Talk:Abortion/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Nomenclature - Abortion/termination/miscarriage

In the UK, at least, the word miscarriage is used for 'spontaneous abortion', and termination is used for 'induced abortion'. The word abortion is not used, at least in the medical sense. I would edit but I'm not allowed, I thought someone could put it in for me?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.51.235 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 25 March 2007.

In the first paragraph discussion (see the top of the page and the archives for links to these discussions), some editors believed the word "termination" was a euphemism. I disagreed and said it was a technical medical term, (even here in the US for the most part). If we are to change the first paragraph, we would need to come up with a concreate proposal and make that on the subpages. What might be a better idea is if we added to or changed the information in the "Definitions" section. Do you happen to have an sources for the use of "termination" (all new content, especially controversial content, needs citation here at wikipedia). And do you have an specific wording proposals? Thanks for your comment, and remember to sign all talk page entries by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your posts. -Andrew c 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(Adam, good idea to mention "human" in 2nd sentence of intro instead of first. Gnixon 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Why is there no reference to the historically most common form of abortion by which the fetus is removed from the womb by natural birth before trauma is induced? "Infanticide" is probably the most widely accepted term, but because of editors aversion to the word for its social stigma in modern Western culture they could at least take the effort to find a more sterile terminology and add it to the article.GrEp 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The process of infanticide as described above actually involves natural childbirth and as such it is not connected to abortion -- unless one defines abortion as a means of population control rather than a termination of pregnancy. It would be problematic (to say the least) to suggest that wikipedia adopt such a definition. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Abortions performed for population control, cultural stigmas of unwed mothers, and genetic defect of the fetus may all be safer in some cases to be performed at the end of the third trimester without invasive surgery. This is especially true in areas without access to modern medicine, women who cannot afford a surgeon, and of historic context before the advent of modern medicine. In such cases, barring cultural aversion, why is this option not discussed? The rate of cesarean sections has grown rapidly in the last century. One must ask themselves if the choice for surgical intervention among obstetricians has been driven by the welfare of the patient, or economic interests of the surgeon.GrEp 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Choosing A instead of B does not make A the same as B, or a form of B, no matter what the reasons for the choice may be, no matter whether or not the end result is the same.

More specifically, infanticide is not the same as abortion, not by any definition of either term that I am aware of. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As defined by the article, "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Trauma to the fetus once safely passed through the uterus and vagina, without surgical intervention, certainly seems to fall under this definition. I concede the syntax of the "i" word might not be an optimal choice, but a description of the practice should be included in the article.GrEp 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Effects of abortion in educational achievement

A new study, by the authors of the mental health & abortion study [1]. Unfortunately, no information on where the paper is being published tho Nil Einne 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Breast Cancer Link area is one-sided

Where is there any mentioning of the fact that 13 of 14 studies have found links of breast cancer to abortion? This area of the article needs revamping and a non-biased viewpoint. There have been numerous studies that confirm a link that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and biological reasons that support it. To only state one side of the issue hampers this site's claim as an encyclopedia.Kaneti 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the ABC section is very strong the way it is. It is sourced, and neutral. It presents both sides without giving undue weight to minority views. It seems like the majority view is that there is no ABC link. No major cancer organization recognizes abortion as a risk factor, and a large number of recent studies have found no link (we cite those studies in the article). However, we do mention the rat studies that found a link, and we do mention the interview based studies that found a link as well. We present both sides, neutrally. Can you explain to me how the section is biased? or more importantly, where it breaks out NPOV policy? How would you change the ABC section to be more accurate and neutral?-Andrew c 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Kaneti: You mention 13 out of 14 studies. Could you provide sources to these studies, discuss whether they are in peer-reviewed journals, and mention the scope conditions. Are there any meta-analyses? Such things would make your argument more persuasive. Best, Bellagio99 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What this user is referring to is 13 out of 14 American studies. All of them to my knowledge are peer reviewed. However, this aspect is mentioned in the following line: "that the majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and that some are statistically significant.[41]" To answer your question, yes there are a meta-analysis, which are in the parent article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is not a shred of peer-reviewed, credible evidence in the medical literature linking abortion with breast CA. Indeed, even the CDC, which reopened the issue a few years ago and convened an expert panel, came to the same conclusion, and this was under the current anti-choice administration in Washington--Dtoub 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Partial Birth Abortion

This is real good news, but somebody should expand on how the procedure is done. I've created partial birth abortion section which is important, i gave the dates and details. The law and partial birth abortion, may go together, do not delete, but create sub-section insead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 April 2007.

I'm afraid the title "Partial Birth Abortion" might be politically charged; it's a term invented by politicos outside the medical community. I suggest either the medical term "Intact Dilation and Extraction" or the broader and more accessible "Late-Term Abortion," which can describe other types of procedures done in the third trimester. --Swieland 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Partial Birth Abortion" is not a term recognized by the medical community. The correct term is either Intact Dilatation and Extraction or D&X.--Dtoub 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

PBA section

We don't even have a subsection for Roe v. Wade, let alone R. v. Morgentaler or the Irish constitution. Why should we have a section on a Supreme court ruling that only effects the US? We have Abortion in the United States and Abortion law and 3 different articles that cover this topic (IDX, Gonzales vs. Carhart, and the PBA Ban Act). Wikipedia is written for a world wide audience, and the top tier article should not have this much detail about one countries laws. And it is backwards to have sections on this latest ruling, when we don't even have sections on more important previous rulings. Therefore, this latest edit does not have consensus and goes against the spirit of this article as established in the past here on talk and would propose removing it until a compromise is met. But I can see no justification for singling out a recent ruling in US courts, but not mentioning the recent Portugal abortion law. We can only fit so much in a top tier article. -Andrew c 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Roe vs Wade is a given and that is what started the abortion in this country, it's already well mentioned in all of the article. Also keep in mind, THIS IS A HUGE MILESTONE IN THIS COUNTRY AND FOR ANTI ABORTION FIGHT. That's why I removed the section and created the sub section, as explained succinctly. As far as the Portuguese law goes, keep in mind that is for abortion, nothing new there. Foremanfan

I myself think it is important, but at the same token that addition needs a lot of clean up and references. Some things can be removed such as when the law will be enforced or the penalty for breaking this new law. But it should at least be mentioned even if other judgments across the Globe have not yet been written. Besides, the USA is the most watched country in the World!Gilawson 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c is right, this maybe should be put into the article Abortion in the Unites States. I guess there has been and always will be the debates about this due to overlap between the different articles that cover "Abortion". Gilawson 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Andrew c. Saying "In this country... IN THIS COUNTRY" is all very well, but "this" is the internet. The relevance of this material to the top-tier issue of abortion is debatable at best. I believe that the Abortion law article is the correct place to discuss current events in US abortion law. Posting new material without consensus and then reverting without consensus is simply no way to behave. SheffieldSteel 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to say in this country, I am not a heavy user, for a second I forgot this place is used by many people, well... Simply change any minor mistakes I made, be my guest. New material ? That's right, wikipedia is a place where up to date information is placed and this is of huge importance, so why are you sayint things which make no sense. Again, this is a subsection under law, not new paragraph or may be you are one of those pro abortionists instead of neutral editors? This is news of importance for both sides. Besides, who gives you the right to reverse everything, some things are of importance. (if you do not like everything) That is very very very rude.Foremanfan

