Talk:Abortion

Archives
Topical subpages

New article for definitions?

I just read through the archive and am sure that I am missing something obvious, but has anyone previously proposed creating Definitions of abortion? The note on this article is wonderfully well researched but I doubt that many readers follow the link. I'd be happy to copy its content to the new page but given the sensitivity of the topic I don't want to do so without some form of consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions would count only as primary sources for such an article. While I'm not entirely sure about notability requirements for subarticles, I think we would need to find secondary sources that discuss any disagreement among sources to create such an article. NW (Talk) 05:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. I'll search the literature and see if I can find secondary sources talking about different definitions in a notable manner. If I do, I'll sandbox it and come back here for input. Andrew³²⁷ 05:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Check it out and tell me what you think! I included nine reliable secondary sources that refer to problems that arise from different definitions of abortion. I could find more, but it's starting to get late in my area. I'm open to suggestions. Andrew³²⁷ 07:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is worth it to have a separate article. Perhaps a subsection in Abortion#Types would work better instead? NW (Talk) 12:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This amounts to moving the note. I agree it's a bit unwieldy but lots of contentious terms have varying definitions, I'd imagine (euthanasia, rape, ...). Is there precedent among terms like that for this? I'm not so much opposed as unmotivated here. JJL (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is well done, but given variations, contexts and controversy of the topic / word; it runs a risk of being fork or worse... just a list! Ahhhhh, run! The best path could be something similar to Definition of marriage, thought that could constrain the sub-topic, and I'm fairly sure a sub-section was brought up several times in the past lead debate(s). - RoyBoy 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Section and illustration for medically necessary abortions needs to be added

I am appalled to find out that File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg was removed from this article as "atypical" for the specific lead image spot it was to go in. Regardless, it is a beautiful image. And the reason why it belongs is that you don't have a section that lays out all the reasons why abortions are held to be medically necessary, for which this would be a perfect example. For example, the photo describes the complete removal of the uterus after cervical cancer was diagnosed. Clearly there are few issues more important to abortion debates, nor which have so much potential to find common ground otherwise warring factions, than what circumstances make the action medically necessary, and "how" medically necessary it really is, and so forth. The topic deserves a book - at least, it deserves a section. But given how much strange discussion I see here, before trying to make one I should first ask - did such a section exist in this article at any point in the past? Wnt (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I took a stab at this [1] - though I rushed a bit; I've done better. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the reason that image was not used in that article is because of significant ethical concerns about using an image like that without documented medical consent. Accordingly, I am removing it as per multiple past discussions. Additionally, this is a top level article on abortion. While abortion and cancer is certainly a worthwhile article for the encyclopedia to have, I just wonder whether it is a good idea for this particular article to focus so much on it when the subarticle isn't even developed yet. NW (Talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see very little discussion of "ethics" in the last archive [2] when according to the discussion it apparently was removed by means of some person(s) winning an edit war and getting the article protected in the state they wanted. It was rejected in the lead image discussion [3] but I see at least two editors who thought it was good for a non-lead placement and one who thought it was atypical for abortion, but of course, here I want to cover precisely that atypical kind of abortion. Placing it there kind of explains to people how there are occasional oddball images floating around the web of a fetus neatly in its sac after an abortion.

More importantly, I see no relevance of "ethics" here in the first place. In discussions like at Rorschach test, we have, in no uncertain terms, told relevant professional organizations we don't care about their ethics. Which is absolutely the right thing to do. If they want to let us write our own prescriptions and get paid $50,000 or more a year to sit around in a room spouting out vapid ideas about why it's wrong to show people what an embryo in its sac looks like, then we might talk. But for now, we should stick only to valid policy or guideline based arguments, and I don't see any.

