Talk:Abortion/Lead 2006

This is an aggregate of the archives for the 2006 consensus of the lead, to ease referencing and readability. Talk:Abortion/First paragraph contains the original archive breakdown.

Lead archives: 2006 -- 2007-10 -- 2011

Intro proposal

After examining the intro sections of homosexuality, intelligent design, and capital punishment, I am convinced that ours is not up to snuff. Those introductions succeed not only in defining the subject, but also in setting the tone for the entire article. The current introduction to abortion is loose, disorganized, without much sense of flow. Perhaps all of the more specific definitions — spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), induced abortion, elective, surgical, and therapeutic abortion, as well as discussions of premature birth, stillbirth, and emergency contraception — would better be moved to a "definitions" sub-section? -Kyd 01:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems scattered. HOw could we organize it so that it flows? Alienus 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call, you have my support. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For starters. let's move the bulleted items to the correct sections below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. Now we can work from here. BTW, just thought the whole pro-choice/pro-life thing is the kind of thing which should be outlined in the intro and left from there. -Kyd 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt I stpped on your foot, but in that, I prefer our old solution of saying "there is a contraversy" and leaving the rest in the abortion debate section. I do like what you've done thus far though--Tznkai 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob. The intro is the first thing which visitors will read. We should probably wait of the input of other editors before we go and tinker with it too terribly. It's a lot less overwhelming, though, now that everything has been set in its right place. -Kyd 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro reads that "In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of the procedure became the subject of intense debate...." - the debate is much older than the 20th century - it would be more accurate to simply state that "The ethics and morality of the procedure have been the subject of intense debate..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonaNobisPacem (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 January 2006.

How about "featuring in 20th century politics?" As I don't think it was ever a campaign point before 1900s--Tznkai 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Turned "intense debate" into "intense political debate." This should clarify the matter until we think of a way to sum up the other umpteen centuries of debate in one or two sentences. -Kyd 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, Tzn and Kyd. Abortion has been an issue off and on for a long time, since the Romans anyway, but that's dusty stuff and better relegated to History of abortion. I like Tzn's tidy phrasing of the current situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. and Kudos for Kyd for getting us off our ass and fixing it. maybe I should pass the unofficial Tzarship on. (I'm joking about there being a Tzarship. Really)--Tznkai 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We know you are. Its a Tznship. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro guys! That reads a lot better. I hate to keep mucking it up - I would have to disagree with the US comment, though - take a look at Chile...and Portugal, and the EU response in regards to them...and...I think it's best just left at intense political debate. DonaNobisPacem 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Perhaps I should change my name to Tznkyd? The transplant is a little rough around the edges. The intro needs to be expanded, perhaps to cover more of the article, as the introductions to homosexuality and intelligent design do. Also, the definitions section needs to be cleaned up a little, although I'm in no mood to do so right now. I'm moving onto unsafe abortion, for which I've been clamouring, because someone's gotta take the initiative. -Kyd 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the intro is perfect and free from any need for further tweaks, but it's much better now. Good work, people. Alienus 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PARTY TIME!!! I have extra Strongbows from new years... anyone? ;"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking at it further, I'd suggest two tweaks, changing centuries to millennia... and clarifying why the 20th century saw an open dialogue on the issue. Perhaps:

In the 20th century, as a result of safer modern abortion techniques and feminism, the ethics and morality of abortions became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

So long as the technological and sociological changes are explicitly stated. I also took out links I felt aren't completely necessary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

the only problem is this counts as original research (feminism and safer abortion) unless cited, and I wonder if it isn't to much detail.--Tznkai 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it in then notice your post here so I reverted; I tend to think of it as "state the obvious". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to you and to me sure, but others may talk about the "collapse of soceital values" or what not. My concern is in stating it X was caused by Y, we're supposed to cite why, and we've got another contentious debate waiting to happen in the intro. I prefer to avoid detailed causes, but thats my own style. Lets see what the others think.--Tznkai 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'd think that would fit snuggly and tie into (from their perspective) feminism. I don't see it expanding beyond that; but I cannot disagree a cite would be handy to have... moreso to keep it from being expanded upon and bloating the intro. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Overview Definition

Presently: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." The main problem I have with this is "death". That's the way anti-abortion ("pro-life") activists describe it (though they tend to prefer kill or murder). We don't call it the death of an egg when a woman has her period or the death of sperm when a man uses a condom (or a mouth or hand). Like the egg and sperm, the embryo/fetus is completely dependent on its host for "life". It's not a case where you can keep the embryo/fetus and dispose of the woman. A term like "disconnection", "removal", or "release" would be more accurate.--Halliburton Shill 04:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear I have to disagree--"death" is an accurate term, and though anti-abortionists also use the term, a correct definition requires looking at the facts, not at who else uses the terminology. Justin Eiler 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The facts are we don't describe removal of snot, fignernails, eggs, or sperm as their death. We don't even describe blood loss from a cut as the death of the blood.--Halliburton Shill 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An embryo or fetus is not "snot, fignernails, eggs, or sperm"--indeed, snot and fingernails are already mostly or completely composed of dead tissue, and eggs and sperm by themselves are not living organisms.

OK, I'll no longer use snot or fingernails for comparison. However, eggs, sperm, and blood are valid comparisons because they all require a host to sustain their life, and the embryo/fetus requires all 3.--Halliburton Shill 15:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

However, clarifying this issue for the sake of making the best possible Wikipedia article requires looking at specific and technical definitions, not rhetorical arguments.

• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; especially : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy."
• 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" Justin Eiler 13:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wiktionary does not use "death" in its definition. Properly makes reference to miscarriage, which also does not use "death".--Halliburton Shill 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1911 Encylopedia Britannica uses expulsion, not "death", and the only difference between it and miscarriage is that it is deliberate. This is interesting because this is well before mass-marketed political spin.--Halliburton Shill 15:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1913 Webster Dictionary uses "expulsion ... before it is capable of sustaining life" and does not use "death", but makes clear that abortion at that time was a crime.--Halliburton Shill 15:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary uses the same definition shown in the Law & Medical, but worth noting is that "death" is not used in their definition of miscarriage.--Halliburton Shill 15:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• On the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health MedlinePlus encylopedia, "death" is not used: "removing the fetus and placenta from the uterus". Under description, "remove the tissues (fetus and placenta) from the uterus".--Halliburton Shill 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I looked "abortion" up in my dictionary and got "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". The dictionary says removal, not death. Upon consideration, this makes sense, because it's the removal that aborts the pregnancy; the death of the removed tissue and organism is incidental. For that matter, an operation that kills the fetus but doesn't remove it is called an incomplete abortion. Alienus 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the definition I quoted was from the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Alienus 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing death to removal. "Disconnection" or "release" sounds a little too... sci-fi dystopian society euphemism?   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary's definition uses "expulsion". Its definition of miscarriage uses "termination" without any further description.--Halliburton Shill 15:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me propose this:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, associated with the removal of the embryo or fetus before it is capable of sustaining life.

Is this a good compromise? Alienus 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes.--Halliburton Shill 18:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You might have waited a little longer. A discussion that starts on 12 March can hardly relect consensus when it's still 12 March and we simply have "Is this a good compromise?" "Yes." And I fail to see how Halliburton can claim that "removal" would be "more accurate" than "death". You could argue that removal is equally accurate, and you could argue that in your opinion it's preferable. But I can't see any way in which you could claim that it's somehow less accurate to talk about the death of the fetus. To make that claim, you'd have to say that the fetus doesn't die.

To Alienus's point that "an operation that kills the fetus but doesn't remove it is called an incomplete abortion", I'd add that an operation that removes the fetus but doesn't manage to kill it, as happened in the case of Gianna Jessen and others, is called a failed abortion. So it seems that death is a necessary part of what an abortion actually is. AnnH ♫ 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, the whole point here is that abortions are performed on a fetus (or embryo) that cannot sustain life on its own. Otherwise, we don't call it an abortion, or even a "failed" or "incomplete" one. We call it a c-section.

Given the controversy about abortion, the term "death" is highly ambiguous. If it's about the death of the various cells involved, then that's not under debate. However, it could also be taken to mean the death of a human being with full human rights; homocide. This interpretation is very much under debate, so we can't incidentally favor it in our definition. We have a definition now that is accurate but neutral. What do you suggest in its place? "Abortion is the murder of a teeny tiny baby, which makes Jesus cry"? Alienus 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'Death' itself is not ambiguous. It is true that the _nature_ of what dies is disputed: whether the fetus is just an aggregate of cells, or a human being. But undisputably the death of the fetus, whatever it might be, is a necessary condition of an abortion; if the fetus survives, the atempted abortion has not succeeded. Therefore, I strongly object against removing "death" from the definition and consider it as a strongly biased attempt to conceal the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

'Death' is strictly correct, and as late term abortions are possible (even of a viable foetus) then I think this needs to be part of the definition. To not include death in the definition is too far, and is just mollycoddling the reader.

I feel that 'removal' and 'death' should both be part of the definition, perhaps:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, associated with the removal and death of the embryo or fetus most commonly before it is capable of sustaining life.

|→ Spaully°τ 18:47, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

I wouldn't say my dictionary is mollycoddling anyone. There are 10 definitions for that word in my dictionary, and not one uses "death" or an equivalent.

Likewise, I don't think that concatenating all previous definitions leaves us with something that's an improvement. Abortions exist to end pregnancies, not to bring them to completion, so all this death talk is excessive. Alienus 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "death" is POV pushing, as it tries to hide an unpleasant fact. We can disagree all day long about whether abortions are ethically permissable or should be legal or not but to hide this biological fact is unacceptable.

The addition "most commonly before it is capable of sustaining life" does not only bloat the intro, but it is also inaccurate. An abortion can be permoved up to the birth (see partial birth abortion) - many abortions are perfomed when the fetus is already viable, hence a restriction is misleading (even when saying "most commonly"), and adds nothings to the intro. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Death of what? It is unquestioned that cells are dying. Whether this group of cells constitutes a human being (or, in AnnH's terminology, a "baby") is precisely the controversy. Alienus 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Death of the fetus. It is absolutely irrelevant to the present point concerning death, what is the nature of the fetus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

(after edit conflict with Str1977) Alienus, the fact is that it is accurate to say that the fetus dies. If your dictionary doesn't say it, then your dictionary is omitting something that is accurate. Besides which, Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a dictionary. If your dictionary fails to report a truth, that is no reason why Wikipedia should do so. Anyway, "before it is capable of sustaining life" is definitely not a satisfactory definition, because a baby at seven months, eight months, etc. is capable of sustaining life. (Or if you argue that it isn't, on the grounds of its helplessness, then you'd have to argue that for a a full-term, wanted child, born as a healthy infant.) Gianna Jessen was capable of sustaining life. So were other "failed abortions". And so were many of the babies in late-term successful abortions. Your proposed definition is simply inaccurate and POV. AnnH ♫ 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you just called a fetus a "baby", and yet you're lecturing me on proper word use? Alienus 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy if she doesn't try to include our POV into the text as fact. The text uses "fetus" or "embryo", which undoubtedly die during an abortion. Anything further is subject to disagreement and shouldn't be undul pushed either side. (unsigned by Str1977)

And yet that is precisely what she (and you) are trying to do. In contrast, what I posted comes straight from my dictionary. Alienus 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire statement has no sources and no factual support. You have a section up there to support your POV with dictionary and medical references, yet you provided none. Thank you for your POV, but at this point, it is just your POV.--Halliburton Shill 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What is POV? That an abortion results in the death of the embryo/fetus is a mere biological/medical fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And so we were discussing this issue when Str1977, instead of responding, decided to revert the text. Bad faith edit, immediately undone. Alienus 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no bad faith about it - I reverted to the accurate version and also to the long standing consensus version. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's both bad faith and POV. What's POV about it is that it replaces my neutral straight-from-the-dictionary definition with one that makes Jerry Falwell smile. Alienus 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, please, can you explain what is POV on stating that fetus dies at the abortion? Do you deny that this is a medical fact? It seems you are just out of arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

I've flagged the article as being a POV violation. As further evidence of POV-pushing, I noticed that m-w.com offers one definition that mentions death and five that don't. Amazingly, only the one with "death" got mentioned here. Dictionary abuse is not evidence of good faith. Alienus 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If your dictionary is inaccurate - and the "abortion = non-viablity" addition certainly is as inaccurate as it can get - we should not use it (that would be dictionary abuse). The "death" passage OTOH is a basic medical fact, a part of all abortions and the basis for all debates about abortion. Including it doesn't pick sides in the debate, doesn't decide the debate - leaving it out however does preclude any debate and hence takes a side. Hence it is POV. But, to be honest, I am not surprised about your reaction, Alienus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your track record, I'm not surprised by your reaction, Str1977, but I'm disappointed. Alienus 22:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. NPA. You're two of the longest-standing, hardest-working contributors to this article and I hate to see you fighting.

This matter is covered in the thread "Termination of pregnancy sentance" in Archive 12. The introductory sentence is attempting to summarize all abortions in one line: spontaneous or induced, early or late term, and human or other species. If we are were to modify the sentence, I would go with "expulsion," as this sentence must also describe miscarriage. The word "removal" implies deliberate action and thus is only an accurate description of induced abortion. Death itself has many senses: astronomers often describe stars in the red giant stage as "dying." I don't see anything too bad in the use of "death," in a biological context, to describe abortion — the POV lays mostly in how it's read. -Kyd 22:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I just want to thank you for the reminder that we need to calm down a bit. Now, onto the issue at hand.

As you point out, in many contexts, "death" can be an entirely neutral term. However, in a context where medical professionals are routinely called baby-killers and murderers, the word takes on a whole different level of meaning, to the point where it should be avoided entirely if it's feasible to do. This is, in fact, feasible. See below for two WebMD articles that are neutral, factual and yet avoid the d-word. I think we should follow that example. Alienus 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I know death gets used in many ways, but most have a lot of emotional weight and the scientific sense is relatively rare. Consider Death penalty. Should we change "killing" to "murder" because a tiny percent accidentally kill a self-sustaining person who was actually innocent? What I'm saying is I'd prefer the use of terms that don't carry a lot of extra baggage with them, which is why I definitely agree with your suggestion for "expulsion".--Halliburton Shill 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton, is it possible that your strong reaction to the use of the word "death" may be your own emotional reaction, rather than the clinical definition? Please note: if it is possible, I am not using this point as an "attack" on your position, but as an attempt to work towards a consensus that all of us can agree with. Justin Eiler 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Hal, but I can tell you that I'm offended by the artificial insertion of the d-word, where medical texts find no reason to use it. Alienus 23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Something more is needed than 'expulsion' however, as this would include live birth and caesarian sections etc. "before the fetus is viable" is also inadequate as late term abortions are occasionally performed on viable foetus'. I've not yet seen a definition without 'death' that adequately describes it. |→ Spaully°τ 23:06, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

I direct you to the WebMD phrasing for a counter-example. Alienus 23:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read that definition ... but I also have to remind the participants in this debate (myself definitely included) that websites and dictionaries are more than capable of being POV. I did some research ... MW tends towards a more conservative outlook, while WebMD tends towards a more liberal outlook. Either side could be capable of distortion, rhetorical excess, or "white-washing."

Maybe it would serve us all better to look at the facts, rather than playing an endless game of "dueling citations?" Justin Eiler 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"An abortion is a procedure, either surgical or medical, to end a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the uterus."[1]

This one? I think this definition also includes caesarian section and drug induced partruition, worrying for an online medical encyclopedia. |→ Spaully°τ 23:17, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

In which case I was aborted, not born. Which is why, precisely, I think that important distinction needs to be made between "expulsion" via birth and "expulsion" via abortion. "Death" does seem emotionally fraught, and it certainly lends itself to POV if interpreted a certain way, but the same could be said of softened phrasings. From a purely editorial perspective, I don't like "death" any more than Alienus or Halliburton, but at this moment I can't conceive of what a balanced, accurate alternative would constitute. -Kyd 23:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems a strange debate to me. If the unborn child (at any stage of development) is living in a biological sense, he or she potentially will leave the womb as a living boy or girl. If the unborn child is dead in a biological sense, it will either be expelled from womb as dead, or cause an infection in the mother. So the status of "dead" or "alive" with respect to the unborn child is always significant and neutral.

Of course. See how the debate moved from the unsupportable claim that mere using the term "death" is POV to the claim that it "lends itself to POV interpretation". But what does not lend itself? If you care, you can reference a standard medical definition of "death" so that everyone can check the intended meaning. I cannot understand why the fact that calling death what it is may disturb some of those who cause it should prevent the truth to be stated at Wikipedia. Please note: noone in this debate took in question the fact that death of the fetus is conceptually part of what abortion is. Noone attempted to insert the (allegedly) POV claim that it is a death of a human being into the definition. And yet one party continues to protest against using this term. What, if not this, is a POV attitude, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

The intent of an abortion is make a living unborn child a dead unborn child while the methods may differ. Of course, Preganancies also "end" or "terminate" in giving birth to living children (i.e. my mother's pregnancy naturally "terminated" with my birth), but because of the wide usage of the euphemism of "terminate" meaning to intentionally kill the unborn child, people need to be careful when they speak of a termination of a pregnancy in any sense other than abortion.

So, is the whole point of this discussion to calibrate how far certain euphemisms for killing the unborn have penetrated the medical vocabulary and popular culture? patsw 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another example of the type of heavily biased opinion one hears from religious extremists. No sources, no citations.--Pro-Lick 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article on abortion, from WebMD

Let me quote a few lines from the article:

Technically, the word abortion simply refers to pregnancy loss before the twentieth week.

Most people think that a therapeutic abortion refers only to the kind of procedure sought out, for instance, by a couple who discovers they are carrying a defective fetus. This just isn’t so. A teenager who hasn’t the financial means to support a child or the support structures to take care of the child will also be a therapeutic abortion candidate. A woman who was impregnated during a rape will be a therapeutic abortion candidate. Finally, a woman who simply does not desire a child, for any combination of reasons, is also a candidate for a therapeutic abortion. The abortion is “therapeutic” because it enhances the quality of life for the mother and prevents the inevitability of a life of poverty, unreasonable struggle, or unreasonable trauma for both the mother and the unborn, unwanted fetus.

Note that this is written by a doctor and not from a partisan site. This is the first link that came up in the search, but here's what the main article says:

• A spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, occurs when a natural cause ends a pregnancy. If you have had or may be having a miscarriage, see the topic Miscarriage.
• A therapeutic or induced abortion is one resulting from measures taken to intentionally end a pregnancy, using medications (medical abortion) or surgery.

Once again, this fails to focus on death, perhaps because it wasn't written by Jerry Falwell. Alienus 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on WebMD article

The doctor who wrote it evidently has a strong POV to favor abortion as a good choice. That is why he uses euphemistic jabberwocky to discuss abortion. "Baby" is a medical term used by doctors to discuss the fetus (in latin: "little one"). Avoiding its use is simply an attempt to make his support for abortion more palatable (Imagine the impression the reader would have if he talked about the couple having a "defective unborn baby"!). "Termination" is most definintely a euphemism for "killing" or "death". Is this somehow not clear to you? How could it NOT be clear to you? Your paradigm is that abortion is a good choice. It may blind you to the fact that billions of people reject that view for objective reasons having nothing to do with religion. Yet those objective reasons are in accord with certain religious views, as well. Catholics believe water and light are good - in fact we use water and candles for liturgy and water and light and fire as sacred symbols. But science tells also us that water and light are good. And we can know that they are good from practical experience, without needing to rely on formal science. You cannot then claim that "water and light are good" is a religious view. Same with murder. With no religious view, one can conclude that murder is wrong and should be outlawed. It happens to comport with the ten commandments. But outlawing of murder is not simply a "religious view" that ought not be imposed on others. Same with abortion. There is much scientific, sociological and medical data - as well as practical experience - that there are many short and long term problems associated with abortion. Many academics in the fields of science, law and philosophy conclude that medically, legally, and philosophically life begins at conception. The fact that such infomation comports with the religious view that life begins at conception is interesting. But it is no basis whatsoever to claim that opposition to abortion is simply a religious view with no basis in objective rational thought. It is hard to hold that view considering people like Nat Henthoff, who is a flaming left-wing atheist columnist for the Village Voice yet an ardent absolutist prolifer regarding abortion and euthanasia, reject abortion:

Jesse Jackson's non-religious perspective

• "Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. . . That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us niggers. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do. . . Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified." Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, in National Right to Life News, January 1977 (By the way, I doubt anyone would reject the civil rights activism of Dr. ML King or Jesse Jackson because their activism was inspired by religious beliefs - racism is another case where objective right and wrong can be discovered through both secular and religious analysis).

Atheist Nat Hentoff's Non-religious perspective

• "Nearly ten years ago I declared myself a pro-lifer. A Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer. Immediately, three women editors at The Village Voice, my New York base, stopped speaking to me. Not long after, I was invited to speak on this startling heresy at Nazareth College in Rochester (long since a secular institution). Two weeks before the lecture, it was canceled. The women on the lecture committee, I was told by the embarrassed professor who had asked me to come, had decided that there was a limit to the kind of speech the students could safely hear, and I was outside that limit." Nat Hentoff, Nov. 30, 1992

In conclusion, do you agree that acceptance of abortion is NOT a neutral view?

Goodandevil

Death or removal?

I will say that for my part, I think death is more accurate. However, I also feel that both Str1977 and Haliburton Shill ... may not be acting in the wisest manner. The idea here is for all of us to work together to reach a mutually acceptable and accurate consensus--not to simply ignore the other side of the debate or ascribe bad faith.

Folks, I do feel that the death of the embryo or fetus needs to be addressed ... but perhaps it would be better to include a section later that addresses the different points of view. Can we think of a way to do so that addresses both Haliburton's and STR's concerns? Justin Eiler 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• EXPULSION. And you can link to the religious views of abortion article to cover faith-based definitions. (unsigned by Halliburton Shill)
• expulsion. The issue of precisely what dies can be covered elsewhere, in an NPOV manner. Alienus 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I could work with "expulsion," but then (technically speaking), a live birth fulfills the sentence "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the expulsion of an embryo or a fetus." Justin Eiler 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin is correct. Death is more accurate IMHO. The first sentence is clear and accurate. Expulsion would not be accurate, as it would cover live birth, premature birth, miscarriage, Etc. It would not cover ceasarian deliveries, and right now that's the only pregnancy ending I can think of it wouldn't cover. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The use of fetus or embryo covers that. Maybe the problem is that fetus is carrying too much common-use baggage. How about compare Wikipedia's entry for Miscarriage. I would write: "An abortion is the induced termination of pregnancy when the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving." If you like, you can then link to strictly medical, common, and religious definitions.--Halliburton Shill 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Would that cover late term abortions? (They do occur in places such as China.) Justin Eiler 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The opening sentence needs to address all abortions: late or early, spontaneous or induced, chemical or surgical, human or other species. -Kyd 23:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(3 ec's) The essential difference between a late term abortion and a delivery, without which they cannot be distinguished, is that in one case you end up with a live infant, in the other case, you end up with dead cells. Any attempt to equivocate that is an exercise in euphemism. The argument that abortion doesn't involve death does a disservice to the pro-choice cause, IMO, by making it appear that pro-choicers need to use semantic sleight-of-hand to maintain their point. Sure, "death" is an emotionally fraught word. Why do you think abortion is such an emotionally fraught issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that bleeding results in dead cells too. Miscarriage results in dead cells. A woman having a period ends up in dead cells. Masturbation results in dead cells. We covered this before. Death is not used to describe any of them.--Halliburton Shill 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is used to describe miscarriage, by millions of grieving would-be mothers. You carry a fetus for eight and a half months, feel it kick, decide what to name it, etc, and then miscarry, and tell me something didn't die. Nobody likes the fact that abortion invovles killing something, but euphemism is unacceptable here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hal and Alienus, I know you don't like the term "death" applied to abortion. If you want to know the honest truth, neither do I. But in my honest opinion, we cannot risk euphemism in this or any other WP article. Alienus, you said "However, in a context where medical professionals are routinely called baby-killers and murderers, the word takes on a whole different level of meaning, to the point where it should be avoided entirely if it's feasible to do." I quite agree--but I simply do not see that such avoidance is at all feasible. Justin Eiler 23:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is feasible. It was in 1911. It was in 1913. It is now. Even Wikitionary (which I'm relinking to because of apparent attention span issues or lack of a desire to thoroughly consider facts) managed to do it. Please read the many dictionary refences above.--Halliburton Shill 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like someone edited the Wiktionary entry....--Andrew c 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hal, every counter-definition you've provided is broad and imprecise. As I said to Alienus, "websites and dictionaries are more than capable of being POV." Justin Eiler 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As a side note--please can the personal attacks. My disagreements with your proposal have nothing to do with "attention span" or "lack of desire to thoroughly consider facts." I am working with you in good faith. Justin Eiler 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer no faith, as in NPOV. Thank you if you are in fact not just providing a bureaucratic defense. In any event, so that we may continue to work toward a more accurate definition, my understanding of your requirements for a new definition are as follows:--Halliburton Shill 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Must be general enough to include all types of abortion, including miscarriage.
• Must be specific enough not to include births that result in a sustainable infant.

When I speak of good faith, I am referring to the Wikipedia Guideline, not to my personal beliefs. Like you, I am striving for NPOV, but NPOV can also be achieved by noting both sides of a contentious subject. As to "definition requirements," my own personal preference would be that they be accurate. If you desire a list such as you have above, the phrasing I would prefer would be:

• Must be general enough to include all types of abortion, including miscarriage.
• Must be specific enough not to include births that result in a living infant.

This is a crucial question: do you consider an embryo or fetus in vivo to be equivalent to "eggs, sperm, and blood" in vivo? If you do, then I understand your point of view more completely ... but you must understand that your point of view is not necessarily accurate, nor is it necessarily the majority or consensus view. Justin Eiler 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification on the requirements. Whether it's me or not, I'd like to see a definition that is both accurate and not easily misinterpreted. My main issue at the moment is less with the accuracy if read literally by a nuetral party and more with its ambiguity.--Halliburton Shill 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the ambiguity you're referring to, Hal? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Those who see "death of an embryo or fetus" and turn it into an accusation of murder. And in that, Hal has a good point ... but the basic fact of the matter is, if we wish to avoid some user coming to WP to quote-mine or deliberately distort the articles, the only alternative is to completely close down the encyclopedia. Justin Eiler 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Back up a second and think about what pregnancy is. The whole point of pregnancy is that an organism that has the potential to be a baby is being kept alive by the woman's body. This is not a permanent state, and it can only end in one of two ways: either the pregnancy can complete with the birth of a baby, or it can abort somewhere on the way.

The majority of fertilized eggs never make it to birth, and we have a variety of terms for the ways they can fail. Abortion is a very broad term that covers any "loss of pregnancy" (to use the WebMD phrase). In no way can loss of pregnancy be confused with successful pregnancy. The term clearly covers miscarriage, and just as clearly does not cover c-sections or birth.

Now, consider this definition:

Abortion is the loss of a pregnancy, associated with the expulsion of the embryo or fetus in such a way that does not result in a live birth.

What part of this is problematic? Alienus 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BINGO! Alienus, I think that's a definition I can live with. What say you, people? Justin Eiler 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I vote to confirm BINGO.--Halliburton Shill 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! How dare you steal my exclamation!?!?!? ;) Justin Eiler 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, which is to say none, I had dibs on that exclamation point before it was even born! Alienus 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid yet another edit war, I'm going to hold off until others have had their chance to complain. Alienus 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. The only change I'd make is to say "expulsion or removal" instead of just "expulsion", but that's a minor point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against using both words if we need them. However, I looked up "expulsion" and I think that Hal is right about it being broad enough to cover all the cases we've considered. Take a look for yourself and let me know if you agree.

My main concern is that expulsion might not cover the case where an implanted embryo dies and is absorbed by the body instead of expulsed. I seem to remember that this is a possible outcome, at least for very early self-abortions. It would be nice if someone with more medical knowledge chimed in to correct me. Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Part of the requirements was to include regardless of inducement. Expulsion covers both induced and spontaneous.--Halliburton Shill 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Something else to consider before naming the punctuation marks: Does this exclude Perinatal mortality, i.e., stillbirths and neonatal death? It seems to me that an aboriton definition should. Under the proposed, a stillbirth seems to get included along with miscarriages. Neonatal seems to be excluded because by definition, a live baby exists, even if for only seconds, after the expulsion.--Halliburton Shill 05:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It clearly excluded neonatal death; if the pregnancy completes, then that's that for the pregnancy, even if the newborn doesn't live long. Stillbirth is a little trickier, depending on precisely when the fetus died. However, I'm also not sure that it matters for our purposes. Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who does not agree with this proposal? Using the word "death" is, indeed, slanted towards one POV. However, merely avoiding it already favors the other POV. I believe the current phrasing is quite thoughtful and offers an acceptable balance. Something like Abortion is the loss of a pregnancy, associated with the expulsion of the embryo or fetus in such a way that does not result in a live birth is not a solution to me since it slants the introduction more towards one of the prevailing POVs than the current version does. Stating this as a definition makes it appear as if it is generally accepted by virtually all people. This is not what NPOV is all about. Another option (probably discussed in depth before but I'm including it since it's my preferred solution in the spirit of Wikipedia policies): We could preface the article with This article is written from the legal point of view in jurisdictions that allow elective abortion. For other viewpoints please see the Abortion debate section or the abortion debate article. - or entirely remove the debate/social issues sections to the debate article. AvB ÷ talk 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not the only one, but pretty damned close. The reason for avoiding any mention of death is to avoid commiting to any POV. Do you have a better proposal? Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But you never succeeded to prove that using "death" is POV. Now, by suggesting "not result in live birth" instead of "results in death", you made perfectly clear that your concern is not semantic - death and loss of life means the same, therefore, if "death" is POV, then "loss of life" is POV as well. The fact that you accept the later wordy circumscription but not the single word that means the same reveals that you simply _do not like the word_ "death", while not having any rational objections against its semantic import. IMHO, personal likings or dislikings should not count as relevant in Wikipedia. If your proposed definition is OK, then using "death" should also be OK, because it means the same. And it is to be preferred, because it is more succint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

I think that to say "does not result in a live birth" is simply a matter of semantics - to not be alive, means to be dead. What dies is a matter for debate elsewhere - be it a person with rights, a person without, a fetus - but it does not change the medical terminology. The embryo, and later the fetus, is a separate living organism apart from the mother, besides the fact that it relies on the mother for survival (so does an infant - yet if it "terminates" it is still called death). A blood cell exists in the body to fulfill bodily functions; it has no potential to survive outside of the body on its own. Likewise, sperm or eggs exist as separate organisms, but incomplete ones incapable of survival or development on their own. But even these, in the actual sense of the word "death," do die - and if you pick up a biology text and read it, you will see that spermatazoa that do not fertilize an egg die, and likewise an unfertilized egg dies. But beyond that, the embryo/fetus is, in the medical (not moral) sense of the word a human organism - therefore, when it is "terminated," like any other human organism, we use the term death to describe the event. It is NPOV, medical and biological terminology to describe the "termination" of any living organism - so why shy away from it? DonaNobisPacem 05:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "live birth" is a medical one. In contrast, "babykiller" is not. Medical terms are painfully neutral, which is why this article favors them. Religious terms are not neutral, by the way. Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But "death" is a perfectly neutral medical term. Noone dared to deny this fact so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

This is an important point. If the article is based on the medical/scientific point of view, it should say so up front. That would solve several problems. It would certainly end my opposition to changing the current "death of a fetus/embryo" language. And remember, WP:SPOV has been deprecated. The scientific or medical point of view is just that: one of various POVs. It is NOT neutral - that's precisely why SPOV was deprecated. Wikipedia is not about the Truth, but about the various views found in the real world.

As for blood, consider that a white blood cell has a nucleus, so it's quite conceivable that it will one day become technologically possible to clone you using one. Does that mean that white blood cells, being potential people, will suddenly qualify as having all the rights of an infant? Will you become a babykiller if you cut yourself shaving?

This question can, of course, be easily answered. See e.g. the article by Michael B. Burke, "Sortal essentialism and the potentiality principle", March 1996, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

My advice is that you stick to math, not medicine or law. Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Can this be clarified: Is the claim being made here that "not live" does not express a point of view, and "dead" expresses a point of view? patsw 06:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've had about enough. There will never be a proposal that makes everyone thrilled to tears. Some people will not rest until abortion is defined as either "the godless murder of babies by those who will soon rot in hell" or "a minor surgical procedure that we need not discuss the details of in any way".

Instead of trying to please everyone, which is impossible and undesirable, I take a weighted average, favoring the opinions of those who have shown the least bias and most reasonability (regardless of their personal views). Having done this, I sense a stronger consensus in favor of the compromise I proposed a while ago than for the current text, so I'm going to stick my neck out by putting this new text out in public view. This doesn't mean the issue is closed -- no issue is ever closed in this medium -- but it does mean that we have a new starting point. Vive le roy. Alienus 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Loss" implies that all induced abortions are successful. It is also more applicable to miscarriage than induced abortion, in my mind, as "loss" implies a lack of control or intent — it just happened. I think "termination" is a substitute which would be applicable to both miscarriage and induced abortion without necessarily precluding failed or incomplete inducings. Also, "expulsion of the embryo or fetus," does not account for abortion in the case of multiple pregnancy — that is why we used an indefinite article. Originally, the construction was something awkward, like, "the death of any or all fetus(es) or embryo(s)."

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, associated with the expulsion of an embryo or fetus, in such a way that does not result in a live birth."

I still think the current version is satisfactory ("If it isn't broken..."). However, I would consider this an acceptable alternative. -Kyd 07:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree the current version is satisfactory (would any POV accept "..with the death of all cells in an embryo or fetus"?), one could argue your definition with the case of an elective third-trimester breech abortion -- where the baby's body is delivered, and the head is still in the birth canal. Pro-lifers say it was a live birth and later murdered -- that the baby has been alive for months (regardless of which side of the mother's cervix he was on); pro-choicers say the baby was not fully born, hence it was not alive. Jkister 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Pro-choicers would say it wasn't fully born; therefore it wasn't a baby, or wasn't a person, or wasn't a human being; they wouldn't say it wasn't alive. AnnH ♫ 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I used "loss", from the WebMD quote, is that it figures into the recognition that there are two ways to end a pregnancy. "Terminate" just means end, while "loss" specifies which of the two possible ends is involved. Consider that loss is the opposite of completion, while termination applies to either.

I'm not going to revert your change, but I wish you hadn't made it without talking about it here first. If you agree that "loss" is more accurate or if there's a sufficient outcry, then we'll terminate "terminate". Alienus 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is that this subject has been discussed ad nauseum (Archive 12). We've been down this road before, and, for good or ill, "death" survived. And, really, it's upsetting to see so much input from so many users directed to excorcising POV from a single sentence when my Progress Report above (which outlines whole sections that still need to be written) is being quite thoroughly ignored. -Kyd 07:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe next weekend. I did add this to my watch list and did add a useful medical, non-biased link to the external links. Also, for the history, there are 2 entries with links I made above that could be used for additional historical context (search for 1911 and 1913).--Halliburton Shill 08:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration; there's a lot left to be done on this article before we can rest. As this incident has pointed out, it's a lot easier to focus people's attention on fine-tuning a key sentence than to get them to write a new section. Perhaps one way to get past this is to turn your progress report into a list of items that needed to be acted on, so that people can more clearly see what they're being asked to do. Alienus 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but this alleged "consensus" (a word used too loosely these days) is in no way feasible.

• "Loss" may be just a bit uncommon compared to "termination", but the removal of "death" is POV pushing to the highest degree.
• The death of the embryo or fetus is a medical, biological fact - how to view this fact in ethical and other terms is a different matter. If some feel their view threatened by an accurate coverage of medical facts they should reexamine their view in light of the facts and vice versa. Maybe we should omitt the fossil record from evolution to make that article more "NPOV".
• Justin, I'd prefer to act differently too and I was not the one to bring "bad faith" into the play. And nowhere have I used "religious views" or "faith-based definitions" - the only one that makes religious allusions in Alienus - as strawmen. I am all for working together, but if someone tries to eleminate basic facts, should we negotiate about that?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to questions above: No, I do not have a better proposal than the two I gave above. My apologies if I was not clear. To reiterate and clarify:

1. I think in this case it would be better to describe the subject from an important well-documented POV instead of trying to create a "common text". I suggested the legal POV. Other viewpoints can be described separately - I suggested the Debate article since it does not require a lot of space to describe the other viewpoints. FWIW, this is not linked with my opinion on abortion. It is linked with my opinion on how to present information where it's impossible to find a "common text" definition, and the article is given to endlessly recurring problems due to strong POV feelings. Just think of the incredible waste of time, time that could have been spent editing. Please also note that I say find, not create. I think Wikipedia policies could have been observed a bit better. For one thing, if the current attempt at building a consensus is any indication, I would say the article depends too much on original research. Also, we do not need to reconcile parties or integrate viewpoints (impossible anyway in this case). We need to describe important viewpoints.
2. If and only if most editors feel that a "common text" is truly required here, my proposal is to leave the definition as it is now. I do not share Alienus' opinion that leaving out the word "death" equals leaving out any and all POVs. It is my considered opinion that "death" looks somewhat supportive of the pro-life POV in the eyes of those with a pro-abortion POV, while avoiding to call death "death" has an opposite effect that I think is even stronger.

I'm clearly not the only one who seems to support proposal #2. Also, people have not really had time to think about or respond to proposal #1. And I do not believe that Alienus' assessment of other editors' reasonability or commitment to NPOV should influence how much weight one has to give to their opinion. For one thing, I do not know him or the other editors here (with the exception of Justin - we met while struggling with User:Jason Gastrich). I cannot assess Alienus' ability to assess opinions, if you know what I mean. But it needn't be all that complicated. A simple straw poll in a day or two will be sufficient to gauge sentiments and, as always, I am quite willing to defer judgment to the majority (unless it's clear that policies are being violated).

Finally a note about the suggestion that this is just a minor problem not worthy of discussion where so much work is still waiting to be done. It is not a minor point at all - it's actually the main difference between the main POVs. Solving it will end the waste of time to a large extent. And if you truly believe it's a minor point, you may want to consider dropping it to make time for more important edits. AvB ÷ talk 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Str1977. Removing "death", or trying to replace it by a euphemism is POV. It may not be a universally-acknowledged fact that the thing that dies is a baby, but there's no question that, whatever it may be, it dies. Despite the sarcasm and sneers of Alienus, I do not argue for the use of the words "baby", or "murder" in the article, and neither, as far as I can see, does anyone else on this page. To use those words would be POV, because there are people who argue that the fetus is a baby, and there are people who argue that it isn't a baby. There are people who argue that abortion is murder, and there are people who argue that it isn't murder. Therefore, we must all respect NPOV, and avoid presenting any of these POVs as a fact. I am not aware of anyone in the whole world who argues that the fetus does not die as a result of an abortion. (Or, if it doesn't, as in the cases of Gianna Jessen and others, that the abortion went wrong — it was a failed abortion.) So, this is a fact, not open to dispute, and Wikipedia does not have a policy of removing "facts" on the grounds that they may produce an emotional reaction. We don't call Hitler evil (although he was) in the article because it's POV. It's subjective; some people don't think he was evil. However, we don't try to gloss over the fact that people died because of his policies, regardless of how reading such facts might make people "feel". So we don't call abortion "murder", but we do report that the fetus dies.

HEAR, HEAR! I completely agree and support this view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.226.16 (talk • contribs)

A minor point — Alienus said at 3.48 GMT that he was going to hold off until others had had their chance to complain. He then inserted his version at 6.54 GMT. A brief look at my user page will show that my time zone is GMT. I don't think I had much chance to complain in the middle of the night. This was argued at length some months ago, by both sides, and we reached a consensus to use the word "death". It's quite counterproductive to start removing it within hours of posting an objection to it. AnnH ♫ 10:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ann's point that, regardless of the terminology used to describe the fetus (collection of cells, baby, tissue, etc.), the fact remains that the removal results in the death of that fetus. It's a fact and it would be negligent to ignore it. --Elliskev 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And in case its buried in the archives and string of posts above, I also agree. I prefer the previous wording, which was concise and accurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Interruption of pregnancy or expulsion of the product of conception before the fetus is viable is called abortion." "A voluntary induced termination of pregnancy is called an elective abortion...." - Brunner & Suddarth’s Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, 10th edition, Chapter 46 Assessment and Management of Female Physiologic Processes, p. 1398-1399--Halliburton Shill 17:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(2nd attempt) Can this be clarified: Is the claim being made here that "not live" does not express a point of view, and "dead" expresses a point of view? patsw 17:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw out here, Bravo everybody. I tried to think of the most controversial thing I could and see how it was handled and from my perspective, everyone is struggling really hard to be as neutral as possible. Thank you all for your time and care. Alexa411 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Alexa411

Wow, this is pointless. Alienus 22:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is pointless, then we need to revert to the consensus sentence that was adopted before this discussion came up. Talk:Abortion/Archive_12 Justin Eiler 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's pointless, I really don't care what you do now. Twice, I've made good-faith attempts to correct a legitimate problem, each time getting approval here before acting. Twice, I've had my text reverted. This is pointless. You people deserve a bad article, so you're free to have one. Alienus 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Twice! Oh my goodness, you long-suffering martyr. I'm sorry if your diapers are dirty, Alienus, but consensus on a controversial subject is difficult – that's different from pointless. Those willing to work for consensus are willing for it to take scores and scores of edits, over months and months. If your frustration threshhold is so low, avoid controversial articles. Me, I think we're getting somewhere, and I repeat Alexa411's encouragement: we're doing good work here. Let's keep it up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Alienus 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things:

1.)This seems to be getting mighty personal and petty - let's try to focus on the issue at hand. 2.)I wanted to clarify my statement above - I had a cut-off sentence there that might give a different understanding to what I was trying to say:

It is NPOV, medical and biological terminology to describe the "termination" of any living organism

should read

It is NPOV, medical and biological terminology to describe the "termination" of any living organism as death. DonaNobisPacem 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just another thought to add to the pile on how we handle the abortion/death link: If a fetus dies in the womb, and the mother's body does not expel it, so she requires manual removal... how does our currrent wording reflect that? Is there one abortion (termination of pregnancy) or two (termination and removal) involved? The miscarriage article refers to this scenario as a "missed" abortion (not an actual abortion?), sometimes requiring a standard abortion procedure (D&C, though it isn't refered to as an abortion). Compare with the terms "complete abortion" and "incomplete abortion", which focus not on the time of termination/death of the fetus, but the actual expulsion of the fetus, regardless of the time, or cause, of death.Ronabop 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Associated with" is rather ambiguous, describing the entire spectrum between "caused by" (e.g. spontaneous abortion after the fetus has died) and "in order to cause" (e.g. elective abortion). Your example falls somewhere in between (induced/surgical abortion after the fetus has died). But I think this level of ambiguity is just right for this subject. It is explained in detail in the article. AvB ÷ talk 08:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Because abortions are about ending the pregnancy, and, as cited above, don't always result in the fetus dieing (no stats provided, but I'm guessing a lot less often than smoking causes deformities and other birth defects), it seems anything to do with life or death should be removed and stick to something like "ending pregnancy via expulsion". It may be technically possible in the future, like with stem-cells and cloning, to both abort the pregnancy and re-implant the embryo/fetus in another woman that wants to reproduce.--Pro-Lick 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an abortion then. And there is such a thing as a premature birth that "ends a pregnancy", where the baby is kept in an incubator for several months. That's not an abortion. A successful abortion always ends in the death of the fetus/baby. AnnH ♫ 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not an abortion according to who? According to what verifiable citable source? I don't see one here. I see the "other side" providing medical sources that indicate an end to the pregnancy pre-viability. Assuming your reference accurate, even it agrees. The fetus needed extraordinary care and still both barely lived, and then has gone on with severe mental and physical handicaps. Only because of the medical technology and doctors available did the fetus develop and live.--Pro-Lick 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As it states in the article - if the fetus survives the abortion, to become a neonate, it is termed a "failed abortion" - ie, the fetus did not die, so the intent was not carried through. DonaNobisPacem 05:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny that I used the case of Gianna Jessen to back up an argument recently (the argument that "before it is capable of sustaining life" was not an accurate part of a definition of abortion. What happened next? One of the people arguing on the other side, instead of agreeing that abortions are sometimes performed after the fetus is capable of sustaining life, nominated the article for deletion! AnnH ♫ 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Funny that shortly after that that user nominated it, the user was blocked. Seems both sides are playing with the rules, so your point is?--Pro-Lick 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The methods differ, but the intent of an induced abortion is the death of an unborn child. An unsuccessful abortion terminates a pregnancy in the live birth of a human being. patsw 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• No sources, no citations. Still. Make you opinion verifable, then we can proceed. Consider this page as an example: search for/scroll down to Why Do Women Resort to Abortion.--Pro-Lick 03:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide, Chapter 15 - The Female Reproductive System; Pregnancy and Birth, p. 398: An abortion is loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy or before a weight of 500 g (1.1 lb).--Pro-Lick 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also the practice of stopping the fetal heart from as early as the end of the second trimester (e.g. by injection into the heart or the umbilical) before the fetus is removed (example). It is called feticide (sometimes fetocide) in the medical lit. on abortion. This procedure prevents a fetus from feeling pain, should it be able to feel pain in the first place. It also thoroughly prevents a viable fetus (i.e. a baby) from surviving the abortion procedure. (Survival before the third trimester is rare, but it does happen from time to time.) Still, I am not sure this no-brainer can be included in the article without reference to a (reputable, verifiable, notable) source. One person's no-brainer is another person's original research.

Unless I'm missing something, the primary source information on the above is not provided in the article. I think it should be - perhaps at the bottom of the Surgical abortion section, something along the lines of: From around week xx a separate feticide can be the first phase of the abortion procedure (or use consensus euphemisms - my point is that the info should be there, I don't care how it's called) [2] AvB ÷ talk 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• What's missing: the links provided obove do not refer to it as "feticide" or "fetocide" and the there is no source for this claim.--Pro-Lick 01:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You may have misread my question. Before sourcing and adding the info, I asked to make sure I hadn't overlooked it in the current version of the article. The links above refer to (1) current use and (2) the start of the debate from where current practice evolved. I provided these start and end points for any editors interested in the history and current use of this crucial element of abortion. From there they can check things out for themselves and see how notable this is. AvB ÷ talk 11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uterine 2

Apparently, lawyers use the phrase "Uterine 2" as a short name for the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intra-Uterine Contraception, a 250-page synopsis of the 1964 conference, edited by S.J. Segal, A.L. Southam, and K.D. Shafer. The conference was funded by the Population Council, a non-profit organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III. According to my buddy in law school, Uterine 1 and Uterine 2 are known as where a lot of semantic decisions were made that have shaped the national abortion debate to this day. I have here with me a physical copy of Uterine 2, obtained via Inter-library loan from the local medical school.

Looking through the book, it appears to document a conference, taking place over two days in October 1964, in which studies were presented, and then discussions held after each round of presentations. The first round of presentations and discussions concerns "Clinical and Field Programs" and the second round (of two) concerns "Bio-Medical Studies". The quotation I was looking for comes from the second round of discussions. I quote at length:

Dr. Whishik: Discussion of the exact point at which intra-uterine devices exercise their contraceptive effect is bound to involve some examination of terminology. This is not merely an academic question. In a Moslem country such as Pakistan, if it is considered that the intra-uterine device is an abortifacient, this obviously would have a bearing on national acceptance or rejection of the method. I think, therefore, that careful attention should be given to a definition of terms.

I do not think it is necessary for us to change the traditional definition of conception as being the point of fertilization, but the definition of abortion seems to be one that needs to be considered. Abortion, as the prefix indicates, means that something is taken away, and the taking away of an embryo which has successfully implanted itelf would seem to be abortion. This has basis in the fact that we know in human beings a certain percentage of fertilized ova seem to be extruded through the uterus without there being any obvious pathology. Some of them implant and some of them do not, and we do not consider that an abortion has occurred because the fertilized ovum fails to rest in the uterus.

Dr. Tietze: Yesterday I had opportunity to report on 142 intra-uterine and seven ectopic pregnancies with the device in situ. We therefore know very well that some ova are fertilized in the preseence of the coil. But until we have more evidence that this is a usual event we should be very careful in stating that this is a mode of action of the intra-uterine device, and not disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance.

Dr. Mastroianni: The philosophical question as to whether or not the ova are fertilized among patients wearing the intra-uterine device has certainly been stressed. I think this is worthy of just two comments.

At the conference today we have seen one human fertilized ovum. This was fertilized. However, there is no way of knowing what would have happened to this ovum if it had been allowed to reside in the fallopian tube and had eventually been transferred into the uterus. We do know that among patients wearing the contraceptive device, both ectopic and intra-uterine pregnancies, which incidentally go to term, are entirely within the realm of possibility. So that we can't really extrapolate from the fact that we have recovered one fertiliized ovum in a fallopian tube and extend that to the point where we must assume that the ova in general are fertilized among people wearing the intra-uterine device.

Among the monkeys studied in our laboratory there is one point which I did not stress because at the time I did not think it was terribly relevant. Obviously, in the monkey the only way to know whether the ova are fertilized is to recover them. We can't find them. However, among the group of monkeys in which the fallopian tube was ligated on one side, we did recover ova. All but one of those ova were still in cumulus; they were not yet denuded down to the level of the corona.

On the other side no ova were recovered whatsoever. In this group of monkeys a laparotomy was performed at such time as we would expect to see ova, if they were available in the fallopian tube for fertilization. I think that in general when the ova are still in cumulus, fertilization may not quite yet be possible. Certainly fertilization is possible once the cumulus cells are dispersed and the corona radiata remain. So that whatever little evidence we have in the primate would suggest that the ova are extruded from the fallopian tube prior to fertilization.

Chairman Taylor: It has been suggested that we ought to set our definition that pregnancies start at implantation. I think it ought to occur to us that we are talking about a theological definition, not a biological one, and this group can't possibly help in making this definition.

Dr. Tietze: I would like to take issue with the chair on what I hope has not been a definitive theory.

I fully agree with you sir, that the time at which a human life or any life begins is a philosophical question, but I submit that throughout history the theologians and the jurists have always taken into account and have listened to the prevailing medical and biological consensus of the times, and I think this is still true. If a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pergnancy, and therefore, life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen.

...and that's the end of the discussion, end of the conference. The text I've just quoted comes from pages 212 and 213 of the Proceedings. Looking beyond that point in the book, I see a Summation given by Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. There's a relevant two paragraphs in there:

Before I conclude I should like to remind you that we are not the only group to think about the difference between the prevention of conception and the production of an abortion. It was called to my attention that the British Council of Churches, in their pamphlet on human reproduction which was issued in 1962, made a statement that may give a degree of solace to those of us who are concerned about the theological attitudes. They said: "Our conclusion was that a distinction must be drawn between biological life and human life, and that in the absence of more precise knowledge, nidation may most conveniently be assumed to the the point at which the former becomes the latter. We agreed that abortion as a means of family limitation is to be condemned. But a woman cannot abort until the fertilized egg cell has nidated and thus becomes attached to her body... we see no objection... to the use of a technique which would prevent implantation. Such a method, which might be described as contra-nidation, could also quite properly be called contraception."*

Obviously there are some eminent theologians on our side even if it is proved that fertilization is not prevented by the IUCD. I share Dr. Mastrioanni's hope - perhaps his belief - that the IUCD prevent fertilization, but even if that should not be the case, if fertilization is achieved, it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole battle is lost and that we are producing abortion.

The footnote refers to Human Reproduction: a study of some emergent problems and question in the light of the Christian faith, 44-45. British Council of Churches, London, 1962.

So, that's the source supporting the claim that the definition of abortion was manipulated for non-medical reasons in the 1960s. Opinions? If anyone wants more context, just ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much, I for one am quite appreciative of you obtaining this and posting your findings here. As to how to utilize the data... I need to think. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, at first blush this looks like two separate topics in one discussion:

1. The contraceptive action of IUDs (which work as a spermicide/ovicide, see IUD), and
2. The definition of pregnancy.

Are these two topics connected in the omitted section, or is there a shift from the action of an IUD to the definition of pregnancy? I think the omitted section may be relevant, though I'm reticent to ask you to do more typing. Justin Eiler 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to add the omitted section tomorrow, when I'm back at the office where the book is. The omitted passage struck me as a bit less relevant, but I don't at all mind completing the excerpt, and right now I don't actually remember what was there. I wonder if this sort of thing would have a place at Wikisource? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For a recap, this is the quote 84 brought up originally:

The advice was not isolated. At the 1964 Population Council symposium, Dr. Samuel Wishik pointed out that acceptance or rejection of birth control would depend on whether it caused an early abortion. Dr. Tietze, of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council suggested, as a public relations ploy, "not to disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance." Tietze added that theologians and jurists have always taken the prevailing biological and medical consensus of their times as factual, and that "if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen." {Source for quotes: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964, New York City, ed. Sheldon Segal, et al.., International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 86, page 212.}

And this is 84's proposed change: Since 1965 pregnancy has been defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Some people prefer the former medical definition, which defines pregnancy as beginning at conception. After reading the original source, is 84's proposed contribution appropriate for this article? --Andrew c 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. I'd prefer some documentation that conception was actually regarded as the "beginning of pregnancy" before 1964 before considering such a question. 84's source for his quote is wildly POV, and (as I noted before), there have been people on both sides of the abortion debate who have not hesitated to stoop to dishonesty. (That's not an accusation of anyone, least of all the contributors here--simply a strong desire to verify everything.) Justin Eiler 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we would still need a source verifying that, before Uterine 2, the medical consensus was that pregnancy, "and therefore life" (whoa), began at conception. The evidence that we have now suggests almost nothing in that direction, except perhaps that some portion of the medical community hadn't considered that definition to even be a medical issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you GT for tracking down that source and sharing it with us. Secondly, I know I didn't post my take on this issue, instead only recapping 84's position. I don't know if I can objectively help out on this issue, because of my POV. The way I see it, it makes 100% medical sense to me that an embryo must implant before pregnancy begins. Test tubes, even if they contain a fertilized egg, do not become pregnant. Fertilized eggs fail to implant very commonly, and these are not considered abortions or miscarriages. If the definition changed in the 60s, it is because the knowledge of these scenarios came up. I think 84s wording is misleading, but maybe I do not fully understand the history behind the definition change.--Andrew c 06:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just added the section I omitted earlier - it's Dr. Mastroianni's bit about the monkeys. I don't know whether his English was a bit stilted, or whether the person transcribing made some mistakes - I think my typing has been accurate.