It's not a question of whether I have a right, but of how we should all behave here. "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." That is written on this very page. Rather than accusing me of holding a particular position, and describing that in a pejorative manner, your goal ought to be to seek consensus that this material is relevant and notable enough that it should be included in the top-tier article, rather than a more specific sub-article such as Abortion law. And on that subject, my position can probably be summed up as: wikipedia is not a newspaper; we should not give undue weight to recent events simply because they are recent. I await other editors' opinions with interest. SheffieldSteel 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please sign talk page posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. This automatically creates the code for your username and time stamp. Also note, Foremanfan and User:Foremanfan are two different pages, one being a user page, and one being a redlinked article in the main article space. Next, I think a good compromise would to note the PBA Ban Act in a sentence after the bulleted point about US law In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion. I would propose something like "On a federal level, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed in 2003 and upheld by the Supreme Court, makes a specific abortion procedure, Intact dilation and extraction, illegal." It links to the 3 other main articles on the topic, and covers the recent history in a concise manner. Anything more than this, I believe, would be giving undue weight compared to how much we cover other countries and other laws/court cased.-Andrew c 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy, you always had a point here and there, but speaking of behavior, well then... why was the whole paragraph removed, remove it within 24 hours if the majority agrees, even if they are wrong, my word will not count much, but at least it is more civil. I said all there is to say, like I said, do not remove everything, add few things of importance, because I can bet you 1 000 000$ everywhere you go now, that is pro and anti abortion groups, they will both say this ABORTION RULING IS OF HUGE IMPORTANCE. This ruling, next to 1973, is most important. So if I wrote too much, it is civil not to revert, but just to mention few words, it's essential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 April 2007.

May be you should start abortion in USA topic, all by itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2007

I agree with Andrew c to make some space for this judgment on this article, but not to make a section of it as that probably belongs in a different article. And I replied to Foremanfan on my Talk Page that there already is an article about abortion in USA - Abortion in the United States and he could search the related article links to find the appropriate article to create a section for the Supreme Court decision. Gilawson 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told there is an article abortion in usa, you should have told me, but no matter... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States Let's improve all abortion articles. 20:05, 19 April 2007 Foremanfan 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the PBA ban, it seems noteworthy that the federal courts (I can provide the jurisdiction) struck down the initial state version because it didn't possess a clause allowing for such abortions in cases where the mother's life is in danger. The 106th Congress then held what many Constitutional Law professors, including many originalists, conservatives, and judicial activism opponents, who view Roe as bad law, believe was outside the enumerated powers of the legislative branch; Congress may hold fact-finding, but is then expected to allow the states to legislate as they choose, when the issue is a state issue. Congress immediately promulgated the 2003 PBA Act federally, after hearing testimony from physicians that there was no possibility of a mother's possible death without the procedure. Congress' legislation omits this. I must state that, as i'm not a physician I cannot question the findings of fact. Nor is the issue clearly state or federal, as Roe and Casey still allow the states to regulate abortion within their bounds. So Congressional action may have been legal. The background seems useful, or does it seem biased. as a pro-choicer who understands how, and why each side feels as they do, I am interested in consensus. Along the same lines, one worry among many pro choice groups surrounds the South dakota Law, which bans abortion entirely, and exists merely to try to re-litigate casey and Roe. My personal feeling is these are both relevant but I certainly would not add them without feedback.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 17:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This is a top-tier article, as Andrew c has stated, and, as such, its duty is mainly to summarise the content of related sub-articles. It must balance the seemingly conflicting goals of thoroughness and concision. The "Abortion law" sub-section is intended to give a brief history of abortion legislation, focusing particularly on the major developments that shaped the abortion policies of nations, and to succinctly summarise some of the world's current abortion laws. It's written to be an examination of abortion law on a global scale and that is why the focus doesn't zoom in to a high level of regional specificity. We discuss Roe v. Wade, Abortion Act 1967, R. v. Morgentaler, and the Irish amendment because each of these developments shaped their respective country's entire abortion policy. Cases like Attorney General v. X and Gonzales v. Carhart only influenced a single aspect of the Irish and American abortion law (namely, the policy toward abortion in cases of rape for the former, and the policy toward a specific procedure for the latter). We simply do not have the space to cover these subjects here. That's why information that's very specific to a particular country should instead be included in a relevant sub-article. Abortion in the United States and Abortion in Ireland do not face the same limitations that we do here, because the purpose of those articles is to summarise abortion on a national level, whereas our duty here at Abortion is to summarise abortion on a global level. -Severa (!!!) 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidence of IDX

Regarding the sentence, "this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year" in the "Incidence" section," I think that this long-standing version of that sentence is preferable. Suggesting that IDX is the "least common" method of abortion in the U.S. is too conclusive — after all, the previous sentence is clear that the 2,200 IDX procedures per year figure is an estimate — while prefacing this statement with "considered to be" is editorializing. Let's cut down on unnecessary verbiage by simply quoting the statistic, and leaving it at that. -Severa (!!!) 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[Sorry, my bad.] Trying to improve rather than revert; it obviously didn't work out. SheffieldSteel 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. I find, though, that when you're dealing with a contentious issue, it's best to aim for prose that will be stable and resistent to frequent changes. If an editor desires to see a change to a long-standing, time-tested version of the text, it's probably better to defer to the older version, especially if the newer version is likely to be disputed. Discuss and approve it on Talk first; work out any possible kinks, so that the new version will be as stable as possible. I have found that sections which are prone to frequent changes tend to decrease in accuracy, neutrality, etc. over time. That's why I believe we should fireproof against such situations in the first place. Stating conclusively that X is Y, or framing the suggestion that X is Y with FUD-y adjectives like "alleged" or "supposed" is just an invitation for someone who disagrees to change it, which will then be changed back by someone who disagrees with them, and so forth. -Severa (!!!) 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscarriage source

