This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
It was recently published that in New York City, 40% of pregnancies are terminated by abortion. I have been unable to track down the source of this data, and more importantly how many of these abortions were surgical and how many were chemically induced. I believe this would be useful information to include as a statistic for all of the United States as well as in specific areas such as large cities (NYC, etc..) and rural areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.238.74 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What would really be useful would be some non-US statistics for a change. I've heard that in many European countries medical abortions constitute over 50% of abortions performed, especially in Scandinavia. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Global statistics are needed, but impossible to obtain. Different countries collect and report data in different ways. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a summary-style article and you're asking for too much detail here. See the lead of Medical abortion for some of the statistics you're looking for. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That certainly is only some of the statistics. It covers the USA, UK, Scandinavia, Germany and France. Not all that representative of the whole world.
It covers 8 counties out of the 31 countries indicated by Trupin. China, India and Cuba are three others, but you'll need to do the research to find the statistics. Those 11 should be pretty representative of the global picture on account of the large populations involved. --RexxS (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Good source
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I ran across this article and thought it may be helpful. [13]WikiManOne (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Germany has abortion on choice in the first trimester (2nd and 3rd: illegal except for mothers health or life in danger). The map should be changed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.178.31 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Current Ref #76
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Ref #76 in this revision: Web of Trust scores it as a very untrustworthy site. Is that true, and if so, can we replace it somehow? NW(Talk) 05:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No comment on the source, but interesting site for the scorecard. Unsure how much credibility such a site could/would/should have itself. Thanks for the link. Arkon (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's published by Johns Hopkins. What's this scorecard site that we trust it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Extremely quick read on my part, but even if I were convinced, I should probably expect fairly little agreement on this point. I don't think it's a widely accepted go/nogo site. Arkon (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess my point is that this is obviously a ridiculous corner of Wikipedia, probably best to refute the substance not the source [edit: with another source]. (Assuming the source isn't widely known to be bunk) Arkon (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not questioning the validity of the content itself. Just whether or not the website is safe. In any case, I have swapped the link out; the new website has the same material and is definitely Johns Hopkins' website. NW(Talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, good change. (Thanks for the link again, though) Arkon (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
New primary study
Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion
In this edit (without an edit summary), Ritterhude (talk·contribs) introduced a novel piece of text based on a single recent primary study. I reverted it with the edit summary Reverted good faith edits by Ritterhude (talk); Section is a summary of Abortion and mental health and explained to him on his talk page that this section of the article is a summary of Abortion and mental health, pointing out the {{main}} template. He has now re-inserted the text with the edit summary Recent research reflecting current scientific thinking, especially if briefly summarized, is always appropriate. The main article is arranged for long discursive sections per study.
I believe the text inserted:
fails WP:MEDRS, as it is a single study not reflected in secondary sources;
is inappropriate for inclusion in this article, since it is not a summary of the daughter article.
I am therefore seeking consensus to remove the paragraph in question. I'd be quite happy to see discourse at Abortion and mental health about reasons why a primary source that is unsupported by any secondary might be used, but here it completely fails WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Support removal, for both reasons 1. and 2., above. I will note, however, that WP:MEDRS is in many ways unfortunate, as peer-reviewed journals are superb sources of information. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose removal based on reasons #1 and #2 (but am open to deleting for other reasons). I've added a supporting reference from the LA Times. Plus, someone put the info into the sub-article. So, #1 and #2 are no longer valid reasons for removal. Maybe there are other reasons, but they need to be presented (e.g. that the material was edit-warred into the article contrary to WP:BRD and without seeking consensus).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, due to changes noted above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Support removal. The primary source doesn't improve on PMID19968372, which is a review saying essentially the same thing. LeadSongDogcome howl! 05:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, I'm not sure I understand your comment. PMID19968372 says " Most adult women who terminate a pregnancy do not experience mental health problems." JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Because we already have the effect of abortion on mental health already summarised and cited to a secondary review. It is completely inappropriate to use a single study primary source when a reliable secondary exists and is already used. Adding a newspaper report of the same study does nothing to improve its reliability. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Rexx, the text that you want to remove is fully supported by the cited LA Times article, which is a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Moreover, the text you want to remove is in the sub-article. So, your reasons #1 and #2 are plainly no longer valid. If you would like to add further reasons then please do, e.g. the text you want to remove is redundant, and/or was edit-warred into this Wikipedia article without consensus, and/or includes off-topic material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You see, that's exactly the problem. Having a newspaper report on a recent single primary study doesn't somehow magically transform it into a reliable secondary source per WP:MEDRS. The LA Times adds nothing to the authority of any primary source. As for the assertion that this article now summarises the daughter article, what is so special about this particular issue that it warrants repeating the same conclusion twice in this summary? The disputed text reiterates the previous two paragraphs, in particular the APA findings, which are already impeccably sourced. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm with RexxS on this point. A newspaper story summarizing (what the reporter happened to understand about) an original experiment does not automatically move the information into the category of "secondary source". It's not merely a matter of adding "one" to each chain in the gossip game, so that the original publication is "primary", the press release is "secondary", a newspaper report based on the press release is "tertiary", your comment is "quaternary", my comment on your comment is (um, pentary? quintary?), and so forth. (Perhaps reading WP:Party and person would be helpful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The text that Rexx seeks to remove does not assert that the study is correct, but rather asserts that the study was done. The LA Times is a perfectly acceptable secondary source for the fact that the study was done. If the text that Rexx wants to remove is redundant, or was edit-warred into this article without consensus, or contains off-topic material, then I'll support removal. But removal would be improper for the two reasons that Rexx stated at the outset.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
But nobody other than you is arguing that the text be removed because there's doubt about the study being done, or that the study is incorrect (see Strawman). The text needs to be removed because its source doesn't meet MEDRS: it's a primary study, and being reported in the press doesn't make it anything else. --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I have not argued that the text be removed. I have opposed removal for the two reasons that you gave. The text that you want to remove is not "in support of a conclusion" (I'm quoting MEDRS here). It merely attributes a particular opinion to particular researchers, without using the voice of Wikipedia to validate or confirm that conclusion. So, I don't see any violation of MEDRS. As I said, if you want to argue that the text was inserted into this article by edit-warring without consensus, then maybe I would support removal. Your discussion of straw men seems itself to be a straw man. Generally speaking, I get uncomfortable when we consider a reliable source like the LA Times automatically forbidden, especially in an article like this one that has political, social, and moral dimensions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody else has called for removal of the text on the grounds of the study's non-existence or inaccuracy either, so when you argue against removal on those grounds, you are constructing a strawman argument, as you well know. You don't see any violation of MEDRS because you don't accept the principle of sourcing medical claims to medical reviews, rather than individual primary studies. Remember that reliability depends on context, so while the LA Times is surely an excellent source for news of wildfires in the western US, it has no reputation for critical analysis of primary medical sources, and I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. No matter what dimensions the article may have, a claim about the effect of a medical procedure on the mental health of the person is clearly a medical claim and MEDRS applies. --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Rexx, I honestly do not understand why you attribute to me the assertion that anyone has called for removal of the text on the grounds of the study's non-existence or inaccuracy. I never said anything remotely like that. Moreover, I agree MEDRS applies, which is why I quoted it. I only oppose removal of the text if you remove it based on the two points that you listed at the outset. However, I have no position for or against removal if you remove it because it was edit-warred into this article without consensus, or because it contains off-topic material, or because it contains redundant material, or because it gives undue weight to the whole issue of mental health reactions to abortion, or because it's contradicted by more reliable sources, et cetera, et cetera. If the LA Times article were purporting to give medical advice or describe medical facts, then that would be very different from what the LA Times article actually does, which is merely report that someone else has made certain medical claims.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
When you bring this sort of argument to the discussion, "The text that Rexx seeks to remove does not assert that the study is correct, but rather asserts that the study was done. The LA Times is a perfectly acceptable secondary source for the fact that the study was done", you are bringing up for the first time the issues of whether the source is correct and whether the study was done. When you introduce novel issues in order to refute them, you shouldn't be surprised that I refer you to this: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position – (from lead of Strawman). My 'original position' is that the text is cited to a primary study and duplicates other text that is sourced to the 2008 report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion – a clear breach of MEDRS. You substitute the 'unequivalent proposition' that impies the study wasn't done and refute that. I'm still waiting to hear how you justify inserting text sourced to a primary study, when the preceding two paragraphs already cover the same issue and are sourced to reliable secondary reviews. It is crucial that we scrupulously apply the agreed principles of MEDRS, otherwise our medical articles will quickly be swamped by the results of every novel uncorroborated medical study that the newspapers happen to notice. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Your two-point rationale did not say anything about the "preceding two paragraphs". If you would like to justify removal based on the previous two paragraphs then I am not standing in your way. I have not introduced any novel issues in order to refute them. I have simply explained why the LA Times article does not violate MEDRS: because it does not support any study, or make any medical conclusions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You mean you opposed removal of the text based on my request in isolation?, without reading the section Abortion#Mental health, including the preceding two paragraphs? Do you also stand by your claim that you didn't introduce the novel issues of whether the source is correct and whether the study was done? Anyone can read your comment of 23:45, 18 February 2011. For what it's worth, you added the LA Times ref 19 days after I made the request, so it's a bit rich deflecting onto the LA Times, when my complaint about sourcing could only have concerned the primary study. Are you still claiming that the Munk-Olsen study meets MEDRS in this context? If not, why aren't you asking for its removal? --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Rexx, I've explained myself as best I can, and am now finished. Have the last word if you like. This matter does not justify combat, or suggestions that I have neglected to read pertinent material. I am not under any obligation to take positions about things that I don't feel inclined to take positions on. I never said that the Munk-Olsen study meets MEDRS in this context, which is why I added the LA Times reference which is compliant with MEDRS (because it does not support or reach any medical conclusions). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll give way to your argument. The next time I want to include a primary study that fails MEDRS, I'll just add on a newspaper report of the study and it will become MEDRS-compliant. I trust I'll have your support for that? --RexxS (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've replied at Rexx's talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Support removal. Source adds nothing and the second part (post-birth depression) is off-topic and a bit confusing. - Haymaker (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Support removal. I was all ready to take this position on what I expected would be a US-centric study. In fact, it's Danish centric, an even smaller possible sample space. I would want to see something a lot broader. In proposing such a study, I would hypothesise different results in different countries and different demographics. That's OR, I know, but without broader information I can say it without taking it any further. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason that a Danish study was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine is that Denmark keeps detailed, centralized medical statistics which facilitate this kind of research. While the population of the US (for instance) is much larger, record-keeping on abortion and psychiatric diagnoses is also much more haphazard. So, in fact, the Danish registries are an ideal resource with which to address this question. Not that it bears on the topic of inclusion on Wikipedia - just by way of explaining why studying Denmark is reasonable here. MastCellTalk 07:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The Danish study is certainly of interest, but I would submit that a study isolated to one smallish country, while no doubt well performed, can hardly be seen to represent the whole world. Those who don't like its results could argue that they would be different in a country with historically more conservative attitudes to matters such as abortion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but if results vary depending on the country's attitude toward abortion, then one could argue that it is a conservative attitude toward abortion, rather than abortion itself, that correlates with mental illness. (Don't worry, I'm just playing. Your point is a good one, and I agree with your overall take on the matter). MastCellTalk 04:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, our coverage should summarize the content of reliable secondary sources, such as the American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or the review from Annals of Internal Medicine. If we have space, we could consider identifying key primary sources that are relevant to understanding how these expert bodies reached their opinions, but that might be more appropriate for the sub-article. Here, it may make sense to limit ourselves to summarizing expert opinion as detailed in reliable secondary sources. MastCellTalk 07:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Recommend we move it to the subarticle. The study was of more than 250,000 people. Thus I am sure it will appear in reviews soon. When it does we can add it here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
We can discuss whether to do that when the time comes. Competently performed abortions don't cause mental or physical health problems for women, which can be stated simply and concisely without devoting half the article to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that is an over generalisation not supported by the data. There is a slight increase in psychiatric contact for those women who have an abortion, but the percentage is already four times higher for psychiatric contact before abortion compared with those who did not have an abortion (according to the report under scrutiny)DMSBel (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment:Perhaps someone would like to explain how it is possible to compare or contrast the mental health of a mother after having an abortion with her mental health having not had the abortion and given birth. The one precludes assessment of the other and makes it impossible to assess both in the one individual and the same pregnancy. In other words it is possible to assess her state of mind following an abortion, but not what would have been her state of mental health if she had decided to continue with the pregnancy and give birth. Likewise it is possible to assess the mental state of the same mother once she has given birth, but again impossible to contrast or compare that with what might have been her state of mind if she had had an abortion. Neither does the summary reflect the conclusion of the report, the summary therefore seems quite spurious and because of that I support removal. DMSBel (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Art.,Literature and Film
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a grammatical change to the sentence: "As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices herself and her loved ones made." Change "herself" to "she", the correct pronoun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.169.46 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks! NW(Talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Lede Image Discussion - why archived?
