily I'd say it seems a bit soon but the incivility on this page does make discussion difficult and perhaps a referee could help. My experience with this has been that the losing side will simply ignore the results of mediation, though, and that seems ever so likely here, so it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about the suggestion, I'm afraid. JJL (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are only two editors in disagreement with the use of the term "death" in the lede. Other editors have frankly said what they think about that. If medical literature uses the term "fetal death" then why should not we? We are not doing original research, we are not trying to establish when life begins. Thats not within scope of an encyclopedia. Some editors either don't know, don't care what an encyclopedia is. Let's not get drawn into a protracted debate by a couple of editors who won't listen and won't accept basic biological facts.

• Use of "Fetal Life" in medical literature: Study of the records of 5,878 pregnancies made it possible to construct a life table (mortality table, attrition table) for the fetal period of human existence, analogous to the life tables in general use for the postnatal period. Birth is an event in life, not the beginning of it. For each week of gestation completed by the fetus, the table states the probability that the fetus will be born alive and will survive the neonatal period. [[39]]
• Use of "Fetal Death" in medical literature: [[40]] DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL I am assuming that since you quoted some medical sources in an earlier post you are genuinely confused on the issue and wish to debate it and reach a conclusion. In the light of the above links (from Journal of the American Medical Association and PubMed) are you still in doubt about whether the term "death" is appropriate in the lede?DMSBel (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there's much point in having a discussion with you when you begin by stating that I am "genuinely confused on the issue" rather than merely in disagreement with you. With you having declared your position objectively correct, there can't be any useful attempt to gain consensus. Fortunately, I agree with you about this: "There are only two editors in disagreement with the use of the term "death" in the lede. Other editors have frankly said what they think about that." I concur. At least in recent days--since this particular attempt at achieving consensus has been tried--I only see you and Chester Markel advocating the position that the word 'death' must occur in the lede. The rest don't feel that way--me, OrangeMarlin, and Ed Poor. If you are suggesting that majority rules then once again you lose by your own rules. Ordinarily when the numbers are against someone it's incumbent upon that person to better support his position, not merely cite his own belief in hisabsolute correctness. You continue to show that the phrase 'fetal death' has meaning but not that it's a mandatory part of a defn. of 'abortion'. You cite one source saying one method of abortion proceeds in that way--but you need to make the case that every abortion, whether caused by medical intervention or no, of fetus or embryo (or blastocyst?), always results in a death. You need to clearly reject the concept of a "survivor of an abortion" as well. You've set a tall order for yourself and aren't anywhere near meeting the goal of being able to make such a sweeping statement. The paucity of medical defns. of abortion--the subject of this article--that include the term 'death' and the near-universal prevalence of defns. that do not include this word (or its derivatives and synonyms) seems to indicate that it's not a part of the defn. of abortion, regardless how obvious it is to you. You're too settled in your position and unwilling to consider evidence or views that don't match it. That isn't how this works. Regardless of whether or not this was the old consensus, consensus can change. You're simply stonewalling by hiding behind intentional misinterpretations of policy pages. You've suggested majority rules as a way to settle this, which is not Wikipedia policy--and are you really prepared to live with the results of your position? JJL (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to JJL: I thought I would ask the question directly regarding medical sources in view of Ed Poor's offer of mediation, and to let you clarify were you stood. Firstly I don't think you initially have approached this in the attitude of "let's discuss this." Removing the term without initially discussing it on the talk page, so that other editors could reply, comes across as an attempted fait accompli. Most of us have made hasty edits when we felt strongly about the incorrectness of an aspect of an article so perhaps it was not intended to be that, but you would have been wiser to do some research first and cite your reasons, and evidence on the talk page beforehand, rather than after your edit was challenged. With regard to your brief reasoning in your edit summary you said that death was not a medical term here, as your reason for removing it from the lede. When I said to you "if you are in doubt go by the medical literature" earlier in the discussion, you replied "I am..." and cited several sources. I took from that that you were not just here to push your point of view but to look at the medical sources regarding the medical use of the term "death" in regard to the fetus. Recall this was your initial objection - that it was not a medical term here. Definitions of abortion aside (for the time being). Either you now accept that it is a medical (and biological) term or you don't. Would you care to state where you stand on that aspect? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate your asking for clarification of my position. It is now apparent in retrospect that this is indeed even more contentious than I expected--I anticipated the article would be guarded by both sides but not that the issue of this word in the first sentence would be so charged. I took 'death' as organismal death, which based on further discussion here ("fetal death") seems to be the intention, rather than cellular death of the component cells. I grant that terms such as "fetal death" occur in the medical literature but not that that commonly occurs in the defn. of abortion, or that it's clear that a death occurs in every abortion; and I still feel that the current language ("resulting in...its death") comes across to me as advocacy for personhood. After all, it doesn't occur in most defns., and so it's something extra added in; and "it" in "its death" sounds to me like an attempt to describe the embryo as a living being rather than mere living tissue. It may well read differently to you. I simply don't see the case for adding something like this to the commonly employed terms used in describing the procedure. JJL (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• There may be some clarification, or qualification needed in the lede (and there are other aspects of it I believe need further discussion) but I don't think that the term death is advocacy.DMSBel (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also the first sentence of the lede is not specifically about induced abortion. Use of "death" in that sentence therefore could not be anti-abortion advocacy. DMSBel (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a blatant misrepresentation of consensus. Ed Poor hasn't expressed an opinion regarding the appearance of "death" in the introduction. Michael C Price clearly believes that it should be included[41]. As Orangemarlin's claim[42] that "Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die?" has been so resoundingly refuted, and exposed as a basic misunderstanding of high school level biology (over 65,000 Google Scholar results[43] for the phrase "fetal death"), I doubt he will be showing his face here again. In the above discussion, I've provided many examples of sources which describe "death of the fetus" and similar expressions as abortion outcomes. There are 2,500 Google Scholar results[44] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion. I've analyzed characteristic examples of these, and similar search results, and explained how the cited articles specifically claim that abortion results in the "death of the fetus", or similar. Having sources which use the exact words "death" or "dies" certainly isn't required, as it's possible to describe fetal death in alternate language. Nonetheless, many WP:MEDRS do meet your ridiculous exact words standard. Naturally, you've shifted the goalposts so that no references could ever establish fetal death as a result of abortion to your satisfaction, since any source will necessarily be describing some specific abortion procedure, or someone's conception of abortion overall. But how many references have you provided to show that abortion doesn't cause the fetus to die? None, zero, zilch. Chester Markel (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I plainly said it wasn't consensus. I wasn't the one who suggested that numbers count. I certainly can't speak for Ed Poor but it seemed clear from what he wrote that he didn't see 'death' as a necessary term in the lede, which was the matter at issue. I certainly don't agree that Orangemarlin's point has been refuted, and I am largely in agreement with it. (I may be drawing a distinction between organismal vs. cellular death that isn't clearly reflected by a simple Google search on a term like "fetal death"--much more so in the case of 'death' of an embryo.) By the way, the WP:BURDEN is on you to support your claim that death occurs in every abortion--a sweeping generality that you chose to try to make. It seems to me as it does to you that your position will be hard to back up. That isn't moving goalposts; it's the nature of the universal qualifier vs. the existential qualifier. All integers are real numbers can be shown, but in the world of biology things are rarely so simple. JJL (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As for your claim that

you need to make the case that every abortion, whether caused by medical intervention or no, of fetus or embryo (or blastocyst?), always results in a death. You need to clearly reject the concept of a "survivor of an abortion" as well.

you're presenting original research that the "survivor of an abortion" concept, normally articulated in relation to the mother, would negate descriptions of fetal death and a mischaracterization of the language currently in the article. The article presently claims that "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." Quantifiers such as "every" and "always" aren't present, nor should they be, since the medical literature likewise avoids such ridiculously broad and sweeping language, recognizing the obvious existence of exceptions to general principles. Chester Markel (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

The scientific case that abortions kill the fetus is water-tight. As for the relevance in the lead, this is also clear, since abortions are conducted with the intention of killing the fetus; indeed it is this intent that distinguishes them from induced births. Since this is an article about abortions, and not induced births, then the lead should mention the fatal intent/objective. If the abortion doesn't kill the fetus then that is a failed abortion, just as a heart operation that kills is a failed operation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact the medical literature makes it clear that the intention is to terminate the pregnancy and to expel the contents of the womb. Your biases are showing. Pregnant women have abortions so that they'll no longer be pregnant. That's the objective of performing the operation, and that's what the WP:MEDRS indicate. JJL (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact it is your biases showing, since the intent of the abortion to prevent the birth of a (living) child. The expulsion of the dead, or soon-to-be-dead, fetus and termination of the pregnancy is just the means to this end. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here we come to a clear point of disagreement. I accept the definition of abortion that it terminates a pregnancy, as sourced copiously above, and believe that medical intervention for abortion serves the purpose of, and is requested for, ending the pregnancy because the woman no longer wishes to be pregnant. You believe it serves the purpose of, and is requested for, ending the pregnancy because the woman wishes to "prevent the birth of a (living) child". For an early-term pregnancy, terminating the pregnancy is biologically inconsistent with the birth of a living child because of lack of viability. Couldn't someone want to end the pregnancy but not necessarily want to kill anything? E.g., a women who wishes to give birth but has a dangerous ectopic pregnancy? The procedure does prevent a live birth but surely that's not the intent in such a case? JJL (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When an embryo/fetus which has not yet reached viability is removed from the uterus, death is an inevitable outcome, wanted or not. That's why we have so many MEDRS describing how abortion produces "death of the embryo", "death of the fetus", or similar language. When I have the time at a university library, I suppose I will have to go through hundreds of the Google Scholar results and produce individualized descriptions about how each study affirms this fact. Chester Markel (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

This might seem very cold. That is not my intent.

• Once you have a cell you have life.
• The cell in question is a human cell.
• Death is the permanent termination of all vital functions or life processes in an organism or cell.
• The biological definition of life is science.
• It cannot be argued that abortion does not result biological death.
• Using "death" in the lead is required by definition.
• Yes. Some will use the word as proof their position is correct.
• No. Not using it will not change anyone's position on the subject.
• What people do with the information they find on Wikipedia cannot be judged.
• Wikipedia cannot "couch" or obfuscate reliable information.
• Understanding, respect and patience are frustrating by definition.

We are all in this together. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The biological definition of life is complicated and no single defn. is universally accepted. As this is a talk page I'll take the risk of citing Wikipedia and say that Definition_of_life#Biology might provide a start for reading on this matter. JJL (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of life/death is complicated and fuzzy, but that is a red herring since they all agree that the developing fetus is alive. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to ArtifexMayhem's comment: That's very helpful and thankyou for stating things the way you have, it hopefully will bring clarity to the debate.DMSBel (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL, as you've made several replies, the last just above I'll attempt to reply to most of the things you have said here, rather than posting individual replies back inbetween which you might miss. I am not sure whether to go over every comment you have made, or to start with the last. Firstly I am reading you posts and endeavouring to understand your position, in fact I often re-read them more than once to make sure I am grasping what you are saying. May I ask if are you extending the same courtesy to other editors who have replied to you? For instance Ed Poor above said in his reply: "I hope none of the contributors to this article will try to score points by choosing a particular definition of abortion and then drawing conclusions from it." That obviously was not directed at you alone, but at all editors discussing this civilly and intelligently. Granted that the biological definitions of life are indeed complicated. Would you not agree that however it is defined death is the cessation of life? Readers will bring to the article some degree of pre-understanding. It may be true, false, muddled. It is not our job to correct that pre-understanding here otherwise we'd be a long time getting to the actual subject of the article. We normally link key terms in the article, such as Fetus, Embryo etc so that readers have the option to acquire a fuller understanding. As regard to the lede, and in particular the first sentence (btw I have already said this but you don't seem to have taken notice of it.) The article is not primarily or solely about a medical "procedure" (btw should in your view that term be dropped also because it is not universally accepted. Here we are back to the distinction between "generally" and "universally" and it's all good discussion, provided we are not using this just as a forum WP:NOT#FORUM, but with the goal of improving the article.) I believe that other editors have already answered you regarding "every" and "always". It is not the responsibility those editors to keep repeating themselves, but rather your responsibility to read what they have written. OrangeMarlin's unsubtantiated comment has been refuted. Are you saying that the Journal of the American Medical Association is in error when it states Birth is an event in life, not the beginning of it.?[[45]] If so I must ask for your own qualifications to challenge them. If you review the comments made in reply to your own you should see that editors have made considerable effort to listen to you and respond to your concerns.User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm reading all responses, though like you I am sometimes consolidating my replies. I'm not sure what value there would be to me listing my "qualifications" unless you're prepared to use my personal opinion as a source. I will say that your comment about what JAMA states (vs. the stated opinion of an author of an article it published) speaks to your qualifications. Not everything that JAMA publishes is the official opinion of its editorial board--in fact, very little of it is. On most topics of current research interest you'll find conflicting reports as science progresses from ignorance to knowledge. This is a common feature of the scientific literature that those educated in science will know very well. Also, it's true that other editors have already answered regarding "every" and "always"--it appears that they agree that death does not occur every time but nonetheless want to retain the term, which I find contradictory. It's true that other editors have responded--though hardly in a manner consistent with WP:AGF, WP:OWN, or WP:CONS--but there's been littleattempt at a discussion to reach consensus. Instead you and another editor have simply labeled me 'confused' or 'Orangemarlin 'refuted' or the like and declared victory for your side. This is not how the consensus process is intended to work. If you're unable to conceive of the possibility that you might be wrong, you may be too strident for editing the article. JJL (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL, there's only you here claiming the developing fetus isn't alive. OM has not defended his asinine statement, so he isn't part of the consensus. Unless you can find a good source that says the developing fetus is not alive, there is nothing to debate. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL I am sure you are well aware that being unable to conceive of the possibility of being wrong, is also something that you need to be mindful of too. Let us try therefore to procede humbly and to understand one another. Let me try therefore to understand what your actual objection to the use of the the phrase "resulting in or caused by it's death" is. Firstly according to your initial removal of this phrase from the article you said it was "advocacy". By that I assume you meant "anti-abortion" advocacy. You defended this after being challenged by saying that definitions of abortion do not generally use the term death. I believe that you are basing that on definitions of abortion as a procedure. The article does cover abortion in its "procedural" aspects, but the lede itself seeks to introduce the whole subject of abortion in brief. It does not therefore refer to "induced abortion" until the second sentence. Even before that it mentions spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage). Any sense of advocacy would only be possible in direct connection with induced abortion (I am not saying that refering to "fetal demise" or "fetal death" in reference to induced abortion would always constitute advocacy, only that what you are claiming regarding the term death is not possible apart that sense of the term abortion (ie. induced) and the first sentence is not defining the procedure of abortion).DMSBel (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct that we have shifted into a discussion focused too heavily on just the medically induced aspect of abortion. (Or did you mean by 'whole subject' something more than that?) I ask: Is a spontaneous abortion always caused by a death (as opposed to a deformity or abnormality of the developing embryo, or an issue in the womb)? Does the expulsion of such an early stage represent the death of something? JJL (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL I did not enter the conversation without knowledge on the topic. Regardless, you suggested I start with the definition provided in Life. OK.

How does Life:Definitions support your claim? I can find nothing in the cited sources that would....

• Defining Life
• Defining Life, Explaining Emergence
• Can we define 'life'?
• What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds?
• Life: past, present and future

What am I missing? Do you have other sources that I could use to support your claim? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My claim is that the definitions of 'Life' and 'Death' are not as sharp or simple as some would believe, making the use of 'death' in the lede a problematic matter. I think that the multitude of defns. of 'Life' go to that point. It's unlcear to me that a blastocyst possesses 'Life' despite being composed of living tissue. That's what I'm getting at. JJL (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider ref 1 to Life, here. "So living systems, at least the ones we know, use a clever trick to perfect the regeneration process—that is, they start over. Starting over can be a cell dividing, in the case of Escherichia coli, or the birth of an infant for Homo sapiens. By beginning a new generation, the infant starts from scratch, and all the chemical ingredients, programs, and other constituents go back to the beginning to correct the inevitable decline of a continuously functioning metabolizing system." Face it, "viable" means just that. Until then the embryo or foetus is dependent on precisely one means of survival. After that, there is no such unique dependence. We all have ancestors whose mothers died at birth - it once was very common. None survived the mothers death prior to birth until the advent of the caesarean section. Birth means the infant is capable of regeneration, a key defining characteristic of life.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• LeadSongDog wrote: "We all have ancestors whose mothers died at birth - it was once very common. None survived the mothers death prior to birth, until the advent of caesarean section." How then would they be our ancestors if they did not survive the mother's death? DMSBel (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regeneration? Doesn't compute. A person isn't a "living system" until they in turn can reproduce? Would take a while. What is pertinent, is a fetus has the assumed ability to procreate. Further, if a fetus / person is shown to be infertile... does that invalidate it / them? Course not. Viability to reproduce does not a "life" make. - RoyBoy 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) A living "system" yes, but we are being more specific here. - RoyBoy 03:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion better held at talk:life, but the term was regenerate, not reproduce, and in any case viability also pertains to the ability to metabolize and to complete at least one energy cycle. We're not here to define life, we adopt and reflect the definitions in use in the best quality sources available. Generations of lawyers have haggled over this, but laws still establish "life" begins at birth (even later in some countries). LeadSongDog come howl! 04:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I must agree with RoyBoy. Considering the talk history of this article...yikes...removing "death" from the current definition requires something more specific. Are you suggesting that a legal definition of "life" might be more appropriate?...Viability perhaps? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• To my mind the distinction is between living tissue, as opposed to inorganic matter, say, and a discrete living entity. While the embryo has its own genetic code it's not in possession of life in either the biological/medical or legal sense, to my mind. This more-or-less coincides with viability to some extent and birth to another extent, I think. In any event, it's a pretty sticky wicket; opinions will vary; the use can be seen as advocacy; and I think it's better discussed further down the article rather than stated blithely in the lede. JJL (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no firm, WP:RS citable definition of life in the legal sense - a rabbit is obviously alive, but it doesn't have the legal rights accorded to humans. What matters under the law is personhood, humanity, and where this begins. So we're left with the biological definition, about which there's some dispute here. It was just this sort of debate that WP:NOR was created to resolve. No longer do we have to waste time applying varying definitions of life, and arguing over whether a fetus meets it. We simply use the best available WP:MEDRS to tell us directly whether the fetus is biologically living, and, if so, what abortion does to it. As previously mentioned, there are 66,000 Google Scholar results[46] for the phrase "fetal death", 2,500 Google Scholar results[47] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion, and 759 Google Scholar results[48] for the exact phrase "death of the embryo" in relation to abortion. Reviewing these sources should quickly satisfy editors that, according to the MEDRS,

1. The fetus/embryo is alive.
2. Abortion kills it.

Definitions of abortion in MEDRS which don't use the word "death" are certainly available. But not claiming that the fetus dies (it's doubtful the absence of the word "death actually establishes this) is not the same thing as asserting that the fetus doesn't die. No MEDRS have been cited to support the claims that the fetus isn't alive, or isn't killed by abortion. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, by an appropriate quantity of MEDRS to establish these claims. Chester Markel (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I'd like to remind editors that, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "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." We basically have three RS citable views about the embryo/fetus:

1. The embryo/fetus is alive and abortion kills it, but we don't concern ourselves with moral issues (scientific POV, described by MEDRS)
2. The embryo/fetus isn't a person, and doesn't have human rights, so whether it's biologically living isn't important, because removal prior to viability has no more moral significance than an appendectomy (pro-choice POV)
3. The embryo/fetus is a person, does have human rights, and killing it is murder (pro-life POV)

It's notable that neither 2 and 3 actually conflict with 1, as both are simply differing moral interpretations of the same underlying data. The science should be discussed front and center, with both sides of the moral debate covered later in the article. Chester Markel (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

WP:GHITS has been previously raised as an objection to my arguments about what reliable sources say. That portion of an essay, however, deals with AFD, and Google hits for general searches, few of which may be RS. Google Scholar results normally consist of articles in journals that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. A representative sample of the articles can easily be examined, showing that the occurrence of language such as "death of the fetus" in the abortion context is descriptive of abortion outcomes, not mere happenstance. Chester Markel (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Regarding 'other editors have already answered regarding "every" and "always"--it appears that they agree that death does not occur every time but nonetheless want to retain the term': the article doesn't claim "always" or "every". We shouldn't be reading quantifiers that aren't actually there into the current text, then requiring sources that would support the content if so quantified. Chester Markel (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Interestingly, the article is currently claiming that "The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has recommended that an injection be used to stop the fetal heart during the first phase of the surgical abortion procedure to ensure that the fetus is not born alive." Nuffield Council on Bioethics (June 22, 2007). "Dilemmas in Current Practice: The Fetus". Critical Case Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine: Ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. ISBN 978-1-904384-14-4. OCLC 85782378. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) The suggested procedure would be pretty pointless when performed on a non-living fetus, or if abortion weren't intended to produce "death of the fetus". Chester Markel (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

That isn't at all clear to me--we know that "life begins at birth" is one possible viewpoint. You're making an inference...synthesizing. Further, the term 'fetal death' is clearly used in the literature but is absent from virtually every definition of 'abortion' in the WP:MEDRS. The case has not been made to include such a term in the defn. here. Even if it were not contentious--which it is, esp. given the multiple defns. of life/death in use, and at play in this context--not every point about abortion can be made in the first sentence. Others have indicated that it was originally added by "right-wingers"--as advocacy--but that they came to think this compromise was acceptable despite that. However, it's far from clear to me--despite the large number of WP:GOOGLEHITS you've found for the phrase--that we improve on the defn. by adding something almost never seen in the definition, rather than expanding on the issue below in the nobody of the article. Here's what I don't get: What is so important to you about having this particular point in the lede? How does it suffer if it's discussed in its fullness later on instead? It's easy for me to understand why you think it's true (though I don't) but not its salience to you. JJL (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources on medical ethics, like this one, would also indicate any wiggle room that could allow for anything less than "death". I can't find any that even try. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I found these references:

• "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

• "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

• "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

• "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops." "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

• "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

• "When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists." C. Christopher Hook, M.D.Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

• "Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man." Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D.

• "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University

Medical School

• "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes DMSBel (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Third one down is no good. I don't think we can require penetration by a nuclear missile. Dr. McGraw Hill cannot be trusted. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand? DMSBel (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I read penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material totally wrong. Must be a smug on my monitor. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this article's limited view of pregnancy (which I will adopt only for the sake of this argument):

• medically speaking there is no abortion unless there is a pregnancy
• a pregnancy begins when a living embryo implants
• a pregnancy can only end by live birth or abortion (natural or induced)
• there is no pregnancy if there is no living conceptus in the mother
• abortion includes any ending of pregnancy (natural or induced) that is not due to live birth
• the key difference between the two general categories of how pregnancies end (live birth or abortion) is the life or death of the conceptus
• all forms of abortion are associated with the biological death of the organism known as the embryo or fetus

Any suppression of the word "death" is simply due to a desire to tiptoe around an issue that is painful to many. But this article is about facts, not making everyone comfortable. To discuss the biological medical fact of the embryo's biological death is different than referring to abortionists in an editorial fashion as "baby killers". I ask for a source that confirms that the embryo or fetus does not always die as part of the process of an induced or spontaneous abortion (in fact, you won't find any).71.3.237.145 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the kicker is to realize that abortion is any ending of pregnancy that is not due to live birth.71.3.237.145 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But clearly these references were found by looking for sources supporting your viewpoint. Think about your list of sources. You have a bunch of 40-year-old textbooks - are these lying around on your shelf? do you really think they're the best available scholarly sources for this article? do more recent editions exist, and if so, do they contain similar language? Then you cite a group of pro-life scientists. I would bet money that this list of sources was culled from a pro-life website, although I suppose that's neither here nor there. It's not actually representative of existing scholarly sources - it's carefully selected to push one viewpoint. That's exactly the kind of thing that plagues this page: people game the verifiability and reliable-source requirements by presenting cherry-picked sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry did you not look at the references? First two are 2003, and 2008. Some of the sources used to cite definitions for abortion were 40 years old and more. First one JJL cited was from International Planned Parenthood Assoc! in 1970. Your right it's neither here not there who cites these sources, they are general embryological texts. Ignore them all but the first two most recent ones if you want.DMSBel (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also if previous generations of embryologists knew when life began, and stated so in their references works why all the ambiguity now? Science does move from ignorance to knowledge when it is unhampered by pressures to conform to political agendas. All I see here is an attempt to obfuscate what is known and champion ignorance. DMSBel (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That really isn't how science progresses. Many things 'known' by earlier generations of scientists are now known to be false. JJL (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please show me in an embryology text from the last 50 years a copernican change in the understanding of when life begins? DMSBel (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is not a clear definition of life. As with viability, it isn't easily specified in a one-size-fits all manner. When it's reasonable to call a fetus 'alive' is a matter of disagreement and of a fuzzy line. There is no agreement as to when life begins--in fact, there isn't even agreement that the question makes sense. 'Life' in this context doesn't have a crisp, clear beginning. It's a version of the Sorites paradox, of the fuzziness of language. I simply don't agree that 'Life' has a clear and unambiguous beginning. I'm far from alone. This isn't a 'Copernican change'--it's standard science. JJL (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

*It's your original research, actually. You've taken some sources which, interpreted charitably, do not claim the fetus dies, and used them to argue that the fetus does not die, in an attempt to negate references which assert that the fetus dies from abortion. This is a textbook logical fallacy described as an argument from silence. Chester Markel (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Yes. Cherry-picking can/is/will always be a problem. But you will never get a consensus on the definition of life/live/dead in this context. Regardless of the sources. Does this mean the right-wing/pro-life/anti-choice/anti-abortion/other -ers have the advantage ? Maybe. Sure. Absolutely. Is it throwing them a bone ? No. The 'abortion is murder' claim is different matter. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But if we can "never get a consensus on the definition of life/live/dead in this context" then surely there can't be a meaningful consensus to use it here (without considerable discussion of the nuances and differing meanings)? That strikes me as going to my point. JJL (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, we should simply use the best available MEDRS on the subject of whether the fetus is alive, and whether abortion kills it, rather than arguing over our favorite definitions of life, and how they apply. That's what WP:NOR is all about. Chester Markel (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Mastcell is right. These quotes are taken from prolife advocacy sites and even the way each quote is cited is the same. abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimonyclinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28 Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that's unfortunate. But it surely doesn't negate my Google Scholar results, which indicate an overall position of quite a few reliable sources, and certainly aren't copied from pro-life websites. I have yet to see thousands of reliable sources to support the contention that abortion doesn't kill the fetus, probably because MEDRS rarely publish misstatements of obvious biological facts. Chester Markel (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

If an advocacy webpage properly cites scientific literature to bolster its arguments, then we should all applaud. The fact remains that the scientific literature evidences that abortion ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS involves fetal death (except when an abortion goes wrong and the fetus survives). The fact that a failed abortion is one that does not kill the fetus is also evidence of the definition of abortion, but it is so hard to convince those with an agenda to abandon it and hop on the Objective Medical Facts Express.71.3.237.145 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's do some cherry-picking of sources that support abortion rights:

• "My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the fetus and terminate the pregnancy." - Leroy Carhart, testifying under oath in 1997 about what he does to facilitate abortion, Asheville Tribune

• "One of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing, you're ending a life." - Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, "An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure", New York Times, (February 26, 1997).