The following source, "Your Lifestyle Can Impact Your Fertility," which was recently added to the "Definitions" section to support the claim that "stress and lifestyle" can cause miscarriage, does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. The source is an essay "written by AJ," which does not list any of its own sources, and which is hosted on a site filled with Google Ads. A reliable source should provide citations for the information it includes. A citation that does not meet the requirements of RS is not sufficient enough to support the inclusion of new information in a Wikipedia article. -Severa (!!!) 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The source was good and the information therein is what majority of doctors agree with. If it's incorrect, find better one.Foremanfan 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V [emphasis mine]: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." -Severa (!!!) 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, the problem lies with the fact that the "stress and lifestyle" information is unsourced, and that the source provided was insufficient, as outlined above. I obviously made an error in reverting, in that only the source was removed, and not the unsourced information. The information should be fully removed from the article until a reliable source is provided. I also do not feel that the "Definitions" section is the appropriate place to cover causes of miscarriage. The "Definitions" section is for outlining the meaning of terms; we have a separate "Miscarriage" section for discussing that topic. -Severa (!!!) 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of a reliable source, come on now folks, you are totally overdoing this, ask any doctor, then you will know I am correct, you find a source, I am not wasting time again, so it gets removed. Foremanfan 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the definition of a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." SheffieldSteel 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find this in about two seconds at Google. Sid Kirchheimer, "How Stress Causes Miscarriage; Hormonal Effects on Certain Cells May Trigger Chain Reaction to End Pregnancy," Web MD (June 5, 2003). CITED SOURCES: Endocrinology, June 2003. Human Reproduction, July 2001. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 1999. Theoharis C. Theohardies, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology, internal medicine and biochemistry, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Calvin J. Hobel, MD, vice chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; professor of obstetrics and gynecology, professor of pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine.Ferrylodge 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Given a reliable source, the discussion then becomes a question of whether or not stress as a cause of miscarriage should be added to the Definitions section, after this sentence "Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage): An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Most miscarriages are due to incorrect replication of chromosomes; they can also be caused by environmental factors."

Personally I think that starting a list of examples of environmental factors is opening a can of worms. Anyone else? SheffieldSteel 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I agree with what Severa said: "The Definitions section is for outlining the meaning of terms; we have a separate "Miscarriage" section for discussing that topic." SheffieldSteel 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section already discusses some causes and risk factors for miscarriage. I generally agree that detailed discussion of causes of miscarrage should be reserved for that section. -Severa (!!!) 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality (maybe too neutral?)

The neutrality of this article is annoying ...could it be a little less constrained? When talking about the MVA procedure it's simply stated (something like) "..emptying the contents of the unterus..." It's actually absurd, now, i know this has to be neutral as this is an encyclopedia entry however is painfully so.

Anyway, thats not the only example but its the only one i could think of off the top...

How's about we say fetus where fetus is do...

Wickedxjade 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "too neutral". As it is an extremely controversial topic, the neutrality is required, because slanting it (even slightly) one way or the other could start an edit war. To be honest, I'm surprised that we even still have the phrase "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.", so it's still not 100% neutral, although the goal is perfect neutrality. Spazure 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Interest in Modern Depictions?

I am fairly certain I can get the organization responsible for these (warning: may upset) photos[2] to release one into a creative commons license, which would allow posting here.

Is there any interest in a modern depiction showing what the article is talking about? I believe the authenticity of the age claims on these fetuses can be done in an unbiased way based on development signatures. (Also, the first link includes an authentication by an M.D.)

I was encouraged to post this query after reading another article[3] discussing that Wikipedia doesn't censor but allows depictions when they are directly related to the article. I am asking b/c since the page is locked the instructions recommend asking here first whether or not picture reference is a good idea. Dcsutherland 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to consider reading the 4 pages of archives linked to in the top box regarding "graphic pictures". There is a standing consensus not to include images here because of POV concerns from both sides of the debate. Additionally, it is difficult to find neutral images that are released under a free license (and thus usable on wikipedia). In the past, editors have been reluctant to change the previous consensus not to include images based on a proposal that doesn't have a free license. If you think your images will satisfy neutrality concerns from both sides, you are welcome to try and pursue obtaining an image with a free license, and then propose a specific, free, neutral images for use. But I ask you to please read the archived discussion before hand to know what you are getting into. Thanks for bringing up your concerns here on talk.-Andrew c 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to go through the archives. One new aspect that I I have already mentioned is that I believe I can get the copyright holders to release one of these into creative commons use, satisfying the "free license" requirement (likely to be an 'attribute' license). // I think I'll have to study a while to determine what a photo is that shows neutrality to see if this is possible. I might be getting ahead of myself in asking so I'll go ahead and read that section first. Thanks. Dcsutherland 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Andrew--I took your advice to look through the archive. Here are my conclusions.

1) If someone else wants to fight for the use of graphic pictures displaying the modern depiction of the abortion please contact me and I believe I can convince the rights-holders to release some photos or videos into a creative-commons license. (There is a good probability of this although after initiating it may take some time to process.)

2) According the Wikipedia's NPOV editor guidelines I might be considered too biased to present any content because of my relationship with the primary content holder and b/c it is such a controversial topic--apparently I am disqualified to present information if I am reading this correctly. While I don't know how anyone who can source original content won't be labeled biased in this subject this is a strike against me offering any content.

3) Although articles discussing Short Drop Hanging & pregnancy surely include shocking photos and shocking content (depending on who is reading and what they consider shocking) after reading the archived discussion on graphic pictures here[4][5] [6][7] I doubt that any photos regarding abortion which shock would be allowed on the subject of abortion. This in spite of the fact that arguably a majority believe the procedure is itself shocking, and thus the entry itself is shocking. I fear the NPOV falls apart with highly controversial material because no one can appear to be neutral.

4) I am too busy for a fight in providing photos for this topic, because unfortunately I think it would be a lost cause--not based on the spirit of wikipedia but based on what appears to be arbitrary application of wiki policy. Based on the conclusions after reading the archive regarding photos I do not believe the wikipedia editors will be unbiased and allow a "neutral" (i.e. facts-based) representation of the actual procedure, primarily because the pictures of the reality of the abortion are shocking, therefore accurate representation of the subject is seen as shocking and thus censored. Again, though if anyone else thinks they can convince the editors here to be neutral in this matter, please contact me for released photos.

I am trying to assume good faith but after reading the history of the discussion on this page please forgive me if it appears I am not. I am trying to be realistic about what appears to be the outcome of application and interpretation of wiki guidelines that have be decided here in the past. I encourage others with more time to represent the truth in ways that the editors allow.

Dcsutherland 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed Abortion

Information about the fact that abortions fail and, as a result, babies are born, is essential to this topic. To leave out this information is misleading. It is tantamount to implying that all open-heart surgeries are successful. The text I introduced was fact based, not POV specific, and authoritatively referenced. Andrew c removed this fact from the article, appealing to vague reasons having to do with the history of this topic. He seemed to indicate that the information is presented elsewhere, but I do not see it. I am reintroducing the material and the ref. L.C. Porrello 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't find the following paragraph anywhere in the article: In rare cases, abortion will be unsuccessful and pregnancy will continue. An unsuccessful abortion can result in delivery of a live neonate, or infant. This, termed a failed abortion, is very rare and can only occur late in pregnancy. Some doctors have voiced concerns about the ethical and legal ramifications of letting the neonate die. As a result, recent investigations have been launched in the United Kingdom by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in order to determine how widespread the problem is and what an ethical response in the treatment of the infant might be.[35] A preliminary investigation estimated that at least 50 babies a year a born in the UK after failed abortions. But it's there. Please read the note at the top of the article in the edit window that says NOTE ABOUT INTRO: This is a product of extensive discussion between many Wikipedians. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and its archives before proposing — or making — any changes. Then go to the first paragraph subpage and read through the archived discussion. The intro has been a very contentious area, and we ask that editors suggest major changes to the intro here on talk before making those changes.