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Anyone know what happened to the image discussion, I haven't been at the page for a over a week. Is it archived? Closed? What was the result? DMSBel (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok I see it is archived in archive 40. How come? It was on this page for months. Who archived it? It was a live discussion, and now it is just swept away with no indication (that I can see at least) or reason given for archiving it. I'd like to assume there is a good reason for it being archived, but I'd as soon hear what that reason was. DMSBel (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it didn't look like there was consensus to do anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a weak consensus against having no image, but there was also no consensus in favor of any of the images suggested. If anyone manages to find more, we can discuss those. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
A link to the "no image" discussion is here. It looks to me like more supported having no image than opposed having no image, but in any event it was closely divided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I saw it was fairly close and that there didn't seem to be any consensus as such for a lede image. I just thought it might have been better to close it and summarise the outcome. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is Google's fault or Wikipedia's...
Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
But this page is currently the second hit on Google on a search for 'murder'. See this screencap[14]. Anyone know why? The word 'murder' is used here, but not prominently. I suppose it's probably just a Google bomb. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(Oh, and no, I wasn't searching for 'murder' on Google, I just found that screencap on the Internet and tested it myself.) Robofish (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's probably the "fault" of neither. Googlebombing happens, perhaps there was a campaign we don't know about. I don't know how one goes about reporting it, but presumably there is a way (as some of the more popular Googlebombs, ie. "miserable failure" for GW Bush's biography, have been defused). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Understandably, it's not a topic Google likes to discuss, and in many cases, they've left Googlebombs alone. In recent years, as some of the more notorious Googlebombs have gotten more press, they have at least adjusted their algorithm to avoid them, so if anybody knows how, it would at least be worth bringing to somebody's attention there. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about it in the meantime? --Aronoel (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not really; it's not our doing, so it's technically not our (Wikipedia's) responsibility. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What if we did this, for example, to the source code: "M<!-- -->urder"? Would that help do you think?
I think it helped a little, the word "murder" is no longer bolded in the search result on google. --Aronoel (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How is this a concern for editors here? Arkon (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think people using Wikipedia to promote a political opinion should be a concern. But anyway you're probably right that it's not a big deal, sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. --Aronoel (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Just gotta be careful with that sort of thing, as the change itself could be seen as doing the exact same thing that concerns you. No worries! Arkon (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One could argue that the phrase "tantamount to murder" in the article, which is what is highlighted by Google, is inflammatory or gratuitous, and that a phrase like "morally equivalent to killing a live-born person" would be more befitting an encyclopedia. WP:NPOV suggests that we "try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone," so quoting or borrowing phrases like "abortion is murder" may not be the best way to achieve NPOV. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's possible that Google could understand simple phrases seen on the web like "abortion is murder" and think the two terms are related, without any concerted effort at Googlebombing. I've seen no evidence of a coordinated Googlebombing campaign. Also, abortion is a relatively popular Wikipedia page compared to other possible second Wikipedia results for murder, like Murder (film) or Murder!, so Google may rate it highly by that score as well. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not anything we do here could affect this Google bomb...
I firmly believe nothing should be done to the article itself to affect this, whether it be removing content, quotations, etc. Reacting to such things by altering our content gives power to the creators of Google bombs and sends a message that they can have a wide effect. Kansan (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but to be clear I wasn't suggesting altering the content, just slightly altering the source code in a way that wouldn't affect the content. Anyway, I agree with the points people have made here and I don't think there is much harm going on in directing people to this article or that there is anything worthwhile we can do about it anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't directing those comments toward you at all, just to clear the air. I was more referring to the IP comment, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I got the impression that s/he implied that quotations with the word "murder" should be removed. And, I have to agree... more people reading Wikipedia is not at all a negative. Kansan (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If Googlebombs have effect, they have effect. It's not really an encyclopedia's place to hide or deny that. (It's not even been shown that there was any Googlebomb campaign to begin with.) Also, while an encyclopedia should not take sides in a dispute like whether abortion is murder, WP:NPOV says we should "try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." A phrase like "tantamount to murder," which is used in this article and is what Google has highlighted in searches for "murder," is quoting directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute. I think this issue has brought attention to a NPOV question that would be good to resolve. Perhaps "tantamount to murder" should become something a bit less heated in tone like "morally equivalent to killing a live-born person." 98.246.191.164 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea whether the search result was a "googlebomb", it is not coming up now on my PC though. But just wanted to say that the statement "abortion is tantamount to murder" is already in a moderated tone, when compared to the emphatic statement "abortion is murder". User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved 10 week old fetus image beside text for theraputic abortion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Just a minor move so that the picture of the 10 week old fetus is beside the relevant text. It had been beside spontaneous abortion (ie. miscarriage) but that's not what the picture is of. It is corresponding to theraputic abortion. If reverting please discuss here.DMSBel (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems like the discussion of induced abortion should come before the discussion of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), because people will be most likely looking for info about the former here, and may not even expect to see info about miscarriage. So, I swithced the two subsections. No content change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, had not thought of switching the order of the text, but seems like a sensible arrangement now that you have done it. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Milestones of prenatal development having purported moral relevance
Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion
This article is heavy on debunking notions that abortion has adverse effects on women, but is light on the effects that abortion has on the embryo or fetus. I think this article should say more about what abortion does, and not just what it doesn't do. It's not enough to just say that an abortion causes the death of an embryo or fetus. It would be much more informative to say, for example, that an abortion after X weeks stops a beating heart, an abortion after Y weeks stops a fetus that has started to move its head and limbs, an abortion after Z weeks ends a life that stood a better than even chance of surviving to birth, an abortion after P weeks ends the life of a being in which all major human organs exist, et cetera. These are some of the developmental milestones that various legislatures, civilizations, ethicists, and/or pregnant women have deemed to be possibly significant with regard to the morality of abortion.
Now, one could respond by saying that a reader of Wikipedia could easily just go to the articles about the fetus or embryo to find out about these characteristics, but that's incorrect. Those articles do not attempt to single out characteristics relevant to abortion, and indeed there are many aspects of prenatal development that have significance for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. Any thoughts about whether this article should try to do better in this regard? There is a vast literature about the possible moral implications of aborting at various different times in pregnancy, and yet this Wikipedia article mentions none of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Giving zero weight to these matters seems inconsistent with WP:Weight, especially when you consider that the prominence of the abortion issue is mainly due to the effects on the person/ thing that is aborted. I've got some other things to do today, but will be interested to read the replies tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It might be useful at Abortion debate, but it absolutely, absolutely does not belong here. "Abortion stops a beating heart" is propaganda, not encyclopedic content. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Abortion does not always stop a beating heart. Some do and some don't. That's biology, just like the biological fact that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. The latter could be considered pro-choice propaganda to the same extent that the former can be considered pro-life propaganda.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does this Wikipedia article discuss when fetal pain becomes possible, and when viability occurs, but not any other abortion-related milestones of development? Is it because the others occur months earlier, perhaps?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything about fetal pain or viability in this article. Could you clarify what you're pointing out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The fetal pain stuff was removed a few months ago, so now the article is even more focused on the woman, while NPOV would seem to suggest a few more words about impacts on the embryo/fetus, as I suggested at the start of this thread.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article states in its very first sentence, without mincing words, that abortion involves the death of the fetus. I don't see how one could possibly be more blunt, or upfront, about the impact of abortion on the fetus. MastCellTalk 05:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I addressed that sentence in my initial comment in this thread. How about if we also say in the lead without mincing words that competently performed abortion has negligible adverse health effects on women --- and then delete all that subsequent stuff about mental health, breast cancer, et cetera? Seriously, the idea that the concept of "viability" would not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about abortion is bizarre, and why not mention other abortion-related developmental milestones? For example, why not say which abortions stop a heartbeat, and which ones don't? That's simply a biological fact, like the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth when performed competently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that these concepts are very important to you personally. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, we follow sources. And if the majority of our clearly reliable sources (and WP:RSMED) seem to be biased against the fetal POV, then we should not give undue weight to those positions, even if they are The Truth and facts. It may be important for one side to focus on the fetus in the abortion debate. In court, I know the concept of viability has come up. These are all places where such content could be presented, given sources. But the content you are proposing doesn't seem to follow any known source. Such a presentation, and the language below, are simply original synthesis, seemingly strung together to present a novel POV.-Andrew c[talk] 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The notion that "viability" is extremely relevant to abortion is not my POV, but rather is a well-known fact to anyone passingly familiar with the subject. When I get a chance, I'll list some sources for you. Although you may wish to portray any facts that are the slightest bit descriptive of what abortion entails as POV-pushing, actually suppressing such facts fits that description perfectly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Some proposed language
For starters, can we insert the following into this article?
“
The death of an embryo or fetus has different aspects depending on when during pregnancy it occurs, and these developmental milestones sometimes influence the decision whether to perform, permit, or obtain an abortion. For example, an abortion after about five months of pregnancy destroys a "viable" fetus that possibly could have survived a premature birth with modern medical technology.