Also, this is something to note: Uterine 2 is a primary source. Wikipedia is really supposed to be a tertiary source. It would be good to have a secondary source actually indicating that Uterine 2 was an influential event that affected subsequent medical vocabulary. I think it certainly was influential, but Uterine 2 can't say that about itself. Next time I talk to my law school buddy, I'm going to ask him where he read about Uterine 2, and where one might find a good gloss on the conference and its consequences. Maybe someone else will turn up something else in the meanwhile. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe it is also imperative to determine the pre-1964 definition of pregnancy. From the above quote, I can't determine if they were changing a definition that had already been agreed upon by the medical community, or clarifying an issue that had never been completely looked at. Dr. Tietse's comment is ambiguous, but Dr. Guttmacher's comments seem to indicate that the Church of England considered pregnancy to begin at implantation in 1962--but the CoE is composed of theologians. What does the medical community say pre-1964? Justin Eiler 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In this framework of pregnancy begins at implantation: Is whatever you call the human cells which implant, living, dead, or inert? patsw 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should ask Dr. Tietze that. He's the one who said, above "pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation". As for your multiple choice question, I find the idea that a fetus at any arbitrary stage of development can always be categorized as "living", "dead" or "inert"... extremely problematic. The world is messy, and edges are grey and fuzz into each other. Those categories are way too neat to be applicable near the edges. Sorry. The answer to your question is mu, as far as I'm concerned. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In reality, no, the world is not that messy. What implants into the uterine wall is already living and has been living and dividing for a few days to a week. You were once "it". patsw 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Patsw, if you already had your answer, and weren't going to accept any other, why did you ask the question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to extend my thanks, GTBacchus, for going above and beyond in terms of research. Frankly, though, I don't know what to make of this information. However, 84's addition is a still rather politicized presentation of facts, in my mind, as it has not been conclusively established that Uterine 2 was a redefinition and not a refinement. -Kyd 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't much trouble to find, really. Just a phone call to a librarian who talked me through filling out a web form, and then a walk across the quad a week later. It does seem more like "serious" research when it isn't confined to Google or maybe PubMed, though ;). As for what to make of it or do with it, I dunno. I think we need a little bit more information to put it into context, so I'm working on tracking some of that down. It might take a bit longer, but the article won't run away in the meanwhile. - GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a maven of actual research; I'm just a hack with too much time to search Google. Together, we can achieve great things! Ahem... -Kyd 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing in 1920, even Margaret Sanger understood the medical definition of pregnancy to begin at conception, and that any deliberate interruption of the pregnancy after conception was an abortion http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html:

"Several of these sperm cells start, but only one enters the ovum and is absorbed into it. This process is called fertilization, conception or impregnation. If no children are desired, the meeting of the male sperm and the ovum must be prevented. When scientific means are employed to prevent this meeting, one is said to practice birth control. The means used is known as a contraceptive. If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion."

136.215.251.179

There is an important distinction to be made, GaE--was Sanger aware of the delay between conception and implantation? At what point was that delay discovered? (And as for your response on our discussion, I'm weighing the statements and doing some checking--I want to give a measured response, even though it takes longer. Thanks for your patience.) Justin Eiler 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For peer reviewed research demonstrating that perhaps a majority of ob/gyns reject the idea that pregnancy does not begin until implantation, see [3]. Pay particular attention to the bold sections. Also, note that according to this opeer-reviewed research, the new ACOG definitions were established in 1965 and 1972. 84.146.221.240

Pro-Lick's change of the definition

• See Talk:Abortion#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS

"An abortion involves ending a pregnancy with the loss of the embryo or fetus."--Pro-Lick 05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Loss" is vague and can be inaccurate. Quite often, the embryo or fetus is not lost at all. For example, during the extremely common D&C abortion the fetus is deliberately dismembered with surgical instruments while in utero {caution - graphic medical image: [4]}, and then immediately thereafter reassembled outside of the womb on a surgical tray to ensure there is no loss of body parts to ensure no parts are left inside the mother. "Loss" is not the best term. "Death" works, as it is always accurate, without exception; it is not ambiguous; and it encompasses natural as well as induced death. 84.146.221.240

We had discussed the use of the word "death" some months ago, and had reached a consensus to use it. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that the fetus doesn't die, so removing "death" is not making the article more accurate; it's deliberately withholding an extremely relevant fact that some people aren't comfortable with. It is therefore a violation of WP:NPOV.

Regardless of the personal wishes of User:Pro-Lick, there is not a "majority view" here that "death" should be removed. His edit summary was, in my view, inaccurate in all three claims ("correcting defintion to the medically correct, NPOV, and majority view"). I am going to restore the word again. AnnH ♫ 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Majority real-world and medical view and sourced view is provided above under the various death/removal and definition. You are still provideing no sources for your POV. When you have sources, you can claim NPOV and verifiability, both of which support the definition I provide.--Pro-Lick 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Talk:Abortion#Abortion_Overview_Definition
2. Talk:Abortion#Interesting_article_on_abortion.2C_from_WebMD
3. Talk:Abortion#Death_or_removal.3F
4. Talk:Abortion#Uterine_2
5. Wikipedia:Five pillars - "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."
6. Wikipedia:Consensus - "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy."
7. Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable_consensus-building - "With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities."
8. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies - "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)."

Pro-Lick, remember also: Accuracy trumps NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no conflict between accuracy and NPOV. NPOV requires that, if there's significant dispute as to what's accurate, we describe the dispute, present all sides, and let the reader decide. How is accuracy compromised by that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is NO dispute as to whether or not death of the conceptus is ALWAYS part of the abortion process (induced or spontaneous). If there is no death and the conceptus remains alive, then we have what is medically classified as a birth or a failed abortion. Using an ambiguous term to paper over this medical fact is an attempt to have the article comport with the POV of people who want this article to tiptoe around the reality of what abortion is.84.146.236.167

Actually, there is significant, noteworthy, and thoroughly documented dispute as to whether an unborn fetus is "alive", and as to whether the word "death" can properly be applied to what happens to a fetus being aborted. I think it's safe to say that we're all aware of this dispute, and papering over the fact that this particular bit of semantics plays a central role in the controversy surrounding abortion would be irresponsible. Document the dispute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing issues. The moral status of what dies (the conceptus) is obviously up for grabs. But whether the conceptus is living (as all organisms are) prior to any abortion and dies as a result of the abortion is NOT at issue since it is a biological fact. Not sure why you dispute the biology. Since everyone seems so intent that the scientific facts are paramount, then the article ought not paper over the FACT that biological life of the conceptus (regardless of any moral status it may or may not have) is deliberately ended as a result of every abortion (induced or spontaneous). 84.146.213.216

Huh. I haven't said anything to indicate that I dispute that a fetus is alive. (Nor that I'm "intent that the scientific facts are paramount".) Second guesses aside, you seem to think that nobody disputes that an unborn fetus is biologically alive; I disagree and say that lots of people dispute that "FACT". Rather than simply disagreeing with you though, I'll go get sources. Watch this space. Oh, and the life of the conceptus is not deliberately ended in the case of a spontaneous abortion, as your last sentence indicates, but I'm happy to assume that was a typo of sorts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "deliberately" is only correct for induced abortion. A reliable doctor who disagrees based on biological fact? There is a moral issue as to whether a "human life" with cognition or rights exists. There is no biological issue, however, as to whether the biological entity known as the embryo or fetus is a living biological entity. I have thousands of skin cells that are living, biologically. When they scrape off, they die. These are biological facts. There is no magic that makes an embryo any less living or dead. 84.146.248.62

Accuracy is determined by what? Verifiability, consensus, or some other method? Please remember to provide sources WP:RS for your accuracy method.--Pro-Lick 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my post above, after which Str1977 made his comment. Your definition is NOT accurate. The current one used in the article is accurate. It is factually accurate. It is medically and biologically accurate. It reflects common usage. It just makes some people uncomfortable. Accurate. Sources have been provided. You have no source that "death" isinaccurate. There is none. ALL abortions involve death of the conceptus. Factual. Accurate. Your "loss" is not accurate, as I noted above. 84.146.236.167

Connecting abortion and death

I concede that there are many sources to choose from which avoid connecting abortion and death. They employ euphemisms such as termination for a variety of reasons. That fact that with the legalization of abortion from conception to birth in the United States, the descriptive language of abortion has changed to avoid the term death merits a discussion all on its own in the article.

• What sources are claiming that in a sucessful abortion that whatever is in the womb (unborn child, fetus, etc.) does not die?
• What sort of sources that connect abortion and death would be satisfactory to pro-lick? patsw 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your opinion is that they are euphemisms. You don't provide any way to verify that or show that it represents NPOV. Look up loaded words.--Pro-Lick 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your opinion that they are not euphemisms. It's my opinion they are. It appears that it has been less than 48 hours since you joined the Wikipedia, so let me educate you: we are not searching for a one, true, neutral point of view, but explaining multiple points of view to achieve an editing consensus of a fair presentation of all the significant points of view on a disputed definition.

• What sources are claiming that in a sucessful abortion that whatever is in the womb (unborn child, fetus, etc.) does not die?
• What sort of sources that connect abortion and death would be satisfactory to pro-lick?

This talk page is a dialog: we get to ask questions of each other. It's not a tedious monolog of you mentioning the obvious, i.e. that I am a pro-life advocate.

I am seeking a consensus among editors about what defines abortion and conceptually connects abortion with death, and not merely euphemisms like termination and interruption. Merely finding texts which have avoiding making linguistic link between abortion and death with a new code word doesn't a consensus make. patsw 05:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply repeat a mainstream source from Justin Eiler's previous post:

• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus; especially : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy."
• 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"

84.146.221.240

walkthrough

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 agree with Patsw, and also 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). 84.146.221.240

Another mainstream medical definition of pregnancy

If you go to the NIH website [5] and use their online medical dictionary you get this result [6]:

• Main Entry: preg·nant
• Pronunciation: preg-nnt
• Function: adjective
• Definition: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body : GESTATING : GRAVID
• (Source: Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary)

Please explain the basis for totally excluding mention of this MEDICAL definiton in the article. It is sourced from a neutral manistream medical publication. The current article reads as though such a view is both unscientific and marginal. In fact, this definition of pregnancy is both scientific and widely held, even among medical professionals, according to peer reviewed research. [7]. This definition makes it clear that there is no pregnancy unless the embryo (regardless of stage of development or implantation) is living and developing inside a woman's body. Just thought I would head off the typical "test tubes can't be pregnant" dismissive snipe. 84.146.221.240

See also the MEDICAL definition for conception at [8] which makes it clear that there are various medical definitions for pregnancy in use.

• Main Entry: con·cep·tion
• Pronunciation: kn-sep-shn
• Function: noun
• Definition: the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both
• (Source: Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary)

84.146.221.240

Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS

Not opinions. Not comments. For NPOV WP:NPOV and verifiable WP:V sources. The initial list is from definitions provided earlier on this page. Add any other sources you may have to list below. I'm trying to make a single, referencable compilation that can be easily referenced and used for making the definition compliant with Wiki official policy:--Pro-Lick 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health MedlinePlus encylopedia: "removing the fetus and placenta from the uterus". Under description, "remove the tissues (fetus and placenta) from the uterus".
2. WebMD Medical Reference from "The Gynecological Sourcebook" - M. Sara Rosenthal, PhD - "Technically, the word abortion simply refers to pregnancy loss before the twentieth week."
3. WebMD Abortion Definition - "Abortion is the premature ending of a pregnancy."
4. From Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide, Chapter 15 - The Female Reproductive System; Pregnancy and Birth, p. 398: An abortion is loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy or before a weight of 500 g (1.1 lb).
5. "Interruption of pregnancy or expulsion of the product of conception before the fetus is viable is called abortion." "A voluntary induced termination of pregnancy is called an elective abortion...." - Brunner & Suddarth’s Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, 10th edition, Chapter 46 Assessment and Management of Female Physiologic Processes, p. 1398-1399
6. 1911 Encylopedia Britannica uses expulsion, not "death", and the only difference between it and miscarriage is that it is deliberate. This is interesting because this is well before mass-marketed political spin.
7. 1913 Webster Dictionary uses "expulsion ... before it is capable of sustaining life" and does not use "death", but makes clear that abortion at that time was a crime.
8. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy".
9. U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health MedlinePlus encylopedia define miscarriage as: "A spontaneous abortion is the loss of a fetus during pregnancy due to natural causes. The term "miscarriage" is the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy before fetal development has reached 20 weeks."
10. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Miscarriage: "The cause of most spontaneous abortions is fetal death due to fetal genetic abnormalities, usually unrelated to the mother."[9]
11. 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....." etc.[10]
12. Encarta [11] "termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus"
13. 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"
14. Causes, incidence, and risk factors, MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Miscarriage: "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
15. [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) ([12])."
16. MSN Encarta dictionary "1. An 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)."
17. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 26th Edition, 1996: "1. Expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability at about 20 weeks of gestation (fetus weighs less than 500 g). A distinction is made between abortion and premature birth: premature infants are those born after the stage of viability but prior to 37 weeks. Abortion may be either spontaneous (occurring from natural causes) or induced (artificial or therapeutic). 2. The product of such nonviable birth."
18. Dorlands Medical Dictionary "1. premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception, either the embryo or a nonviable fetus."
19. Encyclopedia of Medicine - eNotes.com "the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently."
20. MedicineNet.com "the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost."
21. "Induced Abortion. Intentional medical or surgical termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation." - Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002
    1. "Inevitable Abortion. Uterine bleeding from a gestation of less than 20 weeks accompanied by cervical dilation but without expulsion of any placental or fetal tissue through the cervix." - Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002

Abortion Related Definitions from Wiki sources

Not for opinions. Sources from non-disputed articles.--Pro-Lick 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Miscarriage- does NOT use "death" - "the natural or accidental termination of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks."
2. Stillbirth - uses "died" - "occurs when a fetus, of mid-second trimester to full term gestational age, which has in the womb or during labour or delivery, exits the maternal body."
3. Wiktionary definition - does NOT use "death" in its definition. Properly makes reference to miscarriage, which also does not use "death".

Comments subsection

(Please add more Wiki sources above, and comments in this subsection, to keep the list of sources neat)

We really can't use Wikipedia as a source. In Miscarriage, the phrasing "where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving" manages to dodge most of the POV pitfalls, though, or so it seems to me. Maybe we can borrow those words (it's GFDL, after all!). -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested wording is not accurate. Abortionists are on record that abortions are performed on fetuses that are alive and viable. 84.146.248.62

You are debating semantics. "Death" is a noun-form of the verb "die". Terminating a pregnancy means cells will be deprived of nutrients and therefore die. It is not a POV - it is biological fact. After all, polar bodies effectively die during oogenesis because of lack of organelles, and this death is necessary for meiosis to complete, thereby bringing a viable egg into the fore, ready to be fertilised. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating semantics, nor was there any intent to. I agree with you for the most part, except that in general usage, death is also used for "death penalty" and "death sentence". It imposes guilt by association, as opposed to innocence. Consider this definition from Amrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, "BRANDY, n. A cordial composed of one part thunder-and-lightning, one part remorse, two parts bloody murder, one part death-hell-and-the-grave and four parts clarified Satan."--Pro-Lick 08:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find the guilt by association argument to be very thin and unpersuasive. Of course the word "death" occurs in some negatively-associated phrases (including "death-hell-and-the-grave", for which thanks!), but lots of words occur in negatively-associated phrases; we don't stop using them. When I read the word "death" in a clinical statement about abortion, I don't think of electric chairs and frowning judges. I find "death" to be a pretty neutral word, like "chair", or "Beligium", and I expect to see it used clinically, accurately and unsqueamishly in a work like an encyclopedia.

"Death" has plenty of neutral and positive associations, too, y'know. Are you familiar with the French term petit mort? Have you heard the band Death Cab for Cutie? Or maybe you're more into Death metal? Do billions of people in this world not celebrate the cycle of death and rebirth? Death is part of life. It's everywhere. Without it, none of us would exist. While I was typing this, a bunch of cells in my body died, and good thing, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Another debate on abortion

I noticed this got reverted when it is a valid debate.

Another debate involving abortion is about whether it is murder or not. The question posed by this essentialy is when life starts in the fetus, that is, when are cells in a fetus considered living instead of non-living. Some views on this (of varying extremity) include:

   * Life is defined by existence of genetic material, hence in sperm. 
   (hence, almost 100 million lives are lost everytime a man ejaculates)
   * Life starts as soon as the egg is fertilized.
   * Life starts when the embryo can feel pain.
   * Life starts when the brain and brain waves are operable.

I justified this edit for the following reason:

"Actually, part of the abortion debate IS when the fetus is considered living. The reason this is part of the debate is because nobody has qualms about "killing" a non-living thing (unless it has sentimental value somehow), but if it is living, then it crosses into one's moral boundaries about the idea of taking life. This portion of the debate is actually a precursor to many of the debates about conditions regarding whether it is moral to abort a fetus.

To further the point of why this is a debate, living mammals are typically composed of multiple cells. Is a human cell by itself living? If a human cell is not living, would you have any qualms about killing it? If it is, then would you have qualms about killing any part of the matter that exists in a cell? (which is scientifically known to be non-living on it's own)"

My authority on this is self-justified for the following reasons:

• Dealing with various debates in a Morality and Justice course, INCLUDING the one I'm proposing here.
• Strong background in Ethics, covered by classes in Morality and Justice, Ethical Theory, and Business Ethics (which I'm currently taking).

Since the revert was done by an administrator and I was reffered to the talk page by her, I'll let others discuss this before such an edit is included.

• I agree with the change. There are all sorts of things that can be referred to as living, and thus die. Death is far to imprecise for that reason. If it's insisted upon, proper context should be provided, such as you provide.--Pro-Lick 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you just conceded what was in dispute? If whatever is living dies, it is death. It is a precise word. We're not talking about a prion or a virus in this case but biological life. Of all the disputes that comprise this debate, the word death is understood.

Death: It's because of its plain and well-understood meaning that people avoid the word. patsw 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, every time you eat, cells lining your cheek die. Every time you scratch an itch, skin cells die. Anytime a man ejaculates, millions of little cells that are alive die. Funny, the ejaculation article doesn't say "resulting in the death of sperm" as part of the definition. It is entirely acurate, and scientific, to describe ejaculation in the manner. However, is it appropriate for the first sentence definition for a wikipedia article? What about eating, that "results in the death of plant and animal life" in addition to cheek cells. Is that clause included in that article? Why is it so important to have the word "death" in the first sentence? Note, I'm not disputing whether cells die or not. I'm questioning the importance we place on having the word 'death' so early on in the article.--Andrew c 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Andrew c. I'm only stating that if you are somebody who's POV is that it is death, then you are conceding that abortion should refer to everything that "dies" as a result of losing its source of life. As stated previously based on the majority of reputable, reliable sources, I conclude neither life nor death belongs in the definition. Which is to say nothing of the Guilt by association (e.g., "the death penalty) that using a term like death carries with it.--Pro-Lick 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Because deaths of sperm cells and cheek cells aren't central to a long standing ongoing debate (although you could make a case for sperm cells... a certain Monty Python skit comes to mind :"). Its accurate to state cells die, but it is not pertinent. Here, it is important to note the consequence of an abortion. Pro-Lick, I don't understand your point about conceding "abortion should refer to everything that "dies" as a result of losing its source of life." Could you expand and rephrase please, thanks. Are you referring to placenta and uterine lining which also die as a result of an abortion? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So if the Frutarians, or Jains, or who ever were more dominant, it'd be ok to mention that eating results in death in the first sentence of the eating article? You said the reason why this word is so important is because of the debate. Should then this issue be brought up in the abortion debate article and section? I think placing the emphasis on an issue favorable to one side (ironicly, worded to one side) in the opening definition is a bit too biased. I personally am not questioning whether death of cells occurs. I'm saying, if we mention this in the first sentence, we are putting extra emphasis on one POV, as opposed to simply defining a term that covers miscarriages and induced abortions.--Andrew c 04:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with any of the above, and how does the current version not cover miscarriage and induced abortion? It should not go in debate, because the result (death) is not being debated. Whether or not the procedure should be allowed is. Why the debate? Because of said result. If we leave it out; abortion ending a pregnancy does not specify the result. A Caesarean section also ends a pregnancy; but results in a birth of a child. Abortion ends a pregnancy and... to leave it out is illogical. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They avoided the D word on the miscarriage page, and I feel that page sounds medical and professional, not dumbed down and POV. But if you think their wording is illogical, perhaps you'd like you edit that article as well?--Andrew c 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, and discuss with its contributors prior to changing anything, as its an established stable article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The examples given are absurd. I don't know of anyone who itches for the intention of killing the skin cells. If I thought the matter of the death of sperm to be as signficant as the the matter of the death of unborn children, I might be editing that article. Voluntary human action in an abortion such as when a curette is used to dismember the unborn child or fetus intends death, causes death, and results in death.

Cells are cells is an unworthy as a talking point. The specific cells we are discussing is/are potential unique human beings. We all existed in the form of this collection of cells whatever technical name one assigns to the cells composing a unique member of our species at an early stage of development.

* A unique human life begins at conception, at the union of a human sperm and a human egg.
* An already living human in an early stage of development, with its cells already dividing, implants into the uterine wall.
* This is the continuation of an already existing life.
* This unique human individual will emerge from the womb either living or dead

These are biological facts. I'm not making the point that it is important to include a reference to abortion as being the death of a fetus (and not a post-1973 euphemism like termination or loss), but because it only honest to do so. patsw 04:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have said the reason why you are editing this article is because it is "the matter of death of unborn children". This is your POV about the procedure and has no reason to be in the definition. I am not trying to supress your point of veiw. It has it's place under the debate section (and even a reference in the opening paragraph). However, your POV should not define the term. And it's funny you say "post-1973 euphemism". Try the 1911-1913 euphemisms of "expulsion" and "before it is capable of sustaining life". Do you find the opening paragraph of Miscarriage to be problematic? I understand completely (because you just explained it) why its important to you that you define the fetus in these terms and point out that abortion results in death. However, the significance of your points is in question. Is abortion defined by your POV to the extent it should be included in the first sentence? I say no. But I'll see what others think. --Andrew c 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the miscarriage definition. It does serve as a meaningful point of reference. "termination of a pregnancy" is better than "ends a pregnancy"; but I think we had termination on the table before and it didn't pass muster for some reason. I cannot remember. My knee jerk reaction would be "death" is not necessarily accurate for miscarriage since the embryo is usually non-viable from the beginning. Certainly that is also a point here (as its possible one could induce abort a non-viable embryo), but I think we can agree the intent of an induced abortion is to stop a viable pregnancy. (whereas the intent of eating food, is to acquire nutrition, not kill the fruit/roots etc.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just convinced myself you are right. As indeed abortion (including miscarriage) broadly speaking does not carry intent; but induced abortion does. The problem here is semantics, the correct broad definition of abortion, and the definition of abortion in common usage which is induced abortion. Hmmmmm... yeah I think we settled on common usage as the definition, since induced abortion redirects to abortion. We went through this before, but another round is doable. You have to convince us the broad definition should be employed in the lead (miscarriage/induced abortion), rather than its common meaning (induced abortion). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current edit now (and the one that has been there for months) starts off with "termination of a pregnancy". You also bring up a good point about viability in regards to miscarriage and induced abortion, however I believe most editors wanted the first sentence definition to be able to encompass both, because technical, an abortion does cover both, although the popular use of abortion refers specifically to the latter (see the last sentence of the first paragraph on miscarriage. --Andrew c 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an ideal compromise is the dictionary definition:

Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.

But I remember that being brought up too, and being decided against for some reason. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember now, pro-lifers saw "incapable of survival" as a long winded POV, politically correct way of saying "death". And most of us pro-choicers were forced to agree with that. It's simply a long way of saying death, so why not just say it? That's how we ended up at the current version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of something Kyd wrote further up:

This matter is covered in the thread "Termination of pregnancy sentance" in Archive 12. The introductory sentence is attempting to summarize all abortions in one line: spontaneous or induced, early or late term, and human or other species. If we are were to modify the sentence, I would go with "expulsion," as this sentence must also describe miscarriage. The word "removal" implies deliberate action and thus is only an accurate description of induced abortion. Death itself has many senses: astronomers often describe stars in the red giant stage as "dying." I don't see anything too bad in the use of "death," in a biological context, to describe abortion — the POV lays mostly in how it's read.

The reason I mention this is because this is where I got the idea that the definition is supposed to encompass both induced and miscarriage. Let me think this over a bit. Is there any way death could be changed to dying?--Andrew c 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; dying is very verby and actiony. Doesn't seem to fit in a encyclopedic definition. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Biologically, is there any dispute that a developing conceptus is biologically living prior to any type of abortion, and that is in fact biological death is ALWAYS associated with an abortion of any kind (spontaneous or induced)? Again, moral human life is another topic. I am talking about biological fetal/embryonic life and death? Its not really at issue at all except for those who turly wish to hide this biological fact. Certainly most people in general conversation and most doctors even discuss miscarriage in terms of death and life. Elsewhere the article should (and I think does) clearly state that some people think its a moral human life and some don't (on the very odd chance that anyone might not realize there are divergent views). 84.146.248.62

I am going to let this drop because there are much more important issues in this article (that Kyd has so kindly listed above). I just wanted to clarify my concern for anyone who missed my point. I was never arguing that cellular tissue didn't died as a result of abortion. I was just saying mentioning this fact in the very definition bring prominence to a POV issue. My analogy was that of eating. Eating results in the death of plant and animal tissue, however that fact isn't mentioned in the first defining sentence of that article.--Andrew c 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the human eating process itself almost never involves death. We don't eat things that are alive. We eat dead things. By contrast, the abortion process itself ALWAYS involve death. Induced abortion is actually the DELIBERATE killing of a conceptus along with removing the conceptus from the womb. Its all part of the abortion procedure. If you do any research at all, you will discover that the GOAL of an abortion procedure is to kill the conceptus and then remove it. (Again, I can post links to the words of respected abortinists that state this). A dead conceptus is crucial for both practical and legal reasons. Decapitation and dismemberment of the fetus is part of a D&C abortion, by definition. Killing the fetus is required for a legal abortion. Its not tangential. And spontaneous abortion ALWAYS involves the death of the conceptus. Either conceptus dies and it is expelled, or conceptus dies while being expelled. If the conceptus is expelled while alive, it is a birth. And in fact, the flesh of the dead conceptus itself is also properly referred to as an "abortion". If that flesh is alive, it not an abortion, but a neonatal infant. Death is part and parcel of every abortion. As we say, "No matter how you slice it, abortion kills." 84.146.227.229

POV is in how it's read

I hate to start a new thread here, but it's probably worth repeating this - I noticed it at the bottom of a section, it took a bit to find......KYD wrote earlier:

This matter is covered in the thread "Termination of pregnancy sentance" in Archive 12. The introductory sentence is attempting to summarize all abortions in one line: spontaneous or induced, early or late term, and human or other species. If we are were to modify the sentence, I would go with "expulsion," as this sentence must also describe miscarriage. The word "removal" implies deliberate action and thus is only an accurate description of induced abortion. Death itself has many senses: astronomers often describe stars in the red giant stage as "dying." I don't see anything too bad in the use of "death," in a biological context, to describe abortion — the POV lays mostly in how it's read.

I believe KYD is right when he says the POV lies in how it is read - a pro-life individual sees it as the death of a person (as opposed to human) with rights, a pro-choice individual would probably see it as the death of a developing cell mass (as many did in the previous consensus). Other pro-choice individuals might see it as a pro-life attempt to bring humanism (as some obviously do above). But the POV lies not in the word, but in its interpretation. It won't be any different with any other word (termination, expulsion, etc.) and the other terms also have problems in not addressing all forms of abortion (expulsion is spontaneous, as opposed to induced - one cannot "expulse" a fetus - so it relates mainly to miscarriage). So it seems to me that death is the most suitable, both for encompassing the necessary definitions of abortion, and after some thought, I think in terms of being a neutral word (as KYD says, death is a pretty loosely used term throughout the sciences). Thoughts in this regard?--2006-03-18 00:48:29 DonaNobisPacem

You're quoting a POV (it gives no sources) on POV to support your POV on POV. Generally speaking, if this claim is true, why bother having NPOV as a policy? Specifically, death is used in "death sentence" and "death penalty" to name just 2 words that don't make "death" an NPOV term. Do you have any sources that use it in a positive way?--Pro-Lick 07:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the conceptus living or dead at the end of the abortion process? Whether living or dead are good or bad is not of concern. We want facts in the article. What does "loss", "end" or "temination" mean? They can all be synonyms for death (as they are in this context). What is lost, ended or terminated? If you say pregnancy, then its the conceptus living in the womb that is lost, ended or teminated. Pregnancy does not exist if that conceptus dies. Its not really complex.

• Living coceptus in a womb = pregnancy.
• Dead conceptus = no pregnancy.
• Living conceptus but not in a womb = no pregnancy and no abortion unless fatal injuries are deliberately caused during the procedure or the conceptus is put to death at the conclusion of a deliberate abortion procedure (reputable abortionists have to kill fetuses outside the womb all the time - I can post a link for the skeptics). BTW, when a fetus survives an abortion and is killed soon after, this seems to be infanticide. But the reality according to abortionists is that many abortions happen this way, so I have discussed the matter accordingly. 84.146.248.62

Death is death. Cells die all the time. Please see the definition of life. The cells undergo mitosis. They grow, and respond to their environment. Now, if they were removed from the mother's body, these cells will have no supplies, and will therefore die. Death of the cells is a fact. There is nothing wrong with the term "death", and it carries little stigma whatsoever (would you prefer the term ethnic cleansing or foetalcide? There are things like programmed cell death and apoptosis, and all this "death" is seen as natural. After all, during a period, the cells on the uteral lining effectively "die". I could also say, "sentenced to life in prison", where "life" is used negatively, but that doesn't make the word itself POV, does it? Besides, the term "death penalty" IS an NPOV term. Now, if you were to call it unjust, that would be a POV. Please learn your biology. After all, death is needed so the other cells can grow, and is a natural part of evolution and life (well until we can edit our own genome so genetic updating through death becomes biologically unnecessary). In apoptosis, cells in the developing foetus die, in order to make way for spaces in the finger, and they effectively are programmed to commit suicide. Leaves in the fall commit apoptosis and die. None of the uses of this term for "death" is negative. After all, the leaves are of no use in the winter, and will only cause loss of precious water. Similarly, the cells between the fingers are un-needed, and need to die in order to make way for fingers to function. In the same way, people may abort a baby because they think that raising a child is an unnecessary obligation. Whether this is moral or not is a POV, but stating the cause for their actions is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So according to your definition, 100% of IVF are sucessful? A mother trying to get pregnant will always become pregnant by the nature of your definition (having 'Living coceptus in a womb'). There is no destinction for the embryos implantings? If you are serious about redefining terms, you should go to that article and change The chance of a successful pregnancy is approximately 20-30% for each IVF cycle.--Andrew c 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A solution for the opening line!

It seems that most of the medical articles I have started looking through (see articles "using death" subsection above) use a two-tiered, as it were, definition: they define an abortion (spontaneous or induced) as the expulsion of a fetus - BUT - before many cheer and ignore the rest - go on to say that it is a result of, or results in, the death of the fetus. SO - before many others cheer and ignore the rest - I propose a solution, that uses both forms of terminology, and is recognized in medical/scientific/reliable/whatever other flipping category I need here literature:

An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.

This takes into account:

1.) Abortion is the actual expulsion, according to medical literature. Nothing less, nothing more. It is not the procedure itself in an induced abortion, nor is it the cause of the miscarriage. Abortion = fetus leaving womb.[other than birth 84.146.248.62]

2.) It is caused by or results in the death of the fetus, as is recognized in medical literature. One or the other happens (the fetus can still be alive at the time of a spontaneous abortion, it would seem).

3.) The pregnancy, at that time, is terminated.[because the woman is no longer gestating 84.146.248.62]

How's that tickle everyone's fancy? DonaNobisPacem 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your definition is improved, but regarding your comments: Actually, those medical also tend to give further context on what they mean by death, such as: Causes, incidence, and risk factors, MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Miscarriage: "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant]."--Pro-Lick 07:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The context doesn't really matter though - what I'm pointing out is that REGARDLESS of context, they still refer to it as death. That's what we're trying to show. DonaNobisPacem 07:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Context affects meaning, however, so REGARDLESS is the same as saying you're not interested in the sources' actual meaning, just how you can manipulate it.--Pro-Lick 08:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say - they are a medical source (not pro-life) and use death in the case of both eggs, fetus', and embryos dying (ie, different stages of cell growth).DonaNobisPacem 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is that this article isn't a purely medical source, so it lacks the context of both a medical source and the medical students that read those sources.--Pro-Lick 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't too shaby (but is it significantly different than the current version?) My only suggestion would be to change the order and have 'termination of pregnancy' the first clause. It's ackward to have two "resulting in"s.--Andrew c 13:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "......thereby resulting in the termination of pregnancy."

It was brought up previously [13] by Kyd that when one baby is aborted when carrying twins (a selective reduction), the pregnancy does not end. This is interesting. In order to have one all-inclusive general definition for abortion, perhaps the focus should NOT be on the pregnancy, but on the continued fetal development of the aborted conceptus. Obviously a pregnancy is NOT always ended as a result of an abortion (as in a selective reduction or the miscarriage of only one twin). Technically, the only universal truths (among those we have been discussing in this context) present in all abortions are that the life (development) of the conceptus is what is aborted or terminated, and that this dead conceptus exits the womb. Goodandevil 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a complication. If one of two twins is aborted or miscarried, would it be correct to say that the pregnancy ended for the fetus, if not for the mother? Maybe that's a stretch. The thing about an abortion is that it's the ending of a fetus' gestation in a womb, so as not to result in a live birth. Yeah... does something like that work?

An abortion is the termination of an embryo of fetus' gestation in a womb, so as not to result in a live birth.

That even covers a very early miscarriage being reabsorbed. Whaddya think?-GTBacchus^(talk) 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, for the pro-"death" crowd (which I just remembered includes myself):

An abortion is the termination of an embryo of fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.

Yeah.... that's a stronger phrasing, and covers every case I can think of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty solid, I'd go for that one. Broad support will be needed to change the old version to this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning regarding current edit war re article intro

Warning for all editwarring folks who have not used up their 3RR quota or are preparing for their second round. Their is no new consensus so the article needs to be in its previous state. Discuss at will, then put it to a vote, start an RfC, whatever, but do not editwar. AvB ÷ talk 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this edit war to AN/I. Please stop the edit war or it will be stopped for you. And don't forget WP:3RR. AvB ÷ talk 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted an RfC a day or 2 ago.--Pro-Lick 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you announce it? AvB ÷ talk 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf version

An abortion is the cessation of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a foetus from the uterus.

A very nice attempt, but again this does not specify the result. As mentioned above a caesarean section also matches this definition (with the exception of embryo). I'm reverting it, not because I disagree with it persay; but I want consensus. And this is just another version/offshot of an edit war; or more accurately edit usurption; as the first version was stable and agreed upon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just rewrite the opening please, there's no need to use the revert to revision function. I specified the result of death in the next paragraph. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that, checking. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this:

"halts the development of the embyro or foetus before it is able to sustain its own life"

My opinion is that falls under the same objection (raised by pro-lifers) as the dictionary wording "incapable of survival". It is a long way of saying death; and as we are striving for summary form, death is short and concise; unfortunately it is also more emotive and negative. But frankly I think that is an appropriate tone for the subject of abortion, be it miscarriage or induced abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while not as concise as I would like, it is better because the result does not always result in death (as somebody arguing from a anti-abortion view made the point of). It sometimes ends in the equivalent of a premature birth. One day, it may be up to the woman to donate her embryo/fetus to another woman as men can donate sperm. So, whether by accident or intent, the pregnancy ends without death. As for edit wars, I don't see you providing any substatial sources that state that abortion must end in death to be abortion. Please stop the discussion war and provide sources.--Pro-Lick 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

But as stated above - that is referred to as a "failed abortion," in the case of an induced abortion, and "premature birth" in the case of a spontaneous abortion. The definition (by necessity) states what a "succesful" outcome is.DonaNobisPacem 23:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

An abortion by definition results in the termination/death of the thing being aborted; if you have reason to believe otherwise; provide it. You want the change, you convince us, not the other way around. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if the foetus continues to live, then it is really a failed abortion (as ironic as it may seem). If it gets transferred, then you really haven't aborted the pregnancy, only suspended it temporarily. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll, opening line

I'm going to be bold here and construct a rough straw poll of available options. Please feel free to add further proposals.

Please sign your name with (#* ~~~~) under a position you support or oppose (with no spaces), preferably adding a brief comment. You may wish to sign your name to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Background: The first debate on having "death" in the lead sentence was tied to the extensive unborn/human vs. embryo/fetus debate. It was decided human was an ambiguous term and allowed one to infer personhood (human being); whereas embryo/fetus were more accurate and neutral. When it came to putting "death" into the lead there were many proposals; but it was argued death also was accurate and neutral. This is how the current version was agreed upon by both sides of the abortion debate and those in the middle. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Original:

• An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.
  • To sum up my stance, although "death" is negative and emotive, it is accurate, and I think strikes the right tone for the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Others differ, however, placing this initiation at fertilisation (also called conception).

Proposals:

1. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.

   Support

   • -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Caroline

1. Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Need some mention of death. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
2. An abortion is the cessation of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.

   Support

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • "Termination" and "cessation" = "black" and "sable." -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
3. An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.

   Support

   • I prefer this version, as it moves us to a broader and more dictionary-accurate definition of "abortion", which includes miscarriage, and would avoid good faith editors like Andrew c wanting to change it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • I like this one, as it applies very generally, including to abortions in which one fetus is aborted, but another or others remain, so the pregnancy is not terminated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • This is medically accurate and easily understood by the layman. By focusing on gestation and mentioning death, it covers all situations - even the most tricky. Specifically: it covers aborting one twin's gestation but not the other's, and it covers an induced abortion in which a nonviable healthy fetus is removed from the womb (thereby terminating gestation) followed by its death soon thereafter. And it dos NOT cover a failed abortion since death would be required. Likewise it does not inaccurately rely on viability and is not so broad as to include some forms of birth. But one question: should the articl mention that the dead conceptus itself can also properly be referred to as an abortion? - Good
     • Could you reword and clarify the question in the discussion section, thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) This is neutrally stated, without making a moral judgment regarding the cause of the fetal death.
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Conditional support: If "embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb" is changed to "the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb." Possesive apostrophes don't sit well with my inner grammarian. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support Kyd's change. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
   • Wade A. Tisthammer 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Particularly with Kyd's change, the wording would be acceptable to me.

   Oppose

4. An abortion is the termination of an embryo of fetus' gestation in a womb, so as not to result in a live birth.

   Support

   • "White" and "chalk." It really is just a complicated way of saying "death," but I can't oppose it on editorial or or idealogical grounds. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) not live plainly means death
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
5. An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.

   Support

   • Intelligent compromise. Accurate, inclusive, and to the point. Sidesteps "death" entirely. -Kyd 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Don't like "cease" with "pregnancy". My experience of "cease" is that it's not used with a direct object, unless you classify an "ing" form of a verb (doing, going, etc.) as a direct object. Even worse, "before", carries a slight implication that the other thing still happens after. So you "cease" the pregnancy, and then you have childbirth? No! AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) New wordplay variation on terminate; ungrammatical as well
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
6. An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.

   Support

   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Conditional support if "removal" is added. I could support this, although I'd reword it to avoid two occurrences of "resulting in". Perhaps the second one could be "and causing". Also. I'd prefer "removal or expulsion" to simply "expulsion", as that would provide more clarity for the case of induced abortion, as opposed to miscarriage. AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • As per Musical Linguist. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Too many resulting ins... resulting in my oppose, resulting in less support, resulting in this not being in the article, resulting in a different sentence (I hope.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Too convoluted. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
7. An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
   • I just reworded my previous submission (one up) to clear up some issues addressed under "A solution......" and adding the embryo line (as is in every other definition).DonaNobisPacem 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes, although I'd still like "expulsion or removal". AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
   • Support, with the same caveat as Ann Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Insert "removal." :) -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support this version also, is 'expulsion' not more accurate than removal? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
   • Support. --WikiCats 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support Seems to be the better choice. Celcius 05:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

8. Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).

   Support

   • These tweaks to the current version make it clear that there are divergent views of the MEDICAL definition even among medical professionals. This would maintain prominence to the definition that activists successfully introduced in the 1960s (see talk), but would also make it clear that it is not a universal medical definition. The current version is not clear on this point. - Good
   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Even in the medical community the "start of pregnancy" is disputed between conception and implantation
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • Unnecessary use of parentheses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Modern medicine defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation. The inclusive, non-specific "others" in the current wording does not preclude doctors from holding the pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization opinion -- but this view is not an "alternative" medical definition and must not be presented as such. -Kyd 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
9. "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." Or, in other words, maintaining the current version.

   Support

   • -Kyd 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Concise and accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support this version also. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

   Oppose

   • The only issue I have with this one is that it falls down in the case of one of mulitple fetuses being aborted, while the pregnacy continues for others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

#*"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the biological death of an embryo or a fetus."

1. Support

   • Qualifying "death" puts to rest concerns over the POV inferences of the word without precluding the possibility or commenting on the validity of such alternate interpretations. -Kyd 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • This addition is bizarre, so I oppose. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • There are types of death? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

   Puzzled

   • I don't understand this one. What is a "biological death" supposed to mean? What other kind of death could there be? AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Qualification of death with "biological" is bizarre.

Sorry. This was posted accidently with the above (#9). Didn't intend for my own Preview dabbling to end up as real suggestion (damn copy and paste). -Kyd 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

RoyBoy, thanks for setting this up. What do you think of formatting the poll so that people can place support or oppose comments below each option, rather than each comment being a support, as it's set up now? Something like:

1. [Suggested opening sentence]

   Support

   • I support this option

   Oppose

   • I oppose this option

Does that sound like a good idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just suggest support by the supported opening sentence - otherwise, one has to then write oppose under every one opposed, etc. Although, I suppose it is possible someone might oppose all, or support more than one.....hmmmm......yeah, your suggestion is good.DonaNobisPacem 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried some reformatting - if someone doesn't like it, please feel free to change it back, just be sure not to lose anyone's comments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for now, I didn't implement it as there are so many options; but hopefully this straw poll with help us narrow it down to a few quickly, and/or combine the wording of a few together to get an uber opening sentence. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to sign votes, to insure one vote/option/editor?DonaNobisPacem 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I look like an idiot - and sometimes I am ; ) - thanks to whoever edited my votes.DonaNobisPacem 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodandevil, if I understand your question correctly above, you're asking whether we should mention that the word "abortion" not only refers to the actual ending of gestation of the fetus, but also to the aborted fetus itself. The thing is, I don't know whether that's correct. I think that the result of an abortion is called an "aborted fetus", not an "abortion". I'm sure that if I'm wrong about that, someone will point out which reliable source uses "abortion" to refer to the dead fetus, at which point, I'd agree with you; and let's include it then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one reliable source [14] that lists one meaning as "an aborted organism". Good 21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's often used in that sense in medical parlance. In the same way, abortion clinics sometimes refer to an aborted fetus (with or without amniotic sac and/or placenta) as the pregnancy or the pregnancy tissue.

I would prefer to set up separate POV descriptions of abortion, based on the majority/minority views in the general population as per WP:NPOV. Preliminary list of POVs in (descending) order of popularity: (1) Held by those who want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as euphemistically as possible (e.g. in order to make it less difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. descriptions authored by abortion clinics (2) Held by those who do not want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as repulsively as possible (e.g. in order to make it difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. pro-life descriptions. (3) Medical/legal. An easy starting point would be to convert the current article to reflect the #1 POV it already approaches, and add the #2 and #3 views separately. AvB ÷ talk 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be contributing any further input on this matter. I hope the other users are able to resolve the issue; until then, I'll uphold the stable version (i.e. "death"). -Kyd 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the poll

Support Medical, Reliable, Reputable sources as per official Wiki policy.

Consensus, whether you call it straw poll or something else, is not how an encylopedia is written. You can use the majority of reliable, reputable sources, per official policy. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy."--Pro-Lick 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Some people would see this straw poll as an opportunity to explain why you feel various options are or are not accurate, NPOV, etc. Refusing to participate in a dialogue is a great way to claim later on that your input was ignored, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Already read it and quote it on my user discussion page. E.g.:

• "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
• "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."

And who says that simple vote-counting is what's going to happen here? How many Wikipedia straw polls have you seen begin and end? Oh yeah, none. A straw poll is a good way of feeling out the various arguments. Nobody who knows this place is suggesting a simple vote-count. We're trying to find out what the pros and cons of various options are.

You're right that consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Unfortunately, when there's disagreement as to what constitutes NPOV, there's no acid test for determining whose interpretation of NPOV is correct. So, we try to explain our views to each other, and we figure that if we can get a consensus to agree that we've found a good NPOV, then we're better off than we would be without that agreement. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my fervent wish that consensus be declared void at least in clear-cut cases of original research (i.e. total absence of reputable sources), and preferably everywhere else. But it won't be happening anywhere soon. Wikipedia is built on the assumption that consensus will in the end result in NPOV language in the articles. NPOV is based on popularity/acceptance of views. The general idea is that consensus is a good way to gauge this. You would have to make Jimbo change his mind in order to remove the consensus aspect. FWIW, I fully agree that WP:NOR forbids editors to create a starting line pretending to be The Truth that is not even stated and undisputed as the majority view by the majority of notable reputable verifiable sources... AvB ÷ talk 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how this particular poll is violating NPOV in the first place. Up above on the talk page, we have several references that do not use, and several that do use, the word death in association with the fetus. Many that do not go on to explain that the fetus/embryo dies prior to or after an abortion. All sources are medical/reliable; so it remains to find a consensus as to whether or not we are going to take the route with or without the word death - yes, POV's come into play in the arguments themselves (on both sides of the issue, might I add), but if both are being used in the medical community, we have to make a choice, and consensus is the best route.DonaNobisPacem 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what is original research in this instance. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, RoyBoy - and what are considered "reliable sources." WALTR 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research includes your opinions, arguments, and straw polls. As noted every time you make a post "Content ... must be verifiable." Your opinions and straw polls do not meet the requirements. Consider reading the link AvB provided. It is official policy. As for the |reliable sources, click. Same page, posted before the attempt to violate policy with a vote of a small group of people that have no claim to expertise on the subject. Or, if they do, should have no problem adding it as a source above. If you have an issue with a specific source, post it below as a comment. That section is not for opinions. In other words, you will need a reputable, reliable, and, very likely, medical source. Of course, if you have such a source, you are free to add it to the list. As a final note, the list presently has a consensus of non-death definitions.--Pro-Lick 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd tweak that to say, "the list I decided to compile in a bold WP:Good faith but ultimately misguided attempt to change the article, based on my interpretation of a few specific WikiPolicies". As to "death" in the lead, I've noted on your talk page, Encarta is a reliable source more appropriate for Wikipedia, as we aren't writing a medical textbook but rather an encyclopedia. This forces us to take a broader look at the issues surrounding the procedure and write them in summary style; unlike medical sources that focus on the procedure itself rather than its issues/results/debate. We have a much smaller academic buffer here; it is a luxury we simply don't have.

To profess we need a reliable (or a consensus) of sources for stating that "death" is part of the abortion process isn't required by WikiPolicy... because "death" (or, no life, unable to survive, etc.) falls under "state the obvious" for articles. Now one can certainly disagree on how the obvious facts are presented and worded; but it would be a waste of time and demonstrate significant gap(s) in understanding of WikiPolicy to assert it was "original research".

Thinking you can somehow divine WikiPolicy better than numerous experienced editors and admins is curious. Then again that does crop up from time to time, especially on controversial articles. Your input/ideas are welcome (after all we are likely going to change the lead soon as a result of your edits, and Andrew c bringing up an old debate). However, your "my interpretation of this and that policy makes me right" attitude is not welcome here. Everyone has similar editorial input here; but that is a double edged sword as while people will listen to you, if they disagree for reasonable reasons... your edits won't make the cut. Such is life at the Wikipedia. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to see where there's a misunderstanding here. In writing a Wikipedia article, we make different kinds of decisions. One broad categorization, that might be helpful to consider here, is that of content decisions versus stylistic decisions. As far as content goes, the main policies to keep in mind are Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No amount of consensus can override these policies. No amount of consensus can justify the suppression of one reliable source, or the use of spurious, unreliable sources. Furthermore, we don't even seek consensus (or majority, or supermajority) among reliable sources. We report what they say, and if they disagree, we report that. That's all on the content side.

When it comes to stylistic decisions, we have to make decisions about how to phrase, couch, and present the facts that are composed of the reliable sources we've found. Phrasing can be very powerful, and one phrasing can imply a POV where another phrasing can sound more neutral. Decisions about how to word something aren't the sort of things that we can cite and back up with sources, and that's where consensus enters the picture. Deciding that one way of putting a definition is more accurate and neutrally phrased than another is not original research; it's an editorial decision. When it comes to controversial editorial decisions, we try to build consensus regarding the best way of putting something. A straw poll is a perfectly valid way of gathering information about what arguments people have for and against certain editorial decisions. A straw poll isn't a simple vote count, it's an attempt to find out what people's issues are with various options. Barging into Wikipedia for a week and announcing that all straw polls constitute original research... you're just wrong about how Wikipedia works. Don't tak my word for it, go work on a hundred other pages, and see how things go around here.

Here's yet another good thing to know about Wikipedia, Pro-Lick. Our policies and guidelines here are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive. What actually determines how Wikipedia works is not what it says on a page somewhere. It's the common practice established by a functioning culture of regular Wikipedians. One who would contribute to Wikipedia would do well to become familiar with this culture and its ways before trying to single-handedly change how this site works. That's if one wants get any work done, as opposed to just generating static. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware what your opinion on what is more appropriate. The consensus of the reliable, reputable sources as per WP:V overrule your POV, however. Or to put it your way, your POV is misguided and does not make the cut. Sources do. Sources support no use of death. And so do the 5 pillars of Wiki, as pointed out above.--Pro-Lick 18:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean; your selected sources. God forbide you had a POV on this matter, wait a second, you DO! You happen to think finding sources without death makes your position correct. Well since you found the sources; maybe, just maybe, you went looking for those sources because it was you POV death should not be there. Don't hide behind your sources; and please stop making use of my irony meter. RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The list above can be added to. Why haven't you? It can be checked, and can be commented on below it. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. I.e., you can add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of your opinion is that your hiding behind unsourced POV.--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A 5 pillar reminder: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."--Pro-Lick 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wherever possible," yes. It's not possible to find a verifiable, authoritative source that says that the definition of abortion has to include or exclude the word "death". All we know is that some sources use that word, and others don't. (There are other words that some use and some don't, like "gestation", "embryo" and "expulsion".) Most that exclude the word "death" from the first sentence include it a little bit later. That's a stylistic decision, not a content decision, that an editor at each source has to make. That includes us.

Now, Pro-Lick, the following are serious questions: What part of "if reliable sources disagree, then we report that they disagree" don't you understand? Also, what part of "You don't know more about how Wikipedia works than those who've been at it for years" don't you understand? What part of "Wikipedia policies are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive," don't you understand? Do you fail to understand the difference between content and style? I really would like to see your answers to these questions.