• "The third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." - Supreme Court of California in People v. Davis, 7 Cal. 4th 797, 814, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 50, 61, 872 P.2d 591, 602 (1994).

• "Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not; an abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." - Planned Parenthood pamphlet, (August, 1963)

• "[It is] the most barbaric method [of family planning], the killing of babies — infanticide — abortion." - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in My Fight for Birth Control, 1931

• "The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral difference. We cannot coherently hold it is alright to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite, to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth." - Peter Singer, Princeton ethicist, "Bioethics: The Case of the Fetus", in the New York Review of Books (August 5, 1976).

• "Is abortion murder? All killing isn't murder. A cop shoots a teenager who appeared to be going for a gun, and we call it justifiable homicide - a tragedy for all concerned, but not murder. And then there's war..." - Don Sloan, abortion provider, Tamara L. Roleff. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press: San Diego) 1997 p 25

• "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say 'yes, it kills a fetus, but it is the women's body, and therefore ultimately her choice.'"- Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, as quoted in Salon Magazine, (June 27, 1997)

• "We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the 'good guys' – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don't ever talk about babies, we don't ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word 'choice' is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases 'products of conception' and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong.. And indeed, it has not worked – we have lost the high ground we had when Roe was decided. My objection here is not only that we have lost ground, but also that our tactics are not good ones; they may even constitute bad faith. It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening." - Judith Arcana, abortion activist, at a London seminar, October 1999

71.3.237.145 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

50 years ago most people knew when life began. DMSBel (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why the article and environment here suck. If someone was looking to accurately and honestly summarize current scholarly thought on the topic, they would never come up with a list of sources like this. On the other hand, if someone were looking to cherry-pick sources on ideological grounds to provide a superficially authoritative gloss to their personal agenda, these are exactly the sort of lists they'd come up with. Let me know when you guys are done cut&pasting from pro-life websites, and maybe we can take a shot at writing something encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter where the sources are cited or by whom. There is nothing that has been discovered in the field of embryology since any of those works have been published to refute the basic statements they make.DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, MastCell, that small lists of sources present issues of potential cherry picking. That also applies to the few definitions of abortion provided by JJL, which happen not to include the word "death". That's why the 2,500 Google Scholar results[49] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion, and 760 Google Scholar results[50] for the exact phrase "death of the embryo" in relation to abortion are so important. These clearly indicate broad-based support in WP:MEDRS for the proposition that the fetus/embryo is alive, and abortion kills it. The only arguments I've heard against these RS is that the use of the phrases in discussing abortion is mere coincidence (already shown to be false), and WP:GHITS, an essay about AFD arguments concerning general Google searches of everything on the web it indexes. Therefore, it's time for editors who support the removal of the "death" language to provide evidence of thousands of MEDRS showing that the fetus isn't alive, or abortion doesn't kill it. Until such time as references of this nature are produced, I will continue to support the inclusion of the MEDRS sourced fact that abortion kills the fetus. Chester Markel (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

My lists were from the first several pages of hits for "abortion is defined" on Google Scholar. None used 'death' or its variants and synonyms. That's as close to a random sample as I know how to get. They were not cherry-picked; tun the experiment yourself and see. This is strong evidence that it's not usual to include 'death' in the defn. Again, the WP:BURDEN does not lie on me to show that you're wrong...it lies on you to support it. I see no support that that word generally appears in a defn. of 'abortion', which is what the lead sentence purports to give. That's regardless of whether or not it's true. I also haven't heard from you an argument that it must be in the lead beyond your claim that it's true. Not all true statements about this topic can fit in the first sentence. Why should this contentious matter be placed so prominently when most authoritative sources do not do so? JJL (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Like I said, I don't care if the lead says "death" or not. I'm just really tired of this bullshit, ideologically driven, cherry-picking approach to sourcing. People who regurgitate excerpts from a pro-life website and pretend they're the result of a serious search for the best available sources don't have any place here. Except, of course, that they're the dominant force on this talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, it doesn't matter where short lists of sources come from - picking one's own cherries is little better than using some else's. We also can't easily show that the pro-life sites are cherry-picking, though they would have every reason to. In any abbreviated list, the possibility of cherry-picking cannot be ruled out. That's why my Google Scholar search results are so valuable. It would really be nice if there were high quality, neutral review studies on the topic of whether abortion causes the "death of the fetus". But until we find any, we need to make do with the next best thing. Chester Markel (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

These quotes are from wiktiquote which is filled with a bunch of obscure and apparently cherry picked quotes. Someone should look it over and clean out the stuff that isn't notable. http://en.wiktiquote.org/wiki/Abortion Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote has a cross section of quotes from various sources that are notable for various reasons. I culled a few quotes from among those listed there - you know, quotes that are relevant to our dicussion about death here - and you claim that they were cherry picked. I have to tell you, even people who favor abortion rights understand that abortion involves fetal death when it is properly done. Can you provide some quotes about abortion and death that would demonstrate that people hold a scientific or medical view that there is no fetal death in a completed abortion? I'd be curious to see even one such quote. And any such quotes would be a great addition to the abortion quotes page. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, "fetal demise" is an absolutely medical term meaning "fetal death" - a euphemism of sorts that doctors have longed used to gently discuss a spontaneous abortion with parents who did not want the uborn child to die. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we debating this? We know that the fetus is alive. Everybody with basic 101 biology knows this. That JJL doesn't accept this is the clearest evidence we need that they have a massive POV or cognitive bias problem. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This parrot is dead. No. It's just resting ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Those Google Scholar results don't show if dictionaries and other encyclopedias like Wikipedia use "death" to define abortion. Rather they show "death of the fetus" is used in some journal articles. Based on just the first page of those results most hits for that phrase don't seem to refer to induced abortion, but missed abortion which is an incomplete miscarriage. Frankly this way of looking for sources doesn't seem very effective because it doesn't account for the context of what you need to find. It'd seem better to look at other references like Wikipedia and see how many use "death" in their abortion definitions. If most of them do then that's the standard and Wikipedia should follow suit, but if it's only one or two out of dozens then it's nonstandard and Wikipedia shouldn't marginalize itself by doing it. And since the definition on this Wikipedia page deals with both induced abortions and miscarriages we can't only work with sources that just deal with miscarriage. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Britannica:

abortion, the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation). An abortion may occur spontaneously, in which case it is also called a miscarriage, or it may be brought on purposefully, in which case it is often called an induced abortion.

Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, occur for many reasons, including disease, trauma, genetic defect, or biochemical incompatibility of mother and fetus. Occasionally a fetus dies in the uterus but fails to be expelled, a condition termed a missed abortion.

Induced abortions may be performed for reasons that fall into four general categories: to preserve the life or physical or mental well-being of the mother; to prevent the completion of a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or incest; to prevent the birth of a child with serious deformity, mental deficiency, or genetic abnormality; or to prevent a birth for social or economic reasons (such as the extreme youth of the pregnant female or the sorely strained resources of the family unit). By some definitions, abortions that are performed to preserve the well-being of the female or in cases of rape or incest are therapeutic, or justifiable, abortions.

Numerous medical techniques exist for performing abortions. During the first trimester (up to about 12 weeks after conception), endometrial aspiration, suction, or curettage may be used to remove the contents of the uterus. In endometrial aspiration, a thin, flexible tube is inserted up the cervical canal (the neck of the womb) and then sucks out the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) by means of an electric pump.

ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Britannica's definition of abortion is blatantly flawed because it falsely asserts that abortion only occurs when a fetus is not viable. Yet it is quite certain from medical and legal sources that viability is certainly no bar to induced abortion. Perhaps Britannica's initial text was based on what used to be the universal legal and ethical framework (that an abortion performed on a viable fetus was illegal and unethical), and it has not been corrected to reflect the current state of medical ethics and abortion law. Nevertheless, Britannica is simply unreliable because it's text runs contrary to uncontrovertable verifiable facts. Late-term abortion practitioners in the UK and the USA are on record with facts that expose the false claim in Britannica's definition. 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." In a speech to the National Abortion Federation in April 1995 in New Orleans, abortionist George Tiller noted: "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." These are abortion practitioners, not pro-life advocates.71.3.237.145 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What does Britannica call the intentional death of a fetus after 20 weeks? - Haymaker (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to refute the Encyclopedia Brittanica by picking more quotes from the Wikiquote abortion page isn't going to help find the best way to define abortion here. Let's look for more encyclopedias and textbooks to see what their definitions are like and then use that as our guide on what to do. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that we now have eight references for the definition and are using the only one that uses the term death. Since Wikipedia is always stressing how important good references are, doesn't this suggest we have made a decision that it is not only better than the others, but better than all of the others?Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There will be multiple defns. of most words, but we should err on the side of being mainstream. The strongest sources so far offered do not use this term, and I believe it's OR that they are silent on it for reasons other than that they didn't find it the best term to use in this situation. This is one of many reasons that if death is to be covered it should be done further down the article. JJL (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether abortion causes death

I was taken aback to see my name linked with another contributor, who I didn't think agreed with me on anything at all:

• At least in recent days--since this particular attempt at achieving consensus has been tried--I only see you and Chester Markel advocating the position that the word 'death' must occur in the lede. The rest don't feel that way--me, OrangeMarlin, and Ed Poor.

Actually I think that "death" is a good word to describe what happens to the living tissue of the fetus when it comes out of the womb but does not go on to become a living human. This is based on commonsense ideas of life and death, but I hope we'll take a look at medical, legal and religious sources for the ultimate answers: I'm not a source, just an ordinary writer here.

The cells which make up the organs in the fetus are (I am told) generally considered to be "alive". I don't think anyone quotable by Wikipedia would say that "non-living cells" come to life upon birth of the fetus. However, there is the legal definition of human life to consider here, and this may be the main issue. While in the womb, the fetus is often considered not to be a human being in the sense of "a being having the rights of a citizen".

I don't think anyone is arguing that the fetus isn't alive, or even that it is "non-human tissue". But the essence of the split between the two major factions is whether it is merely "a chunk of living tissue" (with no more rights than, say, a tumor) or a self-aware, rights-possessing person. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's been a problem with discussion here for a while: misrepresentations of fact, logical fallacies such as the assertion that not claiming the fetus dies is equivalent to claiming that it does not die, etc. Let's hope for some more truthful, well-reasoned participation. Chester Markel (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Is there a legal definition of human life? I think death is the only proper word for the lead. - Haymaker (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In this context there is (at least in the U.S. that is). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary survey

The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:[51] 1.The expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable. 2. A miscarriage.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary:[52] 1. Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus. 2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination. 3. Spontaneous abortion; miscarriage.

Collins English Dictionary:[53] 1. an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable 2. the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus

Dictionary.com Unabridged (Based on the Random House Dictionary):[54] 1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months. 3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) .

Encarta:[55] 1. operation to end pregnancy: an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb 2. medicine ( technical ) Same as miscarriage (sense 1)

Merriam Webster:[56] 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 — compare contagious abortion

Oxford English Dictionary:[57] 1 [mass noun] the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks: concerns such as abortion and euthanasia [count noun] : illegal abortions -the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently. -Biology the arrest of the development of a seed, fruit, or other organ.

Only Merriam Webster uses "death" to define abortion in general. Brittanica uses "dies" but that's only to describe missed abortion. So it looks like it's not really common for dictionaries to use that kind of wording in their definions of abortion. Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your approach. If other sources were adequate, then wikipedia would not exist. The whole point is not to duplicate what already exists. There are flaws in all those definitions. Wikipedia editors' goal is to create excellent verifiable content. Repeating verifiably false or flawed content is NOT wikipedia's purpose.71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Only Merriam Websters" - as if it were an insignificant publication that can be ignored. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some interesting abortion and death references:

• MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Miscarriage: "The cause of most spontaneous abortions is fetal death due to fetal genetic abnormalities, usually unrelated to the mother."
• University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine - Canine Abortion article: "Death of embryos during this period.....these could result in early embryonic death and infertility.....Abnormal development of organ systems may not be compatible with fetal survival, leading to death and resorption or abortion....."
• Encarta: "termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus"
• Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
• U.S. Center for Disease Control: "Third, statistics regarding the number of pregnancies ending in abortion are used in conjunction with birth data and fetal death computations to estimate pregnancy rates (e.g., pregnancy rates among adolescents)"

"Before 18 weeks a dead baby is usually aborted without his mother knowing that he is dead. Occasionally however, the abortion is delayed for several weeks (a missed abortion). When this happens the only sign of fetal death is that her uterus fails to grow." [[58]]

"An abortion (i) terminates a pregnancy, ending the physical dependency relationship the fetus has to the mother, and (ii) terminates the life of the fetus, ending both its present functions as an organism and its ongoing development into a more complex one. Now performing (ii) will guarantee (i) in any state of affairs, as one cannot (logically) be pregnant unless one is keeping a fetus alive. And in current practice, we cannot perform (i) without simultaneously performing (ii)" from Abortion and the death of the fetus - Steven L Ross. [[59]] DMSBel (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Deja vu: Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1. That's only the MedLine's definition of miscarriage. The definition on this Wikipedia page covers both miscarriages and induced abortions so we can't only look at definions of one or the other in our survey of sources. That's why above I made sure to post both the induced abortion and miscarriage definions for all the dictionaries. The MedLine definition of induced abortion doesn't have "death:"

An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed physician or someone acting under the supervision of a licensed physician.

2. That's not a definition of abortion and veterinarian articles probably aren't where we should be looking for answers to how to define abortion.

3. I posted a link to Encarta above and the definition on their website doesn't include the word "death".

4. I already posted this exact same Merriam Webster definition above.

5. Not a definition.

6. Not a definition.

7. Not a definition in an encyclopedia or textbook etc. but someone laying out an argument in a philosophy journal.

The goal here is supposed to be to compare different reference sources like Wikipedia and see if it's common for them to have " death". That can't happen if all that's going to be done is to actively search out stuff that has "death" and ignore everything that doesn't. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A definition which doesn't use the word "death" isn't thereby claiming that death doesn't occur. So descriptions of abortion which claim that the fetus dies aren't actually in conflict with those that make no explicit claim (or those that describe death in other language.) We have at least one dictionary, Merriam-Webster's, which claims that the fetus dies, 2,500 Google Scholar results, etc, all discussed above. Now exactly where are all of the WP:MEDRS which assert that the fetus doesn't die as a result of an abortion? I've seen nothing to establish this claim. Every single reference discussed here so far is either

1. Explicitly claiming that abortion kills the fetus.
2. Simply agnostic on the question of whether fetal death is produced by abortion, making no claims either way.

The collective weight of the current reliable sources, then, indicates that abortion kills the fetus, until such time as equivalent MEDRS are produced to refute this assertion. Chester Markel (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I disagree with this. The cherry-picked sources are not representative. In any event, there is a reason why so many sources are, as you say, "Simply agnostic on the question of whether fetal death is produced by abortion, making no claims either way": It's because this is a complicated issue that doesn't lend itself to a short description. JJL (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument from silence fallacy. If some sources don't bother to claim "death of the fetus", but don't assert that it doesn't occur either, they are taking no position on the issue. We use references that explicitly make claims, not those which provide no relevant information. And the 2,500 Google Scholar results[60] for "death of the fetus" in the abortion context are hardly cherry-picking. Chester Markel (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Death isn't just a biological thing. Not when it comes to how humans look at it at least. There's philosophical and religious and cultural sides too. Obviously abortion is a very sticky issue on those levels because there's so much disagreement over it. Lots of people look at the abortion issue and go "human life begins at conception, abortion destroys a human life" but an equal number go "fetuses don't meet the person criteria because they aren't sentient/viable/etc., they don't count as human lives." So it's not clearcut and uncontroversial to define abortion as "resulting in or caused by [a fetus's] death" on a Wikipedia page because people aren't going to read that and think it only means death in a strictly biological sense. It doesn't say something like "resulting in or caused by the complete cessation of metabolic activity (death) in a fetus." It's just "death" without any qualification. That leaves it open to being taken to mean "death" in a sense that also includes philosophical and religious views on the subject. Obviously on a philosophical level most prolifers think abortion is killing a human person and most prochoicers don't. I think it's just going in circles to go about trying to define abortion in the lead by debating whether abortion "results in or is caused by a fetus's death." From the standpoint of trying to objectively define abortion in this Wikipedia article it's a chicken or egg kind of question with no easy answer and arguing over it just creates lots of heat but very little light. That's why I suggested we compare other references like Wikipedia to see how they define abortion because it's something we can do that can actually be constructive. Friend of the Facts (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "death" requires qualification. Instead of saying "resulting in or caused by its death", we could use "resulting in, or caused by its biological death." It should be absolutely clear, then, that we're describing death in terms of the life sciences, not morally, sociologically, politically, or philosophically. I'll update the article appropriately. Chester Markel (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Update the article? Are you declaring consensus unilaterally? JJL (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider it being WP:BOLD as an attempt at compromise, to address concerns that unqualified "death" is implying something other than biological death. It's a more constructive action than the recent pure reversions, in any case. Chester Markel (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Of course, many people do believe that abortion causes the death of a human. But that, like the contrary pro-choice POV, should only be described, not asserted as scientific fact. Chester Markel (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

JJL, I think you have to ask yourself whether your own taking the term out in the first instance was not unilateral action. Chester Markel has sought to discuss here at length first, something which you did not do yourself. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur that attempting to use 'death ' here is "going in circles" for the reasons you indicate: It's not a simple matter of lack of metabolic activity in the fetus (or what I have been describing as 'cellular death' of the fetus). It's too complicated an issue for a single-word treatment--and all the more so for an article that tries to explore the topic from social/legal/cultural/religious angles as well as the medical angle. If 'death' is to be treated it must be done at greater length further down in the article. JJL (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the phrase "biological death" quite nicely describes the conclusion of MEDRS concerning what happens to the fetus, and avoids insinuations of Wikipedia endorsing a particular POV on the related, hotly contested moral issue. Chester Markel (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Of course the article explores "the topic from social/legal/cultural/religious angles as well as the medical angle". But the first sentence is purely a description of the life sciences aspects. Discussion of whether or not "death of a person" occurs according to various POVs comes later. Chester Markel (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

If you are going to use "biological death" it must first be biologically alive. Does a fetus exhibit the following phenomena?

Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR, my friend. The 66,000 Google Scholar results[61] for the phrase "fetal death", and the 2,500 Google Scholar results[62] for the exact language "death of the fetus" in the abortion context disagree with you. Per WP:VER, "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." The best available WP:MEDRS clearly tell us that the fetus is alive, and abortion kills it. Biologically speaking, of course. Chester Markel (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I've been following the discussion and I believe that both sides have presented good arguments. I think that Friend of the Facts brought some good insight into the discussion when s/he suggested that there is no one correct answer to the debate because some people feel on way while some feel another. Imagine if you will a woman coming to the extremely difficult decision to abort after speaking with her spiritual adviser who had shown her the above list and suggested that the fetus, according to the above list, was no more "alive" than the placenta. Or that the fetus is not "alive" until the soul enters the body. Or whatever. We are not a panel of experts here to decide this matter for once and for all. I don't remember which editor suggested that it is reasonable to use the word "death" in the article, but it would be better to not use the word death in the opening in the lede. I'd go along with that suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If the fetus does not die, then it is not an abortion. Period. When one twin is aborted and the other one is left intact, there is an abortion, but there is no termination of pregnancy. The fetal life is terminated. The fetus's continued development is aborted. The pregnancy is usually - but not always - also aborted. Fetal DEATH is an absolute necessity when it comes to abortion. No fetal death, no abortion. Removal of a living fetus is NOT an abortion. In fact, removal of a living fetus is malpractice if an abortion was requested. a woman has a right to have the doctor kill her fetus, which typically ends the pregnancy (though not always). If the pregnancy ends with a living baby, the doctor has committed malpractice. Deathof the fetus is an absolute necessity for abortion. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reboot: Definition

As MastCell noted above, our sourcing guidelines tell us to use the best possible scholarship in writing articles. If that is the case, why are people cherrypicking references and doing their own original research on the matter? Here's my proposal: I'll pick five references that I haven't read before—UpToDate, Williams and/or Gabbe (the two definitive OB books, from my understanding), Abortion Practice (never heard of it or the author before today, but the reviews sound encouraging), and something from the Cochrane Collaboration(?). I promise I have never read any of the articles or chapters these sources have to offer about abortion; I'm including them because they are the best possible medical sources I can think of this early in the morning. I will have access to some of these books later in the week, and I'm sure that several of the other editors here (Doc James, MastCell) do as well. I or other editors will write down the official definition of abortion as these works put it. As they are the highest quality on the subject matter, we should feel comfortable in using them as the primary basis for the definition of abortion in our article. Does that sound acceptable to everyone? NW (Talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly a much more promising approach than showing the certain phrases occur in Google. JJL (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it has been pretty well established and agreed that the article is not covering abortion from only the medical point of view. All of your sources are medical sources. Or perhaps I am confused? - It's been a long and exhausting discussion! Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer and suggestion of how to break the impasse. I have been here from the start of the current discussion. The origin of it and subsequent edits was an unsubstantiated assertion by OrangeMarlin reasoning along this line: That it was incorrect to speak of the death of a fetus, because the fetus was not alive, and how could something not living, die. In order to address the original issue the root question is what do the best scholarly references say in answer to the question is the embryo or fetus alive?". I have no issue with your methodology for avoiding cherry-picked statements. But I don't want to see a rehash of this debate in a few months by someone arguing again about whether the embryo/fetus is or is not alive. So that should be addressed first. When there is two POVs one will nearly always accuse the other of cherry-picking if bad faith is assumed. Those editors who are most interested in simply discovering what the best scholarship has to say and who have no POV or set aside their own POV will not often accuse of cherry picking. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I am needlessly interrupting the discussion, but are anon 62 and DMSBel the same person? Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at my talk page, you'll see.DMSBel (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The death is both biological and medical. Why have we inserted one adjective (biological) and not the other (medical), when both are equally undisputed and at issue, and the medical context is the more common context for most readers? Also, why have we changed the first sentence when there is no concensus? This article and the first line is much larger than the handful of editors now changing the first line. Given the 5 year history of this very sentence, it does not seem that you can claim concensus in such a streamlined fashion because a few people say "ok".67.233.18.28 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And using a reference from Gynaecology for Lawyers - which incidentally does not include the word biological in their definition. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition given in Gynaecology for Lawyers ? and in what context ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: Analyses of more sources would certainly be helpful. However, we must be vigilant in avoiding an argument from silence fallacy, by asserting that sources which make no claims about "death of the fetus" either way are thereby asserting that it does not die, and negating sources which claim that it does.

@67.233.18.28: Whether or not abortion is part of the legitimate practice of medicine is a hotly contested moral and political issue, something the introduction shouldn't be taking any particular stand on. "Medical death" could be construed as implying that the fetus is a person as to whom medicine could be practiced, or that abortion is correctly regarded as a medical procedure. "Biological death" is simply describing a scientific fact according to the available MEDRS. We do describe "medical abortion", but this is a term of the art. To the extent possible, we should be indicating that abortions are performed by people who hold formal credentials as medical practitioners, while saving for the abortion debate section the various POVs about whether this is or is not medicine. Chester Markel (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Are you saying anything that might be a hotly contested moral and political issue is therefore undefined? How is abortion not a legitimate practice of medicine ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Chester: 1. Every prenatal text book considers the fetus/embryo as a patient. In fact, it is malpractice (for which he can be sued) for a doctor to treat the fetus as anything else until he actually performs the abortion procedure. This is a fact that is not based in any POV. Whether the doctor or the gravid woman ever considered the fetus to have any rights is immaterial to that fact. As part of an abortion procedure, an extremely important step is to use medical protocols to confirm that the fetus is dead and that all of the parts of the fetus are no longer inside the woman. The abortionist cannot know if he has succeeded in the abortion unless he makes a medical determination that the fetus has died. To insert "biological" into the sentence seems to elevate biology over the other facets of abortion. My preference is to use "death" without any qualifiers, as it is dead from avery angle - medical, biological, or otherwise. Acknowledging that something dies or else there is no abortion is fundamental to having a basic concept of what abortionis. This acknowledgment does not confer any human rights or philosophical status onto that thing. 2. The article should not presume that a doctor or even a medical professional is the abortionist. Hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed each year without any medical professionals being involved. The entire article should be re-tooled with that fact in mind. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. How is abortion not a medical procedure and why suggest this when it's completely beside the point? Let's stay on track and focus on looking at how sources like Wikipedia define abortion. Friend of the Facts (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To Chester Markel: I agree that we need to avoid the fallacy of an argument from silence. That may be a weakness in approaching this from the definition of abortion angle. I'd be interested in your thoughts on whether simply reaching a consensus on the underlying root question "is the embryo/fetus alive?" would be a better way forward. That is after all the assertion made for removing the term "death". As a mere assertion by one editor it can never be sufficient grounds for changing the article. Since the Meriam/Webster Medical Dictionary definition uses the term without qualification, I don't think we need to be too concerned ourselves. But rather than have to debate this over again in light of no new evidence simply because someone makes an assertion, it seems to me for the sake of the discussion we need to reach a consensus based on scholarly sources on the question of "is the fetus/embyro alive?" then go from there. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the fetus (biologically) alive? Approximately 71,400 WP:MEDRS say yes. Chester Markel (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Is the embryo alive? About 20,100 MEDRS agree. Chester Markel (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

The following is a complete list of every book I looked up today in the order I looked them up. I know very little about OB/Gyn, and so this was merely a random sample of books that appeared to be solid. There are two books that I intended to look up that I do not list here, Beckmann's Obstetrics and Gynecology and Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary. I could not find those two sources and am therefore unable to determine what exactly they say.