Now, onto your proposal. I believe we cover this topic in depth in other sections. We can't summarize every single point in the lead, we must pick and choose. Unfortunately, out of all the notable things about this topic, I do not believe failed abortion tops the list. There are a number of more notable topics that aren't included in the lead (and shouldn't be included in the lead). By giving so much emphasis on failed abortions, but not other notable things, we are giving undue weight to a fairly rare occurrence. -Andrew c 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to say something along the same lines, but my edit summary was truncated (accidently pressed return). This is already discussed in the article and thus its inclusion in the lead is redundant. The lead has also has its own topical subpage and has been the subject of five archives worth of discussion — thus, future changes to it need to be made through discussion, to respect past consensus. I also do not think that, of all the things mentioned under "Health effects," there is any reason for singling out failed abortion. -Severa (!!!) 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not look closely enough under Health Effects. Sorry, Andrew. I stand corrected. I don't think "Health Effects" is the best place for this part of the topic. The delivery of a neonate or infant has no physical effect on the health of the mother. What would the consensus be for a new topic beneath "health effects” or a sub-topic within “health effects”?L.C. Porrello 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my first reply was snippy. I should have added a ;) I know this is a rather large article, so it can be hard to pinpoint information. Failed abortion is similar to failure rates listed on prescription drug label sheets. These leaflets list the side effects, contraindications, failure rates, warnings, etc. We have similar listed all of the negative outcomes under the "Health Effects" heading. As you note, the exact wording of the heading and the "failed abortion" information don't seemingly go together, but the general idea behind grouping them together, I feel, is valid. Therefore, to remedy this solution, perhaps we could change the section title to something a little more inclusive? Or where would you suggest we move the failed abortion information?-Andrew c 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And for an example, per [8], I would propose renaming to "Complications" or maybe "Health effects and complications".-Andrew c 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "health effects" works if we create "failed abortion" sub-heading. Obviously, a failed abortion would probably effect a woman in some way. But how? I don't know of any information having to do with the psychological effects of a failed abortion, so "mental health" would not do. It is a difficult subject to categorize. By the way, thanks for the kind words. I am generally snippety too, so I don't mind. Snippety is not necessarily uncivil. Besides, I deserved it.L.C. Porrello 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Complications would work for me.L.C. Porrello 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all "effects" under "Health effects" are specific to the pregnant woman — take, for instance, "Fetal pain" under "Suggested effects." If you go to Archive 13, in a thread entitled "mental health section drop off," you'll see that the "Health effects" section was formerly titled "Health risks," but that "risks" was changed to "effects" in order to be more neutral and inclusive of potentially positive effects. "Health effects" is a much more concise title, encompassing risks, complications, and benefits in one term.

The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, so, if after an abortion, a woman remains pregnant, something went wrong during the abortion, and, like organ perforation, that would be a health risk or complication. I do not think it would be warranted for one health effect to have its own section, when other risks, such as sepsis, organ perforation, hemorrhage, or sterility do not. The only reason that the entries under "Suggested effects" have individual sections is because these topics are a lot less straightforward, and there needs to be room to cover the varying evidence, as well as the surrounding debate.

I think a lot of this was already discussed under Archive 14, "Failed abortions." -Severa (!!!) 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should differentiate, via sub-headings, between expected v. unexpected or common v. uncommon effecs?L.C. Porrello 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) That's an interesting suggestion, but, I'm unsure about how it could be practically executed in the article. How would we determine what is an "expected" effect and what is an "unexpected" effect? I think any basis for the of creation sub-sections needs to be more concrete. -Severa (!!!) 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rare

The terms "rare" and "very rare" have been introduced into this section. "Rare" is a relative, and therefore, subjective term. Rare compared to what??? Rare compared to the reported number of cases of influenza or rare compared to the number of reported cases of arsenic poisoning? Rare compared to the number of abortions attempted every year? Perhaps we should ask one of the woman who went in for an abortion and ended up giving live birth. "Rare" is also unclear as one doesn't know if it refers to total numbers or occurrence over time. If occurrence over time, live birth is not at all rare. At 50 per year in the UK, that is more than one infant per week on average. If one woman per week were killed by UK doctors in attempted abortions, we would hardly call that "rare." Furthermore, as the British article states, it is not known _exactly_ how frequent live births are--and so a study is being undertaken. The current number is an authoritative, educated estimate. As I stated in my comment, if a relative term is to be used, then it needs a citation. Otherwise it is merely POV and should be removed.LCP 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a citation and it states ~50 live births per year out of 7,432 abortions after 18 weeks of gestation in 2004. That is certainly rare. Introduction of the word 'some' in its place is misleading in being so vague.

Finally, doctors kill more than one woman per week. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:40, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

Do docs kill more than one woman per week in the UK in attempted abortions? That would be a relevant comparison. Secondly, unless you have stats, I don't see how I can accept your assertion that UK doctors kill one otherwise healthy person per week. Thirdly, regarding the stats in the article, as I suggested, they should be included to give a concrete idea of the frequency of occurrence. Finally, your response does not speak to the problems with “rare.”LCP 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment regarding doctors causing death was in response to version 2 of your original comment, in which you didn't clarify death during abortion. This statistic has no bearing to the current discussion however, whether it is the case or not.

The word rare is used to indicate that it is not common. 50/7432 is ~0.6%, a figure that I don't see how is better covered by 'some' than 'rare'.

If you have a problem with the wording, please suggest an alternative that is more correct (unlike 'some'), perhaps on the talk page. Continually reverting to 'some' will not help. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:56, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

I'm starting to question the notability of this information in the article. We only cite one source, and it is a popular news story from 2005. They mention the RCOG and CEMACH were both investigating this, yet they have not only not published anything, there isn't even a mention of this on their websites. I then went to search "pubmed" for the term "failed abortion" with not many results. None of them were talking about the phenomena discussed in the Times article. There were articles that discussed medical abortions that failed to complete, there were articles that talked about first trimester procedures that did not terminate the pregnancy. What I am getting at is efforts to verify this information and figure out if it is "rare" or not has lead me to conclude that we are probably giving this one article undue weight. Can anyone else help do some research and find more sources on this if at all possible? I'll keep looking.-Andrew c 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of follow-up data is troubling. However, I do not question the notability of this section. To date, there is no reason to doubt the Times article. And, this issue has enormous ethical implications. It needs to be included.LCP 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I searched pubmed for citations related to this, there are very few indeed. One reporting 6/7 infants surviving following very late abortions (>25 weeks) from 1974:

Case Studies in Bioethics: The Unwanted Child: Caring for the Fetus Born Alive after an Abortion. Sissela Bok; Bernard N. Nathanson; David C. Nathan; Leroy Walters. The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 6, No. 5. (Oct., 1976), pp. 10-15.

The article reports a very low number of live births and only 6/7 that survive beyond 24 hours. One article it cites is a study in New York from 1976. Only the abstract is available for this.