I don't think abortion and cancer is quite ready for its own article - at some point it surely ought to be, but right now I can still picture an AfD putting it right back here again. I had in mind to look up some other things like eclampsia at some point, and if I get near having a whole section that systematically covers all the medical reasons why someone would have an abortion, then I can think of a name for it and spin it off and summary-style it here. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the image was removed because "some person won an edit war", then I think you've badly misread the history of the article. The article has been in a stable state without that image for quite some time now. Of course, consensus can change, and we could decide to use an image in the lead - but for that to happen, we need to have a serious discussion. The Rorschach situation is a poor analogy; here, the ethical concern is displaying an aborted fetus on a high-profile article on a top-ten website with no indication that the mother has consented to, or is even aware, of that usage. That concern plays directly into WP:BLP; we have an obligation to consider the avoidable harm our edits can inflict on real, living people. There were also other rationales voiced for excluding the picture, but that was mine and might serve as one starting point for a discussion. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How does BLP enter into this? I don't think the embryo qualifies, and we aren't making any statements about the mother (I don't think anyone even knows who she is). Wnt (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere out there, there is a woman who found out she was pregnant, and shortly thereafter found out that she had cancer. She was told that as a result of the required treatment for her cancer, she would not only lose the pregnancy, but also her chances of ever having children in the future. I don't know if you've ever been involved in a situation like that; if not, trust me that the emotional impact is extreme.

Now, after her pregnancy was terminated, someone took a picture of the fetus and posted it on Flickr (an action which raises all kinds of questions in its own right). We have no idea whether she consented to having that picture taken or published. You're proposing that we use that picture here, on a top-ten website, without any indication that the woman in question has consented to that use. What happens if/when she comes across the picture? Does she have any reasonable expectation of privacy - any expectation that a medical photograph taken under unclear conditions during what is probably the most traumatic experience of her life isn't going to be blithely republished and viewed by thousands of people? I'm going to trust that most people are capable of empathy to the extent that they understand why using this picture creates potential problems. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a picture of her. It's not a picture anyone can use to identify her. I don't think anyone can identify the embryo from the picture - not even her. The only way she could possibly know that was a picture of her embryo is if she already saw the picture, say, to sign a release for publishing it. And even if the picture would potentially cause her distress, some people would still argue that the embryo had its own distress to think about, and would have wanted someone to take a picture of it. But meanwhile, why was the picture taken in the first place? Maybe she wanted someone to get some educational good out of her cancer ordeal - why else was somebody taking snapshots in the operating room? I should note that the Flickr uploader identifies herself as a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology in India; I see no special reason to assume she didn't post that picture within medical ethics at least as people there practice it. Your ethical worries seem positively mythical, absurd, irrelevant. In any case, I think ethics we need on Wikipedia are much more straightforward: to educate. And while there is a policy WP:BLP, that policy is not a policy against including any information that conceivably, somehow, could remind someone who isn't mentioned in an article of a bad time in their lives. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a great image and is of educational value. I do not think the consent issue is significant personally as the image is none identifiable. As long as the image does not identify a person it can be used without written consent. However I do not feel it is representative of abortion and thus would not consider it appropriate for the lead of this article. Should be within the article on fetal development may be. However there are already a number of similar images there. Should we look for an image for the lead of this article? I would be supportive of further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, my use (since reverted) was as the sixth figure - see [4]. Personally I'm not that interested in what the lead image is, just the image for the new section - and actually, by now I'm more interested expanding the text of that section, but fortunately I didn't run into opposition with that. Doc, as long as you're watching this article - can you think of a good scientific review, or perhaps some other kind of document developed to inform abortion politics, that would list all of the medical reasons to recommend abortion in one place? Wnt (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a difficult question. Of course psychiatry is within medicine. Is mental illness a justification for recommending an abortion? Maybe for some, maybe due to the meds the person may be taking. "medically necessary" is more of a legal term which is poorly defined [5]. This book discusses both the psychological and non psychological reasons. [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No surprise here that this image was removed. Reading the article itself, it's easy to determine why the folks controlling this page didn't want anyone to see such an image. I would also suggest that a diagram of a partial birth abortion be included also. Why not video of an abortion via a link with a warning? I doubt such things will ever be allowed to appear, since this is such a biased article that only presents one side of this issue. But it is at least worthwhile to have it on the record here so that others can see what is going on. Maybe I'm wrong, but let's see.. YourHumanRights (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Stages figure

I've just written a Module:Block diagram that can replace figures like the one at right. Hopefully this is more legible, and note the Wikilinks work.