Even more than that, I have a suggestion. Go find an administrator who has nothing to do with this page. Find one who strikes you as fair and impartial. Ask them whether your take on Wikipedia policies is the correct one. (See also what they think of your habit of removing others' comments on your talk page, in particular, comments informing that that removing others' comments is considered disrespectful.) When you've determined that community understanding of our policies is that you're right and we're wrong, then come back here, with the community behind you, and let us know. When that happens, we'll all say, "you were right all along, Pro-Lick. You wandered into Wikipedia, and immediately understood it better than the rest of us. Please teach us more." Until then, I'm amused at your hubris. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More opinion. What part of the vast majority of reputable, reliable sources agree that death is not part of the definition for abortion is not understood? See WP:V.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Medical, Reliable, Reputable sources

That's an easy one - I don't understand why, when a source doesn't use a particular word in a definition, you take that as an assertion by the source that the word in question "is not part of the definition". I don't understand why you aren't distinguishing the idea being conveyed from the particular string of words used to convey it, when the former is very clear, and the latter clearly variable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath Pro-Lick, we aren't slow. We've understood your position; and have taken great pains to explain how and why you are utterly wrong; and are naive regarding WikiPolicy. Requiring a consensus of sources is a ludricrous proposition for controversial subjects. The logic is simple, simce it is controversial; one could find a variety of reliable and unreliable; authoritative and nonauthoritative sources to back up differing positions and perspectives. It is a huge investment of time and energy and ends up accomplishing nothing. That is why we prefer civil discussion to argue for one position or another. Based on the discussion the article evolves. Your position regarding the lead is flawed and naive; drop it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more opinion, combined with name calling. Very impressive. The list above can be added to, can be checked, and can be commented on. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. You add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of you opinion on the use of death is that it is "flawed and naive".--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

• Number of times consensus is used in the 5 pillars: 0
• Number of times poll is used in the 5 pillars: 0
• Number of times vote is used in the 5 pillars: 0
• Number of times descriptive is used in the 5 pillars: 0
• Number of times any of the above words are used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in how many times verifiable and sources are used.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to get into policy quotes - from Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words:

Notable: A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject. Even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable. Often it is valuable to see how people thought, or competing views of the time.

Hmmmm......even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable....and valuable.....hmmmm. I hate to sound condescending, for I admit that is what I am doing: but this citation and bickering over policy is doing nothing but increasing the file size of this page. Discuss the article: if you want to discuss and work on policy, go to a policy discussion. The majority of editors here have been around a while, and are familiar with many policies - that's why they don't quote them all of the time. Ok - done venting. DonaNobisPacem 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Number of times Pro-Lick has convincingly argued a point using WikiPolicy: 0
• Number of times WikiPolicy refers to following WikiPolicy to the letter and ignoring experienced Wikipedians and other considerations (style, balance, policies like consensus): 0
• Number of times new users feel after reading some WikiPolicy they can WikiLawyer their POV into an article: big number
• Number of times WikiPolicy says one can cherry pick sources then gloss over others (sources and people) in pursuit of an agenda: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in your Wiki-blind spots. (edit conflict) Ahhh, thanks DonaNobisPacem. :"D I recall a quote of some sort, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exacctly. All DonaNobisPacem's stats are unverifiable opinions posted in the form of stats.--Pro-Lick 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a small question - which stats are you referring to? If you are talking about the ones about yourself/Wikilawyering/cherry picking etc. above, you can view the edit history - I didn't add them. My venting stopped with my signature above. DonaNobisPacem 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Your POV, however, on the wikilawyering and cherry picking. I can make up an identical list about you and tell you to go look at your edit history. In the end, it amounts to namecalling and does nothing to forward the cause. FYI, cherry picked from WP:POL, which is policy (and links to the 5 pillars): "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy...."

Pregnancy beginning discussion

This is getting so long it's interupting the flow of the Straw poll. I'm moving it here so that it can continue without obstructing to discussion or being obstructed. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, do you have a source for this NOT being a medical definition? I have posted several sources to the contrary. Of course I am not claiming it is THE medical definition - but A medical definition. I don't mean to muddy up your comment, but this seems like the best place to ask the question. Good]

It's a definition. Not a medical one. [15] -Kyd 11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That link appears to be broken. Does that link give a medical definition that is different than the medical definition that I have sourced several times here (if so no news, as we all know that one medical definition is implantation)? Quite frankly some doctors and medical references do not accept that pregnancy begins at implantation and instead maintain that fertilization is the start of pregnancy. Once the gestation period of the fertilized embryo begins inside a woman (which happens immediately upon fertilization), they view there to be a pregnancy until that gestation ends. AGI and many others have a different medical opinion. But the alternate definition is based on science/biology/medicine and it is the medical opinion of those who hold it (I have repeatedly posted links to the sources). AGI has good info sometimes, but when it comes to controversial issues regarding abortion, it is inherently biased as it is part of "Big Abortion" (the abortion industry and the abortion lobby). There are in all likelihood more Ob/Gyns whose professional medical opinion is that pregnancy begins at fertilization than who adopt the ABC link. Not sure what is so disturbing about noting in the article that the alternate definition is based on medicine (instead of whimsy or religion, etc.), as we do with the ABC link. Good 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is in PDF, if that helps: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.pdf. It quotes the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists, "A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete." I wouldn't consider them biased. Never said that doctors couldn't hold the opinion, but, pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization doesn't seem to be the standard medical definition of pregnancy, even if some members of the medical community hold that opinion. Saying it was a medical definition because some doctors believe this would be undue weight in my opinion. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kyd. I commented about this above, but didn't seem to get a response. The IVF page says that only 20-30% of IVFs result in pregnancy, where your definition would say 100% result in pregnancy. Also, the definition you copied a while back say "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body", and I believe the operative word here is developing. A blastocyst can only develop so far if it doesn't implant. I think its good to note that some people believe life (or pregnancy) begin at fertilization, however this use of the word is simply not accurate medically. --Andrew c 14:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Some medical/biological/scienific experts use a different medical/biological/scientific definition for pregnancy. This has been sourced. If you have a problem with the sources (posted repeatedly on this talk page), please state what they are and please be specific. "But those are not medical definitions" is a PoV and not all agree with it (certainly not the medical professionals who are using the alternate medical defiitions!). Again, I am not advocating that the article give equivalence to alternate medical definitions. I simply want them described as "alternate medical definitions" or words to that effect. There is no basis to simply call them "definitions". Good 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting left margin)

I would say that these POVs regarding the start of pregnancy (including the medical POV) are just that - points of view whose popularity/acceptance (but not their truth) needs to be gauged. I would prefer to see the distribution of the main POVs in the general population sourced. As an example pertaining to the point under discussion, it would be interesting (and necessary) to find out the size of the minority that view s as murder the use of IUDs preventing implantation of the newly developing embryo in non-Islamic countries. Reputable sources reporting this should be easy to find. If they are not, we can't say it. AvB ÷ talk 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a number of quotations showing it is a view held by the Catholic Church - of course, intent is taken into account - if one does not know that the IUD could prevent implantation of the embryo, then it is still considered murder, but the user of the IUD is not morally culpable (guilty) of the action. Those quotations are probably archived by now.....I believe it also involved similar statements on IUD's from Physicians for Life, and some other well known Pro-Life medical associations......DonaNobisPacem 17:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's some (of mine and others) from Archive 15 (I've only put a small sample - go to the archive for complete quotes):

• From religioustolerance.org "Pro-life agencies and many -- primarily conservative -- faith groups [as well as] Canadian Physicians for Life [are] opposed..." [16]
• Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient."
• Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo."
• On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that "Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility."

• the following is a vatican statement equating use of the morning-after pill to prevent implantation as morally equivalent to abortion [17].

And some pro-life medical associations that hold the same view:

• American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [18]
• From Association of Pro Life Physicians [19]

I know that doesn't give the size of the demographic, but it gives the general demographic (Christian, pro-life) - interestingly enough, that is not an insignificant number of people...DonaNobisPacem 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's something interesting to consider with regard to actual development (Wikipedia article, not external and I have not verified the article, though it is not disputed or under NPOV like certain other articles).--Pro-Lick 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with anything?DonaNobisPacem 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the development of the embryo. Something to consider in deciding when pregnancy begins (presumably, an embryo can start developing a sex once pregnancy is officially underway).--Pro-Lick 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It should not be surprising that certain characteristics are not determined until after implantation - how would that effect whether or not the woman could be considered pregnant?DonaNobisPacem 18:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A common, real-world aspect of being pregnant is discussing whether it's a boy or girl. One can not hold that discussion until when?--Pro-Lick 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting into the realm of original research anyways, but.....a real world aspect of being pregnant is also saying "What do you think our baby will look like?" That takes quite a while longer to answer!

Anyways, it appears the clitoris article is a bit misleading (or presenting non-conventional POV anwyays) - see [20] at discover.com. The clitoris article is talking about the genital development, NOT the sex of the baby - perhaps they refer to a potential influencer of males with female sex organs (although the discover article indicates that is due to missing genetic information, not hormonal influence).DonaNobisPacem 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "missing genetic information" sums it up well enough.--Pro-Lick 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(moving indent left) OK, I'm not sure you got what I was trying to say - the Discover.com article says sex is determined at conception - XX or XY. The article goes on to say that males with female genitalia result b/c of missing genetic information - that information doesn't miraculously appear at implantation, it's still missing then - I think the clitoris article is merely trying to say that implantation triggers the development of the sex organs. It does not determine what those organs will be.

Anyways, as I said above, it doesn't really effect the question of the definition, so if you wish to continue the discussion we can take it to one of our talk pages.DonaNobisPacem 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Google search on baby sex determined when. Plenty more expert opinions to consider. The consensus seems to be that it's a bit more complex. Not complete disagreement, more like oversimplification for the sake of child-safe TV.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the same search I had performed - most of the hits talk about determining the sex of the child (determining, as in finding out by ultrasound or other methods) as opposed to when it is set. And yes, it is possible to have XO (XY, with Y chromosone missing SRY part, that results in a female) or XXY (which results in a male) - but these are STILL determined at conception. For the first number of sites that discuss when a child's gender is determined (set):

• From medline: The genetic sex of a child is determined at conception. The mother's egg cell (ovum) contains an X chromosome, while the father's sperm cell contains either an X or a Y chromosome. These X and Y chromosomes determine the child's genetic sex.[21]
• From Nova Online:As with all other eggs in a woman's body, the cell contains one female-determining X chromosome. A sperm cell, however, may contain either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. If the fertilizing sperm cell contains an X chromosome, the egg will develop into a female. If it contains a Y chromosome, it will develop into a male. Note: It is possible, however, that a fertilized egg cell containing a Y chromosome will develop into a female or an intersexual (person of ambiguous gender). For example, if the Y chromosome is missing the SRY gene, which is located near the end of the short arm of the chromosome, the egg will develop into a female.[22] - note it is still determined at conception
• The discover.com quote above (determined at conception)
• From Kidshealth.org .....your baby's sex is determined at the moment of fertilization...[23]
• A Washington Post article that discusses the sorting of X and Y chromosone sperm for gender-selective IVF - wouldn't make sense if the sex were determined at implantation, would it? [24]
• From St Francis Hospital The sex or gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. A woman's egg contains half of the fetus' genetic material and when fertilized the male sperm contributes the remaining half. The father determines the sex of the child which is carried by the sperm. The 2 sex chromosomes in a male's sperm are X and Y and the 2 chromosomes in a females egg are X and X. If fertilization occurs between a Y & X, the result will be a boy. If fertilization occurs between an X & X, the result will be a girl.[25]
• From Maternity Mall: At the moment of conception, your baby's gender is determined thanks to the sex chromosomes in the father's sperm.[26]
• From a Daily Southtown article on gender-selective IVF : A baby's sex is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes the egg. A male sperm contains the Y chromosome, while a female sperm contains the X chromosome. A female sperm cell is 2.8 percent heavier than a male sperm cell. [27]
• From Babycentre.com The gender of the resulting embryo depends on which type of sperm burrows into the egg first — sperm with a Y chromosome will make a boy baby, and sperm with an X chromosome will make a girl. [28]

So that's the first three pages.....let's face it, the gender is determined at conception. The only thing that is more complex is the possibility of XO and XXY chromosone pairing (or tripling?) - it doesn't change the fact it's determined at conception.DonaNobisPacem 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comicstrip Poll

Can't forget to get get the consensus of what comicstrip artists think. Add your submission below:

1. Slowpoke
2. Oliphant
3. Wasserman
4. Auth
5. Toles
6. This Modern World
7. Something Positive
8. Wolverton
9. Wilkinson
10. Telnaes
11. Wuerker

Results and tweaks

Here are the versions that acquired broad support; I've copied editorial notes and have tried to carry out the tweaks requested. Please support only your preferred option (and specify original or tweaked); but suggestions on other options that might make you switch your vote and support them instead are encouraged. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Original: An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.

Tweaked: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.

Support and Further Discussion

• Conditional support: If "embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb" is changed to "the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb." Possesive apostrophes don't sit well with my inner grammarian. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport tweaked version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support tweaked version. Good call, there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Original: An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.

Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.

Support and Further Discussion

• Yes, although I'd still like "expulsion or removal". AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
• Support, with the same caveat as Ann Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Insert "removal." :) -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support this version also, is 'expulsion' not more accurate than removal? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support as per AnnH: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy. - OK?
  • My bad, putting "or" in tweaked. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be ok with this one if it loses the phrase "thereby terminating the pregnancy", which is not true of all abortions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Original: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.

Support and Further Discussion

• The only issue I have with this one is that it falls down in the case of one of mulitple fetuses being aborted, while the pregnacy continues for others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't like the word "associated". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... I still don't like what I said before, and I also agree with RoyBoy about "associated with" being a silly phrase to use there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Original: An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.

Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.

Support and Further Discussion

• Conditional support if "removal" is added. I could support this, although I'd reword it to avoid two occurrences of "resulting in". Perhaps the second one could be "and causing". Also. I'd prefer "removal or expulsion" to simply "expulsion", as that would provide more clarity for the case of induced abortion, as opposed to miscarriage. AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
• I'd support this one, with "removal" I suppose, if it loses the phrase "resulting in the termination of pregnancy", which is not true of all abortions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Original: An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.

Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth.

Re-Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth.

Support and Further Discusison

• This one has potential - I think it didn't get a fair shake on the first round because of its unfortunate wording. I would further tweak it to "An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth." As I keep mentioning, a pregnancy may continue despite an abortion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to be confused as support for polls, but in case the others want to know which one to vote against because I support it, I would support the original, tweaked, or GT's retweaked version.--Pro-Lick 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• This definition looks very euphemistic since it seems to deliberately omit a significant and "unpleasant" detail; namely the death of the embryo/fetus. After all, that's why abortions are so controversial in the first place! Omitting this very significant part of the definition thus doesn't seem right. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• While I agree with the sentiment of Wade; I would like to note this is one of the best alternatives I've seen. It is simple, inclusive and to the point. On one side I do firmly believe the consequence should be noted to clarify the controversy of the procedure; on the other I appreciate Pro-Lick's objection that "death" could personify the fetus. Ultimately the problem is, that is in the eye of the beholder, and is insufficient to find "death" wrong or POV. The question I find myself now asking myself with this version; does/should the controversy be hinted at in the definition... or should we just define it in simple terms? Hmmmm... I think a dictionary can so simple terms, we as an encyclopedia cannot? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this nicely dodges the issue of death by defining abortion as a non-birth ending of a gestation, and that refers any issue to how "birth" is defined, in its own article. The fact that the relation of abortion to death is what makes it so very controversial is important, but not technically part of its definition. I would be happy to see that somewhere in the lead, if not in the defining sentence. Extending a thought that's already there: In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. The controversy stems from the fact that many consider a fetus to be a full human being, in the moral sense, and therefore consider abortion to be murder. Something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Man this is a tough call; very good suggestion. I only wish Pro-Lick had made such a suggestion. Would have saved a heap of time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy tweak

I assume this is a seperate proposal, so here is its own section. I have not implemented a tweaked version, others more familiar with the subject are encouraged to jump in. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Original: Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).

Tweaked:

• Unnecessary use of parentheses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Modern medicine defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation. The inclusive, non-specific "others" in the current wording does not preclude doctors from holding the pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization opinion -- but this view is not an "alternative" medical definition and must not be presented as such. -Kyd 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.
• |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
• AvB ÷ talk 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.

Examine the power of the euphemism "terminate"

This word became a common euphemism for "abort" after 1972 when abortion which had been a crime throughout the United States became legal in all 50 states. It now is being served up here and elsewhere as the definition of abortion itself. It becomes a circular definition without a reference to life and death: Abortion is termination, and termination is abortion.

Terminate simply means end. The termination, end, cessation, halt, stop, etc. of human pregnancy is either a birth or a death of a human child at some stage between conception and fetal maturity. If every human fetus expelled from a human womb was an abortion, the human race would cease to exist.

Has the pregancy of women who have given birth to living children, completed but not terminated? patsw 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would we say that a "birth" is a termination of a pregnancy resulting in a living baby? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that would be correct.....if that helps.....DonaNobisPacem 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why it should result in living baby? smth. dead babies are born. Or it's not birth than? --tasc 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to feel out the limits of the word "termination", not to provide an authoritative definition of "birth". One must speak carefully, mustn't one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions Without Euphemism

Terminate is not a euphemism. The poor babies get terminated. Want no euphemisms, define it one of these ways:

• An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with beating the baby to death.
• An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with a death camp for babies.
• Abortion is killing a developing baby inside a pregnant woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabyBomber (talk • contribs).

Uh, terms like "death camp for babies" seem a little POV. How about something like "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with killing of the preborn child"? Hmm, "killing," although technically accurate, might also be too emotional. And yet I despise euphemisms. How about "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with causing the death of the preborn child"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

my edit on definition

I felt the defintion was incomplete, leaving it as an "ending of the pregnancy." Thats true but so is a birth. In both cases the pregnancy ends. The difference is that one ends as an expulsion of an embryo/fetus, and the other in a birth of a baby. Only the latter is able to survive on its own. That is why I expanded the definiton to point to the former instead of the latter. I'm not sure why this is controversial, as it's pretty straight forward. Giovanni33 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the definition that you posted in inaccurate. If a viable fetus is taken from the womb, and killed in the process, what do you call it? Your definition excludes "partial-birth abortions" from being called abortions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also not the case that an abortion necessarily ends a pregnancy. If a woman is carrying triplets, and two are aborted, but she's still pregnant, was that not an abortion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's back to the negative definition: abortion is not a birth. It's something else. Something that dare not be mentioned. patsw 05:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the fetus able to servive on it own? I still call it an abortion. It's accurate because I use the words "associated with." It would be very rare to have a fetus aborted which could survive on its own. An abortion is almost always of non-viable fetuses (or embryos). And, an abortion does end the pregnancy in respect to the fetus being aborted. A pregnancy only exists in conjuction with a growing embryo or fetus. To remove that removes the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is still there that is only because in an unusual situation there it was only an abortion of one of multiple embryos/fetuses, which is still consistent with the logic of the defintion. Sometimes a definition has rare exceptions, which your senarios include, but these can mentioned in the next sentence, such as where some but not all fetuses are aborted. Giovanni33 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those situations are so rare. I've seen some sources to the effect that partial-birth abortions have occured in the thousands per year in individual clinics. Maybe that's false, I don't know, but partial-birth abortions are certainly very visible, as part of the controversy, and it would seem strange to define abortion in a way that excludes them at first. As for multiple fetuses, they're the norm in plenty of species, and I certainly don't know what kind of ratio of implanted eggs to eventual kittens, for example, is usual. Do you?

Maybe it seems that I'm harping on bizarre special cases, but I think we should at least try to come up with an entirely correct definition, before settling for a most-cases definition and a list of exceptions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of your comments, its fair to remove the "before it can survive on its own," to make room for the very rare cases where it is possible, but also because it's not essential to the definition of abortion. So, I did that.

About partial birth being rare, I decided to look it up the facts [29] "There were 1.3 million abortions performed nationwide in 2000, according to the institute. About 88 percent were during the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 1 percent were performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy, when a fetus is considered having a chance of living outside the womb." And from the same site, "Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health." Giovanni33 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Without looking past what you've related here (the source is utterly biased, but I don't care), I would point out that 1% of 1.3 million is 13,000, which is... only 35 per day, on average. You could consider that rare or not so rare, I guess. I mean, it's a tiny fraction of the total; it's 4 World Trade Centers over the year - what kind of rhetoric are you spinning, right? I don't really care whether they're rare or common though, like I said, our goal is to be 100% correct and clear.

My only issue with what's up there now is that we're claiming an abortion is the end of a pregnancy instead of a gestation. I don't buy that there are multiple pregnancies going on when multiple fetuses are in a single womb. That's not how we actually use that word, is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "gestation" is so much more technical of a word that it would confuse readers, and maybe that's worth using the slightly less accurate "pregnancy" and leaving common sense to sort out the obvious details in the case of a multiple pregnancy(ies?). That doesn't sound so horrible.

The D-word... is another issue... I don't consider it either forbidden or mandatory, but I think the most concise and accurate definition would acknowledge that the essential difference between abortion and birth - the entire reason we distinguish them - the reason the word "abortion" exists as distinct from "delivery" - is that one results in a dead fetus, the other in a live infant. The problem is whether using the word "death", or one of its forms, brings in unacceptable baggage. That's not an easy question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

With all of the above in mind...

Ok, I'm suggesting the following rewrite:

An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth associated with the expulsion of an embryo or a fetus from the uterus before it can survive on its own.

This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

I suggest changing the above (and whatever other variations we've been seeing) to:

An abortion is the ending of a gestation of an embryo or fetus in a womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

Humans have used various methods to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human, morally speaking, and therefore consider abortion murder, whereas proponents of safe and legal abortion consider access to abortion to be a basic human right for women.

The definition is accurate, I think, and I think it's good to go ahead and introduce the controversy in the introduction a little bit more fully. It also has the nice feature that those who want to edit war about particular words can just alternate the phrase "caused by or sesulting in the death of the embryo or fetus" with the phrase "before birth" in the first sentence without really changing the meaning!

Whaddya think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I could accept that version, GTBacchus, or a similar version beginning with:

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.

I do object to any attempts to try to hide the fact that this thing inside a woman — whether it's a blob or a piece of tissue or a human child — dies. What this thing actually is is a POV; what happens to it is a medical fact. And since a dog can die, a cell can die, and bacteria can die, it's not implying that it's a human child to use that word. I also object to any attempt to hide the fact that abortions take place past the stage where the fetus could survive. Yes, it's an uncomfortable fact, but Wikipedia is not meant to hide uncomfortable facts. AnnH ♫ 09:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd have "Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human", without the "morally speaking". I can't see what that adds, or even what it means. I consider Str1977 and GTBacchus and Giovanni33 all to be fully human. I would consider killing any of them to be "murder, morally speaking" (though even in that case, the "morally speaking" is unnecessary), but I would never say that I consider them to be "fully human, morally speaking". AnnH ♫ 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider a zygote to be fully human, developmentally speaking, and I don't think that's controversial. On the other hand, you're right that it's a awkward locution. Maybe something like "...consider the fetus to be a human with moral rights"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary, but acceptable, in my view. If I consider you to be a human being, then I consider you to have moral rights. By the way, I know Americans say "have gotten" instead of "have got", but I presume the "humans have usen" is a typo?!AnnH ♫ 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... "use, used, have usen". Maybe it'll catch on. I see your point about "human" being equivalent with "fully human, with moral rights, and a soul"... for you. We can't assume all our readers believe that. It's entirely possible to consider an embryo "pretty much" human, but not deem it to have moral rights until a certain stage of development. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note in support of AnnH's rv and edit summary: "Death" was result of consensus, had been there for months. Still being discussed. No consensus to change it. In fact it had been there (possibly with interruptions) for at least five years and three months. It's right at the top of the article back in December 2001 (unfortunately there are no earlier archived pages). It read:

Abortion, in its most commonly used sense, refers to the intentional early termination of pregnancy, resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.

AvB ÷ talk 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The death of the conceptus always accompanies an abortion. The death is not really what is controversial at all - that is a very simple medical/biological fact. Our feelings associated with this death is where the controversy lies. Those feelings are why spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is largely seen as a sad and unfortunate occurrence, and why induced abortion causes so much fuss. Its the moral significance we attach to the death that is controversial - not the death itself. This opening definition ought not skirt the basic and noncontroversial reality (the biological death of the conceptus) that underlies why miscarriage brings sadness and induced abortion causes controversy. But this opening definition should not discuss any such feelings, as the opening definition that has been in place for a long time has properly avoided doing! Good 12:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)
Regarding "moral rights", perhaps it would be an idea to refer to personhood and/or add "see also abortion debate"?AvB ÷ talk 10:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't realize that article existed. Yikes. The lead should link to abortion debate, somehow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn, you linked the article before I did, exactly as I was considering. :-) -Kyd 23:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First sentence edit warring

The first sentence has been stable and consensed upon in the past. I understand that people disagree with parts of it, and we have tried to discuss them. However, we never reached consensus. If editors keep changing the stable sentence without approval, it will sure keep being reverted. I feel that this applies to a number of other parts of the article as well. If you are a user, and you keep inserting your own version, without discussion or approval on the talk page, you are boardering on the edge of a POV warrior. I urge everyone to come to the talk page before making controversial and drastic changes to stable content in order to avoid edit warring. --Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To get things going, I feel pro-lick's version misses what, in my opinion, is the most important part of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy (or part of a pregnancy in the rare instance of aborting twins). I am not happy with the 'death' part of the old version, as mentioned above, but I am willing to let it go because I simply cannot think of any other wording that isn't a euphamism, and as a compromise to my fellow editors who feel it is important to include that fact.--Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the trouble with being ginger about language is that the single only reason that "abortion" is a different concept and a different word from "delivery" is that it involves death. Without that minor detail, there's no difference between an abortion and a delivery. If you're trying to perform an abortion, and the fetus somehow survives, then whoops, it was a delivery. If you're trying to perform a delivery, but the fetus somehow dies before you get it out, then whoops, it was an abortion. In order to soft-pedal that, we need a better reason than I've seen. Our top priority here is to be an encyclopedia, not to help spin language for one side or the other of any conflict. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Before able to survive

As the intro now stands:

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a mammalian uterus before birth, terminating a pregnancy before the developing organism has a chance to survive in an external environment.

This is not true in the case of partial birth or late term induced abortions.....DonaNobisPacem 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not true, but I think for a different reason. It should end "before the developing organism is capable of surviving in an external environment." Yes, with later term abortions if you put it in intensive care, it might survive. The odds are bad, and the risk of significant defects high.--Pro-Lick 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Says who? There are plenty of premature babies who survive, and yes, they may have "defects" (ie, health problems), but they still survive. And with partial birth abortion, we're talking about a child that is full term. So the baby is able to survive - and it's POV to say it cannot (considering that in a partial birth abortion, it is often necessary to do it before dilation occurs, to prevent the baby crowning and being legally declared a person).DonaNobisPacem 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Says who? The stats are on my side. And I don't know anyone that calls mental retardation or missing a limb health problems (except those that like euphemisms). And you seem to have a different definition of partial birth than what is common. Of course, maybe when its not just doublespeak and actual medical terminology, it will become precise and accurate instead of a euphemismistic weasel term.--Pro-Lick 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different things. I was saying that, at the time of a late term, a fetus may survive if born (and will most probably at the time of a partial birth abortion). If it happened naturally, it would be called premature birth - and premature babies do not necessarily suffer from mental retardation or missing limbs (in most cases I am aware of, it is susceptibility to infection, both viral and bacterial, due to under-developed immune systems, that causes the main problems, as well as a still-developing breathing instinct). If the fetus at that time were aborted and survived, then yes, we are talking about serious issues - missing limbs, saline burns, mental retardation, and the like. But the definition as it was worded implied that at the time of abortion, the fetus could not survive outside of the womb, not that after the abortion it could not survive outside of the womb. So that is what I was taking issue with. And please note: I tried to modify and work with the definition I found on the page when I got there, not revert it to my personal POV or choice.....DonaNobisPacem 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Premature birth--Pro-Lick 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Abortion the death "of a cell"

Abortion is not the death "of a "cell". In the biological sense, it is the death of a living organism in an early stage of development while inside the body of another living organism of its own species, i.e. the mother, with a genetic identity distinct from the mother.

There was no consensus to reduce death to the death of a cell.

In the brief moments when we (i.e. all humans, not just pro-life Wikipedians) are single cells, we are organisms, we are human, we contain the 46 chromosomes that determine what genetic type of human we are, nothing will be added to us other than food and oxygen, and that life will continue in the womb, and potentially outside of the womb until death ends that life. The only difference between you and me and thousands of humans who were aborted today is location, age, and our biological development. Biological "humanity" is not determined by the number of cells the comprise the organism. patsw 19:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the cells of a fetus (or embryo or whatever) are alive. Of course they are. The issue is whether they constitute a human being in the moral, not biological, sense. Pro's edit made it clear that, when speaking medically of death in this context, the biological sense is the one intended. Alienus 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patsw. That edit is completely POV, draws attention to itself, and was inserted without consensus. I don't know why we keep having all these discussions here if Pro-Lick can keep inserting his own stuff into the article without any attempt at discussion and gaining agreement. AnnH ♫ 19:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article about what Wiki is not, what does it say about gaining agreement? How about the 5 pillars? WP:NOR? WP:V? Maybe I'm quote mining, but the consensus of those articles on Wiki official policy is that you're requesting we conduct original research. Besides, wasn't it 1 of your (as in you and those who agree with the use of death) main arguments that death is used in the biological sense? Quotes provided upon request.--Pro-Lick 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick, you ask where it says anything in WP:5P about gaining agreement. Ignoring the fact that WP:5P isn't a policy or guideline, but sort of an essay, I'd like to answer that part. It's under pillar 4, where it says "Be civil," and links to Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy. I don't know what kind of civility works by ignoring reasoned discussion and engaging in tug-of-wars rather than pursuing consensus. Civility is the oil that makes the machinery of a Wiki work smoothly. Lacking any structure other than a consensus model, a civil participant will try their best to work within that model. Without civility, Wikipedia would fall apart, and descend into a huge flame-war, useless to anyone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in our discussion remaining civil. This is about article content, and therefore, "Article standards". Civility is a "Working with others" standard. For a handy guide on what is relevant to article content what is relevant to interaction content, see the floating box on the right-hand side of the civility page. Also useful to note is that voting, polling, and democracy are not mentioned within that policy.--Pro-Lick 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting, polling and democracy (or as I mentioned committee) is about working with others constructively. If you cannot make that connect, perhaps you should not be here. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting? I thought Wikipedia:Voting is evil! Alienus 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, nice try, but... "As stated above, polling isn't in itself evil. Polls can be useful for a quick gauge of opinion." Of course they're not evil; but they can be evil if used as the only mechanism in the editorial process. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, article content. Working constructively is subject to POV, and, again, not an article content standard. Would you like to know my POV on how constructively I think you work with others?--Pro-Lick 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

LMAO. Not particularly. Since you obviously are very opinionated and don't work well with others; why would I want to hear from you on that subject? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My interest in procedural matters is limited; I prefer to focus on content. It looks to me like Pro's addition is simply factual. It's not his fault that it bothers those who oppose reproductive rights. The truth is neutral; people are biased. Alienus 19:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GTB for adding punctuation.--Pro-Lick 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thank Pro-Lick for bringing this issue to light in a clearer manner than before. In particular, this edit raises the question: If we say, without qualification, that in an abortion a fetus "dies", does that imply that the fetus is a human and that its death is equivalent to murder? Is the word "death" inherently moral language, and impossible to use in this situation without evoking moral baggage that should be kept out of the definition? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Points in response to the above:

• 'Death' is a biological term an not a moral one.
• Abortion is the death of an organism and not a cell. So describing abortion as the death of a cell was contrary to fact.
• The introductory sentence to the article should provide a clear definition that abortion is the death of a organism (i.e. an unborn mammal called a embryo or fetus at different stages of development)
• Discussion of the morality and legality of human abortion by human agency can be discussed elsewhere. This was a POV change made without consensus to the introduction sentence.
• Good faith among the editors is only maintained when there is adherence to the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. Once we ignore them because of a focus on content or on advocacy of abortion rights, it becomes a platform for advocacy and no longer an encyclopedia. patsw 20:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Patsw, hi. I would respond to your second point that... despite our section header here, the edit in the article did not claim that an abortion was "the death of a cell". It was just clarifying the sense in which the word "death" was being used - "death of a cell" was an example of a similar usage. The question is whether that clarification is at all necessary. I don't really think it is, which is to say, I agree with your first and third points, but I'd like to get the arguments for why "death" isn't a morally neutral term on the table, where we can look at them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about, "such as the death of a virus"? Viri are organisms.--Pro-Lick 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Zygote "The one-cell stage of the fertilized ovum after pronuclear membrane breakdown but before first cleavage occurs." - Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002.

(I see from an edit conflict that those arguments have already arrived...GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

I think GT has done a good job explicating the core of Pro's argument. "Death", used without further qualification, inherently has moral overtones. That's why so many medical definitions, in an attempt to be accurate but neutral, use other words and phrases.

One the one hand, these could be characterized as euphemisms. On the other, the problem with "death" is not that it is "offensive, harsh or blunt", but that it is inaccurate; it implies more than is intended, more than is uncontroversially true.

To speak of abortion in terms of unqualified "death" is therefore inherently POV, and should be avoided. I recommend either qualifying the term or, preferably, working around it. I even have some specific suggestions for phrasing.

Before I offer them, let me give a parallel example: "mother". A pregnant woman is the "biological mother" of the embryo or fetus. So, when qualified by "biological", he term is at least accurate, but when used on its own, it is both inaccurate and emotionally manipulative. In fact, even when qualified, it's still too emotional to be neutral, so the article avoids it. Once again, this fails to qualify as euphemism because the motivation is entirely different.

Let's agree that "death" is inappropriate, and consider the alternatives, shall we? Alienus 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands now sticks out like a sore thumb. I find it confusing, because I think I've just read a perfectly normal, clinical definition, and all of a sudden there's a sentence pointing out the obvious - that a biological word is being used in its biological sense, duh - making me wonder what other sense "death" might have been intended in. Now I've been tricked into thinking about murder, where I wasn't before. So, I would say the edit fails to prevent the issue from becoming morally charged immediatly, and in an awkward manner.

Alienus, you've claimed that the word "death" "implies more than is intended, more than is uncontroversially true." I disagree. There are those who would like to hinge their arguments on some kind of "death=murder" equivocation, but for us to avoid the word "death" because of the possibility of mis-representation is to entirely grant that equivocation, which is unacceptable. Death is not equivalent to murder, and you're essentially agreeing that it is, or at least that a reasonable reader would take it to be so unless they're specifically told not to. As I see it, that's heavy-handed at best, self-defeating at worst. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Put yourself in the shoes of someone coming here from a search engine that hasn't been discussing abortion in the context of medicine or biology. We can rewrite it to make it less obtrusive. E.g., remove "The word" and "here".--Pro-Lick 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Consider Pat and Ann's reactions examples of my point. What happens when an anti-abortionist comes here? Hey, look, Wikipedia agrees with us, it's murder.--Pro-Lick 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I don't feel responsible for other people reading irresponsibly. If someone takes neutral language to mean something biased, then they're going to have difficulty with communication. Our article on death isn't all wrapped in gauze and balanced on egg-shells for the benefit of the misguided. Wikipedia saying that abortion is death is not Wikipedia saying abortion is murder, and anyone who says it is the same is lying, or else confusing simple facts with moral judgements. Our job here is to accurate, not spin-proof. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Murder uses death in its definition too. If you actually want to be accurate, why not use language that the consensus of Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS uses?--Pro-Lick 23:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Euthanasia uses the word "death" in its definition, does that imply that it's murder? As for those sources - I have three problems with your assertion of their consensus: 1. There's no single definition that a majority of them agree upon; thus, no consensus, except to disagree. 2. Many of them are plainly inaccurate, and define abortion in a way that means that we were all aborted, or in a way that means that abortions after week 20 aren't abortions, but something else. Both of those are blatant errors that we would do well not to mimic. 3. None of those sources makes an assertion to the effect that "death is not part of any proper definiton of abortion"; they simply choose other words. To leap from there to saying that they all agree that "death" is wrong is very tenuous. If the minority of them mention the "placenta", are we also forbidden to use that word? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Have you ever heard of fetus Euthanasia? As for the rest, there is consensus on the issue at hand - NOT to use death.--Pro-Lick 23:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Have I heard of Fetus Euthanasia? Yeah, I heard their album sucks. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, I don't think I quite understand the force of your question, but I'm not sure you understood why I brought up Euthanasia in the first place, which, could have been due to my not properly understanding what you were getting at when you said that "death" is used to define murder. That many steps astern of mutual comprehension, I'm not sure what to do... Regarding your so-called consensus of sources, I'm not buying it, and you're not responding to my reasons, so... I dunno. The consensus among sources is to be inaccurate, in some way or another, often precisely by neglecting to mention that we're excluding live deliveries here. I won't agree to replicate blatant inaccuracies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ha, ha, their album. 1 question: How is accuracy determined on Wiki?--Pro-Lick 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  1 answer: In many, many different ways. We try our best to write a good encyclopedia, using the tools we have, and a whole culture has arisen in search of the answer to your question. We try to cite ourselves as often as we can, we try to apply common sense, we try to be as neutral as we can. When there are disputes as to what's accurate, we try to bring them to a wider and wider audience, until some kind of consensus emerges for what to do, and then we live with that, until it comes up again later, and maybe changes. There are some weaknesses to that system, but it's what we do here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'll clarify. What is policy? What does policy state? Consensus, as noted elsewhere, is a "working with others" policy, not an article content policy. We are discussing the accuracy of article content. Does policy state accuracy is determined by taking a vote?--Pro-Lick 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  (outdenting a bit)Synthesis is not a head-count. It involves critical understanding, and an arrival at an overview that treats each source fairly. It's not blindly following some word-count tabulation that you decide "proves" that a certain phrase is forbidden by a consensus of sources. We get to think, why not direct your argument to our minds and explain just why "death" is an imprecise, ambiguous word? I still haven't seen that argument presented very well. I'm just seeing a bad habit among medical books, that we would do well to avoid. Your assertion that "death" is "imprecise and ambiguous" is original to you, as far as I can tell. Let's hear more about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, have you considered that perhaps there's something odd about you disagreeing with the consensus among sources? You're saying that, even though they all bend over backwards to avoid the D-word, you personally judge that to be inaccurate and therefore you will not honor their (usually professional) viewpoints. Maybe you need to step back and see this less personally. Alienus 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll consider myself reminded not to get my personal feelings involved. Thanks.

I don't think there's much problem saying that a definition is inaccurate when it directly implies that every live birth is an abortion. I guess that's a personal judgement, but then it's also a personal judgement that any definition that directly implies that 2+2=5 is also wrong.

A consensus among sources to bend over backwards to avoid a certain word is not really a content issue, in my opinion, but a style issue. They're writing in a euphemistic style that I think is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Encarta agrees. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1 source you cite, Encarta, defines without using death in their dictionary. The vast consensus of [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS|medical, reputable, reliable] sources disagree with your POV. They prefer precise terminology as opposed to the imprecise and ambiguous death. Rather than tip-toe around social moral issues with euphemisms like death, they refer to it as it is.--Pro-Lick 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now death is a euphemism? That's the opposite of what you've said earlier, that death is an overly negative word that carries too many bad connotations. Which is it? A euphemism, or a scare tactic? You can't have both. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, when the sources fail your POV, change the subject. As to euphemism, please read the article in full. The link I provided goes directly to the doublespeak section. It should further our culture's understanding of the euphemism of death.--Pro-Lick 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I just tried rewording the opening sentence with "biological death" instead of "death", hoping we could then be happy without the second sentence. Natalinasmpf removed the word "biological", with the edit summary "death is death. Unless you mean "spiritual death", which I think the wildest association would not apply here". Ummmm... the wildest association? You mean, like the main central argument on the pro-life side? That's a wild association? You're making me see what Alienus and Pro-Lick mean, Nat. If death were just death, and nobody thought it had any spiritual connotations built-in, then would abortion be a big controversy? I think not.

Meanwhile, I think the link to the article death is helpful - notice how clinically that article treats death. Why did you remove that link, too, Natalinasmpf? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GT, in matters of communication, perception is 100% of the issue. It doesn't really matter what message you intended to send, only how it is understood. You and I may look at "death" and shrug, figuring it's obviously the biological sense of the word, but it's clear from Natalinasmpf's little hatchet job that some people squint until "death" looks like "murder". If using a more neutral phrase makes that squinting impossible, then we've succeeded at communicating more clearly. Alienus 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not refer to Natalinasmpf's good-faith edit as a hatchet-job. Everybody tries to make the article better, according to thier idea of good, and everybody learns a lot. Why does it have to be about "bad guys"? I agree that every attempt so far to communicate that "death" means biological death, not spiritual death has just come across as creepy. I think Natalin proved my point that the effort of putting up a hedge just highlights what's behind it. You'd call less attention to it without the hedge. It's like a bad comb-over. It's better to just confront head-on that yeah, we're talking about death here, and then address the moral question quickly and directly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Death is a morally neutral word

It's been repeated without evidence or even elaboration here that death is inherently POV or morally loaded. It's the end of life. Where death is discussed in other encyclopedias and in the Wikipedia, it is not inherently POV or morally loaded. Why is it so characterized here? patsw 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, what's the problem?--Pro-Lick 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Natalisnasmpf removed "biological" proves my point. Alienus 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I 2nd that. When does the poll start?

The fact that Natalisnasmpf removed "biological" proves that a stilted wording gives everyone the wrong idea. I know it was my wording, and as soon as I think of something better, you'll hear it here first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is no way to speak of "death" without either being awkward or misleading means that the word itself has to go. Alienus 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not convinced that just calling it "death" is misleading. People are going to see their own prejudices wherever they look, we can't help that. I think it should be fine to just call it "death" in sentence 1, and directly address the moral question before the table of contents. If we use the word clinically, and don't act embarassed by hedging and stammering around it, then readers won't freak out, they'll continue to sentence number 4 or whatever, and find that Wikipedia is very carefully not taking a side on any moral question. Can we agree on something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not convinced that just calling it "death" is not an embarassed hedging and stammering. Nor am I convinced that it will lead readers to continue. Nor am I convinced that it cause readers to find Wikipedia is carefully worded. I agree that your POV is not medical, reputable, or reliable.--Pro-Lick 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence there, I definitely don't understand. How is calling it "death" hedging? "Hedging" means putting qualifications up, like "in the biological sense" - that's a "hedge". Where's the hedge, if we just call it "death"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a hedge because you're not referring to it in the staright-forward way that the medical, reputable, and reliable sources do. Instead, you're hiding behind imprecise, ambiguous moral language.--Pro-Lick 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Death" is neither imprecise, ambiguous, "moral language" nor even non-medical. Many of those sources don't refer to it in a straight-forward way at all, but, as Alienus noted above, "bend over backward" to talk around the point. And what exactly is one "hiding" when one refers to the death of a fetus with the word "death"? What's hidden there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources on your POV? They "bend over backward" because it is such an imprecise and ambiguous word. They choose language that is more precise, less ambiguous.--Pro-Lick 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My POV? Ok Pro, you've found me out. That money I gave to NARAL, I was kidding. My friend, who works in the abortion clinic, I hate her. My other friend, who got an abortion, confided in me, and had me keep it for her in a jar for months while she didn't have a place to stay, she'd be disappointed to know I was somehow lying, about supporting her morally. I guess the ruse is up. Just because I'm willling to call abortion "death", I must be an anti-abortionist in disguise. Sheesh. I assure you, you've shown no inkling of a clue that my POV could even exist.

Now you're asserting why those sources refrain from using the word "death". You say it's because the word "death" is too ambiguous and imprecise. That sounds like original research to me. Do you have a cite, that medical sources consider "death" an imprecise term? Or just some thin circumstantial evidence based on their not using it in one particular definition, in many, but not all cases? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All your personal claims are original research. They are not verifiable. As to why, I just showed you how using one's POV I can interepret the results differently from you. In the end, neither of us should be trying to judge the sources, as you have been doing. We should take the sources, synthesize their expertise, and define accordingly.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're certainly right that my personal experience is original research. If you'll check, you'll note that I haven't suggested that any article content be based on my personal experience. Original research is ok, in the context of two people having a conversation, and one explaining to another that the other doesn't know squat about the one's POV, and might refrain from making assumptions that are false.

On topic, the idea that "synthesis" is a process that somehow doesn't involve "judgement" is very silly. Alienus is closer to the right track below, laying sources wide open and inviting one and all to judge the heck out of them, as we're supposed to do. That's good work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the Pro-Lick's addition before dinner, and made a comment here, saying that I agreed with Patsw. Out of respect for GTBacchus's plea last night, I did not revert, but will state for the record that I felt very strongly that it should be reverted, and I was very pleased to see that someone else had reverted by the time I finished dinner.

GTBacchus, I appreciate your effort to change to "biological death", presumably to help avert an edit war, but if you search this talk page for the word "Puzzled", you'll find that that was suggested by accident, and rejected. (The "puzzled" votes can, I think, be taken as oppose votes; certainly mine can.)

I have argued all along that "death" in no way implies that that fetus is a human being with human rights. A dog can die; a cell can die; bacteria can die. In order to keep the article neutral, I would oppose any language that implies that it's only a piece of tissue, but I would also scrupulously refrain from inserting words like "baby" into the article.

"Death" itself is a neutral word. I had a kidney infection recently, and I took antibiotics, which killed the bacteria. I don't feel uncomfortable in saying that. If people are uncomfortable in saying that the fetus dies, we shouldn't blame the word "death"; we should rather examine what they think the fetus actually is. That is what changes the neutrality of "death" and "killed". If it's a baby, it's murder; if it's just a piece of tissue, it's not murder. So, for neutrality, we mustn't use words that imply either that it is a human being or that it isn't.

I think that the more recent attempt:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus (in the same sense that a virus dies).

is probably the most severely POV non vandalistic edit that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. As I said, to achieve neutrality, we're trying to avoid implying that the fetus is or isn't a human being. Some people think that the fetus is just a clump of cells, but on the other hand, some people think that the fetus is human with the same rights as an adult. That edit was every bit as inappropriate as

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus (in the same sense that an adult human being dies).

would have been.

Regarding Natalinasmpf's edit summary, death is death. Unless you mean "spiritual death", which I think the wildest association would not apply here, I think some of the editors on this page may be misunderstanding "spiritual death". It doesn't mean that the death is "morally" murder. Spiritual death refers to the state of a soul that is in mortal sin. So, someone who commits a mortal sin, according to Catholic teaching (and the teaching of some other Christian churches, too, although I can't speak for them), is spiritually dead, even though he may be eating, sleeping, thinking, working, walking around, etc. People in mortal sin are biologically alive, but spiritually dead. That doesn't apply to unborn children, as they are incapable of committing sin. And they are certainly not responsible for the "death" which is associated with the abortion. So, as Natalinasmpf said, the "wildest association would not apply here".

I don't see that there can be any other kind of death than biological death and spiritual death. "Moral" does not apply to death. An act can be morally good, bad, or neutral. I can be morally culpable or blameless for some action. But I can't be morally dead or alive, fat or thin, pale or dark, etc.

AnnH ♫ 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. I hadn't seen the "puzzled" and struck-out use of "biological death" above. I knew that edit was going to be reverted, and just thought I'd sneak a wording improvement into it before it disappeared beneath the waves. It's sort of a sport - one time out of a hundred, by some grace it works, and the revert never comes. This time, not so much.

Regarding Natalinasmpf's edit summary - I think I may have misunderstood. Natalinasmpf, I apologize if I mistook your meaning. I guess I was ignorant of the conept of spiritual death in the sense of mortal sin - I never got very far in catechism before I switched to a secular school. I figured that "spiritual death" referred to a difference between the death experienced by a human being and that experienced by a carrot. That's clearly the point of the word "biological", right?, to distinguish a death that doesn't carry moral weight from one that does? How would you make such a distinction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's just hang my POV out on a limb here. If you go to my user page, you can check out my little userboxes, and my user name should give some indications as to my POV to. So.....I have a cat. I do not think my cat is a sentient, moral being. But when my cat kicks the bucket (which it surely shall if it keeps on insisting on running across a busy street) I will say my cat died. It has no moral weight; it is a "biological death," as GT called it. Because that's what the death of an organic organism is - biological. Likewise, when I kick the bucket, people in my faith community will say "Hey, that guy's dead" - but it refers only to a biological death, because we believe the soul lives on. The fact that they call it death has nothing to do with morality - the fact they hold a funeral, and pray for my sould, etc. is what does. If someone is talking about mortal sin, or separation from God, sometimes referred to as "spiritual death," it is called "spiritual death" to distinguish from the accepted meaning of the word. Death is simply the end of existence for something - a star (astronomers refer to the death of a star), a cell, a human, a cat, an amoeba, a car ("my car died today"), whatever - when it ceases to exist as a functioning being, unit, object, we can apply the term death to it. And to further my point - because I say my car died, does not imply I think someone murdered it. My objection to the term "biological death," and in fact the removal of the word death, has nothing to do with morality - if it did, I would be inserting in words like "human" and "soul" and "rights" and "a fetus is a human with a soul and rights" every five minutes, because THAT's what the morality issues are over. My objection to "biological death" is because - what the heck else is there for it? It's POVing on the pro-choice side, because it's trying to remove any conception of humanity of the fetus - something the article should not do, because we cannot claim a right or wrong POV when it comes to arguing subjects such as souls, rights etc. Although legal definitions enter into that realm out of the necessity of making laws, but it is not factually based. It is an arbitrary decision of policy makers, not medical, biological, or whatever. My objection to the removal of the word death is for the same reason - I feel it's POVing, simply because it is a non-admission of the facts. Remember, we don't have to stick to the medical definition, if we're still sticking to the facts. All we are saying is the fetus dies. The reader can read the article, and all the associated ones (abortion debate, etc.) and decide for themselves what that death means.DonaNobisPacem 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read over my post a few times (I shouldn't be writing at 1:00AM) and want to clarify my main point - the insertion of the word biological is unnecessary, because the death is obviously biological (what else is it?) - it's like saying the fetus is biologically alive. It's alive, or dead - the biological part is automatically in context. If you then insert the word biological, ie "biologically dead," I believe it is POV because you are trying to lay a stress on the biological nature of the fetus, not its death - it becomes a commentary on the morality of the issue, as opposed to a statement of simple fact.DonaNobisPacem 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

DonaNobis, that's probably the best argument I've seen for the inclusion of the word "death". It's difficult, because we've got people saying that using the word "death" implies a moral judgement, because of the rhetoric that's already out there. You're saying that refraining from using "death" implies a moral judgement, because it's so conspicuous by its absence that it's actually an active dehumanization. It would be POV to either de-humanize the fetus or to over-humanize it. That's the razor we're trying to balance on, or so it looks from here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I was arguing - thanks for summarizing it so nicely. And you are right - that is the razor we are trying to balance on. DonaNobisPacem 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader

I read over the death page. There is a section that reads:

Prebirth deaths in the US

These entries are controversial, as they are based on the premise that personhood begins at conception rather than birth or a particular prenatal development (See abortion debate; there are various opinions as to whether or not a fetus is an independent organism or fully human, for this reason abortion and miscarriage are not normally considered when compiling death statistics).

As you can see, there is controversy over whether fetuses actually 'die' in the sense that is described in the 'death' article. Read over the "Physiological changes" section of the artcile, and do they apply to all aborted fetuses/embryos? I think it is controversial and not entirely accurate to use the wikipedian definition of 'death' in regards to abortion. Furthermore, I will once again state my issue with using 'death'. There are a number of every day actions that 'result in death'. Eating, masturbating, hiking through grass, and suprisingly, none of them mention that these actions result in death. While its clearly true that doing these things results in something, biologically speaking, dying, if we were to point this out in the first sentence definition, it would be drawing attention to a specific POV. Look at the meat article. There is no reference to 'death' there. What do you think the reaction would be if a group of vegetarians come by and wanted to make sure the "death" was included in the first sentence??--Andrew c 18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes - but many carnivores, in the case of some cultures/wierd foods humans included, eat flesh while it is still living... ;)DonaNobisPacem 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But the cells of the meat at least die in your stomach juices. Furthermore, it could be said that meat results in the death of an animal, and that statement be inclusive for almost every situation except when you amputate a leg (or something) and the animal lives. These are all biological facts that if mentioned seems to highlight a specific POV (vegetarian). I'm just saying, even if these are facts, acknowledging them so early in the article seems to be giving them undue weight.-Andrew c 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew c - I was just joking with that comment...hence the wink ;) I did get your point....DonaNobisPacem 07:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Death of the fetus is always the intended result of an induced abortion.(I can even give you a quote from an abortionist on that point.) Death of the fetus either causes or is caused by every spontaneous abortion. Death is part of abortion, no matter how you slice it. Many meals are eaten, many hikes are taken, many masturbations reach climax - and no one associates a vast majority of them with human death. It is not a fringe notion that abortion involves death. In fact, the view is widely held (often by a majority, as in the USA), even where abortion is legal. Good 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The expert sources do not agree with your POV.--Pro-Lick 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I expected the discussion to continue along the lines of "death is a morally loaded word and not neutral because... " and making an appeal to some common ground meaning of (a) death (b) morality and (c) neutral. This is how an editing discussion leading to a consenus usually starts. And if it cannot be articulated, then it can be considered conceded and we proceed with a consensus that death is not a morally loaded word, and it is neutral and, it simply means the end of life. patsw 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not for us to argue, vote, or agree/disagree upon. The sources are clear. Use the words they use, don't use the words they dont' use.--Pro-Lick 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My sources uniformly state death is the end of life without reference to morality or a point of view. It is the plain and common meaning. Are there sources say otherwise? patsw 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you list sources? As to mine, mine are on the actual topic of the article: Abortion.--Pro-Lick 23:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick says above, regarding sources: "Use the words they use, don't use the words they dont' use." That interpretation of Wikipedia policy is absolutely incorrect and unsupported. We get our facts from sources, not the precise wording of those facts. You're barking up the wrong tree, Pro. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

G&E:no one associates a vast majority of them with human death You are getting into the personhood debate, which is mentioned on the death page (and I quoted it above, did you miss that part?). If the crux of your argument is that we should mention 'death' because all abortions result in HUMAN death, then you are pushing a POV. I think everyone agrees that SOMETHING dies during abortion (just like sperm die when you masturbate, animals and plants die for food (or their cells die in your stomach), and you crush bugs and grass and other forms of life when you go hiking). However, mentioning this fact in the first sentence gives it undue weight. If the word 'death' is used, I would like to qualify the word, or explain the debate. However doing so does not seem appropriate for the first sentence. As a compromise, could we perhaps move it lower in the paragraph?--Andrew c 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure Pro-Lick disagrees with me, so the question of my sources in conflict with Pro-Lick's is premature. The topic is death as it is descriptive of the consequence of abortion. Supporting my claim are definitions from the Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Death is the end of life without reference to morality or a point of view. It is the plain and common meaning. patsw 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So, out of the 20 sources, and excluding Wikipedia because that's us, and subtracting Wiktionary and adding it to the sources that support no use of death, we have by your count 2 sources for death, 18 sources against it.--Pro-Lick 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, there are actually 4 WP:RS sources that use death, 16 that do not. Patsw seems to be off on some other tangent for which no sources have been provided. Also of interest here is that, according to Wiktionary, death ranks #303 based on usage in Project Gutenberg texts. So it seems fair to conclude it carries lots of baggage with it.--Pro-Lick 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: 21 sources, 4 use, 17 do not. Same link.--Pro-Lick 07:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a discussion to start that begins "death is a morally loaded word because...". This tangent of numerically counting up sources is ludicrous. We're editing a collaborative encyclopedia and I want to know if anyone editing here believes that death is a morally loaded word. Specifically, what is the baggage of death? Why doesn't this word death mean what it means? patsw 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Patsw, that argument does exist. It goes something like this:

"Death" is not, in itself a loaded word. When we say our car or computer dies, nobody gets distraught or thinks of homicide. In the case of abortion though, it's very much part of the issue that a lot of people already are distraught and thinking about homicide. When talking about such a controversial issue, we can't pretend our language will be understood clinically by the average reader. The emotional content of words is magnified and redirected as propaganda by rhetoricians on whichever side, which means we have to be especially careful not to provide fuel for spin doctors, to avoid unintentionally participating in the controversy, when we should just be documenting it.