”
This would be a good start. An article like this ought to mention viability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to mention viability, since this is a significant legal (and conceivably an ethical) milestone in some countries. In contrast, I'm not convinced that "abortion stops a beating heart" has any significance outside the realm of partisan pro-life rhetoric. MastCellTalk 05:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Like viability, the start of heart beats is a biological milestone. Just as the law recognizes viability in some jurisdictions, so too it recognizes other biological milestones (e.g. in informed consent laws). Andrew c has correctly pointed out that it all boils down to sourcing. When I get around to closely examining the sources, it may become apparent that viability is not the only significant developmental milestone that this article ought to address. (Of course, I don't agree with the part of Andrew c's comment that dismissed this entire matter as POV-pushing.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the thing is that this article basically discusses abortion from a medical point of view. The societal stuff is mostly split into separate articles. You aren't going to find MEDRS-compliant sources talking about how "abortion stops a beating heart!!!1!!one!" because the MEDRS sources on prenatal development don't tend to make it all about abortion. That's why I think this sort of thing belongs in the Abortion debate article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the problems with this article has been consistent attempts to treat it as strictly a medical article, when in fact abortion has many other dimensions, and its prominence in the public mind is just as much due to those other dimensions. This article has a section on history, so reliable historians should be adequate as sources. It also has a section on society and culture, so reliable sources on those subjects should not be excluded either. Excluding all sources except MEDRS sources would skew this article, and make abortion seem like just another run-of-the-mill medical procedure, when in fact it's much more than that. There are other articles that have a mixture of medical and other dimensions, and we don't limit the sources to only MEDRS sources (e.g. see eugenics, pollution, overpopulation, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that the subject resists being reduced to the merely medical/surgical aspect. Discourse on the topic frequently shifts between medical, legal, philosophical, theological, moral, sociological and psychological matters. It would therefore be incorrect to try and separate out these different aspects too much. That's not to say that the main article has to deal with each in depth. With regard to viability it needs to be recognised that when the debate shifts into the moral sphere, the term is more controversial and that it may be used more by one side in the debate than the other, I think we need to remember undue weight and NPOV and not over-use any term which expresses a particular POV. Note, I said over-use. The moral debate is centred on personhood and the various milestones of foetal development are brought into the discussion with reference to that and are generally not discussed in isolation from it. DMSBel (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The public moral debate about whether abortion should be legal/illegal is distinct from the private decision that women make based on whatever info they find relevant. Pro-choice people ostensibly support giving info to women about the embryo/fetus so that the private choice is informed and intelligent, and they ostensibly support the woman's choice even if that choice is to not get an abortion due to ethical concerns. Classifying all ethical concerns about the embryo/fetus as "pro-life propaganda" would therefore be incorrect, and would deny women the "choice" to base a decision on ethical grounds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking Anythingyouwant's suggested text, and modifying it a little, how about: "Milestones in fetal development represent an important aspect in the ethical discussion regarding the beginning of personhood and thus influence the decision whether to permit, perform, or obtain an abortion." Followed by brief description of the milestones with regard to brain function, heart function, and ability to survive if born prematurely?DMSBel (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just been looking back through the thread and reading it again (I just glanced over it first time). I realise I may have been a bit quick to offer a modified version of the paragraph Anythingyouwant suggested for inclusion, and hope I did not jump in prematurely with my own version which was based around it. Question to Anythingyouwant: Whereabouts in the article were you thinking of with regards to the proposed insert? I should say that I see no reason why we should not cover this aspect at some place in the article. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC) DMSBel (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't thought about where exactly it would go. When time permits, I'll look at what reliable sources have to say on this subject, and then report back here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
per current discussion? DMSBel (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Misuse of the words "elective" and "therapeutic"
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
1. Wikipedia Elective surgery states: "Elective surgery is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately."
2. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective surgery as follows: "Surgery that is subject to choice (election)...As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery." [[15]]
3. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective as follows: "In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent. Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time." [[16]]
4. Wikipedia Surgery states: "Types of surgery: Surgical procedures are the commonly categorized by urgency, type of procedure, body system involved, degree of invasiveness, and special instrumentation. Based on timing: Elective surgery is done to correct a non-life-threatening condition, and is carried out at the patient's request, subject to the surgeon's and the surgical facility's availability. Emergency surgery is surgery which must be done promptly to save life, limb, or functional capacity. A semi-elective surgery is one that must be done to avoid permanent disability or death, but can be postponed for a short time. Based on purpose: Exploratory surgery is performed to aid or confirm a diagnosis. Therapeutic surgery treats a previously diagnosed condition."
Thus a reasonable person would conclude that non-emergency therapeutic surgery is a subcategory of elective surgery. Nearly all surgical abortions are NOT emergency procedures (in other words, they are scheduled procedures and are not medical emergencies).
It seems that this Abortion article's inartful use of the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" confuses the reader rather than clarifying important distinctions. One would use "elective" to describe a procedure based on the timing of the surgery. One would use the term "therapeutic" to describe a procedure based on whether there has been a diagnosis. The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive.
If the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" are to be applied consistently (with no politically correct definitions for procedures performed on pregnant women), then virtually all therapeutic abortions are also elective procedures. Practically speaking, in nearly all modern situataions the 2 terms will be mutually inclusive because modern medicine considers the satisfaction of any woman's desire to no longer be pregnant (regardless of the reason why she no longer wants to be pregnant) as "therapeutic", and abortion is virtually NEVER performed under emergency conditions (in other words: there are virtually no occurences in which an abortion must be done immediately to avoid a serious health risk).
The current section of this article called "Induced" [[17]] contains a false dichotomy when it states: "Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to: ... An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.".
This false dichotomy should be corrected by helping the reader understand that the 2 terms therapeutic and elective are virtually synonymous, rather than leading the reader to incorrectly think that an abortion is EITHER elective OR therapeutic. Rarely will any therapeutic abortion not also be elective.
Finally, using the term "therapeutic" also implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect, when in reality, absent any political use of medical terminology, pregnancy is a sign of a healthy reproductive system and is never a disease. There are extremely rare occassions when organs of or near the reproductive tract are diseased and an abortion could thus be therepeutic to the gravid woman (though fatal to the fetus).
Perhaps this wording would address these concerns:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective and therapeutic, meaning that it is a non-emergency surgery performed based on a prior diagnosis. Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
birth control (postpone or stop childbearing); ^
socioeconomic concerns; ^
health risk to pregnant woman;
health risk to fetal siblings;
prevent further development and birth of disabled or diseased fetus;
^ source: [[18]] (Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion... Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying this section is ok as it stands or that there should be no discussion what terms to use, there could certainly be improvement, however your suggestion to describe all induced abortions as both elective and therapeutic would I think confuse things further because while any elective abortion requires consent and intention, not every elective abortion is "therapeutic" as that term is defined in the article (being to preserve the life or health of the mother etc.)
I strongly agree that pregnancy in itself is the sign of a healthy reproductive system and that we should preserve that understanding and avoid language which "implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect". However your proposed change does not actually address all your own objections regarding the use of the term "therapeutic", and introduces the word "diagnosis" which might actually re-inforce the impression of pregnancy being a disease. DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You are missing a very key thing here. Sourcing. I see you cite AGI, but that article says nothing about "elective" or "therapeutic", and find original synthesis in your proposed wording. That said, the source we are currently citing says this "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective", so I think we are presenting a false dichotomy. The point that emedicine article is making is abortions performed for medical reasons are called "therapeutic abortion". You may personally disagree with this, or find it somehow confusing, but without further sourcing, we have to accept this usage of the term, and not try to redefine it based on how other fields use similar terminology. It appears perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica is the source using the dichotomy (which may or may not actually be 'false'). I don't have the full text, so I cannot judge. I do think we need to consider our other source which says Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself. There are medical factors both maternal and fetal that contribute to the decision. These factors have been termed therapeutic abortion, defined as the termination of pregnancy for medical indications, including the following.. and see if we are misrepresenting it, and what we can do to bring out text more in line with the meaning of our source. -Andrew c[talk] 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect you'll find different sources that define the terms differently. "Elective" can be contrasted with "therapeutic," which would presumably mean abortions performed due to health threats or not, but it can also be contrasted with "spontaneous," ie. even "therapeutic" abortions are "elective" because they are not miscarriages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You have both possibly not carefully digested my entire original comments. Item #4 in the original comment quotes wikipedia's own general explanation for when a surgical procedure is called "therapeutic". I am simply advocating that the use of terminology in the abortion article be consistent with the terminology used in the surgery article (which accurateluy uses the term therapeutic). The term therapeutic" does NOT mean "to preserve the life or health of the mother", and the abortion article should not use it or define it in such a way.
I do not think the word "therapeutic" is helpful to the abortion article, but I have presumed that people will not want to eliminate the word from the article. My proposed language is certainly sourced and is not original research.
Also, there is no need for the AGI source article to mention the two words (elective or therapeutic) as the article is referenced for the REASONS women choose to have an INDUCED abortion, which is the very subheading (Induced) of the abortion article content we are discussing.
The main reality that the article should elucidate is that virtually all induced abortions are "elective" (meaning they can be scheduled a day or a week out without any harm to the gravid female's health), and virtually all induced abortions are therapeutic (meaning they come after a diagnosis). Barring the very rare (almost unheard of) exception, induced abortions are always elective and therapeutic.
The article as it appears now contains a confusing and imprecise and inaccurate discussion of the terms "elective" and "therepeutic". The artcle as it appears now contains an inaccurate conflation of the term "therapeutic" (inaccurately defined as non-elective) with a list of reasons a woman might have an elective abortion, and a false conclusion that other reasons would make it a non-therapeutic elective abortion. The article contains false information now that appears geared toward convincing the reader that abortions are most often "therapeutic" (with accompanying langauge that implies a therapeutic abortion is medically necessary) and that abortions are not very often elective. But the research (the most comprehensive of which was commissioned by and is propagated by abortion advocacy group AGI) comes hands down against that conclusion.
I have revised the suggested NEW wording:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis of pregnancy). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
The problem is that the term therapeutic abortion is not uniformly used in the sense of "scheduled after a diagnosis of pregancy" but quite often with reference to medical indications other than the pregnancy, or in addition to the pregnancy, or in the unborn baby. That seems to be the sense in which it is being used here viz the last three reasons on the list. Elective is being used in the sense of voluntary but without medical indications. Is this not generally the usage in the literature? We should go by more general sources rather than political advocacy groups. While it is not in wikipedia's scope to advance any new nomenclature, we should make sure there is necessary clarification when there is the potential for confusion. DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The MedTerms.com definition for "therapeutic abortion" at [19] is "An abortion that is brought about intentionally," which comports with the general definition of the word "therapeutic" (related to a treatment after diagnosis of a medical condition).
The American Heritage dictonary [20] defines "therapeutic abortion" as
1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.
2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine [21] defines therapeutic abortion as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently". This definition comports with the language I am suggesting because the term is independent of any serious medical threat to the mother's health (although this definition is also problematic because in practice there are medical doctors in good standing who will induce fetal demise of a fetus that is capable of living independently, and there are laws that protect such abortions).
The wikipedia article for therapeutic abortion is likewise poorly written and inaccurate in that it ascribes a colloquial meaning to a medical term, when there is no evidence that the term "therapeutic abortion" is even used colloquially. That article avoids any mention of the actual medical term of art, when that is the most common and rational starting point for an article about that term. "Therapeutic abortion" seems to be a term that is most often used incorrectly by abortion advocates in an effort to paint most abortions as medically neccessary, when the bulk of research and testimony confirms that abortion is almost never medically necessary. But wikipedia should not propagate such usage when the definition for the medical term can so easily and readily be confirmed.
In any event, the scholarly article at this link [22] asserts that "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself." This assertion supports my suggestion that the wikpedia main article convey to the reader that most typically, an abortion is elective, and that because the termination of any unwanted pregnancy is de facto deemed to be "therapeutic", therefore all abortions are both elective and therapeutic. The only exceptions are the very rare cases when a pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life.