Extended content

Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh, eds. (2007). Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7. No definition of abortion found. Schorge, John O., et al. ed (2008). Williams Gynecology. The McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 978-0-07-147257-9. "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 [...] The National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) define abortion as pregnancy termination prior to 20 weeks' gestation or a fetus born weighing less than 500 g. Despite this, definitions vary widely according to state laws." (Chp 6) "Induced abortion is the medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before the time of fetal viability." (Chp 6) Carpenter, Sue Ellen Koehler; John A. Rock, eds (2000). Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-1781-7. No definition of abortion found in Chapter 22, "Adolescent Contraception and Abortion". Curtis, Michèle G.; Overholt, Shelley; Hopkins, Michael P., eds. (2006). Glass' Office Gynecology (6 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-4250-1. No definition of abortion found in chapter 17, "Surgical and Medical Abortion". Katz, Vern L. (2007). Katz, Vern L.; Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A.; Gershenson, David M. (eds.). Katz: Comprehensive Gynecology (5 ed.). Mosby. "Abortion: Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation calculated from date of onset of last menses. An alternative definition is delivery of a fetus with a weight of less than 500 g. If abortion occurs before 12 weeks' gestation, it is called early; from 12 to 20 weeks it is called late." "Complete Abortion: Spontaneous expulsion of all fetal and placental tissue from the uterine cavity before 20 weeks' gestation." "Induced Abortion: Intentional medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation. Also called elective pregnancy termination if performed for the woman's desires or therapeutic abortion if performed to maintain the woman's health." "Spontaneous abortion (SAB) is the loss of a pregnancy prior to 20 weeks' gestation. It has also been defined as the loss of a pregnancy prior to fetal viability outside of the womb. Viability is now in a gray area, beginning at approximately 23 weeks' gestation, although some states have defined viability as 22 weeks. Other definitions of SAB include the loss of a pregnancy less than or equal to 500 g. As medicine progresses, our definitions have evolved, and our terminology has evolved as well. As the word abortion has taken on a charged connotation in society, the synonym miscarriage has been substituted to an increas-ing extent for spontaneous abortion. Interestingly, the word miscarriage was noted in the Oxford English Dictionary to be first used as early as 1615 in the gynecologic context for pregnancy loss. In this chapter the terms spontaneous abortion and miscarriage will be used interchangeably. Similarly, the term habitual abortion has now been almost completely replaced by recurrent miscarriage." There are other definitions in Chapter 16, where these are all from, but they are largely redundant to the above. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary online "The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state. Some premature neonates of fewer than 24 weeks or 500 g are viable. Symptoms of spontaneous abortion include abdominal cramps and vaginal bleeding, sometimes with the passage of clots or bits of tissue." Caughey, Aaron B.; Callahan, Tamara L.; Heffner, Linda (2003). Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology (3 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-1405103312. Blueprints gives definitions of types of abortions. Five do not mention "death" at all. One, missed abortion, does. It is defined as "death of the embryo or fetus before 20 weeks with complete retention of POC [embryo]; those often proceed to complete abortions within 1 to 3 weeks [but sometimes remain for much longer]." Stedman's Medical Dictionary, ISBN 0683400088, 27th edition "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." Williams Obstetrics (23 ed.). 2009. ISBN 978-0071497015. "The word abortion derives from the Latin aboriri—to miscarry. According to the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (2002), abortion is premature birth before a live birth is possible, and in this sense is synonymous with miscarriage. It also means induced pregnancy termination to destroy the fetus. Although both terms are used interchangeably in a medical context, popular use of the word abortion by laypersons implies a deliberate pregnancy termination. (pg. 215)

As one can see, there is only a single reference that says the word "death," and that is a study book for medical students on their 6 week OB/Gyn rotation. And even so, out of the six definitions that book gives, "death" is used for only of them. I submit that the agreement among the medical community is to define abortion simply as the "termination of pregnancy prior to viability" and nothing more. NW (Talk) 19:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how that isn't an argument from silence fallacy, by concluding that "no death occurs" from "not claiming that death occurs". Did you find any references that assert abortion does not produce the death of the fetus? We need sources that speak to the issue in question, not those which don't cover it at all. Citing a few sources which are silent on this issue doesn't negate the 2,500 Google Scholar results[63] for the exact language "death of the fetus" in the abortion context. Chester Markel (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I think this is a misapplication of argument from silence. These sources are not silent on the definition of abortion (for the most part) - they simply define it without using the word "death". MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We are bound by the information contained in sources, not their thematic organization. References which give a definition of abortion without treating the question of whether it kills the fetus at all do not compel Wikipedia to provide a similar lack of information, when the question is readily answered by other MEDRS which do cover this issue. Chester Markel (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Your Google searches and legal papers aren't comparable sources. You have been out-sourced. JJL (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if every single medical book stated that "abortion is purple snowcones", we have other objective and verifiable information that tells us otherwise. Likewise, when a textbook definition leaves out an important (but unpleaseant or politically incorrect) detail -- in this case that every day licensed medical doctors perform abortions on viable fetuses, we have other objective and verifiable sources that help us craft an accurate wikipedia entry. It is the same with "death": verifiable and objective sources confirm that a doctor must confirm that the fetus has died in order for him to conduct an abortion according to medical protocols. Killing the fetus that was formerly alive inside the woman makes it an aborition. The fetus's life and development is aborted. A selective reduction abortion does not terminate any pregnancy, but it kills one of the living fetuses. The abortion succeeds only if that fetus is killed. The woman's pregnancy continues. This objective process of explaining and considering what actually happens in all of these situations makes it hard to effectively inject poltiical semantics. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as a lengthy argument in favor of performing original research in contravention of WP:NOR. JJL (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely you jest--these sources are silent only on your preferred term. The message to take away is that 'death' is rarely used in defining abortion. No amount of random Google hits for phrases can match checking the sources in this way. These sources are not in any way silent on what abortion is. They just don't include statements you would like to see. I concur with MastCell on this. In this case, the silence is deafening. JJL (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nw -- Thank you for looking this all up and posting it here. Chester -- What you are saying is kind of an example of argument from negative proof, that if definitions don't explicitly say abortion doesn't result in the death of a fetus it's the same as saying it does. But again this is not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is how do references typically define abortion? Is it common for definitions in references to have the word "death"? Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may offer a comment, what is at issue here is that we are encyclopedic in our coverage. Now if someone wishes to correct me thats fine, one other editor has stated that they have understanding of linguistics. But what I understand from the word "encyclopedia" is that it draws together multiple sources and summarises them in a form for teaching or educating. If you are to assess which definition is best, how do you judge that? In discussing abortion, academic literature rarely avoids the matter of fetal death. Why should it? It has been a subject of debate for decades. No responsible scholarship would ignore it entirely. Failure to even address a matter is not a sign of neutral POV or of good scholarship. Responsible discussion of the topic is always a requirement though and even if one does seek to remain neutral, that is not achieved by ignoring the views one seeks to be neutral on. DMSBel (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this--discussing the issue is sensible. But it should be done in a balanced way, later in the article, and not mentioned without (significant) qualification in the lede. JJL (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But we don't care how references typically arrange their information. Collecting facts, and restating them in different language and in a different order determined by editors, is not original research, so long as the information itself is substantially unaltered (no significant extension or synthesis.) This activity is actually essential to building free-content articles, since significant creativity in manner of expression or order of presenting information can be copyrightable (not all information must be rearranged for copyright reasons, but we cannot exclude the possibility of this being a requirement in specific cases.) I do not accept the claim that the development of this article should be hobbled by the specific thematic organization of information in a few sources. Chester Markel (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

And I'm not claiming that "if definitions don't explicitly say abortion doesn't result in the death of a fetus it's the same as saying it does". Definitions which make no statements as to whether or not abortion causes the death of the fetus aren't providing relevant information on this issue. We should then look to sources which do provide the information. We have many MEDRS which claim that abortion kills the fetus. Only references explicitly claiming otherwise would negate this. Chester Markel (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Perhaps someone can confirm:

• 1. When a gravid woman presents with 2 gestating fetuses and directs the doctor to abort 1 of them to increase the chances that the other one will be born healthy: can we define this abortion as the "termination of pregnancy" (my answer: no, because the woman is still gravid), or must we define it as the "removal of the fetus from the uterus resulting in or caused by its death" (my answer: yes, because if the fetus is removed and lives, the doctor has committed malpractice)?
• 2. Isn't it the same when a woman pregnant with twins miscarries one of them? She remains pregnant, right? Its the death of the fetus that allows us to say "it was a spontaneous abortion", right? Otherwise we would say it was a premature birth of one of the children, right?
• 3. If we wanted a definition that is accurate in EVERY situation wouldn't we need to remove the first phrase ("termination of pregnancy") or modify it so that it is clear that the pregnancy is NOT always terminated when an abortion occurs?
• 4. Is it true or not true that proper medical protocols for abortion require a doctor to observe the fetus and confirm that the fetus has died (fetal demise)?
• 5. Is it true or not true that some hospitals or governments actually require medical doctors to confirm the death of every aborted fetus?
• 6. Is it true or not true that in some places, a doctor can be sued for malpractice if he does not kill the fetus during an abortion?

67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: termination of pregnancy, the actual, and usual meaning of this phrase has become somewhat obscured: Termination means end, as in terminus. Normally termination of pregnancy occurs at birth (a baby is thus considered to be "full term" if born between 38 and 42 weeks). DMSBel (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying we need to tack "death" onto our definition only because we want to be different enough from other references to avoid accusations of plagiarism? If so I don't think that's a very convincing reason. There's lots of other words we could change or add if the goal was just to make wikipedia's definition more unique. Why choose "death" then? And besides there's only so many ways to say something realistically and we don't want Wikipedia's definition to be so far out of sync with those of other references that we become marginal and aberrant. That's why we need to look at other references and see what they do and use that as a modelfor what we do.

And again whether abortion causes a fetus to die is not what's at issue here. That's a chicken or egg type question that comes down to how people view humanity and life in general. We're not going to find a simple answer to such a deep puzzle that can be summed up in a single word sound byte in the lead so let's just concede that the answer is mu and focus on comparing references. If references commonly define abortion with "death", then we can use it too, but if they don't we shouldn't do something aberrant that would negatively impact Wikipedia's credibility. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Friend: Fetal death is the sina qua non of abortion. You can have everything else, but without fetal death, you don't have abortion. Do you disagree? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. If the fetus is expelled or removed from the uterus and is alive, then it is not an abortion. 67.233.18.28 (talk)

I'm not claiming that "we need to tack "death" onto our definition only because we want to be different enough from other references to avoid accusations of plagiarism". While we certainly use our editorial flexibility in the order of facts and manner of presentation to avoid creating copyright violations, its purview does not end there. We are not forced, by WP:NOR, to use as much source material verbatim, or as many facts in the order presented in references, as we can possibly get away with while still avoiding a copyright violation. Your assertion that "That's a chicken or egg type question that comes down to how people view humanity and life in general. We're not going to find a simple answer to such a deep puzzle that can be summed up in a single word sound byte in the lead", however, is original research. Every single MEDRS examined in this discussion either claims that abortion kills the the fetus, or makes no statements as to whether or not the fetus is killed. So saying that abortion causes the death of the fetus isn't "marginal and aberrant", just a good reflection of the present state of scientific knowledge on this activity. I refuse to accept that when certain references have described a term while leaving certain information out, that we are also forced to omit the information, even when it is readily available from thousands of reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Agreed, in the matter of induced abortion the death of the fetus is often induced prior to its removal from the uterus. [[64]]DMSBel (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Earlier you suggested abortion may not be a medical procedure and that we should avoid suggesting it is in the article. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a reliable source that said abortion is not a medical procedure. So I'm beginning to get the impression this is a case of making out that the literature supports a conclusion when that conclusion is personally prefferable but denying that the literature supports a conclusion when it is personally unfavorable. The discussion is basically going in circles because we're not staying on track and focusing on trying to find out how other references define abortion. I've done what I can to try to move this discussion in a constructive direction but it I don't want to keep going in circles because it's not getting anywhere. Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am also confused by this. If abortion is not a medical procedure then why does MEDRS keep coming up as a requirement for sources ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ms<MEDRS treat normally abortion as medical. Obviously, from the pro-choice POV, its place in medicine is respected, and from pro-life POV, it isn't legitimately part of the practice of medicine. But that's part of the political dispute already described in the abortion controversy article, and to a limited extent here. That's a dispute usually carried out in fora other than MEDRS. I am not claiming that abortion isn't medical, but merely that a neutral, science-based introduction shouldn't gainsay the political, religious, and moral controversy. But back to the main point, I'm not "denying that the literature supports a conclusion when it is personally unfavorable". No claim on whether the fetus dies is no claim. We normally use sources that make assertions, rather than making inferences from the absence of information. Those MEDRS which treat the issue at all seem so far to uniformly claim that the fetus dies. If "The discussion is basically going in circles", it's because there's a disagreement on whether absence of relevant information from certain references is so significant as to force our hand in writing the introduction. I don't believe that it is. Chester Markel (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

So abortion is not medical because the views of the medical community are POV. Thus we can't use them as a source and should use science instead. Which is impossible because the medical community is the only scientific group involved. What am I missing? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as the science of abortion is concerned, we're primarily stuck with references published by the medical community, because they're almost the only WP:RS on the topic. So it's on the basis of MEDRS that I'm claiming abortion kills the fetus, because we have few other RS to work with. Chester Markel (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Mind going over that one again? The medical community is biased (pro-choice POV?), and we are stuck with using their sources when we try to write the lead sentence? I honestly cannot parse what you said at all. NW (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the significance: WP:MEDRS are, unfortunately, the only reliable sources we have for the science of abortion. Would you rather also use pro-life websites to provide balance? I didn't think so. However, while we're stuck with their information, we should be very careful in using references that are written by people who do have a clear POV. In particular, definitions of abortion which omit any information about whether the fetus dies as a result of an abortion procedure should not be construed to indicate that Wikipedia must also adopt the same omission, when we do have MEDRS which claim the fetus dies, and none which claim it doesn't. So, yes, we should use the facts asserted in MEDRS for information about the science of abortion (not moral or political debate), while still recognizing that the way these sources decide to organize information may be part of their POV. Even for a "neutral" source, we're not stuck with the exact order in which information is presented. But this editorial freedom is especially important when dealing with MEDRS on abortion. Few procedures that MEDRS describe are the subject of so much controversy, both pro and anti, from outside the medical community. Chester Markel (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Why would we need balance ? I thought that was decided on preponderance of evidence. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some sources say the aborted tissue is 'destroyed'. Your sources that say it 'dies' don't say it's 'destroyed', AFAICT from your Google-a-phrase support of your position. Are your sources silent on whether it's destroyed? Must we say it's both dead and destroyed? The fact that most defns. don't say 'death' is your answer to your question--they don't say it because it's not how they view it. Your argument applies with equal force to 'destroyed/destruction', 'expelled/expulsion', etc. What proves too much proves nothing. JJL (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Suppose, though, that everything you said were true and that it is an 'omission' (as you put it). It still wouldn't follow that the word 'death' must occur in the lede of the article. Other sources indicate it can be adequately defined without recourse to that term. What is so important to you about the specific word 'death' being in the first sentence? There are lots of true statements in the article that aren't in its first sentence. Not all true statements can fit in the first sentence. JJL (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We have to decide which information is most relevant. "Destroyed" is obvious, and not very informative. But WP:MEDRS tell us just how important killing the fetus is to a completed, legal abortion procedure: "A fetus may survive an intentional interference with its intrauterine environment (1) if gestational age is mistaken and the procedure of induced abortion does not kill the fetus, (2) if a change of heart takes place after abortifacient drugs are taken and the abortion does not proceed, and (3) if a high-multiple pregnancy is reduced to a singleton or a twin pregnancy to improve the likelihood that the remaining fetuses will reach viability. In each case, through cause or coincidence, an abnormal baby may be born. The well-intentioned physician, responding to a patient's medical or psychological needs, risks a legal action in negligence or assault brought by a deformed surviving child. This hazard means that medical termination of pregnancy and selective pregnancy reduction put the practising physician at substantial risk in a way not usually associated with induced abortion."[65] Chester Markel (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

We have at least 6 sources that supply specific definitions (thanks NW). I don't think we need to extract a definition from sources that don't supply one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtifexMayhem (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Denominating the introduction to the article as the "definition", then demanding that it be supplied from references atomically (all components from the same source) is not something I find to be a particularly useful activity, especially when dealing with medical sources that do have a POV. Of course, if the definition is a singular entity, then formulating it from multiple pieces of information would be an original research synthesis. But this is just playing word games. WP:NOR does not forbid the aggregation of facts from multiple sources in an article. Here, for reasons of neutrally, rather than strictly adhering to the POV of the medical sources, there's every reason to. Chester Markel (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Having a mainstream defn. is important. Deviating from the mainstream would amount to original research, by definition. Issues of death can be discussed in the article, but it isn't part of the vast majority of defns. of the term 'abortion'. Guessing why that's so on this page has certainly been original research. JJL (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a speculative research article from the British Medical Journal's Journal of Medical Ethics on possible legal risks to a physician from performing the procedure. It isn't a manual on performing abortions and doesn't indicate that a properly completed abortion, on medical grounds, must proceed as you indicate. In fact this only strengthens the point that 'death'/'kill' are overloaded terms that can't easily be used without substantial elucidation of the nuances of their meanings. Obstetrics is a notoriously lawsuit-strewn area of practice, but all sorts of medically sound decisions can be risky. (I read an article recently on the potential legal difficulties associated with answering "Yes" to to the question "Is there a doctor on board?" on an airplane.) You've only quoted the abstract--what does the body of the article actually say about whether or not a physician should act as this brief summary appears to indicate? I don't have access to the full text of your source. The abstract sets up a dilemma for the physician: How does it suggest he or she ultimately resolve it? JJL (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reboot: Misues of Elective/Therapeutic

The first section at this link in the abortion article contains incorrect and misleading information. At the least, it should be tagged. The article inserts a POV when it gives disputed examples of "elective" and "therapeutic" abortions. The article directly contradicts one representative medical text that states: "Induced Abortion: Intentional medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation. Also called elective pregnancy termination if performed for the woman's desires or therapeutic abortion if performed to maintain the woman's health." - Katz, Vern L. (2007). Katz, Vern L.; Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A. et al.. eds. Katz: Comprehensive Gynecology (5 ed.). Mosby. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also: abortions are not EITHER elective OR therapeutic. They are often both. The current section covers this in a horrendous fashion. There are thousands of citations that verify these facts. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and would like to help clarify that. It was indeed what was being discussed before the diversion about the use of "death" in the lede. It would be good to get back onto this aspect of the article. DMSBel (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there subtleties I am missing? The article currently states An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease." This is the gist of what your quote above is saying, except it adds "fetal disease", correct? What is the dispute? What is the contradiction? It appears we are citing sources fairly closely. Are we misrepresenting our sources, or are our sources wrong (and if they are in your opinion wrong, do they also fail WP:RS, because if not, we may need to present even 'wrong' data if it is notable and sourced). I recall a dispute months ago over these terms, and it was about trying to apply how other fields use those terms here, without any sources to back up those interpretations. Hopefully, that isn't what this dispute is about now. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead edit - viable - Current form of first sentence

The current version is: "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." This is a well-supported version that doesn't use contentious and/or ambiguous terms. The only real unaddressed issue I see is that Selective reduction doesn't terminate the woman's state of pregnancy. I think this can be clarified later in the article--it doesn't merit a caveat here, esp. because of the use of 'a' (vice 'the') in the phrasing. I would not have used 'viable' if I were crafting a defn. myself but it is well-attested based on the sources provided by NW on this page. The use of Viability (fetal) addresses the able-to-be-born-live issue without raising the currently-living issue. JJL (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why has the lede been changed twice in the last day when there is no consensus? Are you violating 1RR? 71.3.237.145 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Me? No. I didn't change it. I've only made one edit in the past several days--to revert a change made under a premature claim of Talk page consensus. But it looks to me as though what was made were primarily new edits--perhaps one reversion of 'death', then new editing--apart from NuclearWarfare self-reverting while editing, which I can't believe is intended as a violation (WP:1RR refers to WP:3RR which refers to undoing another's edits). JJL (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. NuclearWar has made changes that do not enjoy consensus and ignore the FAQ #1 for the Abortion article. I think you actually reverted this yesterday when someone else did the same thing. Thanks. The current version is not acceptable. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing a fair amount of agreement on the Talk page about the current version. What would it take to "officially" declare consensus? We can't expect universal agreement. (WP:CONS says: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.") This approach--checking the significant new sources as an experiment--seemed to enjoy broad support as a way of moving forward, and I personally am fine with the wording that is now in there even though 'viability' would not have been my preferred wording, but it'd be good to find a clear new consensus on what is obviously a contentious matter. JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The presumed consensus is insulting, and the way this was done could lead NW and JJL to be topic banned. However, it is obviously a bold good-faith attempt, so we won't go down that road this week. (I am suggesting to revert it yourselves, I won't be so balanced if an admin is required to intervene.) I can do it myself, not from some sense of ownership of the lead, but from y'all ignoring the FAQ and archives.

Anyway, please clarify, did you read any of this? Talk:Abortion/First paragraph The first archive, I was even studious enough to put "viability" in the summary! Here viability is first discussed, I believe the conclusion there and much later on when the lead was being developed, is "viability" is a term usually used for birth. It is somewhat out of context for an abortion. Certainly viability is a consideration for a therapeutic abortion done for medical reasons/risks, but that's a fraction of abortion cases and misconstrues what an elective abortion is. - RoyBoy 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Roy, I have only been an administrator for two years or so, almost four full years fewer than you. But I certainly have been around the block enough to know that none of JJL or my edits is even remotely close to being deserving of a topic ban. Please drop the red herring. NW (Talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a red herring, this week, and I didn't know you were an admin. I expect better: your change was against a long established - very well discussed - precedent. That by itself qualifies as poor judgement (I won't expand on further minor faux pas). But since it was good faith, in the end I'm glad to say you're absolutely right. However, even my cursory participation on this round indicates the leads been repeatedly messed with. Not promising. - RoyBoy 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there were fewer threats of seeking topic bans, ANI, etc., and more good-faith discussion. As for me personally, I ask you this question: Since I didn't make the edit and since I ask immediately above your comments how we can get to a new consensus, what are you complaining about me for? Simply because I disagree with you? Is it not apparent that I made this new section so we could discuss the change that was made, despite the fact that I largely agreed with it? I call your bluff: Get me topic-banned for this. I've left space below for your reply. JJL (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take quick issue with any editor claiming consensus cavalierly (I don't have enough digits to count how many times pro-lifers claimed it here), it's something to be avoided in disputed articles/topics. Do you disagree? If viable remained in the article -- while discussion continued -- I wouldn't be using qualifiers such as "could". To be clear, it was warning of how bad that edit/support was; not a goddamn game of chicken. - RoyBoy 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor acting in good faith will never edit an endelessly-discussed-from-every-possible-angle long-established consensus lede that has a constant history of being questioned but confirmed, and even includes as the number 1 article FAQ an explnation that makes it clear that in order to change the lede (which might be possible, but only after significant dicussion involving dozens of editors over several weeks' time) you will have to put in some work to try to gain a new consensus. Do you really not understand this? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please AGF and do not make such accusatory absolute judgments which claim a good-faith editor would never be bold. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

KillerC: Take a does of your own medicine, please. Please AGF by exerting some self-control before alleging others have not assumed good faith, or at least by being consistent in accusing others of violating AGF . My comment mentioned good faith in a less provocative tone than JJL did when JJL used it in reply to RoyBoy. In fact, I had already compelemnted JJL just above, and only mentioned what would be (and what would not be) good faith behavior of an editor only after JJL violated AGF in reply to RoyBoy. Why did you single me out, but you failed to invite JJL to AGF? Inquiring minds want to know. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "an editor acting in good faith will never". My response was directly to what you stated; I reminded you not to judge another's good faith, or lack thereof, so sweepingly. I am sure you meant well; I in no way accused you of failing to act in good faith. Please let me know if you are still confused. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I hear you (should I have said "a sane editor acting in good faith will never..."?). ;0) 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That personal attack is even more appreciated. Keep it up. NW (Talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Now to the point: The edit was in keeping with the experiment that was described in advance and I find it the wording and the fact of the edit quite reasonable. According to WP:CONS, consensus can change, and referring to previous consensus or old Talk page archives as an argument against forming a new one is discouraged. That doesn't mean we have a new consensus--it means all should work collegially toward achieving consensus. Your pointer to a discussion of 'viability' over 5 years ago is largely irrelevant. What do you have to say about the matter in light of the recent discussion and new sources? JJL (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I continue to AGF with you (and everyone) as I believe you see it as reasonable; moreover I'd be in agreement if this was early 2006. I haven't read through and processed the furious recentism of the talk page, but I don't see the reinvention of the wheel happening soon (but I am reading). If this sounds flippant, intentional, apparently we banged this out on teletype in the dark ages and archives shouldn't be rigorously consulted on a keyword ... did bioethics/society revolutionize in 5 years? Perhaps it's just new arrivals being over enthusiastic. (not a bad thing in of itself)- RoyBoy 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Society didn't change, but you know what did change? The growing use of high-quality secondary sources instead of whatever comes up in a Google search. The few times that high-impact sources are mentioned [66], [67] to a lesser extent, almost universally supports exclusion of "death" from the lead sentence. It has only ever been Wikipedia editors trying to add their preferred wording that led us to this. Using definitions only from the highest quality and highest impact reliable sources, I am at a complete loss to see how one would end up there. NW (Talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely sympathize with your position and confusion; and appreciative you found pertinent archive sections. It seems clear we have let you down, and not provided in summary fashion the relevant source(s) to how viable was found wanting. We are reconstituting below, and will correct this oversight hopefully shortly. - RoyBoy 14:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Abortion has nothing to do with whether the fetus is viable or not - the definition inserted above would mean that abortions post the viabiltiy range are not actually abortions, which of course is ridiculous. And yes, the old consensus - which is also proper contentwise - still stands. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that consensus can change. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change but there is no indication that it did in this case, especially given how often this has been discussed. I know you know about this because we were both there some time ago. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, thank you for mentioning that you were canvassed here. I'm glad that people are following appropriate procedure and informing people that they have not come here on their own volition.