Currently in the article

I've just now gotten the bugs I know of out of it, so I should probably ask what people think before I make the switch ;) Here's the smaller version I have in mind to squeeze into the right-hand column:

 

 

 

Practice of Induced Abortion Methods

MVA

D&E

EVA

Hysterotomy

D&C

Intact D&X

Mifepr.

Induced Miscarr.

0-12 weeks

12-28 weeks

28-40 weeks

 

 

Practice of Induced Abortion Methods

MVA

D&E

EVA

Hysterotomy

D&C

Intact D&X

Mifepr.

Induced Miscarr.

0-12 weeks

12-28 weeks

28-40 weeks

Gestational age may determine which abortion methods are practiced.

I also have a larger version on the talk page at Module talk:Block diagram. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This would be neat. Would it be possible to get a border around it? NW (Talk) 19:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made a small change in the text input above - is that good enough? Wnt (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

On second thought I came up with a way to annotate it like an image. (I should make a template to do this, and was going to at Template:Pseudo image, but the File: syntax is so involved I just haven't worked myself up to drudge through it - probably need a Lua script just to unravel the parameters, and stuff like the vertical align options... well, anyway, I'll see if I get more ambitious. Anyway... the lower right-hand "image" is probably what I'll use. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've tried this out now.[7] Please let me know - and many apologies! - if something looks bad on certain browsers/skins/etc. This relies on a pile of new code - Template:Pseudo image, Module:Pseudo image, and Module:Block diagram - and admittedly, they're all about alpha version level of completeness. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty awesome! Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Having an abortion dramatically increases the risk for preterm birth afterward. This in turn leads to greater incidence of maternal mortality, infant mortality, low birth weight, autism, developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy, etc.

This article reads from start to finish like it was written by the director of an abortion facility, and leaves out so much science and so many facts (those that such a person would likely find troubling) that the biggest problem here is knowing where to even start. But let's start with this one, already present on the preterm birth article. People can of course disagree with whether abortion is morally defensible, but deliberately suppressing medical science to do so is absurd under any circumstance. This is especially true given the gravity of this issue, and the results it has already had on many people. Mechanisms include damage done to the cervix as it is forced open, knives pushed through, and the infant's body parts dragged or sucked out. The greater incidence of infections are also suspected here, which also lead to some women who undergo abortions never being able to carry a child to term again in the future.

List of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for Low Birth Weight and Preterm Birth, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB. " http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract "Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572 "Women with a history of induced abortion were at higher risk of very preterm delivery than those with no such history (OR + 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.0); the risk was even higher for extremely preterm deliveries (<28 weeks)" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x/abstract "This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved." This study showed that women who gave birth between 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy were 40% more likely to have had a previous abortion, and mothers who gave birth to extremeley preterm infants from 22 to 27 weeks were 70% more likely to have had an abortion. http://journals.lww.com/obgynsurvey/Abstract/2005/10000/Previous_Induced_Abortions_and_the_Risk_of_Very.3.aspx "A consent form that simply lists such items as "incompetent cervix" or "infection" as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts" http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf "Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998979 "The latest statistics in the USA (2007) show a preterm (less than 37 weeks) birth rate of 12.6%. Of these, Early Preterm Birth (EPB—under 32 weeks, infants weighing under 1500 grams, or about three pounds.) is at 7.8%, the highest rate in the past 30 years of stats. As noted in the studies above, previous induced abortions’ have an inordinately increased association with “extreme” (<27 wk) and “early”(<32 wk) premature deliveries (compared to 32 – 37 week premature births.) Thus, it follows that abortion will also have an inordinately increased association with cerebral palsy and other disabilities linked to extreme prematurity." http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-pre-term-birth/general-comments-on-the-increased-risk/ Of the first-time mothers, 10.3% (n = 31 083) had one, 1.5% had two and 0.3% had three or more Induced Abortions (IAs). Most IAs were surgical (88%) performed before 12 weeks (91%) and carried out for social reasons (97%). After adjustment, perinatal deaths and very preterm birth (<28 gestational week) suggested worse outcomes after IA. Increased odds for very preterm birth were seen in all the subgroups and exhibited a dose–response relationship: 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.44] after one IA, 1.69 (1.14–2.51) after two and 2.78 (1.48–5.24) after three IAs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22933527 Thirty-seven studies of low-moderate risk of bias were included. A history of one Induced Termination of Pregnancy (I-TOP) was associated with increased unadjusted odds of Low Birth Weight (LBR) (Odds Ratio 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval 1.20-1.52) and Preterm Birth (PT) (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.50), but not Small for Gestational Age (SGA) (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09). A history of more than one I-TOP was associated with LBW (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.45-2.04) and PT (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28-2.71). Meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates confirmed these findings. A previous I-TOP is associated with a significantly increased risk of LBW and PT but not SGA. The risk increased as the number of I-TOP increased. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0028978/

