Talk:Late termination of pregnancy/Archive 1

Redirect?

Should this page just be a redirect to Partial-birth abortion, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If this article cannot be expaned, then possibly. However, PBA sometimes refers to one specific late term abortion procedure (IDX). So the terms are not always synonymous.--Andrew c 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we have separate articles on PBA, IDX and D&E, as well as this one, which has virtually no content. Those three are all fine, and the one on PBA is really on Late-term abortion. Should we delete this one and move PBA to this title, rewording the lead accordingly? I guess we ought to see what they think over at Talk:Partial-birth abortion... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

An editor recently reverted an edit that I made at this page, and I would like to request some further explanation. This is an unusual case where I briefly cited something that I myself had written, among other edits. However, I don't see why it was inappropriate. The relevant Wikipedia policies are as follows:

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion.

And...

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

How were these policies violated?Ferrylodge 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Severa dropped me a note about this, and I've looked at the content in question. I can see how this self-citation could be seen as a conflict of interest. The relevant policy would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. I see that the editor has published in FindLaw his view that "late-term abortion" should be defined in a particular way. However, is this view significant in the debate over late-term abortions? Is anybody else making this claim? If an encyclopedia article is only going to mention 3 different definitions of "late-term abortion", should this be one of them? (20th week, 27th week, and eighth week?)

Part of NPOV is presenting different viewpoints in a way that somehow reflects the proportion in which they are held. It's not clear to me how widely held the viewpoint in question is, and in such circumstances, a self-citation is less than optimal for demonstrating that it's a significant view. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am happy to defer to the conclusion that my self-cite would be better left out of this article.

However, one thing still puzzles me. This article starts off by saying, "Late-term abortions are abortions which are performed during the late stages of pregnancy." If one clicks on that link, one finds this definition of abortion: "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation." These two Wikipedia statements are grossly inconsistent. In other words, if "late-term abortions" can only occur after 5 months (according to this article), but only include procedures performed before five months (according to the main article on abortion), then we have an absurdity.Ferrylodge 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! So a "late-term abortion" isn't, strictly speaking, an "abortion" at all, according to these two definitions. The abortion article does note that, commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced procedure at any point during pregnancy. Since Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia, we try to strike a balance between using medically precise terminology, and using terminology that will make sense to general audiences. Perhaps in this case, there's a better way to walk that fine line. Maybe the lead in this article could point out that wrinkle in the language, in the context of talking about different definitions of "late-term abortion"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the title in this article's very first reference: "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy" (JAMA. 1998;280:744-747). It seems clear that the medical definition presented at abortion is inconsistent with the medical definition of the word "abortion" used in this title. Yet, I have encountered strong resistance whenever I have tried to point out this defect in the abortion article.Ferrylodge 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the abortion article has been the topic of a lot of contention. Have you seen Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and its five pages of archives?

I'm not surprised if you encounter resistance trying to change that paragraph, because many of the regular contributors have been burned out on the argument, which seems capable of taking all energy away from other parts of the article, if we let it. The fact is that definitions vary widely, even within the medical community, and that the definition of the term is a topic of controversy.

You can see the problem: It's awkward to get more than a sentence into the article without presenting some definition. On the other hand, we can't neutrally present the definition favored by one "side" as the only correct one, or even the most correct (primary) one. On the other hand (one must be an octopus to keep track of this dispute), if we begin the article by talking about the definition controversy and trying to give appropriate weight to different views, then we give undue weight to that part of the debate, by presenting it very first in the article. I don't know what the solution is - maybe there's a simple way to rephrase the lead of abortion that would indicate a range of medical definitions, instead of a single one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the intro at stillbirth can serve as a model for the intro at abortion. Here's the intro at stillbirth, which lets the reader know right up front that the definition is somewhat nuanced:

“ A stillbirth occurs when a fetus which has died in the womb or during labour or delivery exits its mother's body. The term is often used in distinction to live birth or miscarriage. Some sources reserve the term "stillbirth" for a fetus which has died after reaching mid-second trimester to full term gestational age. For example, in the United Kingdom, "stillbirth" is used to describe an infant delivered without life after 24 weeks gestation. The sources that use this definition tend to use the term "miscarriage" if the death occurs earlier in development. In contrast, other sources use the term "stillbirth" regardless of the stage of fetal development. ”

We did have a section later in the stillbirth article that went into greater detail, but unfortunately it's been deleted, and even this intro at stillbirth seems to still be the subject of some contention.