I have reinserted the four definitions that I had added to the article in a footnote earlier. They are properly sourced to far more authoritative sources than "Gynecology for Lawyers"; I hardly think that anyone can object to that as a first step.

With regards your comment about viability being ridiculous point to define abortion by, please tell that to Dr. Schorge. It was he (and colleagues) who edited the textbook Williams Gynecology, which states exactly that: "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." But I'm sure you know better than a Vanderbilt/BWH-MGH trained OB/GYN.

As KC and JJL note above, consensus can change. I have looked through the previous discussions, and I have to say that I believe I have done a more comprehensive literature review for the exact definition of the word abortion than has been done by Wikipedia editors before now. I honestly affirm that there was no bias in the method I used to look textbooks up; I had never read a single one of them before and I put down everything I read. Consequently, I find it ironic that you and Chester (et al) would wish to keep "viability" out and "death" in. Almost every single one of the references (please read them above, looked for the green collapsed box) mention fetal viability, and almost none mention death. Perhaps there is a case to be made that fetal death needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. I honestly have not made up my mind yet, but any discussion of such needs to include solid academic (not necessarily med. biological, but med. ethical or med. historical too) sources that prominently state that the definition of abortion includes "death" as a key component. Our guideline(s) demand nothing less. NW (Talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NW, what procedure are you talking about? I don't need no procedure to post here. Yes, I was informed by some IP that something was going on here but given that I have been involved in this article for quite a while, I see no reson why that should interest you. I haven't done anything clandestine. And I am certainly here on my own volition! I am not forced!

On the issue: you are obviously confusing different meanings of abortion. This is a general encyclopedia and hence must take the generally accepted meaning of the word into account first (specialist meanings may of course be mentioned as well). And Abortion is generally defined in such a way that non-viabiltiy is not a prequisite for it. This would mean that late-term abortions are not actually abortions, that no one ever survived his or her own abortion etc. Worse still, your wording can be taken to imply a POV that abortion results in the death of only those not viable anyway - given the very controversial nature of the issue certainly a no-go. This is the reality of how the word is defined and no "comprehensive literature review" can change that.

"Perhaps there is a case to be made that fetal death needs to be mentioned in the first sentence." Given that it is the centrepiece of the ethical controversy, which in turn makes this issue more prominent than other medical issues, it certainly is. And we already have a source stating the obvious. :::Str1977 ^(talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you "honestly haven't made up [your] mind yet", then it seems premature to make a prominent edit that requires consensus before you have reached concensus even within your own mind. By the way, is there a reason your comments are written as if the most widely cited, most widely relied upon, best-selling American English dictionary does not include "death" in its main abortion definition? Assuming good faith on your part, there must be an explanation, because you indicate that we have to rely on "sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death", and other editors keep explaining to you that Merriam-Websters regular, medical and legal dictionaries all do just that ("abortion:the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a falsehood that I made any such edit, and I request that you retract that statement. I certainly didn't revert it, but I didn't make it. NW (Talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is, as you point out, a dictionary. NW made it clear that he was looking at academic, medical sources. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (used by medical professionals), I will repeat and extend for those that might want or need clarification: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" in the core basic definition of abortion because fetal death or embryonic death is the sine qua non of abortion.

• The pregnancy cannot end unless the fetus goes away:

• If the fetus goes away and lives (even for a short period), there is a live birth and no abortion.
• If the fetus goes away and dies before or during the process, there is an abortion and no live birth.

I say again: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" because "death" is the sine qua non of abortion. All the medical literature and scientific literature agrees, but Merriam-Webster is bold enough to state it plainly, which is actually a very wikipedia thing to do.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

67..NW supplied valid sources as part of the discussion above and made a WP:BOLD edit. Are you refuting the sources ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you read too quickly. I did not refute anything except NW's implication (or premise) that there are no medical "sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Artifex, are you indicating that despite the big red bold FAQ warning, etc., that it is both a good practice and a good faith practice for editors to plow ahead and change the lede to the abortion article? It seems self-explanatory that the opposite it true. Or do you find NW to be either inexperienced at wikipeida or lacking in basic reading comprehension skills? For goodness sake the lede has always been controversial and the article is under protection because this article is not generally as amenable to bold changes as other articles are. Is this really that hard to understand? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not indicating anything. I made a statement and I asked a question. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked a question, too! We're kindred spirits. My question followed from your (odd) question about refutation of sources, which was a non-sequitur to my post. My question was very logical because your post indicated affirmation for a bold non-consensus edit to a controversial lede that has a big red bold FAQ (that warns people not to change the lead without consensus and makes it clear that acheiving such consensus will likely take no small amount of work) in an article that is protected at least in part because people edit it all the time without consensus. So, I asked you if you REALLY REALLY REALLY think that it is good practice and good faith to make such a an edit. Now, I know you did not intend to indicate anything (as you replied to me above). Thank you for your answer. I now ask you whether you find it is both a good practice and a good faith practice for editors to plow ahead and change the lede to the abortion article without spending significant time and effort to achieve consensus after input from many (dozens of) editors? Just asking. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Second the question. I see no issues with NW's research and/or sources, and am interested to know whether 67.233 is objecting to those sources, and if so what his/her objections are, or if s/he accepts the sources and research. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I answered the question above: "I did not refute anything except NW's implication (or premise) that there are no medical 'sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death'". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: Do you accept that "abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion) is a:

*verifiable 
*abortion definition 
*from a medical dictionary 
*that "prominently state[s] the definition of abortion includes death"?

It would be helpful to know. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I question whether Merriam-Webster fits the criteria for major medical dictionary or major OB/GYN textbook. It obviously isn't the latter, and out article notes that "The three major English language medical dictionaries are Stedman's, Taber's, and Dorland's Pocket Medical Dictionary. Other significant medical dictionaries are distributed by Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of medical and scientific literature, and their French division Masson." Merriam-Webster isn't one of those. The nearest medical school to me (a public state medical school) does not even have it in their library collection, though they do have Stedman's, Taber's and Dorland's. NW (Talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NW:

• Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary is a medical dictionary. It is used by medical professionals. It is included in the websites of major medical and healthcare companies and agencies as an online medical reference text.
• Perhaps it does not meet your definition of "major medical dictionary", but that peculiar factoid should not effect the lede.
• Wikipedia articles about everyday topics, such as abortion, should not read like medical texts. It is good to have a fairly simple medical reference text available to assist in keeping the article text simple.
• It can be helpful to have more information, but nothing in the references you mention refutes the Merriam-Webster definition (which also that publisher's standard dictionary definition and legal dictionary definition).
• Come to think of it, the Merriam-Webster definition is so good precisely because it is so broadly applicable and is accurate in every single situation that occurs that could be described as an abortion.
• Whereas the abortion definitions in the medical dictionaries you listed all fall short because they are not applicable in some verifiable abortion situations.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that "the abortion definitions in the medical dictionaries you listed all fall short because they are not applicable in some verifiable abortion situations" is certainly OR. No one is disputing the existence of sources that use 'death', but the evidence clearly indicates that the best and most widely used sources do not. I'd also say that in the context of the described-in-advance experiment and the comments of those editing at the time that the edit was very reasonable and not even bold. That's not the same as claiming that there's a new, widely-accepted consensus. But repeatedly citing a FAQ that contradicts the basic notion that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit is inherently self-contradictory. JJL (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that MWMD is a medical dictionary used extensively by medical professionals. I note in particular that it fails to be listed here, a list of books that all medical libraries should have. The three dictionaries that I suggested are all listed on there. NW (Talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The change to the definition was backed by sources and seemed in the spirit of this site's bold guideline. It got undone but no one put it back and we're here talking about it now instead of having an edit duel. Besides one of the two ips taking part here (I'm sorry I'm having trouble keeping track) changed the therapeutic abortion definition twice and no one really commented on it so evidently there's room for being bold as long as it doesn't go too far. Another thing is that not using "death" is not the same as saying it doesn't happen. That would be something explicit like "abortion is the expulsion or removal of an inorganic mass called a fetus or embryo from the uterus." There's a lot of things about abortion that aren't mentioned in the definition. Like it doesn't say anything about the expulsion or removal of the placenta, but does that mean the placenta gets left in? It's just brevity and the fact that references apparently don't see fit to mention placentas in their abortion definitions unless they refer broadly to "products of conception." Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

67.233 Are there sources claiming the definitions in the medical dictionaries listed are incorrect some way? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely verifiable that there are both errors and omissions in the major medical dicionary definitions.

• Are you really unaware that abortions are routinely performed post-viability (and that this is verifiable)?
• Are you really unaware that abortion always involves the death of an embryo/fetus (and that this is verifiable)?

67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide sources claiming the definitions in the medical dictionaries listed are incorrect some way? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can. But since I and others already have, I am not going to invest time in doing it again. Let's presume we have a person who psys attention to the abortion situation in western English-speaking society. That means that we have a person who knows that if a woman is 30 weeks pregnant, she can get a legal abortion if she wishes to have one in the USA, for example. If a medical dictionary states that abortion is limited to fetuses that are not viable, then that same person understands that the medical dictionary includes incorrect information, at least incorrect as far as an accurate factual discussion about abortion by non-doctors. Of course this fact of post viability abortions in the UK and the USA is verifiable (as I have posted elsewhere on this page). But I won't waste my time because I can't see that it would further the conversation to repost the same verification (or any other verification). Can you help me see how it would be helpful? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is simply OR. You're putting your judgment against that of the many physicians who wrote and reviewed all those texts and other sources. You're refusing to accept the prominent sources that don't agree with your POV. We have to rely on the best expert resources, not those left after you personally exclude ones you don't like. And abortions performed by non-physicians? Of course it happens, but so do other sorts of unlicensed pro-active of medicine. It doesn't change what a thing is that some people do it incorrectly. My mother things that colds are caused by going out without one's jacket rather than by viruses. Should we update Common cold accordingly? JJL (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It would be helpful to have sources considered WP:MEDRS and/or WP:RS that support your claim against the edit in question and revert by authority of the FAQ. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What precisely is the "authority of the FAQ"? Is it enforced by some Arbitration Committee ruling, for example? It sounds like those favoring the use of 'death' are trying to create a principle of impotence here--that every attempt to change the leded is banned by for one reason or another. JJL (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have sources that support your claim that abortion does not always involve the death of the fetus or embryo.

It would be helpful to have sources that support your claim that abortion cannot occur after viability. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC

Why existing consensus used "death" instead of "viable"

@GTBacchus (below), may I refer you to the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability? For the past several years now, it has been something along the lines of: "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." For the purposes of this discussion, we should be treating both Williams, Gabbe, and other reference works of similar stature, as if they were Holy Writ, not saying "Well, these references are wrong" and ignoring them. I understand that there are some less-prominent references that disagree with the definitions give in Williams Gyn., Comp. Gyn., Taber's and Steadman's. They might not contradict it, but they provide...shall we say as additional qualifiers to use the word properly, in their view. That opinion in a minority opinion. The only references that even comes close to meeting WP:MEDRS thusfar provided that can be directly verified is the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary & Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology. As I explain above, MWMD is not a dictionary that appears to have a wide following compared with others in the field. Blueprints I explained earlier as well. This is a simple matter of due weight and verifiability, not truth. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community as expressed through the most prominent overview textbooks and dictionaries is what should be followed.

67, those statements are merely not being addressed in the first sentence, because that is the way the overwhelming majority of the standard, authoritative sources have put it. As ArbCom said many years ago, "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." NW (Talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, hi. I'd prefer you didn't quote basic policy to me; I'm very familiar with it. I know about "verifiability, not truth", and I also know that there has never been a broad-based community consensus for this encyclopedia to relate information that we know to be false. If such a consensus ever has carried the day, I'd like to see that. Why don't we ask over at WT:V what they think? Surely bringing the question before a larger audience can't hurt, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The people at WT:V might have an issue with this massive discussion being imported over there, but I would have no objection to using other noticeboards like WP:RSN or WP:NPOV to attract people here. NW (Talk) 16:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever's clever. :) It seldom hurts to add people to a discussion in a neutral way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My vote is to narrow down what we got right/wrong in 2006 (now below), and clarify for everyone. Then chisel/add clay from there. More editors in a ballooning talk page may not be helpful; especially if they start from square one and think "termination" is the best option. - RoyBoy 06:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to assume certain conclusions--that the current lede is fundamentally accurate and just needs to be slightly modified (which in fact I don't really disagree with), and that 'termination' is not the best option, which is much less clear to me. I think we're moving in a useful direction though and am pleased to see that. JJL (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, something so heavily discussed / edited should move in slight steps, that was my clay intent. :") As to termination, I'd add to my summation above that we also quickly found it frames the abortion procedure on ending a pregnancy. Seems straight forward enough, but ending a pregnancy does not specify what happens to its contents (are they placed in stasis? moved to another host? silly questions now, but the future holds many possibilities), and with selective reduction of a pregnancy its simply inaccurate. - RoyBoy 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@67.233 I made no such claims. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Merriam Webster certainly fits the definition of a reliable source. And given its standing it might better reflect the whole, comprehensive meaning of the word. It doesn't need to be a top-notch academic medical dictionary to do that. Still, it is a medical dictionary, hence it is also scientific. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is our previous def list, and some discussion. - RoyBoy 14:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I forget offhand why precisely the "scientific community consensus" position didn't carry the day in 2006, or 2007, or 2008 or 2009 or 2010. MastCell / GTBacchus / Andrew C do you remember? I'm a few years out of date here, but I think we dissected this prior. - RoyBoy 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically remember. We couldn't come up with a definition excluding "death" that didn't define lots of live births as "abortions". Also, we (by which I mean "I") dug up "Intrauterine 2", the source where we saw precisely why the definitions in the medical sources are written the way they are. It would be great if we could include that in the article, but I'm not sure just how or where we would do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NW did a great thing, and created a note section where we can put the pertinent information. Currently it has notes as to the disputed nature of defining abortion, if there is a succinct clarification of how a medical defs are not appropriate, that would be good and should take precedent. Can you provide the details / link, thanks to you and your fast access cerebrum. - RoyBoy 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I wish it were faster. I'll have to do some digging, but I can do that. I've recalled a little bit more just by sleeping on it.

We were trying to write a well-supported definition that accurately informed readers what the article is about. Most definitions either implied that live births are abortions, or else that late term abortions aren't abortions at all. Both of these are contradicted by the actual scope of the article. The current lead sentence, on the other hand, accurately reflects the scope of the article.

The relevant content of Intrauterine 2 was that the terminology surrounding abortion was designed by the medical community for political rather than medical reasons. Those medical sources, as they pertain to the question of the precise definition of abortion, aren't independent of the political interests of the medical community.

That's how I remember it, but I'll do some digging in the archives, and get more detailed information. Gimme a few hours; I've got a class to teach. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is this note section you refer to, Roy? I'm somehow dense and not seeing it. :P

I found the beginning of the conversation I was thinking of at Talk:Abortion/Archive 18#Change of definition??. That whole page is a helluva trip down memory lane... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tis my bad, I meant the death note section in the article, no matter. We need to discuss with recent arrivals. Then after we will see what will be added that section. Clearly we cannot expect bold editors to go through the detailed discussions we had in 2006. I've read over it quickly, it's late, indeed memory lane with Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Uterine_2 -- hopefully this will provide traction. - RoyBoy 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I will make my best attempt to congeal several crucial elements of our previous consensus for discussion, but I'll need assistance. - RoyBoy 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

termination was out of contention early because:

• unnecessarily technical term (seen has euphemistic by pro-life), confusing
• frames abortion as a medical procedure, encyclopedia's have a wider scope (ie. Wikipedia is not a medical reference book / dictionary)
• refers to pregnancy, does not clarify what happens to its contents, confusing
• selective abortions do not end the entire pregnancy, incomplete

not viable / non-viable was also not selected:

• aborting viable fetuses do occur, eg. partial-birth abortions
• defining viability is very problematic (eg. non-viable in Afghanistan / viable elsewhere)
• can infer embryos are not going to be viable
• would redefine abortion

death was used, but has issues as well:

• Key objection: does not follow the medical/scientific consensus, conflicts with WP:NPOV
• seen as emotional/moral pro-life language, addressed here
• negative word, not valid, abortion is a negative subject

Comments

• GTBacchus (or any editor familiar with the subject), if you have time, can you clarify in summary form with specific references / quotes, how "death" was found to be the best fit for WP:NPOV; and/or historic context on the medical community deciding how to describe abortion in a medical context, with the patient in mind. I can try later this week, but after a cold I'll be catching up with real life for a bit (though I am looking right now, I'd like to avoid a Wiki-lawyering clinic if possible). - RoyBoy 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I found what I was looking for:

Hmmm... You seem to really want to have firm rules here, to fall back on. We don't have those. Pillar number 5: No firm rules. That's uncomfortable, perhaps, until you're used to it. The answer you want is "policy states that we make sure that facts are verifiable, and we cite reliable sources as often as possible." Now listen though - the way in which those rules are to be applied is left intentionally vague. We figure that part out. Arguments like this one are where we try to feel out what the finer points of policy ought to be in our situation, because it's not the same from one situation to the next. Here, we're dealing with a sourcing issue, and it's not just simple, it's got some nuances. There's no acid-test we can fall back on, because this precise situation has never come up before. The closest thing we could find would be back in the archives where someone decided to use the word "death" months and months ago - have you gone back and read that? Oh, but "taking a vote" is absolutely not how it happens, nor is anyone suggesting that it should, that I'm aware of. I'll participate in poll after poll without suggesting that we determine article content by taking a vote - yikes! We certainly don't determine what an accurate definition is by taking a virtual "vote" among medical websites and other reputable online sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here was the reply:

Policy. WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." In other words, synthesize what is there. This agrees with WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Pro-Lick 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, do I have to explain how Pro-Lick is using policy incorrectly? - RoyBoy 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) @Everyone, please comment here. - RoyBoy 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for digging things up. I'm leery of all WP:IAR-based reasoning despite the fact that I think it's a valuable rule. This was the beginning of a straw poll that led to selecting 'death', then? JJL (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As you should be, but specifically here GTBacchus clarified that Wikipedia need not -- rely on -- editorial policy of others and source scoring. The primary goal of our very long discussion and consensus building was a rigorous lead that would actually work. One rule we adhered to steadfastly is: "...when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." WP:IAR is valuable, in that it forces us to look beyond policy minutia that isn't necessarily applicable and find a larger context that works for complex subjects. - RoyBoy 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer the straw poll question, it was key to unburdening us with the "but these sources say this" and "oh yeah, well these sources say that" and "but weight is this" and "no, weight is that" and "historically this" and "who cares bout that". By early April we had made actual progress to drafting. Then by May it was by and large complete. I am thinking offhand of merging these archives into one large archive page for 2006-2007. It would make navigation a lot easier. - RoyBoy 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the straw poll as long as it's not too early on in a discussion all agree it's no more than that. Thanks again for digging around--it is helpful in my understanding of how we got where we are and should help bring us to the point more quickly in later discussions. JJL (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly, GTBacchus statement above is what unburdened us; and after much progress we had some mini-votes I think; with a final vote to make the draft live, but it was simply classic Wiki-collaboration than gave us the end product we have today. Re-doing that effort from 2007 to 2011 seemed foolhardy, and continues to do so. Generally straw polls simply delineate where people already stand, they do not clarify much more than that. - RoyBoy 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION

I do now notice that the initial removal of "death" was by user SmackBot. NuclearWar went along with the edit and collaborated with it by making other edits that were concomittant and supportive of the removal of "death". I initially did not notice it was SmackBot. After I initially asked JJL if it was him and JJL denied it, I did state this as my understanding (that NW made the change). Regardless of that, my view is that NW was complicit in that edit whereas I would have expected NW to assist SmackkBot in understanding that without any participation whatsoever by SmackBot in any discussion about the lede, SmackBot should not have made this major edit to the lede (which is very odd in itself). The whole thing smells bad, but I will assume good faith. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please link the dif; SmackBot is a bot, after all. It seems unusual that the first change was by the bot. Bots, by definition, never "participate in discussion(s)".

Please also do not use weighted words such as "complicit" and "smells bad" and then claim, rather questionably, that you are "assuming good faith". Try rather to refrain from such phrasing if you are AGFing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NW made edits that facilitated and were based upon the deletion of the word "death". In this regard, NW's edits were COMPLICIT in the deletion of "death". Even if NW did not make the deletion (though the change history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=434334931 is muddled and there is evidence to suggest that NW did make the deletion) NW's edits after deletion were supportive of the deletion and based upon the deletion. Death was deleted improperly. NW was complicit in that. I drew it to everyone's attention. This presents a fact without any assumptions about good or bad faith any more or less than with any other improper edit and support and furtherance of that improper edit. The abortion article (see the bold warning in FAQ 1) practially screams "DON"T DELETE DEATH FROM THE LEDE EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT IT'S THE RIGHT MOVE!". The editors in question violated this strong caution. I pointed it out. You seem to be upset that I did so, and you are picking on me as a result. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very confused by what you're saying and am unsure of what to make of it, but none of these edits is 'improper' and the use of 'complicit' to suggest a conspiracy is outlandish. There's no legalistic reason why someone can't edit this article--esp. after all the discussion here and the experiemnt by NW that was well-received on this page. The FAQ says don't delete 'death'? It's apparent from this discussion that doing so is quite reasonable. That doesn't mean there's yet consensus, but it's also quite clear that there is no longer consensus in favor of retaining 'death'. That aspect of the consensus has changed. JJL (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when I first concluded that NW made the "death" deletion and related edits, I sent him a very polite note (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Abortion ) explaining why the lede should be restored, implying that he had changed the lede, and expressly asking him to restore the lede to the long-recognized consensus version. NW did not make the requested change, despite my polite request and explanation. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Now it smells even funnier! A bot removed "death" from the abortion lede? Wow! Seems like someone who understands bots and how they work could game the bot system. But I know we all assume good faith. With all that assuming going on, it would be easy for a dishonest person to take advantage of the situation. But I am NOT saying that's what happend. The edit is impossible to nail down - if you try track the changes sequentially by ticking the circles and advancing through and comparing each change, it is mystifying as the content is not consistent for the version 01:16, 15 June 2011 NuclearWarfare [[68]]. Death was deleted during or after that version. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No one but you has said or thought that a bot removed the word from the lead; further, you have linked a version not a dif. I have found a dif in which the word was removed, neither by SmackBot nor by Nuclear Warfare, but by Friend of the Facts , who used an appropriate edit summary: [69]. I am uncertain whether this was the first instance in this cycle of discussion regarding the issue. Please confine your comments regarding who made what edit to editors for which you have found the actual dif in which the edit was made. Refrain from speculation and wild accusations. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahu: You are mistaken as to what one can see in the revision history:

• At ths link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=434334931 one finds that the NuclearWar revision as of 01:16, 15 June 2011 lede reads as "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability." (and that the Smackbot revision as of 01:22, 15 June 2011 lede reads the same).

67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tilt at windmills much? You claim I am mistaken, then refute that which I never asserted. You are arguing to no purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=434334931 I find that it was NuclearWar's revision as of 01:16, 15 June 2011 that first included the deletion of death from the lede in the relevant period of time under discussion. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who took the "death" bit out after NW made the change to the first part of the sentence about viability and added the new sources. I didn't notice that the old source used to back up the "death" bit was still there and the intent was probably to combine the new information on viability with the old definition. So I assumed "death" was a leftover and took it out so the definition matched what the new sources NW added say. If this move was hasty I apologize. Someone else changed the definition of therapeutic abortion twice yesterday and that didn't get much comment so one or two bold changes don't seem like a problem as long as things don't get out of hand. And I think the discussion is more focused than it was before. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gravida

Can we do something about the awful medical term "gravida (pregnant female)"? We are trying to write an accessible lead, yes? Would not "mother" do? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As the term is parenthetically explained, it has already been made accessible for those with limited vocabularies. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

'Mother' wouldn't work, but 'pregnant woman' would. I agree that this term seems unnecessarily technical but as it's explained I don't object to it either. JJL (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not solely about humans. Thus "pregnant female" is more general.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Everywhere else in the lead it is only talking about humans. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of that last bit, I would suggest using "pregnant female" (which neither excludes women nor is too distantly detached from them) link to gravidity. Is there any reason to have the term "gravida" in the text? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Death: sine qua non of every abortion

According to the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" in the core basic definition of abortion because fetal death or embryonic death is the sine qua non of abortion. The pregnancy cannot end unless the fetus goes away (expulsion or removal):

• If the fetus goes away and lives (even for a short period), there is a live birth and no abortion.
• If the fetus goes away and dies before or during the process, there is an abortion and no live birth.

I say again: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" because "death" is the sine qua non of abortion. All the medical literature and scientific literature agrees, but Merriam-Webster is bold enough to state it plainly, which is actually a very wikipedia thing to do.