Here is yet another revision of the suggested NEW wording:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
I still don't support your original synthesis: "An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis)." The term "therapeutic abortion" has never once been associated with "scheduled after a diagnosis". This is some novel idea you are promoting, not supported by a single source (but instead, you are mixing definition A with definition B to come up with C, something original, not found anywhere else). The exact same thing applies to "elective abortion" and "non-emergency procedure". The term and the meaning are not found in conjunction with each other in any one source. You are changing the meanings of terms based on your own understanding of how similar terms are used in completely unrelated fields. It's not OK. Sorry.-Andrew c[talk] 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What is there now in this "Induced" section of the article is terrible. As it stands, it is a mish-mash admixture conflation that needs to be fixed if readers are to actually benefit from the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure out from the last comment what the IP thinks needs fixed and what doesn't! I find the term "therapeutic" something of a misnomer when it is not being used to distinguish between abortions performed because of medical indications and those for other reasons, and don't object to it being changed or removed. All abortions that are not coerced are elective whether or not they are done to preserve the life of the mother or unborn fetal siblings. The term was useful when it differentiated between therapeutic reasons (ie when there are medical indications) and non-therpeutic. I agree that the birth control and socio-economic concerns constitute the reasons for the majority of abortions. DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Source not represented correctly
Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion
Under unsafe abortion there is currently this sentence, sourced to a NY Times article:
"however, generally equating "safe" abortion to "legal" abortion is controversial."
But the NY Times article doesn't say this. It makes it clear that the study's findings were conclusive, not ambiguous, when it comes to the connection between legal status and safety:
"Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it is legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely."
"But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, researchers said. 'Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,' Dr. Van Look said. 'And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.'"
The only mention of any kind of dispute over the study's findings is this:
"Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where abortion is illegal. 'These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,' said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.
He said that the major reason women die in the developing world is that hospitals and health systems lack good doctors and medicines. 'They have equated the word 'safe' with 'legal' and 'unsafe' with 'illegal,' which gives you the illusion that to deal with serious medical system problems you just make abortion illegal,' he said."
This isn't a "controversy." It's one person's unqualifed personal assessment of a World Health Organization study. This personal assessment certainly shouldn't be given the kind of weight it's being given in the article now. Reddestrose (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Reddestrose. You quoted the NYT: "the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it is legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely." Then the NYT quoted a pro-life source. So, the NYT didn't take a position one way or the other, but rather cited two different sources. So for us to say that there's controversy is faithful to what the NYT reported. If you will examine the other two sources that are cited for the sentence in this Wikipedia article, you will find that in an advanced country like the United States, making abortion illegal does not result in the unsafety that would occur if lots of illegal abortions were self-induced or done without access to antibiotics. In contrast, making abortion illegal in third world countries may result in much greater unsafety for women, because clandestine surgical abortions may be self-induced or lack antibiotics. I tried to write the sentence in our article to capture all of this, so please consider all three sources. Also, if you carefully analyze what the two "sides" were saying as reported by the NYT, I think you'll find that they were not necessarily disagreeing with each other about the facts surrounding unsafe abortion, but rather were emphasizing different things. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The abortion opponent that the NYT quoted is not a scientist or a medical doctor, and it would be wrong to treat his (personal and obviously biased) opinion of a medical study as authoritative. The NYT doesn't do so, and we shouldn't either. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't treat it as authoritative, and we don't. This Wikipedia article clearly says that making abortion illegal can make it unsafe for women if that causes more self-induced abortions or more abortions without antibiotics to prevent sepsis. That is a 100% correct statement that is true regardless of geographic location, and it is not based on anything that the non-authoritative source said in the NYT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should say that it's controversial unless a source attests controversy. Any new scientific study that finds that denying rights to women or gay people might not be a very productive idea is going to draw criticism from groups who oppose those rights - that's not really controversy, and our NYT source doesn't say there's controversy. Alternately, we could just make it clear that it was anti-abortion groups rather than actual scientists or doctors who criticized the study, since saying there is controversy without any other information suggests that there is scientific controversy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it might be possible to make it clearer, and I'll try. But it's significant that the NYT article didn't exactly say that researchers equate safe and legal. It just said that a pro-life spokesman asserts otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your addition of "politically" is an improvement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the two sources mentioned, and now I see the problem runs deeper. The first is over 50 years old, the second nearly 20. Both focus on the impact of illegal abortion in the US (the first mainly, the second exclusively). Why rely on outdated and localized sources when the 2007 Lancet study is recent and global? Reddestrose (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, nothing in the two cited sources has ever been contradicted. The issue of what happens when abortion is banned in a developed country is largely a matter of history, and the 2007 Lancet study does not address it. This Wikipedia article says: "An abortion is more likely to be unsafe where abortion is illegal, at least if the illegality results in more self-induced abortions or more abortions without antibiotics to manage sepsis;[75][76] however, generally equating 'safe' abortion to 'legal' abortion is politically controversial.[77]" What's inaccurate about that? Is there a WP:RS that contradicts it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (
The 2007 Lancet study found abortion is more likely to be safe in regions where it is legal and more likely to be unsafe in regions where it is illegal. It did not suggest that this connection depends on self-induction or antibiotic availability. So the 1960 and 1992 sources are contradicted by a more recent source. Moreover, the 1960 and 1992 sources focus on the US, but their findings are being presented as though they apply on a global level. It's not safe to assume that what may hold true for one country holds true for all others. In short, it would be better to present the findings of a recent, global study instead of stitching together two outdated, localized sources to present a novel conclusion not found elsewhere. Reddestrose (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the article history I see the first sentence of unsafe abortion was changed yesterday. The first sentence originally read:
"One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure."
This sentence should be restored, sourced to the 2007 Lancet study. It reflects current scientific understanding. The sentence in the article now is based on outdated sources - one of them over half a century old. Reddestrose (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The 2007 Lancet study did not address the effects of illegality in developed countries, and the 2007 Lancet study does not contradict any of the other cited sources. Therefore, deleting the other cited sources would present an incomplete and slanted POV. As I explained above, the 2007 Lancet study addressed current policy, and not historical data. I asked above and will ask again, what's inaccurate about what the article now says? Is there a WP:RS that contradicts it?[[Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither the 1960 nor 1992 sources address the impact of illegality in developed countries. Both focus on the impact of illegality in a specific country, the US. The US is a developed country, but that doesn't mean what holds true for it holds true for the rest of the developed world. It's original research to take data specific to one developed country and present it as if it represents all developed countries. Moreover, neither the first sentence as it stands now nor as it stood yesterday makes any mention of developed country vs developing country, only legal vs illegal.
As to accuracy, a 51 year old source doesn't give an accurate picture of the state of things today. That this article currently relies on a source from 1960 when there is a source from 2007 available is confusing. It doesn't seem logical to present outdated data over current data. Reddestrose (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The 2007 study is summarized by the NYT article, which we cite. So, we are not excluding the 2007 study. I would have no objection if someone wants to add a footnote directly citing the 2007 study, if you want, but we are already making readers aware of it. No single one of the cited sources looks comprehensively at the effects of illegality now and in the past, in both developed and undeveloped countries. But, in combination, they provide readers with a fuller picture than any one of them alone would. You haven't pointed to anything factually incorrect about what this Wikipedia article now says. The cited sources are consistent with each other. Because this is partly a historical issue, there's nothing wrong with citing a source that is old but accurate. We should not give the impression that banning abortion tomorrow in a developed country would have the same effect that banning abortion in an undeveloped country would have; the 2007 study does not address that issue, and we should not give the impression that it does. Moreover, there are various possible ways that abortion could hypothetically be made illegal that are not addressed or encompassed by the 2007 study, so we should be careful about making overly broad statements in reliance on the 2007 study. I think the present language in thus article strikes that balance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The NY Times article (and thus the 2007 Lancet study) is not being used to support the part about the impact of legal status on safety, rather it's being used to support the part about "controversy." The part about the impact of legal status on safety is based on two outdated sources, one 51 years old. Not to mention that it's original research to present data specific to one country (America) as representative of the entire world. So the current sentence in the article presents outdated data as current and localized data as global. This is an inaccurate and needs to be changed. Reddestrose (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The NYT article is footnoted at the end of the Wikipedia sentence, and it supports more than the statement about controversy in that sentence. Accurate historical data is not outdated if it is not disputed. Reddestrose, so that we don't keep going in circles here, may I inquire whether you believe the 2007 study indicates that the legality of abortion is what prevents unsafe abortion even in developed countries? How could such a conclusion possibly be drawn without examining a developed country where abortion is or was illegal? Such data is necessarily old, but calling it outdated would make the whole inquiry impossible. No source says that the old historical data is incorrect or outdated. As I recall, the sentence before I added sources did not assert that it was based only on contemporaneous analysis without historical context, and the sentence still doesn't say so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Historical data is appropriate to use when writing about the past, but when making a present tense statement like either version of the first sentence, we need to go by the most recent sources available. Some sources use sets of historical data to analyze trends over time. But data from a particular year and location, in isolation, can only tell us about that particular time and place.
If the goal is to add information on how legal status differently effects developed and developing countries, the place to start would be to look for sources that compare data from many countries and draw conclusions about it. A case study of Ireland could tell us about Ireland, but it couldn't be used to form a generalization about illegality in developed countries. There's many factors that need to be considered, which vary from country to country. Reddestrose (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is currently unsourced, and I also believe it is inaccurate with respect to the effect of illegality in developed countries. As far as I can tell, the only way to make a statement about the effect of illegality in developed countries is to analyze old data from when abortion was illegal, and compare that accurate old data to more recent data from the era when it's been legal. Without doing that, I don't see how any accurate statement can be made about the effect of illegality in developed countries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The Lancet study supports the first sentence, so it can be added. I mentioned this above. Reddestrose (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No mention of forced abortion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There has been considerable coverage in the news over recent years on the issue of forced abortion. The article does not refer to this at all. See [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].DMSBel (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it might be better there - I did not know that there was that article. Those were the links that came up in the first two pages of search results, I know China is particularly under scrutiny I don't know if it happens anywhere else.DMSBel (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
General sanctions
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
According to the very top of this talk page, it appears the rules at this article have just changed considerably. One would have thought that the relevant discussion would have been mentioned here before the decision was made.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't really be a problem, since the article history doesn't show any sign of the editing patterns that led to the sanctions being imposed in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I actually prefer general sanctions. They're far preferable to only shutting up one side. If I had known about the discussion at ANI, my main concern would have been to limit the general sanctions to the article itself, so that discussion at the talk page continues to be as free as possible (subject to the usual rules about civility).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, it seems that general sanctions can be easily abused, so I oppose them.[28][29]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"Weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject"
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
At the top of the article there is currently a notice which says:
"This article is weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject."