Overall there appears to be very little evidence about this, and I would suggest not enough to warrant the large paragraph that currently describes it. I can't find any more recent papers than those above, and the births here are associated with very late abortions using outdated techniques, both aspects that have changed since the 70's. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:58, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

The examples I provide have everything to do with this discussion as we are discussing the appropriateness of “rare.” My examples have to do with “rare”, not the issue of the frequency of live births. No one would call death “rare” in abortion if one woman per week were dying in the U.K. “Rare” is relative to perspective. Therefore, it is subjective. Therefore, it is POV.

However, I do agree with your critique of “some.”. While “some” is better than rare--since it is factual, not subjective--it is too vague. I suggest the inclusion of the actual numbers.

Regardless, the second occurrence of “rare” (as in “very rare”) does need to be removed as it is merely redundant. Any objections?LCP 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Granted how the article now reads with the omission of the second instance of "rare", I think I am ok with how this section stands.LCP 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The point Andrew-c has raised is important, the Times article appears unsourced and while they tend not to lie inclusion of medical figures taken from a newspaper article with an unclear basis is unwise. Let's decide on how noteworthy this is before bickering about the wording. I still stand by the use of 'rare', anything with an incidence of below 1% is certainly rare, however big the consequences are. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:58, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

(unindent) I think this argument is specious unless you can demonstrate that the Times is unreliable. To date, there is no reason to doubt the article. And, this issue has enormous ethical implications. It should be included.

Regarding "rare", to this point Spaully has failed to provide even a single argument to rebut what I demonstrated about its subjectivity and, therefore, unsuitability for inclusion. Merely reasserting an unwarranted assumption about what one thinks “rare” means is not an argument. I am willing to leave in “rare” for the sake of compromise. But if Spaully really wants to pursue this issue, I'd suggest objective mediation. Unlike “rare,” “some” is an objective statement of fact.LCP 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've substantiated my argument surrounding the issue of how noteworthy this is. I suggest you read the papers I linked to and try to find more recent studies if you want to comment on it (I do not think you will have much luck, there are no further articles citing those I have linked to that are relevant). The use of figures suggests authority, the Times is not an authority on abortion figures. Unless we find suitable evidence the inclusion of figures is unfounded. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:48, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

Ok, I have found some more stuff out. I'm still in the process of researching, but I wanted to post two articles so others can join the research bandwagon. [9] [10] This doesn't seem to be an issue having to do with abortions not working and babies ending up living into adulthood. It's an issue of method. Some doctors are using early induction of labor as the method of abortion (instead of D&E or IDX or c-section or whatever), but they are not causing the death of the fetus before the induction. (which is required by law in the UK after 24 weeks, but not required in earlier pregnancies). These cases occur for the most part before 24 weeks, and occur in pregnancies that are being terminated based on fetal anomaly (either an anomaly that is legally considered lethal, or some other non-lethal abnormality.) So what we need to keep in mind is that a) all of these cases, the newborns died within 5 hours of being born, max (this shouldn't be confused with a failed abortion the results in a baby that lives into adulthood) b) this is a UK centric issue based on their unique laws surrounding abortion. In the US, there are no comparable laws regulating early induction of labor when used as an abortion method. So this stuff really doesn't deal with health effects, and I would propose including good information regarding these studies, but put them in the Abortion in the United Kingdom article. -Andrew c 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I’ve done my own “research,” and I came across the same abstracts. Firstly, I do not understand where you got the following information: "the newborns died within 5 hours of being born..." and "Some doctors are using early induction of labor as the method of abortion...." Neither abstract spoke to method of termination. To the contrary, the RCOG web page [11] speaks only of lethal injection. I also saw nothing in either abstract regarding length of survival outside of the womb. Can you please elaborate?

Secondly, I got to [12] via [13], which merely states, "If the fetus has had a lethal injection, it will normally die. However, there are some instances when there are signs of life at birth. All babies must be treated with dignity and respect. Palliative care should be provided till the baby dies where relevant." I understand the inference you wish to draw using [14], that fetal survival is generally the result of faulty care specific to the UK. However, the two studies that you reference are not related. They cover different populations in different cities. And there is no information in [15], by far the broader of the two studies, or the RCOG web page by which it is referenced to support your inference. Therefore, unless further evidence can be brought to bear, there are no grounds by which one might conclude that this is only a UK specific problem. What might be called for, however, is information on what drugs are used to terminate a fetus in the UK, the reliability of that drug, and whether that drug is also used in other countries. In any case, the RCOG web page [16] does state that further guidelines are forthcoming. Perhaps that will provide clarification.LCP 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I linked to the "full" text of the articles, not the "abs". I guess if you don't have full access, that link redirects you to the abstract. I have access to the full texts. I apologize if you don't. From the 2005 article Duration of survival after delivery (Fig. 1) ranged from 5 minutes to 4 hours and 36 minutes, with 13 cases surviving longer than 1 hour. No information was available in two cases. From the 2007 article Of the 102 live births, the gestation ranged from 17 to 33 with a median of 21 weeks. The survival duration for liveborn TOPFAs was a median of 80 minutes. Thirty-seven cases survived for 1 hour or less and six cases survived 6 hours or more. The 2007 study population was births to West Midlands residents delivered between 1995 and 2004. while the 2005 study population was births documented in the North Western Regional CESDI database. Both studies are limited to UK geographically, and both rely heavily on UK law. I hope this clears some things up. -Andrew c 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks. What about lethal injection v. termination via induced labor? It would also be great if you could elaborate on how U.K. law impacts medical and surgical procedures to the point that this becomes a UK only issue? Although the evidence is from the UK, humans are humans and, in my experience, medical practices in developed nations do not differ that much from one country to another. For example, between Austria and the United States there might be questions as to when one would treat otitis media with antibiotics, but when it comes down to treatment, the same antibiotics are used with the same results across international borders. Also in Austia, a D&X is performed exactly like it is in US. In Italy, doctors diagnose and treat prostrate cancer just like doctors do in the U.S.LCP 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, back to the rare topic. The 2007 article starts off with Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) is a rare outcome of pregnancy and a principal element of fetal medicine. and then goes on to say 102 live births with subsequent neonatal deaths (3.2% of TOPFA). so what is in question here is 3.2% of something that the authors already call "a rare outcome". (I know it seems like we have already reached a compromise on the 'rare' in the article, I just wanted to note what this study states). Onto methods: the 2007 study only mentions TOPFA at 16 weeks onwards was undertaken as a medical procedure using oral Mifepristone followed by either Gemeprost or Misoprostol to induce vaginal delivery. They also mention that during the timeframe of their study, the RCOG released their guidelines recommending that feticide be offered after 22 weeks, possibly explaining the decrease in livebirths over the study (1.7% in '04 down from 4% in '95). Unfortunately they did not present any data regarding the exact methods that were used, nor how many of the TOPFA involved feticide (or "lethal injection"). As for the 2005 study, it says there were 12 cases in which feticide should have been performed but was not. It says nothing else about abortion methods. It isn't clear if they know for sure that feticide was not performed, or if feticide failed (the context implies the former). They go on to comment practitioners may wish to minimise the trauma for the woman and her family at an already very difficult time by avoiding the physically invasive and psychologically upsetting procedure of feticide. Does this mean the patients refused feticide in these 12 cases? It is a possibility. Does this mean the doctors are purposely neglecting informed consent? Also a possibility. -Andrew c 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent research on "rare" etc. I trust what you are reporting, and I gladly defer to the professional opinion in this case.LCP 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was inferring anything, it wasn't that UK had faulty care that resulted in livebirths followed within hours be neonatal death, it would be that one method of abortion that deals with fetal anomalies is to simply induce labor early and allow "nature" to take the rest of the course. For example "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. Calvin has long offered his patients with fatal fetal defects only the options of induced labor or carrying the fetus until a natural labor occurs.[17] What I was trying to infer, if anything, is that it isn't necessarily an error or a malpractice issue when early induction leads to a livebirth; it could be intentional, or at least a known outcome. From the 2007 study there should be awareness that live birth is a possible outcome of termination of pregnancy. Our data clearly show there will be cases of live birth following TOPFA at 20 and 21 weeks,... There is little evidence to suggest that feticide is in the best interests of the woman, or her medical attendants. Generalisation is difficult, but for universally lethal fetal anomalies, there seems little justification for insisting upon a feticide procedure being undertaken in an already difficult clinical scenario. Where the fetal prognosis is universally fatal, the early delivery and subsequent terminal care of a baby can be a satisfactory outcome.-Andrew c 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and helpful. So what about [18] and lethal injection?LCP 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues of whether to include the article comes down only to the credibility of the Times, not whether a few guys with internet connections can find corroborating evidence. Spaully states, "the Times is not an authority on abortion figures," and from that fact tries to suggest that the Times is not reliable. This thinking, however, is flawed. News publication don't have claim to have special authority regarding the subjects about which they report. They claim to have credibility and authority in collecting facts from authorities and writing news stories. The Times did not claim to make up the abortion figures, and so they do not need to have authority on abortion figures. They need to be credible reporters of information. To my knowledge, they are. That is the only issue in this case. That there is a dearth of information on this subject--on the internet--does not in any way imply that the Times article is faulty. To this point, the Times has more credibility than Spaully, Andrew c, or myself, so the burden of proof lies upon those who disbelieve the Times article to show that it is false. And unless you can demonstrate why a lack of corroborating evidence is damning of an NPOV source, an inability to find corroborating evidence--throught searches on the internet--is not sufficient.LCP 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To try to put this issue to rest, rare, as far as I know, is used when something only barely crosses a minor significance boundary. It's extremely rare for the 1 in 10,000 people who have a hepatitis B vaccine to develop a life-threatening complication, but it's enough to at least mention, but not nearly enough to prevent the drug's use. The same thing is applied to abortions. While 0.007 crosses an alpha of 0.001, it's not nearly enough to stop abortions completely (which would probably be done if it were a frequent, as opposed to rare complication), since the overwhelming majority of them progress normally. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the last comment is dated 3 May 2007, I was under the impression that we were all resting quite comfortably.LCP 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point; I just wanted to be able to {{resolved}}-ify the thread with an agreeable explanation. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. incidence by race