What arguments are there that "death" of the fetus is NOT the sine qua non of abortion? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; death of the fetus is the sine qua non of abortion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The arguments are the copious sources that never use 'death' in the defn. of the term. If it was the "sine qua non of abortion" it would need to appear in those. You seem to have one lesser-used medical dictionary on your side and lots of Google hits for various phrases. That does not compare in quality to the medical texts and the defns. found in medical/veterinary/scientific journals. If your case were as strong as you state you'd be giving us sources such as textbooks used by major medical schools rather than cherry-picking a medical dictionary that agrees with your preconceived notion. The sources are against you. I could as easily argue that "destruction of the tissue" is the sine qua non of abortion as it appears in some defns. and isn't explicitly contradicted by others. Your argument is weak and poorly sourced. JJL (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What specific sources from All the medical literature and scientific literature... are you suggesting ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Such sources have been cited endlessly in these pages. Can you name a medical reference that discusses abortion in detail that does not (at the very least) imply that every abortion involves the death of a fetus or embryo? In the west, an aborting doctor is required to ensure the fetus is dead in order to ensure he complies with medical ethics and the law. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Artifex: Is it your view that the scientific and medical communities don't all agree that every abortion must include a dead embryo/fetus? Its important to drill this down. I am asserting that there is no disagreement whatsoever among sicentists and doctors: they all agree that it is a scientific and medical fact that every abortion involves a dead embryo/fetus. I am asserting that this is something that is not even debated by them because it is so clearly a medical and scientific fact. Do you not agree? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your assertion. My assertion is that you have not supplied any sources that support your assertion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I a m not going to repeat what has already been posted above. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the Merriam Webster is being given special emphasis when it's the minority of sources with "death." Is it somehow considered more authoritative than the other references? Because I don't think we should rely on it just too keep "death" in the article because that's seen as important by some. The definition should follow the standard of most other references. If "death" were the standard then we would be right to use it, but since it doesn't seem to be we should be in line with what the other references are saying. Friend of the Facts (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It's clearly non-standard, as well as contentious. No one is saying that 'death' can't be discussed in the article, but a non-standard term with multiple shades of meaning shouldn't be used in the lede--it would need to be discussed at greater length in the body of the article. The major sources don't use 'death' and neither should we simply because there exists a dictionary that uses it. JJL (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand that the definition used by the most popular American dictionary will have significant influence on the cultural norms of English speakers and on the English-langauge wikipedia articles, then I don't think I can help you. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We continue to lack evidence that it is the most popular and indeed have evidence to the contrary. Apparently it's the most easily available (via web). It's also clearly not as influential as you claim--for it's use of 'death' has not been adopted by the major sources actually used and written by experts in the field. JJL (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You continue to insult your fellow editors, and it is becoming tiresome. I remind you that WP:NPA is a policy; violating it can be a blockable offense; and includes prominently the sentence "comment on the content, not the contributors." FotF did not state, nor indicate, that s/he does not understand the DicDef. The question has been raised, why give a DicDef preeminence over professional literature? I for one would like a clear answer to this question. Why do you tout M-W as the most prominent authority? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC

Expressing exasperation at tiresome obtuseness of fellow editors by writing "I can't help you if you don't understand X" is a personal attack? That is a very odd notion of a personal attack. Please stop picking on me because I am asking good questions that make it difficult for people to appear plausible in their obtuseness. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that your tone with me is tiresome and insulting. I will answer you (though I have provided the answer repeatedly and I find it tiresome that you ask again) if you answer the questions I have already posed to you in the sections above within the past few hours (scroll up and look for a light blue box with a perforated line around it). You have not answered. It is right on point to the question you asked me, but I already politely asked you first. So I would like the courtesy of your your answer before I reply to your question as your answer will bear upon my reply to your question. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An argument that 'death' is the sine qua non of abortion is still lacking. We have a dictionary using 'death' in its defn. followed by many cries of "It's plainly obvious to all right-thinking people!" That's grossly insufficent. JJL (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

An increase in civility would be most welcome. JJL (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was involved in the debate six years ago that led to our use of the word "death" in the first sentence of this article. I would just mention at this point that a major reason for our making that decision is this: Every definition that excludes the word "death" is simply incorrect. According to all of those definitions, my 37-year-old sister was an abortion.

I would love to see an accurate definition that somehow gets around the fact that, if nothing dies, it's not an abortion. I'm as pro-choice as a person can be, but I'm not a liar.

As a side note, saying "I find your tone tiresome and insulting" is shitty, shitty diplomacy, and has never, ever, ever led to a positive result. This is not a place to score points, it's a place to get things done. Shut up about "personal attacks", and find a way to ONLY refocus on the topic. NOTHING personal is the way to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is good advice. Very hard to follow when my on-topic comments are met with the doodoo you mention. I understand: ignore the doodoo that is served to me. And don't serve any to anyone else no matter what. I will try. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

GTB, I replied to your comment above (search @GTB if you're interested). NW (Talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but 6 years is a long time and consensus can surely change in that time. Who is to say that all sides were well represented in that discussion, for example? JJL (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL, I don't think I said that, or anything like it. I said that I have yet to see an accurate definition that excludes the word "death" or an equivalent. Consensus can certainly change about lots of things, in much less than 6 years, but consensus cannot decide that live births count as abortions. Do you disagree? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

LMAO, who is to say? Anyone who is literate. That's what archives are for. Re-friggin-diculous. - RoyBoy 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean, anyone who reads the archives would surely agree with you? They would feel that all points were fully and fairly aired, and that 5 years changes nothing? This is the "all right-thinking people would surely admit that..." argument. JJL (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-friggin-diculous sums it up. The archives are there. Nothing has changed since then. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying "nothing has changed since then" doesn't really send a message that you're approaching the possibility of a new consensus with an open mind. It makes it sound as though you're simply guarding a page you feel WP:OWNership of. JJL (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it means that the previous consensus still applies until shown otherwise. Chester Markel (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

...which may be insured by not participating in a meaningful discussion of it? JJL (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy says "consensus can change", not "consensus has changed whenever so asserted." The burden of proof is upon the editors seeking to overturn the previous consensus to demonstrate the change. Furthermore, there's been reams of meaningful discussion on the substantive matter in dispute. Chester Markel (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

JJL seeing the recent exchanges with 67.233.18.28 I concede I've been unfair to you, I understand well there is a back and forth that one gets into that's hard to escape. Chester is accurate in my intent, but as I acknowledged to NW, we should do better at clarifying the specifics of the rationale than lead us to "death". This though, doesn't mean you should type furiously for days on end with someone who simply does not agree with you. As to OWN, well let me put it this way, ~95% of what I've read from you, has already been presented a dozen times... and it didn't win the day. Feeling more passionately about it doesn't change this, in the end I would suggest slowing down a little, and give us a bit of time to present how we did it last time. We certainly will continue to discuss. - RoyBoy 06:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On 'Fetal Death'

In Patient Encounters: The Obstetrics and Gynecology Work-Up (Rajiv B Gala, Alfa Omar Diallo, 2009), the authors, on pg. 127, give the World Health Organization defn. for spontaneous abortion (miscarriage): "a loss of pregnancy before viability (~20 weeks), with the fetus weighing <500g." It then defines several subtypes. One of them is "Missed abortion, also referred to asblighted ovem, anembryonic pregnancy, or embryonic or fetal death, is defined as a nonviable pregnancy...". The rest of the defn. doesn't use 'death' nor do the defns. of any of the other 5 subtypes on that specific page (available here [70]; search for anembtyonic to find the page). Here then is, finally, a defn. of the oft-used and much-Googled term 'fetal death' and it is one of four secondary terms given for 'missed abortion'. There are many others. A common one is this [71]: By law, in Pennsylvania, 'fetal death' only applies after 16 weeks of gestation; other sources say 20 weeks or at least 500 g [72], [73]. Other sources say gestational age is irrelevant (e.g. [74]). How about a USMLE prep. guide? From [75]: "Intrauterine Fetal Death Intrauterine fetal death is defined as death of a fetus after 20 weeks of gestational age but before onset of labor." Here's another: "A fetal death is defined as a product of conception that shows no sign of life after complete birth." ('[76]; 'emphasis added.) Another book equates it to stillbirth ([77]). Here's another source that equates it to stillbirth but with 24 weeks minimum: [78].

The concept of "fetal death" has multiple defns., though it seems to apply (almost?) exclusively to spontaneous abortions and most widely to those occurring after 20 weeks and/or 500g. I don't see how it can be said to apply to all abortions, despite the large number of contextless Google searches found for it previously. JJL (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"death" of the fetus is not a medical term

To clarify:

• When the abortion lede refers to "its [the fetus or embryo's] death", it is not a reference to the medical term of art "fetal death", which (as JJL has verified) is a medical term of art, which is used to refer largely (almost exclusively?) to spontaneous (non-induced) abortion after 20 weeks.
• It would seem that the term was developed before the medical profession condoned inducing abortions after 20 weeks, and so it is no surprise that abortionists have not embraced this prenatal and perinatal term of art because the established protocol for abortionists is to never use the word "death" when talking to the pregnant and post-abortive patients.
• In other words, it seems that doctors who are trying to assist a mother to deliver a healthy child have always acknowledged the death of the fetus, and doctors who are trying to assist a pregnant woman to kill and remove the fetus so as to end the pregnancy prefer to avoid any references to the verifiable death of the fetus.
• None of this can support any deletion from the lede. It should make no difference to this article's main description of what an abortion is that the medical profession has chosen to create a parallel euphemistic lexicon for doctors who induce the death of embryos and fetuses.

• Do any editors think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced?

For the record: Based on the feedback so far, I conclude that everyone agrees that a fetus is dead regardless of whether its death was spontaneous or intentionally induced by medical professionals. I suspected that most people would agree with that idea. Of course there is plenty of time to put your disagreement on record, so my conclusion might be premature. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether a fetus is killed on purpose (through an induced abortion) or dies spontaneously, the fetus dies; this is a medical fact and a biological fact, abortion practitioners' euphemisms aside.
• The abortion article might want to mention this parallel euphemistic lexicon somewhere in the article, but the lede should not bow to such professional euphemisms.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, lay off the pro-life rhetoric about "abortionists". Personally, I'm not really listening to you until you figure out that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. That's just me, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An abortionist is any person who performs an abortion. I also used the term "abortion practitioner". I did not know that term had some special political classification. As a matter of fact, I have seen it in medical and legal literature. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, "abortionist" is a partisan political term used by the pro-life lobby. You will not find it in reputable medical or scholarly sources, which tend to use terms like "obstetrician", "gynecologist", or "abortion provider". HTH. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is verifiable (by the most trusted dictionary in the USA) that "abortionist" quite plainly and simply means "one who induces abortions". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortionist. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between dictionary definition and connotation, it's no wonder you're having trouble getting people to listen to you. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

For your information, Henry Morgentaler, a medical doctor who is by far the most famous abortion provider in Canada, self-describes as an "abortionist".

http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=719

If Morgentaler himself has no problem with the term, and since it seems to be agreed that abortion opponents also have no problem with the term, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this word. I also don't see why anyone should have a problem with those who use that word, just because they use it. 173.177.97.29 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to convince me with sophistry, misrepresentations, and anecdotes, because this isn't a high-school debating society. But feel free to keep going if I'm not your target audience. (The article you cite notes Morgentaler's self-description precisely because "abortionist" is a partisan pejorative, and so it's highly uncommon for an abortion provider to self-apply it.). MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So long as it's "pull random sources out of [] day": abortionist noun (chiefly derogatory). NW (Talk) 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

zOMG and from teh Most Trusted Dictionary in the USA! :P Bottom line: "base the article on the best available reliable sources" does not mean "Google-mine a quote that supports your agenda". MastCell ^Talk 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This could be a good point to remind readers that calling MW "the most trusted dictionary in the USA" is not supported by any evidence--it's an empty assertion being made by someone who likes its highly atypical defn. of 'abortion'. JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically trying to address earlier Google searches showing the prevalence of this precise term but without context or definition. That's why I emphasized the precise 'fetal death' in my comments. I would also concur with MastCell that although this is only a talk page, the rhetoric you're using is somewhat distracting from the point at hand. JJL (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

JJL: This is a genuine question. And wikipedia encourages editors to resply to simple questions. Do you think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced?67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should follow the medical sources, not my personal opinion. As it turns out, the best sources don't assert that a death occurs in either case, generally speaking. We should go with that. It appears that 'viability' is the preferred term. JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The constant use of rhetorical questions, unsupported claims, thinly veiled accusations of stupidity, et al. are not helpful. Claiming the medical profession has created a parallel euphemistic lexicon is pushing a POV that borders on disingenuous. Please stop. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Artifex: This is a genuine question. And wikipedia encourages editors to resply to simple questions. Do you think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ignoratio elenchi. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is a legitimate one. When sources have been construed to indicate an absurd conclusion (that the fetus does or does not die depending on whether an abortion is spontaneous or induced), I think we need to step back and ask ourselves: is there something terribly wrong with the manner of source interpretation applied? In this case, we have copious MEDRS which do specifically claim that induced abortion causes "death of the fetus" or similar. But these references are held to be negated by the sources which simply omit any discussion of whether or not the fetus dies in describing induced abortion. I suggest a method of construing sources which produces a coherent picture, which is presumably what the MEDRS, being MEDRS, are trying to describe. The only way to resolve this discrepancy is to stop assigning special significance to the absence of information, and recognize that a source which makes no claims on whether induced abortion kills the fetus really isn't treating the issue. The result then, is that we have MEDRS for the view that both induced and spontaneous abortion kills the fetus, and none for the contrary. That some references would shy away from any discussion of the fetal death issue at all in the case of induced abortion isn't surprising: if abortion practitioners, or those associated with them, are writing descriptions abortion, do they want to put "death", or details as to the manner of killing in clear, non-euphemistic language? Sometimes not, if they believe that this would portray them in a negative light. Do they want to outright lie about the abortion process? Probably not a good idea either. So they simply avoid the issue of whether or not fetal death occurs entirely. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, per WP:NOR, avoiding the issue isn't making a specific claim on the issue avoided. Wikipedia isn't written from an "abortion practitioner POV", and isn't bound by such decisions to omit relevant information. Chester Markel (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Speculating on why the best sources omit 'death' is OR. They also don't mention whether or not fetuses are made of green cheese...clearly implying that they are? JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a spurious argument. We have no MEDRS for the claim that "fetuses are made of green cheese" or other nonsense. Secondly, WP:NOR is only contravened when material not directly supported by a source is added to an article. The policy shouldn't be misconstrued to prohibit the talk page discussion of sources' POVs, and how to handle this. Assessing source reliability and the extent of permissible use is a frequent, useful, and accepted activity. Chester Markel (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Verification of death/feticide

While I do not enjoy a belabored discussion of abortion as death, there are persistant requests for more verification. This particular journal article does verify that feticide (also called induced fetal death in the article) is part of abortion. Dr. Deb Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles, recently published research in the journal Contraception that discusses intentionally induced surgical abortion and refers to that process as feticide and refers to the induced abortion involving the death of the fetus.

• LINK: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004276
• CITATION: Contraception. 2010 Jan;81(1):67-74.
• PMID: 20004276 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
• AUTHOR: Nucatola D., Roth N., Gatter M.; Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. deb.nucatola@pp-la.org
• TITLE: A randomized pilot study on the effectiveness and side-effect profiles of two doses of digoxin as feticide when administered intraamniotically or intrafetally prior to second-trimester surgical abortion.
• BACKGROUND: Digoxin is commonly used to facilitate second-trimester surgical abortion despite limited data regarding its safety and effectiveness for this indication. We conducted a pilot study to determine the incidence of side effects after digoxin administration and whether effectiveness can be improved with variations in dose and technique.
• STUDY DESIGN: Fifty-two women presenting for elective termination of pregnancy between 18 and 24 weeks' gestation were randomized to one of four digoxin treatment groups: 1.0 mg intraamniotic (1.0 IA), 1.0 mg intrafetal (1.0 IF), 1.5 mg intraamniotic (1.5 IA) or 1.5 mg intrafetal (1.5 IF). Ultrasound was used to assess for the presence of fetal cardiac activity prior to the abortion procedure. Data on the presence and severity of pain, nausea and other potential side effects were collected before digoxin injection, immediately following digoxin injection and on the day after digoxin injection.
• RESULTS: Digoxin effectively induced fetal death in 87% of women. The failure rate did not vary by route of administration (IA or IF) and was not lowered by increasing the dose from 1.0 to 1.5 mg. IF injections induced fetal death more rapidly than IA injections. Digoxin administration did not result in increased pain or nausea.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Have we not already decided that 'fetal death' is a very specific term and that breaking it into 'fetal' and 'death' could be misleading? Isn't that what you meant when you called it a "medical term of art" above? I think you may be arguing against yourself now. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the discussion, because there's just too much of it. This page is 300KB, which is about 47,000 words (according to TextPad).

But I gather some people are trying to associate "death" with "murder" (that would be the anti-abortion side or pro-life as they fancy themselves). Let's try to sort out facts from values, shall we?

The tissue comprising the fetus always dies when there is an abortion. It doesn't matter whether the "abortion" happens on its own (which is the primary meaning of "miscarriage") or is the result of a decision between doctor and patient (see "induced abortion"). Every cell in the fetus that was alive becomes dead. Is everyone with me so far, on the facts?

I think the dispute is over what to call this.

1. fetal death: Redirects to Perinatal mortality
   • induced fetal death: /* Empty */
2. feticide: an act that causes the death of a fetus
   • "fetal homicide"
   • "child destruction"
3. "murder" of the "unborn child" (anti-abortion advocates)

I'm just hoping this summary will facilitate our discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed: In fact no one was advocating that the article should state that killing of a fetus is murder. The genesis of the discussion is that some editors are advocating that a fetus/embryo does not die during every single abortion process (induced or spontaneous). Although it strikes me as very odd that it is necessary to do so, we were being asked to verify that in every abortion process a fetus or embryo dies. So I have posted this peer reviewed published Planned Parenthood medical research (that describes abortion as feticide/death) as verification. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the tissue experiences cellular cessation of activity--as some sources say, it is 'destroyed'. To say more than that is to take a stance that reaches beyond medicine and physiology into law and morality. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

concur the page is getting spammed mercilessly, Ed, and as you know when you and I agree, its a rare event and I tend to view it as an unassailable fact when that happens. The talk page has been spammed almost exclusively by 67.233.18.28, who is violating CIVIL, NPA, BATTLE, and to some extent SYNTH. No sooner do editors begin to try to discuss his points than he starts a new section, with another Wall Of Text. I for one am waiting for the discussion to become more civil and less verbose before I wade in again. Perhaps you will have better success encouraging 67.233.18.28 to refrain from burying us in his thoughts, and give the editors time to consider, reply, and reach consensus. At least one editor has decided to effectively ignore 67.233.18.28 until s/he stops violating WP:SOAP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you greeted my posting of verification with a complaint about spam. The verification was requested repeatedly. I found an excellent source that verifies abortion practitioners do expressly state in clinical terms that abortion involves feticide (literally: "fetus killing") and death (from Planned Parenthod medical resarch published in a peer reviewed journal in 2010). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You speak as though I were replying to, or referring to, one post. I as speaking of the 114 posts you have made to this talk page this month alone, as of this time stamp, of which almost all (108) were made the 14th, 15th, and 16th. The volume of your posts seems almost to be an attempt at a war of attrition. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Killer: Following up and discussing the points made by others is "talk page activity". All of my posts have been a good faith attempt to support the spirit and letter of FAQ #1 of this article. I was responding to several editors who were (in my view) violating the spirit and letter of FAQ #1. Of course FAQ #1 may not be a "law", but I can't believe that it is acceptable (formally or informally) to edit in a manner opposite to the manner suggested in FAQ #1. All those who support the sprit and letter of FAQ#1 say Amen! 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad someone has made this point. The volume of the response is making true discussion difficult and I too believe that the goal is a win-at-all-costs "war of attrition". I'm quite willing to follow WP:CONS but this Hydra-headed response makes it impossible. Issues are not resolved but are merely abandoned and new fronts are opened. There are matters here which could be resolved if focused on. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've proposed that the previous consensus articulated at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph should be overridden. Consensus can change, certainly, but only when the new consensus is demonstrated with the same level of clarity as that being overturned. When attempting to undo the previous consensus on such a highly disputed issue, spirited opposition by many editors is to be expected as a matter of course. Chester Markel (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

But per Argument Clinic, that isn't just the automatic gainsaying of the other's position, which is what we seem to have--the assertion that there are sources that say 'death' without a fair weighing of what are the best sources and what would be due weight, and whether 'death' would be better used later in the article. We're not making progress, The attempt by NW was a good way to move forward--now we're arguing about arguing. How can we have a fruitful new discussion about the matter? JJL (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the WP:SYNTH violation lies with supporters of omitting "death", since you're construing avoidance of the death/no death issue by some references as making a claim on the issue avoided: that no death occurs, or that death isn't significant. Every single MEDRS examined here that actually treats the issue of whether induced abortion causes fetal death concludes that it does. Period. No more original research, please. Chester Markel (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I'm sorry, to whom are you referring when you say "you're construing..." - this is unclear to me. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Chester was adressing you, Killer. Perhaps not. Nevertheless, I concur with Chester. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Where have I construed that? Please link the dif. I assure you, you are very much mistaken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To my mind this is exactly backwards: What's WPSYNTH is adding 'death' when it is not attested by the majority of cources, as though most major medical texts and dictionaries are in error, incomplete, or intentionally presenting incorrect and/or biased information. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My goal is to provide verification for the word death in the lede. Nothing more or less. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, no the discussion has had nothing to do with murder. It all started with the deletion of the opening sentence in the lede referring to fetal death. To make a (very) long story short, extensive research revealed that most sources do not speak of fetal death in their definition but rather say something such as, "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". Some of us seem to feel that Wikipedia should reflect the definition used by most related sources, some of us have a different opinion. At least that is my understanding of the debate. Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur; Gandydancer has summarized the debate well. Its whether to include the word "death" in the lead. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue in a nutshell. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would rather say that some of us feel that euphemisms such as "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" need explaining in non-medical terms. Just as gravida required explanation.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur; MichaelCPrice's comment is spot on. Editors from all points of view have consistently rejected the inlcusion of any euphemism in the lede. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But what those who favor including 'death' may see as a euphemism, others (such as myself) see as a proper reflection of the fact that an embryo is not alive in the sense of something that can die--it's merely living tissue, not 'life'. What is a 'life' is an ill-defined matter, as is what can experience 'death', and I see the term 'death' as plainly inapplicable here. JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Then your disagreement is with the MEDRS which claim abortion produces "death of the fetus" or similar already cited in great abundance in this discussion, and with the lack of MEDRS to refute them. Your own POV doesn't override the sources. Chester Markel (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Comparing pubmed queries, "(((review) AND abortion) AND death) AND cochrane" gets 13 hits. "(((review) AND abortion) NOT death) AND cochrane" gets 111. While the word death does get used in these reviews, it is quite infrequent. Substituting "termination" for "death" in these queries gets the exact reverse result. Clearly authors choose one or the other and do not mix the terms.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And according to Merriam Webster, one of the meanings of "terminate" is a synonym for "kill". Given that some of the reviews do use the word "death" in describing the fetal outcome of abortion, its reasonable to construe "terminate" as having the same meaning, as used in context. Remember, per WP:NOR, "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Therefore, we are by no means stuck with the exact words of the sources, only the information conveyed. If "termination" is being used as a euphemism for "killing", Wikipedia is not bound to do the same, particularly when Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Euphemisms councils editors to avoid this practice in most cases. Chester Markel (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I would assume that the references are speaking of the termination of a pregnancy. Gandydancer (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is the end of a pregnancy, not the end of a life. There's nothing euphemistic about that, but saying ":ends a pregnancy" rather than "terminates a pregnancy" would be acceptable to me. But using this to wedge in 'death' isn't reasonable. JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that terminate can be a euphemism for kill. I'm having trouble agreeing that the definitions supplied by NW contain such euphemisms. It seems a question of context. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, context is important. Consider the centrality of ensuring a properly timed fetal death to an abortion procedure: "doctors typically cause the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb and then remove it. But now, if the fetus is not dead as it begins to emerge, a provider may be accused of violating the law. So the lethal injections beforehand..."[79] It always struck me as a little odd that any definitions of abortion would completely omit such vital information. Now, it seems fairly obvious that termination is used both to describe the ending of a pregnancy and as euphemism for killing the fetus, in those descriptions of the procedure which make no mention of fetal death. While it's rare to see double entendres in the medical literature, abortion is anything but a typical procedure. Chester Markel (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Context is indeed important. Your quote is taken out of context and misleading on the point of centrality "We do not believe that our patients should take a risk for which the only clear benefit is a legal one to the physician," Dr. Philip D. Darney, chief of obstetrics at San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in e-mail. He has chosen not to use the injections."[80] and is out of date on the issue by five years. Considering 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2008 the procedure doesn't seem rare but I'm not sure what measure you are using for "typical". ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I cited the source to support the assertion that fetal death, properly timed, is an essential component of abortion, not that said death is induced by an injection of potassium chloride or digoxin in all cases. As the article notes, there's some disagreement as to what the precise timing must be: some physicians believe that they would be violating the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act if they weren't certain the fetus was already dead before removal of any portion from the mother's body. Thus, they use KCl or digoxin to kill a potentially viable fetus before attempting removal. Others contend that procedures which might require the fetus to be killed after partial delivery are still acceptable, and are willing to take whatever legal risk accompanies this. The methodology is a detail for the purpose of the introduction, unless perhaps you want to us to provide a short outline of methods used by abortion practitioners to kill fetuses: poisons, dismemberment, etc. While I believe that would be informative, useful content that could certainly be cited to a number of MEDRS, any attempt to add it would be extremely controversial. Chester Markel (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Kill fetuses? Surely you'd grant that your biases are showing here? JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, copious quantities of MEDRS have been cited to show that abortion procedures do indeed kill fetuses, and none to say they don't. That's the conclusion dictated by the references. Chester Markel (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

(unindent) Thanks, Gandydancer, KillerChihuahua, and Michael C. Price. I understand that the issue is how to introduce the article, specifically the wording of the lede. A standard definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy".

The issue, then, is whether or not it is helpful (or good or fair or neutral) to emphasize the idea that the end of the pregnancy involves the "death" of whatever the zygote has turned into (embryo, fetus, "viable fetus", "premature baby").

There are moral and legal implications connected to this, one assumes. For example, most US states (sigh, I lack a worldwide perspective) have little controversy over abortion in the first trimester. But there's been a furor over "partial-birth abortion" (i.e., Intact dilation and extraction). (Head's not out, nothing is born, it's just fetal tissue vs. Hey, that's cheating, you just killed a premature baby.)

Perhaps the most intense controversy is over abortion of (what anti-abortion folks call) "a baby that could live outside its mother's womb". I hate to use such a cumbersome term but viable fetus is a red link. As Chester Markel points out, removing the fetus before it is legally dead (?) and then killing it when it's almost "out" or completely out is considered "murder" by the "pro-lifers" (and by laws in some places).

So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Or at least some phrase which draws attention away from the idea that "something was alive before all this".