Part of the problem here is that medical definitions are being formulated for social reasons. See here, for example, regarding the definitions of "conception" and "pregnancy." Doubtless, the same social forces have attempted to influence the definition of "abortion." It's important for Wikipedia to not take sides.Ferrylodge 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus's conclusions above. If a unique definition is going to be included, it should probably be one advanced by more than a single source, to meet standards of Notability, Undue weight, and NOR. -Severa (!!!) 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, as you know perfectly well, I did not advocate a "unique" definition. I advocated explaining that there are "non-unique" medical definitions.Ferrylodge 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I do not think that there is cause for placing the term "late-term abortion" within scarequotes in the introduction or for refering to it as a "non-medical term." In the case of "partial-birth abortion," a citation is provided, establishing the fact that the term is not accepted by the medical community. This has not been done in this case, and, per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS, a source would be need to verify the claims. A slightly different version of the term ("later-" instead of "late-") has been used by the Guttmacher Institute in one of its publications: "State Policies on Later-term Abortion." -Severa (!!!) 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and will edit the article accordingly.Ferrylodge 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now a Hatnote template in the article: {{See also|Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act}} halfway down the page. I'm going to put partial-birth abortion back as one of the primary alternative names. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 01:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 16-Week Definition

This edit should be reverted, IMHO.

The issue here is how various sources define the non-medical term "late" abortion. Four sources were cited in the present article. One source said an abortion after 16 weeks, another said an abortion after 27 weeks, and two more said an abortion after 20 weeks. The edit in question deleted only the “16 weeks” definition, and left the “20 week” and “27 week” figures in the article.

The 16-week figure was footnoted: Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions", Family Planning Perpectives, 20 (4) Jul/Aug 1988, pp 169-176. This prominent article is also cited elsewhere in the present Wikipedia article.

The edit deleting the “16 week” figure was explained with the following summary: “WP:NPOV#Undue weight: Present views in proportion to their acceptance among experts. A pre-20 week def. was expressed by 1 source, post-20 week defs. by 3 sources.”

This is a misapplication of the “Undue Weight” guideline. The edit completely silences the view that an abortion at 16 weeks may be considered “late.” According to the WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy, “the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints.” (Incidentally, this Wikipedia policy does not say anything about “acceptance among experts” when dealing with non-medical terms, as suggested by the edit summary.)

The edit deleting the “16-week” figure in the present article did not delete the “27 week” figure, which is an uncommon figure. Moreover, the 16-week figure is not a tiny-minority view. It was published in a prominent article that had already been cited elsewhere in this Wikipedia article, and that also appears in other sources.

Since there is a two-week differential between “weeks of gestation” and “gestational age”, some sources use an “18-week” figure to define “late” abortion in terms of gestational age, which is equivalent to a “16 week” figure in terms of weeks of gestation. For example: [1].

There are further sources that define “late” abortion as any abortion after the first trimester: “Early abortion is an abortion that occurs before the 12th completed week of gestation (84 days); late abortion is an abortion that occurs after the 12th completed week but before the beginning of the 20th week of gestation (85–134 days). See Encyclopedia Britannica Online. This is not an uncommon definition. Also see Vivian Wahlberg, Memories After Abortion (Radcliffe 2006): “Late abortion is an abortion that takes place after the beginning of week 13 of pregnancy.”