This is a top-tier article the primary goal of which is to summarise related sub-articles. As such, space is limited, and we have to be selective about the information that is included or summarised in this article. The information on the incidence of abortion by race in the United States is too specific to a particular nation, and would be better included in a relevant sub-article, such as Abortion in the United States. Also, what about the incidence of abortion in the U.S. based upon the woman's age, marital status, income, religion, party affiliation, level of education, or area of residence (urban/suburban/rural)? These breakdowns would also be noteworthy, but, due to size and summarisation concerns, belong in the article Abortion in the United States. -Severa (!!!) 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Severa. I have taken your suggestion and created a heading in Abortion in the United StatesL.C. Porrello 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"neonate" v. "infant" or "baby"

In IDX article Talk, Andrew c points out that there is nothing wrong with medical language. It is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the yanking of a chomper from the pie hole."

Along the same lines, it is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from 'the natural opening through which food passes into the body of an animal and which in vertebrates is typically bounded externally by the lips and internally by the pharynx and encloses the tongue, gums, and teeth.'"

Granted that and what we normally call creatures to which/whom women give birth, I wonder if only "baby" or "infant" isn't better than "neonate" + "baby" or "infant". I do not see what the addition of "neonate" does for the text.L.C. Porrello 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

China

Why is there no discussion of China's forced abortion policies ANYWHERE on Wikipedia?

Have you gone crypto-Google on the public?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.42 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 May 2007.

Well we have One-child policy and we have Selective_abortion_and_infanticide#China. Hope this helps. You are welcome to jump right in and start editing if you feel there is a way you can improve wikipedia yourself.-Andrew c 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Abortion and Taxes

I heard that tax money is spent on abortion facilities, psychological sessions, etc., but I don't know what is being spent. (percentage of our taxes, etc.) Can anyone tell me, especially since I need to know this by tomorrow.75.15.206.129 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Abby May 10, 2007

It would be helpful to know which country you're from, as government funding of abortion services varies from country to country, and indeed from state to state or province to province. See Abortion in Canada#Access throughout Canada for information relevant to Canada, or "State Policies in Brief" and Planned Parenthood#Facilities and funding for information relevant to the United States. Hope this helps. -Severa (!!!) 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Potentially serious complications

I need a consensus regarding whether complications such as “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death” are “potentially serious” or actually serious. When ThAtSo reintroduced "potentially" into the text, he or she stated, “Only potentially, because these errors would happen under a doctor's care so they can be immediately remedied.” I am not sure, however, how one can immediately remedy “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death.” I assert that all of these events are serious. I do not understand how “death”, for example, is only “potentially serious.” Input would be appreciated.LCP 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the word should be "potential". I seem to recall it being so in the article, some time back. There was also some debate about "death" being on the list, since it does not happen spontaneously, but only as a result of serious complications, and with the potential for any complications becoming more serious (and perhaps ending in death) being greater when not under a doctor's care. With this in mind, I am changing the start of that paragraph to what should be a non-controversial form. SheffieldSteel 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit. I don't think ThAtSo was thinking about the difference between the potential for serious complications vs. "potentially serious complications." Thanks!LCP 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of the word "potentially" in the original version ("Abortion methods, like most surgical procedures, carry a small risk of potentially serious complications") was intended to convey that there is only a potential of these complications happening — not that the seriousness of any of them is only potential. However, this "potentially" was redundant, as its point was already gotten across with the words "a small risk." I think SheffieldSteel's edit helps to remove any confusion the former sentence might've caused. -Severa (!!!) 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dangling modifier in lead

The last line of the current lead states, "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." The last part, "which is considered nonviable," is a dangling modifier.

Also, I don't understand the claim of the entire sentence, "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." 1.4% (~18,060) of all abortions in the US (~1,290,000) are carried out after 20 weeks[19].LCP 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of the introduction is the product of a substantial amount of discussion between multiple users. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph and its five archives to get an idea of how much work has gone into writing the opening. All changes to the intro will need to be proposed and approved on the "First paragraph" subpage in order to uphold the consensus reached by the discussion a year ago. -Severa (!!!) 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether one or 100,000 of Wikipedia’s best and brightest authored it, the line after the last semi-colon is nonsensical. As such, it can be defined as Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, “Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.” As such, your response is unacceptable and your appeal to consensus is specious.