The question remains, though, for all of us contributors: how or whether the lede should mention that abortion involves a change in state from the fetal tissue being "alive" in some way to another state. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Nope, don't see it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, quick reply - been there done that. The discussion did center around that issue for some time. The problem is, if even the best minds can not agree, is this something for Wikipedia editors to tackle? Can you have death if there was no life to die? See for instance Wikipedia Life: "Since there is no unequivocal definition of life...". Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, please leave out "moral .. implications" - remember NPOV, COI, etc. Our job is to state accurately what the RS's say; not make moral judgments. Secondarily, I concur with MCPrice - I don't see it either.

Gandydancer and NW have made excellent points regarding the terminology used by the medical literature, which per UNDUE should have the most weight in our deliberations here. So far, I have seen little effort to directly address their statements and concerns. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen at least 5 editors address the concerns of Gandy amd NW and provide citations and well-stated analysis. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is exactly the kind of useless post I am talking about when I refer to spamming the talk page. You assert 5 editors have addressed the concerns; but you do not link a single dif, or state how they addressed the concerns; in short, this is one more bit of useless non-information which does not move the discussion forward at all. Do you understand what I'm talking about now? If you are going to post, post something which conveys some information. Otherwise, you're just doing the text version of running your mouth. I am sorry if this offends, but I am trying to help you communicate more effectively. If your posts convey no information and irritate rather than communicate, you harm your own cause, so to speak. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually considered asking 67 to furnish that information and decided against it. It was my feeling that when we seemed to have moved forward from that argument to the argument about a decision regarding which published definition was the most acceptable for a Wikipedia article, I saw no reason to cover old ground. Since it remains an issue with him/her, perhaps s/he may want to reopen it with the "citations and well-stated analysis" information in a separate section. It should be interesting because I do not feel that the information is available - anywhere. I feel that this is the reason that most of the definitions that we have found do not use the term "death of the fetus" rather than 67's idea that there is some sort of conspiracy on the part of the medical profession to avoid using the word because abortionists must or should feel guilty for killing a baby. If all of medicine, philosophy, and theology do not agree and the Biological Criteria for Life are not fulfilled by the non-viable fetus, it is not our place as Wikipedia editors to even dream that we are in a position to make the decision about life and death. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help me understand UNDUE. The article (as editors seem to historically point out) covers abortion from all angles (social, biological, human, veterinary, medical, political, etc.). In this broad context, does UNDUE elevate medical texts that are silent regarding an alleged (meaning a fact that the parties are trying to verify) fact such that the silence would dispositively trump medical and other texts that assert the same alleged fact to be true? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that including an "alleged fact" in the lede would violate WP:UNDUE et al. nine ways from Sunday? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting your misunderstanding - "alleged" is often understood as an adjective used to describe an assertion that is in the process of being verified or rejected. I have edited for clarity. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That would violate WP:V, actually, if I understand your statement correctly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) I do not understand your question as written, so I will simply explain UNDUE in a general way. Let's say, for example, we are writing about nails. An authoritative work about nails, written by an expert on nails, and used as a textbook, or source for a textbook about nails, would get a lot of weight - we would regard it as definitive. A differing view from a nail manufacturer's website would get considerably less weight, as would a newspaper article about nails. Finally, a politician or celebrity's comments about nails would get no weight at all, unless in their article, not the article on nails. And your cousin Bob's random comments on nails in his blog not only gets no weight, mentioning them on a talk page might be considered a violation of WP:FORUM. Giving a newspaper article the same weight as an authoritative text by an expert is a violation of UNDUE - you are giving a less important source undue weight. Applying this here, then medical texts on Abortion carry the most weight; other sources carry less and less weight the farther they move from authoritative sources. I hope this helps; if this does not address your question please try rephrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If an article covers what is equally a social and political and veterinary and biological and medical issue (such as this article), then

• Would UNDUE require that a medical source that does not address one specific fact trump a reliable widely-used medical dictionary that does address that one specific fact?
• Rephrased: Would UNDUE require us to consider a medical source's silence regarding one specific fact to be the same as a refutation of a medical dictionary's verification of the same specific fact?

67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is poorly phrased in the context of this discussion, IMO. The medical texts being discussed are not silent on abortion; they cover abortion. They do not all use the word death, which is not at all the same. In other words, your question is loaded, and therefore fallacious. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:UNDUE would indicate that it the majority of most-respected sources are silent on a matter then adding in the lede rather than as a less-well-placed point lower in the article is not appropriate. However, WP:UNDUE primarily refers to fringe views, and I would not characterize this as one. But it does phrase matters in terms of minority views: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " The idea of abortion always involving death is apparently a minority view--it certainly is not even mentioned in most major WP:MEDRS JJL (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the crux of the matter: whether silence on a particular point should be interpreted as a positive claim, in violation of WP:NOR. And that's assuming that the no-death references are actually silent on the substantive issue, and not using "termination" as a euphemism for "death". Chester Markel (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

No, it's only the crux of the matter if we assume your conclusion--that if any sources use 'death', the term must occur in the lead. 'Destruction' is an equally unopposed term that appears in some sources. Why not include it? You're sitting on the fact that there are sources that use this term. How about engaging the point that 'viable' is the preferred term in modern technical literature? JJL (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't just have any sources which describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome - we have thousands[81]. "Destruction" is either a euphemism for "death", quite likely given the number of sources which use "death", or nearly irrelevant. Something ultimately thrown in a medical waste incinerator would be "destroyed", would it not? If this is all such sources are actually claiming, then it isn't really a salient point. "Viable" has its own problems: are we saying that what would otherwise constitute an abortion procedure, post viability, is infanticide? The late term abortion dispute is not one we should be taking sides on in the introduction. Chester Markel (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

We do not have thousands of sources which describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome--you have a Google search that turns up the phrase thousands of times. That is no argument at all. JJL (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As ought to be obvious by now, many editors disagree with you, and believe that my search results are generally contextually relevant, and that many specific reliable sources cited by many editors also establish fetal death as an abortion outcome. Want to achieve consensus? Present a better argument, or take a position which has more widespread support. Chester Markel (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Slow down, Chester. For something to "die" it must first be "alive". But we're not talking about debridement of tissue from an organ of the patient's body. The zygote grows into an embryo and then (typically) into a "viable fetus" (if that's the right phrase); and frequently the result is the birth of a human child. But there are legal distinctions here (not to mention those pesky moral ones, which influence legislation), and as you may know these have strict and often crucially important implications.

If at any point this "mass of living tissue" is considered to be "alive" it can imply that it is a human being (see Beginning of personhood), and that would also imply that "ending its life" is infanticide, homicide, or even murder. Do we really need to open that can of worms in the lede?

Maybe we need a section on Implications of ending the pregnancy which can introduce these issues. --04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The MEDRS cited to support "death of the fetus" and similar claims are asserting biological death only, not death of a person. Antibacterial claims that "bactericidal agents kill bacteria". Are we pushing a POV that use of bactericides is murder? Hardly. The fetus is comprised of human cells, but the same principle applies: if we wrote in Heart transplantation that excessive delays in transportation of the heart will kill it, no reasonable reader will be construing that as a description of the death of a person (the intended recipient might die for lack of the organ, but that's a separate issue.) Ultimately, the prior consensus, still largely supported today, is that "death of the fetus" is a biological fact, and the moral, religious, and political debate over abortion concerns whether or not the killing of the fetus constitutes murder, depending on whether one believes that the fetus is a person/human/sentient. We shouldn't proceed under the premise that claiming killing/death is the same as claiming murder, then reject the former claim because of the obvious POV of the latter. Chester Markel (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

In this case a reasonable person could possibly so construe it, though, and it's far from clear that that's the right, or only, conclusion. (Indeed, one wonders if that is what is desired by some who seek to have 'death' in the lede.) You say "the prior consensus [is] still largely supported today". How do you know that? Would it be helpful to have a straw poll? We're certainly going in circles right now. JJL (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a concise list of sources and verbiage used by the sources be complied prior to any such straw poll. LeadSongDog, NW, and others have made varying statements regarding the medical literature and terminology used; it appears the weight might be slightly towards termination rather than death. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We could, I suppose, say "The cells of which the fetus is comprised die", but sources for it would be questionable. The MEDRS, in describing the "death of the fetus", are referring to the point at which the overall organism dies. The later death landmark, when almost all of the individual cells are dead, is not as well researched. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

This is the issue of 'cellular death' vs. 'organismal death' and indeed I am not of the opinion that a blastocyst in an early spontaneous abortion experiences the latter as opposed to the former. The matter is not simple, and googling a couple of phrases doesn't help us understand the matter any better. JJL (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Chester, with no commentary on the rest of your arguments, I must agree with JJL that a Google search is worse than useless in this particular instance. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How else can one establish anything about thousands of MEDRS in this context? To the best of my knowledge, there are no review articles considering whether or not the fetus dies as a result of abortion. So we're in a pickle: use individual sources (accusations of cherry-picking) or use the Google Scholar results (accusations of lacking contextual relevancy.) Chester Markel (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

The problem is that the word "death" has two meanings: a technical meaning and an emotional one. Technically, tissue that is removed from its supporting structures, dies. Plants die when you pick them, cancers die when you excise them etc. Emotionally, death is the opposite of life, and there is a whole load of baggage around the point at which life can be said to exist. Under the circumstances, and particularly given the fact that the life/death terminology is an integral part of the political football that is abortion policy, it's probably better to avoid the term. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to consider that if we believe the embryo/fetus to be biologically alive me must consider the placenta to be biologically alive as well, since it is the placenta that carries on the life-supporting activities of nutrition, respiration, etc.? We never think of a placenta as having died, and yet in the case of the pre-viable fetus it is even more alive, biologically speaking, than the fetus. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the issue of separating the cellular death the tissue experiences from the organismal death that is highly unclear for the sort of reason you indicate--a blastocyst or embryo doesn't clearly satisfy typical definitions for a living thing, like homeostasis (it has considerable help there) or the ability to reproduce (which is there in potential but not actuality). To my mind the biggest point here is that 'alive' is a very ill-defined matter--a sort of Sorites paradox, a fuzzy line to be crossed--while viable is fairly clear: A fetus that is delivered outside the womb would either survive as a neonate or would not. The fuzziness there is much less--we can't tell exactly when that happens, but at some point it must, whether we can currently test for it or not. JJL (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd go further--the technical meanings include not just biological and medical (which are related but not necessarily the same) but also legal, for example. In addition, the biological definition is quite fuzzy; indeed, it almost has to be, for biology is the study of living organisms, and living organisms are what biologists study. (This is common to many fields: Chemists study chemicals, physicists study the physical world, mathematicians study numbers and concepts built thereupon, etc., and while you can bury the circularity in synonyms to some extent the underlying problem remains.) 'Death' is a loaded and over-loaded term that needs much greater elucidation than can be given in the lede. It's disputed; it's not the mainstream term used in the medical community; it's widely used in the context of heated political debates; it carries an emotional impact that is not intended here, as I understand the reasoning for the current form; and it is absolutely unnecessary, as seen from the lack of use of the term by medical references. JJL (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to qualify the meaning of "death" as in the introduction as referring to life sciences issues only[82], but you reverted me[83]. That "the biological definition is quite fuzzy" is your own original research. "Death" is only "not the mainstream term used in the medical community" if we consider references which avoid the topic of fetal death entirely as actually making some positive claim, in contravention of WP:NOR. This problem has been explained many times already. And even the lack of treatment of the "death" issue by some sources is assuming that they aren't using "termination" or similar language as euphemisms. Chester Markel (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

It's not OR that defining life is difficult; see refs. 11-16 at Life#Definitions, for example. We disagree fundamentally on reading the sources. You claim some "avoid" using 'death', while I believe they chose not to do so because they felt it was not appropriate to use that term or another term was more appropriate; to my mind, it's OR on your part to infer that they deliberately avoided using it. More to the point, it simply doesn't follow that if some sources use the term 'death' and others do not that we must, therefore, use 'death'. This is both a matter of WP:WEIGHT and of editorial/stylistic decisions even beyond any decision as to what is the most accurate way to describe matters. The preferred description in the medically community appears to be to refer to viability. The existence of sources that don't go that route doesn't compel us to do anything. JJL (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Suppose that 1/4 of all biographies of Rick Santorum in reliable sources mentioned the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality and 3/4 omitted any information about it. If I removed all material concerning the controversy from the Santorum biography on the grounds of purported WP:NOR or WP:WEIGHT violations, a number of editors would be very angry with me. And they'd be right. Yet your argument that since a majority of descriptions of abortion in MEDRS don't mention fetal death, we can't either, despite the thousands of sources that describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome, is just as spurious, and would never be tolerated for a moment by the community in other contexts. Chester Markel (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Well, firstly, 25% is a lot--what percentage do we have here? From the quality sources (vice random searches), it appears to be a much, much lower number. Secondly, that's a fact and is set out in its own full article, but reasons have been given why 'death' may be more of a judgment and need much more elucidation of its nuances here. Thirdly, that article doesn't define 'Rick Santorum', but the sentence we're speaking of does puport to define 'abortion'. Finally, no one is suggesting we omit any mention of it, but questioning whether it should go in the first sentence of the lede, unqualified. The controversy you mention isn't even in the first paragraph and is in fact not even alluded to until much later in the article. The second paragraph only mentions he's known for his stance on homosexuality among other things--not that there's a controversy there. So, your point proves mine. JJL (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the old talk from 2006 to try to get an understanding of the thinking from back then and I ran across a statement that I really like. This editor had given the matter a lot of thought and eventually changed his or her mind about the use of the word death in the definition in the lede. Here it is:

I have also revisited my view on the inclusion of the word "death" in regard to its being a loaded word. I now think its inclusion may introduce more bias than its exclusion. The former says that there is death, the latter does not say there isn't....I'm now willing to support something like a simple "An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it has attained viability" AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

outdent

By way of explanation and discussion in this talk page (and in no way suggesting that original resarch be included in the article because using death has been verified by many MEDRS) I offer this: The peer-reviewed Planned Parenthood medical research cited above details the use of digoxin injections by doctors performing abortions so as to intentionally induce "fetal death" in pregnancies up to 24 weeks. Other MEDRS has been cited that discusses "fetal death" exclusively as a spontaneous abortion in which the fetus dies before it is removed or expelled. We can see in the Planned Parenthood research that medical professionals do consider doctor-induced "feticide" (the word used by Planned Parenthood's doctor) to be "fetal death". If we then look at still other MEDRS, some of them can be understood to say that abortion is the termination of pregnancy by removal of what is always a non-viable fetus. Some editors state that because MEDRS have verified that late-term abortions are performed on viable fetuses (verified by MEDRS and by court testimony and congressional testimony of late-term abortion doctors), this points to the falsity of any generally-applicable definition for abortion that includes the abortus's non-viablity. Some editors have even cited here RS that indicate doctors and judges allow that as part of an abortion procedure doctors should/do intentionally kill a breathing fetus that has been removed from the uterus. But in fact, if we look closely there is no real contradiction in all of this - it might be that because the law is not quite clear yet, some MEDRS continue to include mention that in an induced abortion the fetus is not viable. And even then, these MEDRS definitions can be seen as a tacit mention that the fetuses are not viable (alive) when expelled or removed precisely because the fetus has been killed (aka destroyed) by the abortion procedure itself. In compliance with the laws (that still might not clearly permit the killing of a post-partum living fetus as part of an abortion), these MEDRS are written to make it clear that death must be accomplished (induced and completed) in utero. So in the end, what is expelled or extracted is a non-viable fetus (because the doctor already performed feticide in utero). While none of this synthesis should be included in the article, it is offered to explain why fetal viability might be included in some definitions, and why that inclusion need not be seen as a "conflict" or as an affirmative statement that fetuses don't die in an abortion. Finally, this is all a discussion of only the medical jargon used by some abortion providers and some doctors. Cloudy medical jargon should not force the hand of the lead of a generic definition of abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following is a description on the website of an abortion clinic that tells potential patients about abortion procedures that the clinic offers. http://www.cherryhillwomenscenter.com/abortion.aspx It is offered only for discussion here on the talk page to show an example of the langauge used by those who perform the abortions when describing them to their patients:

• 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.

This abortion clinic uses the word death to describe what the state of the fetus after the doctor administers a fatal injection to the fetus. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should "death", verifiable fact since 2005, be removed from lede?

"Death" has been verified since 2005

• by a sound widely recognized dictionary (which supplies everyday definitions that apply very broadly),
• by a legal dictionary (which supplies definitions from a legal perspective), and
• by a medical dictionary (which supplies definitions from a clinical/medical perspective).

The publisher of these dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, has determined that the best primary definition in all 3 of these reference books is the same.

• [As an aside: Perhaps this is because in the contemporary everyday English-speaking culture, when abortion is at play, the sociological, philsosophical, moral, legal, political, biological and medical factors are all implicated; in other words even when we think of abortion in everyday terms, most people realize the many issues that are associated with it. This could be a reason Merriam-Webster chose to use the same definition in all three dictionaries.]

In addition we have medical and veterinary textbooks and peer reviewed resarch that verifies that the offspring in utero dies or is killed as part of the abortion process. Nothing has changed since 2005.

There cannot be any serious plausible debate as to whether "death" has been and remains verified as a medical, biological, veterinary, and scientific fact. It is an insult to editors to carry-on as if this is actually open for debate.

Once the editors who seek to remove "death" from the lede concede that it is a verifiable fact that death of the offspring is part of every abortion, then we can have a sincere discussion as to whether the lede should be changed to delete this verified fact. Until then the discussion here is silly and not accomplishing anything. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct that your position is that we can have a reasonable discussion of this issue once we concede that you're right? JJL (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Though I suppose someone who assumes bad faith and who does not understand verifiability might think that. I am inviting everyone to acknowledge that the verifaibility policy, as applied to this article, requires all editors to acknowledge that the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for abortion (which states that an abortion includees the death of the fetus or embryo) is verification that allows us to include that fact (death) in the article. This talk page has much discussion that argues from the perspective that "death" has not been verified. Much of the non-stop debate is about an issue that is not open for debate - one cannot make a good faith claim that "death" has not been verified. If editors keep debating whether this fact (death) has been verified, and keep arguing as if the article cannot include that fact because it has not been verified, then we are wasting our time arguing about including that fact in the first line. I am not demanding that anyone accept the lede. Rather, I am insisting that editors follow verifiability, which will require them to stop suggesting or claiming or premising that death should not be in the lede or anywhere else because it has not been verified.

• Those who don't want "death" in the lede MUST use a different argument (other than verifiability) to try to persuade. It is a violation of verifiablity and a form of stalling to do otherwise.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

===========

• Related question: should 67.233.18.28 be prohibited from starting any new threads until at least one of the old threads shows some evidence of progress or resolution? MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to stop starting new threads (which I suppose is new underlined sections?) until all the prior threads on the talk page are resolved. What is the method to determine that an open thread is resolved? As a point of order, I started this thread to end the endless debate above that does not even address the real issue, which is not whether the death has been verified (it most aboslutely has been since 2005), but whether there is consensus to delete death from the lede. Killer Chihuahua distorts what is going on here and is POV pushing. I am requesting that KillerChihuaHua be disciplined for the constant stalking of eveything I post and the nasty tone in posts to me and the POV pushing. KillerChihuahua is being uncivil and I don't have to accept that. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post a dif of me POV pushing. As I have not even expressed an opinion on whether the word "death" should be in the lead (this year, anyway), I suggest you are in error that I have violated WP:POV. I'm ignoring your accusation of "stalking" as absurd. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your denial of stalking would be more plausible if you would politely assist the editors who have been consistently editing under the pretense that "death" has not been verified. Given your prior comments in years past, you obviously understand that "death" has been verified. That is not open to debate. Yet you have not admonished those who keep ignoring the dictionary citation (as if it did not exist and did not confirm that "death" is verifiable) and making assertions that death is not verifiable (or refusing to acknowledge (when asked) that it is. That is one good reason why I don't consider your actions to be in good faith. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't even make sense. Nothing you have said has anything at all to do with stalking. You are accusing me of ... not admonishing those who disagree with your assertion that a DicDef trumps all other sources (no one has said the dictionary fails WP:V or WP:RS, so your harping on V is unintelligible to me; you're tilting at windmills again and arguing that which was never asserted.) I have no reason to admonish editors for disagreeing with you. Failing to admonish them has absolutely no relation to stalking at all. You're not even making basic sense in this post. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am straightforward and direct. You can't stand that. And please stop coyly pretending that your anger is not involved with the way you are behaving. Please stop being obtuse. You have decided to target me. I called that stalking. I am sorry if I confused you because wikipedia has a more narrow definition of stalking. Your tone just sucks and I am sick of your incessant nastiness. I am going to stay away for 24 hours, and I suggest you look inside and cut the crapola (latin for crap) when I return. Thanks. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I'm puzzled. We seem to be having a communications problem of epic proportions; you seem to be becoming more and more hostile, making more and wilder accusations against me. I think you are wise to take a break at this juncture. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the sentiments expressed by MastCell and KillerChihuahua here. Opening new fronts before old ones are closed is a standard stalling tactic. JJL (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your posts advocate a position that WP:Verifiability ["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."] is inapplicable to this article, at least not when it comes to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion and "death". Because you won't follow verifiability, from this a reasonable person draws the conclusion that you don't agree that death is part of abortion, and it is no stretch to conclude that this has tainted your hounding of me and your posts on this talk page, and your advocacy against the letter and spirit of FAQ #1 of this article. This is all an indication of your bad faith editing here, though I won't discount that there could be some other explanation. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression you had actually bothered to read the FAQ you keep citing. Had you done so, and read the archives, you would have found that I have been involved in the death/notdeath debate since the beginning, and my position has always been clearly and strongly in support of the use of the word death in the lead. If you'll note, I have not even indicated whether I'm open to changing that view on the talk page this go-round. I've confined myself strictly to policy; comments aimed at assisting the discussion to move forward, in keeping with my mediator experience; and requests for brevity, clarity, and civility - all of which you have ignored. The earliest edits of mine regarding the use of the word "death" that I've found are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=43502685&diff=prev and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=43590121&diff=prev both from Mar 2006. Before that the main debate about that section was how to describe the abortus. Now, I ask again: as I have in no way indicated this year what my position on the use of the word "death" might be, how on earth can anyone logically accuse me of POV-pushing? You are equally in error about your presumption regarding my views on WP:V vis-a-vis the MW dicdef. In short, you are accusing without evidence, and indeed have continually wrongly stated what you erroneously think are my views, and I would appreciate if you cease such actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

67.233 Please stop with these baseless personal attacks and attempts of misdirection. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask once again: What is the basis for the implied authority of this fact? It's presented as though it has the authority of an ArbCom decision yet I believe--please correct me if I'm mistaken--that it's merely a statement of the 2005 consensus. JJL (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, while the word "death" has been in the lead since 2005 (and on and off from 2001), the debate and resulting consensus was from 2006, not 2005. I don't mean to nitpick, I merely offer the correction for accuracy's sake. You are correct, the FAQ#1 merely documents the consensus arrived at, at that time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You used the word merely, which is W-R-O-N-G. In addition to documenting the consensus, FAQ #1 ALSO cautions editors to acheive a new consensus before changinf the lede to delete "death". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. I'd suggest then that those here who are citing the FAQ might stop as it's redundant with citing the 2006 consensus (the fact of which is not in dispute). JJL (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing FAQ #1 is most helpful. Twice in the last few days some have edited the lede with disregard for the letter and spirit of FAQ #1 as if they had not read it. FAQ #1 is there to assist editors who are interested in being civil. It is a much more specific and helpful reference point than stating "it's been this way for years", and it presents context and tone. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support measure, with additional note that such leading and argumentative approaches as calling current phrasing "verifiable fact" rather than "established consensus" be addressed as well - if 67.233 cannot phrase his comments in a non-confrontational fashion, some sort of remedy must be found. This has gone beyond irritating spam and well into disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Because you mis-state what is going on, I will correct you, KillerChuhuaha: That "abortion" includes offspring death is verifiable by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion. The issue is whether there is consensus to delete that verifiable fact from the lede. Your comment and tone above are intended to avoid dealing with this absolutely correct framing of the content of this talk discussion. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support MastCell's suggestion; Oppose KillerChihuahua's. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to express my opinion till this is changed from this idiotic "When did you stop beating your wife" style of coming to some sort of agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm with Gandydancer. This isn't how it works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support MastCell's suggestion; Support KillerChihuahua's. The constant attacks (veiled, thinly or otherwise), POV pushing, soapboxing, etc. by 67.233 must stop. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the suggestion by MastCell; I'm in basic agreement with KillerChihuahua's suggestion but am unsure how such civility could be enforced absent a permanent judge being appointed to this page (which isn't a bad idea). JJL (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support MastCell's suggestion; Support KillerChihuahua's. We don't tolerate this in other articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Correction: we do, but we shouldn't. MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think I count as uninvolved here, I will issue a warning and if necessary take action. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you were, until you took a position on the content dispute[84]. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

• Comment taking the foot off the gas would be advisable 67.233.18.28. Allow us to reconstitute the rationale of why "viable" wasn't selected in 2006. This will provide context for why death was chosen, and we can have constructive dialogue from that starting point; well I hope it'll be better than reiterating positions and wiki-policy. - RoyBoy 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the historical perspective will be helpful. It seems consensus has been lost and not yet regained and I would certainly find it a constructive approach to see the rationale laid out in summary form (as some have briefly attempted to do above, which was helpful) and be able to refer to it as we discuss how best to construct the lede. I also appreciate your comments directed to me above and am also willing to slow down and try to make better progress. JJL (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I agree that it would be a good time to take a look at the reasons that death rather than viable was selected in the past. That said, I do not at all feel that any of this extremely long and sometimes exhausting conversation was "wasted" - and that includes the many posts that 67 made. I came to this discussion having never given the issue any thought at all and till now I believe that I would have said certainly the fetus dies - it was alive, and now it's dead. But it really bothered me when someone said that it was so obvious that anyone that thought differently should get kicked off the article, and so I looked into it more deeply. I think that what is so beautiful about using consensus is that first there is a lot of brain storming - and we could have not gotten here without first being there. I think I have been lucky to have 67's perspective because I have needed to hear what I don't agree with besides what seems to make sense to me. And while there is nobody here with the expertise to give us an answer, even the Supreme Court did not attempt to do that, reading the posts I find that there are plenty of Wikipedia experts here to help us decide what is the best answer for a Wikipedia article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Bravo. What he said. When was the last content RfC on this page, anyway? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic banning someone for too fervently articulating the view held by thousands of reliable sources, and apparently refuted by none, is an exceptionally bad idea. And essentially everyone participating in this discussion, myself included, is involved in the content dispute. A community consensus for a topic ban would only exist when expressed by uninvolved users. This is why such matters are normally discussed at WP:AN or WP:AN/I, not on article talk pages where uninvolved users are extremely rare. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

I need to correct your statement. As a matter of fact Orangemarlin did not "fervently articulate" his position. If I remember correctly, he stated it only once and joined in the discussion only rarely. Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement? Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were voting on the opening of new threads, not on topic banning someone? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure what we are voting on? I do concur with RoyBoy's comment 67.223... needed to throttle back a little on the new sections, but starting a new section is an understandable thing to do if a discussion is drifting away from its main issue and I don't see that it was a "stalling tactic". Perhaps a "steering comment" would have been better, but looks like water under the bridge now. Still I oppose any ban, a comment was given on the editor's talk page and I don't support any further action. I too concur with Gandydancer that the IPs comments have been candid and would continue to be valuable to the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not exactly what I said. I feel they have been valuable but I did not say they would continue to be valuable. One must be able to move forward rather than just run around in circles. Not sure how to put this nicely and I'm not sure that I need to, but I felt that 67 was really coming unglued near the end. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unglued?? As I see it, it was just a case of an editor becoming more sure of what he was debating, and becoming a little frustrated by others veering off the main points. Anyway I apologise if I summed up your words inaccurately. If the issue (opening new sections) had been a major one, it should have been taken to an AN/I first, for un-involved comment. There was no repeat after the issue was raised. Anyway - water under the bridge. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section

This is not on the to-do list but I feel it would be a good addition to the article. Please let me know. I'd like to expand some of the limitations to include religious beliefs, etc. if they actually are related. I have read that women in some areas have a very difficult time finding a provider, so it would be good if anyone can find that information. Also, I have used only U.S. info and it would be good to round that out as well. I have not yet looked at any related Wikipedia articles; perhaps I could find something in some of them. Please feel free to suggest better wording, etc., as I'm sure it could use some polishing.