So, the deleted information should be restored, and I will edit the article accordingly. If there are any objections, I would hope that there will be further discussion rather than edits without discussion.Ferrylodge 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I now notice that this sentence was inserted at the end of the paragraph: "A 1994 article in Family Planning Perspectives used the term "late" in reference to abortion after sixteen weeks." I will adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material

Andrew c, you say that the following statements are supported by the Guttmacher brochure titled "State Policies On Later-Term Abortions":

(1) Many of the 36 state bans are believed to be unconstitutional by pro-choice organizations.

(2) 13 states define viability as a certain number of weeks' gestation.

(3) Supreme Court rulings say that the attending physician must be allowed to determine viability in each specific case.

(4) Requiring a second physician to approve of the reason for a later-term abortion is specifically prohibited in Court rulings.

Where does the brochure support any of these statements (1) or (2)? And where does the brochure cite any authority for statements (3) or (4)?Ferrylodge 06:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict](1)Nonetheless, statutes conflicting with the Supreme Court’s requirements remain on the books in some states. and like I said in my edit summary, this assumes that Guttmacher is "pro-choice organizations".

(2) 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester. 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24. 5+8=13. Sentence may need to be slightly revised because trimester vs. weeks. The point is to contrast time specific laws vs. a doctors call on 'viability'.

(3)only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes ... when a fetus is viable;

(4)states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

Hope this helps.-Andrew c 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the citations at the bottom of the page. Read any of them, and you will find well sourced citations of authorities, such as the following in regards to (3): In the years following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court clarified the physician’s role in determining when a fetus is viable. In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976), the Court declared, “The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician.” The Court rejected as unconstitutional fixed gestational limits, saying that “it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which is essentially a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period.” In Colautti v. Franklin (1979), a challenge to a Pennsylvania law, the Court reaffirmed the principles established in Roe and Danforth and elaborated on its views concerning viability: “Because this point [viability] may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability— be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor—as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” The Court thus upheld the lower court in saying that it is the professional responsibility of the physician to determine whether the fetus has the capacity for “meaningful life, not merely temporary survival." and regarding (4): Two years later, in Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down a provision of the Georgia abortion statute that required two independent physicians to confirm the attending doctor’s determination that continuation of a pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or injure her health. “The attending physician’s ‘best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary’… should be sufficient,” the Court said. -Andrew c 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that Wikipedia should unquestioningly repeat assertions by a pro-choice legal advocacy group. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests. See Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). It is unclear whether any of the 13 states that prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks deny that opportunity.

Ten states require a second physician to approve of the reason for at least some abortions (e.g. post-viability abortions). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice." See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The Court has apparently not spoken about a requirement that only one other physician approve of reasons for a post-viability abortion. On the contrary, the Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus. See Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 486-90 (1983).

Given these uncertainties, it is original research for Wikipedia to come up with a list of sixteen states that have valid bans. Not even Guttmacher asserted that these are the only states with valid bans. I'll edit the article accordingly.Ferrylodge 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that reading a chart is original research, but I"m not sure how important it is to list the 16 states, so I'll let this one slide for now. However, citing Webster and then stating "It is unclear whether those 13 states deny that opportunity" is original research. The Missouri law in question explicitly said "specifies that a physician, prior to performing an abortion on any woman whom he has reason to believe is 20 or more weeks pregnant, must ascertain whether the fetus is "viable" by performing "such medical examinations and tests as are necessary to make a finding of [the fetus'] gestational age, weight, and lung maturity" while laws like the Utah Code say c The Utah code never once mentions viability, nor does it mention a doctors responsibility in determining viability. We have a source claiming these laws are unconstitutional, and we have no source disputing that, excepting your interpretation of unrelated caselaw. While I would not oppose qualifying that this is the belief of Guttmacher, we cannot attempt to rebut their belief without supplying a reliable source. Interpreting caselaw in this matter is original research. -Andrew c 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, first of all, the article discusses what pro-choice organizations believe, and also discusses what the Guttmacher organization believes. You have apparently deleted the part that mentions Guttmacher is one of those pro-choice organizations. I will reinsert that.