The fact that most medical sources avoid the word "death" is not a source for our not using it, because sources don't work in the negative that way - I can find a very large number of sources that don't say some particular thing I dislike. That fact - that medical sources tiptoe around the word - is evidence that many publications that are serious about intellectual standards have chosen to tiptoe around that word. We would do well to consider their reasons for doing that, and whether those same reasons apply here, in another publication that's serious about intellectual standards.

I think that's an accurate presentation of the argument I'm understanding against the word "death". I'm sure if I'm misrepresenting it or in any way failing to do it justice, someone will chime in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My focus is not speculation on what motives editors of medical sources have. Some sources refer to death in their definition or abortion and some don't. Nor will I speculate how the reader will be distraught or thinking about homicide seeing the word death in an article describing death. The Wikipedia is not censored. If the medical editors stated why they avoid death that would be helpful to know. patsw 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Abortion Death?

From Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002: "Tetraploidy, or a mean chromosome count of 92, occurs in 3% to 6% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. This condition is undoubtedly lethal, since it has never been seen in living individuals. It probably occurs when chromosome division is not followed by cytoplasmic division in the initial cell division of the zygote. Rearrangements, primarily translocations and inversions, are noted in about 3% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. According to Creasy and associates, most but definitely not all of these are unbalanced translocations. Although most unbalanced translocations in conceptuses result in abortion, some individuals are born alive."--Pro-Lick 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But then they die.....hence, "due to or resulting in the death of..."DonaNobisPacem 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you quoting?--Pro-Lick 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see...

I would like to see a source making an actual claim about the use of the word "death" in defining abortion, or anything close to that. Simply omitting a word is different from making an argument for its omission - I'd like to see that argument, but I'm not sure where one would find it. Something about prejudicial use of language in politically sensitive writing... any ideas, anyone? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some medical researchers and doctors insert death into some of their writing about abortion to avoid harassment by anti-abortionists?--Pro-Lick 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... no. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not even sure I follow what you're saying. I'm suggesting that there might exist some sources that directly address the question of how to write good definitions that involve push-button words. I think there's an argument that you and Alienus are making that I'll bet someone's made before and published. It would be cool to find that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a small revelation just now, reading this:

[D&X procedures] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.

The problem we have been having is that we have been trying to make one, all inclusive definition of the word abortion. We have been trying to include miscarriage, induced abortions, D&X, but not cesarean live births, still births, or premature births. The problem is, in a broad medical sense, miscarriages and pre-viable induced abortions are all conisdered 'abortion', while the common use of the word does not include miscarriage, but also includes D&X and other procedures that result in a dead fetus. Perhaps we are being too broad and we need two definitions? Start off talking medically and inclusive of all mammials, and then focus in on humans and the 'popular' definition? Proposal:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure.

--Andrew c 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion! I wouldn't use that precise wording, but I really like the idea of distinguishing a medical definition from a common-language definition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

medical sources

I believe an attempt needs to be made to catalogue medical definitions on abortion - not just a list, but a catalog by each separate definition. The reason I make this suggestion - of the "reliable medical sources" that keep being quoted, listed in the archives, numbers 2,4,5,7,18,19, and 21 all use a definition virtually every editor on the page has disagreed with - some of the above define it before the 20th week, others before viability of the fetus. Both exclude late term and partial birth abortions. if we rely on these definitions, our article should then also define "late term abortion" separately, and perhaps link to a main article under that heading. As for those that mention death - and I do not necessarily in the opening text of their definition, but in their definitions as a whole mention the word death associated with an aborted fetus (which is what the arguments have been over - the word "death" in relation to the fetus) - 9, 10, and 14 are the same article, so we really have 19 articles. 9 (or 10 or 14), 11,12,13,15, and 18 (if you read further than what is quoted, one part of the definition reads retention in the uterus of an abortus that has died) mention the word death in relation to a fetus/embryo. So - out of 19 sources, seven do not agree with the majority of editors here due to late term abortions, but this could be remedied by mentioning late term abortion/stillbirth in a second sentence if we define abortion being before 20 weeks. Out of the 19, 6 mention the word death in relation to the fetus/embryo - one is on dogs, and one uses death of an abortus, both of which support the argument of moral ambiguity in relation to the word.

So - to sum up - if we are determined to hash out a definition, we should list a number of sources, categorized by definition (using key words such as: before 20 weeks, expulsion, removal, death, etc). I suggest the following format: DonaNobisPacem 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between the mention of death in some appropriate place in the article and the definition of abortion in terms of death. Alienus 08:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Category 1

• count: 3
• mentions death in definition: yes.
• mentions death elsewhere: no.
• Definitions: 11, 12, 13

Category 2

• count: 14
• mentions death in definition: no.
• mentions death elsewhere: no.
• Definitions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Category 3

• count: 4
• mentions death in definition: no (2).
• mentions death elsewhere: yes (2).
• Definitions: 1, 9, 10, 14

Category 4

• count: 0
• mentions death in definition: yes (0).
• mentions death elsewhere: yes (0).
• Definitions:

Comments

I'm not sure I follow the category thing. Maybe if you provided some examples.

As to the time limit, that's easily enough corrected by simply leaving out any timeframe other than "before birth" or "before viability" and noting the limits are not the dominate view of the sources, following WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That, and specifying length has never been a point of contention with me, and I don't recall it coming up in attempted redefinitions from those that fly in and out of the article.

As to your comments on the sources, I'll be content to leave that until I understand your above methodology.--Pro-Lick 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of my reason in pointing out the seven sources that used 20 weeks was to show that even the medical sources are not consistent... DonaNobisPacem 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they are the experts, and that is their view. What does policy say about judging the expert views? As to the view, it is not the dominant view. Nor is defining abortion as death a dominant view. Are you arguing for selective use of policy based on your own POV?--Pro-Lick 09:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically, I was thinking - if you found a definition that was nearly identical to the medicinenet.com one in terminology, you could list it there, and then answer the applicable questions regarding death (as some of the definitions also have accompanying articles, I put "mentions death elsewhere," as Alienus has mentioned we might not want it in the definition, but elsewhere). Clear as mud? DonaNobisPacem 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats because medical professionals realize that such confusion is inevitable when you introduce a political definition into a medical situation (as ACOG has). The only reason there is such inconsistency is precisely because there has not been a universal acceptance of the ACOG redefinition. It forces those supporting the ACOG agenda to obfuscate and try not to address the inconsistencies their new definition has created. Applying the ACOG redefinition consistently causes all sorts of problems. The same folks are still trying to foist the redefinition of conception into wide acceptance, but it simply flies in the face of reality (scientific and otherwise). The new definitions also make the term gestation uncertain. I agree with DonaNobis that the wide variety of medical opinion should be fully documented. Good 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DonaNobisPacem, to avoid having the same thing in 2 places and having it spread out over a lot of space, how about we keep the definitions, etc. in full at their present place in the archive, and list the numbers. If someone has an WP:RS defnition they'd like to add the list, add it there. Update the caterogy here. I'm not insisting upon this. Just seems like it would be more efficient.--Pro-Lick 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To get back into the debate here; I'd be happy to see "death" gone from the definition if the controversy and "murder" POV remains in the lead. But I would like to get more editors involved in the discussion to see if there is a rationale for "death" or "murder" or both or neither. But I doubt neither is an option. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is seriously arguing, or has argued, for "murder" to be in the lead? I must have missed it. I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that murder merits much mention at all other than to succinctly describe the pro-life view in the appropriate section. If anything, the erasure of "death" seems to be POV insertion (by active omision) in light of the neutral professional resources and biological realities known to the page editors. Good 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah that short form didn't sound good. GTBacchus excellent suggestion was to remove "death" from definition, but elaborate pro-lifer's see abortion as murder in the second paragraph which goes into the politics. But it is an omission... that's why I'm for death in the definition even though I don't want it there. Sound conflicted; welcome to RoyBoy's twisted mind. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has argued for murder, but we have the recurring vandals who replace every instance of "abortion" with murder. or make similar edits.[30] Then we have the alternate "killing" [31] Neither is supported well by consensus, being universally considered by experienced editors to display extreme POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this - the idea of categorization of definitions is probably not my best - I agree with G&E that it is important to be aware of the diversity of definitions/opinions, even within the medical community (and in my thinking as of late, it is not necessary for us to stick rigorously to the medical community's definition - although they are the experts, they are by no means the majority, so it is important to also define what common perception of abortion is, as Andrewc mentioned above), and that was my intent - however, we could list definitions up the ying-yang and still not get anywhere. Even the first three I found couldn't necessarily be lumped together. That said - in my searching and reading, I have found what Andrewc mentions above - that abortion is before 20 weeks - anything after being defined as "late term abortion" (such as a D&X procedure) if induced, and stillbirth if spontaneous. So I agree in principle with his definition above, in that it separates medical terminology and public perception - I'll quote it again here for conenience:

"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure."

As I mentioned earlier, we could then start a new article, "late term abortion," describing the particular procedures/controversies involved. DonaNobisPacem 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Late-term abortion. Been around for 2 years or so, but could use some expanding...--Andrew c 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That page is somewhat broken. The talk page is a redir for Partial birth abortion talk, but the article is there as a stub. Someone messed up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it be redirecting to Partial-birth abortion then? That's easy enough to fix. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be, or if the talk page shouldn't be, if you follow. One or the other, for sure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes so much more sense here! I'll try some Merge tags and see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

rofl, yeah I goofed and posted in a very wrong place. Sorry about any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd categories

I don't see that this is the best way to categorize the definitions we're looking at. We're lumping rather different defintions together, and separating very similar ones, based solely on whether they use a particular word. Our job is to write the best possible opening paragraph, so why don't we look at various defitions categorized according to what they do say, not what they don't say? Then we can talk about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches without having to be fixated on one word.

I would suggest the broadest categorization should be based on how abortion is actually defined by each source - because they don't all agree, and as some editors have noted, there's more than one "correct" definition flying around here. Some are based on time, some on viability, some on intention, some on effect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I noted above - this was not one of my better ideas.....simply because we could spend an eternity finding definitions to fit our POV's, and it doesn't accomplish much - my main point was to point out the diversity of the definitions, even among the medical community, to indicate that our job is to look at all of the definitions/info present and come up with our own NPOV introduction (which as I mentioned, does NOT need to parallel the medical definition, if we are sticking to facts and considering weight - in this regard, public opinion of what abortion is also contains considerable weight, hence I support Andrew c's suggestion of having medical/conventional understanding in the definition), and not just regurgitate definitions from another encyclopedia or dictionary.DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the rules?

This is new to me. Does a consensus on this page act as a consensus for the first paragraph or does it get re-argued on the Talk:Abortion anyway? patsw 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if we ever agree on anything here, we should mention it on the general talk page, and ask anyone who has missed the consensus process to weigh in here. I think in no circumstances should we drag first paragraph discussion out on the general page (because it takes up too much space, and seems to bring other forms of progress on the article to a halt). But this is just my opinion, and if everyone would rather hash it out somewhere that isn't this subpage, who am I to stop them.--Andrew c 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rules? I think the purpose of this page is to just relieve the strain on the main page. If we achieve anything resembling consensus here, that'll be progress. I dunno about rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus

Explanations of this here, please. patsw 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are completely missing my point. I acknowledge that something that is biologically alive dies as a result of an abortion. However, is this significant enough to be part of the definition? My counter examples were (male) masturbation and meat. Everyone knows that sperm are biologically alive, and masturbation results in the death of millions of sperm. Is this undisputed FACT in the first sentence of the masturbation article? What about meat? Eating meat always results in the death of animal tissue (in your stomach, if not on the grill or before) or oftentimes the death of a whole living organism. Is this undisputed fact in the first sentence of the meat article? If we were to go and argue that the death of animals be mentioned in the first sentence of meat, would we not be pushing a vegetarian POV? I believe if we mention death, even though it is a fact, TOO early in the article, it is giving undue weight to the pro-life POV. I am not against mentioning it, just not in the first sentence. I made a proposal above to present two different definitions: the medical one (general and covering all mammials) and the popular one (refering to induced abortions in humans only). I included 'Death' in the second definition.--Andrew c 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Alienus 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is an obfuscation. The death of the concpetus is why abortion is controversial. The death is doubted by no one. The moral value of that life is where the controversy lies. The word "death" (or die or dead) is morally neutral. It just makes the purveyors and supporters of such death feel guilty. And the article should not tiptoe in order to make such people feel good. Good 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, in the context of abortion, the word "death" isn't treated as morally neutral, it's associated strongly with all kinds of moral judgements in the rhetoric of the pro-life activists. The claim, as I understand it, is that the word "death" is inherently politicized in the present context, and cannot be used to sound clinical and neutral. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The act of induced abortion is what deliberately causes the controversisal death. The word "death" is not what is controversial.

Because abortion includes miscarriage, using the word death is actually extrememly appropriate given that many (if not most) people consider a miscarriage to be a sad and premature death of a future child. Desrcibing the fetal demise as "death" is neutral and easily understood by all.

Determining that such a death is murder is NOT neutral. Determining that such a death is not murder is NOT neutral. Using euphemisms (such as "termination") is NOT neutral.

A person presented with the biological fact of death can reach a conclusion that abortion kills a person, or that abortion kills a non-person. It is wrong to hide the fetal death from the reader, as doing so removes factual information pertinent to every abortion. If a person presented with the wikipedia definition is misled to believe that there is no death involved, then that person does not have a true picture of what abortion is. Death is the critical fact - if the fetus is born alive, there is no abortion - if the fetus comes out dead (most often dismembered or decapitated) there was an abortion. The end of the pregnancy is a by-product of the fetal death.

Miscarriage abortion: fetus dies, body expels dead fetus, pregnancy ends.

Induced abortion: viable or non-viable fetus is killed, dead fetus is removed, pregnancy ends.

Birth: fetus remains alive, living fetus is expelled or removed, pregnancy ends.

Good 10:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. AnnH ♫ 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And the word "kills" is completely neutral? I fail to see how that is any more neutral than a euphemism. Also, how is stating that "abortion is murder" neutral at all? ColdSalad 11:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...if the fetus comes out dead (most often dismembered or decapitated) there was an abortion...

Not necessarily. I find death to be relatively neutral as well, but don't argue for NPOV out of one side of your mouth while spewing propaganda out of the other.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We are once again deviating from the point. The only issue we are here to decide is whether we should define abortion in terms of "death". We don't have to; lots of definitions don't. And if we don't, we can and probably should mention "death" elsewhere in the article. The issue is about usage and emphasis, not fact. Namely, should we pick a definition that emphasizes death or one that is neutral and clinical? This is not a rhetorical questions, unfortunately. I strongly support a neutral and clinical definition, but there has been a very obvious correlation between those who want to emphasize death and those who want abortion to be illegal. This very correlation indicates that the usage of "death" in the definition would be POV, hence in opposition to WP:NPOV, an absolute requirement that trumps consensus. Alienus 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to emphasize it. We're just trying to place it in the definition, because it's an essential part of the definition. If the fetus doesn't die, it isn't an abortion. Emphasizing it would be putting death at the beginning (an abortion causes the death of an embryo or fetus, terminating its gestation in a womb), or using bold or italics. So, no, it's not emphasized. It's in the definition, because it's an essential part of the definition. If the fetus doesn't die, then we have either a live birth, or a failed abortion (which is also a live birth). We're not emphasizing a fact; we're stating a fact. The POV lies in trying to suppress this fact. And as for the correlation between those who want to use "death" and those who want abortion to be illegal, well, for one thing, the very existence of GTBacchus disproves your theory, and for another, isn't there a correlation between those who want to remove "death" and those who want abortion to be legal? You're actually arguing against yourself. As far as I can see, there is nobody opposing the word "death" who is not in favour of legalized abortion, but there is at least one person supporting that word who is in favour of it. That said, we shouldn't really be speculating on other editors' POVs unless they choose to make them public. AnnH ♫ 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it in the first sentence definition is putting emphasis on it. For example, I have suggested a number of articles that result in the death of something, and for some strange reason this isn't mentioned in the first sentence definition. What would it be like if we made this edit to the masturbation page: "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs, most often to the point of orgasm, resulting in the death of millions of sperm (for male masturbation)." or the meat page: "Meat, in its broadest modern definition, is all animal tissue intended to be used as food, which results in the death of animal tissue". It is your POV that "death" is an essential part of the abortion definition. There have been many cited medical sources that disagree with your POV. Let me make it clear I am not against including your definition at all. However, I feel that it puts emphasis on the controversy, POVs, and debate part of the issue. Please note my proposed changes above where I suggest introducing two different definitions, one which includes the 'd' word. --Andrew c 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The alternative to emphasizing "death" isn't de-emphasizing it, it's being neutral. Saying "but this is not considered as death in any morally significant way" would be the equal but opposite bias, actively de-emphasizing "death". We have many examples that show that there is no need for "death" in an accurate, neutral definition. Moreover, the sources that lack that word are neutral medical definitions, not pro-choice or pro-life activism sites. In short, you're wrong on all counts. Alienus 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely in favor of safe and legal abortions. But the desire to avoid the use of the term "death" when describing the eventual outcome is, quite simply, newspeak, and is unacceptable. Nandesuka 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as it was kind of you to share your conclusion, now is the time to support conclusions, and you have not done so. Alienus 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought of something. The current definition says "resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus". Why shouldn't it say "resulting in or caused by the death of the embryo, fetus, or placenta". I think by adding placenta, [1] we can cover placental abruption and other afflictions to the placenta that cause miscarriages, [2] we can cover the fact that induced abortion procedures remove products (plural) of conception, not just the fetus/embryo, and [3] by including something in the list that clearly does not have personhood, I believe it lessens the connotations of 'death' that some of us have objected to. --Andrew c 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps, my exact wording doesn't work because it lists fetus and embryo in a manner that makes them sound like different thing. But you get my idea. If we like my suggestion, we'll need to come up with a better phrasing.--Andrew c 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Personhood is a philosophical, moral, and legal term and can't be expressed in a summary form in the first paragraph. Placental death is altogether insignificant and only obtains significance with respect to the fetus and mother: organic failure of the placental prior to viability will cause a miscarriage; after viability, and with appropriate medical care, it will be a premature birth. patsw 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you denying that "abortion results in the death of the placenta"? Or are you saying that the death of the placenta that results from abortions is not as significant as the death of the fetus/embryo? Isn't the latter a value judgment or POV? By excluding one biological fact (placental death) and emphasizing another (fetal death), you are pushing a POV. That POV should be presented in the article, just not inherent in the definition.--Andrew c 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Argument: "Placenta death" or "the placenta dies" has no place in the lead: this term has not been shown to be used in any notable/widely used description of abortion found in reputable sources (WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS). Since the term cannot be used as per policy, one cannot argue that its exclusion is POV-pushing. It's NPOV-pushing.

Background: The fact that the term does not appear in abortion descriptions in literature (other than as a medical reason to abort) is hardly surprising: once a placenta is developing/has developed, it will always die at the end of a pregnancy. Its death or destruction does not define "abortion". It is a defining factor for the more general "end of pregnancy". Its exclusion is required, its inclusion could be POV-pushing. AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree here. 3 of the 21 definitions specifically reference placenta. In addition, 11 mentions "[canine] Abortions occur most commonly because placental function is compromised due to one or more of these reasons." However, if we are to not include the 'p' word because it is not in the majority, then perhaps the 'd' word should not be included under the same logic.--Andrew c 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had seen those :-) One definition mentions the placenta in the context of a malfunction, a medical reason to abort. The other two definitions do not mention the placenta in the context of death, but in the context of removal. In addition, I would argue that 2 (or 3) out of 21 do not make mention of the placenta notable, let alone "death of the placenta" which, as argued, occurs in none of the definitions. Death of the placenta does not define abortion; if it somehow remains intact and lives on after the fetus has died, the abortion was successful. Mission accomplished. The placenta needs to be removed for medical reasons. Exactly like when a baby is born. Mission accomplished. The afterbirth follows later, and if it doesn't, it's a job for the doctor. At any rate, no one mourns the placenta and it would fall out of the equation for that reason alone. I do not support this argument against the inclusion of "death".

As you may have noticed, I no longer oppose definitions that leave out the word "death". AvB ÷ talk 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"if it somehow remains intact and lives on after the fetus has died, the abortion was successful" Actually, if any of the products of conception are not removed, it is an incomplete abortion. My point was that abortions are supposed to remove more than just the fetus/embryo. Doctors suction or scrape the uterus wall as part of the procedure. The definitions I highlighted mentioned this aspect of abortion. Of course none of them mention death of the placenta. I just felt that some of the arguments that the pro-d-word editors were using placed a special emphasis on the fetus, going into the personhood debate (which should be mentioned, just not in the first sentence). By using the same sort of arguments, only in regards to the placenta, I felt I would reveal the POV in those arguments. Sorry for the confusion.--Andrew c 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What "mother" are you talking about? Alienus 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is a ludricrous analogy; as the goal is sexual release of by-product cells. The death of those cells is not the goal; the release of them to relieve sexual tension is. (exception to the rule: masturbating for sperm donation) Meat is to be sure more interesting; but again the goal is to acquire food; not to kill the animal. (exception to the rule: artificially grown meat being tested these days; hypothetic exception: an animal with exceptional meat that is re-engineered to grow back limbs or to produce protusions of meat that can be harvested; without killing the animal) Abortion simply does not have these exceptions; and the result death makes an abortion an abortion. The death of sperm and animals does not define masturbation and meat. Please stop using these analogies; as they are functionally invalid. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand exactly where I am coming from. When I see people pushing the "results in the death of a fetus or embryo" wording, I feel the exact same way you feel about my analogies. I understand that it is one POV that the most important and defining aspect of an abortion is the death of a fetus, however, I believe that is only a POV and not appropriate for the first sentence (first paragraph, sure, but not first sentence).--Andrew c 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how it's "one POV" that the death of a fetus is the defining aspect of an abortion, along with its expulsion or removal from the uterus. It's defining in the sense that nothing else distinguishes an abortion from a live delivery. Whether that word has to occur in the opening sentence is another question, but I didn't think anybody was arguing that abortion can be properly defined without somehow conveying the idea of fetal loss, i.e., not ending up with a live baby, i.e. the death of the fetus or embryo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding masturbation and meat - those analogies make no sense to me. A better analogy would be defining an ejaculation as "activity leading to an expulsion of fluid through the penis", dodging words like "semen" and failing to distinguish it from urination. With the other example, one might define meat as "a substance consumed as food", dodging the word "animal" and failing to distinguish it from vegetables. In both of those cases, I imagine we can agree that something is missing from the given definition, because it fails to draw a line where one is needed. The word "death" is not needed to distinguish meat from... animals that stay alive when eaten(?), or to distinguish masturbation from some kind of live sperm escape. In the case of abortion, there is a neighboring concept, and we need to demarcate the boundary, somehow, because that's what definitions do. (Actually, that link doesn't directly support what I said (nor directly oppose it), but I left it in because it's interesting.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One editor changed his mind

It may surprise some editors here, but I have revised my opinion of the inclusion of the word "death" after checking how other encyclopedias handle the subject. I still feel that excluding "death" is skewed towards the pro-choice POV but I've reweighed the entire Gestalt as it exists in the general population and now feel that a slight preference for the majority POV is fully warranted under NPOV. <gasp!> It's the "most neutral" solution - we have already reached a definition that is so sharp that the only thing preventing consensus is an agreement on a slight bias towards pro-life (include "death") or a slight bias towards pro-choice (exclude "death"). All other things being equal, we can do only one thing, and bias it towards the majority POV.

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. (As before, I think it is wrong to exclude or evade such words as a matter of principle; each case should be judged separately.)

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)

The problem is that an abortion is not necessarily "the expulsion . . . . before it has attained viability." Abortions are sometimes caried out in cases where it would be fully possible to deliver a living child. In fact, in the case of Gianna Jessen, her mother did give birth to a living child, and the fact that Gianna now has disabilities is because she was scalded for hours by the saline abortion, not because came out (or was taken out) from the womb before she had "attained viability". Or take the case of Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose mother went in for an abortion at 32 weeks. She was sent home, having been told that the abortion was incomplete, and that she would have to come back the next day. That night, Ana Rosa was born — missing one arm, but otherwise healthy. I don't suppose anyone would argue that she "had not attained viability" ten hours before that. I don't think the Wikipedia article should make judgments about the morality of abortion; that would definitely be a violation of NPOV but we certainly shouldn't be trying to gloss over a very important, but unpleasant, fact of what abortion involves. AnnH ♫ 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But this definition does not gloss over anything important. That is not in my character nor in the character of Wikipedia. In fact this definition does not fit the instances you describe. It all hinges on the robustness of the applied viability threshold. The viability criterion is an accepted part of the majority POV; trying to abort viable fetuses (i.e. babies) is not. The examples only tell us something about the viability threshold. There's no such thing as aborting a viable fetus. That's not abortion, it's infanticide. Not my opinion; the majority POV. We should congratulate our resident pro-choicers on their willingness to accept that definition. AvB ÷ talk 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aborting a foetus that could be viable is not infanticide, as it is still a foetus. A foetus that is aborted late for a disability such as cystic fibrosis or in rare cases a cleft lip [32], is viable but has still been aborted. An abortion necessarily involves the death of the foetus either as cause or consequence, as such exclusion of the word is incorrect. |→ Spaully°τ 14:46, 30 March 2006 (GMT)

This argument is not different from AnnH's reasoning. What Annh and you are saying is important. It highlights a glaring problem with the most accepted definition: it does not apply to the third trimester. However, what you say is not a reason to change or not use the most common definition that also has the preference of editors representing the pro-choice POV.

What you are saying touches on a terrible and often forgotten dilemma, which should be discussed in the article. According to Roe v. Wade, and related legal processes & legislation in other countries, viability is precisely what differentiates a fetus from... a child? How do we call the phase between the start of viability and birth?

As to the future of the Abortion article, I can only say that editors should do their utmost to be splitters and not lumpers. It is true, for some people there is no difference between a conceptus and 33-week fetus (one extreme arguing that killing the fetus is not morally wrong and the other that killing a single-cell conceptus is murder). Most people, however, will recognize more nuances. Example: the atheist doctor in the UK who wrote in his well-read "NHS blog?" that he draws the line for himself at the start of the second trimester and like many others does not feel comfortable seeing a dead or dying fetus that looks human, that moves, and by the end of the second trimester visually responds to pain - people who take that feeling as their cue that it's not OK. We can and should describe what it means to the various groups. Let's not focus too much on the extremes. There's so much more in between. Can we read in the article how many people actually support abortion beyond week 20? Is talking about "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" really the most important thing? Let's not be led by our indignation or anger. Treat this like the best-of-breed Wikipedians. This article can be a good NPOV example. And I think that's the best we can give to the world. <Stepping off soapbox now>

Here's a definition from Britannica's 2006 DVD: 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. AvB ÷ talk 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add what I added above. According to religioustolerance.org: "[D&X] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public."[33] And from the D&X article: "Intact D&X procedures are rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions in the USA. This calculates to between 2500 and 3000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000 (out of 1.3 million abortions annually)." Focusing on this issue is a technicality. It is giving it undue weight. As I said above, I do not belive we can come up with one single definition to cover every single instance considered by the public and by medical science to be abortion. I suggested having two different definitions.--Andrew c 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight in the context of NPOV is defined by the number of people who hold an opinion, not by the number of occurrences of the object of that opinion. AvB ÷ talk 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica definition is wrong. We don't need to copy their errors. The objective is the most accurate defintion, not the most accurate definition that a priori avoids using the word death. patsw 17:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Britannica's def is wrong does not matter. The point is that we are required to treat such definitions according to their notability/popularity per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not there to change people's minds. It is there to describe the real word. Editors don't describe what they think is right or wrong. That would be original research. The net result should be that readers get all the info in a neutral way so that they can make up their own mind. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I've got to start my weekly wikibreak; I think I've dominated this part of the discussion long enough anyway so I'll just take a back seat & probably check in again tomorrow night. I am, after all, just one editor who has changed his mind. AvB ÷ talk 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to summarize your change of heart and point thusly? Abortion should be written sympathetically to its subject. Just as other encyclopedic sources have chosen to do. Frankly I hate splitting talk pages; the only reason it was necessary in the first place was Pro-Lick's prolific and protracted prose. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi RoyBoy, that would be quite alright with me. (By the way, it's a change of mind, the heart is still very much the way it was.) AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the word death in fashioning thebest definition for abortion is NOT original research. It is nothing new to note that every induced abortion intentionally kills a conceptus and every spontaneous abortion results in or from a dead conceptus. I think what is happening is that the editors here realize that having a politically correct definition is te same as having an orwellian definition. And no one wants an orwellian definition. Those who think a conceptus is just tissue should have no qualms about acknowledging the death of the organism. If the conceptus is like snot or fingernails (as some have argued), then why quibble about the death of the conceptus? Its mention should not concern anyone. Although slaves were considered subhuman, no one used to quibble about whether a slave who had assumed room temperature was just as dead as any deceased white guy. Such fear of the word "death" is not very rational. Good 21:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I have no idea what that slavery quip is about, so I'll skip over that. Would you be opposed to using the word 'conceptus' in the definition? "resulting in or caused by the death of the conceptus". It is more accurate, because more than just the fetus/embryo die during abortion, and as I pointed out above, there are placental conditions that cause miscarriages. Is conceptus the best word for this situation? "Products of conception" is another term that means the same thing. The main issue I have with the current version is that it seems to give undue weight to the death of the fetus. I personally would want to avoid that issue in the first sentence and bring it up further along in the paragraph. However, as a compromise, I have been considering other ways to improve the current version, and perhaps this may be the one?--Andrew c 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Conceptus and products of conception are euphemisms. They are words crafted to promote a POV. patsw 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what is the proper term then? If we are going to refer to more than just the fetus/embryo, how is the best way to do it? I initially suggested listing placenta along with the things that "result in the death of", but changed my mind for a single catch-all term. Any suggestions?--Andrew c 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sympathetic vs. Accurate

I found AvB's point about making the Abortion article sympathetic to its subject matter very compelling and hits on the core issue here. Is Wikipedia to write sympathetically, is it a part of our philosophy and style? Do we pick up the lead of other sympathetic encyclopedia's or do something different. To put it succintly I don't like the word "death" in the lead; but at the same time I've stated it strikes the right tone for the article.

Is abortion a pleaseant thing? No. So why should we remove an unpleasant word from the lead. The only valid argument I've seen in all this back and forth; is that we as an encyclopedia have choosen to write sympathetically, particularly on controversial subjects. This isn't about being right or wrong; it is a choice of editorial philosophy. If policy is we are to be sympathetic death is gone; if accurate then it stays. One may object that "death" is hardly a neutral word; I agree as it is negative word, but since Abortion is a negative subject I cannot help but conclude that it is an accurate and necessary part of the definition (as death is exactly what makes it a negative/controversial subject).

Does that mean it has to go in the first sentence; I suppose not... but keep in mind the broader context. The article has adopted clinical terms (embryo/fetus) for things pro-lifers would want emotional/ambiguous terms attached to them. For the most part the article is pretty friggin neutral, congrats to us all for that accomplishment. As such I don't think it is too much to ask to have an emotional word(s) that are accurate, in the lead.

I've had a cursory glance through WP:Style; haven't found anything yet, but I do recall mention of articles being sympathetic somewhere. (it could have been on Jimbo's talk page for all I know) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since truth is detemined by the number of times keywords occur on certain pages, especially WP:NPOV, I call our attention to the fact that words beginning "sympath-" occur seven (7) times on that page, but that's counting the table of contents, and I pre-emptively plead guilty to quote-mining. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely, largely because you're wrong. The word "death" is not merely unsympathetic, it's misleading, hence inaccurate. Alienus 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Alienus, the word death is completely accurate. What's misleading is the pretence that abortion doesn't involve a death. As for being "unsympathetic", that's only the case if the thing that dies is a baby. None of the pro-life editors has tried to use the the word "baby" in the article. For the umpteenth time, if a baby dies, death is bad; if a cell and nothing more than a cell dies, death is neutral. Abortion involves death. That may be unpleasant, but Wikipedia does not have a policy of suppressing or censoring unpleasant facts. AnnH ♫ 09:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have an argument that might appeal to non-Catholics or is this the best you've got? Alienus 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I am sure that you are aware that many non-Catholics agree with me on this issue, even if you don't. There was nothing specifically Catholic or even Christian in my post above. I wrote nothing about the indivual soul created by God, nor about the sin or morality. C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called "Bulverism", which I highly recommend. Your argument is a form of bulverism. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I think the grounds for arguing that "death" is misleading are spelled out somewhere on this page. The argument is that, in the context of abortion, the word "death" has lost its clinical neutrality due to its use in partisan rhetoric. In other contexts, "death" may be a perfectly neutral word, but in this case it is politicized to the point that its use implies a side, namely the side that uses it in a political manner, the pro-life side. Language held ransom for politics - at least I think that's the argument. Alienus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as someone from a strong pro-life background, who attends pro-life meetings and conferences, who gives money to pro-life charities, who has even — everyone prepare to gasp in horror — said the Rosary (peacefully) outside abortion referral centres (we don't have abortion clinics in Ireland) — I can state with no hesitation that what we emphasize is the personhood of the baby, not the fact that it dies. In other words, we say that a BABY dies, not that a baby DIES. That it dies is so obvious (or at least I thought so until I came across Alienus and Pro-Lick) that we never felt it was necessary to emphasize it. I do, however, object to efforts to sweep it under the carpet, to use euphemisms, and to pretend that no death takes place. Whether the fetus is a baby or not, its death is an essential part of what an abortion is, and it's the only thing that distinguishes abortion from live birth. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. What amazes me is that it still needs summarizing for Ann to understand it. After all, it's been explained over and over again. I'm wondering at this point if Ann is capable of understanding it or if we've run into a cognitive limitation on her part. Alienus 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "explanation" or "understanding", it's a matter of disagreement: I disagree that the question of "clinical neutrality" is the question. I disgree that abortion creates a new "context". I disagree that the accurate word, death, is a political rhetorical device. The burden of proof is to show that abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with Patsw. It's not necessarily about understanding. I clearly understand the argument, that the word death is politicized in the context of abortion, etc, etc... but I don't necessarily buy it. I think saying that simply using the word "death" implies the whole pro-life agenda is a huge stretch. I'm not comfortable with allowing language to be held ransom to politics, especially on such tenuous grounds, and especially in an encyclopedia, which should frankly be above that kind of nonsense.

Where Patsw says "the burden of proof is to show that abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus," I disagree. We don't need to be thinking in those terms. Our task is to write a good encyclopedia article, whatever that ends up meaning. For us to decide not to use a certain word in a certain sentence, no "proof" is required, merely an argument that we have a better encyclopedia article without that word in that sentence, for whatever reason. We're arguably complying with policies either way, so it's a judgement call. Abortion can be defined with or without the word "death", it turns out.

Is it more accurate to use "death", because then we succeed in clearly distinguishing "abortion" from the neighboring concept of "delivery", like a good encyclopedia should, or is is more accurate to refrain from using "death", and thus avoid giving the impression of political baggage, which tends to make for a worse encyclopedia? That's the heart of the matter, or so it seems to me. Neither side is obviously wrong.

Patsw, as to whether "clinical neutrality" is the question, that's unarguable. It is. The people objecting to the word "death" are objecting purely on grounds of it not being clinically neutral, so that's precisely the question. When you say you disagree that the word really has been hijacked as a political rhetorical bomb, there you're on the right track. Without that, there is no further reasonable argument against the word, that I can see. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Taking GTB's summary of the situation into account, which seems fair, I would say the need for accuracy outweighs any negative connotations of the word 'death'. From WP:PERFECT (also WP:LEAD):

...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.

While there is also the need for NPOV throughout the article, the emphasis clearly lies on accuracy, not sensitivity. From the same page:

...is precise and explicit; free of vague generalities and half-truths that may stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

While not using 'death' would not stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject, it is not precise and explicit.

...is very clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. Begins with a definition, and follows a logical structure;..

Not using 'death' means abortion cannot be clearly defined differently from delivery or partruition. This introduces ambiguity into the article at it's first step.

I also feel that while both sides of the abortion debate (and everyone imbetween) uses language to incite emotion, clinically correct terms such as 'embryo', 'fetus' and 'death' should be used in preference to politically neutral terms. |→ Spaully°τ 15:14, 1 April 2006 (GMT)

Look through all the individual articles on the different methods of abortion. How many mention death? Take this sentence from Suction-aspiration abortion for instance "This vacuum then aspirates out the uterus and the pregnancy tissue is removed." What would it do, in terms of POV, if we added the clause "thereby causing the death of the fetus"? It is also clear that vacuuming out "the embryo or fetus as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissue" does not result in a live birth. It would be like adding "thereby causing the death of a cow" in the beef article. While both ideas are completely factual, it is a POV that these aspects of the topic are significant. It isn't a matter of hiding factual information. It's a matter of deciding which facts are significant enough to go in the first sentence. While for some people, the death of the fetus is the most important part of abortion, that is clearly a POV and shouldn't be introduced in the first sentence (maybe abortion debate, but not here). Because a large number of cited sources can unambiguously define abortion without calling on the 'd-word', I do not see how using that clause adds clarity instead of POV.--Andrew c 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do the individual articles on breeds of dogs all mention the word mammal? No. Does dog? Absolutely. Your appeal to articles on individual methods is pretty unconvincing. Once it's establised that we're talking about a method of abortion, it's understood that a fetus is being removed in a fatal, as opposed to a non-fatal way, like say, birth. They don't need to mention death precisely because it's understood as part of the definition of "abortion".

The beef analogy is silly because there's no "as opposed to" concept from which we need to distinguish beef. If there was some kind of still-living cow tissue that we also ate, and didn't call it beef, but something else, like "livecow", then any definition of beef would have to include the word "dead" in order to distinguish the two types of comestible cow tissue. Abortion is one of two types of pregnancy ending, so the definition needs to make it clear which one it is. The distinction between the two is nothing more nor less than the death of a fetus, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Would adding the word mammal to the breed pages be inserting a POV or just redundent? That said, I see your point, but I do not feel that abortion is defined by the death of the fetus. There are sources to back this up, but I guess it can be argued that they are just using euphamisms to hide a gruesome fact. I tried to compromise above, by taking the focus away from the death of the fetus, and more on the death of ALL products of conception (as clearly noted in the suction-aspiration article I quoted above), but the only response I got was from patsw accusing me of using euphamisms. Also, just because we don't eat "livecow" doesn't mean living cows don't have muscles. What is the difference between a Tri-tip and a cow's Vastus lateralis muscle. Does not one result in death?--Andrew c 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is perfectly clear without "death", and much more neutral. I don't think accuracy is a serious concern here, as plenty of reliable sources somehow manage to deliver accurate definitions without the word in question. Alienus 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources manage to deliver inaccurate definitions by omitting the concept in question. According to several reliable sources' definitions, we were all aborted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources Alienus is refering to mention "before the twentieth week" or "before the fetus is viable", which doesn't cover the 1.4% of so-called abortions that occur after the 20th week (and which technically speaking, aren't abortions, but perhaps "induced stillbirths", which funny enough gets more google hits than "termination of the gestation"). I honestly do not think that we can get a single 100% accurate definition to cover every single case of abortion and so-called abortion and miscarriages, but not stillbirths. The reason is because we are combining medical, popular, technical, common, and archaic definitions into a single entity. I feel strongly now about defining abortion at the 20 week or viability mark, and then explaining the common usage of the word in terms of late-term abortion further down the paragraph.--Andrew c 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating but irrelevant. What's relevant is that accurate definitions from reliable sources exist that do not mention "death". You need to address this. Alienus 23:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd nitpick and say why do we need to address this; when you assert them as accurate... I'd assert they are "politically correct". I agree with you, I was wrong... but because NPOV stipulates "with representing all views clearly and sympathetically," so a sympathetic writing may still include "death".

I believe death to be accurate precisely because I currently do not see it as "misleading"; rather as "potentially misleading". This is unfortunate, but I'm not one to be politically correct. If there is a compromise available that balances your reasonable and astute political observations of co-opted language; with accuracy; I'd really like to hear it. This is frustrating for me in a way; as I consider myself a competent wordsmith... and I'd like to get away from "death". But all alternatives seem weasely. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I'd say that there are official sources that omit the word "death". That doesn't make them more accurate; that makes them more "politically correct". We don't have to imitate them. The founder of Wikipedia has said that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"[34]. I'm not aware that the director of The Times, or the BBC, or Encyclopaedia Britannica has ever said that. And suppressing or glossing over the unpleasant fact that the fetus dies is definitely political correctness inspired by a particular POV. It's also sloppy, as it fails to distinguish abortion from live birth. Or else it's inaccurate, as it implies that the fetus is never viable when abortions take place. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to keep repeating myself, but... No one has presented a single accurate definition yet. There are two different definitions of abortion. The medical/technical definition (that includes miscarriages and induced procedures before 20 weeks), and the common term (that includes late-term abortions and all). Neither definition incudes stillbirths. When we combine the two definitions, no one has been able to cover all cases. I have repeatedly suggested using both definitions, making it clear what covers what, and who uses each definition. Next, I have always said that pointing out "unpleasant facts" can clearly be POV by putting an emphasis on a specific issue. For example, the death of animals when meat it consumed (go to meat, look for the word death, it isn't there). I initially moved to remove the d-word on principle. I later compromised and suggested referring to the death of the placenta and other products of conception. --Andrew c 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, could you write up what you would suggest for the lead paragraph? Alienus 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias of Death - News Samples

1. "Two local teens face murder charges after they allegedly chased a man who mooned them and bludgeoned him to death."--Pro-Lick 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
2. He also said several Iraqis were shot dead, and that they were cases of soldiers "shooting out of fear and inventing reasons afterward."--Pro-Lick 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

More first sentence stuff

Here is how it stands now:

• "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death."

First of all, part of abortion is the removal or expulsion of the products of conception. The current definition clearly does not cover this. It say if a fetus dies or is killed, then an abortion has occured, (even if the fetus is still in the mothers womb). It is defining abortion by the termination and death of the fetus, which clearly is not the case. I also feel the wording "resulting in or from" is ackward. My proposal would be "resulting in or caused by". One way to solve both problems would be "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion." But then someone is bound to say "well gestation ends in removing a fetus for live birth as well". Then we could add "before viability" somewhere to make it clear that a live birth is not going on. Then someone will say "what about IDX", and I will point out that technically speaking, 'abortions' performed on viable fetuses are actually not abortions. However, since there is a common usage of the word abortion that covers these nonmedical instances, what now? I proposed using two different definitions to make this distintion. Anyway, I do not know where to go from here. The definition has changes slightly from the previous longstanding version. In case we forgot what it was, here it is:

• "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus."

"Pregnancy" has changed to "gestation of..." I guess the reason for this is to cover the rare case of removing one embryo in a set of twins? Can we try to work together and reach a better definition? or do some editors feel like what we have now is perfect?--Andrew c 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect. I'd prefer pregnancy over gestation for 1. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, there's no need to try to capture every possible variation in the definition. The other obvious flaw as compared to expert sources is the use of death. I think we could satisfy your concern about expulsion and my concern about death by simply swapping the 2, such as "An abortion is the termination of pregnancy via the expulsion of the embryo or fetus."--Pro-Lick 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't that also cover live birth? I undestand that 'termination' and 'expulsion' and harsher words that do not connote a live birth, but technically speaking, someone is going to complain its not clear is differentiating it from a live birth.--Andrew c 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest:

"An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion from the uterus without viability."

For late-term procedures, there may be more going on than what is defined here, but what's defined here is the core of it. To put it another way, if a procedure doesn't involve what this definition says, it's not an abortion. Alienus 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The last clause "without viability" is ackward. Perhaps we could say "embryo or unviable fetus"? also there are three "or" phrases that tend to read poorly together "an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion". But that is a minor nitpick--Andrew c 01:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The first or phrase makes sense, in regards to covering abortions that take place at different points of gestation, however the last two or phrases seem to be there in order to cover both induced and spontaneous abortions. Is there a way to clean that up a bit? I think we can cut out the middle or phrase and just say "caused by". What do you think?--Andrew c 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The second "or" covers spontaneous and induced. The third one covers the various possibilities. For example, spontaneous abortions may occur when a still-living embryo or fetus is expulsed after the placenta disconnects.

Having said this, I'm not arguing that my phrasing is perfect. Perhaps: "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, associated with its removal or expulsion from the uterus without a live birth." Alienus 02:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Associated isn't a good word. And doesn't "without a live birth" sound weasely to you? I'd prefer non-viable/unviable over that. Although the word "viable" is a $10 word and would need to be linked to its disambig page. Which is again a little clumsy word wise; but I would consider it more accurate and far less weasely. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• "without live birth" = weasely
• "viable" = inaccurate since induced abortions past viability are known to happen thousands of times a year
• "death" is the word that Webster's chose to use to ensure medical and biological accuracy (as the talk pages have also revealed after lengthy discussion of various definitions seeking one that was always accurate)

Good 15:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, your definition covers stillbirths, which are not abortions. Like I have been saying, there are two definitions of abortion, and we cannot combine them. There is the medical definition that covers miscarriages and induced abortions before 20 weeks. There is the common definition of any deliberate act taken to remove (and thereby kill) a fetus. Definition 1 excludes stillbirths and late-term abortions. Definition 2 excludes miscarriages and stillbirths. We want to exclude stillbirths, but some people feel it is important to cover miscarriages, and others think it is important to cover late-term abortions. I say present both. I believe GT and DonaNobisPacem somewhat supported this general idea (maybe not my exact wording though). However, as I pointed out above, if we are striving for accuracy, the current definition clearly is not (doesn't mention removal of the POC. A fetus dying in the womb is not the same as an abortion, spontaneous or not).--Andrew c 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is embryonic or fetal death. Prior to 20 weeks, it is a miscarriage, after 20 weeks a stillbirth. patsw 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't (see I can talk concise and authoritiative as well). Can you source your claims?--Andrew c 23:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• How about "destruction" instead of "death" of an embryo/fetus? "Destruction" is morally neutral in a pretty ingenious way: depending on ones inclination, one can read that opening sentence as "destruction" like "the sensitive documents were destroyed" or "destruction" like "the horse broke its leg and had to be destroyed".

Struct 03:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Quoted definitions" proposal

There has been much discussion over which outside definition of abortion to model our introductory sentence after. Thus, I propose the creation of "Quoted definitions" as a subsection of "Definitions," where selected definitions from dictionaries, medical or otherwise, could be presented. While this would, in my opinion, be an example of an unecessary compromise section counter to the goal of brevity, it would at least partially resolve some of the issues which have arisen in the debate over inclusion or exclusion of certain terms. -Severa ?? | !!! 11:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As you have said I think this would be an unnecessary compromise, and serves little purpose in the article. |→ Spaully°τ 15:23, 2 April 2006 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully. The fear of candor amazes me. Why does the biological reality have to be papered over? No one is arguing that the definition be "abortion is the killing of a cute cuddly unborn baby by a vile profiteer at the request of the baby's misguided or selfish mother". That would be POV. What is proposed is that the medical and biological facts be presented. Death of the embryo or fetus is what ends the pregnancy. A woman who is pregnant wants to rid herself of the new human entity. She hires someone to kill it. Many think this is morally acceptable and even laudable. Many others think it is murder. But pretending that the embryonic or fetal death is not the key fact in every miscarriage or induce abortion is a bit odd. It simply rings hollow. It smacks of Orwellian euphemism. It begs the question "what exactly made the pregnancy end?". Stepping down from the soapbox. Good 15:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing definitions of abortion from several sources would be a contribution to the Abortion debate article and not the Abortion article. patsw 16:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people think it's POV to include death; others believe that it is POV to leave it out. If it really wasn't an issue, even among the pro-choicers who don't have a problem with "death" (or the pro-lifers who don't take issue with its absence) discussion would've died two weeks ago. "Quoted definitions" would allow for the partial satisfaction of both these demands. We include a definition with "death," a definition without, etc., all with links to references. This is as far from a "fear of candor" or "paper[ing] over" as I could imagine. I don't know what the opening definition should be, and, frankly, I don't care, so long as it doesn't include the words "baby," "human being," or "clump of tissue." Regardless of what opening definition we decide upon, "Quoted definitions" would be like covering all our bases, preventing future editorial disputes over the inclusion/exclusion of "death" in the opening by showing that abortion is defined differently elsewhere. Opposition to a solution to this utterly unproductive editorial debate convinces me that the whole thing really is just a charade for unproductive POV debate. -Severa ?? | !!! 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My two definition proposal (again)

Here is a newer variation on original two definition proposal (scroll up to see the older one):

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction proceedure.

I'm not sure on the wording, but the concept is clear. Start off with the medical definition that excludes stillbirth and late-term abortion. Talk about spontaneous vs. induced. Mention mammals, but focus in on humans. Present the popular term that excludes miscarriages and stillbirths.

What do you think of the concept and the specific wording? P.S. I haven't worked this in yet, but I really feel it is more accurate to at least somewhere mention that more than just the fetus/embryo is removed during abortions/miscarriages. patsw objected to using terms like products of conception and conceptus, but maybe that was just in a certain context. --Andrew c 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's perfect, but it's certainly a major improvement over what we have today. I support it. Alienus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would change

The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

To

In popular usage, the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

Or alternatively

In colloquial usage,the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

As to more than fetus/embryo being removed - the fetus or embryo that are the central focus of the procedure or sponatneous process - if there wasn't a fetus/embryo, nothing else would be there, and it is the primary intent of an induced abortion to remove either - the rest of the matter is necessary to prevent infection, etc, but not the purpose of the procedure (basically, the purpose of the procedure is to arrest the development of the embryo or fetus). I think mention of the other matter (placenta, etc.) should stay out of the definition (for clarity/length) and be inserted into the appropriate article sections on procedure, etc.DonaNobisPacem 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could support it as well. And, like DonaNobisPacem, I don't think it's necessary to have "in reference to humans", though I wouldn't oppose it either. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick imput. I like your first suggested change, DonaNobisPacem. Saying colloquial seems to have more negative connotations to me than popular. Is it important to note that this is talking about abortion in humans, or does the previous sentence set the tone already? or does that not really matter?--Andrew c 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the usage of colloquial. In regards to the human part - I don't think it's really necessary. What I asked myself - if someone told me their dog got an abortion, what would I think: "If you didn't want puppies that bad, why didn't you get it speyed?" was what came to mind (ie, I think regardless of specific mammalian context, people think of the induced procedure when you use the word in common usage).DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Andrew's proposal at the top of this section. I would not object to DonaNobisPacem's modifications, and support the comments regarding placenta/umbilical/amniotic sac etc, but am not sure whether or not restricting the definition to popular usage (which seems to say medical/religious/legal/etc usage is different) is a good thing. AvB ÷ talk 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I use "popular usage" in the sense of everyday parlance. Medical terminology IS different, as we've seen in the debate (particularly in regards to the medical definition being before viablity of the fetus). But from what I've seen - I saw some proposed legislation/enacted legislation for various states online, and they specifically state "abortion will refer to induced abortions, including late term" (obviously paraphrased). In politics, a politician says "I support abortion rights" - he's not referring to a woman's right to have a miscarriage(!), we automatically know he is speaking about induced abortions. And if you go to vatican.va and type in abortion, I none of the entries refer to spontaneous abortion (in fact, if you type in "spontaneous abortion" on the English search, there are no returns). So popular usage - even in law and religion - usually refers to the induced procedure, at any perioud of gestation, in contrast to the medical definition, referring to induced or sponaneous abortion before viablilty.DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading my above comment - one could change "popular usage" to "common parlance" - that would be a more encyclopedic term anyways, I suppose. DonaNobisPacem 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That solves it, and unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So in light of the above - Andrew c, I hope you don't mind me doing this with your proposal - I believe we are now at:

:An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure.