The abortion/preterm birth link has been established in so many published studies that - here again - it is difficult to find a beginning and an end. There was a study published in the NEJM that suggested the link was false, but that study was very small, it's own data showed a small increased risk, and the methodology was completely flawed from the start because it did NOT count Danish women who had abortions before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Yes, it failed to consider that an American court precedent had no bearing on women in DENMARK - who had been having legal abortions for years before 1/73! Why this was the one study published in the NEJM medicine says much more about that publication than it does the actual science.

I suggest we start with this. Because it is at least tied with the most important omission in the article for anyone trying to get reliable and unbiased information on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourHumanRights (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your belief that induced abortion involves "knives pushed through" the cervix leads me to question your understanding of the procedure. And your belief that a pro-life advocacy group (AAPLOG) is more scientifically reliable than the New England Journal of Medicine leads me to question your understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines. But leaving that aside for a moment...

our site guidelines on medical content generally discourage the selective citation of individual journal articles, as you've done above, because it is trivially easy to support all kinds of ideas by cherry-picking the medical literature. Instead, we look at how reputable expert groups have synthesized the evidence. Do you have some such sources you'd like to present? I understand that there's a political effort to publicize this idea, and that such political efforts often coincide with a drive to raise the visibility of an aspect of this topic on Wikipedia, but it's probably best to focus on what reputable expert groups have to say here.

I'll give you an example to start the discussion. Guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state: "Women should be informed that there are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility... Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions. However, there is insufficient evidence to imply causality." ([8]) I haven't exhaustively reviewed other expert bodies (e.g. ACOG, the WHO, etc.), but I suspect they've reached similar conclusions given the conflicting literature (only one side of which you've highlighted above). MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are unaware of what a curette is, it is an abortion instrument that has looped knives on the end of it to cut the infant off of the uterine wall. When necessary, these are also used to dismember him or her to ease removal from his or her mother. Knives are are sharpened metal blades used for cutting through flesh (in this case), and such knives are what is found at the end of curettes. Naturally, they must first be inserted through the cervix - which itself has been forced open in most all abortion procedures. I hope that clears up any confusion regarding the actual mechanics of the procedure.

AAPLOG is a group of over 2,500 OB/GYN's. If you doubt their honesty or the reliability of their work, or their meta analysis of the published literature on this topic, then by all means feel free to point out the errors they have made therein. I did so and pointed out a rather laughable flaw in one study published in the NEJM. I invite you to critique that as well. Suggesting that one group of doctors is dishonest but that others are not is one thing. Being able to demonstrate that is very much another. I have done my part. In addition to other peer reviewed published studies on this topic, I have included three meta-analyses. That is, detailed analysis of multiple studies. Here again, if all these META-analyses are completely wrong regarding the published science here, then perhaps you can share with everyone why that is? I invite you (and anyone else) to do so, as I am sure all those involved in those studies would as well. You understand that a meta-analysis is a far better determining tool in science than a single study, right?

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ACOG are both groups of doctors who advocate for abortion on demand, and indeed include many of the doctors who routinely perform them in two countries where abortion is commonplace. You can suggest that their conclusions are superior to those of other groups of doctors who have different political opinions, but here again that is merely an accusation made on your part that - so far at least - has no date or methodology behind it. But yet, the RCOG quote you included itself recognizes the link between abortion and preterm birth! The expert groups that you prefer are acknowledging the link, as are the ones you dismiss (without any scientific reasons to dismiss them beyond their political stances).