All the major aspects are covered: medicine, law, history, debate, culture. Some areas may need to be expanded, but I don't think any particular aspect's coverage is disproportionate enough to warrant this notice. Reddestrose (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Because whoever put that there didn't post anything on the talk page, or make his issues known, I've removed the notice.--Patton123 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, another editor did post here at the talk page about it. See the end of this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the tag. I asked if there were any objections before doing so. Reason for adding was as per discussion here [[30]]DMSBel (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see justification in that section for this tag. We have a whole section here on society and culture. Seems to be reasonably weighted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I see User:MastCell removed the tag and I am not going to put it back, however I can't see the point of having tags if we can't use them when appropriate. I was discussing possible changes with another editor with regard to cleaning up the article and addressing the issue. I didn't see anything wrong with putting the tag in until those issues are resolved. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain here briefly the concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There is already a discussion above - Anythingyouwant felt the article was too weighted towards a medical perspective and towards stating that the woman's health was unaffected, he said "I think this article should say more about what abortion does, and not just what it doesn't do." I tend to agree that more coverage needs to be given to abortion in regard to fetal development.DMSBel (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
We state what it does in the first line "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death" I am not sure what you mean thus you will need to explain more fully before I can assess the need for this tag.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
What sort of sources do you think we can use to write such coverage? I think there are ample sources on the issue of viability, which has substantial legal (and arguably ethical) significance in many countries. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much coverage is warranted. MastCellTalk 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Just a brief note about the recent tagging of the article. While I do believe that this article is slanted, biased, and incomplete for various reasons that I've mentioned above and previously, I have tried to tackle the issues one by one, which is time-consuming because a lot of research is necessarily involved. My time is limited. As I said above, "When time permits, I'll look at what reliable sources have to say on this subject, and then report back here." While I think tagging this article would be helpful to readers, tagging would probably not be successful without ongoing attempts to hash out the problems. I don't have time to do that at the moment, and that's why I haven't tried to tag the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Misuse of the words "elective" and "therapeutic"
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
1. Wikipedia Elective surgery states: "Elective surgery is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately."
2. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective surgery as follows: "Surgery that is subject to choice (election)...As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery." [[31]]
3. Medicinenet.com defines the term Elective as follows: "In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent. Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time." [[32]]
4. Wikipedia Surgery states: "Types of surgery: Surgical procedures are the commonly categorized by urgency, type of procedure, body system involved, degree of invasiveness, and special instrumentation. Based on timing: Elective surgery is done to correct a non-life-threatening condition, and is carried out at the patient's request, subject to the surgeon's and the surgical facility's availability. Emergency surgery is surgery which must be done promptly to save life, limb, or functional capacity. A semi-elective surgery is one that must be done to avoid permanent disability or death, but can be postponed for a short time. Based on purpose: Exploratory surgery is performed to aid or confirm a diagnosis. Therapeutic surgery treats a previously diagnosed condition."
Thus a reasonable person would conclude that non-emergency therapeutic surgery is a subcategory of elective surgery. Nearly all surgical abortions are NOT emergency procedures (in other words, they are scheduled procedures and are not medical emergencies).
It seems that this Abortion article's inartful use of the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" confuses the reader rather than clarifying important distinctions. One would use "elective" to describe a procedure based on the timing of the surgery. One would use the term "therapeutic" to describe a procedure based on whether there has been a diagnosis. The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive.
If the terms "elective" and "therapeutic" are to be applied consistently (with no politically correct definitions for procedures performed on pregnant women), then virtually all therapeutic abortions are also elective procedures. Practically speaking, in nearly all modern situataions the 2 terms will be mutually inclusive because modern medicine considers the satisfaction of any woman's desire to no longer be pregnant (regardless of the reason why she no longer wants to be pregnant) as "therapeutic", and abortion is virtually NEVER performed under emergency conditions (in other words: there are virtually no occurences in which an abortion must be done immediately to avoid a serious health risk).
The current section of this article called "Induced" [[33]] contains a false dichotomy when it states: "Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to: ... An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.".
This false dichotomy should be corrected by helping the reader understand that the 2 terms therapeutic and elective are virtually synonymous, rather than leading the reader to incorrectly think that an abortion is EITHER elective OR therapeutic. Rarely will any therapeutic abortion not also be elective.
Finally, using the term "therapeutic" also implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect, when in reality, absent any political use of medical terminology, pregnancy is a sign of a healthy reproductive system and is never a disease. There are extremely rare occassions when organs of or near the reproductive tract are diseased and an abortion could thus be therepeutic to the gravid woman (though fatal to the fetus).
Perhaps this wording would address these concerns:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective and therapeutic, meaning that it is a non-emergency surgery performed based on a prior diagnosis. Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
birth control (postpone or stop childbearing); ^
socioeconomic concerns; ^
health risk to pregnant woman;
health risk to fetal siblings;
prevent further development and birth of disabled or diseased fetus;
^ source: [[34]] (Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion... Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying this section is ok as it stands or that there should be no discussion what terms to use, there could certainly be improvement, however your suggestion to describe all induced abortions as both elective and therapeutic would I think confuse things further because while any elective abortion requires consent and intention, not every elective abortion is "therapeutic" as that term is defined in the article (being to preserve the life or health of the mother etc.)
I strongly agree that pregnancy in itself is the sign of a healthy reproductive system and that we should preserve that understanding and avoid language which "implies that the condition of being pregnant is a disease or a health defect". However your proposed change does not actually address all your own objections regarding the use of the term "therapeutic", and introduces the word "diagnosis" which might actually re-inforce the impression of pregnancy being a disease. DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You are missing a very key thing here. Sourcing. I see you cite AGI, but that article says nothing about "elective" or "therapeutic", and find original synthesis in your proposed wording. That said, the source we are currently citing says this "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective", so I think we are presenting a false dichotomy. The point that emedicine article is making is abortions performed for medical reasons are called "therapeutic abortion". You may personally disagree with this, or find it somehow confusing, but without further sourcing, we have to accept this usage of the term, and not try to redefine it based on how other fields use similar terminology. It appears perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica is the source using the dichotomy (which may or may not actually be 'false'). I don't have the full text, so I cannot judge. I do think we need to consider our other source which says Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself. There are medical factors both maternal and fetal that contribute to the decision. These factors have been termed therapeutic abortion, defined as the termination of pregnancy for medical indications, including the following.. and see if we are misrepresenting it, and what we can do to bring out text more in line with the meaning of our source. -Andrew c[talk] 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect you'll find different sources that define the terms differently. "Elective" can be contrasted with "therapeutic," which would presumably mean abortions performed due to health threats or not, but it can also be contrasted with "spontaneous," ie. even "therapeutic" abortions are "elective" because they are not miscarriages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You have both possibly not carefully digested my entire original comments. Item #4 in the original comment quotes wikipedia's own general explanation for when a surgical procedure is called "therapeutic". I am simply advocating that the use of terminology in the abortion article be consistent with the terminology used in the surgery article (which accurateluy uses the term therapeutic). The term therapeutic" does NOT mean "to preserve the life or health of the mother", and the abortion article should not use it or define it in such a way.
I do not think the word "therapeutic" is helpful to the abortion article, but I have presumed that people will not want to eliminate the word from the article. My proposed language is certainly sourced and is not original research.
Also, there is no need for the AGI source article to mention the two words (elective or therapeutic) as the article is referenced for the REASONS women choose to have an INDUCED abortion, which is the very subheading (Induced) of the abortion article content we are discussing.
The main reality that the article should elucidate is that virtually all induced abortions are "elective" (meaning they can be scheduled a day or a week out without any harm to the gravid female's health), and virtually all induced abortions are therapeutic (meaning they come after a diagnosis). Barring the very rare (almost unheard of) exception, induced abortions are always elective and therapeutic.
The article as it appears now contains a confusing and imprecise and inaccurate discussion of the terms "elective" and "therepeutic". The artcle as it appears now contains an inaccurate conflation of the term "therapeutic" (inaccurately defined as non-elective) with a list of reasons a woman might have an elective abortion, and a false conclusion that other reasons would make it a non-therapeutic elective abortion. The article contains false information now that appears geared toward convincing the reader that abortions are most often "therapeutic" (with accompanying langauge that implies a therapeutic abortion is medically necessary) and that abortions are not very often elective. But the research (the most comprehensive of which was commissioned by and is propagated by abortion advocacy group AGI) comes hands down against that conclusion.
I have revised the suggested NEW wording:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis of pregnancy). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
The problem is that the term therapeutic abortion is not uniformly used in the sense of "scheduled after a diagnosis of pregancy" but quite often with reference to medical indications other than the pregnancy, or in addition to the pregnancy, or in the unborn baby. That seems to be the sense in which it is being used here viz the last three reasons on the list. Elective is being used in the sense of voluntary but without medical indications. Is this not generally the usage in the literature? We should go by more general sources rather than political advocacy groups. While it is not in wikipedia's scope to advance any new nomenclature, we should make sure there is necessary clarification when there is the potential for confusion. DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The MedTerms.com definition for "therapeutic abortion" at [35] is "An abortion that is brought about intentionally," which comports with the general definition of the word "therapeutic" (related to a treatment after diagnosis of a medical condition).
The American Heritage dictonary [36] defines "therapeutic abortion" as
1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.
2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine [37] defines therapeutic abortion as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently". This definition comports with the language I am suggesting because the term is independent of any serious medical threat to the mother's health (although this definition is also problematic because in practice there are medical doctors in good standing who will induce fetal demise of a fetus that is capable of living independently, and there are laws that protect such abortions).
The wikipedia article for therapeutic abortion is likewise poorly written and inaccurate in that it ascribes a colloquial meaning to a medical term, when there is no evidence that the term "therapeutic abortion" is even used colloquially. That article avoids any mention of the actual medical term of art, when that is the most common and rational starting point for an article about that term. "Therapeutic abortion" seems to be a term that is most often used incorrectly by abortion advocates in an effort to paint most abortions as medically neccessary, when the bulk of research and testimony confirms that abortion is almost never medically necessary. But wikipedia should not propagate such usage when the definition for the medical term can so easily and readily be confirmed.
In any event, the scholarly article at this link [38] asserts that "Most providers consider all terminations to be elective, or a voluntary decision made by the patient herself." This assertion supports my suggestion that the wikpedia main article convey to the reader that most typically, an abortion is elective, and that because the termination of any unwanted pregnancy is de facto deemed to be "therapeutic", therefore all abortions are both elective and therapeutic. The only exceptions are the very rare cases when a pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life.
Here is yet another revision of the suggested NEW wording:
An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis). Induced abortions are performed for various reasons, including:
I still don't support your original synthesis: "An induced abortion is almost always both elective (a non-emergency procedure) and therapeutic (scheduled after a diagnosis)." The term "therapeutic abortion" has never once been associated with "scheduled after a diagnosis". This is some novel idea you are promoting, not supported by a single source (but instead, you are mixing definition A with definition B to come up with C, something original, not found anywhere else). The exact same thing applies to "elective abortion" and "non-emergency procedure". The term and the meaning are not found in conjunction with each other in any one source. You are changing the meanings of terms based on your own understanding of how similar terms are used in completely unrelated fields. It's not OK. Sorry.-Andrew c[talk] 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What is there now in this "Induced" section of the article is terrible. As it stands, it is a mish-mash admixture conflation that needs to be fixed if readers are to actually benefit from the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't figure out from the last comment what the IP thinks needs fixed and what doesn't! I find the term "therapeutic" something of a misnomer when it is not being used to distinguish between abortions performed because of medical indications and those for other reasons, and don't object to it being changed or removed. All abortions that are not coerced are elective whether or not they are done to preserve the life of the mother or unborn fetal siblings. The term was useful when it differentiated between therapeutic reasons (ie when there are medical indications) and non-therpeutic. I agree that the birth control and socio-economic concerns constitute the reasons for the majority of abortions. DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The very first paragraph and it contains misleading and inaccurate information: "In the context of human pregnancies, an abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion."