Termination is a euphemism. It means end, and as has been mentioned several times, the end of pregnancy is birth or death. Death is the accurate word to describe abortion. patsw 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Under common parlance the word death is there.....is that good enough? It points out the medical community does not use the term (in general, with exceptions) but that in common parlance it often is used. DonaNobisPacem 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DonaNobisPacem. Additionally, I do not find 'termination' to be a euphemism. For one, with movies like The Terminator, and rodent 'extermination' and terminal sickness, I do not find the word softens the reality of said events. The term is used in the medical literature (and even the wikipedia entry has a disambiguation link to abortion, not birth). The first sentence is qualified with "medically defined", and I believe the definition is fairly close to a large number of the medical definitions other editors have cited. Your changes would be inaccurate because it would cover stillbirths, which are never medically defined as abortion.--Andrew c 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion. I've emboldened the second 'abortion', as was suggested originally, linked 'nonviable' to Viability and moved the mass media comment to the end:

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

I think having both instances boldened is important, as is linking viable. Moving the sentance was more to do with flow. Nice idea there. |→ Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)

Excellent proposal. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can support this one. Good work Andrew c, and everyone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Spaully, I agree - the flow is much better, as the common parlance flows right from the medical definition. Also agree with the two bolded terms. Good job! A question - do you think there is sufficient support here for the opening line to mention it on Talk:Abortion, to request additional input? Or should it simply be inserted, and it mentioned on the talk page we reached a reasonable solution here? DonaNobisPacem 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer comment by a few more regulars. A mention/carbon copy should be made on Talk:Abortion; but I think Andrew c should have that privilege. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DonaNobisPacem 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A minor point, should "pregnancy" be Wikilinked, or not? I would say yes because it is a big topic and central to what is being aborted; OTOH it is a common concept, and I wouldn't want to overlink the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the sort of thing that can be dealt with after it goes live, but if it were me, I'd link pregnancy, death, and mammalian, as well as what's already there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments and changes. I have posted a message on the main page directing more users here for comments. Hopefully, we will have something worth putting on the actual article soon! I am a little concerned by patsw's comment, but hopefully something can be worked out, or we can convince him of this compromise, consensus version.--Andrew c 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The principal action of an abortion is the death of the embryo or fetus. The expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the uterus of the mother, or the removal of the embryo or fetus by some process is the consequence of that death whether it was intended or not. This proposed definition reads "then Y, X" rather than "X then Y" in order to obscure the definition abortion. patsw 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the principal action is to remove the fetus? (if it were not removed, then the dead fetus could harm the woman) The medical definition does not contain death because (as I understand it, I haven't done the research myself) predominantly death is hardly referred to in medical texts; as they are concerned with the action(s) (mechanics) rather than the consequence(s) of the abortion procedure. The medical definition is first; because we adopt a scientific frame of reference when possible at Wikipedia.

The seperation of the definitions into medical and layman allows Wikipedia to maintain its NPOV on both fronts. Are you more concerned with the medical definition ignoring the consequence (death), or the medical definition coming first or both? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the case of a natural death in the uterus, the death is the action which makes the consequential act, removal, necessary, in the fetus is not expelled naturally.
• In the case of an induced abortion, the removal of the fetus is not sought; the death of the fetus is intended. It is the presence of the dead fetus which necessitates removal.

In both cases, death precedes removal and expulsion. Death, as I and others have mentioned, is accurate and neutral. The rest of the terms used termination, removal, expulsion are either euphemisms or consequential actions. Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of natural death; I cannot see death as an action but a rather a state, dying is an action. I see termination is the best term, because it suits the medical context and if death comes about naturally and terminate appears more accurate and places the X before the Y; as the body and/or fetus stops/terminates development of a nonviable organism which could not develop/live anyway. "Death" seems more suitable to viable fetuses. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonviable fetuses kick and suck their thumbs. And they die. Its odd that we can kill cancer cells by chemotherapy, but we can't say that we kill embryos or fetuses. This discussion is simply revealing the strong desire to use euphemisms for political reasons. Good 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, we want to write a good article that's fair to everyone. Accusing one another of political motivations won't get that done better. Now the word "death" occurs in the proposed version. Would you prefer to say death twice, if we provide two definitions? I think that would sound weird, to repeat it. Do you object to providing two different definitions?

Also, you say that "abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus," but medical sources seem to define abortion as the actual removal or expulsion, not the cessation of life that accompanies the removal or expulsion. Are those medical sources simply incomplete, or are they actually inaccurate, pinning the essence of abortion in the wrong place? I would think they get the benefit of the doubt, on how medical terms are defined. None of them defines abortion as the death itself, and some make it clear that it isn't the death, like source #10 from the list, where MedLinePlus says that most spontaneous abortions are caused by fetal death. That makes it apparent that the cause and effect - death and abortion - are two different things. Others say that abortion results in death - cause and effect again, other way 'round. Abortion isn't itself death; it's caused by or causes in death, and the proposed lead says that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:Talk about euphamisms, the chemotherapy article says it refers to "drugs used to treat cancer." Jeez, they are hiding the fact that chemotherapy is used to KILL innocent living cancer cells. They only use the k-word ONCE in the whole article. It must be politically motivated. If we were following their advice, we should say "abortion refers to methods used to treat unwanted pregnancies", and not mention anything being killed or dying until way down the artilce. Look at these euphamisms "impairing mitosis (cell division)", "cause damage to cells", "cause cells to undergo apoptosis", "chemotherapy affects cell division". These are all pretty euphamisms used to cover up the fact that cancer cells are DYING.--Andrew c 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that's medically accurate. Non-induced abortion often occurs when the placenta becomes detached from the uterine wall, leading to the expulsion of the embryo while it is still alive. Of course, we're often dealing with very early self-abortion, so the embryo is not going to be noticable to the naked eye and the whole process will most likely be written off as a "heavy period" unless it's detected as a "chemical pregnancy". Alienus 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time proving either way that the embryo or foetus is alive once the placenta detaches. However I think it more likely it is not, seeing as early in pregnancy hormones released by the embryo maintain the uterine lining, and so it would only be expelled once these are no longer produced, having died. Of course some abortifacients cause the body to respond as though there is no pregnancy, probably expelling a live embryo.

To patsw, what your argument comes down to is whether induced abortion primarily aims to kill the embryo/foetus, or to remove it, and which of these occurs first. In terms of motive, the aim is to stop the pregnancy (normally). In terms of a procedure both of these are aims, although many medical definitions do not acknowledge death.

Overall it really doesn't matter, as the proposal includes both removal and death, and more importantly is showing general consensus, hopefully concluding this mammoth discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Given the facts today, the word "nonviable" is simply inaccurate for the medical definition. It should be removed. IDX is abortion and is used to kill viable babies. Why would we repeat an inaacurate definition? Good 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IDX is put within the context of viable induced abortion that result in the death of the entity. I'm unsure where you are going with this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I read the definition, it is actually stating that IDX is performed after viability - is the language not clear? DonaNobisPacem 05:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "nonviable" is simply not accurate. Abortions are done regardless of viability, as anyone familiar with partial-birth abortion (sometimes called IDX) or hysterotomy abortion knows. I just don't know why the article would lead off with a statement that is inaccurate and misleading. Abortions can be early or late term, but they are all abortions. And not every medical definition of abortion mentions non-viability as a requirement for an abortion. Lets simply remove the word for the sake of clarity. The article I think already mentions that most abortions are done prior to viability (and it should it it does not). But to lead offf with false information is good for what reason? Should our compromise as editors actually compromise accuracy? There is no POV involved. Abortion of a viuable fetus is still abortion, medically and legally (and colloquially). There are several medical definitions that do not include any mention of viability, and we also have proof that late term abortion on viable fetuses occur thousands of times each year - why are we pretending otherwise? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why there are two definitions, the "medical" one and the "common paralance" one. No one has been able to combine the two because it gets too confusing and stillbirths end up being included (which are never considered abortion). Besides, abortions on viable fetus are rare (under 2%) in the US. I do not think it is extremely important to bend over backwards to cover every single case in the first sentence. Besides, IDX is wikilinked later on, and it specifically says "even viable ones".--Andrew c 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, remember this quote: "[D&X] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public."--Andrew c 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out by Andrew c; late term abortions are rare, as such we aren't going to lead off or emphasize them. That would be misleading; as would to say "abortions are done"; you are neglecting the fact the majority of abortions aren't "done" by anyone, they happen naturally. As to the notion of nonviable fetuses sucking their thumbs etc.; I understand what you are saying; but what I was getting at with terminate and nonviable is entities that have no chance of even reaching that stage because it will miscarry way before that stage on development. I know nonviable can also refer to healthy developing fetuses; but I was focusing on the fact the majority of abortions occur naturally and early; and terminate is better suited to that context. Induced abortion; which is the focus of common and political language; is of course a different story and has been given its very own wording and definition in the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. We are to believe that killing a fetus is not properly called an "abortion". I suppose we should use "feticide", though I am sure there will be an outcry if that is used. A "late term abortion" is an abortion. If the medical term is "late term abortion" then it is still an abortion. Please explain how it is otherwise. A massive heart attack is still a heart attack. Juvenile diabetes is diabetes. Brain cancer is cancer. A pink flower is a flower. A giant panda is a panda. An early riser is a riser. A spring chicken is a chicken. A ridiculous argument is an argument. A rare Lamborghini is a Lamborghini. You get the idea. Lets stick to english, and not bend over backwards to be politically correct and in so doing mislead people. I know this was suggested as an effort to compormise, but any compromise must also be accurate. I have adopted the compromise with the sole exception of one untruth (nonviable). ____G_o_o_d____ 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what is your issue? You don't believe the majority of medical sources that have been cited as defining abortion pre-20 weeks? or you disagree with putting the medical definition first? It is completely acknowledged that in COMMON usage, abortion can refer to viable fetus, and then we wikilink to IDX. How is that not clear? If we put "often" in front of "medically defined", would that solve the problem? If we remove 'nonviable', not only are we ignoring a large potion of the technical definition, it makes the whole second definition redundent, and leaves no reason to link to IDX or mention 'death'. --Andrew c 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still don't find any of the proposals ideal, I do prefer them over what we presently have. Here's my rewrite of Spaully's version, which seems to be the accepted version. Nothing changed outside of trying to make it more concise.

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.--Pro-Lick 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E is perplexed

If "late term abortion" is the medical term for aborting a viable fetus, then I think the opening should also mention that medical term as well as the common language. On another note, I googled these phrases (and no others) to see what happened:

• "aborted fetus" 151,000 hits
• "aborted embryo" 1,060 hits
• "aborted pregnancy" 891 hits

• "aborted the fetus" 527 hits
• "aborted the pregnancy" 517 hits

• "aborting the fetus" 746 hits
• "aborting the pregnancy" 564 hits

• "abort the fetus" 32,900 hits
• "abort the pregnancy" 19,400 hits

• "the fetus was aborted" 283 hits
• "the pregnancy was aborted" 167 hits

• "the fetus is aborted" 412 hits
• "the pregnancy is aborted" 244 hits

In every case the results demonstrate that the most common usage refers to the fetus being aborted (not the pregnancy). And considering that fetus is generally the preferred term of abortion supporters (and eschewed by pro-lifers), it would seem that it is even the common usage among abortion asupporters. So, it seems that most people understand abortion as pertaining to the fetus, and secondarily to pregnancy. After all, at the center of every pregnancy is a unique new little human. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I fail to see the problem. The common usage definition focuses not only on the fetus, but on the DEATH of the fetus as the defining aspect. --Andrew c 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do have a question; can the medical term "late term abortion" include the abortion of a potentially viable fetus; or is Good incorrect? My understanding is "late term abortion" refers to an abortion done between 12-20 weeks. Late but still prior to viability. It may have come from this exchange on his talk page, in that case DonaNobisPacem could help clarify. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter; as Late-term abortion is defined in a different article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the exchange on G&E's talk page - I mentioned there most medical sources defined late term abortion after 18-20 weeks (when they also define viability to start) - that matches up with the Wikipedia definition you linked to above... I'm getting confused now - what is the confusion about? DonaNobisPacem 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, about whether defining abortion in a way that leaves out "Late-term abortion" is misleading. I would say no, as they have their own articles. And we can put Late-term abortion in See also section of Abortion to make sure. And as Andrew c points out, commonly Abortion has a broader definition that includes viable healthy fetuses. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Late term abortion" only gets 29 hits on pubmed. I wouldn't call it a "medical term".--Andrew c 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Late-term abortion gets 76 hits. *shrug* RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is why I am confused or perplexed by the inclusion of the word "nonviable" for the definition of the broad term "abortion". I am not convinced, and I have not seen any evidence, that technicaly abortion can only be done to a nonviable fetus. Perhaps at one time the idea was that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable fetus. But we now know that is not true. Again, is it a medical fact that the killing and removal of a late term viable fetus is not actually an abortion? ____G_o_o_d____ 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The first definition is the medical definition; not a "broad" definition. That comes after with clarification of common usage of the term. While I acknowledge "Late-term abortion" is a wrinkle in a perfect definition; the proceedure is rare and is set apart from Abortion as Late-term abortion has its own article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy: Maybe we should wikilink to LTA instead of IDX? or include both?--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is preferable; and clarifies there is a dinstinction. But I'm concerned now about "induce early pregnancy" listed under the procedure. That means late-term abortion doesn't necessarily involve "death" of the fetus. That could force us to stick with IDX. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:The confusion stems from editors wanting to include the broad, technical, medical term for abortion (that includes miscarriages) in an article that is basically about the "induced abortion procedure (not miscarriages)". We start with the technical definition of abortion, explain it, then move into the common usage and how it relates to human society. Your confusion is trying to make the technical definition fit your conception of what an abortion should be defined as. I believe the way it is written explains this issue clearly, but maybe I'm just used to this wording (and the concepts behind it).--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I just don't think an accurate technical definition should exclude abortion of a viable fetus. Regardless of whatever reference we find says, we all know for a fact that a woman carrying a viable fetus can have an "abortion". Technically, a late term abortion is still an abortion - its just a specific kind, as a chemical abortion is a specific kind of abortion. No one has really given any good explanation as to why non-viability would be included, especially since I have already posted two medical definitions that do not reference viability. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[copied from main talk]That is my point, Roy. If we are defining abortion, then it should be the broad definition. And the broad definition should not exclude late term abortions, as the inclusion of the word "nonviable" would do. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, late term abortions are not abortions (see previous citations). It is not a problem to possibly exclude them from the "medical" definition (besides, they are under 2%. Focusing on them seems to give them undue weight). However, it is explained CLEARLY further down that the common usage of the word abortion DOES cover LTA. If you read the whole paragraph together, I believe everything is explained, and all instances of what a doctor and what someone on the street would call an "abortion" are presented. If we were to remove the "nonviable" aspect, it would make no sense at all to refer to "even viable ones". We'd have to take that part out, and the wikilink to the IDX or LTA articles. --Andrew c 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we change IDX to Late-term abortion? Now that I think about it; it seems odd to have technical terminology in a "common parlance" definition. LOL, did you just suggest that above? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and you found that suggestion ;) I think what is meant by "early induction of labor" is that a chemical is injected to kill the fetus, and then the woman gives "birth" to the dead fetus. However, that is complete speculation on my part. Maybe google could tell us more?--Andrew c 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out this. At first glance, it's about causing the birth of a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own. Alienus 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah "'Induced labor leads to the fetus dying on its own, often in the arms of its parents,' says Calvin, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists." There is also [35] and [36]--Andrew c 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not entirely clear is whether the fetus is nonviable due to age or illness. The examples all mention fetuses that, if carried to term, would be dead in a matter of days anyhow. I don't know that anyone is simply inducing the birth of a fetus that, if carried to term, would survive. In any case, I suppose that this could be considered a form of abortion, at least by Catholics and others who put religious ethics above science. As such, it deserves mention in the LTA article, although not without framing to keep it honest. Alienus 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm entirely satisfied LTA is preferable to IDX; I don't see any further significant hiccups to implementation of the new lead. Andrew c, I think I can speak for the current consensus that you can add it when you are ready. It was a long time in coming... wonderful job everyone. Another win for Wikipedia!!! Huzzah! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah? I'll go get my leather mug.

More seriously, I do want to say that there is justice in the world; we just have to make it ourselves. Alienus 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Including non-viability as a prerequisite for every abortion is clearly archaic. Perhaps the thought used to be that no doctor would kill a viable fetus. With the advent of partial-birth abortion and hysterotomy abortion, that is no longer the case. Most late term abortions are performed on healthy fetuses after 19 or 20 weeks, the point at which viability is now placed. And thousands of late term abortions are done each year in the US (they are not rare, they are atypical; annually in the USA there are 500 times more late term abortions of viable fetuses than lawful executions). These two medical definitions do not included viability:

• MedicineNet.com medical dictionary: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
• Websters medical dictionary: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

____G_o_o_d____ 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's critique of the proposal

First of all, I want to thank AnnH for her constructive criticism and suggestions. RE: death in the first sentence. There are a number of users who do not want to mention death at all. I understand that one way of looking at the difference between an abortion and an live birth is the d-word, but it is also the same as the difference between a Vastus lateralis muscle on a living cow vs. it on your plate in the from of a Tri-tip steak. Some people feel the most important and defining aspect of an abortion is that a fetus dies, and other people feel the most important aspect of beef is that a cow dies. However, these are just POVs. I believe a compromise between the two parties is to include the d-word, but keep it out of the first sentence. Besides there is huge precedent in the quoted medical definitions to focus on the procedure or action of an abortion, not one of the side effects. RE: viablity. The common usage of the word abortion almost always refers to a the procedure that a woman pays a doctor for to end her pregnancy. I do not use the word "abortion" to mean miscarriage, and I don't know anyone who does. That said, the technical definition includes both spontaneous and induced abortions (but doesn't include stillbirths or so-called late term abortions). If we are going to mention miscarriages in the opening, we need to explain this difference. The current proposal is one way of handling it. Some users have not been happy with this presentation (but there haven't been any counter suggestions. Maybe these users do not find the current first sentence problematic, but I for one find major issues in it not mentioning the removal or expulsion of the products of conception, and how it possibly covers stillbirths, which are never considers abortions. It reads as if the act of a fetus dying in the womb equals and abortion, which is not the case.) I personally like the current proposal. It is a compromise that covers all situations that would be considered an abortion in a medical text book and in a news paper. It starts off technical, explains that some, then moves out, and focuses on induced human abortions, which is basically the theme of the rest of the article. However, maybe a different solution that AnnH, patsw, and G&E would prefer is mentioning the popular usage first, and then referencing the technical terminology? I seriously want to keep pushing for my original proposal, but I am going to type up a very rough cut of this common first, technical second version.

Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

The problem is that we have an article about the abortion procedure in humans, but if there is going to be a wiki article on "abortion" generally, we need to reference the technical term that covers miscarriages, and we need to mention non-human abortions. One solution would be to move this article to abortion (human) or abortion procedure in humans, but then 99% of users searching for "abortion" would want to find these topics, not the technical or non-human form. So covering these topics in the first paragraph seems like the only solution. I personally feel that the current wording isn't that great, and this is why I have been pushing for these reworks.--Andrew c 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Euphemism alert: "actively ending a pregnancy" above means killing the unborn life.

A pregnancy can be actively ended as well by delivering a living child. In fact, if you are alive and reading this, your mother's pregnancy was actively ended by your birth. patsw 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still like definitive proof that nonviability is required for the medical definition of abortion to be accurate. Since when is there a consensus here at wikipedia or otherwise that aborting a viable fetus is not an abortion? (Of course some would call it homicide, but I am talking about doctors who support abortion - do such doctors really consider that a late term abortion is not an abortion?) I repeat: perhaps prior to the advent of partial birth abortion the definition assumed no doctor would stoop to such lows as to abort a viable fetus, thus the word nonviable at one time was accurate. Too, spontaneous abortion is alwasy a nonviable fetus since at some point the fetus dies naturally with no intentional inducement. I am ok with the proposed new paragraph with the exception of the viability reference in the first line - and my objection has nothing to do with POV - it is about accuracy. I am not convinced that the viability reference is medically accurate. Abortion is abortion. Any time prior to the exit from the womb, the baby can be aborted. I would like to know why some of you think the viability reference - knowing it is not accurate and that it excludes some induced abortions - is so necessary. Do you really think that doctors don't consider late term abortions to be abortions? "Late term" is an adjective that modifies abortion. Its not really that hard to understand. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all "late term abortion" is not a medical term. Search it on pubmed if you like. Next, technically speaking champagne only refers to sparkling white wine made in the Champagne region of France. Despite that, it is not only common for California sparkling wine makers to label their product as "champagne", it is also common for the general public to use the non-technical, general word "champagne" to refer to ALL sparkling white wines. Similarly, technically speaking, an "abortion" that takes place after 20 weeks is not an abortion, despite everyone calling it that. The argument you are using to remove "nonviable" can similarly be used to suggest removing the references to the Champagne region in the Champagne (beverage) article. About your 2 definitions: the majority of the cited definitions refer to 20 weeks or viablity. Just because you found 2 that do not mention this does not change the majority. I could use the same argument that I found 2 definitions that do not include "death" therefore we should not say death. I'll agree to remove "nonviable" if you agree to remove "death". How's that? :Þ--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a medical source that specifically states that a late term abortion (whihc, by the way, was what someone else insisted was the proper term for them) is not an abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What, all the already cited medical definitions that reference 20 weeks or viability are not good enough? I did a search of the Oxford Reference Online (which searches over 140 different dictionaries and reference works published by Oxford University Press) earlier today and it was full of quotes like "before it is able to survive independently, esp. in the first 28 weeks of a human pregnancy." And from the Oxford Companion to Medicine "The loss of an immature embryo or fetus before viability is an abortion." And from A Dictionary of Nursing and the Concise Medical Dictionary "the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus at a stage of pregnancy when it is incapable of independent survival (i.e. at any time between conception and the 24th week of pregnancy)."--Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

patsw: My wording wasn't an actual proposal, just a "rough cut" of an alternative (common definition first, technical definition second). If you are unhappy with any of these ideas, perhaps you could share a proposal of your own, or are you happy with the current wording (which I personally find problematic, as I pointed out a couple topics up).--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What case has been made against the appearance of death in the definition of abortion on the basis of accuracy? If would want to describe the intentional killing of a fetus as something other than abortion, that is obviously inaccurate.

If you want to add that a naturally occurring fetal death after 20 weeks is commonly called a miscarriage or stillbirth while the intentional killing of the fetus after 20 weeks is called abortion. That would be accurate, but such language, I suggest, would be considered POV, not by me, by the advocates of unrestricted access to abortion at any time before natural birth.

Of course, the reason why this confusion got started in the first place was the mistaken belief that the intentional killing of human embryos and fetuses would happen before 20 weeks. If that were the case, a question of what defining abortion after 20 weeks would be moot. patsw 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never argued that it is not accurate to say a fetus/embryo dies at some point during an abortion procedure. I have argued that certain ways of presenting this "fact" can be seen as POV. No one would argue that the consumption of meat doesn't result in the death of an animal. However, would it be giving undue weight to the vegetarian position to mention this fact in the opening sentence of meat? What's worse, is there are some pro-choicers who do not consider the fetal tissue destroyed during an abortion any more significant than the death of your tonsils during a tonsillectomy. I do not believe the first sentence is the proper place to raise this issue and then worry about awkward qualification phrases to keep NPOV in mind (such as when someone inserted "death of a cell"). Furthermore, an abundance of medical sources do not mention death. Therefore, when we are giving a 'medical' definition, it isn't that odd to keep a similar wording. To top things off, we then present the 'common' usage of the word that clearly mentions death, and references not only late term abortions (<2%) but we also mention abortions on viable fetuses (~.08%). If anything, that is giving undue weight to such a minor occurrence in the first paragraph. But I thought it was a good compromise to make it clear the different usages of the word abortion, and what each definition covers. I think the confusion is that the first medical definition covers "abortion"(1). While the second common usage covers "the induced abortion procedure"(2). You can have an induced abortion procedure (2) any point during a pregnancy, but technically, the ~.08% of abortion procedures (2) on viable fetuses are not "abortion"(1). Just like stillbirths are not abortion (1). Really, to look at this more objectively, go to some medical journals that deal with livestock and see how they use these terms there. --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see people keep asking for sources, and I thought this had been previously covered here Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS and here #medical sources. I think Andrew c is providing a fair and balanced definition and first paragraph. Death is not excluded, nor is one definition said to the correct one. I'm definitely not seeing any reasons why the existing 1st paragraph is preferable to the revised version.--Pro-Lick 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would propose now that we change the opening paragraph to the new version because, even if it is not perfect, it is at least more accurate and clear than the current version. Maybe having it in the article will allow more editors to review it and imput their suggestions. I want to thank everyone who gave suggestions and worked to improve my initial proposal! --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Alienus 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too, and I did somwhere give you the thumbs up a while back. I'll implement the version we had arrived on when I left. Any omissions, problems let me know. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Question, should "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure." be changed to "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures." Given there is more than one late-term procedure; I'm guessing it should be plural. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that all late-term abortion procedures are controversial. Alienus 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't. So there. Actually, 2 issues. 1st is that it would be true to say all abortion procedures are controversial, so it's essentially a meaningless qualification. 2nd, those that are performed to save a woman's life are relatively as controversial as standard abortions.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True; but I read into that LTA are especially controversial. Would adding "especially" be clarifying? Or overdoing it? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual procedures used to perform life-saving LTA's are used to perform any kind of LTA, so I'm not sure what you mean. For that matter, I don't think that most LTA's are actually life-saving. I thought they're mostly from women who, for a variety of reasons, didn't get an abortion earlier. Alienus 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there is more than one type of LTA procedure; therefore there are multiple procedures, meaning proceedure should be pluralized and the sentence tweaked to reflect that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. "Especially" does not. Maybe if controversial gets used excessively, it will be needed.--Pro-Lick 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"controversial but rare"

I propose dropping "controversial but rare."

• A mention of a "controversy" should explain what's controverted and who's doing the controverting. A freestanding "controversy" is meaningless.

• "Rare" is a vague and relative word (relative to what)? It is a word lifted from debates where one is advocating the right to obtain a late term abortion, or arguing against laws that would restrict such abortions. The Late term abortion article itself doesn't call these abortions rare. patsw 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. LTA's are both more controversial than early abortions and much rarer. Alienus 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortions performed when the fetus is viable are estimated to be around 0.08%. Abortion performed after 20 weeks is estimated to be around 1.4%. p. 12 The LTA article is only about a week old and needs work. I personally felt it was important to mention how common abortions with viable fetuses are. Maybe the opening paragraph isn't the best place, and maybe the word "rare" is vague, but I'm not sure dropping the adjectives without replacing them with some other sort of modifier would help clarify things. --Andrew c 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just changed:

• such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure.

to:

• in controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures.

I think it was necessary in order to get the pluralization right. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The mention of a freestanding controversy is meaningless. Is the controversy that after viability, the choice made is to deliver a dead corpse rather than a living human baby? patsw 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a false choice; so not exactly. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there are thousancds of these abortions each year, "atypical" is the word we should use - not "rare". Rare would be something that almost never occurs. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted the .08% quote. Can you cite a source that claims there are thousands of abortions with viable fetuses each year? If something happens under 1%, I would consider it rare. So clearly abortions on viable fetuses are rare (by my standards). What standards are you using?--Andrew c 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what matters here is not percentages, but what medical professionals precisely call procedures on potentially viable fetuses. Do they say "abortion", or something longer than abortion? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A rare event in the United States is not .08% and I dispute that number is that low. If a low number is used, it's 18,000, the actual number is likely 25,000 because of the distortions in the data collection process (i.e. undercounting such abortions by improperly recording the gestational age of the fetus). Any cause of death above 1,000 deaths should not be called "rare". patsw 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV, but I'll stick with Einstein and everything is relative. In addition, this an exhibition of why I object to the use of "death". Patsw equivocates on it as if these deaths are somehow equivalent to the deaths of people.--Pro-Lick 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree on what the word "rare" means. .08% is still very low. Why do you dispute AGI's estimate? I agree that there method is a little rough. They make an estimate total number of abortions (because the CDC only covers what is reported, and there are around 13 IIRC reporting areas that do not report). And then use the CDC's proportions for gestational age and apply them to their new total estimate. Do you have any data that contradicts AGI's findings? Are you saying that there is a disproportionately large number of abortions past 24 weeks that are unreported? Do you have proof? Next, you are completely wrong with the 18,000 number. AGI estimated that there were 1.29 million abortions that took place in 2002 (roughly 450,000 more than were reported to the CDC in that year). The CDC's report, which is based on hard numbers, said that 1.4% of abortions took place after 20 weeks. So you take the CDC's hard number, and apply it to AGI's estimate and you get 18,000. The place where you are wrong is that saying past 20 weeks is equal to viability. AGI estimates that there were only .08% of all abortions that actually took place after 24 weeks. That is an estimate 1032 abortions (probably after viability) out of 1.29 million. Why do you saythat 25 times as many abortions took place after viability than estimated?--Andrew c 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical and common definitions

Homestarmy (viability is debatable): I'm under the impression Andrew c was diligent in trying to be as accurate as possible to the actual medical definition of "abortion"; which is about an abortion before 20 weeks or agreed biological viability. (exceptions don't change how they define it)

GoodandEvil (viable fetuses can be aborted): If Andrew c is correct; then doctors don't consider viable fetuses simply an abortion; they consider it a "late-term" abortion. That clearly indicates it is not a standard abortion as they define it. If it were, they would just call it an abortion. No matter how many times this argument is repeated, it merely gets repeated, rather than say... becomes persuasive.

Musical Linguist (prioritizing medical vs. layman): More interesting; and rests on a premise I have pondered during the redefinition discussion. What is the conclusive (if any?) criteria for prioritizing definitions; layman or technical; common or medical; for an encyclopedia or if Wikipedia policy/philosophy differs. Although I find Musical Linguist's rationale flawed and biased (yes language changes, but that should have no impact on our prioritization, as we aren't a pop-culture magazine that changes with the times; we update with the times :"D); anyway I am personally at a loss as to what should come first. I'd really like some illumination on this one; but I suspect that which came first would win out if common sense was the only consideration. Ohhhhh, me likey etymology.

Comments on these subjects are welcome in this section; other comments can go elsewhere.
- RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this concise summary of points! I tend to talk too much, and I have been a little defensive over this. I apologize to anyone if my frustation has been showing. As for the issue at hand (which should come first). I'll be completely honest here. The primary reason I chose the medical definition first was as a compromise between the death and anti-death folk. Instead of removing the word "death" completely, I moved it out of the first sentence. If we decide to move the common definition to the beginning, I would highly suggest a major rework that, while perhaps still mentioning death, focuses less on the death of the fetus as being the single, defining aspect of what constitutes an abortion. However, I do not feel we should be putting too much energy into inventing our own definitions of terms (like I said above, seems like OR). We should only be reporting what our sources say. Aside from these POV/compromise issues, what is more encyclopedic? Having the technical definition first, or the common? Maybe we could combine the two "while medical dictionaries define abortion as [...], the word commonly refers to the induced abortion procedure that can take place at any time during a pregnacy." Obviously, I'd like to keep the new proposed version we have, but I am trying to work with everyone here. So please, what does everyone else think?--Andrew c 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been trying hard to find pubmed articles on "late-term abortions". That term really doesn't get used, but then again not many articles cover this subject. Most say something along the lines of "third trimester termination of pregnancy".--Andrew c 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments illustrate the factual point I have been repeating: abortion is a broad medical term, and it includes even late-term abortions. Medical experts consider everyu successful abortion after 20 weeks to be an "abortion" - they often add the modifier "late-term". Arguably, the abortion definition used to mention non-viability because no doctor was willing to kill a viable fetus. But some definitions have not kept current or else do not want to acknowledge the gruesome (and previously unthinkable) reality of abortions that kill viable fetuses. Few doctors want to admit that a professional peer would kill viable babies for money. It makes the profession look bad. And those who do such "procedures" don't want everyone to know exactly what goes on - its a vile thing to admit to. No matter how you slice it, a dead fetus is wicked gross - especially a viable dead fetus that you just killed. But back to the issue: it is ludicrous to claim that an abortion after 20 weeks is no longer an abortion, but is rightly referred to as [insert some unknown medical term here] (even Andrew C can see that there is scant evidenec that "late term abortion" is the preferred medical term). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By mentioning that I cannot find the term "late term abortion" (or even "abortion" for that matter) in reference to viable pregnacies being terminated, I am illustrating your point?? How does that work. You just claimed that "medical experts" use the term abortion after 20 weeks. I agree, to a lesser extent, that medical professionals are allowed to use common usages of words. However, prove to me that this is the technical term used in the medical literature. Search pubmed if you want (I've already been there). The fact of the matter is a VAST majority of our definitions define abortion as before viability. Even if this goes against your personal POV, and you feel it is inaccurate, there is NO justifiable reason to exclude this technical definition. In fact, because some editors feel that it needs to be "fixed", my proposal included TWO definitions to cover BOTH POV. I'm just trying to be NPOV, which is to show all relevent POV in accordance to their weight. You are arguing to not include a relevent POV because you feel it doesn't cover what you personally consider an "abortion" to be. How is this not POV pushing? (an aside) Your constant use of emotional, partisan language does not help your argument. I try to read through all that to find your actual point, but it is hard to ignore.--Andrew c 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Opening paragraph

Moved from main talk page to preserve continuity in discussion. G+E please do not move it back

Current opening:

• An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

Proposed opening (see also the discussion above and especially Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph where the proposal was hammered out and reached consensus):

• An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

It is time to weigh in before making the change. Poll closes on 13 April.____G_o_o_d____ 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This poll is now closed. There was no consensus to adopt the new language. 8 favored it, and 8 were not in favor. I ask someone who knows how to archive this entire poll section.____G_o_o_d____ 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Adopt new opening: Andrew c
2. Adopt new opening: Alienus
3. Adopt new opening: RoyBoy # (I'd like contro/rare sentence tweaked, mainly on grounds that its awkward, use perhaps "at any stage of pregnancy with rare late-term abortion procedures." Then put controversy in the last sentence like: "human abortion is controversial so it receives the most focus..." - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Adopt new opening: Pro-Lick
5. Adopt new opening: GTBacchus
6. Adopt new opening: AvB (as stated here)
7. Adopt new opening: --Isolani 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

running total wanting to adopt new language as proposed: 8 (see below)

---

1. Reject Adopt new opening (only if the inaccurate word "nonviable" is removed, since viable fetuses are aborted): ____G_o_o_d____
2. Reject Adopt new opening (except with Goodandevil's proposal): --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) < This is my current vote. --WikiCats 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Reject new opening, "nonviable" is inaccurate, the obfuscation of the biological fact of death is POV. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Reject new opening, wandered into this discussion, some extremely premature babies are more viable than people might think. Give the modern day medical profession some credit eh? Homestarmy 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose the new definition and support the old. Numerically those who prefer the euphemism termination over the accurate word death, dominated the discussion in Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and declared consensus. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   Reject The proposed opening paragraph is not an improvement over the prior one. The proposed opening paragraph replaces accurate language with euphemisms. The reality is that abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus and the proposed opening paragraph avoids this. patsw 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

   I think this is your second vote on this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --> merged 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Reject the new opening, after a lot of reflection. I had already given it a reluctant support (though not as a vote between this and the old one), as being better than some other versions that had been suggested. But if it is a choice between this, and the more accurate previous version, then I would oppose changing it. Regarding the medical definition, assuming that it is true that it's not medically defined as abortion if it's carried out late in the pregnancy, Wikipedia is not a medical encyclopaedia, and it is a fact that people use the word abortion to refer to the killing of the fetus throughout all nine months. Language is not something fixed. It changes, according to how the people use it. I have often heard phrases like "abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy" coming from the lips of well-educated people. I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph (again, assuming that it's accurate), but I think to start with that obscures an accurate, though unpleasant fact that the fetus dies, and gives the impression that only non-viable fetuses (or embryos) are aborted. The previous version was better and clearer. AnnH ? 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Reject Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. User:KillerChihuahua 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ KillerChihuahua has approved of my posting his/her vote here. ____G_o_o_d____]
8. Reject A fetus is not removed to preserve it's life. It is removed to kill the embryo. The whole point is to kill the baby in the womb. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Swing vote: My rejection is based upon the reference to "controversial, but rare, late term procedures." There are other controversies in the debate, and picking this one out of the rest smacks of spoonfeeding, or selective presentation. I'd suggest sidestepping the issue entirely, as in, "In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure [which results in the death of an embryo or fetus], regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed." Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the new version, although I still find the current/old version acceptable. -Severa | !!! 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a support vote now? AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think we've worked out all the kinks that we possibly can. -Severa | !!! 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

running total rejecting new language as proposed: 8

---

Comments

Not only are polls evil, but Evil has been trying to sway the poll by writing messages to known anti-abortion editors. As far as I'm concerned, anyhow he contacted gets zero votes. This poll is officially a joke and I will not participate in it, nor will I accept its results as binding upon me. Alienus 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Alienus, it is not for you to decide who gets a vote and who doesn't. If there is anything in Wikipedia policy to say that an editor in good standing, who has edited extensively in a particular article, has not left that article but has been busy in the last few days with other articles is to have her vote declared null and void because another editor alerted her about the vote (which she was already aware of anyway), you can be assured that I will abide by that policy. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When you make a major change to the opening that was discussed on a seperate talk page that many editors have likely not seen, you will likely find that many editors have no idea what is being proposd, so it is not really accurate to claim "consensus". If the version is a consensus version it will become clear. Alerting editors who have edited this article in the past is no crime. Trying to spring a new opening (that was created on a hidden subpage) on everyone during an article freeze is problematic. Asking editors to weigh in is not. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. While much discussion occurred on the side page, the poll is here on the main page, so any further advertising is unnecessary. Moreover, you limited your advertising to known allies, which shows that you were trying to sway the results, not merely inform all interested parties. You are deeply partisan and this vote is a sham. Alienus 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So, soliciting the opinion of other editors is a sham? I thought it was soliciting input. Everyone is free to solicit input of other wiki editors. Your fear of such input is due to what?____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for input, but what you're trying to do is recruit sympathetic editors to vote in support of your holy cause. Let's not pretend that there is anything honorable about this. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing honourable in recruiting editors who are sympathetic to one's cause, but there's nothing dishonourable in it either, as long as they're not meatpuppets who joined Wikipedia for the purpose of making an extra three reverts per day for your cause. And if Alienus thinks it's dishonourable to recruit editors who are likely to support him, it rather puzzling that he does it himself — see this and this. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting the opinion of other editors who have not worked on the paragraph is a sham if targeted to bolster a specific POV. To solicit input without introducing bias, editors should use the relevant procedures (surveys, RfCs). The general idea (and I'm sure AnnH, as an admin, will agree) is that the number of editors with specific personal POVs should ideally reflect the ratios found in the general population. When in doubt, consult the policies. Meanwhile I'm copying the following verbatim from the Wikipedia:Consensus guideline. AvB ÷ talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

Also see Wikipedia:Single purpose account for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue.

• m:Polls are evil - Didn't we discuss this thoroughly enough that this isn't necessary? Obviously, I support adopting the new version. I think it's probably rude to insert other editors' assumed votes, Good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The 4 editors I listed above unequivocally voiced there support to adopt it. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is should be interesting; and it was more than 4... but then again I've never been good at counting. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a terrible practice to insert someone's vote. People already voiced their opinion on the talk subpage. Here are some people G&E missed: "PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "I could support it as well... AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)" "unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion... Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)". We implimented Spaully's changes. Like I said above, AnnH was reluctant, but seemed to support this as a compromise. G&E even supports it minus the one word "nonviable". The only person who has been critical is patsw, however I haven't really figured out what the problem (maybe something to do with the d-word. he seems to want to define abortion by a fetus dying, and nothing else).

So why do I think we need the word "nonviable"? Because there is a huge practice of defining abortion this way in medical literature. Since this definition is clearly qualified as a medical definition, I do not see why this is a problem. If we remove "nonviable" we are removing this definition. And maybe we need to argue out again why we need to include a medical/technical definition, as opposed to having the whole article deal with the induced abortion procedure in humans. (you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used technically in journals that deal with livestock. should we ignore this definition completely just? I say no)--Andrew c 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Medically speaking, an abortion of a viable fetus is still considered an abortion (unless it is called manslaughter - but I think most here would reject that label for this article as too POV) and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.____G_o_o_d____ 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, if we are fighting a battle of lesser evils, clearly the new proposal is better than the old version. Therefore, even if it isn't perfect and we still need to improve it, at least it is better than what we had. Can we at least agree to put in the new version to replace the old for the time being? Does anyone seriously think that the new version is WORSE?--Andrew c 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of lesser Evils, he just tried to revert back to the death-laden definition, which would have been a step backwards. I wonder if he has any excuse at all. Alienus 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the "new opening paragraph" that's subject to this vote? Please specify by posting on top of the poll.

Having asked that, any version containing "nonviable" is of course factually inaccurate (and hence no consensus can put it here), while any version that tries to cover up the biological fact of death is POV.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not factually inaccurate to say a medical definition defines it that way when, well the vast majority of medical definitions define it that way. It is POV, but since it is qualified as to who says this, I don't think it is a problem. On top of that, there is a second common definition, that specifically says it occurson viable fetuses, and links to late-term abortion. Note, there are only an estimate .08% of all abortions with viable fetuses. If anything, mentioning viablitiy and linking to LTA is giving this issue undue weight in the first paragraph. Finally, the second common definition clearly says death. Both of your issues are addressed in the proposal. While it is POV to specifically focus on the death of the fetus, it is also POV to focus on the medical definition. Since we do both, it seems to me to be a ballanced compromise. So what is your specific concern? Do you feel that including the medical definition is problematic? do you not like seeing it first and would rather have the more common definition in the opening sentence? or do you have an argument why we should ignore the technical, medical POV in an article covering a term sometimes used in a technical, medical context?--Andrew c 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I think the consensus definition, if anything, goes too far in placating the pro-lifers. LTA's are such a rarity that any mention of them near the top is undue. In any case, it is my estimate that these people will not settle for anything less than a grossly misleading definition on top that emphasizes death. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is a vote where Good and Evil has determined that outcome of the poll. --WikiCats 11:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He sure is trying to, regardless of propriety. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Viable fetuses are aborted:

• "This [PBA Ban] act covers every D&E that I did. Everything that I do to cause an abortion is an overt act. . . The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery. [There is a heartbeat] very frequently." - Dr. LeRoy Carhart, giving testimony under oath in Carhart v. Ashcroft, 2004

____G_o_o_d____ 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So what, doctors aren't allowed to use a common usage of a word while testifying to a non-medical audience (for that matter, nothing prohibits them from using a common usage of a word in the medical literature either)? And your quote doesn't say ANYTHING about viability. The heart starts beating around 5 weeks, so just about every induced abortion takes place on a fetus with a heartbeat. These fetuses are also "alive". So what part of your quote deals with viability?--Andrew c 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Good and Evil. I vote for the paragraph. --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's common sense that some fetuses would be still alive. --WikiCats 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense from a medical perspective. Viability does not mean a heartbeat, it means some reasonable chance of survival. A fetus has a heartbeat from relatively early on, but is not viable until much later. This lack of medical understanding combined with your overwhelmingly strong feelings about abortion make your opinions on this matter rather worthless. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, until we remove death from the first sentence, I'm going to reinsert that {{POV}} tag. Alienus 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Two items:

• Ali, re your post on my talk page - I was not edit warring. I was restoring an earlier version that had been agreed upon (if I am not mistaken by all editors except for you and Pro-Lick). The new version has not achieved consensus, at least not yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But right now the vote is not finished, so there's no basis of changing the article accordingly. But what to I speak to you, since you think the vote a sham anyway. I, for my part, think the new defintion untenable, which leads me to:
• the issue of "non-viable": it doesn't matter how many abortions are performed on viable or non-viable fetuses. Even if there ís only one viable fetus aborted (and believe me, there are more than one) or even if there was (by coincidence or legal provision) no viable fetus aborted at all world wide (I know, it's utopic), the non-viablity would still not part of the definition of abortion, as man is quite able of aborting a viable fetus. Or is there a different definition which gives another name to such an abortion. If so, please enlighten us.
• Re your last post, Ali: so you are determined to tag the article POV unless it conforms to your POV and forgets about the biological facts of abortion.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposal isn't claiming that the induced abortion procedure doesn't occur on viable fetuses. It is claiming that there is a medical definition that has a cut of point for 'abortion' at around 20 weeks in humans. This defniition includes miscarriages, which the 'induced abortion precedure' does not. There are two different definitions used in two different contexts, and I believe the proposal spells that out. It isn't a matter of claiming induced abortions don't occur with viable fetuses. It's a matter of accurately presenting a technical term. Just because you think of one thing when you hear the word 'abortion' doesn't mean we have to exclude another way the term is more generally defined by a vast majority of technical/medical sources. Under this logic, I should be arguing to remove the references to miscarriages because I never think of miscarriages when someone says the word "abortion". Maybe we need to make it even clearer that there are two different definitions being presented? or are you going to make a case that we ignore one of them completely?--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I belief it is self-apparent, if it is absolutely crucial to spell out that abortions can occur or be performed at any stage of pregnancy, I believe this could be accomplished in manner which does not require the creation of seperate sentence, as in, "This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means, at any stage of pregnancy. " My chief objection, however, is to the unnecessary and troublesome mention of "controversial, but rare, late-term abortion procedures." There are other controversies in the debate; why mention this one above all else? This is the only I'd insist upon being changed, or removed, because, as is, it smacks of spoonfeeding. Otherwise, good work! -Severa | !!! 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting suggestion. I agree with the reasoning (and I, among others, were having issues with that "controversial but rare/LTA" part. ) However, the placement of your proposed clause "at any stage of pregnacy" would need to be moved to the sentence about the common usage, or we defeat the purpose of differntiating between two different definitions. Maybe including two definitions is making matters worse (althought the near concensus we had on the talk subpage speaks otherwise), but I felt that to cover all cases of what a newspaper and what a medical journal would consider "abortion" we needed to do something to make sure miscarriages were included, but stillbirths were not.--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the people not quite happy with the rare/LTA thing, but I think that giving both the medical and lay definitions is very clearly the right approach. The fact that it offends only the most extreme of anti-choice zealots shows that it's accurate and neutral.

To raise one point that Pro-lick has been known to make, requirements such as verifiability and neutrality are not subject to vote or consensus. At this point, the text that was reverted to by Str1977 is entirely unacceptable on the basis of those two requirements, so there is no way it can be kept. The reason we're working on getting your text accepted officially is to prevent the almost inevitable edit war that Str1977 and his cohort will launch at the drop of a hat. The secondary reason is to get constructive criticism to improve the text before we permanently insert it.

In short, I am disgusted by Str1977's attempt to edit-war this issue instead of discussing it, and I'm disgusted by Evil's attempt to stack the vote. The process has failed, which leaves us only to do the right thing. Alienus 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, if Late term abortion is only opposed by "The most extreme of anti-choice zealots" what are the less extreme pro-lifers opposing and how is whatever that is more controversial than LTA? Homestarmy 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if you misunderstood what I said, so I'll clarify. The most extreme of anti-choice zealots oppose Andrew's version of the intro. All anti-choicers oppose abortion rights, by definition. Alienus 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But I dunno if im really one of the most extreme pro-lifers out there, I mean, I don't really dedicate a huge amount of time to it, I haven't picketed any abortion clinics...(Maybe cus I don't know of any near where I live heh) Homestarmy 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a big world. There's even room for armchair extremists. Alienus 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, do you oppose all abortions?--Pro-Lick 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the medical definition of abortion can have some very odd twists and turns, and although I haven't actually read this entire talk page, that actually seems to be the issue here if im reading it right. What sense of the word "abortion" do you mean? Homestarmy 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Use of the word termination is medically inaccurate for this Wikipedia article.

Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. An induced abortion which results in a live birth is called a failed abortion precisely because the intent was to render fetus dead and the fetus did not die.

The word termination only entered the medical vocabulary as the medical community became politicized by the abortion legalization debate. Death is an apolitical and NPOV reference to what abortion is. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself, Patsw. If the word "death" was phased out by the medical community for political reasons, then it manifestly isn't "apolitical", but is quite blatantly "politicized". -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, sometimes people start with a conclusion and work their way backwards, keeping whatever fits and discarding anything that inconveniently fails to. When viewed forwards, the logic doesn't really hang together very well, because of the contradictions implicit in the conspicious omissions. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If your question, GTBacchus, is if it became more useful to the pro-abortion advocates to use termination in preference to death as the abortion debate started, the answer is yes. Dictionary authors who had used death as the descriptive word in defining abortion in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were not yet engaged in the art of euphemism and political advocacy. Death is the medically accurate word. patsw 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the people who oppose the new proposal not know about the talk subpage discussion? Or were they boycotting it because they felt nothing was wrong with the current version? Seriously, is there anyone that is 100% happy with the current version? It clearly is vague and not that accurate. It doesn't reference the possibility of there being more than one meaning to the word. It doesn't explain who uses these different meanings. And it seems to say not only stillbirths are abortions, but the act of a fetus dying in a womb, regardless if it later removed, amounts to abortion. Something needs to be done about the first paragraph. We tried to work this out on the talk page. So how come the people opposed to the new version didn't help to make it better through the process we tried to establish? I apologize if I sound upset, but I tried to work hard to be accurate, and cover all points of view, while compromising with extreme choicers and extreme lifers. What now? Do we go back to the talk subpage and work out the kinks with the 2 new people who oppose this version? What suggestions would the oppose people give to improve the first paragragh?--Andrew c 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste it all to the 1st paragraph subpage if you think it fits there. Here, it seems redundant and potentially confusing for anybody that might like to contribute.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the nonviable word. It is 100% accurate to say that there are medical definitions that define abortion this way. Just because your personal POV disagrees with them, or doesn't want to mention them, does not change the wording of the majority of medical/techincal definitions. It is going to have to take a really good argument to ignore or rewrite these cited medical definitions. The issue is that there are hardly any definitions used by medical professionals that are favorable to a pro-life wording. They use so-called "euphamisms" or are otherwise somehow inaccurate. We can try to make our own super-accurate definition. But it may be OR (and we've tried this in the past and it didn't seem to work to cover every single imaginable case), and it clearly is ignoring the medical community. My compromise was to present two definitions, but it seems like even mentioning a different definition that doesn't fit the idea people have in their heads of what abortion should be (basically an induced abortion procedure) upsets people.--Andrew c 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And you even wikilink the word, so any variation in the meaning in viability can be taken care of in that article. It is both flexible and accurate.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(I've removed this statement. AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

It would be a sham if friends of Goodandevil with no prior history on Wikipedia joined for the puropse of voting for what he voted for, and reverted to his version. It could also be considered improper if Goodandevil contacted all the people in the Pro-Life Wikipedian category, if that category still exists, and if lots of them descended on this article to vote, having had no prior history here. If people like DonaNobisPacem, Str1977, and myself, who are known to have a longstanding involvement in this article, are alerted to the vote, which they either had already seen would have seen, I see nothing wrong with that. As of yesterday (the server is running a day behind) Str1977 had 295 contributions to abortion and abortion talk combined (not counting subpages). DonaNobisPacem had 163. I had 128. You had 60. "Evil" is a very strong word, and borders on a personal attack. Most people reserve that word for things like murder, rape, etc. Couldn't you just say you think it is wrong? Alerting a few likeminded people who are already established editors and who might be considered likely to revert to your version or vote for what you want is certainly not a blockable offence, unless you think that Alienus should be blocked for this? AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see I made a general statement without the proper qualifiers. I have removed my statement since you have such problems with it and posted a politically correct version above (below Good's statement to which it responds). AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The first I knew of Goodandevil alerting others to the vote was when I clicked on "last change" on the new messages bar, and saw a not untypical sneer from Alienus suggesting that three editors who did have a prior history on this page (two of whom had an extensive history) should get one vote between them.[37] Some time later I saw your post, which did not have the addition that you subsequently made (after I had replied to it), in which you called his action "evil". (Note inserted later: I see you have now removed it. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) I think you could have chosen a better word. The "polls are evil" phrase is an established one here on Wikipedia, and is not likely to be taken personally. I think people here might take it personally, though, if I described their comments or their behaviour as evil (which I would not do). I would describe canvassing for votes as "not the done thing"; I would not describe it as evil, particularly when referring to someone who is currently blocked and is able to read all this without posting. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good is blocked? Anyway, I've already refactored the "evil" comment. But please stop the repetitive "guilt by association" ploy by mentioning other editors. I am not a part of anyone's cabal and suggesting I am is an ad hominem attack, unlike calling policy violations evil. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that comment. I don't know on what grounds you can think that I am suggesting that you are part of anyone's cabal. Let me make it clear that I do not and did not think that. I felt that Alienus's post to me was rude. I felt that your choice of the word "evil" about Goodandevil's action was too strong. I do not in any sense associate you with Alienus. My introduction to this debate was in seeing a general outcry against a few perfectly visible requests (he could have used e-mail), which in the case of Alienus extended to those who had received the request. It's hardly worth squabbling about. I appreciate also that you were unaware that Goodandevil was blocked. Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I would not feel comfortable in allowing lots of brand new users to vote. That's an invitation to sockpuppetry, but perhaps you meant users who are new to the article rather than to Wikipedia? AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I sensed a "guilty by association" shade to the repeated mention of people whose edits (with the exception of Good's) are not relevant to the subject at hand. I do not wish to comment on the examples you brought in regarding Alien's edits, and I do not wish to be portrayed as saying DonaNobisPacem, Str1977 and you were recruited by Good. Using e-mail, by the way, is also "a bad thing" according to the relevant WP guideline. I must say I had missed Good's 4RR block. Kicking people while they're down disgusts me big time regardless of the who or why. "Brand new users" to me means new WP editors, not editors in good standing who just happen to be uninvolved in an article. The latter (and probably even the former if there's no puppetry involved) as long as they don't just vote, but join in, listen and give others their perspective, are most welcome. That's not only my personal feeling, it's also basic policy. (Actually a lot of basic policy rings true from where I stand). Bottom line, I think we should trust one another. Actually I trust you more than you may think. Example: you could have edited out the word "evil" straight away. We don't think all that differently and what looks like common sense to you will probably look like common sense to me as well. But I'm straying off topic so if we need to wrap this up I propose we do so using our talk pages. Your call. :-) AvB ÷ talk 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, to Alienus — if Goodandevil has modified his signature to say simply "Good", could you please stop addressing him and referring to him as "Evil". It strikes me as rather rude, to say the least. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather presumptuous of him to ask us all to address him as "Good", when he is clearly not. At best, he's "Mixed", but he chose a name that ends with "Evil", so that's what I had to work with. At this rate, he might as well drop an "o" and demand that we call him "God" for all I care, but I won't do it.