Accessibility of abortion services

Factors affecting the accessibility of abortion services include gestational limits, number and type of providers, cost, and in some cases antiabortion harassment. A 2009 survey in the US found that most providers place limits on the gestational age at which they will perform abortions. At the time of the survey, the greatest proportion of providers offered abortions at eight weeks’ gestation (95%) and 64% offered at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later). Fifty-eight percent of hospitals reported that they performed abortions at 20 weeks’ gestation, whereas only 36% of abortion clinics did so.

The U.S. survey reported that the majority of women who seek abortion services are poor and/or have a low income, and since most women pay for the procedure out of pocket, the cost of obtaining an abortion may prevent accessibility for some women. In 2009 in the U.S. the median charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $470. After the first trimester costs more than doubled with the median charge for an abortion at 20 weeks gestation at $1,500. In some states lodging may add to the out of pocket expenses if the woman is unable to find a local provider. Costs may further increase if the woman is required to miss work and hire child care to fulfill a mandatory waiting period. as some states require. In South Dakota a woman is required by law to receive counseling at a "pregnancy help center" and to wait three days after meeting with a doctor before an abortion. In Texas, a law will take effect in September 2011 that will require a woman to view a sonogram of the fetus, further adding to the cost of the procedure.

A 2008 Guttmacher survey found "harassment is almost universal" at clinics and hospitals that provide abortions. Picketing, reported by 55% of the providers, was found to be the most common type of protest. More aggressive picketing such as attempts to block access and vandalism were also reported. Three percent of providers reported that abortion opponents had posted patient pictures on the internet and 15 percent said they had received at least one bomb threat. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea is good, but it seems a bit US centric. The article is already quite US centric, and I think we should discuss restructing and shrinking #Society and culture before adding any more content to that section. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it heading. Following NW's restructuring idea...Could the Unsafe abortion section be incorporated/merged with a section like the one Gandydancer is proposing? Statistical data on unsafe abortions should remain in the incidence section but "Accessibility of abortion services" or the like might be a better place for the topic in general. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The content seems to be a bit one sided. For instance, it mentions legal restrictions that some states have imposed on abortion, but doesn't describe what rationales they have offered for these. What justifications have the picketers of abortion clinics described provided? Content is hardly neutral if it only treats issues from one perspective. Chester Markel (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Chester, I appreciate your thoughts, however my intent for this section is to not get into the abortion debate, but rather to provide information about the accessibility of abortion services. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of generic abortion debate. Your text is written from the POV of women seeking abortions. It describes specific actions taken by people to deliberately obstruct access to abortions, but doesn't mention their specific motivations for these particular types of conduct. There are many ways that someone could be a pro-life activist: why would they choose to picket individual clinics that provide abortions, rather than directing their protests at the United States Supreme Court? Why try to legislate against abortion within the restrictions of Roe v. Wade, rather than starting a campaign to impeach the justices responsible for that decision continuing to be the law of the land? You're describing a situation in which women seeking abortions will come into conflict with opponents of abortion, sometimes in person. I don't think that it's neutral to only describe the women's perspective, while leaving the motivations for abortion opponents to undertake the activities described completely opaque. Chester Markel (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

That doesn't make any sense Chester...John...whatever. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• To go back to the original suggestion by Gandydancer, I think a section like this could be globalized. Access to abortion services is often limited even in countries where abortion is nominally legal (the US being only one example). In fact, there's evidence that such restrictions are responsible for the high rates of maternal mortality seen in some countries with "legal" abortion. If there's interest, I will start collecting sources (the WHO is probably where I'd start, as the leading global public-health body). On the other hand, this may be more appropriate for a sub-article on abortion law or the like. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates... is worth a read. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that there is interest. I did find some info about how difficult it is becoming in the U.S. to find and afford a provider, especially in some states. 87% of counties have no provider. Three states have none. Some have only 1 or 2 and physicians must be brought in because locals are afraid to do them. Mississippi, for instance with so much unemployment and low wages has these laws in 2011: A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility. Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape, incest or fetal abnormality. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/mississippi.html Gandydancer (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Another "death" problem

The current version of the article states that 42 millions induced abortions are done every year and that 70,000 women die as a result of "unsafe abortions". (For the purpose of this discussion I will assume that these figures are accurate.)

One can easily realize that on average the number of embryonic/fetal deaths caused by induced abortions is approximately one per abortion.

This means that for every "maternal death" caused by induced abortions, there are approximately 600 embryonic/fetal deaths.

However this article uses the word "death" seven times regarding "maternal deaths" caused by induced abortions and only once regarding embryonic/fetal death. (The words "dies" and "killed" are also both used once, but in contexts other than abortion itself.)

It seems to me that if induced abortions cause 600 embryonic/fetal deaths for one "maternal death", the word "death" in this article should be used more often, not less often, regarding embryonic/fetal deaths.

In this context I find it curious that the current article somehow manages to describe various methods of inducing abortions, without ever using the word "death".

No matter what were the intentions of those contributors who are responsible for this, the result is a non-NPOV approach, and it should be corrected. 173.177.97.29 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a requirement that the number of uses of the word "death" in our article should be distributed between pregnant women and fetuses in the same ratio as the actual deaths are distributed in the world. That would be quite a thoroughgoing application of the Undue Weight Clause, for which I've never seen a precedent. Or am I not understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Making progress on the lede sentence

It'd be good to come to a consensus about this. After so many days of engaging in discussions with what was apparently a sock puppet we certainly need a fresh start. I know it'd be helpful for me if the various IP addresses set up accounts so I could keep them straight--I think we now have three such accounts posting, and it's easy for me to lose track of who is whom.

As I look at what's been posted thus far I see two key points being made: The number of sources that use 'viable' and the small number that use 'death' on the one hand, and the paucity of sources explicitly contradicting the use of 'death' in various reliable sources on the other hand. I see two main issues to be resolved: Is the use of 'death' accurate? If it is, is it a term we wish to use in the lede? In looking at issues from the 2005-06 discussion it seems that 'death' was chosen from a belief that other defns. in use were either too broad or too narrow. As we take a new look at the issue, with a different set of editors and some newly introduced sources, how can we best proceed constructively? JJL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can say for myself that the case has not been convincingly made to me that the medical defns. are inadequate. I see frequent references to cases that are exceptions--say, procedures past the point of viability--but I haven't had a connection made for me that indicates that that means the medical defns. are wrong or too incomplete to be serviceable. I understand some see this as obvious and I'm believed when I say that I don't. I understand why "terminate the pregnancy" is seen as inadequate for selective reduction of one of several fetuses in a multiple-embryo pregnancy but when I read the term I simply understand that this is its own special procedure related to, but not clearly a strict subset of, abortion; indeed, here on Wikipedia the Selective reduction article does not refer to the procedure as an abortion. I am aware that there are WP:MEDRS that do but this article reflects the same view I would have--a special type of procedure, akin to abortion but either different or such a very special case that it merits its own consideration. Regarding 'death', I'm not convinced that the fetus is clearly alive, and see it as a Heap paradox issue of when a blastocyst crosses the line to a living entity rather than merely a group of living cells. Overall I see 'Life' as a very complicated term--a view that entails a complicated meaning for 'death' too. Much of what I see argued in favor of bringing in 'death' reads as WP:SYNTH or undue WP:WEIGHT to me. I say all this not to invite discussion in this section but in hopes of making it more clear where I'm starting from and some of what I'd need to be convinced to move closer toward seeing 'death' in the lede. JJL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see that one editor less will make a lot of difference. And I don't see that a new set of editors would dig any deeper into this that the ones who have currently debated it, we can at least assume competence and access to sources for most of those editors who have already been involved in the debate over five years. You're "not convinced that the fetus is clearly alive, and see it as a heap paradox issue...." - That's original research WP:OR. Heap Paradox is talking about removing grains of sand from a heap and debating when it ceases to be a heap of sand! The difference with a developing embyro is that cells are not really comparable to grains of sand. I see no reason to pit reliable medical sources against each other, when basic embryology texts from 40 or so years ago and more recent ones from the last ten years remain constant on the matter of embryonic/fetal life. You seem to not appreciate that you need to not just convince the editors currently editing this page, but those involved in the earlier discussions too. Life and death are still everyday words, and terms. I apologise for not perhaps answering all your points in sequence. The blastocyst is the sac which contains the embryoblast. Embryo : lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full". re. your question regarding the line between a blastocyst and a living entity. Do you mean by entity that which possesses the characteristics of personality? As regards the beginning of life the answer is at conception. This is not a pro-life answer or a catholic answer, it is what is stated in the field of embryology.

• Chronolab: Atlas of human embryology:[[85]] The first two weeks of the human development are called the preembryonic period. This period begins with the fertilization. Fertilization is the beginning of the pregnancy and can be considered as the beginning of a new life. DMSBel (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that we only need consensus among those editing now, and that we are in no way bound by any previous consensus--we are fully free to change consensus. We don't need to convince previous editors of anything; those here must forge a consensus to replace the one now seen to have been lost. There's no reason to believe that the current form is the best possible lede of all conceivable ledes, is there? Regardless of whether or not we come to a common understanding of how 'death' should be applied here, we might still elect not to use it there. This seems to be a sticking point: To my mind, even if 'death' is fully accurate, it doesn't follow that it must be in the lede. Would you agree that that's so? JJL (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you have to overturn the previous consensus, else you don't have a new consensus. Merely starting a debate doesn't nullify a previous consensus, such that you can question something and assume that makes the situation no consensus, then get a few editors to agree and hey presto. Doesn't work that way. In the case of a factual inaccuracy I guess the situation might be different, but here your objection is not factual inaccuracy, it is that you think the term represents "advocacy" in it's current position, whereas others read it in context as a medical term, which it is. An expression of advocacy might be something like: "Induced abortion equates to the murder of an unborn baby" But you have not shown that "death" in this context is advocacy, or factually inaccurate, or provided an alternative that has not already been discussed, and found to be less accurate or equivocal in some way. "before it is viable" is not an equivalent, or even factually accurate - it tells us something else altogether. To be sufficiently clear the definition has to be in language which allows reader to distinguish it from delivery and birth DMSBel (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You've arranged your opinions and approach so that the consensus can never be overturned to your satisfaction. To say that we must provide "an alternative that has not already been discussed, and found to be less accurate or equivocal in some way" is simply not how Wikipedia works. The prior editors from 2006 do not have any special status that makes their decisions unassailable. It's been 5-6 years now...we can discuss the same issues again, in light of the new sources and the current mix of editors. It's clear t me that 'viable' is preferable here. That a different group of people went another way half a decade ago doesn't make it wrong. You are, in essence, citing (the current state of) Wikipedia as a source--and that's not allowed. If you can't openly engage a new discussion it might be best to acknowledge that you're forgetting one of the key notions of Wikipedia, or which you were warned when signing up: Others may edit and change what you write; if this is bothersome to you, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. JJL (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to explain where my mind is at right now. First I want to thank all the excellent. intelligent posts by editors who have expressed both personal outlooks and their understanding of Wikipedia policy. There seems to be a good understanding of policy here and I trust that I can assume that they are experts in their field, so as to speak, and can come to a decision that meets guidelines. That said, I did read in the archives that Wikipedia did wisely leave a small fuzzy area, and I'd like to learn a little more about the fuzzy area.

As this subject was on my mind almost all day yesterday I was thinking how similar this experience is to my first experience on jury duty. The trial involved the building of high-tension power lines across property owned by many small farmers in southern Minnesota. The power company used a series of "dirty tricks" to purchase the properties needed for their right of way and eventually the farmers filed a class action lawsuit. The actual trial was heart-wrenching for me because it was clear that the power company was using very well-paid city slicker lawyers that made the farmer's lawyers look like a bunch of country bumpkins. As we began our jury discussion only one other person and I sided with the farmers. Eventually we did come to an agreement in which we voted for the farmers but gave them only a very small amount of damages. I was satisfied with that because I knew that this was the first of many lawsuits that were to follow and we had set a precedent. I was so sure of my position that I would have hung the jury if need be. It was my first experience of making a decision that strongly affected the lives of many others and I felt that the weight of the world rested on my shoulders. It was a very profound experience. Our decision here will certainly affect the thinking of many others, and perhaps to some extent their lives as well - I do not take it lightly and will come back to this thought again.

Thinking about this I was thinking that it could be considered that Wikipedia editors set a precedent five years ago when they decided to use a Wikipedia-made definition for abortion because they found it more accurate than the definition used by almost all other sources. Considering all the effort that went into coming to the decision, it could rightly be argued that any effort to change it would be almost automatically rejected. So it seems we are in that position once again and whatever is decided it will be the definition for some years to come, and perhaps especially so if the reference to death remains included since it would have held up through two debates.

About Wikipedia - how much authority does it have to affect what is thought of as truthful? I think it has a lot of authority. As an editor I notice the quotes which are very frequently used by newspapers and articles: "According to Wikipedia,..." You see it all the time. But over the years I have noticed that people do not really understand how Wikipedia works. For instance, I remember some time ago in the midst of some sort of crisis reading a blog in which the blogger said, "And the administrators even had to step in and [tag the article - I forget what the tag was]!". People do not seem to realize that WE are the "administrators" and any fool can tag an article (and sometimes do). Or look at our article Moose Lake, Minnesota. The Chippewa did not name Moose Lake "libaquechawen," which roughly translates to "the wandering lands of sorrow". That information was added to the article six months ago and has even been quoted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune since then. So...people may say, "Oh, you can't trust Wikipedia", but they still do.

To move forward to the alive/dead issue. My thinking has progressed to the point where I will no longer debate this issue because I do not feel that as a Wikipedia editor it is my place to attempt to come to a Wikipedia decision about an issue that varies so much from culture to culture, from one religious thinking to another, that has been debated for thousands of years with no consensus, where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life, and where the U.S. Supreme Court, when they debated Roe v. Wade, said in their summary:

"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."

At this point, to my way of thinking anyone that supports keeping the death of the embryo/fetus wording would need to justify why they feel that Wikipedia guidelines would allow a definition not held by almost every other authority.

Sorry that this got so long and I hope I have stayed somewhat on track. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm glad you regard defining life/death as a waste of time; the issue was always a monumental waste of time. As for justifying "death" in the lead:

1. result of previous consensus
2. plain English, instead of mealy-mouthed medical jargon
3. it's true (which is why abortion is contentious)
4. it is the intent of abortion; highly relevant

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My reply:

1. consensus can change - that's how Wikipedia works
2. "is viable" is plain English and certainly not "mealy-mouthed" medical jargon
3. you may believe it's true and I have no problem with that
4. the intent of abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy

I don't see where it will help with the ongoing discussion for me to go back and forth over this - you have stated your position and I have stated mine. We do not agree Gandydancer (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR COMMENTS FROM MY POST AND PLACE THEM IN YOUR OWN. THEY INTERRUPT MINE AND CHANGE THE NUMBERING. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My reply:

1. of course; neverthless until the new consensus is formed the previous consensus carries some weight.
2. "is viable" is not plain English and is "mealy-mouthed" medical jargon. If I ran over a cat and killed it, I would say it is dead, not that it is "no longer viable".
3. glad you agree
4. no, the intent is not to end an unwanted pregnancy, since a live birth will do that. The intent is to both end the pregnancy and kill the fetus.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of viable. A viable fetus means a fetus that can survive outside of the womb. Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Which nicely illustrates that "viable" is not plain English! :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, it may illustrate something quite different. Wondering perhaps if I was not aware that medical knowledge was necessary to understand the meaning of "viable" I asked my daughter and she said, "of course, everybody understands that". She felt fairly certain that both her children would understand the meaning as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

'Viable' is plain English, but, as with Death, there is a Viability (fetal) for those who may have need of it. JJL (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad too :-), However it's truth doesn't depend either on someone not having a problem with him believing it, or on his believing it :-) Hang on I am starting to morph in Gandhi or something :-) Believing something doesn't make it true and something true is still true even if one doesn't believe it. DMSBel (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The intent of induced abortion is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by terminating the life of the fetus. DMSBel (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have always thought the term "viable" was misleading. Though to descibe it as "mealy mouthed" medical jargon sounds, well, very nearly spot on! An embyro is viable - it's just not supposed to survive outside the womb at 6 weeks. DMSBel (talk)

1) True, also see WP:CCC. 2) "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus" employs no words that a reasonably educated 16 year old ought not to know. 3) That's nothing more than proof by assertion. 4) Remember that spontaneous abortions have no "intent". As far as induced ones go, one could just as easily write "the intent of an induced abortion is to prevent the beginning of life of a fetus".

Anything else? NW (Talk) 20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

NW, I apreciate the work you have done on putting the footnote together (even if it relegated Merriam/Webster outside the major league). But you need to back down a little. Michael C Price is short and pithy in his replies, but that's his style. I don't object to it. DMSBel (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that is a simple statement that a high schooler should be able to understand. I also agree that arguments about "intent" can be quite nebulous. Is the intent of an appendectomy to remove the appendix? Yes. Is it to save a person's life? Yes. Is it to prevent sepsis? Yes. If the appendix is ultimately not removed because it looks fine when viewed by the surgeon, was the procedure still an appendectomy? (Leave aside for the moment that removing it anyway would almost surely be prudent.) I don't know. If the intent was to remove it and that doesn't happen, was it exploratory surgery that the surgeon mistakenly believed to be an appendectomy? Was it a failed appendectomy? I'd call it an appendectomy with surgical discretion applied. It isn't helpful to over-think the root meanings of these terms. JJL (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the american wikipedia :-) DMSBel (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Gandydancer was it your post earlier that listed the phenomena of life, I think I saw your name after it. There was quite a few terms linked. I was looking through the talk page again earlier and noticed it again. You said just above "where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life." Well going back to those criteria listed (I see now it was your post):

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena

• 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
• 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
• 3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
• 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
• 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
• 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
• 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you changed your view on this? It just that to my mind, the embryo / fetus does exhibit most of those phenomena. How can you post all that and then say "where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life." Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I thought that was a helpful post (the earlier one), yet you simply listed these and drew no conclusions. Until just above (again unless I am misunderstanding you). DMSBel (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In that list, I'd say that an embryo has limited homeostasis (independent of the woman) and cannot reproduce its like (embryos don't reproduce embryos). It also has significant assistance with metabolism. Do embryos adapt and evolve? I honestly don't know how the earliest stages respond to stimuli. I see all characteristics of living tissue but less so of a living organism. JJL (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Embryos can't reproduce. LOL. Then children can't either. Samuel Butler had the answer for that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Making the claim that an embryo is a living organism is different from making the same claim for a child. It's a continuum, and there's no clear beginning of life...but there are significant differences en route from zygote to adult human. Humans reproduce to make humans. Do embryos reproduce to make embryos? The chicken quote is amusing but not an answer--humans can live on their own, but embryos cannot. JJL (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As usual, all red herrings. And your answer admits the falsity of your argument. You say embryos cannot live on their own. Exactly - with a placenta they live. Without it they die. Case closed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact at an extremely early stage of fetal development the female human offspring contains all of her eggs, such that maturity (and a mate) is all she lacks to reproduce: A baby girl is born with egg cells (oocytes) in her ovaries. Between 16 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, the ovaries of a female fetus contain 6 to 7 million oocytes. Most of the oocytes gradually waste away, leaving about 1 to 2 million present at birth. None develop after birth. At puberty, only about 300,000—more than enough for a lifetime of fertility—remain. Only a small percentage of oocytes mature into eggs. The many thousands of oocytes that do not mature degenerate. Degeneration progresses more rapidly in the 10 to 15 years before menopause. All are gone by menopause. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I have read enough. I have debated here for quite a few days. It's now getting ridiculous (if it wasn't to start with). Substantial efforts have been made by several editors and a footnote has been added to the lede. But that seemingly is not enough for these few editors. I have held back from using this description, trying to maintain good faith, JJLs comments seem to me to be sophisms. for instance - "Do embryos reproduce to make embryos"!! I have engaged with this editor, I have wanted to see exactly what the issue is he has with the lede. I am now convinced that it is just (along with OrangeMarlin) a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is now into WP:TENDENTIOUS There's nothing more to be said at the moment. DMSBel (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer to DMSBel regarding biological criteria for life. Yes, that Wikipedia Life article did have a lot to do with my present opinion. Reading the requirements, I decided that until the fetus is viable the placenta could be considered as much alive as the fetus since it carries on several of the requirements for life - and yet we do not think of the placenta as dead or alive. But keep in mind that I do not base my decision on this aspect alone; several other sources have helped me to form my opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I doubt whether anything I say would persuade you. At least I can say this that you have shown a willingness earlier in the discussion to consider the way others view things. Maybe you won't change your view, or maybe you'll read further and come to a different view. I am not going to get into the judicial side of the debate, I don't live in america, and from what I see it just is used as a bait by some to get users banned. All the best with you're editing. DMSBel (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is veering into a forum again. It should be made very clear placenta is alive as is an embryo/fetus, and a tumor. How we regard them is of no consequence, yes indeed a spectrum; but as a sperm and egg are alive, they die if they cannot meet, such is life. Which is what they are -- life -- or is someone to contend otherwise and lose their Good Faith freshness seal? Throwing heated politics and sensitive patients into the mix might suddenly make oncologists avoid saying a tumor dies (or arbitrarily just relabeling the smaller ones as they haven't ripened by X years), but it does die because it's life... I looked it up. This analogy isn't random, it was brought up in 2006. Also, a tumor shares aspects of a placenta (dense blood vessel formation) and embryo, both have rapid growth and intense resource usage. Sorry to disappoint, this isn't complex and has lost its sheen here in years past, its politics plain and simple. You should acknowledge this and try next week / month to convince anyone you haven't worn out that death should be moved out of the first sentence. Heads up, when I saw Encarta's definition, I stopped hedging on that too and moved on to other challenges at Wikipedia. Plenty to do around here, plenty indeed... now a moment of levity before I start going off the deep end again. "It's not a tumor! It's not a tumor - at all." - Arnold Schwarzenegger - RoyBoy 01:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RoyBoy, trying to understand your post - are you speaking to me?Gandydancer (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To JJL, but your "we do not think" mention did inspire me a bit; so thanks. - RoyBoy 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When you say "lose their Good Faith freshness seal" you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this matter cannot be acting in good faith. Is that really your position? Let me say again what I've said befroe: Even if you can't imagine anything ever changing your mind--in which case you may not be well-suited to an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit--does that mean it must be in the very first sentence of the article? JJL (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying, is everything listed above is life, when it stops being life it dies. Disagreeing with this, isn't disagreeing with me, it is disagreeing with reality and wasting our my time. What has aggravated me in this instance, "do embryos adapt and evolve" what is that??? Are you aware that conception is the culmination of sex? Which is one of the most successful strategies of driving the genetic variation of complex lifeforms; which in turn accelerates adaptation and therefore evolution. Any embryo is the very essence of these important biological forces.