This sentence falsely represents what a therpaeutic abortion is. Most therapeutic abortions are NOT performed because there is a risk to the gravid woman's health. Virtually all therapeutic abortions are also ELECTIVE (i.e. "non-emergency"). The current language in the article skews these facts.
67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this concern over the misuse of the word "therapeutic" in this article is being ignored because you folks can't think of any good reasons not to edit the article in to account for the problem that has been highlighted. Or perhaps one of you can fix the article. I won't register because wikipedia's freezing policy is biased and hypocritical, which means I can't edit the article - but that does not mean I can't point out the blatant error this article contains. 67.233.18.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC).
How sad that no editors will even seriously discuss these legitimate criticims. Having the article locked is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Unsafe abortion
Latest comment: 13 years ago58 comments6 people in discussion
I overhauled this section. It seems best to start out with a definition.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that starting with a definition is a very good idea. However, I don't think the remainder of the overhaul is an improvement. It seems like virtually all reputable public-health sources agree that the safety of abortion is most strongly tied to its legality, but your overhaul seems to go out of its way to avoid saying this. It introduces qualifications that seem largely editorial, rather than representative of the best available sources. I don't think that a factcheck.org piece on the assertions of various U.S. politicians is the best source for medical and epidemiologic information; better sources are obviously available in the scholarly literature, and we should use them. MastCellTalk 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You completely removed about a dozen solid sources without giving any reason. If you think that I mischaracterized one of them, how about suggesting a better characterization, instead of completely removing so many sources and footnotes from the article? Regarding the FactCheck piece, do you disagree with any of its conclusions? Do you agree that penicillin and birth control pills have made illegality less of a contributor to maternal morbidity?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I gave you a reason: I think that your edits improperly obscure the content of reliable expert sources. I think the pre-existing characterization was superior (that's why I edited to restore it). I don't really see what problems your edit is intended to fix; your comments focus solely on starting out with a definition, and I agree as far as that goes. I don't think that adding more sources automatically makes the article better, nor does removing sources automatically make it worse. If we add a bunch of technically acceptable sources but, in the process, make it harder for the reader to discern the current state of expert knowledge on the topic, then we've failed. For exampe, we already have top-quality, peer-reviewed, global, up-to-date sources on the epidemiology of unsafe abortion, so I'm still not sure why you want to downplay those in favor of factcheck.org. MastCellTalk 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Several of the sources I added say explicitly that it is a mistake to conflate illegal and unsafe abortion. Can we please have a source-based discussion? Also, I don't think addition of FactCheck downplays anything; which sources contradict FactCheck?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Several of the sources you added say that while criminalizing abortion makes it much more likely to be unsafe, there is not a 100% correlation between the two. Your sources caution against equating safe abortion with legal abortion - and we don't. On the other hand, your sources note a clear and strong correlation between safety and legality, and your edits don't adequately convey that, IMO. According to your sources, in countries with restrictive abortion laws, wealthy or socioeconomically advantaged women may still be able to access relatively safe abortion services, although poor women are pretty much screwed. Similarly, in some countries where abortion is nominally legal, unsafe abortions still occur because of extralegal barriers to safe abortion. Your edits make it sound like the legal status of abortion isn't really a big deal, but that's at odds even with the sources you've selected.
More to the point, these are sources that you've selected. It's not clear why you've selected these, in preference to the existing high-quality, up-to-date sources that you've downplayed. You're using these new sources to replace conclusions from the previously existing sources, but that's not an appropriate use of these sources. They don't "rebut" the existing sources, and it's an artificial editorialization to use them that way. We should be synthesizing these sources, if anything, rather than cherry-picking them. MastCellTalk 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You say you don't know how I picked the sources, and then you jump to the bad-faith assertion of cherry-picking. The fact is, all the sources I inserted are high-quality reliable sources, but if you want to name ones you don't like then go ahead.
The article now says: "Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal, or in developing countries where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available, or where modern contraceptives are unavailable....The illegality of abortion contributes to maternal mortality...." Only someone with very strangely colored glasses could read that as an assertion that legality is no big deal. More generally, it is important that this article NOT give the impression that legalizing abortion will magically make unsafe abortion disappear, as your preferred language did, and it is important that this article NOT give the impression that the only way to drastically reduce the number of unsafe abortions is to legalize, as your preferred language did. Reliable sources flatly contradict both notions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a big shift in the meaning of the article between the versions, but I must comment that the tone above seems rather more heated than necessary. The rush of wp:BOLD edits by Anythingyouwant was perhaps precipitous, but the breadth of MastCell's reversion was not helpful either. May I suggest that we agree to go back to the version prior to MastCell's reversion then look one at a time at the preceding edits (in reverse time order) to discuss if they should stand or be reverted? Then when that's finished, we can get on with the fixing details in the resultant mix (such as the citation formats). At the moment fixing those would only complicate matters.LeadSongDogcome howl! 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I am ready and willing to discuss things here at the talk page, but I oppose a blanket revert that would remove reliable sources and restore blatant misinformation. I begged for a blanket revert when this misinformation was inserted en masse by Doc James, and my request was not only rejected here but was also the basis for criticism of me from members of ArbCom. I don't think en masse reverts should be fine for one POV but not another. WP:BRD should apply to everyone, and if it did then the stuff I removed wouldn't have been there in the first place.
I would like to hear MastCell explain why it is important that this article give the impression that legalizing abortion will magically make unsafe abortion disappear, as his preferred language did, and why it is important that this article give the impression that the only way to drastically reduce the number of unsafe abortions is to legalize, as his preferred language did. Reliable sources flatly contradict both lies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: I think your suggestion would be fine; I would welcome a bold, revert, discuss cycle, or even a bold-revert-revert-discuss cycle. I would certainly welcome more outside input, regardless of whether it agrees with me.
To the extent that undue frustration has seeped into my comments, it springs from my perception of a focused, long-standing effort to minimize or downplay the link between abortion's legality and its safety, a link that (whatever one's personal opinions on the subject) is acknowledged as central and uncontroversial by all reputable medical and public-health sources. I perceive a long-term effort to obscure the content of these sources where their findings are ideologically objectionable to individual editors; hence the frustration. The best solution is the involvement of additional outside editors; in the meantime, I will endeavor to improve my tone, starting by ignoring the immediately preceding comment. MastCellTalk 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And I perceive a long-term systematic effort to slant this article toward one POV, and apply Wikipedia rules selectively to only one side of the dispute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not an excuse to avoid WP:BRD. It would be nice if EVERYONE played by the rules.-Andrew c[talk] 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's all try to avoid commenting on editors and their supposed intentions and focus instead on the edits. Shall we begin? LeadSongDogcome howl! 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Ok, so this was the last edit. It clearly is in error, attributing present tense to a 2005 document. Ultimately this would better have read "as of ... was". If we can agree on that, I'll revert for now and add that to a list of changes to make later. LeadSongDogcome howl! 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not support that revert. Before I touched this section, it already cited the one in eight figure (as 13%). It's a very well-known statistic, and if you give me an hour so I can give you about twenty more recent cites for it. This whole article would have to be in past tense if we demand March 2011 sources for present tense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That may be mooted by the next point, but be aware that past tense is the normal choice for encyclopedic language anyhow. Otherwise the burden of evidence extends to demonstrating the numbers can't have changed since the cited work. But Chaudhuri's words clearly used the past tense, citing (WHO 2003) in text, but not listing a 2003 publication on p.265. LeadSongDogcome howl! 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look generally at the footnotes for this article, you'll see that dozens are earlier than 2005. If an editor does not show any source contradicting a 1997 source, for example, I don't see the problem using the 1997 source in present tense. As of March 9 (i.e. before my recent edits), this article said: "Complications of unsafe abortion are said to account, globally, for approximately 13% of all maternal mortalities...." That's basically equivalent to the "one in eight" currently in this article, the only difference being that the old source was eight years older: "Salter, C., Johnson, H.B., and Hengen, N. (1997). Care for post abortion complications: saving women's lives. Population Reports, 25 (1) Retrieved 2006-02-22." I provided a source that is eight years more recent, which seems perfectly okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong preference here; I think either wording is reasonable. MastCellTalk 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it appears the (WHO 2003) mention is of ISBN9789241590341 which, at its p.3 cites those same 13%/67,000 annually figures to an older paper: 1998. "Global and Regional Estimates of Incidence of Mortality Due to Unsafe Abortion with a Listing of Available Country Data" (WHO/RHT/MSM/97.16). Geneva: World Health Organization. That was almost an entire generation ago now, and much has changed in the intervening years, one hopes for the better, but do we have such a newer source to cite? LeadSongDogcome howl! 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2. The edit before that was this one. It did two things. Naming a reference to Blas p.182 for an existing statement that cites it would be uncontentious, but also citing it while replacing "where health care is at a generally low level" with "where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available" when neither statement is truly supported by the reference here, at least not on the cited page 259. Perhaps a more judicious reading of the source(s) would help with this edit. LeadSongDogcome howl! 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This article says in pertinent part that some unsafe abortions may occur, "in developing countries where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available." Two sources are cited: Chaudhuri and Blas. The first of these two sources (Chaudhuri) says: "95% of [unsafe abortions] occur in developing countries". No one has disputed this statement of Chaudhuri, and no one has supplied a contradictory source. The other cited source (Blas) says: "Legal abortions – like any other medical procedure – may be unsafe where clinicians are poorly trained or facilities are inadequate. Some countries in which abortion is legal for most indications continue to have high rates of unsafe abortion. India and South Africa are countries where high rates of unsafe abortion persist despite changes in the law that should make abortion readily available. Contributing factors include cost, procedural and bureaucratic delays, inadequate number of trained practitioners to meet demand and concerns about confidentiality for women below the age of majority." I think these two sources adequately support what's in this Wikipedia article, but if someone wants to suggest a rephrase then I'm all ears. LSD acknowledges that the phrase I removed ("where health care is at a generally low level") is not truly supported by the reference. But the stuff I replaced it with is supported by Blas, IMO. Blas repeatedly talks about poor training, inadequate numbers of trained practitioners, and also talks about cost, in countries like India. No one has disagreed that this info from Blas is correct, and no one has suggested any contradictory source. Maybe change "not readily available" to "not readily and confidentially available"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of the problem I see in our use of sources. Blas states on p. 182:
The principal social determinant of recourse to unsafe abortion is real or perceived legal restriction on safe abortion. Developing countries are much more likely to restrict access to legal abortion than developed countries, and the restrictions disproportionately affect poorer women. [39]
This source clearly identifies legality as fundamentally linked to safety (as does essentially every other reputable source). I don't have a problem with stating that the availability of well-trained providers contributes to unsafe abortion, even where it is legal. I do have a problem with selectively quoting this source to minimize the impact of legality, when the authors clearly address it as the principal determinant of unsafe abortion. What this source actually says is that legalization is essential, but not sufficient, to prevent unsafe abortion; sufficient infrastructure is also necessary to eliminate unsafe abortion. This is a subtle but, I think, important problem in how we use these sources.