If he'd just picked something neutral, idiosyncratic or generic, then this would not be an issue at all. Frankly, it's not my fault that he had such a lack of foresight and I consider your demands to be overreaching your authority as an admin. People call me all sorts of things all the time, but unless it's conspicuously unrelated to me or my nick, or is blatantly insulting, I just answer. There's such a thing as not being thin-skinned and presumptuous. Alienus 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I won't take offense at being called by either the 1st part or the last part of my username.--Pro-Lick 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Homestarmy vote:

By rejecting their definition? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, by recognizing that modern day medical procedures are so advanced that babies that are insanely premature and would ordinarily be considered "non-viable" can actually be saved, thought this generally requires large amounts of expense of course and doesn't occur too often for that reason. Plus, miracles happen.... Homestarmy 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to patsw vote:

"Numerical domination" is just another term for majority vote. Your line of reasoning: (1) Declare the consensus process based on numbers, not on quality of argument (2) Denounce the consensus because it was based on numbers (3) Declare numbers decisive again in this poll. Obviously you can't have it both ways. And just as obviously, calling in editors who have not worked on the paragraph is skewing the numbers (but not, so far, the quality of the arguments). Their votes (but not their arguments) have to be disregarded. Also note that the result of that consensus proposal was posted here and did not receive much opposition from editors who did not participate on the subpage as you seem to suggest. In fact it received support. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to AnnH vote:

How can you honestly say that the previous version is "more accurate"? Just to make sure we are talking about the same version, I will quote it: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This definition does not mention removal or expulsion. What this is saying is that if an embryo stops growing and dies (or dies then stops growing), and abortion has occured. This covers stillbirths which are never considered abortion. This says that if an fetus dies then the woman miscarries, the first part is an abortion, but the second part (the miscarriage) is not an abortion. It uses a very awkward phrase that gets low google hits "termination of the gestation". Pregnancies are terminated, not gestations. "resulting in or form" sounds poor gramatically to me (I would say "resulting in or caused by"). On top of this definition being wordy and awkward and clearly inaccurate, it presents a specific POV without qualification and without rebuttle in the first sentence (and what is that POV? that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion).The fact of the matter is that there are two definitions for the word abortion and NO ONE has been able to make one definition that covers all instances. We need two definitions. I personally think that attempting to make our own definition is OR. We should be reporting what sources say, not deciding how we think terms should be defined. Also keep in mind, NPOV should not be confused with non-point of view. We obviously cannot write a neutral article, so we should present the majority POVs and avoid giving undue weight. Additionally, saying "wikipedia is not a medical encyclopedia" is not a valid reason to exclude a POV that you disagree with. Go here. Read the article, look at the three template boxes. How can you advocate not including the medical POV when we have articles and infoboxes like these? And finally, if you can accept including two definitions, what did you think of my 'rough cut' above that put the common definition first?--Andrew c 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Andrew. Yes, I'd prefer it to mention expulsion or removal, and previous versions that I supported did so. However, gestation refers to the period of time spent in the womb, so if the gestation is ended, then the fetus would no longer be in the womb. If it were possible for an embryo to disintegrate and be absorbed into the mother's body after death, rather than being expelled, I would consider that a miscarriage, hence an abortion, although I think the article should (and does) focus on induced abortions.

Yes, if an embryo, after implantation, stopped growing and died, an abortion, meaning in this case a spontaneous abortion would have taken place. Does the old version cover stillbirths? If a fullterm baby is born dead, I'm not sure that the death cause the expulsion or that the expulsion caused the death. If I'm mistaken, can't we put something like "excluding stillbirths" in it?

Regarding the case of a fetus dying (abortion?) and the woman then miscarrying (not abortion?) you make a good point, and I'm very happy to have removal or expulsion added to the version I prefer.

I agree with you about "resulting in or from". "Resulting in or caused by" would be better.

You say that my preference presents a POV "that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion". I don't think that's a POV; I think it's a fact. If the fetus doesn't die, then either what happened was not an abortion at all, or it was a failed abortion. Removal and expulsion without death is not an abortion. I'm happy to add "removal and expulsion" if you argue that death without removal or expulsion isn't abortion either. I feel that the "termination of gestation" implicitly included the meaning of removal or expulsion, but did not implicitly include the meaning of death. Anyway, let's make it explicit.

I never wanted to exclude the medical definition. I specifically said, I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph, and I'll state more clearly now that I think in fact we should put it later in the same paragraph, assuming, of course that it's true that the medical definition applies only to early abortions.

What do I think of your "rough cut"? I'd be delighted to comment if I could find it. This page and other pages have been moved around so many times that I'm a bit lost, and I'm rather busy today, so don't expect lots of posts.

Here's my suggestion, which takes account of some (not all) of the points made by me, SlimVirgin, Pat (e.g. removing "rare"), and others. I prefer to start the second paragraph with the passive voice, to avoid the awkward "people have" (or "humans have").

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

AnnH ♫ 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied below for comments on this proposal

G+E, I see you posted about hiding the poll before restoring it here. I should let you know I moved it for several reasons - 1. It's only about the 1st paragraph, 2. Consensus has already been established among editors who follow this article enough to have a fully informed opinion.

As such I will not vote on this poll but will continue to try to improve the paragraph. |→ Spaully°τ 13:06, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

I have no idea why this got moved back to the front page. Why didn't G&E ask the people he contacted to discuss reaching consensus on the talk subpage, as opposed to voting on something that they haven't edited? A reject vote isn't helping us reach a consensus on the first paragraph. Working together on the talk subpage was doing that. Anyway, please move discussion back to the talk subpage.--Andrew c 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's new proposal

Copied from section above

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

Comments 1

Been through my proposed changes and there aren't many, the result is below, and most of the differences are in wording as opposed to content:

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, referred to as a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the medical definition of the word refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortions.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. Since the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion has been the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

(Simplified miscarriage explanation, linked viable, removed 'strict', removed emphasis on 'any', removed 'procedures', changed to 'since the 20th C'). I think the simplification is an improvement, and is better than the current version. |→ Spaully°τ 14:22, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Like it. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I no longer mind if death is mentioned in the first sentance or not, but if it is removed as the medical definitions might suggest, viability or some sense of this must replace it. This is only to ensure a reasonable difference from birth. |→ Spaully°τ 16:57, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

The problem with replacing it with viability is that abortions are carried out on babies that would have lived if they had been delivered at that time instead of aborted. It is simply not true that abortions are always carried out before viability. AnnH ♫ 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Medically speaking, abortion is defied before viability. Commonly speaking, abortion is a procedure that a woman pays a doctor to end her pregnacy. TWO DIFFERENT definitions. The later very rarely covers "viable" fetuses, but it is still covered (according to rough AGI estimates, .08% of ALL abortions are performed past 24 weeks. And just because the gestational age is >24 weeks, doesn't mean the fetus is viable or isn't terminally deformed or what have you.) YES it would be wrong to say that the abortion procedure never occurs after 24 weeks, but no one has ever once suggested saying that.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be included with something like "most commonly on non-viable fetuses". I know it's not strictly correct, as I have argued for a while, but also realise a need for compromise. As long as death is mentioned in one of the two defining sentances I'm satisfied. I think the concept of viability needs to be included somewhere. |→ Spaully°τ 17:35, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Once again we are trying to make up our own definition to cover certain instances. Please google these two words "abortion definition". Read through the pages. Open up a dictionary if you want. Now go here (hit ~14 on the google search). This is a pro-life site explaining its POV why the most common definition of abortion is wrong and should be replaced with Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy murdering a baby. I know that no editors on this page are advocating going that far, but they are using the exact same arguments to "fix" the majority definition. This is a POV. There is no reason for us to change sources to fit our POV. This is OR and POV pushing. Seriously, our job is to report on our sources, NOT create the perfect, neutral definition through original research. We have two out of ~25 sources that use "death" and those are Encarta and M&W's Medical Dictionary. Because the word abortion can mean a number of things and can refer to non-humans, we need to make it clear that this article is not about abortion, per se, but instead the induced abortion procedure in humans. This version doesn't address this issue. Next, the definition of abortion that you are trying to present never includes miscarriages. It is the MEDICAL definition that is used to refer to miscarriages, so that part should not come before the medical definition. Also, there is no reason to mention the "in common parlance" part because abortion has already been defined as this in the opening sentence. Here is my idea. We find a series of definitions that we feel are most accurate in describing the induced aboriton procedure in humans. We summarize these definitions into the first sentence and cite them. We then present the medical definition and mention how it refers to miscarraiges an non-humans. We finally mention that the focus of this article is on the first, non-technical definition. I'll start us off: In 1981, the CDC defined an induced abortion as "a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and to produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age." The word "intrauterine" is used because molar and ectopic pregnancies are not included.[38]--Andrew c 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, hope nothing was lost)

I don't think we're necessarily supposed to go for the average from 25 sources. If 23 of them don't mention death, we should only follow that if we think that death is inaccurate. Does the fetus not die? Is there not some essential difference between an abortion and a live birth? Was the fetus not alive before the abortion? Is it not dead now? Is it possible that other sources are suppressing "death" out of some political motivation? After all, if Wikipedia finds that 23 out of 25 sources dealing with the case of Michael Jackson's sex abuse trial seem to be sympathetic to him, or hostile to him, that wouldn't mean that we should follow their example. Our job is to present facts, uncensored and without comment. Nobody has convincingly argued yet that the fetus doesn't die. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Death is misleading, hence it does not belong. But you know this already, because we've been saying it over and over again for some time. Alienus 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If our job was to present facts, then you wouldn't mind if we changed the phrase "the removal of an embryo or fetus" to "the removal of the products of conception". Heck, we can even list them if we want (fetus/embryo, fetal membranes, and placenta) for users who are unfamiliar with the term "products of conception". It is 100% factual that MORE than just the fetus is aborted. So why are you trying to HIDE this fact? Because your personal POV tells you that those other things are irrelevent. Just as the significance of the fetal death is also part of your POV. You personally think all ~23 definitions are inaccurate. There is NO reason, other than your POV, to ignore our sources. No matter if we like it or not, we need to report on our sources. THAT is what NPOV is, not doing OR to decide what is and is not 'accurate'. My solution was to present two different POV to cover our basis. Like I said, weeks ago, eating meat obviously results in the death of an animal (an undisputed FACT), but if we put this out in the first sentence of the meat article, we are pushing the vegetarian POV. We are going out of our way to avoid our sources to push your POV, and that is unacceptable. Finally, if we make up our own definition of abortion, how is that WP:V? --Andrew c 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the significance of the death of the fetus can be my personal POV. Is the purpose of the abortion to remove the fetus or to remove the placenta? If it were medically possible and safe either to remove the fetus and leave the placenta, or to remove the placenta and leave the fetus, which one would you choose if you were a woman wanting an abortion? And some things are more essential to the meaning of a word than other things. I can tell you that as a linguist. If you look up "tiger", you'll find it's a carnivorous animal. If you look up "mug", most dictionaries will say that it's a drinking vessel with a handle. If you look up "spinster", you'll see that it's an unmarried woman. Now look at these three sentences:

• My pet tiger is a vegetarian
• My coffee mug has no handle
• My brother's wife is a spinster

you'll find that the third sentence is the one that is the most impossible. The first might be very far fetched. Does anyone believe I have a pet tiger? Does anyone believe he's a vegetarian? But it could conceivably be a very unusual kind of tiger. The second violates many dictionary definitions, but most people would accept it. The third is simply a logical impossibility. An "abortion" that doesn't destroy the fetus is far more of a logical impossibility (and far more contrary to the intention of the abortion) than an "abortion" that doesn't destroy other "products of conception". AnnH ♫ 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up hypothetical situations. It is a fact that if you go to get an abortion procedure, more than the fetus is removed. If the placenta or fetus or whatever is left in the uterus, it is an incomplete abortion and can cause serious medical problems. The doctor who is vacuuming out the uterus makes no difference between what he is sucking out. Everything goes. And when checking the POC to see if it is complete, the doctor doesn't go "oh, there is the fetus, my work here is done", s/he has to make sure that ALL POC are removed. If we do not make this simple fact clear, we are presenting an inaccurate definition that would consider an incomplete abortion synonymous with an induced abortion. Next: the d-word. No one is disputing the fact that living cells die as a result of an abortion. However, the use of the word "death" without qualification is vague. If we qualify it as saying that it is refering to cellular death, it favors the pro-choice view. If we qualify it as saying it is refering to human death, it favors the pro-life view. And it is unacceptable to leave it unqualified. There is debate over what exactly is dying, and how morally significant its death is. I feel that these controversial issues do NOT belong in the first sentence. My compromise was to present two POVs and have death STILL included in one, but just not in the first sentence. This was a compromise because some users (like our sources) did not want to mention death at all. And it isn't that I am against the d-word outright. It is the focus on the fetal death that I consider POV pushing. If 2 of our sources mentioning 'death' is good enough to mention 'death', then 4 of our sources mentioning that MORE than just the fetus is removed during an abortion procedure is also good enough, no? And I apologize, your dictionary analogy was lost on me. Are you saying it is ok to have definitions that do not cover every situation? or are you saying dictionaries are poor sources, and it is our duty to use OR to define our own terms, disregarding NPOV in favor of non-POV.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to soften anything. Essential facts ought not be softened. Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do) . But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc. Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted). Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously when you say things like "abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted)". Please, tone down your rhetoric. --Andrew c 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled that by boiling down the abortion rights mantra to its practical essence ("abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus if the child is not wanted") is anything but extreme candor. And its so very germane to this discussion. Killing the future resource sponge (the fetus) is the goal. No woman should be tied to a child or any associated responsibility just because someone deposited sperm into her. She has the right to a dead fetus. Even if we could remove the embryo and it could survive and thrive and grow into an adult, that would not be enough. Its truly all about kelling the fetus - its about absolute power. Empowering a woman. Men can walk away from the consequences of sex - so can women. In any event, you are invtied to comment on the substance of my discussion. The idea I espressed was that ridding the woman of the placenta is ancillary to killing and removing the embryo/fetus. The embryo/fetus does not develop BECAUSE the palcenta develops. Its the other way around. The entie pregnanchy is due to the development of the lviing embryo/fetus. The death of the fetus is the primary goal of induced abortion. Removing it and the associated baggage is a follow up to the essential main event. Rhetoric or not, I am sure you are quite capable of doing so. And I am interested to hear your views. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is what might be called evidence that my description reflects reality - however troubling that reality might seem - and is not simply rhetoric. The quote threw me for a loop, too, when I first read it. But the guy's candor expressed such a sad truth. As Mother Teresa has said much better than my parapharase: how sad that abortion pits the mother against her child as if they were enemies. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann's intro seems pretty good :/. Homestarmy 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)It appears to me to be precisely the same in meaning as the current version, with two minor differences: removal, which rules out the death of the fetus wherein the fetus is not expelled or removed (which usually results in later removal or expulsion, or death of the woman) - yet leaves out the expulsion possibility; and that it is more verbose. If I have missed something please point it out. I am unaware that confusion existed about whether the fetus remained in the woman's body post-abortion; if consensus is that this is a matter for possible confusion or misunderstanding, clarification is indeed in order. Otherwise, I see no improvement over the current consensus version, and some negatives, in that it is more wordy, and less accurate (since it specifies removal yet ignores expulsion. I further object to the use of the word "murder" in the intro. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's rough cut 1 from above

Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

Andrew's rough cut 2

An abortion in common parlance refers to an induced procedure that serves to terminate a pregnancy with the intentions of casuing the death of the products of conception (an embryo or fetus, fetal membranes, and the placenta). This can occur through chemical, surgical, or other means. Technically, the word abortion is defined by a majority of medical sources as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This definition not only refers to spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, but also applies to all mammalian pregnancies. However, for the purposes of this article, the term abortion will be used interchangeably with the induced abortion procedure in humans.

Comments 3

I think we are close to consensus on the current definitions, so I think both of these try to make too many changes. Also I don't understand your insistance on the 'products of conception' unless you are trying to make a point about truth, if true watch out for WP:POINT. |→ Spaully°τ 17:44, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Well, I think focusing on the death of the fetus as the defining aspect of an abortion is just a POV (and without qualifying who holds this POV and to what degree, we are ignoring NPOV). Death is a confusing word, and my attempt at compromise was to soften the significance of the fetal death, by pointing out a clear fact that is included in a minority of cited definitions. The purpose for including POC is to weaken the impact of the d-word. My justification is using similar arguments that AnnH and others have used for including 'death' (that it is accurate and factual). And if my justification is weak, then I think that makes the point that the inclusion of death is also weak. So I guess partially, I am guilty of WP:POINT. I apologize for that. I think I need to take a break. I still can't get over the fact that 2 users voted to reject the new proposal based on their objection to 1 single word: "nonviable". It is 100% factually accurate to state that this is how the term abortion is medically defined. If we remove "nonviable", we are no longer talking about the medical definition. It frustrates me that they would ignore our sources because they personally disagree with them (failing to acknowledge the existence of multiple meanings for the word "abortion"). --Andrew c 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you at least acknowledge that I was open to the new langauge, except for one word. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are told to assume good faith, but sometimes that assumption is plainly false. Alienus 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Alienus.

For Andrew - I understand your position, I thought we had consensus before and was surprised that this discussion dragged on. |→ Spaully°τ 18:50, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Initially I started the poll because I wanted to make sure the new version actually had support - and that it was not being debated in the shadows (on a talk subpage that few people visited or contributed to) and slipped in during an article freeze (which is what RoyBoy did). And surprise, surprise, there is no consensus to adopt the new language. I always expressed support for the new version - except for the word "nonviable". I was trying to compromise in good faith - but all I got for my effort was grief and snide snarls from those who falsely claimed consensus for the new version. Perhaps next time my good faith efforts will be respected rather than pissed on. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately all we got from the poll was people who had not commented on the process and so did not understand the difficulty in establishing consensus rejecting the new version because they had not had to come to a compromise. I don't claim or feel you started it in bad faith.

G+E you can't just put your 'good' hat on and start taking the moral high ground, you have been mosty helpful in this process and people appreciate that, but you still have a strong POV that occasionally goes too far and have often not abided by WP policies and guidelines in your edits. You must see that we were either at or very near an acceptable compromise, and since the poll that seems to have been broken; hopefully through that we will come to a stronger and more widely acceptable opening paragraph.

If everyone will calm down a little, through whatever process, perhaps we can work to a final product soon, and hopefully never have to tackle this section again! |→ Spaully°τ 21:07, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

When the debate is largely hidden, it is hard to credibly claim any consensus and hard to credibly crticise the basis for how or why people voted in a poll. As with the rest here, I am not perfect. But that does not prevent or even dissuade me from commenting on the errors of others. In this case, the faux consensus was transparent, and I called its bluff. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there was only consensus among those trying to make it. I think that would make a good argument for not splitting talk pages. The problem is that the poll you created was presented to people who had not seen the huge talk page to beat out the proposal, and so they did not understand the difficulty in forming the introduction. Given the talk page has been split, a link on the main page to move people to it is the best way to get attention and emphasise the difficulty in forming the proposal.

It was not a false consensus, only one based on a minority of interested individuals. One which you just said you were involved in. |→ Spaully°τ 21:33, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought for sure that there were claims of consensus to the point where the actual article should be changed. And in fact that Royboy inserted the change (based on this claimof consensus) during an article freeze. But I also thought that a major change on the lead paragraph of a controversial article would require actual consensus of all editors, not just those who were working on a proposed change on a talk subpage. But thats just me. Its moot now. We can drop it. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent] Here is how I remember things going. All progress on the article was being halted because the main talk page was being consumed with the d-word debate. I proposed creating a talk subpage just for that, as other top teir articles have (see Jesus) and with the help of an admin (IIRC GT) we moved content there and added links to the subpage. We debated some more and I eventually proposed using two definitions, and explained my justifiation for the concept. The concept was well recieved and over 5 editors helped to reword and restructure the paragraph. Additionally, we had support of around 3 more editors. We all decided to mention this on the main page for the users who were not helping with consensus. On April 4th, I placed a notice on the main subpage giving the proposed paragraph and sending users to the talk subpage. [39] We got additional support for this version, and only had 2 users opposed to it (G&E and patsw. Ann had reluctantly agreed back then). After all this, most users decided that there was consensus. A large number of users had their hand in creating and editing the final version. We went to the main talk page and advertised it. This wasn't a secret decision, and it wasn't a small group. I specifically said that if it wasn't perfect, at least it was better than the inaccurate old version, so we could at least replace it and then keep working on it if users felt it still needed improvement. Unfortunately, around the same time, there was an edit war going on having to do with the mizuko image. So the page was protected. And an admin (possibly) abused his power by editing the page during protection. But keep in mind that all the stuff on the talk page seemed to have consensus, and the protection had nothing to do with the first paragraph. This is why after all the work we did, and the advertising on the main page, it is frustrating that G&E went and asked specifically editors with known pro-life POV to vote on this wording, without looking at our process and reasons behind our decisions, and without helping our consensus. So it was shot down, by editors that aren't even here helping us make it better. Yeah, sob story, I know. I just wish we could temporarily replace the current version with my proposal until an even better version is consensed upon.--Andrew c 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You thought you had achieved a consensus, but it was a consensus only of those who thought the opening was broken and needed fixing, along with a few who felt compelled to participate to keep tabs on what was actually somewhat of a POV editing party. Many editors who were happy with the long-time consensus language (and who had likely seen it all before, as far as proposed changes) did not participate. So there never was a consensus. There was a well-intentioned hope for one, but it morphed into a faux claim of an actual consensus. And then Royboy (who had been following the talk subpage and advocating for the change) abused his admin priveleges by sneaking in the new faux consensus language during the page freeze, which I could not stomach. That is when I very publicly invited others to express their views. ____G_o_o_d____ 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a POV editing party, but then again, I do not know everyone's POV (I just know one of the people you specifically invited to your poll helped make the consensus version). I can understand people not wanting to participate because they didn't think it was broken, but I specifically took this issue into the main talk space on April 4th, and opened it up to EVERYBODY. Why didn't they voice their opinion there? Why did it take you personally inviting specific individuals before anyone would show interest in this issue? But seriously, having a large number of editors boycott this talk page, and ignore our concerns with the current version is not consensus. I have no idea how we are going to fix the opening if they naysayers aren't going to come here and discuss it. Like I've said before, there seems to be more editors here making sure the page DOESN'T change than interested in improving it. How many editors who voted in this poll have done a single item on kyd's priorities list? All I know is that the current version is OBVIOUSLY inaccurate, and questionably POV, and most likely OR.--Andrew c 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hint: anyone wishing to help out with my priorities list is encouraged to post at Talk:Abortion/To-do items. :-) -Severa | !!! 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These are comments on Andrew's rough cut 2: terminate is a euphemism. Products of conception is euphemism. No abortion is performed in order to obtain the death of a placenta. The reference to fetal membranes is bizarre — why not mention the loss of the amniotic fluid which takes place in many abortions?

Induced abortions take place for two reasons: where the life of the mother is at risk (i.e. ectopic pregnancy, uterine cancer, etc.) and the intention is to save the mothers life (and if it were possible to preserve the life of the unborn child, it would be attempted) or when the death of the unborn child is directly sought.

Common parlance can be better written as commonly.

This can occur... Why is induced abortion refered to in the passive voice — do they really just occur?

A spontaeous abortion is not the termination of a pregnancy but the death of a fetus or embryo. The end of the pregancy is the consequence of that death. patsw 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is never performed on an unborn child, just as I never respond on talk pages to undead corpses.

Termination is not a euphamism, it is a term used commonly by doctors referring to and describing an abortion; and it is a word used to mean to end something.

As for 'spontaneous abortion', either you take pregnancy to mean the presence of a live fetus in the uterus, in which case the death is the end of the pregnancy; or you feel the life of the fetus is not the important factor in pregnancy and so would feel the importance of any abortion is to remove the fetus. No?

However I agree that common parlance is overly complicated. I think the passive voice is best used to diminish the imporance of the actor compared to the act, which is the thing being discussed in this article.

|→ Spaully°τ 18:37, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit conflict]

Terminate is not a euphemism. See my response that last time you said that. POC is also not a euphemism. That's like saying "teeth" is a euphemism for "incisors, molars, and canines". If you know of another word that means the exact same thing that isn't a euphemism, I'd be more than willing to use it. But as it stands, the only two terms I know of that refer to the products of conception are, well "products of conception" and "conceptus". An abortion is not the same as killing a fetus. The induced abortion procedure involves removing ALL products of conception. If just the fetus was removed, and nothing else, serious complications in the patient would occur, and the abortion would not be complete. I believe it is not only accurate, but significant to mention what exactly is removed, not omitting anything or focusing on just the fetus/embryo.

"Commonly" sounds fine to me. "This can occur" is also in Ann's version and the current version. I was just repeating already existing content.

Then we get into the philosophical arguments. Why is the death of animals not mentioned in the meat article? Why is the death of the tonsils not listed in the first sentence definition of Tonsillectomy (or anywhere in the article)? Needless to say, there is a POV that an abortion is no different than removing an organ (cellular death). But there is another POV that the death of the fetus is more significant than the death of the tonsils or the death of the placenta and fetal membranes (personhood death). I am not trying to hide either POV, but we cannot allow POV to slip in and appear as neutral language. Because there is debate over the significance of the "death", I do not believe this debate should be brought out in the first sentence (like when pro-lick tried to qualify death with the death of a cell, killing a virus stuff). --Andrew c 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Patsw has made some great points - and the replies don't really adequately address those points. Instead the tired old crap about "unborn child is POV" is posted - when everyone knows that patsw is NOT advocating use of that word. It is beyond silly to argue that induced abortion is NOT aimed PRIMARILY at killin th fetus and removing it and its support system. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do) . But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc. Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted). Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When people who are not pro-life proponents read comments including 'unborn child' or repeated 'dead baby' comments, it immdiately compromises the point you are trying to make. Even though patsw is not advocating it's use, using it in his arguments is still incorrect and undermines what he is saying.

Furthermore I replied to most of his points, agreeing with some and not others. I do not agree that most of the points are great, indeed his comment on spontaneous abortion shows some confusion or double standard on the definition of pregnancy. If you advocate that killing the foetus is the important factor, then presumably you must agree that the presence of a live foetus in the uterus is essential for pregnancy. In which case, a spontaneous abortion is the termination of pregnancy.

Onto the motivation behind abortion, you seem to be suggesting that not wanting a live baby is the same as wanting a dead foetus. That is clearly incorrect, and I don't see too many women leaving abortion clinics closely grasping a dead foetus in formaldehyde.

So I ask, please stop using biased and incorrect language to make your point, you may feel it enhances the power of your argument but all it does is undermine your credibility. |→ Spaully°τ 10:30, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This subpage isn't a dark, hidden corner to post ideological tagents. Let's try remember to stick to the topic at hand. -Severa | !!! 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please

I know it's particularly difficult with a very controversial subject on which many of us have such strong views, but could everyone please try to restrict comments to those that are directly related to how we can best improve the article for the future, and not what we should or shouldn't have done in the past. When pages get very badly cluttered, it's hard for those who were involved to stay involved unless they can give it undivided attention. That's why it took me so long to vote. I didn't want to vote until i had examined the talk pages properly — and with so much jumping around from one talk page to another, and so many posts that said more than they needed to, it just got too time consuming, while I was doing other things on Wikipedia and in real life.

I know it's hard, particularly for the person who hasn't had the last word, but whichever person it is, could you consider walking away now? Not from the article, but from the discussion of who did what. Saying whatever you want to say won't won't make this talk page better; it will make it worse. AnnH ♫ 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.--Andrew c 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One more time, drive for improvements

Before completely ditching the work on my proposal, I was looking through the reject votes to see what we could do to change it. I believe we can easily implement Severa suggested change. G&E and WikiCats object to one single word in the whole thing, and that is "nonviable". However, as I have previously mentioned, if we remove nonviable, we are no longer talking about how abortion is "medically defined". We simply cannot remove the word because we don't like it. It accurately describes how abortion is defined in a vast majority of medical definitions. If I added citations after that sentence, would that convince G&E and WikiCats that we are simply reporting our sources? Str1977, while the first definition refers to the medical POV, the second definition refers to the common POV, and death is clearly included in the latter. I do not see how this is obfuscation. Remember, if we are citing sources on what the medical definitions say, it would be inaccurate to add "death" because the medical definitions do not define abortion in that manner. Homestarmy: no one is saying abortions do not occur on viable fetuses, in fact there were 2 clauses in that paragraph specifically refering to these very rare cases. As Severa has pointed out, this is giving undue weight. I'm not sure how we can reach a compromise with patsw and Dominick. I'm open to suggestions! AnnH, I tried to address your concerns above. I do not see any problem with refering to the medical POV. I do not believe mentioning death in the second common definition is trying to hide an unpleasent fact. Finally, I would propose also implementing SlimVirgin's suggestions in regards to the mass media sentence. So taking this all into consideration, here is another version of the proposal. Can people suggest how they would change it for the better (especially those who voted reject)? Thanks for bearing with us thus far.

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation.This can occur spontaneously in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses on induced abortion of human pregnancies.

what exactly does "common parlance" mean here? I've never seen the word "parlance" before..... Homestarmy 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Idiom#Parlance. I can't think of a more suitable synonym, so perhaps we could link parlance to Idiom#Parlance, although that's not too clear either.

Andrew, as before I prefer it to the current version. I also think that 1 or 2 references would be helpful after the medical definitions section, however any more would begin to look messy. If people thought more were needed we could probably use 1 footnote number to link to several sources. I hope we can come to agreement on this. |→ Spaully°τ 00:18, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit conflict]You can do a word search on this talk page to find the thought process that brought about "common parlance". It was DonaNobisPacem's suggestion after "popular usage" and "colloquial" were suggested. Also, look at the first paragraph of miscarriage.--Andrew c 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already done this (below), although I might suggest a more spaced version, see . |→ Spaully°τ 00:27, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

If the medical definition of abortion was somehow changed to include "non-viable fetus's", then what is the medical term for induced abortions on viable fetuses? Does that just count as PBA, even if it's a forced premature birth? Homestarmy 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion technically means the definition in the proposal. It contrasts with a similar but different term "the induced abortion procedure" which is what people commonly considers "abortion" to be. Late term abortion and partial birth abortion are both not technical, medical terms. Searching through pubmed, you find phrases like "third trimester termination of pregnancy". Also, you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used in journals that deal with animals and livestock.--Andrew c 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Third trimester termination of pregnency? why did abortion get changed to mean "non-viable" anyway, how is that more technically correct? :/ Homestarmy 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I honestly do not know the whole history. So I couldn't tell you if abortion was changed to mean "non-viable". All I know is that most medical sources have a clause that says something about before viable, before able to sustain life, or before a certain week of gestation (~20). I think it has to do with the difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth. These are interesting questions/concerns and I wish we had a medical expert we could e-mail to shed light on the reasonings behind this.--Andrew c 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that "non-viable" can't really be confirmed very well, some children who are born perfectly healthy and have every indication that they will live long lives will just suddenly die for odd reasons shortly after birth, whereas some extremely premature babies whom most would agree have little chance of survival do, well, survive. Childbirth can be quite a strange, often somewhat miraculous thing, of which trying to polarize babies between "viable" and "non-viable" seems, at least to my understanding, somewhat futile. Therefore, I question the motivations behind the medical definition of abortion as somehow only applying to "non-viable fetus's". Homestarmy 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here and look at the poll, but I see it closes on April 13, and yet the new intro (which has been rejected) is already on the page. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy: Please read through the cited definitions (and refer to this and this for the ones not linked). How would your phrase the medical definition if we were to exclude the word "nonviable". Some definitions deal with this by adding on a clause such as "before the sixth month" or "before it is capable of sustaining life" or "before the twentieth week" or "before the fetus is viable" but I felt that this approach was too wordy for something that could be solved with a single adjective.--Andrew c 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too wordy to me to put in "before the sixth month" somehow, why not simply

"An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus which is less than 6th months after conception being expelled or removed from the uterus. Homestarmy 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the new clause is intended to motify the word "fetus", but splitting the subject from the verb like that sounds wordy to me. I also would prefer 20th week to 6th month because the former is found in more sources, while the latter is only found in the OED. So how about:

"An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation".--Andrew c 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 16:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that definition fully supported by sources? Specifically, medical sources? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I added cited references for that sentence in this version. However, would it make you more comfortable if we added "by a majority of sources" or something similar to qualify "medically defined"?--Andrew c 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) I believe that this version resolves most of the issues which have been raised. I, at least, would be happy to adopt it. The sources certainly help solidify it. -Severa | !!! 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok assuming that these changes we have been discussing go into the proposal, do any of the folk who voted reject (besides Severa, who has already made her feelings clear) feel this version is good enough to replace the old version until an even better version arises?--Andrew c 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the 20 week gestation part was going in to replace "non-viable"? Homestarmy 19:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel the concept of viability is more correct and versatile than 20th week. For example for the UK abortions before the 24th week would be more appropriate.

Given that the 20th week is chosen because of the limit of viability (and it seems most if not all of the other sources), would it not be more correct to have the broader term? |→ Spaully°τ 20:49, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

Well the "non-viable" part seems to be the main problem, for the reasons I tried to put forth and Str's and I think a few other people put forth some responses about that as well. Homestarmy 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression 'non-viable' was resisted because it did not include late term abortions, and so was not seen as correct. Any definition that provides a time limit for abortion in medical terms therefore falls into the same argument, presumably not satisfying those agaist the use of viability.

At the same time as I have said the use of a defined time is true to fewer sources than 'non-viable', and so is less justifiable. Unless I have missed a major complaint against the use of viability that a specifed time overcomes, it seems no better. |→ Spaully°τ 22:39, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

Eh, I personally wouldn't mind a time limit specified in it :/. But since the only term for "viable" abortions is convoluted and pretty ridiculous, and since I for one can't think of a single justifiable reason for the medical community to decide that abortions somehow only happen on "non-viable" babies, I am quite suspicious of the motivation to change the definition of abortion to non-viable when it leaves out "viable" abortions. (Or third trimester extraction whateverisms) I also still don't see how viable is really being defined, if its being defined as "capable of surviving without the mother", then that applies to extremely retarted people who require the care of others (Often their parents, perhaps specifically their mother) to survive, so the definition seems lacking here. Homestarmy 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is being able to survive outside the uterus, so doesn't fall into any problems with adult dependents. Of course there are difficulties in defining the time, as several of the sources try to, due to the date not being absolute. For example increasing pediatric medical care has allowed more 20-24 week foetuses to survive.

Given the use of any date or concept of viability is solely based on the mass of medical sources, as indicated by the wording of the definition, to me it makes sense to use the most broad definition, that being 'non-viable'.

I'd appreciate if someone other than us two would contribute to this question, any people still following this page? |→ Spaully°τ 11:37, 18 April 2006 (GMT)

Suggestion

A humble suggestion from someone who has not been involved in the debate:

An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments 4

• So the products of conception are being expelled, but only the fetus or embryo dies?

• Yes, what else is there that could die? Or did I misunderstand the question? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some people have criticized using the word "woman" because it humanizes/personalizes the issue, and favors the POV of the "woman" over the "fetus".

• Hmmm ... they are descriptive terms. We can't call women by some other term so as not to favor them over the fetus, just as we couldn't call the fetus "fetal matter" (or whatever) for the same reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I think the parallel medical term used by ob/gyn's would be gravida. Ob/gyn's also use the terms baby/mother quite often; but the technical terms are fetus/gravida. Using woman is certainly POV in that regard, but its an issue I prefer to leave for some time in the future after more important matters are fixed. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Adding "by trauma" seems odd, and may be giving undue weight. Besides, a pregnant woman in a car accident could have trauma that causes a miscarriage, even though it isn't deliberate.

• Yes, but this says "deliberately by trauma or by surgical or chemical means ..." That sentence doesn't mean that all trauma is deliberate. Some is, of course. Some women do induce abortions themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "morally" seems unnecessary. If someone thinks a fetus is a human, and a fetus is killed, then it follows they think it is not only "morally equivalent" to murder, but they think that it IS the exact same thing as murder.

• Murder is a legal term. What opponents are saying is that it ought to be regarded as murder, not that it actually is so regarded, except in a moral sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Murder is a legal term, but it is also a colloquial one (as well as a moral and philosophical one). And a murder can occur with no conviction or trial. The whole point is they want the law to outlaw these killings because they consider it to actually be murder. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The last 3 issues could easily be solved by removing these things, but I am not sure how to change the first issue. Not many people seem to agree with me that the significance of the fetus dying is a POV that needs to be qualified somehow. I just feel your wording makes this issue worse by mentioning all the products of conception, but then focusing in on only one of them dying, when in fact all of them die. The last two sentences are a little odd, but I can't quite place my finger on why. Maybe they are a little wordy? --Andrew c 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see what you mean now with your first point. The point of an induced abortion is not to kill the placenta. It is to kill the fetus. While we shouldn't stress that unnecessarily, nor should we be obtuse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they need to be balanced by mentioning that women who have an abortion performed do not generally believe the fetus is their child?

You'd need a source for that, and I can't imagine where you'd find one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that some women do not feel it is murder, but it is also fair to say that some women do think it is a justifiable homicide (IOW, they know it is a human person, but consider the killing justified because (insert a reason). It would be tricky to address this matter without making aborting women and abortionists seem callous or whacked. (And there are citations available for these beliefs). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet the view that it is not a person is their #1 or #2 defense. A Wikipedia article can state that pro-choicers overwhelmingly [claim to] believe that induced abortion is not murder because the fetus [at a specific gestational stage] is not a person/baby/child. It cannot state what I believe to be the case from personal observation: that most women who have an abortion generally believe this specific pro-choice argument. But it would be fair to say that most of them are pro-choice and that of all pro-choicers these women are the closest to the problem. I think they are probably the strongest believers in pro-choice arguments. Each time I look at this from a different angle I become more convinced that only a small proportion would go ahead with what is already a difficult decision for most if they believed this involves the killing of their own child. AvB ÷ talk 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They do not see themselves as murderers. Very few women are capable of killing their own children. Mentioning views of personhood and even calling it murder on behalf of one POV surely requires the inclusion of this most important aspect of the opposite POV. AvB ÷ talk 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're into original research here, AvB. No one has any idea how most women who have abortions feel or what they believe. What my intro discussed was what opponents and proponents tend to argue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned a pro-choice defense missing from the intro while the corresponding pro-life accusation was included. I think it was unrelated to your proposal, since previous versions already contained this aspect. Andrew's question made me focus on those lines; considering them from the pro-choice POV I saw a problem I had not seen before. I thought mentioning it here might be useful to Andrew.

Are you saying that pro-choicers only use one of their two main defenses (i.e. always the legal defense, but never the moral one)? AvB ÷ talk 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've checked this out and it is true this defense is not used very often. A notable example would be this speech by Sarah Smith where her mother says "Please know I did not know what I was doing and I pray someday you are able to forgive me". But even if it were OR, my point would remain valid: I argued what I believe (a no-brainer really) on the talk page, but in the article it would still translate as a widely sourced defense along the lines of: "Pro-choicers do not view it as murder because they do not believe a fetus is a person/baby/child". I still think the introduction sells pro-choicers short, painting them without emotions, cold, callous, citing the legal defense but not the moral one.

FWIW, mainstream Christians (i.e. most of them) generally believe that people undergoing or performing abortions are entitled to this defense. In fact it is used as an important argument in defense of abortion by mainstream protestant Christians/theologians[40] who also qualify as mainstream pro-choicers. And even extreme pro-lifers (though by no means all of them) are known to pray "Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing" [41]. AvB ÷ talk 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The largest mainstream Christian denomination actually assumes the woman who has the abortion is in need of repentance (which is freely given if asked for in confession). In paragraph 99 of the authoritative encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul addresses women who have had an abortion (note section in bold):

• "I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. 'If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.' With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."

____G_o_o_d____ 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "mainstream protestant Christians/theologians". AvB ÷ talk 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks encyclopedic, but the two definitions thing had a certain appeal to me. Kind of clarified there were not only two worlds/perspectives on the issue and the language, but professional and common understanding of the very word "abortion". I guess I have a bias for etymology. It does keep the lead short by moving "late term abortion" and viability issues to elsewhere; as they are certainly debatable subjects.

Perhaps I'm thinking subconciously the fact medical professionals define abortion to be of a non-viable fetus, and how that differentiates itself from common usage; it becomes a key bioethical point of the debate and that could be lead worthy; as it is they who perform abortions... their POV could be necessary to mention. Then again, since this is relevant to the "debate", maybe that meme should go on the Abortion debate lead. Meh, just my stream of consciouness... I'm hungry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone previously uninvolved would do this so thanks. And I definitely prefer your explanations in the 2nd paragraph of the debate stance. However I still prefer Andrew's version of the first paragraph specifically in the split between the medical and colloquial definitions and for the fact that it introduces induced abortion in more detail. |→ Spaully°τ 23:54, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

Slim, I like what you have suggested. I need to digest it. THanks for your efforts here. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds promising; I'd certainly love to have Slim's there at least as a solid emergency backup consensus version. The tossing of associated has been a long time in coming. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello? What say you people? Can we implement this at least? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think quite a few editors took a break from the paragraph one discussion after the lack of consensus on the previous proposal. I know I did (apart from commenting on what technically is paragraph two in SlimVirgin's proposal). I've now thought over the first paragraph of this proposal. Here's my verdict. I like it. I'm in favor of using it.

There are a couple of things I would want to change in the first paragraph, and which I think will reach consensus, but I do not want to discuss them now. Having participated here for some time, I've become convinced that "one thing at a time" is the best approach for now. I say let's implement this and take it from there. Any minor problems we may have with it can wait.

"One thing at a time" also applies to the second paragraph of this proposal. Shouldn't that be the next discussion after we have implemented para 1? For now I am in favor of leaving the current text in place, or possibly amending it by adding something like "legality" to "ethics" and "moral." FWIW, I oppose the use of the second paragraph of the proposal. It presents the two most vocal POVs (that are at opposite ends of the POV spectrum) as the only ones. The proposed language completely ignores anything in-between, which may well be the majority. It also paints the pro-choice side as too legalistic, making it seem they do not have a moral defense against the "murder" accusation. The pro-life POV is presented as a moral verdict where it surely also implies a wish to change the law. Just a handful of problems I have with the second paragraph of the proposed lead.

How about adding "legal aspects" to paragraph two for now? Like this:

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethical, moral and legal aspects of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. AvB ÷ talk 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Another straw poll

As its generally agreed the current version has to go; perhaps we can now implement SlimVirgin's proposal. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph proposal:

An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

Support paragraph 1

• RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak support, if changed to "expulsion or removal" KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose paragraph 1

Second paragraph proposal:

The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Support paragraph 2

• RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose paragraph 2

• AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments 5

Maybe you could post this at the bottom of the talk page? And maybe its time to archive the first poll. All that said, I believe a number of concerns have been cleared up with my proposal, and I do not see why my proposal couldn't be used for the time being, until an even better first paragraph comes along. The main objections come from people who do not understand or otherwise want to ignore the cited medical sources. I know I am being a total jerk by writting off people's concerns, but I can see no justification for ignoring the medical definition. The most valid concern was from Ann, who thought that the common definition should go first. Because she initially supported my proposal, I would hope she would support its temporary approval as an improvement on the current state of affair (and until an even better version is agreed upon). --Andrew c 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't want a repeat of the last poll. I'm getting seriously fed up and will start getting aggressive if something doesn't happen. Becoming pro-choice partisan is suddenly appealing to me if it means things get done. I'll contact Ann. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider switching the definitions? Can you see it as an improvement? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm away from home at the moment, and have less good access to internet connection than usual. I'll just comment that I was unaware that it was "generally agreed the current version has to go", but I have been following the discussion less than usual. I made a proposal here, and I think some people liked it, and others didn't comment. I wasn't actually expecting that my suggestion would be adopted, but it gives an indication of what I consider to be a full and accurate version, which respects NPOV by not implying that the fetus is or isn't a human being, and by not suppressing the fact that — regardless of what it actually is — it dies. I'd like to make it clear again that I do not oppose the medical definition (if that's really the medical definition), but since people use the word to refer to the process late in a pregnancy as well as early, I think the common meaning should go first. After all, it is usage, not codification in books, that determines meanings. Otherwise, dictionaries would never have to be updated except to add new words. "Presently" changed its meaning over the centuries from "immediately" to "in a little while", to (the not-yet-acceptable) "currently", precisely because the people began to use the word in a different way. I agree with SlimVirgin about removing the bit about human abortions getting the most attention. I think her proposal should have "removal" as well as "expulsion". An abortion can be one or the other. And I'm not keen on "products of conception". It sounds a bit awkward and unnatural. In my view, that phrase is used with the purpose of "avoiding" another word or phrase. Other than that, I'd be happy. My main concern is to see that "death" is not left out, and that we don't give the impression that abortions are carried out only before the fetus would have been capable of surviving outside the womb. AnnH ♫ 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've also argued in the earlier comments section, I propose we go ahead with this first paragraph and discuss improvements later on. It's a wiki, nothing's being carved in granite here. I think relatively minor changes can wait. A desire (including my own) to implement several of them at once seems to me to be one of the factors that have been thwarting change for some time now. Just my two cents. AvB ÷ talk 12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of the fetus

I discovered the term "intra-uterine fetal death" (or IUFD). Apparently a medical term for the cessation of life in a fetus is "death". ____G_o_o_d____ 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

ackoz 09:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) SEZ> That's true. I "discovered" the IUFD when I was studying for my gynecology exam. Do you know that if you kill a chicken it's called death too? Or are you just too astonished by the fact that even a human fetus can die (as you have been taught that every fetal death is a murder, you MUST be surprised). Study first write later.

I have not seen you posting here before. Perhaps you are not familiar that some editors think it is not "medical" to describe fetal demise as "death". That is the only reason I have posted this. Quite frankly, I always knew it was medically accurate - my discovery is of the term IUFD. You may not realize it, but not many of us have ever studied gynecology! Finally, why the snottiness? I am trying to ensure we have an accurate article that editors are proud of. Providing sources helps that along. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal (intended as a temporary solution pending the 1st para discussion)

An abortion is the premature termination of a human or mammalian pregnancy resulting in or due to the death of an embryo or fetus. Abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage) or be effected through chemical, surgical, or other means.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

AvB ÷ talk 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on all the Blabber

Someone left a message for me to post here about the opening part the article. I do not have hours to sift through all the back and forth. Arguments and votes are completely contrary to the point of any encyclopedia with the only exception being when there is no clear consensus among the experts. From what I can see, none of you have bothered to reference the experts and list them here, which should be the only discussion going on. All the arguments are rather pointless unless all of you happen to be known experts, in which case I apologize for this comment and my changes.--NColemam 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"None of you have bothered to reference the experts," eh? A closer reading would reveal that you're incorrect, and that the precise reason for all the "blabber" is that there is, as you say, no clear consensus among the experts. Anyway, thanks for your input.

Oh, as for arguments and votes having no place in writing an encyclopedia, that's also incorrect. Considering that there are roughly an infinite number of ways to state the same fact, many of which are subtly (or blatantly) prejudicial in one way or another, there's actually lots of room for discussing how we ought to phrase controversial statements. If you think the exact phrasing of the definition of abortion isn't controversial, or if you think there's a single, agreed-upon way that "the experts" define it, well, you're in for a surprise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Some poor guy (or gal) calls it like it is, and gets blabbed in return. Evidence for his claim. A closer look at what? You could have posted a hyperlink to the evidence that there is no clear consensus. If that were true, certainly you would be able to cite it. Instead, blab blab blab. O.P.Nuhss

Here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive 18 on the regular talk page has a list of 21 or so referenced definitions. I looked through them and compiled a best effort for a medical definition, and even cited those references in my latest version of my proposal[42]. I think it is clear that the first medical/technical definition that I provided was an attempt to relay what the sources say, because I felt editors were trying to use OR to come up with a 'neutral' definition that covered every single possible case of 'abortion'. (trying and failing, IMO). My solution was to list two definitions, one medical, and one common. I believe this is accurate because there is the technical term "abortion" that includes miscarriages and non-humans, and then there is the common use that refers to the 'induced abortion procedure in humans'. This doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of consensus among experts, but instead multiple meanings and applications for a term. The controversy on this page deals more with POV, word choice, and trying to come up with a 'perfect' definition that includes every single imaginable use of the word 'abortion. I hope this clears things up and doesn't come off as blabber :P--Andrew c 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

After implantation

As I recall, we recently had a discussion about when pregnancy began. There has been a contentious editor warring here, who has nonetheless provided a number of sources which were claimed in the edit summary as being for the after implantation definition of pregnancy as regards abortion. One was. The others either do not specify or were not sources at all for the paragraph (such as a list of obstetrics related classes offered at a university.)

After implantation

• [43]

Def of abortion w/out specifying implantation

• [44]
• [45]

KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Life and Death (was: Totally disputed tag?)

So why did someone add the tag without adding an entry on the talk page? --Andrew c 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• That was me, and the page was reverted before I could get to adding a talk page entry. Sorry about that, I'll be sure to do that the other way around next time. I've removed the tag. Struct 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think there are POV issues or factual issues in the article, feel free to explain them here (without or without the tag). There is always room for improvement.--Andrew c 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Death" in sentence one was what I primarily had a problem with, and from the looks of the talk pages, I wasn't the only one. I was going to lobby for "destruction" in its place, but "termination" works fine. Struct 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your issue with "death" in sentence one, exactly? As you can see, we have gone 'round and 'round on this one; maybe a fresh perspective is just what we need. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'all certainly have. :-) Here's my perspective:

Death is an utterly loaded term, with all sorts of scientific, ethical, moral, and legal implications and connotations. In my viewpoint, for something to die, it must first have lived.

Is a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus truly "alive" in all of the above-listed senses? That's one of the most (if not the most) contentious social issues in the USA currently. Given the extremely vituperative controversy, it seems disingenuous to me to claim that "death" is neutral terminology.

If "death" were the only clinical term available, then perhaps one could argue that the benefits of its use outweigh the detriments, but alternative language can easily be found without a corresponding loss of scientific meaning. To me, that trumps the tired old "anything other than 'death' is a euphemism for baby-killing" argument that the pro-lifers love to trot out. Biology and medicine cannot state definitively that a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus is "alive"... biology and medicine havn't even arrived at common ground as to what "alive" truly means.

Until there's a mainstream scientific consensus as to whether or not a blastula/zygote/embryo/fetus can "die", I take strong exception to framing the abortion debate in terms of life and death. As I said above, a term like "destruction" instead of "death" has the same advantages but without the baggage. Struct 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's well put, Struct. I'm not as certain as you seem to be, but I'm very open to a definition that avoids the political baggage of the word "death" while remaining accurate. Lots of definitions seem to leave out essential details in their care to avoid eggshells.

Also, we need to frankly acknowledge very early in the article that the very definitions of the terms are hotly debated, precisely because many people (much more than a "fringe" of extremists) consider the debate to be framed precisely in terms of life and death. I don't think we should allow pro-choice or pro-life activists to dictate how we frame the deabte. How do we avoid using the language of one or the other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, GT, mucho appreciado.

As for certainty... Me, certain? Heck no. I'm as uncertain about the morality of abortion as I am about the existence of a Higher Power or Powers. I have no problem with those who oppose abortion, so long as that viewpoint is not forcibly imposed on others.