Please note what Wikipedia:Consensus states:

“consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.” Your Rv does not support this policy.

“Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.” Your Rv directly violates this idea.

I'm curious as to how a consensus necessarily yields factual explanations, without at least a few knowledgeable contributors on each side, Given the antagonistic positions, and the personal nature inherent within each, such valuable editors are the least likely to compromise when each is validly self-confident in his/her knowledge. I raise the issue based on the misguided explanation of steve levitt's research. Was that passage refined through consensus? If so, the consensus seems unable to determine the purview of their combined knowledge.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Your Rv and insistence that editors be intimately familiar with exhaustive past discussion before they are permitted to edit is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikietiquette[20].

So contrary to your claim, any editor is well within his rights in editing.

But I wasn’t even editing. I was copy-editing. I don’t think I actually changed any of the intended meaning.

Please note, Wikipedia:How to copy-edit states that “Copy-editing refers to the improvement of prose, including its grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and paragraphing, and the correction of misspellings; it extends to the improvement of tone, style, cohesion and texture, and the removal of redundant wording.”

Therefore, your claim, that “All changes to the intro will need to be proposed and approved on the ‘First paragraph’ subpage in order to uphold the consensus reached by the discussion a year ago” is without warrant, especially if changes are limited to copy editing—as mine were. Regardless, in consideration of consensus, I entered comments on this page several hours before I made any change, and as far as I can see in OFFICIAL Wikipedia rules, that is more than sufficient.

If you disagree with this, please show me where your idea is supported by Wikipedia rules.

Your response seems to indicate that in this case you care about consensus over literacy, that you will limit your input to blocking good-faith efforts to improve grammar and clarity in the article and instead merely point out your idea of protocol. Is that your intention?

LCP 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect on two, maybe three counts. An alleged grammatical error is not patent nonsense by any means. Any reasonable reader can read the sentence and comprehend that the phrase is intended to convey that twenty weeks is the point of viability. I also believe you are in correct in calling it a "dangling modifier". I cannot find what part of the sentence the phrase is ambiguously modifying. (but I am not 100% because its been decades since my last grammar course). That said, if you can think of a better way to phrase that sentence, feel free to propose it. I'm not saying the first paragraph is perfect by any means. Finally, you are incorrect in saying repeatedly that all your edit did was improve grammar. You removed a significant sentence which mentioned the definition of the word "abortion" found in the majority of medical sources. (but I think the talk subpage is the best place to discuss changes to the first paragraph, so I will try to avoid specifics for now)

All that said, I do believe that consensus can change, but the only way to find out if consensus has changed is to discuss it on talk before making the edits (which I believe the page you quoted from is getting at). The fact that the first paragraph has a talk subpage devoted to the topic with 5 pages of archives should demonstrate how contentious the paragraph has been (and still is). Please feel free to try and raise a new consensus for your changes (I personally will not support blanking of the medical definition). Everyone is free to edit the first paragraph, but the best practice to avoid edit war, and to respect the history of the paragraph, is to talk and raise consensus before making major changes (For more minor edits, such as grammar that do not change the meaning of the first paragraph, they have gone by without contention in the past. But as stated above, your edit was more than a simple grammar fix). I hope this helps. We can all work together. It really does help to talk things out before making controversial changes to start things off on a good foot with everyone (and to test the waters of consensus). Editing top tier articles about controversial topics is a lot different from editing articles that nobody has on their watch list. We don't mean to bite newcombers to this page. I just personally feel (and hopefully speak for others) when I say that all the stuff that we went through on the talk subpages to get the current first paragraph can't simply be drastically changed without any prior discussion (and therefore sometimes leads to reverts of a good faith edits, as in this instance). This is covered int Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, the cycle sort of jumped ship when the talk page discussion didn't focus on the actual edit, but instead on the process of reverting an BOLD edit. I suggest, to move on, to start discussing the proposed change on the talk subpage and going on from there.-Andrew c 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Copyediting" would describe minor edits such as correction of spelling errors, incorrect grammar, etc. "Copyediting" does not describe removing an entire sentence that was decided upon by multiple editors after six pages of discussion. In addition, you changed the text "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" to "An abortion is the surgical removal or natural expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus", which is redundant with the following sentence, as well as inaccurate, because abortion can also be induced medically. How does this change improve clarity? In short, yes, consensus can change, but a new consensus must first be formed to replace the old one. One editor does not a consensus make. Please feel free to propose your ideas at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph — that is the reason the topical subpage was created. However, drafting the version that is currently in the article was a month-long process, so I'd recommend allowing for a time frame of more than just "several hours." Editors are often busy outside of Wikipedia, so time is needed for them to consider the matter, weigh in, and help to hammer out a solution. -Severa (!!!) 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

regardless of explicit rules governing what is and is not copyediting, the spirt of the idea seems to be the provision of quality prose. Certainly, it is inarguable to suggest that poor prose, so long as the meaning manifests, is as valuable as the same meaning availed in grammatically correct, clear prose.

While I not familiar with abortion terminology, i'm confused when medical is construed to involve the use of chemicals to abort a fetus, but not surgical removal. If this is the proper nomenclature, please correct me, but the article is confusing in distinguishing various abortion methods.

Finally, the lead heading, and most of the rest of the article, is very poorly written, though much of the research explanation doesn't appear as circumspect. Was this article largely the promulgation of one individual drafting a previously agreed upon consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC) ˜˜˜˜

I did try to start things off on a good foot by raising the issue here. No one spoke a word about the grammar problem. That another editor would merely Rv EVEN grammatical errors, such as the inclusion of the comma after “This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage,” is really annoying. I let my initial comments stand in talk for much longer than it took for you to Rv my changes to the article and for Andrew c to respond to my follow-up comments to your change. Nevertheless, I will take the discussion to the First Page talk page. I had not noticed it before it was pointed out.LCP 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please continue 1st paragraph discussion relating to this topic at Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#LCP.2C_dangling_modifiers.2C_and_medical_definitions, thanks.-Andrew c 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I must add that the grammatical errors are glaring, They undermine what may well otherwise be valid inclusions. However, I am surprised that people are ok with the neutrality quotient (for lack of a better phrase). It seems that biases are revealed through perhaps well-intentioned attempts to include studies that are less pro-life biased. I submit that perhaps honestly stating your position, of which you will most likely possess more relevant knowledge, in the talkpage prior to, or immediately subsequent, an edit of substance. Then in the spirit of wikipedia, invite others who may better understand studies that counter your own. Not only might we all learn a little about a difficult issue, but perhaps rancor will dissipate. For instance, in a new talkpage heading, I clarified some rather startling fallacies in the section surrounding Levitt's freakonomics study. But I myself am not an expert, so hopefully someone with a little more statistical knowledge can validate, or impugn Levitt's undertaking. Please provide some feedback for me on that, as it needs to be altered. To misuse corollary and cause so blithely was shocking.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 16:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Roche not the final word

Add to reasons:

• • • To provide a planned rather than emergency delivery of a stillborn baby.