As to it being in the first sentence, I wasn't being flippant, I was giving you sound Wiki-advice. If you intend to get something done, don't wear out your audience before trying to do it. There were doubts in years past, they've faded with every ill-advised attempt to outright remove death. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So the 'discuss'part of WP:BRD doesn't apply here because the sentence is already in optimal form? How could you know that? You're quite pleased with your view of the matter but there are many ways to phrase this and this one is out-of-step with the most common ways to do so, and uses a very loaded term without regard to its many nuances and arguable applicability. JJL (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is out of step, hence too much debating after, so that didn't escape me/us; it's my firm Opinion the lead is optimal at least for WP:Style because it doesn't require additional verbiage in brackets or reading sub-pages to understand. Death is only loaded in that it's a bummer (negative concept), viable is loaded re: its ambiguity, the sense it is out of step (out of place) on abortion (partially) fools you into thinking it is loaded; I understand as I felt the same in the past. However, this speaks to comfort -- not editorial wisdom. As to "without regard to its many nuances", ummm we've spent more time on that than most other aspects of the article, so you're wrong and presumptuous. This is why mediation wouldn't work in your favor. As to applicable, Encarta uses it, death seems completely applicable to a growth being operated on and removed. You can try and argue it, but that doesn't make it arguable. - RoyBoy 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RoyBoy, I will attempt an answer but it is difficult when you make it so hard to understand your post and (apparently) use sarcasm. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that a fetus can die or not die. It is my opinion that if we go in that direction and attempt to determine if the fetus is alive and thus can experience death, we will have no choice but to go around in circles and never move forward. My research revealed that there is no universal agreement about when the life of the fetus begins and it follows that it can not be determined that it experiences death if it was never alive in the first place. As Wikipedia editors we should not rush in where angels fear to tread and then be foolish enough to think we found the answer. The evidence I offer includes the statement from the Roe v. Wade court and the fact that seven out of the eight references we offer do not use the word death in their definitions. I am speaking of only the lede definition, not the body of the article. At this time my position is that I feel that Wikipedia experts need to justify the reasons that our article has chosen the definition that so drastically differs from seven of the eight references we offer. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, your "evidence" amounts to an argument from silence, and nothing more, and is therefore invalid. New life begins at conception. Find a source that says anything else! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream source that agrees with Michael Price: http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception# "Conception: From Egg to Embryo. At the moment when a lone sperm penetrates a mature egg, conception or fertilization takes place. To better understand the incredible process of conception, take a journey with us from tiny egg to growing embryo." 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my style of writing Gandydancer, it is a little dense, at times slipshod and occasionally funny. As to those sources, they are all avoiding and do not hazard (presume) to define when independent life begins. Nor do I, nor does Wikipedia. We have already explained several times why above: "In the end, "termination" frames the entire abortion article as a medical procedure. It is a bit more than that, as an encyclopedia we should -- in good faith -- acknowledge that reality." And mentioned in pieces above and years past, their avoidance of "death" is appropriate for their publication / audience / historic context, it does not make it prescriptive for us. If they were writing an encyclopedia, they may have used different prose. Britannica chose to go with: "before it reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation)" It's good, but what's with the brackets and did you notice the weasel word "usually"? Do you think weasel words should be avoided Gandydancer? Oh yes, brackets are needed because the definition is ambiguous. Viable lends itself to gaps and confusion listed here (did you skip past that?).

How do you know they're 'avoiding' the issue? JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Death lends itself to negativity (which is fine) and some feel that death implies an independent life is dead, hence killed. Well no, its life and its dead. Nothing more, nothing less. Inferring beyond that is the reader (the audience)... do you contend our audience requires clarity? I don't see clarity in viability. While the weight of the sources is impressive, I'm more comfortable with summary style accuracy that's easier to understand per WP:Style. The idea that because an embryo is not a human "being", and by being I mean a detached individual -- somehow this means it is not life -- is a fundamental misunderstanding of what these experts are avoiding to define in the first place. All the experts would acknowledge an embryo is an organism, it is true that it isn't self-sustaining... but neither is a 2 year old. Gandydancer... this isn't hard, at all. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the distinction you're drawing between 'life' and 'independent life' in your first two sentences above. It does, however, seem to go to my point: That 'life', and hence 'death', are just not that simple terms in this context and need further clarification. If it invites the reader to infer more than intended, as you suggest, then it's poorly written and should be changed. JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your fledgling attempts of "when life begins", an exploration of independent life or ... awareness (religion's soul) arising has zero bearing on the fact an embryo is a lifeform. Coming from an egg and sperm that are lifeforms, and can die throughout, just as a tumor can. It doesn't invite, a reader always brings their expectations and prejudices to anything they read. If they don't expect to see death, they get upset. Not Wikipedia's fault they are use to reading about abortion from medical references. Britannica chose to follow those references; makes it wordy, increases difficult to understand, and misrepresents the abortion topic as a whole. - RoyBoy 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also far from clear to me that " All the experts would acknowledge an embryo is an organism". That's a very broad claim. JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Britannica went with "usually" because 19, 20, 21 weeks is debatable not "weaselly". Why should negativity in the lede be fine? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@ArtifexMayhem: Is abortion a routine purely clinical procedure with no moral / emotional consequences? Not involved in bitter and divisive debate and politics? If that's of little concern to Wikipedia then viable would be a better fit and we should commence restructuring the entire article to be a medical text. - RoyBoy 03:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@RoyBoy: Abortion is defiantly a politically divisive issue. I might live under a rock, but do I have one of those hand wound radio thingys humor attempt. Moral consequences are just part of that political debate. Is you are saying that the negativity is just the normal baggage that goes with the word and I agree. I have mis-read your statement as meaning "abortion is negative therefore it is ok for the lede to be negative". Apologies, my bad. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RoyBoy, Your position is that as an encyclopedia our definition would be expected to be broader than that used in medical literature, is that correct? You feel that 7 of the 8 medical references we have listed in the article (and the Supreme Court summary) do not use the word death because their avoidance of "death" is appropriate for their publication / audience / historic context" however, "it does not make it prescriptive for us". Then you go on to the encyclopedia Britannica, which also does not use the word death, and criticize their definition as being ambiguous because it uses the weasel word "usually" and finds the need to clarify the word "viable", a word you feel "lends itself to gaps and confusion".

How you have decided that fetal viability is confusing, ambiguous, or anything else other than correct terminology is a mystery to me. If I were to say "childbirth usually occurs 38 weeks after conception" would you say that "usually" is a weasel word? It is no more a weasel word than if I say, "viability usually occurs about the 20th week of gestation". Britannica used brackets to define what viable means for one who did not understand the meaning. At Wikipedia we would link the word to the meaning. Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That doctors regularly abort viable fetuses has been verified by unassailable and numerous MEDRS. Although some MEDRS do include viability in their abortion definition, I have not seen anyone here cite a MEDRS that actually affirmatively states that "viable fetuses are never aborted" (or similar affirmative denial that no viable fetuses are ver aborted). Can you cite any MEDRS that makes an affirmative denial? Even if you could, then we would weigh how much weight to give such a MEDRS given that we have overwheleming MEDRS (and abortion doctors' tetimony under oath, etc.) that confirms viable fetuses are aborted. While some might consider the abortion of a viable fetus to be bad medicine or even illegal, that does not negate the fact that sometimes bad medicine is practiced and/or laws are broken (when viable fetuses are aborted). But alas, there are MEDRS that declare loudly that aborting a viable fetus is good medicine and legal, so it is hard no to dismiss (as emotionalism or advocacy) any desire to include viability of the fetus in any basic definition. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that this discussion is not about whether the embryo/fetus dies or does not die. The discussion is about whether the definition used in Wikipedia should include the word death. I feel that if Wikipedia decides to use a definition so drastically different than that used by most others, they must back their decision with references. If our article did not use the word death but all but one of the references did, how much sense would that make? It would be pretty obvious that our article was seriously slanted. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@Gandydancer I do see viable as correct terminology, for a medical context. It is correct for Wikipedia too, but not clear. As to pregnancy "usually" being 38 weeks (excellent attempt, and I'm pleased to continue to discuss with you), going into labor (ending of the pregnancy) isn't ambiguous as the water breaks. You can, despite variation, pinpoint when the pregnancy ends and giving birth begins. JJL torturing us with his "life" explorations, at least demonstrated many have tried to define viable / awareness / the soul; and it isn't possible, that unknown makes viable less preferred for an encyclopedia. Death is a negative word (JJL says loaded), this makes many reasonable people believe it should be less preferred (this is incorrect). I'd emphasize, which word to choose depends on your editorial mandate. - RoyBoy 03:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To go on to address the second section of your reply. Keep in mind that this discussion is about the definition in the lede, not about anything included in the body of the article. As I said some time ago, before this discussion I considered the fetus to have died - actually my thinking has changed very little about that. As a mother myself, I know that I would have grieved a miscarried "fetus" in much the same way that I would have grieved a fully developed baby. I would always think of it as my dear baby that died. But this article is not about my personal feelings. From my understanding about Wikipedia, we look at the information supplied by the best references available and that is what we are obliged to use in our articles. Wikipedia has no editorial staff to make the final decision about what to say or not say. We rely solely on good references because, for one thing, that avoids having pressure groups from taking over an article and claiming what ever they please. If we are to make an exception with the abortion article, whats to stop making exceptions for other highly-contested articles? Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the references have somehow discovered the truth of the matter. I am suggesting that they have wisely avoided using the word death because they are well aware of the fact that there is no agreement about when life begins. Could you offer some references that state that life begins at conception? Gandydancer (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I could, but since they have already been proferred, I shan't bother. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say why don't you look back up the page? See CHRONOLAB: ATLAS OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO (bulleted above) If other embryology sources are produced that state clearly that life begins at conception are you going to change your mind? What sources would convince you? You see I have to ask, as so many have been listed. I'll certainly look out other sources, but is that the issue, are you going to be persuaded by scholarly embryology sources. What if I list a source and you have not heard of it? There was a list linked to with reference to medical dictionaries, earlier in the thread. It was a recommended works list for someone wanting to put together a small medical library. If there is an Embryology Section in it, and one of the books in it confirmed that life begins at conception, would you accept what it says? I would really like to know. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that everyone ignored your earlier post because they seriously doubted that a Swiss lab has proven that life begins at conception. Gandydancer (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, run that by me again? Don't you see each time someone comes up with what you asked for, you keep pushing back the requirements you seek. First sources, then particular sources, then proof (but not from a swiss lab). Any country in particular you'd be happy with? Let me know which ones are out for you, before I waste my time. DMSBel (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have never hounded you for repeated references. If I am mistaken, please point out the instances where I have wasted other's time by repeatedly being dissatisfied with references for no good reason. Also, could you please remember to sign your posts - it may be confusing for anyone reading this page who is not familiar with the editors. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to proffered references? Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A search on this talk page for "Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth" will take you right there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure a report from the U.S. Senate (97th, 1981) Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers will qualify as WP:MEDRS but it should be a fun read. The thing is so old I had to order a paper copy, bleck ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Matthews-Roth is a faculty member at Harvard, and also a fairly prominent advocate against the use of embryonic stem cells. While there's certainly no doubt about her scientific credentials, I don't see how the opinion of one individual on this question is particularly notable, especially when her opinion is at odds with that of most of her scientific colleagues (at least on the question of embryonic stem-cell research). I understand that Matthews-Roth is frequently quoted in partisan pro-life material, but I don't think we should follow that example in prioritizing her statements above a more balanced and weighted discussion. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Who else cites her work? Photobiology covers quite a bit, she is most likely to have written on subjects and been cited more widely than pro-life material. This is what I have found in a quick search: [[86]]. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, her scientific credentials with regard to porphyrias are sound. I would have no problem quoting her work in an article about porphyria or the heme pathway. On the other hand, the topic here is abortion. Her statements on abortion tend to be cited exclusively by pro-life activists, as best I can tell. Can we make an effort to avoid sophistry? MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to question her credentials based on who cites her. Where she is cited, is it not from papers she has written? Would those not be peer-reviewed? If there is something which though cited in a pro-life source, has also been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal I don't see that the citation would disqualify the reliablity of the original source? DMSBel (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to just pick people at random why not use PZ Myers? The definition of life is irrelevant. The sources provided do not use the word death. Extracting a custom Wikipedia definition for abortion is just making stuff up. We don't get to pick. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Some sources provided do, why should they be pitted against the others? If most reliable sources said emphatically the fetus does not die in an abortion. And one source was found that said the fetus does die, then we might be dealing with synth. But that is not what we have here. Multiple sources are used throughout the article to give a comprehensive coverage of the subject. DMSBel (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing progress on even the idea of how we could make progress. Should we look to getting outside opinions on the sourcing, or even at mediation? My experiences with non-binding Wikipedia processes doesn't leave me feeling much encouraged, but there is no consensus here and we're mostly going in circles, I think. JJL (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't shown that there is anything wrong with the first sentence of the lede, or that it contains anything that is not included in medical sources. The problem you are up against is not making progress it is convincing people there is a problem. DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are correct in that those that feel the word death should be left out of the definition compromise only a small minority, I would like to know that for a fact. If after all this discussion the majority feel that the lede should be left as is, I would not consider putting further effort into working for a change. Would it be possible to take a vote? Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote for a vote. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think those who want to change the first sentence of the lede need to demonstate first of all that there is a problem. Taking a vote would not establish that there is a problem, or indeed that the lede is fine as it is. I prefer to work from definitely demonstrated problems, that are solvable, rather than "we lot think this should be changed".62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MCP and Gandydancer, Wikipedia is wp:NOT#Democracy, so we don't vote. Instead we present, consider and refute arguments based on evidence from verifiable and reliable sources in accordance with existing wp:Policy. So far, you're arguments here have been very long on rhetoric and very short on V RS substance. You may not like it, but that is how WP works. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RE "very long on rhetoric and very short on V RS substance". I hardly see how I could give a source for or against keeping "death" in the definition, which is mainly what I have posted about. If you have found my posts to be less than meaningful, of course your opinion is important to you, but perhaps some others have found it valuable, as I do theirs. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! MCP did not bring up the vote, also his posts are pretty much the shortest and succinctist posts of most editors discussing this. One good reason a vote would be bad: Votes are the least effective way of convincing people. Unless there is a good reason to change something there is nothing to vote about. Arbitrary change based on "we lot think it should be changed" is always a bad idea and out of tune with the spirit of wikipedia.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

LeadSongDog the argument is not about wp:V, nor wp:RS, nor about definition of life/death. It's about clarity and presentation. There's nothing new to say, everyone's said their piece. Which is why it's time for a vote. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I used the word "vote" in a casual sense - I should have said straw poll. I think that a good case could be made for a poll to find if a majority have enough interest in a definition change to continue to hash it out. I, for one, am no longer willing to put effort into discussion if a majority want to keep the definition as it stands. The "Elders", meaning those that participated in the old discussion (and I say that with respect), are understandably tired of this and have other things they would rather be doing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am still a little leery about voting: A major attempt at clarification has already been made, by means of a footnote. You need to convince editors that its not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that the footnote doesn't address the advocacy claim. "resulting in... it's death" baldly stated (although it was sourced) without the footnote you had a shot at claiming advocacy, while it's footnoted your only ground of complaint against it's position is starting to sound more and more like "I just don't like it", or "I am ashamed wikipedia has this wording" - neither will run. Familiarise yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RoyBoy made a couple of good posts since you made this post. I believe that I finally have some good points that I would like to consider before I call it quits. It is obvious that the previous group worked very long and hard to come to their conclusion, but it still does not follow that they were correct. He and others who defend the previous conclusion would need to do so again since it has been five years and there are a lot of new kids on the block. That said, there is always plenty to be learned from our "elders". I feel they need to share their experience, as RoyBoy has done, and I'd like to try to pick it apart, if I can.Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, new kids on the block have the option of reading through the archives. To expect editors to keep re-iterating reasons, debated in the past is simply WP:TENDENTIOUS. Wikipedia would grind to a halt! All experience is shared via the archives. Precedents in the debate are helpfully linked. Other editors have done that for us. It took time, it took effort. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

"Before fetus is Viable":

• Support Viable (Added: And, of course, oppose death.) JJL (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • The ordering was introduced by RoyBoy, not me. [87] JJL (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Neverthless, its confusingly backwards regardless of who introduced it. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pre-viability is simply NOT a requirement for an abortion (induced or spontaneous). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in Abortion#Notes. NW (Talk) 18:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

Current Version:

• Support going to ArbCom, mediation doesn't resolve content disputes. - RoyBoy 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Arbcom doesn't accept content disputes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • And I keep trying to give them work, volunteer slackers!'D - RoyBoy 03:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Death Cut the crap, say it as it is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Factually accurate and verifiable. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Current version. Death is always accurate (which is why popular and medical dictionaries use it). Thousands of abortions occur each year for which "before fetus is viable" is factually inaccurate. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose death Would have the effect of inaccurately labeling many premature deliveries as abortions, even when an infant does live for some time after delivery LeadSongDog come howl! 13:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, LeadSongDog, your logic is wrong. Abortion => death does not imply that death => abortion. Is that too long on rhetoric and too short on substance for you?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Suggest you reread the proposed text. It would include neonatal deaths in its definition of abortion: "...expulsion of a fetus ... from the uterus, resulting in ... its death". LeadSongDog come howl! 22:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Suggest you reread the text: "its" refers to fetus or embryo, not baby. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you've maintained a sense of humour. If there is a less awkward grammatical construction that distinguishes the before and after states feel free to propose it.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Current wording is precise: fetus dies => abortion; by implication baby dies => not an abortion. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. But I agree that adding a word could make it more clear ("...its near-simultaneous death"). That is why websters uses "...after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death..." 67.233.18.28 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose death We are going about this all wrong. This is a medical article, and adding "death" is merely a political statement representing ONE POV, not all, since there are a substantial number (if not majority) who do not accept that the fetus is alive, so cannot be killed. Please point out where WP:MEDRS considers a dictionary to be the final statement on this matter? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk•Contributions} 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

OM, find a reliable source that says the fetus is not alive. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

So is Delivery.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Nope. Doctors abort viable fetuses every day (hundreds of them). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good calls. - RoyBoy 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

@Gandydancer, do you have a reply to 71.3.237.145? - RoyBoy 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support death is not a dirty word. - Haymaker (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose death. Concur with OrangeMarlin, LeadSongDog, Gandydancer, JJL. Adding: What happens to the products of conception post abortion is not defined by abortion. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support death factually accurate and supported by sources – Lionel ^(talk) 01:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you put your comment under the section for "viable". Thanks. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's been some work on the brain birth/brain death parallel: E.g., [88] D G Jones, The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death, J Med Ethics 1998;24:237-242; [89] D G Jones, Brain birth and personal identity, J Med Ethics 1989;15:173-185. JJL (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. Would you revert. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

I say again--please explain your reasoning here. JJL (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support death per given reliable sources. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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: [90] 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. [91] D G Jones, The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death, J Med Ethics 1998;24:237-242; [92]D G Jones, Brain birth and personal identity, J Med Ethics 1989;15:173-185. In somewhat more florid language, there's [93] 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 [94] Michael S. Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain, Dana Press (April 29, 2005). In [95], 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 [96] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Again, that question is answered in a well-sourced manner, and best discussed, at fetal viability. JJL (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please provide references so we can discuss them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious: do you think that Williams Gynecology is wrong? NW (Talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

(undent) Yes after fetal viability it is known as "Induced fetal demise" or "Spontanous fetal demise" not an induced or spontaneous abortion. Ref [97] 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)

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)

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)

Not so fast, the ref. you provided says nothing about "induced fetal demise". DMSBel (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [[98]])62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not if you look at Talk:Abortion#On_whether_the_fetus_is_alive. JJL (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's already in the article :). NW (Talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe you should give it up before you mess it up more. DMSBel (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't see how the insults and negativity help here. JJL (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is this how you got topic banned? You are not helping. Please stop. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No "this" is me trying to figure out how 2 + 2 = 5. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That only works for large values of 2. humor ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What about 22 is less than 24? DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone please AN/I this for the Wikipedia Community to see, I am off to bed. DMSBel (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Doc James, you might find it wiser to avoid any appearance of WP:POINT DMSBel (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:MEDRS: AJOG states that abortions do happen after viability

This 2009 piece in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology advises peer doctors about the ethics of the post-viable abortions they perform http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2809%2900620-6/fulltext#sec2.3:

• "Some viable fetuses will be diagnosed to have severe anomalies. There is certainty or very high probability of a correct diagnosis and either certainty or a very high probability of death as an outcome of the anomaly diagnosed or certainty or a very high probability of severe irreversible deficit of cognitive developmental capacity as a result of the anomaly diagnosed. When these 2 clinical criteria [high certainty of correct diagnosis of severe anomaly AND very high likelihood that if born the baby would eventually die or be severely disabled due to that anomaly] apply, the beneficence-based obligation to protect and promote the fetus' health-related interests has reached its limits. Induced abortion or feticide when these criteria have been met in rigorous clinical judgment does not violate beneficence-based obligations to the fetal patient."

The title of the piece is An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide. Interestingly, according to this AJOG article a doctor who aborts a viable fetus should call it feticide, rather than abortion. If the fetus is not-viable yet, its an abortion. If the doctor performs the same procedure on a viable fetus, he calls that a feticide. (FTA: "Abortion and feticide have precise, descriptive, medical meanings. When used with precision, they can and should be distinguished from each other.") Of course, feticide and abortion have always been synonyms, so this is a distinction made by doctors for legal and ethical reasons. The upshot is that regardless of technical terminology used only by physicians (has anyone ever read or heard in any mainstream venue of a doctor performing a legal "feticide"? - no, because abortion providers and feminists would howl if that term was ever used), a really late term abortion is still an abortion. I think the way it works is that a doctor performs a feticide on the fetus in utero, then he has to remove the dead fetus from the womb.

• Is the removal of the "feticided" fetus then called an abortion?
• How is this any different than any other feticide (because any "destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus" is a feticide according to Stedmans medical dictionary, so virtually all abortions involve feticide)?

71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How you can be so cruel as to suggest that a mother should be forced to carry a severely deformed fetus to full term is beyond me. The post-viable age severely deformed fetus should not be considered viable any more than the fetus that they know will die at birth. This is not cute little Down Syndrome babies they are talking about here. Most people have no idea what a "severe deficit" looks like or acts like. Do you? I have seen hundreds of them and it would have been better if they had not been born. I have always found it odd that it is the most religious people that supposedly believe in a wonderful place called heaven that have the most trouble accepting that it would be the best place for the very sick that are ready to die and the unborn who would supossedly go straight to heaven free of sin. I for one am getting pretty sick of all this BS. Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See no such suggestion from the IP. DMSBel (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't presume what my personal feelings might be, Gandy. I have made no suggestions of any kind. There are many who advocate actively killing (such as feticide) those who have severe disabilities/deformities because they view death as better than a bad life. It is something to ponder, for sure (for gosh sakes most of us have had to face a similar choice: whether to euthanise a pet). There are many who oppose that idea, too. But all of us should be able to speak about what it is candidly (as this AJOG piece does). If you think its a good idea, then why can't we talk about what it entails?

I am offering WP:MEDRS that verifies that doctors kill post-viable fetuses in utero in one category of legal abortion (at least legal in the USA). I am also asking for clarification of the medical jargon's semantics so that our article won't rely on anything so tenuous. If you prefer not to acknowledge this information, that's your business, but it won't have any bearing on this article. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the one that refuses to accept the information. The article clearly states that a developing fetus regardless of age that has a severe irreversible deficit of cognitive developmental capacity need NOT be considered a viable fetus. And yes, I do think it's a good idea. And no I don't want to talk about it, and if I did you'd be the last person that I wanted to talk to about it. For you to argue that this is proof that doctors kill post-viable fetuses is the height of absurdity. I won't even get into your creepy comments about putting a pet to sleep. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I really am going to have to see a source that says that physicians are defining abortion incorrectly (or intentionally misleadingly) and not just have a WP:SYNTHesized argument for it. It may just be that Hard cases make bad law and also bad definitions, and that in the inherently fuzzy world of biology mixed with the variability of medical opinion this is a concern that the various orgs. and textbook authors have addressed with their choices. It may also be that even if 'abortion' is loosely used to describe some cases it isn't technically correct. We need to have a source indicating that the medical community has overlooked these cases, by an error of omission or commission, and not an argument for a Wiki-crafted defn. that is unlike any other one out there. Differing widely from the sources is antithetical to our mission here--we have to be very leery of doing so. JJL (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you won't accept sources except those that confirm your own POV. The argument for "before viability" is dead. It's a "late argument", you only had it nailed to the perch!!DMSBel (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

When an editor with a copy of Williams Obstetrics joined the discussion, what happened? We got confirmation that abortions are performed after fetal viability. The lower end of viability is earlier than upper legal limits on abortion. We have another source (BBC News) that confirms there are abortions in the UK performed after fetal viability. These are all on the current talk page, so you only need to look back. We have a third peer-reviewed source AJOG which confirms the first two. How many more would you like? DMSBel (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

"Demise" is a mealy-mouthed euphemism. Better than "viability", though! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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):

• An article in the World Health Organization's library mentions the frequency of 2nd trimester abortion: "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. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |revised= ignored (help)

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. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadlink= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

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)

Looks good. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Done. - RoyBoy 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Having looked at Britannica, I do not see one. - RoyBoy 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It doesn't limit us that 5 years ago other people thought different things. JJL (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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:

• There are thousands of scholarly publications that use the term "dead fetus" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22dead+fetus%22&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=2000&as_vis=0.
• There are over a thousand scholarly publications that use the term "death of the fetus" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22death+of+the+fetus%22&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=1992&as_vis=0
• There are hundreds of scholarly publications that use the term "fetus dies" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22fetus+dies%22+&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=1992&as_vis=0.
• There are over a hundred scholarly articles that use the term "kills the fetus" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22kills+the+fetus%22+&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=1992&as_vis=0.
• There are hundreds of scholarly publications that use the term "dead embryo" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22dead+embryo%22&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=1992&as_vis=0.
• There are over a thousand scholarly publications that use the term "death of the embryo" here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22death+of+the+embryo%22&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=1992&as_vis=0.
• A scholarly 2010 legal article titled Female Feticide in India also notes "the abuse of prenatal screening tests and abortions for sex selective termination of viable female fetuses" is a widespread problem in Asia. https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=26+Issues+L.+%26+Med.+13&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=a4f91c121bb76a2dbb87bbeffa76aaa1
• There is a very interesting article here in the journal Contraception http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(09)00519-8/abstract, that also explicitly refers to the death of the fetus during both induced intrauterine feticide or by induced caused during the induced abortion. which notes that "There is evidence that women prefer the concept of fetal death by feticide over fetal death during the process of extraction."

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I look forward to such a discussion taking place. How would you suggest we proceed? JJL (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

User:Orangemarlin has violated the general sanctions that have been imposed on this article. [NB: Orangemarlin has protected his talk page 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 IRR 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:

• OM1. Talk:Abortion 14:37, 23 June 2011 Asked a question to a poll response.
• OM2. Abortion 17:07, 26 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
• OM3. Talk:Abortion 20:47, 26 June 2011 Left comment that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM4. Talk:Abortion 01:54, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM5. Talk:Abortion 03:00, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM6. Abortion 17:10, 27 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
• OM7. Talk:Abortion 19:45, 27 June 2011 As of this date and time OrangeMarlin had left no comment about his edit to the lede.

What is more, OrangeMarlin has been disruptive in this topic area by engaging in an 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)

Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)