How do we avoid falling into the life/death paradigm? Let's get clinical, clinical, I wanna get clinical... (sorry, really bad pun/reference there). In the spirit of NPOV, let's be scientists and attempt to objectively determine fact where there is certainty, and indeterminacy where there is uncertainty. Easier said than done, I know, but I think that's the only reasonable approach. Struct 05:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"How do we avoid falling into the life/death paradigm?" wasn't quite my question. How do we avoid framing the question using either side's language was my question - which means how do we simultaneously frame it as a life/death question (because it is) and studiously refrain from framing it as a life/death question (because it isn't)? Simply avoiding the life/death issue as if it's not there is too much of a concession to the pro-choice side, IMO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood then, I guess you meant that rhetorically, as in "How can we help BUT fall into the life/death paradigm?" My answer would be that where possible, use language that straddles the line, such as "destruction" rather than "death". Where not possible, contrast viewpoints: some people feel X, others feel Y, and science has nothing definite to say on the matter. I'm not arguing that the words "life" and "death" have no place in this article, but I am arguing that a matter-of-fact, pat, life/death frame, such as the one in Para. 1 Sent. 1, violates NPOV. Struct 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that last statement. I would also say, though, that writing para. 1 sent. 1 as if it's simply not about life and death is also POV (namely, the clinical, medical POV). I'm not offering some bright solution here, I'm just trying to state the problem as clearly as I can. I like the two-definitions solution, but it has to be presented very delicately. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think a good solution is to include two different definitions, from two different POVs, covering two different usages of the word. But apparently citing the medical definition is to controversial for some editors because it uses the word "non-viable". I'll stop being bitter, and just remind everyone to take discussion about the first paragraph to the talk subpage.--Andrew c 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, from a purely biological standpoint, death is not limited to things which are born in a sense. To die really means to cease biological functions, you know, the whole reproducibility, ability to adapt, etc. etc. criteria, so when you get an abortion, death is being caused. The cells forming the embryo or fetus are quite alive in a biological sense, and I assumed people really want to go with medical definitions here? Homestarmy 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, focusing on this fact (that biological or cellular death occurs) goes against the cited medical definitions. It is giving that fact undue weight, because that aspect is not one of the defining factors of an abortion when defined by medical sources. It would be like saying a tonsilectomy is defined by the death of the tosils. Sure, removing the tonsils is going to cause cellular death, but there is no need to point this out in the first sentence definition. But this is just one POV (the medical POV). There are other POVs, namely that a) abortion is serious business because a living human being is killed and b) there is no other way to define an abortion in contrast with a live birth except by mentioning the d-word.--Andrew c 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean the abortion procedure does nothing except cause the death of the child, I just meant that biologically speaking, it is compleatly correct to say that it causes the death of the embryo, fetus, or whatever stage of development the child is in :/. It's certainly a compleate organism in its own right as well. So while a tonsilectomy wouldn't necessarily refer to it as the "killing of the tonsils", the tonsils most certainly do die, their just not separate organisms in any sense. I don't see how its undue weight to mention that it causes death when perhaps the greatest reason this topic has such a large amount of weight is because it causes death, specifically to a fetus, embryo, and so on. Homestarmy 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"death"

From what I've seen here, "death" is HARDLY a consensus term and should either be removed or tagged disputed post-haste! Struct 06:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been an extensive amount of debate about this one contentious little word. See Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. -Severa (!!!) 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it, I've perused all of it, I've read a good deal of it in detail, but I'm very curious as to how on Earth it all adds up to "consensus" about its usage. The fact that you yourself used the word "contentious" indicates that "death" either needs to be changed or tagged disputed. Struct 07:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Four weeks of circular, tangential debates have failed to yield anything conclusive. You can throw yourself into the mix and see if your perspective helps move it out of an impasse; call me a skeptic, though, but I don't see any breakthroughs or epiphanies occurring any time soon. I, personally, would prefer that such resources be lavished upon the poor, neglected To-do list. -Severa (!!!) 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I already have thrown myself into the mix, and I doubt that my perspective will make a difference given the nature of this issue. This country's endured thirty-plus years of circular, tangential debates ever since the Roe ruling. I feel like I've contributed all I can, and I'm going to focus on expanding the "Media Coverage" subsection of South Dakota reproductive rights controversy. Maybe I'll hit that To-Do list this weekend.

However, I still think "death" in sentence one is a massive problem and ought to be tagged . Struct 07:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we're past any point where we can call any opening sentence the "consensus version". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, but no; it is the consensus. We've had a circular debate of our own, and simply "death" is accurate and in the summary style appropriate for Wikipedia. (Encarta uses it as well) Alternatives, for the most part, are weasely; and do not clarify the key aspect of the Abortion issue. Death does. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're using the word consensus in two different ways then. According to my understanding, if one person disagrees, it's not really a "consensus". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you switch to my definition; or else there is no spoon... I mean consensus. :"D My implementation of consensus is where people from across a debate can agree (or at least concede) on something. This is a routine thing when it comes to deletions; where things can be significantly split, but consensus is achieved nonetheless. Moreover new users to an article cannot suddenly skew the consensus. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and my initial response was for Struct, not you. My bad. On an additional note; consensus is defined as a "general" agreement, not a unanimous agreement. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is there an abortion where the fetus ends up alive, besides failed abortions, as noted in the article? Because otherwise its dead. Death is what we call it when something which was living ceases to live and becomes dead.

Btw, GTBacchus, love your edit summary! I knew you were a cultured and erudite individual!!! (Princess Bride reference) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Erudite, I wonder who came up with that word. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Erudite comes from Latin eruditus, from e-, "out of, from" + rudis, "rough, untaught," which is also the source of English rude. Hence one who is erudite has been brought out of a rough, untaught, rude state. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann proposal tweaking

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, The strict medical definition refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance but "abortion" commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

I've added expulsion, in response to Killa's objection over murder; while it is certainly strong language... a basic human right is also strongly worded and placed last. Making the paragraph ultimately sympathetic to abortion, yet making it crystal clear what the opposing views are. As to wordiness... dunno how to fix that, but I think Ann's proposal does the trick and flows well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tried fixing wordiness. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a significant improvement over what we've got now. I think it still has a pro-life slant, but no more so than the current intro, and it's better phrased, and provides more and clearer information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually - a minor point - the opening sentence is slightly ambiguous with "its death" - the death of the nearest singular noun, the womb? Y'know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, hmmmm... - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd strike the entire last line, starting with "Opponents consider...". Completely unecessary to put Abortion debate in the intro to Abortion. The preceeding sentence states there is controversy; that is sufficient for the intro. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That does have a certain appeal. New version below, removed "woman's womb" and put "female" instead; linked Abortion debate in debate link. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New version

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from a female of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries.

The strict medical definition refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, but abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense mainstream debate in many parts of the world.

Question, what are "other means". Is that necessary? The only other mean I can think of is intentional physical trauma. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlinked political; doesn't add anything. Actually public should be added too; as that is what differentiates the debate now and the debates that happened in centuries past among politicians/philosophers. No... I got it, replace both with mainstream! Moved "Various" sentence up to the first paragraph; as its ackward in the bottom one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved female up in the sentence to resolve grammar thing; perhaps ultimately female should just be deleted... as embryo and fetus are linked. I think it could be fair to assume a person knows what a fetus is. Perhaps removing it, and putting woman in the "commonly" sentence would be best? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Female sounds really strange. If anything, it should be uterus. I think you are slightly misrepresenting the medical definition. It isn't that the medical definition's main purpose is to ignore LTAs. It's that the medical definitions includes miscarriages but not stillbirths (and a case can be made that LTAs are technically not abortions(1), even if they are an induced abortion(2) procedure [considering two different definitions of the word abortion]). The common definition never includes miscarriages. I think it is pushing it to have 'death' in there twice. As it stands, there are 3 definitions of abortion. The 1st definitions stemming from the OR of WP editors trying to be "neutral". Then an explanation of the POV definitions [(1) and (2)], except, as I said, the medical definitions isn't exactly explained that well.

I think a solution might be to just give the common definition first, then comment on the medical definition and miscarriages. something like "Abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy through chemical, medical, or other means. Abortions procedures are contrasted with live births in that abortions result in the death of a fetus/embryo. Medically speaking, the word abortion refers to any premature termination of a pregnancy before 20 weeks of gestation. This includes miscarriages which are technically called spontaneous abortions" etc, blah blah. I feel that these are the concepts that should be presented in the definition. The order and wording can be debated, but I think when we start to change the basic facts, or introduce different concepts, we start to loose sight of our sources.--Andrew c 22:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording of this seems a bit of a mess - does no-one else find the sentance about spontaneous abortions odd? ([Abortion] can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage))

Slim introduced it as the correct medical term I believe, but in my experience and a search of pubmed returns 25,785 results for 'miscarriage', and 'spontaneous abortion' 13,491. This suggests a split in the medical community, and in colloquial usage I've only heard 'miscarriage' used. This might be different across the world, but the current explanation seems clunky.

Might not this suffice: [Abortion] can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a miscarriage,..

Which links to an article which in the first sentance introduces both terms?

Secondly the addition of the 'various methods' sentance to the end of the first paragraph seems to reiterate what is said immediately before it. I feel this was better off in the second paragraph.

Besidses those, I prefer this version to the current version and would support an upgrade (although so far the latest proposal by AndrewC is my favourite). Hopefully something can come from these pages! |→ Spaully°τ 00:25, 22 April 2006 (GMT)

Indeed "various" does reiterate what was said, which makes it the logical place to put it; I merged it in the next version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.1

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in its death. Abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense mainstream debate in many parts of the world.

The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

Changed the 2nd death to "terminates"; merged historical sentence, female > uterus. Put in Andrew c "Medically speaking, moved commonly first and moved "20th century" to be with "historical" mention. Better flow. Replaced second refers with "defined as". So how's this version? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... didn't we want to avoid the word "pregnancy"; as it is non-specific and may not be terminated with selected reduction etc. Or is having "a" in front sufficient to clarify a singular pregnancy is being terminated. Damnit, I thought I almost had it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect in my eyes (and I have a feeling I am very hard to please on this topic, :P), but I think it works. I personally see no problem with the word "pregnancy" because selective reductions are not "common" and you state specifically that you are talking "commonly". Furthermore, 'temination of pregnancy' is used by a majority of the cited definitions. My only concern would be what Severa raised awhile back about giving undue weight to viable/LTA. Her suggestion was to just say along the lines of "Abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age".--Andrew c 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, and 20 should be twenty? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in the first sentence it seems odd to split "removal of an embryo" with "from a uterus". I would rearrange the order of the sentence. And about 20, I will look through the cited sources and dig out the ones that specifically say 20. I was leaning towards "non-viable" but other editors took issue with that word. The definitions that reference 20 all would fall under non-viable, but the definitions that reference viability do not necessarily work if we say 20 (if that makes sense).--Andrew c 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying whether 20 should be written numerically "20" or spelled out "twenty". Usually for small quantaties the latter is preferable stylistically. I acknowledge the split, I rearranged, but the reason I did it the other way was because GTB noticed "its" refers to the last thing mentioned; which would be "uterus" now. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I hate to be a pain in the neck, but the more I read it now, the more it sounds that way to me. The most elegant solution I can think of is to repeat "embryo or fetus", which isn't elegant. As far as "twenty" versus "20", I can't see that it matters at all, and if someone changes it later, that's cool too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, implemented lest of two evils in version below. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin version:

An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Version 4.3

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur naturally with a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

Looked at SlimVirgin's version and added "natural", "artificial", "ethics" to the definition. Removed "mainstream" that's debatable and infrequent mainstream subject. If we were to include a synopsis of the debate maybe it would look like this? Although I understand we don't want the lead to be overtaken by the debate, it seems approriate to its weight and notability. It also clarifies this is about women; as I've consciously have removed women from the 1st paragraph. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.3d

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur naturally with a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Version 4.3e (4.3d after copyedit of paragraph one)

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur naturally (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). In general, abortion refers to induced abortion at any gestational age. Medically speaking, the word refers to induced abortion up to gestational week twenty.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

(Please note that I do not endorse this version; I'm only posting this as a (hopefully) faithful rendition of the meaning of 4.3d in (hopefully) more precise/encyclopedic terms. Please improve if/where you think I failed.) AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally had uterus that way, and I do consider it to be the least awkward way to express it; the problem is it implies "the uterus" belongs to the embryo of fetus, so that forces it further down the sentence. "gestational week twenty" is strange, as I rarely see the word "gestational" and all the medical texts I've read specify the timeframe then follow it up with "gestation". And if I understood Andrew c correctly, the medical definition of "abortion" encompasses spontaneous abortion too; not just induced abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good points as usual. Regarding the uterus, I too considered both versions and personally find your original version more encyclopedic in that it does not mention embryo/fetus twice. Leaving it in for now, feel free to change. Gestational week twenty - agree, changing it back. One question - we now have "before week twenty" - shouldn't that be up to/including (i.e. before week 21)? Re medical def: right again, but version 4.3d has other (worse I think) problems in the sentences The word "abortion" is commonly used (...) twenty weeks of gestation in that a "perfect" copyedit would require the repetition of the full defs in these sentences, including the word death in the final sentence. The former is awkward, the latter awkward and loaded so to be avoided. My solution was mainly the better of two evils in the simple context of a copyedit - i.e. without adding, changing or removing the meaning/intent of 4.3d. Having said that, the change you're suggesting is quite simple so I've made it in version 4.3f ("all abortions" instead of "abortion"). AvB ÷ talk 13:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin proposal, version 4.3f, incorporating copyedit comments

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur naturally (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

AvB ÷ talk 13:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did the following tweaks to make it less stilted; removed second "refer":

• "In general, abortion" > "Generally the word "abortion"" or perhaps > "Generally "abortion""
• "Medically speaking, the word refers" > "Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any termination"

And should it be "the uterus" or "a uterus"? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for "the" in encyclopedic definitions, mainly because it indicates a single/specific item whereas "a" is more ambiguous - it can e.g. also mean one out of several/many. Hence "the expulsion," "the uterus," but "an embryo" (the latter e.g. when a hormonally induced multiple pregnancy is "reduced"). AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we seem to be sticking to 'before twenty weeks'? I have yet to see compelling reasoning as to why that is better than 'viable', which is explained on the linked page, and is more correct and is supported by more medical definitions. Using '20 weeks' is just a way of (roughly) quantifying the concept of viability, so does not solve any issues with using such a definition. I would suggest for the last two sentances:

Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before the fetus is viable.

You could also include Andrew C's references about this medical definition. |→ Spaully°τ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (GMT)

i prefer version 4.1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to viable: Homestarmy and a few others objected to the word "viable" (even though it was used by a number of our cited sources). If you scroll up the page a bit, you can see that discussion where we compromised on an actual gestational age (also supported by some of our cited sources). I personally prefer viable, but I was willing to compromise in order to attempt to save my proposal. Being a cynic, I think that we should just use my proposal because the people who voted reject, but didn't come and try to reach consensus or offer a counter proposal, shouldn't have a say in the matter. If you are going to vote against something without trying to make it better or offer an alternative, what does your vote do, besides impede progress? (and there were a few people who voted reject and did discuss here on talk. I feel that some minor changes discussed above could sway their vote to approval, at least until something better comes along). My problem with all these 4.x proposals is that not many people are helping out with this process. Hardly anyone who voted reject is here. So we may feel like we have another proposal that everyone here can agree upon, but for all we know, some editors who do not care about helping out on the talk subpage could come along and vote reject again. (sorry for the rant)--Andrew c 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like this paragraph :/. Homestarmy 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Before twenty weeks is more accurate as viability could be disputed. Although I agree viability is the point of the medical definition and should be there. But that is a matter that can be dealt with seperately on Talk:Abortion in general for the entire article; as it is a significant point by itself. I want one of these versions to be adopted sooner, rather than later. I agree with your punctuation tweak as it flows better, and I had considered doing it myself back in 4.1 days. Done it in 4.4. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.4

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Should:

right of women to control their own reproduction

be changed to:

right of an individual to control their own body

Isn't that closer to the core issue? Or does that get too messy as one can contend the embryo is an individual? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I think the first more to the point. "control their body", while used by pro-choicers, is a bit to ambigious in my book.

Another question, regarding this and other version which say "medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation" - where do we get this? And even if there are references for that, it is certainly not accurate, is it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did all the parens come from? And when did we get from 4.1, with no abortion debate in the intro, to putting abortion debate in the intro? Unhappy puppy here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus to remove it; then everything past "world." is removed and the debate sentence is merged with the 1st paragraph, and its done. But such a significant step should be agreed upon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The current consensus version does not have the debate in the intro; the burden rests upon those wishing to add that verbiage to achieve consensus for the change. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with KillerChihuahua. Also, the part after "world." has many problems (I've listed a couple of them, and a possible solution, here) so I won't support it anywhere in the article, least of all in the intro. I would support something like it if the problems had been solved. Nevertheless, I think it would be best to wrap up paragraph 1 and try to get it past previous poll participants before taking on paragraph 2. I also share KillerChihuahua's preference for 4.1 (with minor tweaks). AvB ÷ talk 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's coo, but please don't drag me back to 4.1; I'm getting this sucker into summary shape... I don't want to go back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Str1977, the 20-week definition is just that - a definition - so it isn't a question of its accuracy so much as a question of how accepted that definition is. According to the same medical sources we've been throwing around for weeks, yes, that's the accepted definition among many medical professionals. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977: Please take a look at our cited sources (somewhere in archive 18) and the footnote in my proposal here. Just because you do not feel that a definition meets your personal standard of what is "accurate" is not a valid excuse to ignore our sources. To be NPOV, we need to simply report our sources, not judge our sources. Medically speaking, a miscarriage is a type of 'abortion', but no one, in common parlance, uses abortion in the manner. Similarly, 'abortion' is technically defined as a termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. Keep in mind that there is a difference between what we commonly call the "induced abortion procedure in humans" and what medical dictionaries generally define as "abortion". Two different meanings, two different contexts, two different POVs (hence my two definition proposal weeks ago). Additionally, "late-term abortion" is not a medical term. Search through the literature at pubmed, and you will be pressed to find 'abortion' in reference to third trimester procedures, (though it is there occassionally because of the common use of the word). Finally, the number of abortions that occur at a gestational age when the fetus is viable is around .08% (around 1,000 a year). We need to avoid giving this topic undue weight in the opening paragraph. Hope this helps to clear things up.--Andrew c 20:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should "as any termination" > "as a termination"? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

naturally > spontaneously, as not all miscarriages are "natural". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.0

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethical, moral and legal aspects of abortion became the subject of intense debate in many areas of the world.

Adopting AvB's 2nd paragraph suggestion, but removed "political"; also changed "any termination" to "a termination" in 1st paragraph. I would like either "ethical" or "moral" to be removed as they are redundant and slows the flow. I feel "In the 20th century" should be removed as well; as it is possibly presumptious to consider modern debates in the media to have marked the beginning of "intense" debate on this subject. (I would still feel that way if "political" was still there, as I can visualize political giants debating this issue prior to the dark ages, let alone the 20th century.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Better than the current version. What'll it take to get it into the article? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up from several admins and no significant objections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Personally, I would tweak the punctuation and get rid of "however," as in "Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation." But that's a minor point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the emphasis however provides, but I do have a preference for getting shorter... implemented. Any adviced on my proposed tweaks? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with either moral or ethical, but not both, and I agree with getting rid of 20th century. My preference for flow would be (areas to parts, also for flow): "The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world." Just suggestions. I support it anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good! I'd probably make a few rabid Wikifications, but, otherwise, I see no issue with why it shouldn't be posted as is almost immediately.

If I remember correctly, the "political" preface was introduced to put the "in the 20th century" bit into context. The majority of the coverage of the debate in this article pertains to debate from the 20th century onward and the majority of debate in this time frame was political (well, at least, it's certainly a lot briefer than the more accurate, "intense political, social, medicial, economic, religious, spiritual, and psychological debate"). If you get rid of one, you might as well get rid off both, because the two are something of a matched pair.

-Severa (!!!) 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this to the current version, and besides the use of 'before 20 weeks' (which I'll raise on the main talk page as was suggested) just some very minor comments. Regarding this sentence:

Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

I suggest, to improve flow and increase understanding:

Generally, "abortion" is used to refer to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically it is defined as a termination before the twentieth week of gestation.

I realise Slim removed 'however, ' and I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do prefer the prose with it present; however, it is likely this is down to personal tastes and writing styles :) |→ Spaully°τ 09:29, 29 April 2006 (GMT)

It reads well. I'm not sure about the "resulting in it's death" part as that assumes the POV that life begins a conception. I know that one has been a hot potato so I won't push it as I'm ambivalent about that issue - just flagging it as a potential problem. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. Homestarmy 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. In response to GTB and JzG below (summary: a consensus-based wiki remains a work in progress) I would recommend to freeze and try to roll out this version (if you'll pardon the IT lingo). We've looked at this from every conceivable angle - if most of us agree it's progress, I say let's just do it and take it from there. AvB ÷ talk 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Freeze and roll - check! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the UK it is normally not known as abortion but as a termination. Medically it is invariably referred to as such. Does the US medical profession use the word abortion as a technical term? I'd be quite surprised if they did. Also it should IMO be removal or expulsion, not the other way round (it reads better). Why don't we use the formal definition from an accepted medical text? At least some texts define abortion as artificial termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is viable; that is less loaded than talking about "the death of the fetus". At least some terminations are precisely because the fetus stands little or no chance of independent viability. Of course, there is the fundamental problem that abortion is mainly a political, not a medical debate. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is rather US-centric. As such it can't leave out the POV of a large minority who believe termination is murder from day one (conception). The paragraph one discussion is an attempt to create a introduction that will be acceptable to all parties. To be frank, I am moving towards the opinion that it will prove impossible to create a common text and that the article needs to describe the main POVs separately. AvB ÷ talk 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this version, and I thank those who have worked so hard in trying to gain consensus. I agree with Slim about changing areas to parts, and I also like the style better without "however". I would have "termination of pregnancy" rather than just "termination", as I feel that it's clearer with the object. AnnH ♫ 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Slim and Roy's tweaks. I support Ann's "termination of pregnancy" clarification. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion?

For precisely that reason - that the debate is political - I think it would make sense to tackle the controvery in a much more head-on fashion than we've been discussing. The two sides of the debate don't even agree on the definition, and yet we state the definition before we admit there's a debate, thus supporting one side's definition. I don't have an exact set of words that does what I'm thinking of, and I'm not trying to stymie progress on this V5.0, but I really think the best solution is to confront the controversy more directly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

GTB: I agree. Perhaps we could start from something like Abortion is a vernacular term for termination of a pregnancy. It is usually understood as meaning a medical intervention to remove an embryo or fetus, generally before the fetus becomes viable, although it may be used to describe certain miscarriages (spontaneous abortion), and in some cases it may be conducted in the third trimester of pregnancy by which point the fetus may be viable, known as late term abortion. Just zis Guy you know? 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more head-on. Let's see....

An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon. From a medical perspective it is variously defined as XXXXX, YYYYY, or ZZZZZ.</ref, etc.> From a legal or moral perspective, some define an abortion as any procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus.</ref> Others dispute the validity of this definition.</ref>

That's more of a template for a suggestion than an actual suggestion, and I don't mean by introducing it to take away from the idea that 5.0 should go live if it nobody explains why it isn't better than the status quo. Still, with those blanks filled in appropriately, how does the presentation look? Does the direct acknowledgement of disagreement help? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it actually does. But note that this may well lead the "average" reader to expect an article that separately describes the various POVs, e.g. giving worldwide statistics of these views. Creating an article lead along these lines is not, perhaps, a light step to take, letting the genie out of the bottle so to speak. But I'm by now more than halfway convinced it's the way to go, also in connection with a developing general appreciation of the scale related watershed period I think Wikipedia is going through these days. AvB ÷ talk 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.1

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of pregnancy.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Implemented my tweaks, JzG's "removal or expulsion" (which forced me to switch "resulting in or caused by") and SlimVirgin's suggestions. Then Ann's and Spaully's suggestions complimented each other along with Killa's support; so "pregnancy" is a must have that got lost in the shuffle... and removes repetition to boot! Unless of course its "unmedical", then we can put back gestation.

I was bold and changed the wording and linking of the history of abortion sentence "throughout the centuries" > "throughout history"; as it implied abortion was only centuries old... and as ever we prefer shorter. :"D

This will be the version I'll roll out Sunday or Monday if there are no objections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Linked legal to Abortion law. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm conflicted if it should be "a termination" or "any termination". I think any is a better fit but don't like two any's in a row. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the death part. Most terminations are conducted before the foetus is viable; while some may consider that the word death is appropriate in this context, I would be hesitant to suggest that this is a majority view in the world let alone a consensus view. As an aside, I was informed with great solemnity by a fundamentalist that the contraceptive pill is equivalent to a murder a month. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur for the most part, especially with the viability part... but only in respect to miscarriages; since the fetus wasn't meant to develop to begin with. So saying it "dies" is innaccurate as its a "false start" so to speak, however it is in keeping with how abortion is used commonly and acknowledges the seriousness of this issue in non-technical summary style wording. Even though the wording may not be the majority view wording; that is dictated by political correctness and polarization around abortion and not an accurate reflection of this issue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as much of an improvement on the current version. It does fix some minor wording issues, but it introduces some others. It does nothing to address the "death" issue raised by many (and still concerning to a few new editors as well, as seen by a number of comments above). It removed the awkward mammal sentence with an awkward sentence about the 'medical' definition. I do not really consider this a new proposal, just a few minor changes to what we already have. All that said, I'd support making these changes, but feel it does little to solve the conflicts that brought about this subpage months ago. Furthermore, I still feel the medical definition is being explained poorly (as my first comment stated a couple of screens up). I feel that you cannot just strip out miscarriages from the medical definition, because that seems to suggest that the only defining aspect of the medical definition is the viabilitly clause. --Andrew c 13:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I want the medical explaination expanded a bit too. Okay, can you really convince anyone that "viability" is the majority definition in the medical community. I know you have many sources; but who is the authority on these bioethical matters? A university? A doctor? A medical association? I suppose its all of them combined. And how do pro-life doctors define it? (PS: I added miscarriage to medical definition)

Perhaps we could add "before twenty weeks of pregnancy, or what is usually considered non-viable." How's that for an idea? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, should we link moral to Ethical aspects of abortion instead of morality? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, what would be wrong with starting along the lines of: Abortion is a lay term for the medical termination of a pregnancy. The fact that the pregnancy is terminated says everythign we need to know about the fate of the foetus. In the UK I am pretty sure there are recorded instances of foetuses delivered alive following terminations in the third trimester (around 24 weeks) demonstrating independent viability and being saved. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some editors really dislike the word "termination" because they feel it is a euphemism. I happen to disagree with them, but the argument has still been made. Also, in the U.S., there are a very small number of abortion procedures after viablity that still result in the death of the fetus. Either something is given to the fetus to cause death before the procedure, or the actual procedure kills the fetus by 'ripping it apart', or 'sucking its brains out'. Therefore, because of this very small minority of abortion procedures (that technically aren't "abortions"), many editors have expressed that they feel the main goal and purpose of an abortion procedure is to get a dead fetus (as opposed to simply terminating a pregnancy. They claim that a livebirth also, technically speaking, terminates a pregnancy, despite the medical literature using terminate with another connotation that is akin to abort). Also, the third trimester starts at the 28th week.--Andrew c 14:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no more a euphemism than carcinoma, deceased, fracture or any other medical term. Termination of pregnancy is precisely technically accurate. The death thing is also bugging me; it seems that we are being asked to state that abortions result in death because one particular controversial procedure, used in a very small minority of terminations, specifically requires the foetus to be rendered lifeless. That seems to me to be undue weight. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you. I'm just trying to update you on the other side's position (that can be found in the archives pages). Right now, it seems that there are none of the very strong pro-lifer editors helping this 'consensus' process. So we aren't really getting the criticisms we were in the past.--Andrew c 14:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the latest proposels seem good, so I dunno how much criticism there can be :/. Homestarmy 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Termination is a great word and does follow the technical verbiage already adopted in the first sentence. But, we adopted "embryo/fetus" because they were more accurate and straight forward words. In the case of death; it is more straight forward and simple (but of course with emotional/political baggage), so I agree termination is preferable especially with miscarriages for accuracy. (however consider this hypothetical, we become so advanced in the future; a miscarrying pregnancy can be removed, put in an artificial womb and saved... point being its viability can be merely a reflection of our ability to save it) There is however a nuance and tone that death provides that I consider appropriate. Others disagree, mostly I believe that is because they have grown use to their carefully selected verbiage on the issue.

While they are correct death is pro-life angled, "fetus" is pro-choice angled. Pro-lifer's have a point in that abortion isn't simply a neutral medical procedure. This is a matter of compromise; but moreover it is a fundamentally important balancing act of tone and mutual respect for points of view. I am implementing all the above changes to Version 5.2 and reverted 5.1 to its original wording; I'll ask some users if they are acceptable and will implement the new lead when I get satisfactory feedback. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.2 (currently live)

An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in, or caused by, its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced abortion procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is usually considered nonviable.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Looks fair to me :/. Homestarmy 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New version implemented a while back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work on gaining consensus. It can be done! AnnH ♫ 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it was worth it... though one can never be sure till the next edit war occurs. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You have the patience of a saint RoyBoy. Is it worth adding a line to say that after around the 20 week stage it is termed a Late term abortion to allow readers looking for that definition to go straight there? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Saint RoyBoy has a nice ring to it. Initially I thought it was worth it to mention LTA, mostly because I was curious about it as a subject and I assumed others would be too. However, Andrew c among others more familiar with it noted it is a very rare procedure(s)... and putting it in the lead would give it too much weight.

Oh, and I'm going to be bold and swap gestation and pregnancy around; as those terms are better suited in the other definition. I'm still thinking of removing "usually" as prior to 20 weeks is universally considered being not viable (at this time). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken Saint Roy the Patient (no disrespect to anyone intended!). Although you could argue that not to mention it at all will cause the article to read as if no abortions after this point take place. Also cross-linking related articles in a very clear way is always good. However I don't feel strongly enough about this to want to cause problems - just a thought that's all. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "usually" needs to go. If anything, the "20 week" part needs to go and be replaced with "non-viable". I still think we need to address the "death" issues that have existed for months, and have recently been brought up again by JzG. I don't like "Generally". I would prefer commonly or in common paralance or something referencing the fact that this is a popular definition. On top of that, I think we should say "the induced abortion procedure" not just "induced abortion". Slightly unrelated, for some reason, I can't help feeling like G&E did months ago when there was a perceived consensus for my proposal. Should we make a poll and take it to the main talk page, or just assume that everyone's silence is support? I still think that this version is only marginally better than the last, and doesn't address the big POV issues that started this whole section. But if I am the only one concerned, I'm not going to push anything.--Andrew c 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In common parlance, abortion refers to the induced abortion procedure and can take place at any gestational age, although late-term abortions are rare. Medically, abortion refers to any termination of a pregnancy before viability, including miscarriages and induced procedures.

Something along those lines.. but this seems to make the first reference to miscarriages redundent. But then again, I feel that we shouldn't mention miscarriages outside of the context of the medical definition. Hmm... I should probably think on this some more. Any thoughts?--Andrew c 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like common parlance anymore; I'll change generally to commonly right now though. Good call. I'll be bold and remove "usually". Tweaked your proposal to link to LTA properly. I have no trouble adding the LTA mention as you have it; if you think it doesn't add undue weight. Were you able to successfully rebut arguments of "rare" being a POV/OR word?

I'm also unsure how adding "procedure" clarifies anything. The first instance could be inaccurate (not all are "procedures") and the second while more appropriate just says "induced procedure", what is that? And I just don't see the medical definition needing it to be a procedure. Trauma and abortificients cause induced abortions prior to 20 weeks, but I doubt they are procedures. Right?

As to "death" I'll argue anyone to the ground on that. I simply have not heard of anything (apart from "termination") that comes close to replacing it. The only rationale I can come up is we use neutral terminology in the rest of the first sentence; why not carry that to the end. For some reason all the "issues" we've had over it, actually makes me think it was the correct decision. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked non-viable > nonviable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took my awhile to get back to you. I never convinced the few objectors that "rare" was an acceptible term. They argued that any statistics coming from AGI were biased, and that anything over 1,000 (even if it is under 0.1%) is not "rare". But, they didn't convince me abortions on viable fetuses weren't "rare" either, so its a stand off. We could always add it and let other editors change it, but that may lead to an edit war. I think that "procedure" is a very important aspect of the common definition. When someone says "I had an abortion" they mean that they had an induced abortion procedure. If someone is in a car accident and loose their baby, they may say they miscarried or something else. Abortion is not the common word here. Medically speaking, the fetus was aborted, but commonly and abortion (i.e. induced abortion procedure) did not occur. But I won't push it too hard.

As for "death", I think this is a very touchy subject. We have a large number of definitions that do not mention death. Because the debate is framed around life vs. death, death is in particular a sticky word. And furthermore, it seems unnecessary to mention death. Meat causes death, but why is this word not mentioned in the first sentence of that article? Chemotherapy causes the death of cancer cells, why is this not mentioned in the first sentence? The reason why death is so important, is not because someone may accidentally think the word "abortion" is refering to a live birth, but within the context of the greater debate, framing a fetus' death is closely associated with arguments for personhood. I think this is shown by some individuals wanting to qualify death with "cellular" or wanting to change "fetus" to "products of conception", and other individuals strongly opposing this because it is the fetal death that is significant to their POV, not the death of cells, or the death of the placenta (which scientifically 'die' just as much as the fetus). My biggest concern is that abortion can obviously be defined without referencing death, and including death seems superfluous and arguable borderline POV pushing.--Andrew c 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going with on procedure, and I was about to add it. But then I looked at the Wikipedia definition for procedure. As its defined as treating "disease" or "injury" in the surgery lead; I think this could cause more problems than it addresses. I gave Google a quick look and both PubMed and Pro-Life doctors refer to it as a procedure, so I'll go ahead and put it in; but I won't link it as I had planned.

Indeed "death" sucks, but as I mentioned prior "fetus" and "embryo" suck for pro-lifers, and it can be maintained that terminology is borderline POV pushing for pro-choicers. Death provides the balance I think is required and essential. I had already come up with a potential solution, which is putting back the paragraph about the debate which mentions "murder" and "women's rights". This allows strong language from both perspectives and makes the mention of "death" less necessary in the first sentence. Without a solid pro-life perspective in the lead, death is staying, as it is sympathetic to the other perspective on abortion. Not only that, but death is more encyclopedic (in some respects) than "termination".

What irks me about "death", isn't the fact its pro-life language etc. etc., but that pro-lifers insist it has to be in the first sentence. As I don't see it as a necessity but rather editorial decision on our part it does bother me it has been forced there. However, given the current structure of the lead, that's the only place it can go. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Struck out abortion as it is no longer in the live lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead is wrong

The lead is wrong. Missed abortion is a type of abortion, in which the embryo/fetus is not removed from the body, the lead is basically incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ackoz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz is correct. Suggest:

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced abortion procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is considered nonviable. The exception is a "missed abortion" in which the embryo or fetus dies but is not expelled. Missed abortions are usually followed by spontaneous abortions.

REF: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3309.htm

Alternate suggestion: Omit missed abortions from intro; mention in Spontaneous section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how he's correct. Miscarriage is integrated into the first sentence, hence the words "expulsion" and "caused by". Those are there precisely to cover missed abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking the alternate proposal. --InShaneee 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it fits - the term itself is in decline, and our own Missed abortion is a redirect to Miscarriage, because almost always a missed abortion is followed by a spontaneous - but not always, in which case a surgical abortion is called for. And I can dig up a source for that but currently (here on talk) I am speaking from personal knowledge - my grandmother had a late in life pregnancy which resulted in a missed abortion, and they had to do the surgical version on her. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think cause by its death still covers missed abortion. Granted it occurs in two stages and involves natural and artificial elements... but it was initially "caused" by the death of the fetus, then required further intervention to "remove" it. I'm unsure we need to spell that out, just as mentioning late-term abortions in the lead isn't a "must have"; one can infer it from the Commonly definition. Likewise, although missed isn't mentioned, the first sentence is structured with or's so that "removal of the fetus caused by its death" is one way to read it. I don't see the fire. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify further, a missed abortion occurs spontaneously; so again its covered. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could also write something along the lines of "aimed at" or "intending" - which then makes clear why a "missed abortion" is "missed" or a "failed abortion" is "failed". Just a thought. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be applicable in the case of a failed abortion but not a missed one. In a missed one, the pregnant woman has every intention of carrying the pregnancy to term and delivery (or at least has done nothing otherwise) but the embryo or fetus dies within her. It is a traumatic experience, and not something anyone tries to do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. I was misinterpreting the above. Completely agree with you. Anyway, having now read your second post I think the current wording can stand despite this "exception". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead is really not going to help anything. Ackoz, you have some good points. Have you checked out any of the backlog at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph? This argument has gone on for months and months, and if you want to talk about slaps in the face, you're just ignoring all the hours of discussion that went into the version you've decided is wrong. Please don't edit war the intro. Not all medical sources agree on the definition of abortion, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, a reliable, verifiable source, has: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee

You could've searched it yourself. Let's use the official WHO (World Health Organisation should be a trusted source, oder?) definition of abortion:

Abortion is termination of pregnancy (expulsion or extraction of embryo/fetus) before 22 weeks of gestation or below 500 g weight of fetus.

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_94_11/MSM_94_11_annexe3.en.html

You could have waited with the revert. That was kinda slap in my face. Now please be so good and add the reference to the article. I don't know how to do that :-) ackoz 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes .. and we can use the whole definition (even with the expulsion or extraction) as the main idea of the definition is "termination of pregnancy", and missed abortion is a terminated pregnancy. ackoz 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, nothing you've said here adequately addresses the reasons we had the intro the way we did. Namely, you're choosing, like medical sources choose, to frame the defintion of abortion in a way that assumes the pro-choice side of the debate. To define abortion as WHO does is to grant that the pro-life side is just wrong, and that abortion is not a life and death issue, fundamentally. I'm not a huge fan of the other version, which essentially grants the pro-life side the opportunity to frame the debate, but I was hoping to do some work on the to-do list before resurrecting that particular dead horse. Nevertheless, here we are. The definition you're suggesting is POV, and you're ignoring, not even deeming worth reply, the months of reasons backing up the version you don't like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I find 500 grams interesting, and a suitable supplement to the medical definition. What does Andrew c have to say? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You rang? 500g vs. 20 weeks vs. viablity. They all relate. It is extremely rare for a fetus to survive outside of the womb before 20 weeks gestation. It is rare for a fetus under 500g to survive. Because not all pregnancies are the same, there is not one single thing that you can point to and say "ah ha, if we took the fetus out now, it would survive". This is why I prefer the more vague term "viable", even if it isn't as precise as a numerical criteria, or combination there of. Anyway, I think fetal deaths under 500g are not considered neonatal by some definitions. It's all about relatively arbitrary categories for statistical purposes. --Andrew c 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, but is 500 grams part of enough medical definition(s), and if so do you consider it notable enough for inclusion in the abortion lead? Or is it a minor issue, only brought up by WHO and a few others? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a substantial proportion of the medical definitions we've seen here. The thing with medical definitions is, as Ackoz has reminded us, they're more "diagnostic criteria" than definitions. Medicine allows for some grey area and doesn't worry too much about it. In general, if it's before viability, usually taken to be around 20 weeks or 500 grams, then it counts. If it's borderline, then you make a judgement and call it something. Doctors are comfortable with that kind of "definition" because they're neither philosophers nor mathematicians. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO and Merriam-Webster

WHO (World Health Organisation) is superior to USA private company's dictionary, Merriam Webster. This definition is legally binding. You cannot diagnose an abortion if it doesn't meet this criteria + when it meets this criteria, it is abortion. What else do you want? Use legal, worldwide, functioning definitions, do not search consensus in the middle of your particular beliefs. This should be online encyclopedia, not editor's manifesto on abortion. WHO has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice. ackoz 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK and don't talk about months of incompetent reasons. Half of you is pro-life and half pro-choice, you have your battle here. That doesn't change the definition which was created and is used by professionals, is clearly understandable and binding. ackoz 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are. Let's not bring those into it. Your assertion that WHO has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice is... questionable. I don't happen to think that the current version is ideal, but... have you read the backlog? Wikipedia is not a medial sourcebook, it's written for a general audience. It's important to include the medical definition, but that doesn't mean we pretend it's the only one. For a lot of people, abortion is defined differently. There is not universal agreement that WHO's definition is the only valid one. There is a widely held belief that WHO's definition is an exercise in euphemism. We can't just steamroll that notion under the carpet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, no-ones beliefs, or lack thereof, are relevant at all. I have linked the sub-page on Ackoz' talk page, he can familiarize himself with the discussion there.

Word of advice: Repeating yourself is not illuminating; stating variations on "I am right and you are wrong" is beyond unhelpful, it is counter-productive. I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL and attempt to treat your fellow editors with a little more courtesy and patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, Ackoz is right that the current definition gives too much to the pro-life side, allowing abortion to be defined in their chosen terms. This too-soon reawakening of the debate is good evidence that we aren't there yet. I'd really love to attack the to-do list before working on the lead again, though... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree on both points - that last debate took months, but as you see above my first response was "He's right." However, we now have two issues with the intro - is it accurate and non-biased, and the way Ackoz is approaching this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no other way to approach it. As I already said on your talkpage KillerChihuahua, wikipedia is NOT a democracy and I went ahead and corrected a factually incomplete article - the intro is now better - it is shorter, contains the official definition AND includes the 500 g thing. PLUS there is no pro-choice or pro-life in it, as it is just the barebone codified definition for diagnostic use. I am really proud of myself. G'night ackoz 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life people would clarify a "barebone codified definition for diagnostic use" is a pro-choice definition, removing any emotion or hint of controversy on the issue. I applaud your goals, but your attempt of neutrality through sticking strictly to the medical definition is, I think, impractical for an encyclopedia. Even one with a scientific preference. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make a terribly outrageous proposal, but why not simply use my two definition version as a more stable, but still temporary place holder for the illusive white whale of a "perfect" opener. I feel that the 2 definition version deals with the POV issues better by not attempting to create a so-called 'neutral' definition that neither side seems to be able to agree upon. The biggest concerns were that G&E and patsw didn't think the scientific POV was 'accurate', and AnnH thought putting the scientific view first was giving it too much prominence. Maybe these issues can be tackled another day, but we could ease a number of the "death" concerns with my version (that still includes the death POV). I only bring this up because we have a version that a large number of editors have had their hands in, so we may not need to start from scratch for the 4th time. But I agree strongly with GTB that too much time has been invested in these few phrases when there IS still a to do list. --Andrew c 04:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All I needed at the time was a solid rationale that put the medical definition first in an encyclopedia (addressing AnnH's concern) and I would have gone with it. I asked for help on that and didn't get much, so I dropped it rather than trying to come up with and enforce something on my own. We do have the two definitions, the only potential problem I see is "death". No solution I've seen will resolve that any time soon. As to pro-choicers feeling entitled to removing an injustice; simply because of a word that has political connotations in their eyes... ain't a compelling reason to change the lead.

Anyway, yes... new bold editors engaging in edit wars needn't concern the entire abortion article; unless we feel the need to re-engage in another circus... soooooo, for the record I'd support Abortion/First paragraph now that I've tweaked out mass media and put in the new stuff that is agreed upon in the current lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... but I still see nonviable as a problem, as you just pointed out above there is no solid criteria for that. But I have stated to Homestarmy's objections that viability doesn't need to be foolproof in order for medicine to include viability in its definition. Maybe I am still conflicted about it. :"D It would be nice if we could include "considered" and 20 weeks gestation in the first sentence. Think that could work? RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO Intro

GTBacchus, I am not interested in your personal beliefs. I already participated in the discussion KillerChihuahua pointed me to. I have read enough. Read the article WHO. In healthcare in general, ther is no bigger autority on Earth. Moreover, the definition I proposed is the "codified" definition of abortion in most of the countries I know about - it is used to create statistics of mortality and birth-rates etc., and is unified because the data must be comparable. So now we have two definitions:

• Official definition of abortion, as used in legal systems and by health care providers worldwide.
• A result of a long discussion of Wikipedia editors, who are mostly unqualified and pushing their POV in either pro-life or pro-choice direction. A hybrid. The intro doesnt't even contain factual information about the 500 g limit - which defines abortion (i.e. the article as it is now is factually inaccurate). One of the problems with editors of wikipedia is, that they think that the consensus they reach in their petty little arguments represents the ultimate wisdom.

I suggest that we change the intro to contain the "WHO" definition. ackoz 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, if you're not interested in my personal beliefs, why do you keep alluding to them, as if you have any idea what they are? I haven't brought them up at all. I'd appreciate if we keep this non-personal, thank you.

I agree that we should include the WHO definition, and I invite you to considering the practical matter of how you do that, given the crowd of people watching this article. Have you familiarized yourself with the section Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#Spinoff discussion?? I suspect the seeds of the best intro we can write lie in there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do it this way, ok. I think the medical definition is enough. ackoz 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we aren't a medical dictionary; whether or not the WHO definition is legally binding and authoritative in healthcare isn't paramount here. As already mentioned the WHO definition is important, but your rationale is not. Please be more sensitive to the consensus; its there for a reason. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as RoyBoy says, isn't a medical sourcebook. Abortion, it turns out, is not just a medical procedure. It's also a controversial social and religious issue. In that context, the medical definition is irrelevant to many, for whom the only important thing is whether or not a developing human is being killed. If abortion only means pre-viability, then "abortion opponents" shouldn't have any problem with so-called "late-term abortions", right? I'm not even certain the medical definition is the most widely used one, which doesn't make it wrong, it just doesn't get a monopoly in the intro. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the WHO definition still an issue? If so, it may help to know that their definitions are mainly intended for statistical (reporting) purposes (see ICD). The purpose of these definitions is NOT to inform the lay public on the nature of the disease/condition/intervention in question. Also, the ICD is only legally binding in connection with (inter)national stats etc. of countries that have adopted it. Obviously it isn't legally binding for an encyclopedia in general, let alone in an article mainly describing induced abortion. AvB ÷ talk 00:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be logical to also put some information in there about how to get pregnant. These tips can help you get pregnant, but can also be seen as tips on how to stay away from pregnancy.

First-sentence comparison.

Take a look at Abortion in the United States, where it starts off with the following text:

In a medical sense, the word abortion refers to any pregnancy that does not end in live birth. In the debate, however, abortion is almost always used to mean "induced abortion," as contrasted to "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage".

Why is this fork more neutral and accurate than the main article?! It's embarassing. Al 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is more neutral, this prose is less straight forward "does not end". Also describing something by a negative is unencyclopedic IMO... unless of course that is how it is actually defined; and the medical def. seems conspicuously non-specific. The second sentence is great. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, abortion is defined in contrast to carrying a pregnancy to term, so that's perfectly normal. Note, however, that there is no D word here, yet it's quite clear and accurate. Al 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment on "actually defined" was in regard to its medical definition; and that may be how medical sources define it. I understand you regard the sentence as better than our current first sentence; and something like it should be adopted so that we can avoid death.

But I contend it is less clear as it specifies what abortion is not, rather than what it is. This approach wasn't used for that reason... "not a live birth" defines abortion, but it does not explain it. With that description it can allow the fetus to be absorbed by the mother and be called an abortion; while that doesn't occur of course, not defining what abortion actually is doesn't help one understand it. I agree its accurate and appropriate for a sub-page on abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be fairly useless to define an aardvark as an animal that is not an elephant. After all, there are more precise, positive definitions available. In contrast, we define an axolotl as a salamander that, even when sexually mature, does not leave its larval stage.

The question, then, is whether abortion is more like an aardvark or an axolotl. I suggest the latter. The hint is that abortion is a catch-all for any pregnancy that is not carried to term, for whatever reason. Al 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have tweaked "doesn't help one understand it" to "doesn't clearly encompass it". I agree it encompasses and defines abortion, but what it comes down to, is using "not live" or "not born" or "not carried to term" is less clear and not summarized; and especially using positive words like "live" to describe a termination simply isn't the right direction and swings the first paragraph pro-choice. If anything the Abortion in the United States lead should be tweaked first.

Yes, "death" biases the first sentence to pro-life; however not decidedly so. Many pro-choicers disagree; but I believe that is occuring because they have gotten use to their own politically correct verbiage on the issue; and have a real distaste for pro-life's reliance on such emotive language. Wikipedia doesn't rely on it, just uses it when appropriate; this cultural war of words needn't dictate acceptable words. There is of course good reason to not like "death", as fetuses that miscarry had no chance at a full life as they were non-viable (although its still technically correct that it dies); hence my growing preference for "termination"... although terminations failing is its a big word; not something we want a lot of in a lead and/or defining sentence. (in the medical definition context its appropriate)

"Death" remains clearer and shorter (more encyclopedic) than "does not end in live birth", while "termination" is more neutral. The United States lead doesn't change that in my opinion, rather that lead is a very subtle reminder of western countries cultural war of words... as does the Abortion lead, although more overt of course. Which is not ideal, but okay given the rest of the lead is sympathetic and neutral to abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the dreaded "D" word is that for humans in most countries in the world there are specific legal definitions for life and death requiring registration and (usually) certificates. By using the word "death" here it effectively accepts the position that life begins at conception which is not accepted legally or by many people. Sophia 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the unfortunate baggage of the "death" term. Death isn't merely biological, it is inherently a legal status. Consider that a person can be declared legally dead after being missing for a few years. More delicately, consider that someone considered dead in one jurisdiction may be considered alive in another. This is not a mere triviality: remember Terri Shiavo? "Death" is not only legally and emotionally encumbered but controversial. Contrast this with the neutral, medical "does not end in live birth". User:Alienus 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem however is, Sophia and Ali, that if we leave out the D word because of your baggage concern we might prevent any POV deductions on one side but start up POV deductions on the other side ("no problem with abortion) and also misstate biological reality, namely that death occurs. "Legal" death is another matter and the declaration of someone missing to be dead does not, as you will undoubtedly agree, kill that missing person, if still alive. The Terri Schiavo case is completely off topic, as she was both biologically and legally alive. Otherwise there would have been no legal struggle, no matter how anyone thinks about that issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's exactly wrong. The whole issue in the Shiavo case is that she wasn't alive. Sure, she had a heartbeat but her brain was fried. This is a fine example of two different meanings of death, and the legal mess that these differences cause. The phrase "does not end in live birth" does not have the baggage that "results in death" does, which is why it's preferable. Al 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Str1977 that we're on a tightrope, trying not to take on either side's baggage. Perhaps this is a good time to recall #Spinoff discussion? above, in which I suggested a version that actually addresses the fact of competing baggages in the opening paragraph. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we are talking about the d-word again, I'll restate my position. While a certain form of death does occur (obviously cellular death), other, more common uses of the word death are debated. Because one side thinks that the death of the fetus IS the defining aspect of abortion, it seems POV pushing to slip that aspect in. We have a large number of medical sources and dictionaries that can define abortion without using the d-word. I do not think that someone is going to come to wikipedia, have no idea what an abortion is, read our opening paragraph, and concluse that a premature birth or c-section is actually a type of abortion. My solution was to admit that there are POV in any definition, and to use two different definitions (medical vs. common, where the latter did use the D-word, just not in the lead). Finally, I think bringing up Schiavo is relevent because a significant portion of her brain was dead. It is a sticky issue, and death (at least one of the less common usages of the word) did apply. Similarly, a less common use of the word death obviously applies to an aborted fetus, but more common usages of the word are debated. Not being clear about what we mean by "death", or bringing that debate up in the first sentence seems to belong more to abortion debate than defining the actual procedure. If we can define chemotherapy without mentioning the death of the cancer cells in the lead, if we can define meat without refering to the death of animals in the lead, etc, I think we can define abortion without menting death in the lead. I think everyone agrees that the d-word does slant things towards a POV. (just as adding the death of animals in meat would tilt towards the vegetarian POV). --Andrew c 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Al 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, but I don't think we can just ignore the debate in the lead. Defining abortion as if it isn't about death is already taking the stance that it isn't, just as defining it as if it is about death, is already taking the stance that it is. Neither is neutral. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll start version 6.0. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 6.0

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its termination. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means.

The common definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon because of moral disagreements. Some define abortion as any induced procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus. Others dispute the validity of this definition based on legal requirements of death and/or differing perspectives on personhood and when a life begins. Medically, abortion is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is considered nonviable.

There have been various methods of inducing abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Original template:

An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon. From a medical perspective it is variously defined as XXXXX, YYYYY, or ZZZZZ.</ref, etc.> From a legal or moral perspective, some define an abortion as any procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus.</ref> Others dispute the validity of this definition.</ref>

Comments:

Wikified and merged with version 5.2. The first paragraph should remain a straight forward definition; the moral quibbles aren't relevant to defining what an abortion is. Moved "moral" as it implies one is moral and the other is not; placed it at the beginning as a definition can be agreed, but the morality is at issue. Added "common" as the technical definition (1st paragraph) is not in dispute.