Regarding your research into the content of the Utah Code, thanks for that interesting info about one of the 13 states at issue. However, your research does not prove your point. The Utah Code says, "After 20 weeks gestational age, measured from the date of conception, an abortion may be performed only for those purposes and circumstances described in Subsections (2)(a), (d), and (e)." What do Subsections 2a, 2d, and 2e say? Has Guttmacher analyzed or mentioned those subsections? Moreover, if the Due Process Clause of the US Constitutiuon says that doctors must be given an opportunity to rebut the 20-week presumption of viability, then why can't the Utah Code be interpreted so that this exception supplements whatever exceptions are in Subsections 2a, 2d, and 2e? This article should not portray Guttmacher as a neutral party here, and must not pretend that Guttmacher has denied there is a rebuttability exception to Utah's 20-week standard. I disagree strongly with slanting this article in that fashion. And where has Guttmacher analyzed the rebuttability in other states?Ferrylodge 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have linked to the code for you to read yourself. The subsection are on incest, rape, life exceptions. Like I said, viability isn't mentioned once. Here is the code. All I am saying is that the Missouri law specifically and explicitly stated that it'd assume 20 week was the cut off point for viability unless a doctor's examination proves others. It clearly states that viability is still determined by the doctor, and that is what the court found acceptable under Webster. On the other hand, the Utah law says nothing on this matter, except that abortions cannot be performed after 20 weeks. No mention of doctors prerogative, no mention of viability. This is what Guttmacher claims is unconstitutional. Simple solution to this issue is to find a source that contradicts Guttmacher and site it as well. I have tried to make it clear that the unconstitutional claims are those of the GI and other pro-choice organizations. It is important to make it clear that these assessments aren't necessarily true, and that they are coming from partisan sources. I think we agree on a lot of the basics, but I don't think our personal interpretations of the laws and the courts belong in the article. The answer to a questionable source is making sure we present their views neutrally (that they are qualified and attributed), and to find counter sources. -Andrew c 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if the Due Process Clause of the US Constitutiuon requires that doctors must be given an opportunity to rebut the 20-week presumption of viability, then why can't the Utah Code be interpreted so that this exception supplements whatever exceptions are in Subsections 2a, 2d, and 2e? The Guttmacher document does not reject such an interpretation. Why put words in Guttmacher's mouth?Ferrylodge 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is it's ok to present the 'rebuttal' to Guttmacher because you personally have a superior understanding of the 13 State codes, and the Supreme Court rulings. While this may in fact be true, it doesn't help us here at wikipedia. I'm just saying, cite a source to support your personal interpretation of these laws/decisions. We can't just give the laws the benefit of the doubt for no good reason when we have multiple sources call these laws unconstitutional. Why not find sources that say "wait a minute, these pro-choice groups are wrong because these laws are constitutional because X". -Andrew c 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

_-->>>I cant believe that individuals like Andrew above with no qualifications what so ever are commenting on medical articles. I wish Wikipedia would make it clear that they allow anyone edit and that many of the people editing simply have too much time on their hands and a political bent. I suggest those of us with science backgrounds start editing the art pages. Why not---we had fine arts appreciation. These people dont need to be right...they just need to have lots of time to edit back and forth and insure getting the last word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedTraining (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week"

Querying this. I challenge anyone to find a pregnancy which survived birth previous to week 20, ever recorded in any medical literature (and if it happened, it would make one heck of a splash; when a 21-week baby survived in 2007 it made headlines around the world). This should properly be "no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week", not "almost no"; otherwise it just supports myths and misinformation.

Could someone who looks after this page please change this?

139.133.7.37 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Lynne, a passer-by

Perspective

I can't help thinking that it is futile to try to fuse something with such an obvious United States' perspective, together with a worldwide view of the subject, all on the same page. Some editors have tried, but unfortunately this page is becoming a mess.

Would it not be better to have one page on the history and political background to the US debate about "late term abortion" and then a separate worldwide page which is based on factual tables and comparisons without giving prominence to one country over another?