Again, I invite you or anyone to demonstrate why and how it is that both AAPLOG, RCOG, and the AAPS are all groups of doctors who have this issue totally wrong. Unless someone can do so, then this very important health risk needs to be included in this article. Calhoun, Shadigian, and Rooney have concluded from their meta-analyses of published medical studies on this topic that abortion can be attributed to an increase of 31.5% in the rate of early preterm births (less than 32 weeks gestation). Statistically speaking, it is thus probable that hundreds of thousands of children – at the very least – are now needlessly living with various mild to severe birth defects due directly to their mother’s previous abortion(s). Meanwhile, the total preterm birth rate for women in America prior to 1970 was approximately 6%; preliminary data for 2010 indicates a preterm birth rate of 11.99%.

I don't think that - especially given the gravity of these issues - that all the meta-analyses and doctors groups can or should be able to be kept quiet because some you or anyone has decided to dismiss them. Either you can demonstrate why and how they are all wrong, or it is you that is wrong. I think you are wrong, and the doctors groups and published science is correct. I invite you to show me and everyone else that I am incorrect. In the meantime, the abortion/preterm birth link has already been accepted on the page regarding preterm birth. And it should be included and accepted here on this page as soon as possible also. YourHumanRights (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what a curette is. It's quite different from a knife. For example, curettes are used to remove impacted earwax, but the procedure is not generally described as "shoving a knife into your ear canal". Furthermore, the vast majority of induced abortions in the Western world are not performed via curettage; they are either medically induced or performed via vacuum aspiration. Were you aware of that? Actually, don't answer that, it's irrelevant.

Your posts are composed of 90% politically-charged rhetoric and 10% substance, which is a suboptimal ratio. Insofar as the substance of your post, you are free to make the case that ACOG, RCOG, or the WHO are unreliable sources of medical information. You are free to make the case that the New England Journal of Medicine is a biased and unreliable source of medical information. I don't think you'll get much traction, but it's your time. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sharpened metal edges used to cut flesh are knives, regardless of their configuration. Any further debate on such a topic is a nonsensical waste of time. It would be like debating if a knife handle was part of a knife, or of a scalpel was a knife or not. I can provide a link to videos of these knives in abortion action if anyone really wants me to, but I doubt anyone will find this particular tangent about knives interesting.

My posts have dealt very deliberately with the published science regarding this topic, and in particular with the meta-analyses thereof. Much as you would like to dismiss all of it and insult me personally for trying to make this being biased and incomplete article factually correct, I will remind you that even the RCOG guide you provided yourself said the following:

"Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions."

MastCell, you seem to be very keen here that people NOT be informed of any such thing in this article. So, it is YOU that is disagreeing with RCOG regarding this issue - not me. Furthermore, I challenged you to discredit the three meta-analyses that have been published - none of which have been challenged and unpublished. You clearly want no part of that. I have backed my claims up here with lots of published science. You have backed up your wish to keep this issue off of this page with a PDF from a doctor's group who themselves say that "Women should be informed.." So, you really haven't come up with ANYTHING to counter my claims here.

Because you think that you can simply declare that one group of doctors is unreliable and other groups are, that doesn't make any of your claims true. Again, if you can explain how and why all the meta-analyses on this topic are all completely wrong - please do so. If you cannot, then don't expect everyone else to simply take your word for it. That's not how science works. Science works by challenging the published and per reviewed literature, and clearly you cannot. I didn't say that RCOG was wrong, although they may indeed be bending as much as they can to keep the numbers and the risk as low as they can given their political position on the topic. On the contrary, I am trying to get what RCOG and other groups of doctors have had to say on this topic into this article. the bottom line is that the article gets much better if we include what the published science has to say..