As to the edit in question, I have a weak preference for the version favored by LeadSongDog, but overall I don't feel strongly that one version is better than the other. Mostly, I think the overall way we present these sources is misleading, but presumably we can address that as we unwind the stack of recent edit a bit further. MastCellTalk 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The issue is partly one of wp:SYNTH. We should keep the statements to what each cite can support distinct, or else we should find a statement that both support. Neither of those two cited pages even mention confidentiality. Blas doesn't mention India until page 183, is that not what we should cite for the cost impact? The ref on p.182 was re the principal social determinant without, afaikt, any comparison between the social and other (esp. cost) determinants. LeadSongDogcome howl! 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
@LDS, the Blas quote I provided above refers to "confidentiality for women". Regarding page 182 versus 183, I sometimes cite to the first relevant page, instead of all relevant pages, but I should do better.
@MastCell. You say "I do have a problem with selectively quoting this source...." Actually, this Wikipedia article itself does not quote this source. I quoted some of the source here at this talk page, and LDS quoted none of this source here at this talk page, and I don't think that makes either me or LDS nefarious.
This Wikipedia article currently cites illegality as the lead reason for unsafe abortion: "Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal...." This Wikipedia article also unequivocally says that, "The illegality of abortion contributes to maternal mortality...." So, I don't think this Wikipedia article downplays or minimizes the effect of illegality in any way. Just as legality contributes to safety (and may even be necessary to safety depending upon what types of laws are involved), so too the availability of well-trained practitioners is necessary but not sufficient for safety. I'm still hoping that MastCell will acknowledge that the previous version of this article gave the impression that legalizing abortion will magically make unsafe abortion disappear, and that the only way to drastically reduce the number of unsafe abortions is to legalize.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I realize there's no deadline, but is this going anywhere? The current text was boldly edited by Anythingyouwant, and then reverted by him after I objected. I don't see a whole lot of progress in this discussion thus far - it looks like the current, limited set of contributors can't even agree on which tense to use (see #1 above), which augurs poorly for being able to resolve more subtle disputes. For the 2 edits discussed thus far, I have no strong preference. I'd like to see them squared away by people who do feel strongly about them, so we can address what I see as more substantial concerns.
I know it's the weekend, so I'll try to be patient, but I don't see a lot of independent support for enshrining AYW's unilateral and disputed text on this high-profile article, over the pre-existing, relatively stable text (which should really be the starting point, if we were following WP:BRD). I do think more input would help move things forward, so tomorrow I'll probably solicit some from WP:MED or from other editors who have recently been active here. MastCellTalk 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I'm more than happy to discuss issues with you here one by one, MastCell. Two days ago, on March 18, Andrew c emphasized the importance of WP:BRD, and he said "B... R... D... no one gets to revert again until there is consensus". I can live with that, and I want to briefly mention some history in regard to WP:BRD. This Wikipedia article was completely overhauled, and the section on unsafe abortion inserted, in a continuous series of edits by a single editor, Jmh649 (“Doc James”) on 15 June 2010. I reverted a few hours later, writing in the edit summary: “Restoring to version as exited by Hordaland a few hours ago, per talk page. Many concerns about bold rewriting of article. Discussion & consensus are needed first.” Doc James then reverted to his new version of the article. The talk page discussion is at Archive 38, which shows me explicitly pleading for WP:BRDAGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN to no avail. You were there, MastCell, as was Andrew c. Ever since that debacle, I have tried to discuss issues one by one that were raised by the Doc James overhaul, and I'm finally getting to the stuff about unsafe abortion. I would like to continue to discuss it with you. But I would caution against canvassing to particular wikiprojects and editors who you like; these issues are not just medicine-related, but also law-related; I would prefer if neither of us notified anyone, but rather we should both exercise patience, regardless of whether LSD comes back (he apparently has the good sense to get out and enjoy the weekend unlike you and me).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not interested in rehashing things that happened in June 2010, other than to say that if text has stood for 8+ months in an article this controversial, it probably enjoys a level of consensus greater than that which you ascribe it. Notifying WP:MED about a medically relevant topic is not "canvassing" (it's actually a recommended part of dispute resolution). If you think there are additional relevant WikiProjects, then feel free to drop them a note. I am interested in avoiding a back-and-forth, and in avoiding a clear tendency to bog down in fighting over every inch of ground, no matter how picayune. To do that, we need more editors involved, and I will follow the prescribed steps in WP:DR to get additional input if it seems like we've hit a roadblock. MastCellTalk 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The section as it stands now is neutral, and reliably sourced. Would you like to suggest a particular edit, instead of attempting to remove every word, source, and footnote that I inserted? I do not dispute that the legality of abortion is one of the main determinants of its safety. Other such determinants include whether affordable abortion services are readily available, and whether modern contraceptives are available. Right? Doesn't this Wikipedia article basically say all this now? Please tell me what the problem is, and we can fix it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Just as a .02 for glancing at it (never looked at this article before, so I have no idea what the previous version was and I'm going to bed now instead of looking it up), the statements like "Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal" followed by lots of cites (this line is also in the main article with only one citation) seem redundant as it's a level of detail that's best left for the main article. Honestly, I think we should take the lead section for that main article and start from there. More than two paragraphs here is too much when we have an entire article to read. Honestly, I think we could chop out everything but a brief explanation (the current definition and an example adds four lines of text but only ten words of information), two or three of the "big picture" statistics like the 48% and the one-in-eight, and maybe another line or two out of the lead of the main article. The objective is to summarize the main, not have enough information that we start worrying about the two pages disagreeing about it. SDY (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. If people really want to, I would have no objection to removing the whole section from this article, and working here at the talk page on a much shorter consensus version. Or someone can just suggest a short consensus version, and we can talk about it. But I don't think this section is presently in any conflict with Unsafe abortion. Like you said, that sentence ("Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal") is in both this article and that one right now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal:
Unsafe abortion is a public health concern due to the higher incidence and severity of complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs, and the term "unsafe abortion" has a specific definition. An abortion is called "unsafe" if it is by a person without proper medical training, such as the woman herself, or by a qualified person operating in sub-standard conditions.[1]
Restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortions. Worldwide, complications of unsafe abortion cause 13% of all maternal mortalities, and unsafe procedures accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003.[2][3][2][4][5]
I think that hits the high points, but I'm not an expert on this. I actually did add one thing: the definition is, as far as I can tell, not an explanation: it is a technical term used to define sets of data. I think we might consider adding something about generally dismal medical care as another clear driver of unsafe abortions, not sure if we have a source for that. SDY (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that your text looks reasonable, although I might tweak the word order to lead with the WHO/public-health definition before describing the impact. I'd also probably move the incidence/mortality statistics up, since they go along with impact. Something like this:
Unsafe abortions are defined as those performed by people lacking proper medical training (including self-induced abortion) or in sub-standard conditions.[1] This is a major public-health concern due to the high incidence and severity of complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortions.[citation needed] Worldwide, complications of unsafe abortion cause 13% of all maternal mortalities, and unsafe procedures accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003.[2][3][2][4][6]
(I've mostly changed the word order, and I don't think I've introduced or removed any major concepts). The footnotes could be lined up with assertions more directly, but I think all of those statements are easily and demonstrably expressions of verifiable scholarly thought on the subject. Anyhow, I think it's as reasonable a starting point as any. MastCellTalk 16:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Made one minor change, just wording to avoid it sounding repetitive. The correlation between law and unsafe should probably have a cite for that particular line. SDY (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
There are innumerable possible sources, but we could go with some combination of Blas et al., p. 182 ("The principal social determinant of recourse to unsafe abortion is real or perceived legal restriction on safe abortion"), WHO 2007 ("Nearly 20 million unsafe abortions took place that year, 98% of them in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws"), PMID20085681 ("Where abortion is legally available on request or under broad conditions, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is often unsafe"), or PMID17933648 ("Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively"). MastCellTalk 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Again, for the umpteenth time, I have no objection to saying that "Restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortions." But I strongly object to omitting that other factors are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortion: namely the unavailability of modern contraceptives, and also the unavailability of affordable skilled practitioners, both of which often occur where abortion is legal as well as where it's illegal. Just consider contraceptives; reliable sources say that if they were available then the number of unsafe abortions would decline by 73% from 20 million to 5.5 million, with no change in abortion laws.[40]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2 I think you may need to justify your objection, as I would object to giving to equal prominence to factors that are associated with relatively tiny incidences per WP:UNDUE. What is the source for the contention that the unavailability of affordable skilled practitioners, which often occurs where abortion is legal, is associated with a high rate of unsafe abortion? There's no high rate of unsafe abortion outside of developing countries with restrictive abortion laws.
If there's a problem in deciding what to include in the section, perhaps we should look through the best sources and agree what are the key points? Something like:
Definition of unsafe abortion
Incidence or distribution of unsafe abortion
Complications of unsafe abortion
Causes of unsafe abortion
Effect of contraception availability on unsafe abortion
Then we can do a reality check to ensure we are complying with WP:WEIGHT. If there's any uncertainty about my assertion above, we could use this little table to help us establish some perspective (WHO 2007):
Abortions in 2003
Developing countries with restrictive abortion laws
Developed countries and developing countries without restrictive abortion laws
Unsafe abortions
19,600,000
400,000
Safe abortions
22,000,000
or for those more visually inclined:
Abortions in 2003
Type and location
Number of abortions
Safe abortions (52%)
22,000,000
Unsafe abortions in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws (47%)
19,600,000
Unsafe abortions in developed countries and developing countries without restrictive abortion laws (1%)
400,000
It would seem to me that just about all unsafe abortions occur in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws – perhaps that's all we need to say on incidence of unsafe abortion? Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have refactored your comment to put it in chronological order. I gave references.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And I've refactored it back because it's a reply to your comment of 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC). It was edit conflicted twice but is in no way a response to your comment of 00:24, 22 March 2011 and I'd be grateful if you stopped deciding for others what comments they may reply to. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add this to the section on unsafe abortion:
“
Incidence of unsafe abortion would be reduced by about 73% without any change in abortion laws, if modern contraceptives were made readily available.[1] Rates of unsafe abortion also remain high in some countries where abortion is legal because clinicians are poorly trained or facilities are inadequate.[2]
I get the general point, though there's some tautology in saying it. Unsafe is defined as unskilled/ill-equipped, and to say that unsafe and ill-equipped happens because of unsafe and ill-equipped is almost a question of whether it needs to be said. Honestly, the "illegal->unsafe" thing is another detail that could be left to the main article if there are concerns about WP:UNDUE weight being given to one cause. I guess it's a question of what the sources say, and maybe the sources don't bother to explain that OB/GYN care is bad in places where medical care in general is bad because it's obvious, whereas the illegal->unsafe correlation is less obvious. Places like Ireland which have decent care and strict laws might be a useful topic to bring up, but again that's main article material rather than quick summary material. That said, I don't think a tip of the hat to the contraceptive thing or to the "this might be obvious" overall quality issue are inappropriate. Statistics other than the "big picture" ones should be left to the main article. SDY (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad you don't mind those two proposed sentences very much. I don't know if RexxS has specifically commented on them yet. Anyway, on your tautology point, it would indeed be tautological to say that unsafe abortion is common where clinicians don't do the procedure safely, but the sentence says much more than that by pointing out that some countries have high rates of unsafe abortion for this reason; in other words, the phenomenon is widespread in some countries despite the legality of abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The source given does not support the second sentence, as it says nothing about quality of training of physicians, nor the inadequacy of the facilities. It names two countries and gives the contributory factors as "cost, procedural and bureaucratic delays, inadequate numbers of trained practitioners to meet demand, and concerns about confidentiality for women below the age of majority" (my emphasis). Why write two unmentioned causes when you have four to choose from in the source? --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. The source for the second sentence says: "Legal abortions – like any other medical procedure – may be unsafe where clinicians are poorly trained or facilities are inadequate. Some countries in which abortion is legal for most indications continue to have high rates of unsafe abortion. India and South Africa are countries where high rates of unsafe abortion persist despite changes in the law that should make abortion readily available." That manifestly supports the sentence I wrote, which was this: "Rates of unsafe abortion also remain high in some countries where abortion is legal because clinicians are poorly trained or facilities are inadequate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, those are two distinct points:
Any medical procedure may be unsafe where clinicians are poorly trained or facilities are inadequate;
The rate of unsafe abortions in India and SA have not yet fallen to those associated with countries without restrictive laws because the safe procedure is (i) unaffordable, or (ii) subject to lengthy delays, or (iii) unavailable because of a shortage of trained practitioners, or (iv) lacking in confidentiality for young women. You've synthesised two separate observations to create the impression that Indian and South African practitioners are poorly-trained or working in inadequate institutions - not the sort of calumny that we ought to placing in the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As for your insertion of your later comment in between my initial comment and my own followup reply to my own comment, I have mentioned that at your talk page.