At the moment this is an American-based page into which some have attempted to inject a wider view - but it just doesn't work. An example: terms like "pro-choice" are included without explanation whereas "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are almost exclusively American political labels that should NOT be used without explanation or qualification.

621PWC (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the pictures?

There are pictures of penises, vaginas, cysts, the holocaust, open-heart surgeries, and murder victims on wikipedia; why no pictures of late-term abortions? I'm sure someone could find one somewhere if they really tried.

Agreed. Some pictures are definitely needed. This is an educational website dedicated to the sharing knowledge freedom. Pictures almost always help with understanding. --121.45.112.130 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There are none because of the blindfold enigma, namely 'if I don't know how bad it is it can't be happening'. Many a nurse has entered counselling after watching two surgeons discuss sports over a 20+ week baby in pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Reasons"

I am extremely dubious of the section "reasons" for late termination, given that there is not one single listing for health of mother or fetal deformation in that survey. Dr. Hern, the last doctor performing late term pregnancies on non emergent cases, has suggested that well over half his patients come in because their baby has medical issues. He also suggests that a large number of women come in for their own health related case. More over, the survey is from 1987. A 20 year old survey is not really useful in explaining why women in late term, seek out abortions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.248.226 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Eclipse of Reason

"Low-profile" and "partisan" are clearly subjective judgments, but I'm more interested in the "see-also threshold." That sounds almost kinda... objective, so what exactly is it? I can't seem to find it. Cloonmore (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The link is within policy. WP:ALSO says use WP:COMMON. Doesn't say anything about WP:LOW-PROFILE or WP:PARTISAN.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to Eclipse of Reason is appropriate for a serious encyclopedic treatment of this topic. The relevant guideline is at WP:SEEALSO, which you've linked. I don't think that this film would be part of a "hypothetical perfect article" on the subject, because it is partisan argumentation (at best) and not a serious, reputable treatment of the topic. I'd welcome some additional input, ideally from people without irons in the fire of the abortion debate, and may solicit feedback from WP:MED as the relevant Wikiproject if we're not able to reach consensus among ourselves. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't offered a rationale based on policy for exclusion. It's been observed by multiple editors that your argument may be subjective. I'm going to restore the link. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Most interpretations of policy are subjective. You haven't offered an explanation of why you think the link belongs in the article, and the burden of proof lies with those wishing to add new content (that's policy-based). Since we seem to be standing on the letter of policy, a reasonable starting point would be for you to specify your objective, explicitly policy-based rationale for including the link, rather than reinserting it. So far you have simply asserted your (subjective) belief that the link is "within policy".

I explained why I don't think the link meets site policy. I'm not sure that the "multiple" (read: two) editors who disagree are a representative cross-section of neutral opinion on the topic, so I will go ahead and solicit some additional input.

In the meantime, what do you think the link adds to the encyclopedic treatment of the subject? How do you think it meets WP:SEEALSO? Would a hypothetical "perfect article" on late termination of pregnancy link Eclipse of Reason? If other similarly obscure material from other culture-war partisans exists, should this article link it all? MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see another editor has removed it - I would have also removed it. A lot of what we do is subjective, let's not fool ourselves or use that as an argument. I agree it should not be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I also share MastCell's concerns. Jesanj (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Came here from posting on WT:MED. Agree with MastCell's assessment that this see also is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Added Oldenburg Baby to end of page under "see also"

Since this was such a huge case in Germany, I added it to the bottom of this page. If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert it but let me know why so I can try not to make the same mistake in the future. If you're wondering, the case is about a set of parents who decided to perform a late-term abortion to their unborn baby after discovering that it would have Downs Syndrome. Instead of being aborted, the mother delivered a live baby, who then went without medical care for a lengthy period of time. After a while the staff proceeded to provide care to the newborn but only after sitting down with the parents and letting them know what was going on. It's a pretty big thing over there. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The story behind the use of the term