YourHumanRights (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread is fringe nonsense written by someone unfamiliar (and seemingly uninterested) with how Wikipedia works (look at the length of the title!) and pushing a blatant, unacceptable POV. It should be at least hatted, or probably better, deleted right now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see one review article in the list and summary of it recommends caution. "This review concluded that the risk of a child having a low birth weight or preterm birth increased for women with a history of pregnancy termination compared with those without such a history. This conclusion should be treated with caution due to the presence of clinical heterogeneity, confounders, and publication bias between the studies." We typically just go with just high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading this one article would give anyone a firm idea of how wikipedia works with regard to controversial topics. That is, one side will get to use the article as an advertisement, and the article itself will be "protected" from edits by those up the wiki food chain. We can attempt to twist words this way or that way, but I certainly am not doubting this medical science when one commenter after another fails to offer up anything whatsoever to refute it. Scientific debates usually involve quoting competing published studies, but nobody seems to be able to even come up with a meta-analysis that would attempt to make the other three vanish somehow. It seems those opposing including the published science here cannot find a single meta-analysis to henpick themselves..

I'll separate the three meta-analyses below. Please, anybody, post a meta-anaysis that refutes these conclusions if indeed you can find one. Please also have a look at the numbers regarding the increased risks inside these analyses of the published literature. Do they look "small" to you? If they do, I guess the next question would be what the definition of "small" is.. In my opinion, a risk that doubles is not a small increased risk.

"Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572

Thirty-seven studies of low-moderate risk of bias were included. A history of one Induced Termination of Pregnancy (I-TOP) was associated with increased unadjusted odds of Low Birth Weight (LBR) (Odds Ratio 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval 1.20-1.52) and Preterm Birth (PT) (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.50), but not Small for Gestational Age (SGA) (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09). A history of more than one I-TOP was associated with LBW (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.45-2.04) and PT (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28-2.71). Meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates confirmed these findings.

A previous I-TOP is associated with a significantly increased risk of LBW and PT but not SGA. The risk increased as the number of I-TOP increased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0028978/

A literature review retrieved 49 studies that demonstrated at least 95 percent confidence in an increased risk of preterm birth (PB), or surrogates such as low birth weight or second-trimester spontaneous abortion, in association with previous induced abortions. A list of these studies, which probably does not comprise all such studies, is appended to this article. If these 49 statistically significant associations were the result of chance alone, as may happen in 5 of 100 tests, IA should be associated with a reduction in PBs, with P<.05, in an equivalent number of tests. Not one such instance has been found in the literature.”

"A consent form that simply lists such items as "incompetent cervix" or "infection" as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts"

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

YourHumanRights (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

YourHumanRights - please stop wasting your time and ours. The changes you're asking for are not going to get into the article. This is a reality. You may see this as some sort of evil conspiracy, and you are entitled to that view (I think you're wrong, of course), but whatever the reason, you're wasting your time. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Are the cited studies looking at curettage? The available methods differ greatly, and if curettage is folded into the statistics then such numbers are not relevant to aspiration or other methods. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And, once again, the opponents of the published science regarding this topic can offer no science of their - just personal insults and a very open and proud declaration that anyone actually presenting the facts here is wasting their time. Why would presenting scientific facts be a waste of anyone's time if this supposedly is a site dedicated to doing exactly that?

Binksternet, some of the studies do indeed separate the methods of abortion, but others do not. Indeed, we are speaking of surgical abortions here rather than chemical abortions that poison, kill, then expel the infant (and have occasionally also killed mothers such as Holly Patterson).

The latest published study on this topic comes from McGill College in Canada just a few months ago. They found the same results as just about everyone before them has in their study of 17,916 women's reproductive histories.

"Women who reported one prior induced abortion were more likely to have premature births by 32, 28, and 26 weeks; adjusted odds ratios were 1.45 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.90), 1.71 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.42), and 2.17 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.35), respectively. This association was stronger for women with two or more previous induced abortions."

http://jogc.com/abstracts/201302_Obstetrics_5.pdf

I have now provided TEN sources. Zero have been presented to refute these ten, and indeed none of them have been challenged and unpublished. Oh, and this will not be a waste of time - one way or the other.. I am well aware that the likelihood is that those who wish to keep women in the dark about this due to their affinity for abortion on demand will ultimately make this entire thread vanish. I hope that they realize what a cruel thing that would be to do and not do that, but I am keeping a careful record of every word posted here. In the event that those near the top of the wikipedia pyramid of editors want to use their delete buttons, there will be a detailed record of how this went down that I will be happy to share in the blogosphere.

YourHumanRights (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)