There are two problems with this version for me, putting termination (a technical term) in the defining sentence; and almost brings back the "debate of abortion" into the "abortion" lead. Although this time, we are focused on the definition of abortion itself... so might be alright. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of my version is to put off the precise definition until we've addressed the fact that it's gonna be POV, and that's why we're giving two. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The technical definition needn't be buried for that to take place; and what is "it"? From my perspective we are talking about how it is commonly spoke of, which can be set apart from a dry technical definition. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not buried. But any "straightforward definition" given unequivocally as the definition, puts us in one camp or the other. The current article's definition is the pro-life side's favored one. Replacing it with the pro-choice definition is a step sideways, and I'm not going to all the trouble for one of those.

What I meant by "it's gonna be POV" is that any definition is going to be POV - all the words we can use have been claimed by one side or the other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We are on the same page with sidestepping, that's why you and I supported "death". But termination hasn't really claimed by any one side, although it is slightly pro-choice as a technical term; so seems to be the best word. While I'm interested to see how this plays out, my immediate thought is, this would end up being a really subtle disclaimer... instead of a summary straight forward lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My basic suggestion is this: acknowledge that there exist multiple definitions, then give some. "Termination" in the first sentence of the template above could be replaced with "ending" and I'd be just as happy, if not happier with it. You're right about "termination" being slightly pro-choice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing it that way does immediately clarify there is "a" controversy. On the flip side I don't want that controversy to take precedent over giving an immediate summary definition like Encarta or any other encyclopedia. What I'm getting at is there actually isn't meaningful multiple definitions on what abortion is; rather there is multiple perspectives (morality) expressed as a matter of style rather than substance (objective description). Placing the controversy first doesn't seem encyclopedic, and could actually confuse the reader into thinking there is controversy over what an abortion actually is (rather than a controversy over the moral implications of an abortion). So that's why I'm still pretty sure any controversy is secondary to a summary description. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a controversy over what an abortion is. There are multiple definitions, one framed medically, one framed morally. Neither is more correct, and to say that one the definition is to pick a side. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Okay... ummm, maybe we should leave v5.2; as we were clever enough to incorporate both. :'D Going into the controversy immediately seems like a great compromise, but bad style? Especially when compared to other encyclopedias. If we were to go forward on v6.x, I would say the medical definition can take precedence (as it does in other encyclopedias/sources) as we are encouraged to be sympathetic to the subject matter. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ending eh... seems a poor word to use... as if the fetus was a story that is ending. Terminate is technical (hence pro-choice), already used in the lead, but I prefer it over "ending". The reason ending sounds wrong, is even though "termination" is technically part of its primary definition; it is hardly ever used in that context. The second definition "conclusion" is more likely how it would be read, which is confusing and sounds awkward. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its ending. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means.

You wrote "Terminate is technical (hence pro-choice)". This is completely wrong.

Terminate is technical, hence neutral. Unfortunately, the "pro-life" groups would like to replace neutral, technical terminology with highly emotive and inaccurate terms. A rejection of this language game does not mean endorsing the opposing position. There is such a thing as neutrality, after all.

If you're going to keep making this mistake, then I will have to oppose any suggestion you make that is based on it. Al 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not do something like "termination (death)", with "death" in parenthesis, its like canceling out the strong pro-life connotation of it and I think it might balance it out, it does to me anyway. Homestarmy

Intriguing possibility, but with this new version I was trying to push any moral (emotional) language to the second paragraph. As death is there, it makes death in the first paragraph less necessary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, technical language simply is not neutral, any more than emotive language is - one side sees it as a technical concept, not an emotive one. The other side doesn't care about technicalities, and sees it as a moral issue. Agreeing that abortion is primarily a technical type of procedure is POV, because for many, that's not what it primarily is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted, but any language that situates abortion in technical (rather than emotional) terms is inherantly pro-choice. (after all, doctors who perform abortions use that word!) While I entirely agree its neutral, hence my preference for it, I cannot ignore the fact such language is considered POV by pro-lifers (removes moral considerations); similarly death is considered POV by pro-choicers (can imply personhood). However, since Wikipedia articles should indeed be sympathetic to its subject; termination is appropriate weight wise... at the same time despite appearances, I'm not in a rush to make version 6 live. Mainly because I'm concerned technical language is inappropriate for the defining sentence... then again we have embryo and fetus in the lead already; but termination could be pushing it for the first sentence. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The current live version seems the best one avaiable, since neither side with an agenda to push could feel that their POV is adequately represented in that version. While some (primarily those with pro-choice inclinations) may contend that including "death" in the first paragraph is biased, the same could be said by others (generally those with pro-life convictions) regarding the lead's use of "fetus". That said, the term "death", even if viewed as somewhat inaccurate, seems to be a more suitable description for what occurs to the fetus than a "termination" or "ending". The current version balances some perceived emotion with a healthy dose of reasoned text - why change it? By the way, kudos to everyone involved here for the sprit of co-operation and willingness to compromise. If only we could see something similar at Mother Teresa... Brisvegas 11:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention of pregnancy?

It was recently pointed out on another talk page that the current paragraph includes killing of pre-implanted embryos (which things like hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are suspected to sometimes do) in the abortion definition. Was this intentional? Lyrl 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I guess it depends on what definition of "embryo" you are using, but there has to be a way to clear that up. I always felt that "termination of a pregnancy" is a very very common phrase used in the cited definitions. However, some users objected because a) in the case of selective abortions (a minority for sure), the pregnancy isn't ended, just one (or more) of the multiple implants are removed and b) some users felt "termination" was a euphamism, although I was never convinced of this argument. Termination is used in the medical literature, in dictionary definitions, etc. Also, there are uses of the word "terminate" that connote negative things (terminator, exterminate, etc), so I don't see how it is used to 'soften' the reality of abortion. Maybe the next version could slip in "termination of a pregnancy" somewhere?--Andrew c 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was at some point. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Death?

Removed part of first line - how can a fetus/embryo die if it has never been born? Saying that abortion results in death is POV - and after searching, I can find no reputable source that also calls abortion death --Cooper-42 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This wording was the result of extensive debate. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and its archives. -Severa (!!!) 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can find few reputable sources that do (two out of nine) - The wikitionary doesn't, it is an 'operation to end pregnancy' accoring to MSN Encarta no mention of death in FreeDictionary whilst Dictionary.com has seven sources - Dictionary.com unabridged, American Heritage Dictionary, American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, WordNet and CanerWEB online medical dictionary make no mention of death - the word death only appears in the Merriam Webster's Dictionaries of Law and Medicine.

Are there any more that call it death? --Cooper-42 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And just looking at that archive - someone catalogued medical sources, 14 had no mention, 7 made a mention, of which only 3 of those included it in the definition - are wiki editors in the habit of contradicting medical definitions? --Cooper-42 12:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is death, in the technical sense, but the word 'death' has rather negative connotations. Perhaps we should consider a more clinical term. 'Termination', perhaps. -- Ec5618 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of medical definitions are variations on 'termination of pregnancy' - why is the wikipedia different?--Cooper-42 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this countless times. That death occurs during an abortion is an undisputable biological fact, though what it is that dies might be contentious. To leave out the fact of death is POV pushing to one side, just as "Abortion is the killing of an unborn human person" would be POV pushing to the other side. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what about termination of pregnancy? -- Ec5618 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but not enough. Avoiding the "death issue" by silencing the fact that death occurs (regardless of how one judges this fact) is POV pushing in its most extreme form. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The current listing is a compromise between two strong POV's. We must reject your replacement of "death" with "termination" for the same reason that we must reject the replacement I favor: "living human being" with "fetus or embryo." --BCSWowbagger 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so:

Ovulation & Menstruation: The death, disentigration and expulsion of an unfertilised egg?

Sneezing: A ... convulsive expulsion of air from the nose and mouth... Resulting in the death of thousands of human brain cells?

No one is going to use death in these contexts, as death is a weighted word. Yes, it is a death, yes, death occurs. If all of use here were medical professionals, we would probably accept it. But we are not, and death has connotations beyond clinical definition. Connotations which are not neutral. --Cooper-42 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So is "termination of pregnancy" weighted--weighted towards sterility and a hiding of what takes place during an abortion. Would you rename the article "death" to "termination"? Would you say that terrorists "terminate" civillians? No. That's ridiculous. And POV. Again, we have a compromise here, between two competing and implacable POV's. The use of "death" is usually applied only to living human beings, which is why it isn't applied to cells and ova--and precisely why it is appropriate for this article, especially as we do not note in our definition that a human life, not a clump of random cells, is the object of an abortion. To adopt my definition would take the article too far to the pro-life POV; to adopt yours would take it too far pro-choice.

The top paragraph is one of the most-edited paragraphs on Wikipedia, arrived at through one of the most painstaking, contentious consensus processes in Wikipedia history. Trust me when I say that this is as accurate and NPOV as it can be. Any further major adjustments, especially without first consulting the Talk page (which you did not do until after your edit, I note) is simply provocation, intended or not, for a massive edit war.--BCSWowbagger 00:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion on the use of 'death' yet but I don't really agree with the argument you're using BCSWowbagger when you said "Would you rename the article "death" to "termination"?" It's not a valid parallel example - civilians are clearly fully formed individuals whereas there is no current concensus (and there won't be one here right now) on whether embryos/fetuses are in fact individuals. Still Cooper-42 should've obviously proposed the change on the Talk page. If there are others interested I think we should open it up for debate/vote? - I may have missed it but I didn't see a clear dissemination on the usage of the word 'death' in the archive you pointed out. --Artificialard 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to draw a direct parallel to the article. I was drawing a parallel to Cooper-42's argument, where he complained that we don't use "death" for cells, and trying to show that neither my parallel nor his were valid - cells are clearly not individuals and there is a strong consensus on that, so obviously we wouldn't use "death" for them, just as we wouldn't use "termination" for full-formed human beings. My point has been, and continues to be, that we have a compromise definition, that shares in language from both POV's in order to acheive the most delicate of NPOV balances. If we open death/termination up for a vote, I propose we do the same for "embryo and fetus" with "living human being," a motion that was proposed and struck down several weeks ago on the very POV grounds with which I am arguing. --BCSWowbagger 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - that makes much more now and in fact sways me in favor of your side of the current argument. I agree that changing the current definition or bringing it up to a definitive vote would probably open a can of worms and would negate a significant amount of prior collaboration to make it NPOV. Is there any possible way to work both sides into the statement? I'm thinking about this more and maybe able to propose an example later.--Artificialard 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Termination will do the trick but I don't believe death is incorrect, should we leave it at that. A biology question: If something is born alive is that to say it was ever dead? Do dead things become alive? Even more so: Is anyone here actually claiming there is some state that transcends life and death? Regardless, either word will work, let's just try to quelle the masses in what we pick.--Talv 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is, at its most neutral, a medical term.

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" is accurate and NPOV, the bit about death, is 'tacked on' at the end... Why?

As shown previously, the tiny minority of medical definitions actually refer to abortion as the 'death' of the fetus/embryo. Is the wikipedia in the habit of re-writing/re-phrasing academic definitions? --Cooper-42 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. A change of tactics, I see. However much we might like to pencil abortion into single categories that suit us best (and may make things easier to write), as a broadly-spanning encyclopedia, we can't just refer to it as a medical issue. If it did not cause the death of the embryo, no one would care about abortion; we have to acknowledge why people care in our lead paragraphs. That is, we must consider not merely the medical dimension of abortion, but also the ethical and moral dimensions in our opening. At least, that's the way I see it. Seriously, man, you may not mean to, but you are coming across as desperately pushing a POV in an attempt to bury this simple biological fact around which the entire abortion debate turns. Artificialard: thanks for understanding. If you come up with a good idea, I'd be glad to hear it, but I fear this one may be as impossible to fix as the famous WikiProject: Abortion Stub template. --BCSWowbagger 21:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus." would make the term abortion include c-sections and natural births. Talv: the fetus is definately alive the question is if that living thing is a person yet. After birth (and the umbilical cord is cut) the living creature is now an individual human. Calling it a person before birth is POV as is saying that it is not a person, saying that it is not alive is wrong. BCSWowbagger: I wouldn't say that "death" is only applied to "living human beings", death can be applied to any living creature (including a fetus), death can definately apply to horses,dogs, cats etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.4.189 (talk • contribs).

Hmm... true on all counts, Mr. Unsigned. I bow to your correction. --BCSWowbagger 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Death

I changed "causing its death" to "causing its termination" because "death" implies that the foetus is alive, which is not NPOV. User:The Lizard Wizard

I changed it back, because at least the death article is pertinent, while the termination article really isn't. Your objection has been raised before, and I agree that we don't have the most neutrally worded opening paragraph imaginable, but the solution is going to involve a lot more than just changing that one word. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we had this argument last week. Please, it doesn't take a read of the Talk archives to see these things. --BCSWowbagger 18:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that when I am scratching my nose, I am killing my skin cells? I don't get the difference between death and discontinuation of cell division. Death seems to describe a cell that has stopped functioning after it has already mature. Old people die the same way as an embryo does. The difference is that the mitotic cell division gradually slows down to the point where they stop their mitotic cell divisions and are unable to function as a life unit. I am anti-abortion so don't get my views confused, but I tend to look at everything scientifically, no matter how controversial it may be . plz do remember that wikipedian articles must have a neutral point view. --• Storkian • 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see and read all of: [46].LCP 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

rehashing old views

(in reply to User:Str1977) There are many mere biological facts that are not reported in this definition. As I have said in the past, the death of cancer cells is not the defining point of Chemotherapy, the death of sperm is not the defining point of male masturbation, the death of skin cells is not the defining point of scratching, etc. From cited sources, the vast majority of medical definitions do not include the D word. I never, ever tried to purge the POV that you are pushing. I always said included both. Have two definitions, the medical and the common definition, where the latter used the d word. However, focusing on death can clearly be POV. What would the meat article be like if it definied meat as the death of animals? Focusing on mere biological facts, by itself can be POV. I readily admit that we cannot make a definition of abortion that is cleansed of all POV, so my solution was to simply report multiple POV from cited sources, per wikipedia guidelines, instead of trying to create some new definition using original research in the name of faux neutrality. --Andrew c 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, just a quick reply:

• the difference is that all these others "deaths" are not in any way relevant to any debates. Hence leaving them out or posting them wouldn't make any difference. The issue really at hand is what or who it is that dies. We won't decide that here on WP but we also will not preclude the question by glossing over the fact that there is death occuring.
• Another issue is of course your joy in dehumanising language here. (And no: meat is not the death of animals, but the product of it. Of course, a meat article that would hide the fact that animals are killed for their meat would be just as ridiculous. If you wonder, I am a carnivore.)
• Two definitions is IMHO not suitable for an encyclopedia, especially when no medic in his right mind would dispute the common one. There is no POV difference in the definition, as long as all facts are presented. And no, it is not OR. Read the policy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add to that. Chemotherapy and male masturbation are not defined by cell death. Abortion is; fetal death is what distinguishes abortion from natural birth or c-section. Str1977 has a point about meat, as well; meat is the product, not the process. You'd more accurately use slaughter, which, in fact, does use the word "kill" (as in "kill it dead"). Your position of appealing to medical definitions is the most reasonable dissent I've heard so far, but I can't agree that those definitions are more precise, for the reasons I discussed above, or that the use of termination would be appropriate for Wikipedia, especially seeing as the termination article has no link to death and, in fact, links back to abortion with regards to termination of pregnancy. So it would be a logical loop to use "termination".

Where was I? Stupid other people in same room... Ah. Yes. I went back and found that list of medical sources you posted. It bears relinking: [47]. I don't have time to go over them right now, so I'll leave it there for the time being. --BCSWowbagger 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about the medical definitions linked to. From what I gathered, there were some not mentioning death, while others did mention it. Why should this be decided by a "majority vote of links", when the existence of medical definitions including death ipso facto refutes the claim that "death" is somehow un-medical. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer Str1997's concern, this is the epitome of POV pushing. Hypothetically, if we gave a definition from a specifically medical POV, and included the word "death" we'd be giving undue weight to a very small minority of the cited sources. As for BCSWowbagger. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, we are not required to have proper articles for all the techinical terms we use. Just because wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on this medical sense of the word "termination" does not mean we are forbidden from using that term. As for meat being a product of a dead animal, so is a dead fetus the product of an abortion. I still see the situations very aptly comparable. The other comparisons are ment to illustrate how mentioning something that is "a mere fact" can be seen as POV. To complicate matters, there is the whole issue of what sort of "death" is going on (and this matter is a real issue, just look at the recent RfC over at the Talk:Death.) Just as not mentioning death can be seen as pushing a POV, mentioning death can also be seen as POV from someone who believes the death of fetal cells is no more morally wrong that the death of tooth cells during an extraction, or the death of skin cells when one scratches. I am not saying I hold these POVs, just that the current wording is POV, and that there is NO WAY that I can see to "clense" the definition from POV (which isn't even the purpose of the NPOV policy in the first place). All this has lead me to say "include both POV". Besides, there are different meanings of the word "abortion" and there is nothing unencyclopedic about explaining the many uses of the word (how it can sometimes mean miscarriage, and how it sometimes only refers to pre-viability procedures, and how some people think the most important aspect of an abortion is the death of a pre-born human, etc). I'm not trying to hide POVs, I'm trying to a) include all relevent POV and b) specifically say where these POVs come from (a la the "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" section of the NPOV policy). What we have now is an unsourced, unqualified intro that has the illustion of neutrality, when there is still inherent POV. I still believe the safest thing to do is cite sources, state who hold these views, and include all relevent views. As seen from the constant edit warring that hasn't gone away, this issue isn't going to go away. People are going to see the d-word and shout bias (just as I imagine if we removed the d-word completely from the intro, we'd have people shouting in the other direction). We can't simply keep saying "this is the best compromise we've had so far, and we are tired of working on a solution," and we can't say "there is nothing biased about the intro" and make it true. If we admit there is bias, qualify it, cite it, then I believe we can avoid these issues. Acting like there is no bias is the problem. (remember, "neutral-POV", not "No-POV").--Andrew c 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can not rely on a minority of medical sources. That would be POV. Secondly, I want to say that I am not criticizing you for intentionally pushing POV. I am seeing an honest attempt at improving the article from you. I simply disagree with the content of your changes, because I believe that they are POV. I very much believe that you are acting in good faith.

Response to points about me: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see your point. We are not a dictionary; we are an encyclopedia. WP:LEAD is very clear that "the lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms." This involves defining them, and, by your own admission, we are supposed to define "abortion" in a manner that both clearly defines it and explains the context in which it is important.

Furthermore, we are not required to have proper articles for all the techinical terms we use. My point, with regards to termination, is that the word "termination" is only relevant to the fetus insofar as "termination" is a synonym for "death." Indeed, the only way to use it with regards to the fetus would be to say something like "...caused by, or resulting in, the termination of its life," because you can not end a fetus; you can only end its life. (If referring to the pregnancy, "termination" would be appropriate, since the pregnancy itself is being brought to its end or "terminus.") I brought up the link because the people at the termination article seem to understand that. People here do not.

As for meat being a product of a dead animal, so is a dead fetus the product of an abortion. I still see the situations very aptly comparable. Yes, but this article isn't called dead fetus; it is called abortion. The article on meat, logically, does not contain the word "death," but, logically, the article on slaughter does. I think this is a mostly minor point, but your use of other articles to back up your point simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because you are drawing imprecise analogies.

The other comparisons are ment to illustrate how mentioning something that is "a mere fact" can be seen as POV. The whole point here is that mentioning "death" is not a "mere fact": it may be "merely true," but fetal death is the central crux of this entire issue. It is the main reason abortion is notable, and it is the single most important part of contextualization of the issue.

To complicate matters, there is the whole issue of what sort of "death" is going on (and this matter is a real issue, just look at the recent RfC over at the Talk:Death.) There is no scientific question of what sort of death is going on. A member of species homo sapiens, with all the biological qualities of life, dies in an abortion. This is not cell death; this is the death of a separate, complex biological organism, and I defy anyone to find a biologist who says otherwise. The RfC at Talk:Death more closely relates to the cultural significance of the death of the unborn life and whether that life consitutes a person, which is a strictly philisophical issue that we go into more deeply later in the article and elsewhere in the WikiProject.

The rest of your response deals primarily with your longstanding idea of a "dual-definition" lead. I confess I don't really understand what you're looking for. We already have two defintions, although both could use cleanup: "Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." What are you looking for here? The current lead-in consists of 100% fact. It includes both POV's, with no undue weight. Could you, perhaps, post a proposal for a new version? I think this would be... what, 7.0 or 6.1? It would be easier to discuss a concrete proposal rather than vague generalities. --BCSWowbagger 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Could be v5.3, too. --BCSWowbagger 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It took longer than I expected for this to come up. - RoyBoy <sup>800 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only edited this article once in the past 3 months, and that was just to clean up some spacing issues. I don't know to what changes you are refering. Sorry about the confusion about dictionary. I understand the the first sentence lead is supposed to be dictionary style. I was just critical of your reasoning behind not using termination because of the manner in which it is currently treated on wikipedia. We shouldn't let the current status of wikipedia effect our decisions, but instead, change the rest of wikipedia to fit cited sources if necessary. Does that make sense? If the termination article doesn't mention the medical use of the word, we can simply add it. It seemed like faulty logic to use that as a reason not to use the term. As for termination specifically, you are misusing the term. Termination is not a euphemism or synonym for death. Fetuses are not terminated, pregnancies are.

I'm sorry you don't like my analogies. All analogies fall apart on some level. I apologies that the bigger meaning behind the analogies were not communicated adequately. As for death, this is part of the bigger abortion debate. We cannot say what you said and called it settled, because this issue is still debated. Does a fetus have all the biological quantities of life? Is a unborn human a unique organism? Saying that this is a bigger sort of death than cell death is just a POV, and we cannot push that POV without qualifying it and giving the other perspective. I agree completely that the reason why pro-lifers find this issue so significant is that the fetal death "is the single most important part of contextualization of the issue." However, that is just one POV. It is obvious that this first sentence definition is problematic due to the edit changes that don't go away. Wikipedia can't say "we have decided that something more than cellular death has occured in an aboriton procedure, and that this is the single most important and defining aspect of an abortion and if you don't like it, we will protect the page".

As for specific proposals, I stand by my proposal that had consensus before the stacked vote. However, I am also content keeping things the way they are for the time being. I just needed to say "look, everyone, the reason why the intro still gets edited is because it isn't perfect. There is still POV in it, and we should at least acknowledge that. I can't act like we have the perfect solution, so I'm going to rant for a bit. But it seems like I am alone, standing on my soapbox, so I'll just step down."--Andrew c 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The pursuit of a perfect solution is a laudable goal, and as I've said I don't like death in the first sentence. However, I'm doubtful there is a definition that doesn't have potential POV in it; given the ambiguous nature of language. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And just because I am critical of the current version doesn't mean that I don't understand that it is the best we have done so far, and that there was strong consensus supporting this as a compromise for an issue that has so many extreme POVs.--Andrew c 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't keep trying to hash this out, as long as we all have gobs of spare time laying around. I mean, this is bound to come up again, so if all the current editors could present a united front, that would make it easier to defend whatever we end up using.

"I don't know to what changes you are refering." My bad. I meant to write "your proposed changes" would push a single POV. Proposed somehow got dropped somewhere between my mind and the keyboard. I agree that, if the rest of Wikipedia is doing something wrong, we should fix it, not conform to them; I was arguing that termination was doing it right, and showing it as precedent. Termination does refer to the termination of the pregnancy, by linking back to us. But the clause of the sentence in question refers to the fetus, which is not terminated, but killed. I noted this distinction in my last response, and I here reaffirm my agreement that a pregnancy receives termination, but the fetus receives death.

"I'm sorry you don't like my analogies. All analogies fall apart on some level." True, but mine, comparing abortion to slaughter (livestock) was better. Which was my point. As for the biological death of the fetus, it's immediately evident, based on the qualities of life, that a separate being is killed. I will acknowledge the debate over this when I see a credible source participating in it. Maybe I just live in a bubble, but I haven't seen it; the closest debate I've seen is whether or not the fetus is a parasite, but that concedes that it is alive. If you have a new source, please, bring it forward, but the debate seems to be over whether or not the living fetus has a right to life.

"As for specific proposals, I stand by my proposal that had consensus before the stacked vote." Would that be version 4.0.1? Or is there a later version that I'm not finding?

"However, I'm doubtful there is a definition that doesn't have potential POV in it; given the ambiguous nature of language." Exactly what Andrew's been saying all along. I still agree both with that and that multiple POV being included is the solution. And, while a perfect solution may be impossible, it doesn't hurt to try. Hey, we've got to get this to an FA someday, so we might as well keep trying, right?

If you still want to let this go until next time some anon editor strikes at the opening, I'm down wit' that, but I'm also more than willing to keep discussing this. Or I can just let you rant. That's cool too. ;) --BCSWowbagger 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys I'm considering terminating a pregnancy and when I read the sentence I definitively found it was carried with opinion. I'd change the 'death' to 'terminate'/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.217.219 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

According to sources we have looked up in the past, especially medial sources fetuses are never terminated. Pregnancies are terminated. Furthermore, when you change the word "death" to something else, we run the risk of using euphemisms. Though I don't care for your suggested change, that doesn't mean that I may not be sympathetic to your general complain. Do you have any other suggestions for change, or want to explain further why you feel the sentence carries an opinion? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Death

The opening sentence makes an assumption, namely that the aborted child is alive. But that is a point that is at the core of many discussions on the subject. So that sentence takes sides. And an encyclopedia needs to be neutral. Shouldn't it read something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy, through natural or artificial causes"? DirkvdM 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thousands of words have gone through the tubes discussing just this issue. I think the opening could still be improved to be made more neutral, but it hasn't been a priority to address it for some time. See Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, which has about 5 pages of its own archives, for a taste of the debate so far. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The aborted foetus does not 'die' for it never was a living thing, a foetus remains a mere parasite until upon delivery it takes its first breath. Comradeash 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if your "fetus = parasite" statement were correct, that wouldn't prove that the fetus doesn't die and is never living. Parasites, in fact, are alive, and do die. Go to the cagegory for parasites, and click on some of the articles. You'll find that ticks DIE at the end of a two-year LIFE CYCLE; that tapeworms LIVE in the digestive tract of vertebrates; and that head lice can be KILLED by a 1% permethrin or pyrethrin. AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is a human person or another type of living tissue (whether that tissue be a parasite, an animal, a human fetus, or some other thing just short of a human person) it can still die. I don't think it advances a POV to say that the fetus can do the same. It would advance a POV if there were reference to a person or baby dying.--Chaser T 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Before that whole discussion fires up again, isn't it easier to avoid the issue (and inherently choosing sides) by calling it a termination of pregnancy, as I suggested? That's nice and neutral, isn't it? DirkvdM 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not nice and neutral. To conceal that the fetus dies is inherently choosing sides. The fact that it dies shouldn't be shocking unless someone thinks it's a human. If I read an article about Hitler, I'm shocked, and I feel uncomfortable, because I happen to believe that it's abhorrent to kill Jews. If I read an article about treatment of head lice, I'm not shocked, and I don't feel in the least bit uncomfortable, because I happen to think there's nothing wrong with killing lice. So the word "death" only causes discomfort because of questions in the mind as to what it is that dies. That's why it would be extremely POV to put "baby" (which is what I believe) or "parasite" (which is what Comradeash apparantly believes) in the article. There's nothing wrong with death, unless the thing dying has a right to life, which the article does not assert. And, in addition, we've been through the argument many times that "termination of pregnancy" does not distinguish abortion from a live birth. AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But a live birth is also a termination of pregnancy, so that term doesn't work. -- Cat Whisperer 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add another topic under Notable precedents in discussion in the archives nav box. *sigh* When a cell dies, it is death. When an organ dies, it is death. When a fetus dies, it is death, regardless of whether you consider the fetus to be a vital human endowed with a soul, a forming mass of tissue, or something else. Death is death. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is a single cell or organ alive? That is open to discussion. If I lose an arm, does the arm die? Not in normal English. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat: that is a semantic argument (a word game, if you will). Termination of pregnancy is a technical term. Do a google search of the term. What is the first hit that uses the term to not be synonymous with abortion? #60, an employee manual having to do with maternity leave. The next hit is #113. I do not find the argument against this term compelling.--Andrew c 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And if that is a problem it is a matter of choosing between problems and picking the lesser one. Taking sides is a strict nono in Wikipedia. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is as good a time as any to suggest that there's a way to avoid taking a side in the first sentence. This came up before, but we didn't want to deal with it then, having just hammered out 5.3 versions of opening sentences.

The trouble is that whether you include or omit "death", you're seen as speaking from one side of the debate. Instead, we could begin with "An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is controversial...." Then we could quote two definitions, from very reliable sources, one with "death", one without, and note that each is problematic. Is that a feasible solution? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

At talk:abortion#Definition of abortion I have approached this in a broader sense, looking at various sources for a definition of abortion. Almost all definitions use a variation of 'premature termination of pregnancy' or 'termination of pregnancy before something, something '. Not one definition uses the word 'death' and only the Dutch dictionary uses the word 'life', but then in the sense that the foetus could not live outside the uterus. This avoids the issue of whether the foetus is alive. So the definition of abortion is not controversial at all. It's just the English Wikipedia as it is now that is the odd one out. DirkvdM 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of abortion

There is a continuing discussion over which definition of abortion to use in the intro. To resolve this (POV and OR), I've looked for some sources (what else can we use, especially if we can't agree?). The definition in dikke van dale, the de facto official Dutch dictionary is as follows (translated):

miscarriage, untimely birth, that is, during that period in which the foetus can not stay alive outside the uterus.

And then the definition of abortus provocatus:

artificially brought about miscarriage, termination of pregnancy

Not that this does not say whether the foetus is alive, thus avoiding that issue. Also note that the Wikipedias in other languages I can read don't use the word 'death' at all and all use variations of 'termination of pregnancy' or 'pregnancy-interruption'.

• Spanish: "la interrupción del embarazo antes de que el desarrollo del feto haya alcanzado las 20 semanas"
• French: "l'interruption avant son terme du processus de gestation"
• German: describes the process in stead of giving a definition, but this is a separate article form 'abortion', called 'pregnancy-termination'.
• Italian: "l'interruzione prematura di una gravidanza"
• Portuguese: "a interrupção (espontânea ou provocada) de uma gravidez antes do final do seu desenvolvimento normal"
• Dutch: voortijdig afbreken van een zwangerschap door (medisch) ingrijpen
• Indonesian: "berhentinya kehamilan"

(note that they all deal with 'abortus prenatalis', although some articles are about abortion in general.)
Also try googling "definition of abortion". I haven't quite looked through them all, but what I have seen all says pretty much the same thing. That's quite some concensus. The English Wikipedia is the odd one out here. DirkvdM 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read through the archives. We've been over a lot of this before. You may find the 21 definition list more a bit more thorough Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS.--Andrew c 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are reliable sources that use "death", and there are reliable sources that don't. A lot of sources that don't use "death" are written from a medical perspective, but the argument has been raised that Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, and that abortion is much of a political topic as it is a medical one. If we use the most clinical definition we can, then we're taking a position that abortion is more importantly seen as a clinical act than a moral one, which is already a biased stance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: someone moved this thread, claiming it's part of the 'death' dispute. But that's just part of it. It's very simple. There is a standard definition of abortion that (practically) all the sources agree upon. Giving a different definition is OR. This is so straightfroward that I'm tempted to change the article, but given the long dispute over the word 'death' I'll wait a bit. DirkvdM 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said the exact same thing before, that creating our own definition to cater to multiple POV is OR. My solution was a two definition solution which almost passed consensus. However it didn't. This version isn't perfect but it works. I personally have spent way too much time discussing this issue over the past year, when there is still a rather large to do list. Perhaps you may consider holding off this debate, and instead put your energies towards improving the actual content of this article. Then, after we have improved these other issues with the article, maybe we can tackle this issue again. Also, your posts are being moved, not because it is the 'death' dispute, per se, but because you are discussing the first paragraph. Note the title of this page. Historically, when we fill up the main article talk page, all progress and other discussions stop (however, I will say that there isn't really any ongoing progress or discussion to be disrupted). Anyway, would you consider putting this debate on pause and helping out with the to-do list instead? We obviously need help from other editors in this department.--Andrew c 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I echo what Andrew said above. I'm not attempting to be difficult, or to shoo away your topic because it's related to the "death" wording, but rather because this topic is relevant to the first paragraph more broadly. Earlier this year, the "death" and first paragraph discussions crowded out all others on the Main talk page, so we created this topical sub-page for the specific purpose of discussing the first paragraph. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem not to notice it in the archive box on Main talk; I have to move threads at least once a month. -Severa (!!!) 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to? You mean you do? DirkvdM 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And even when I knew there should be such a link, I still had a hard time finding it. No wonder others can't find it either. DirkvdM 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I always leave a post explaining why I've moved the thread and directing people here. It's hardly an anomaly that this article's discussion page should have topical sub-pages. Take Talk:Jesus, for instance. -Severa (!!!) 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The consensus on political correctness isn't the concern of the accurate and balanced English definition. The fact Encarta uses the word "death" removes OR from serious consideration. The fact it isn't in many other Wiki you've checked speaks more to the Wiki-process than to unassailable truths on the definition of abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This post keeps on being removed from the talk page and I don't feel like a revert war over that, so I'll continue here.

As far as I'm concerned this is about the intro giving the most used definition of abortion, which is something along the lines of the premature termination of pregnancy, through natural or aritificial causes. But some seem to find the inclusion of the word 'death' a big deal, so that needs to be addressed. I hadn't seen that other list of definitions before, and it indeed includes some that use the word death. However, those are just 4 out of 12 definitions. And that's not counting the sources I mentioned above, where I haven't found a definition using the word 'death'. Also note that all definitions using the word 'death' are from US sources, so maybe that's a factor here. The talk pages of the other Wikipedias hardly address the issue. Only in the Portugueses one there is one remark that the use of the word 'death' is inappropriate. The definition I copied above namely continues to say "muitas pessoas o definem como a morte do embrião ou feto", or "many people define it as the death of the foetus". Maybe that would be a good basis to satisfy the discussion here.

So what about "The medical definition of abortion is 'the premature termination of pregnancy, through natural or aritificial causes'. However, more moral definitions, especially in the USA, sometimes use the word 'death'. This touches on the difficult issue what what the definition of life is." That last bit is very open to change, but on the initial definition there is so much consensus that using any other definition would be OR.

There are really two issues here. One is whether the word 'death' should be used. I'd say that's an issue that needs to be addressed, so yes. The other is if that word should appear in the definition. I tend to disagree since that is not in keeping with the most common definitions. But another solution would be to use both a medical and a moral definition, as Andrew suggests.

And about stopping this discussion. If many people protest the present, deviating, definition, then something needs to be done about that. Such as giving both views. What could make more sense? DirkvdM 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I find your research good, your rationale sound and your intentions well placed. So if I'm brief and/or sound(ed) dismissive; it's only because I've spent what I consider too much time on this issue.

Death is not OR, so I'm just going to ignore that part.

At a key point in crafting the lead and in the debate I explicitly asked someone to help me justify putting the medical (termination) definition first. I couldn't come up with a rationale to do so; so the less technical moral (death) definition went first. Was that a mistake, *shrug*, not really... it was a choice based on defining the articles subject as quickly and simply as possible.

As such both views are given, although they indeed are not contrasted as you propose, but they needn't be since it is technically correct that a fetus dies. (meaning it is not merely a moral stance) While death does hint personhood (alive); using the term fetus hints not a person. So both views are being given, both in a subtle and more importantly summarized way.

Death only seems wrong because pro-choice semantics are more prevalent in Wikis and elsewhere.

While there was a time when termination seemed to be the reasonable/only wording to me; when a pro-life editor pointed out it (and other alternatives) are longer, avoiding the issue, and more technical wording and hence less encyclopedic (in those respects), I found that to be a compelling argument that our abortion definition was avoiding the obvious.

Now some have argued that "death" and "culture of death" are words used and defined by the pro-life movement; and to include them here regardless of its technical accuracy is therefore incorrect and/or naive. My response so far has been that "fetus" and "embryo" are defined predominantly by science and pro-choice advocates. So I really do feel it balances out; even though at first glance death sticks out like a sore thumb... but it sticks out because of socio-political, rather than technical/moral reasons. This touches on your astute U.S. centric point; as I hope I've explained, while that is true... it is equally possible European definitions do not accurately reflect worldwide opposition (moral demographics) on abortion. Either because it is less prevalent in those respective countries; or as I alluded to earlier; merely not yet reflected in the smaller and more "progressive" people logging into newer/smaller international Wikis.

As to putting both definitions and to elaborating on what death/termination imply, and who uses it makes the lead longer; and puts the abortion debate here rather than in its sub-article. Initially the lead second paragraph elaborated on the debate; but that was rejected as awkward and unnecessary.

In the end it would undoubtedly be easier to remove death; and avoid someone new every month trying their level best to "improve" the lead... and your original point of having agreement among Wiki definitions is reasonable and brought up by Andrew among others previously. To sum up, the current lead is accurate, short, clear and I (currently) think a better and more inclusive definition than other Wikis. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if only we could remove death. :) DirkvdM 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that "pro-choice semantics are more prevalent in Wikis". Both views are represented, and, if we're interpreting the prevalence of medical terms like "fetus" over colloquial terms, like "unborn child," as being representative of an imbalance, I think it's a misinterpretation. Both "fetus" and "unborn child" have semantic issues, "fetus" being sterile, dehumanizing, in the minds of some, and "unborn child" emotionalized, loaded in the minds of others. But both, in general, are neutral; true examples of non-neutral, slanted language would be "clump of tissue" or "pre-born human baby". -Severa (!!!) 08:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I almost forgot, I think the technical (and primary) reason why I eventually found death preferable, is because Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. Primary definitions using "terminate", I think, are more technical and therefore less encyclopedic; ironically I just realized Encarta's definition uses termination and death in the lead. LOL... what a tangled semantic web we weave. I guess I should tweak that to say, primary definitions that rely on terminate. Perhaps, I should have just written this paragraph rather than all that stuff above :"D; but I suppose it helps clarify death isn't wrong... or at least not clearly wrong. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For it to be technically correct that the foetus dies, there would have to be an unambiguous technical definition of life, which there isn't. That's the whole issue in the forced abortion issue. It is considered permissible because the foetus is not conisdered alive. Death can only occur to something that is alive (using the word is not a hint but a statement), so stating that the foetus dies is POV. Added to that, using a definition that deviates from the majority of the definitions is OR.

Btw, I'm also pro-life. I believe that word is hijacked in the US by the anti-abortion movement, making others look like murderers. I'm not pro-murder. I'm a philosopher. :) Also, I'm not basing my proposal on a specifically European pov, just on what I find on the web. If other cultures are underrepresented I can't help that. That's a problem all over Wikipedia. Anyway, I tried to find a wording that is as little pov as possible and I don't see how 'premature termination of pregnancy' can be improved upon. Except that 'terminate' might be replaced with 'end', to avoid associations people might have with 'death'. :) Other than that it's short, neutral and accurate. Any other, more complex considerations can then follow.

Wikipedia may not be a medical encyclopedia, but this is a medical subject. Which can be a medical condition (natural abortion) or a medical procedure (forced abortion). About the latter, of course, there can be moral opinions, which should also be explained. After the definition. DirkvdM 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but, again, I like we need to take into account cultural differences and how it can subtlely effect the process of writing an article. For instance, above, you refer to "forced abortion." I assume, in other languages, this is a literal English translation of the term for "induced abortion" or "artificial abortion," but in English "forced abortion" is used to refer "compulsory," "mandatory," or "coercive" abortion, i.e. when a woman is forced to terminate a pregnancy against her will.

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be consistency throughout all Wikipedias, but, I don't think it should come about by imposing a universal standard at the expense of cultural or linguistic subtleties. After all, the Dutch Wikipedia is written for Dutch readers, the French Wikipedia for French readers, the Japanese Wikipedia for Japanese readers, etc. I don't see why the English Wikipedia, alone, should bear the burden of being written to suit everyone, or why the global perspective standards applied throughout EnWiki should be much tougher than that applied to all other Wikis.

I, too, would prefer an introductory definition which focused on the "termination of pregnancy" angle more than the outcome of the fetus. But, a lot of time was dedicated to reaching a consensus, and it's a debate which I'd hestitate to reopen. I've almost come to the conclusion that no one is ever going to be 100% satisfied with the opening — including myself. But, perhaps, an arrangement such as the following could harmonize this article with foreign Wikipedias while still maintaining past consensus: "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy, consisting of the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." -Severa (!!!) 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I used a bad translation for abortus provocatus (which, btw, redirects here). And I don't mean to say Wikipedias should all be the same. I just meant that as an example. In other Wikipedias there is little or no dispute over the definition and the definitions are all pretty much the same. So it's not an issue elsewhere. The English Wikipedia is the only one where there seems to be a strong lobby to include word 'death' in the definition and I suspect that is because of a strong US influence. If so, that would make it POV. Or maybe I should call that bias (before you correct me again :) ). I don't get your point about the English Wikipedia having to bear extra burdens and why it should be different. It shouldn't. That's the whole point. You speak of a consensus, but all I see is disagreement.

Anyway, it's really the other definitions found on the Internet and elsewhere that count here. That's what should be the basis for the article. It should not be based on minority views/definitions. Whether that would constitute OR, POV or bias, I don't know. But it's obviously wrong.

The start of your definition looks good. But what's the point of that last phrase? If it adds anything it's POV. A POV held by a reasonably large group of people, but that should then be given in the ensuing moral discussion section (and maybe stipulated in the intro), but not in the definition. Why take the definition beyond the definition proper? It doesn't add anything. DirkvdM 07:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Going through the Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, and Indonesian Wikipedia links that you posted above, I found that none of their articles on abortion had substantial discussion pages, going back 2 years. The only exception was the German Wikipedia, where the article relating to abortion is a Featured Article, and thus has a discussion page spanning 3 archives.

English Wikipedia, according to the Main page, currently has two or more times as many articles as any other Wiki, and, thus, probably has a greater readership as well. I would thus attribute the differences between English Wikipedia's article on abortion and that of other language Wikipedias to higher activity on the discussion pages (24 pages of archives going back to 2001). More users have contributed to the article and thus it has deviated more from the Wiki "standard."

I wouldn't say that support for the inclusion of "death" is necessarily linked to a U.S. worldview. One supporter was AnnH, who is Irish, and Str1977, who is from Germany. Also, although I wouldn't say I support the inclusion of "death," I accept the consensus for it, and I'm Canadian. And there were American editors who objected to "death's" inclusion.

The purpose of my compromise definition was to address your concerns about this article deviating from those other Wikis, in the absence of some reference to "termination of pregnancy," while still maintaining the text others had agreed was important. Although some editors, myself included, object to the inclusion of the word "death" in the intro, many supported it. I can't condense 5 archives worth of discussion, but, many of your points have already been raised and addressed there. Removing the last portion of my proposed definition would be to disregard that prior consensus and to cut the compromise off at its knees. If we're going to remove the text dealing with death, it'll have to be after agreement between multiple users, not just you and I. That said, of course, there's a lot to be done around here, and I'd rather dedicate my time to improving the article in ways mentioned on the to-do list than reopening this debate. -Severa (!!!) 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there is the source of your confusion; the fetus is certainly alive. The technical definition of life is easily defined, ingestion, respiration, procreation. An embyro, let alone a fetus, ingests nutrients, expels waste and it procreates (grows) through rapid division. Personhood (alive) is a matter of philosophical concern for abortion, not life. It is a developing lifeform, and it most certainly can and does die when it is aborted. One definition of "aborted" is ceased growth. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RoyBoy, but are you replying to I or Dirk? Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Dirk's lack of a definition to life. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with royboy, at least on a biological level the fetus is undeniably alive, and after abortion it's dead. Beforehand fingers are popping out and legs are kicking, and afterward? It's certainly strange to assert that abortion doesn't result in the death of the fetus. "A technical definition of life?" Come on, the thing's alive and then it's dead, it shouldn't be so controversial --froth^T 13:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Before a tonsillectomy, the cells in my tonsils show all the signs of life. The cells organize together to make an organ. The cells reproduce via mitosis and grow. The cells metabolize energy supplied by blood. The cells will respond to stimuli and adapt, for instance if infected with Streptococcal pharyngitis. My tonsils are obviously alive. But do we define a tonsillectomy as "The removal of expulsion of the tonsils from the throat, caused by or resulting in their death"? (and I know a fetus and an organ aren't necessarily the same thing, but all analogies fail at some point). I personally do not believe the defining aspect of an abortion is the death of the fetus (because the placenta and membranes are clearly alive, and an abortion results in their death as well). One point of view, that clearly frames the matter in terms of life and death do focus on the death of the fetus as the most important aspect of an abortion. So I believe framing the definition in these terms is playing to that POV. My solution was to include two definitions, a medical/technical definition that didn't use death and focused on the termination of a pregnancy, and a common definition that focused on the death of the fetus. I never tried to create one single definition, because I acknowledged that there were multiple POVs. Instead, I tried to included many different relevent POVs. Now I don't mean to be dwelling on the past, but I still stand by the inclusion of "death" being controversial and am still searching for some solution.-Andrew c 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

in many places

The end of the lead was changed to this from "in many parts of the world". Personally I find "places" weaker and less specific. World by its nature is more of a worldwide view that Wikipedia wants us to adopt in articles. Thoughts? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This was changed by Resonanteye as part of an effort to trim down article size through copyediting (see the thread, "Word count and grammar"). His edit is a good step toward that goal, but I see now, "in many places" is a lot more ambiguous than "in many parts of the world." Technically, "places" could refer to Mars, Io, or the Andromeda Galaxy — not exactly places where abortion is hotly debated among humans (at least, not yet). I suppose "in many parts of the world" puts the debate in a more appropriate context, so I've restored it. -Severa (!!!) 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't considered the galactic dynamic! There must be a bad joke in there somewhere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, too much Carl Sagan for me. Blame Pale Blue Dot for raising my consciousness to "earth chauvinism" or anthropocentrism or whatever you call it. -Severa (!!!) 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Severa suggestion

I was re-reading this section to pass the time, and I realized that Severa had made an interesting suggestion, which I had pretty much glanced over since I was focused on Dirk.

"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy, consisting of the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death."

I think that is a great suggestion; this might be because of my recent reading of the Encarta lead. Now I do still think "termination" is a touch technical for the defining sentence, but (just thinking out loud) perhaps a more general impediment is wanting to avoid repeating the words "pregnancy" and "termination" in the lead. I suppose the biggest "problem" with it is that it wouldn't accomplish what it set out to do... to take the sting out "death". If it actually helped do that, then it should be used in my opinion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I interpret "termination" in an entirely non-technical sense, i.e., not as a synonym of "death," but of "stopping" or "ending." In that context, then, the opening of the sentence would read "an abortion is the premature ending of pregnancy." If you don't read it as a synonym of "death," perhaps it does take the sting out out of the word. -Severa (!!!) 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cefaro Suggestion

Cefaro suggested a very sensible edit to the first paragraph, but it was reverted for lack of discussion on this page. Well, I'd like to say I support it. The first paragraph now says:

"Commonly, 'abortion' refers to an induced procedure at any point during pregnancy; medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable."

Cefaro raised the point that the "common" understanding in the first part of this sentence is not phrased in common language at all. Cefaro is correct. Cefaro instead proposed this:

"Commonly, abortion refers to the deliberate early termination of pregnancy, resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus; medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable."

Does anyone object to this change? It makes a lot of sense to me.Ferrylodge 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We want to avoid repetitious language and we also want to specifically avoid using the word death again. Abortion is already defined in the first two sentences. So its hard, from my perspective as a native English reader, to justify repeating it for a common definition. If "procedure" is the difficulty, it might be changed to "event" or possibly "abortion"... though at first glance those are poor substitutes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RoyBoy, if non-repetition of the word "death" is desired, then Cefaro's suggestion could easily be modified: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, 'abortion' refers to a deliberate termination of fetal or embryonic life at any point during pregnancy; medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable."

Incidentally, are you sure that the medical definition of this word does not include induced termination of a viable fetus? Don't doctors call that an abortion too?Ferrylodge 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a better suggestion. As to viable terminations; doctors define those as "Late-term abortions". So the word abortion is there, but it isn't simply referred to as an "abortion". Give it a few days and see what others think of your suggestion. I might message some people/admins for input; a sticking point is the word "life" is pro-life. Although that isn't a bad thing in itself, more than a few people think having "death" in the lead already gives more than enough space for the pro-life point of view. If "life" were removed it would more likely be implemented:

Commonly, 'abortion' refers to a deliberate termination of a fetus or embryo at any point during pregnancy;

"Life" doesn't seem necessary to make the sentence work; the second thing I focus on for leads after NPOV is making things as tight and short as possible. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would change "termination" to "destruction". Otherwise, it sounds like the fetus or embryo is being given a pink slip.

Regarding late-term abortions, any competent member of the medical profession would tell you that they are a form of abortion, just like early-term abortions and mid-term abortions are forms of abortion. To say that a late-term abortion is not an abortion is incorrect, it seems to me.Ferrylodge 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the longstanding version over this new proposal. It introduces a lot of redundency, and both suggestions continue to frame the definition in terms of life and death (something that is very important to a certain POV). It has been hard to keep a balance in the intro. On top of that, the redundency: both suggestions are repeating the first sentence but adding the two bits of information "deliberate" and "any point". You can see that the only additional information provided in the proposal is already included in the longstanding text. "Induced" is a very common technical term. I also beleive it is easily understood by lay readers. Same for "procedure" and "termination". I see no reason to 'dumb' it down. The whole point of this section is to say "commonly, abortion refers to the act of a pregnant woman going to a clinic or hospital to end her pregnancy, although technically speaking, 'abortion' only occurs before viablity and includes miscarriages". So the initial proposal changed the language to an extent that lost the intended purpose of the sentence (which is to contrast the common usage with the technical definition).

Now you also bring up the issue of the technical definition. All I am going to say for now is to please read the achives and trust me when I say that in medical dictionaries and literature, "abortions" technically stop around viability. (plus, to disagree with Roy, the term "late-term abortion" also gets a very low number of hits on pubmed). To recap what I said a while ago, we basically have 2 definitions. The medical one that includes miscarriages but stops at ~20 weeks, and the 'common' one that does not include miscarriage, but includes late-term procedures (both definitions of abortion exclude stillbirths). The longstanding intro was worked on by a large number of editors to get the best wording to include this information. I do not see the new proposals as an improvement. - Andrew c

Interesting suggestion, although destruction has been rejected in the past as too violent; it may be an option here in order to avoid repetition. But it could get as much resistance as "life" would.

As to late-term abortions; I wasn't maintaining they are not abortions... I am saying medical professionals will make a distinction between the two and that they won't/shouldn't be sloppy enough to call it just "an abortion". My understanding is they (experts involved) have to make a distinction because it involves different bio-ethical protocols as a result of possible or ambiguous viability. There was some discussion on this topic in Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 5 because we had to decide whether to even mention late-term abortions in the lead. It was ultimately decided, since they are very rare, and hardly referred to in the literature as "abortions" (Andrew c looked into it), that they weren't notable enough to mention and abortion experts don't consider them as simply an "abortion". Now if doctors refer anecdotally to them as an "abortion", I'd say they are using the common definition and it isn't a bonafide medical definition. They are both certainly abortions, but experts involved do make a distinction. Andrew c could likely elaborate further. (edit conflict, speak of the devil) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many kinds of abortion require different medical protocols. That doesn't mean they're not abortions, medically speaking. To say that abortion is "medically...defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation...." excludes later abortions. Of course, post-viability abortions are uncommon, which makes it even more odd that Wikipedia is going out of its way to exclude them from the definition of "abortion."Ferrylodge 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[sarcasm]Yes, it is odd that wikipedia is following our cited sources, even if that means going against how the term is used in common parlance[/sarcasm]. Seriously, saying what we say is no more odd that pointing out that 12 of the 21 definition list (which includes non-medical sources) refer to viability or a gestational age. I feel strongly that this shouldn't be about what we think abortion should mean, but instead should follow our cited soures. We cannot ignore phrases like "before 20 weeks' gestation" or " prior to the stage of viability at about 20 weeks of gestation (fetus weighs less than 500 g)" that occur very commonly in our sources. We cannot ignore the language used by medical professionals in scholarly journals (via pubmed, etc).-Andrew c 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd have put it differently; in short Wikipedia is not excluding them. They are merely defined differently by medical experts; while more importantly, as Andrew c points out, an "abortion" medically speaking is defined very specifically. We want to illustrate that and show it is defined thusly for legal/bio-ethical reasons. Late term abortions, which are included in the common definition, simply aren't mentioned because of their rarity. They are excluded from the medical definition, but that isn't Wikipedia's fault. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that list Andrew C. I am aware of several additional sources that provide definitions of the word "abortion". May I add them to that list? The list says "Add any other sources you may have to list below", but the top of the page says, "Do not edit the contents of this page." Ferrylodge 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be best, and easier to list them here; as that list is old and we want to see these additional sources as part of this discussion thread. Keeps things in context. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it will take a little while to put them together. I just wasted my weekend on the definition of "stillbirth."Ferrylodge 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What might be best is to create a subpage subpage. Something like Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Definition where we can copy and paste the old sources, and add to the list. (and we can of course link to it at the top of the page)-Andrew c 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While that might organize things a bit, we could accomplish the same thing by having a *read this first* sticky section at the top (a section that isn't archived) which contains sources and notes for newcomers. Another subpage would further fragment an already complicated talk page structure. This should work assuming we can keep the section to a civilized length. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)