This is a situation faced by a large minority of women whose fetuses suffer from teratoma. --Una Smith 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a valid addition. But before we move forward, do you have a citation for this? I think the concerns is that you placed it in a section that was all citing one source, so you made it appear as if the new info was found in the source for the existing text. The way to clear this up seems to just find a reliable source that makes this claim and then append it to the end of the new sentence.-Andrew c

The information Una Smith is suggesting be added to this article is completely valid, but, per WP:ATT, it would need an independent source to verify it, as it is not discussed in the Roche source which currently serves as the basis for all of the information on therapeutic abortion under "Definitions." I'll create separate citations for each bullet point in order to allow another source to be logically listed. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Discussion

I made some proposed changes on another talk page, but I don't think it'll get noticed unless I drop a line here. Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph

Please read over what I've said and leave your responses. Toastysoul 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Political euphemisms

I would suggest that we stay away from the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' euphemisms, partly because we have many non-American readers less used to American-centric wording (there are abortion debates outside the US as well), and partly because we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a political campaign. Saying 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion', for instance, would be more encyclopedic and to the point. --89.10.21.156 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it would just be simplistic and inaccurate. The pro-choicers typically would prefer that there be fewer abortions, hence they support the availability of contraception and comprehensive sexual education. This makes them anti-abortion in a much deeper and more rational way than the people who think criminalization can fix things. As for the pro-lifers, it's more accurate to say they're anti-choice, since they don't consistently support life and don't much care about the quality of life faced by unwanted children and the women they would force to have them. Moreover, the majority are more revealingly inconsistent in that they would allow abortion in the case of rape; think this through.

Now, that's the truth, but we can't write the truth here, only what's supported by reliable sources, so the best we can do is stick to the self-chosen labels of pro-choice and pro-life, quoting notable people who can offer some insight into what this really means. ThAtSo 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.Ferrylodge 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why we have to keep calling them pro-choice and pro-life, instead of pro-abortion and anti-abortion. This is directly relevant to the article. Your comment had nothing to do with the article, so there's nothing more to say about it. ThAtSo 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement for pie chart

Pie chart

Histogram

Currently the article has a pie chart to show incidence per gestation week. This is a poor way to display the information for a number of reasons. I've created a histogram to show the same data. Please check it and maybe tweak the appearance so that it can replace the pie. I used the same colors and trimesters as Image:Abortionmethods.png for consistency. — Omegatron 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't comment earlier. I like the new chart, because it is SVG. I'm not exactly sure why a pie chart was a "poor way" to display the info, but I agree that the histogram can be seen as superior because it has the y axis which represents time (the information is more visually organized, where the pie chart organized time clockwise, the relationship isn't apparent on first viewing). I am concerned with what you did with 20+. It doesn't say when the cut off is, so perhaps we should have had the final bar extending all the way up to full term? or is it only going up to 24 weeks because that is the legal cut off point in the UK? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pie chart is a poor way to show information like this. The bins are not uniform, it is hard to see relationships between bins, and so on. The histogram shows the "shape" of the curve over time and humans are much better at comparing lengths of bars than angles. I also used all the information from the study instead of dividing it up into even more arbitrary bins.

It's pretty irrelevant that the chart is SVG.

It is not cut off at 20. There are just too few to be visible after that point. If you zoomed in on the SVG you could see the bars. See the image description page for the table. The data stops at week 32; there are only 2 instances after that point, compared to thousands in the 1st trimester. The histogram shows this, while the pie chart does not. — Omegatron 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Link: http://www.babycaust.de

Add the following link, because of information freedom. The Page is in German language available.

But the pictures should tell all people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.181.90.190 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 August 2007.

First of all, per WP:EL, foreign language links should generally be avoided. Second of all, please check the archives. Linking to pages with shock images has been controversial, and there has be a general consensus to not link to them. In addition to the controversial nature of shock images, there are also concerns of #2. So I personally would not support adding that link.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Abortion and health

The paragraph that claims a Finnish and a New Zealand study conclude there is a causal link between abortion and depression/suicide is vastly over-stating the conclusions of those studies. There are also serious concerns with the Reardon study. The paragraph currently says:

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[66] Additional research in 2002 by David Reardon reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[67] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.

The paragraph should be changed to say:

"Finnish studies have shown a link between miscarriage or abortion with depression and suicide. The study found that suicide is more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population. However, the study was unable to establish a causal link between abortion and suicide because it was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. The article goes on to say, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])

Additional research in 2002 by David Reardon reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women and teens who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[67] However, Reardon has come under strong criticism for holding a conflict of interest because Reardon is employed by the Elliot Institute. Dallas A Blanchard, Professor Emeritus, University of West Florida writes, "...the principle author (Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organization, for which he works, has as its primary aim propagandizing against abortion. Therefore, the sampling, the methods, the statistics, and the conclusions should be rigorously evaluated." (reference: [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850], and Deborah L Billings, Senior Research Associate at Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC writes, "Several methodological flaws in the analysis carried out by Reardon and Cougle undermine the conclusions stated by the authors." (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850)

A study from New Zealand completed in 2006 which used data gathered data about children and young adults (ages 15-25) who sought abortions over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion. However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 )--131.216.41.16 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise some valid points, however, I cannot support your specific changes. This article is already too long, and your proposal changed a 4 sentence section into a 10 sentence section. On top of that, we have a spinout out article dealing exclusively with this topic, see Post-abortion syndrome. Could you consider being much more concise? For the New Zealand study, perhaps it could simply be reworded so it doesn't imply that there is a cause/effect relationship.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you support the following paragraph because it is more concise?:

Two studies, one done in Finland and the other in New Zealand, found links between abortion and depression. The Finnish study found that suicide is more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.(reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431]) The New Zealand study found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had an abortion between the ages of 15-25 years of age compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion.. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 ) However, both studies were unable to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression because it is not clear if abortion causes depression in women, or if women who are depressed are more likely to elect to have an abortion as the result of an unplanned pregnancy. The authors of the Finnish study write, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])

I would also propose to leave out the David Reardon study of the section because the Elliot Institute is not an academic or research institution, and because the methods Reardon employed for the study were highly criticized by academic researchers.--131.216.41.16 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to make the paragraph accurate... As the paragraph is now, it makes claims that are not supported by research... --131.216.41.16 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting there. Still seems a little bit long/detailed for this article. Perhaps the sentences on the two studies' findings could be combined, and the final quote removed and summarized in the previous sentence? Does anyone else watching this page have an opinion?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the following paragraph better?
"Two studies, one done in Finland and the other in New Zealand, found links between abortion and depression. However, both studies were unable to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression because it is not clear if abortion causes depression in women and girls, or if women and girls who are depressed are more likely to elect to have an abortion as the result of an unplanned pregnancy." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])(reference New Zealand article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 ) --131.216.41.16 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Helloooooo? ;) --131.216.41.16 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that no one else is participating. When I get a little more time I will try to integrate this new content of yours in with the existing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)