I'm rather curious as to when and why "late termination of pregnancy" for what most people still call an abortion came into use in the medical community. Who propounded it? What was the rationale behind it? This material should also be part of the article, I think. Motsebboh (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For more information, start by reading the "Abortion jabberwocky" article. The author expresses frustration with widely varying definitions of the words and recommends a solution, which has varying degrees of acceptance in Wikipedia. In my opinion, while the article attempts to be the normative document for this subject, it does not correctly resolve the conflict between the medical community's need for consistent terminology and the public's need for enforceable policy terminology, since even Roe v. Wade refers to late termination of pregnancy as simply, abortion. -SocraticOath (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The curious thing for me is at what point and why (and also where, geographically) did "late termination of pregnancy" become not simply another way of referring to an abortion after fetal viability had been reached, but rather, the "medically correct" way of saying it, making "abortion" the wrong way of saying it? Motsebboh (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the Abortion jabberwocky article? We use the medically accepted definitions. We have split off a very uncommon procedure known as late termination of pregnancy to here. If one was to combine both abortion and LTOP the latter is at most 1.4%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no more than about 16,000 cases annually in the USA alone. Motsebboh (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup the article says 1.4% but says that is likely an overestimate. And we have a whole article on that 1.4% subgroup of terminations of pregnancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The abortion jabberwocky article is ref 1 of the Abortion article... While I agree with the author's frustration, I think his perspective does not adequately address the public policy issues at stake in choosing terminology, especially his guidance against abortion as a word for abortion in viable pregnancies, which is contrary to both common usage and legal usage: Roe v Wade uses 'abortion' as a word for post-viability abortion. Cite journal|last1=Grimes|first1=DA |last2=Stuart |first2=G |title=Abortion jabberwocky: the need for better terminology |journal=Contraception |year=2010 |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=93–6 |pmid=20103443 |url="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782409004156"|doi=10.1016/j.contraception.2009.09.005 -SocraticOath (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Divide by Zero

I do not wish to wade into the waters of the debate. I have my opinion and you have yours. This is a sensitive subject. Hence, I wish to talk this out first instead of just doing an edit.

Under the Live birth section, there is a statistic that makes no sense to me. It says, "sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly (occurring 0 to 13% or 0 to 50%, depending on the method and gestation)." My problem is with the "0." It implies never. I suggest wording it differently. I suggest using "up" in place of the "0"?? It would look something like this: "sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly (occurring up to 13% or up to 50%, depending on the method and gestation)."

Or... maybe some verifiable numbers to back up the facts.

Oscargecko (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Oscar Gecko

Interesting problem. The quote from ref #33 supports the sentence and use of 0%. Pinging DocJames to see what they think since this is academic medical literature. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Doc James rather. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

When different sources come to different conclusions and the review present a range than we aswell should also present the range. It tells the degree of uncertainty that is present.

I guess we should include may not occur at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"0 to 13%" does not automatically imply "never" as a possibility, just that the lower value is so low as to be rounded to zero (i.e. <0.5% when rounded to full percent). However, it would be better to give an unrounded lower limit instead of zero to prevent this common (mis)conception. --46.114.7.45 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"and sometimes able to survive independently."

This is a very startling claim to make. Is there any historical documentation of late termination of pregnancies where the fetus was actually viable?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Many late-term abortions are performed after the medically determined age of viability (around 20-24 weeks), but the fetus is killed in utero before termination so as to prevent a live birth. However, there are still cases of an aborted fetus surviving, e.g. the Oldenburg Baby: "The Oldenburg Baby is the name given by the German media to Tim, an infant born in Oldenburg, Lower Saxony, Germany on 6 July 1997. Tim was born prematurely in the twenty-fifth week of pregnancy as the result of a failed late-term abortion. Doctors had expected the child would soon die and thus withheld treatment for 9 hours. He became a focus of the debate surrounding abortion, especially late-term abortion, and its legal and ethical consequences. Tim died on 4 January 2019 from a lung infection." So he lived to the age of 21 despite having been aborted in the 25th week and neglected after his unintended live birth, and despite having serious medical conditions (Down syndrome). --46.114.7.45 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)