And feel free to propose edits to my suggested sentences, by all means.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"Incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by as much as 73% without any change in abortion laws, if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available."
There's no reason to mention factors which are relevant to less than 1% of abortions. It's UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There are really two choices here. If we want to talk about factors which could potentially reduce the incidence of unsafe abortion, then we are compelled to recognize that reliable sources overwhelmingly identify the legalization of abortion as the most impactful step. We can also mention that better family planning and contraception would reduce the rate of unsafe abortion, but to mention the latter fact in isolation is straight-up cherry-picking. On the other hand, we can choose not to get into the question of reducing unsafe abortions, in which case the text proposed by SDY is sufficient. MastCellTalk 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(undent) It's more than adequately covered in the main article, frankly. Six of one or half dozen of the other as to leaving it all to the main and/or including several details here. The other question I have is where we should put the unsafe business. I think it flows a lot better if it's included in the safety section. Minor quibbles to text aside, what are the thoughts on the general plan I suggested here. SDY (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with folding unsafe abortion into the "complications" section. I think it's the most natural place for the information; after all, you can't realistically discuss the complications of abortion unless you draw a distinction between safe and unsafe procedures. I had taken a shot at rewriting the health risks section to incorporate unsafe abortion about 8 months ago ([41]). I'd certainly be open to revisiting the issue. MastCellTalk 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I support insertion of Rexx's suggested sentence: ""Incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by as much as 73% without any change in abortion laws, if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available." Once it is inserted, then I would support putting the word "contraceptive" into the sentence, because that is what the source says. A reason why 73% of unsafe abortion occurs is lack of modern contraceptives, so the 73% figure belongs in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
While that sentence is potentially suitable for the article, in isolation it is incompletely representative of existing reliable sources and expert opinion. There is no question that providing access to effective family planning would reduce unintended pregnancies - and, thus, the rate of unsafe (and safe) abortions - dramatically (the source states that safe abortions would decline by 66% with "perfect" contraceptive use, while unsafe abortions would decline by 73%). On the other hand, similarly reliable sources make the point just as forcefully (if not more forcefully) that legalization of abortion would have a dramatic effect on the rate of unsafe abortion. (Even this source notes: "In countries where abortion is permitted on even narrower grounds (to save the life of the mother), access to safe legal abortion is extremely rare.") I'm not sure why we would insist on featuring one assertion but excluding the other; maybe you can enlighten me? MastCellTalk 19:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think I have suggested replacing the entire existing section with Rexx's sentence? I have not suggested that. Rexx has not suggested that. You have not suggested that. No one else has suggested that. The existing section already covers the effect of illegality on unsafe abortion, doesn't it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Elsewhere in this article, it is stated that, "access to contraceptives would result in about 25 million fewer abortions annually". If you would like to include a percentage there, fine. You can even duplicate that sentence in the section on unsafe abortion, if you want, even though I think that would be out of place. In any event, none of that is any justification for refusing over and over to exclude the 73% figure from this section of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not refusing to include it, much less refusing over and over. If it seems like I am, please re-read my comments. I would be fine with adding a sentence to the current text. For example, after "Restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortions", one could add: "In addition, a lack of access to safe and effective contraception contributes to unsafe abortion. It has been estimated that the incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by as much as 73% without any change in abortion laws if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available globally." Or something like that. MastCellTalk 22:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also welcome an addition such as that suggested. The Singh et al source specifically refers to "family planning" and "maternal health services", but omits the word contraceptive at the point where it presents the 73% figure; nevertheless I have no problem with accepting that modern contraceptive methods is the intended meaning. I think that the issue of the impact of contraception on abortion rates in general and on unsafe abortion in particular is significant and well-represented in sources, and should be of sufficient interest to our audience that it would be a natural topic to mention, if a wording can be agreed that is accurately verifiable from the sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I'd prefer to leave it to the main article, especially since the statistic we're talking about is not in that article. If nothing else, anything "new" here must be also added to unsafe abortion, and I'm a little leery of including it as a "super-important part of the summary" when no one has been bothered to even mention it on Wikipedia until now. It's an interesting fact, and certainly relevant to the discussion, but it's largely a question of "now that unsafe abortion exists, what do we do with it?" and that's a question and discussion that's best left to the main article. I would prefer to include here what has been done about it, another topic that's not covered in the main article. The best idea, in my opinion, would be just to steal the following line from the other article's lead: "Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal,[3] or in developing countries where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available,[4][5] or where modern contraceptives are unavailable.[6]" SDY (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the language that MastCell has suggested in this section, and that Rexx has okayed. I will make sure that the 73% statistic is in the article on unsafe abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Change
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
We had this
<blockquoteThe legality of abortion is one of the main determinants of its safety. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high rate of unsafe abortions.
Changed to this
Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal.
The refs better support the former rather than the latter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You are comparing two sentences that do not correspond to each other. The material you deleted included this: "Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal,[77] or in developing countries where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available,[78][79] or where modern contraceptives are unavailable[80]....The illegality of abortion contributes to maternal mortality...."
Your edit grossly slants the article, by removing the determinants other than legality, but that's not surprising given how you jammed this material into the article in June. The article now only mentions legality as a determinant, and that's simply misleading. You've also deleted the material that MastCell and I managed to agree on with LSD in the discussion above.
Three days ago, Andrew c said, "no one gets to revert again until there is consensus".[42] You're refusing?
Doc James, I said above: "I would have no objection to removing the whole section from this article, and working here at the talk page on a much shorter consensus version. Or someone can just suggest a short consensus version, and we can talk about it." Would you go along with that? Or is this a hit and run, with no room for discussion or compromise?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Other issues I have is this line "Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal" It does not really say anything. Yes there are always exceptions in medicine and... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with mastcell that there appears to be a consistent effort to downplay the effects of legality on abortion risk. I have supported this text by excellent references ( a 2009 review article ). I disagree with removing it and changing the wording to say something it does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
So mentioning that anything in addition to legality can affect abortion safety is out of the question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No but deleting well referenced text that refers to the connection is.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. I included (not deleted) this: "Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal....The illegality of abortion contributes to maternal mortality." You deleted everything about factors other than legality which affect abortion safety.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Technichally, this isn't about abortion safety, this is about a specific technical term ("unsafe abortion") that's designed to capture data about the types of abortions that are performed. We have a section in the article on safety. If the person who is performing an abortion is a badly trained doctor working in a sparsely equipped but functional hospital setting, it's not safe as safe as it should be but the operation does not meet the definition of "unsafe." Contrariwise, an operation performed at home by an excellent doctor with impeccable technique might have very low risks indeed, but it would still meet the definition of "unsafe." Pulling this in, can we remove the link "health risks of unsafe abortion" (redundant) and just call the "health risks" a "complications" section like we do for other surgeries? SDY (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion about the rest of it, but the sentence "Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal." is completely inane. Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be completely inane if accompanied by statistics? In India, for example, unsafe abortion is very common despite legality. And, in some countries where abortion is illegal but the medical care is generally high, unsafe abortion rarely leads to serious injury or death. I think this might be non-inane if confirmed by reliable statistics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It's inane because it has no useful semantic content. It's also inane because it assumes legality always falls on national borders. And then it's inane because it implies that illegal is the same as impossible. One might better say "Abortions occur whether or not they are available legally, affordably, and safely."LeadSongDogcome howl! 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The section of this article that we're discussing is titled "Unsafe abortion". So, I don't think this would be the appropriate section for a statement that "Abortions occur whether or not they are available legally", because such a sentence does not say anything about safety, plus it incorrectly implies that legality does not affect the abortion rate.
The sentence that everyone is calling inane is this: "Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal." Sure, it could be improved, I admit that. But I'm not seeing how it assumes legality "falls on national borders." The so-called inane sentence was not written without sources, and the sources contain useful information. The four cited sources say that in countries like India, for example, unsafe abortion is very common despite legality, and they say that in some countries where medical care is generally good illegal abortion rarely leads to death. Both of those points seem important to me. The four sources used for the "inane" sentence are these: (1) "Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003"(PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. Retrieved March 7, 2011. In several countries, the legalization of abortion has not been followed by elimination of unsafe abortion.; (2) Faúndes, Aníbal and Barzelatto, José. The Human Drama of Abortion: a Global Search for Consensus, page 21 (Vanderbilt University Press 2006); (3) Blas, Erik et al. Equity, social determinants and public health programmes, pages 182-183 (World Health Organization 2010); (4) Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, page 15 (World Health Organization 2003).
If people think those four cited sources are inane, then I won't bother trying to use them in this article. But I don't think they're inane; instead, they provide a significant qualification to the notion that legality determines safety, which is the present POV of this Wikipedia article. In other words, if abortion is legal but unsafe in India, then that is a very important caveat to the notion that legality determines safety. If deaths from illegal abortion would be extremely rare in an advanced country with generally good medical care, then that again is a very significant caveat to the notion that legality determines safety. Legality is an important factor affecting safety, but I don't think this Wikipedia article should omit the caveats; omitting them seems inane to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The cited sources do support the notion that legality is a key determinant of safety. The relationship is not completely ironclad - hence the caveat that in some areas where abortion is technically legal but access is restricted by non-legal means, it may still be unsafe. Similarly, even in areas where abortion is illegal, people with high socioeconomic status may be able to obtain a clandestine but safe abortion. But these are exceptions to the rule, and we should present them as such. Ideally, we would convey the viewpoint (espoused by high-quality sources and experts in the field) that legality is a key determinant of the safety of abortion, but it is not the sole determinant. Right?
Regarding deaths from illegal abortion, I agree that these would presumably be relatively rare in a developed country where the complications of unsafe abortion can be treated rapidly and effectively. But death is not the only variable here. Even with good medical care, unsafe abortion can result in uterine scarring, future infertility, hospital stays, increased medical spending, and all of the downstream effects of these non-fatal complications. I don't think we should convey the idea that if unsafe abortions don't outright kill women, then they're no big deal. I don't think that viewpoint is contained in reliable sources, nor does it seem to make much sense. MastCellTalk 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with MastCell's comment. There are other key determinants of safety besides legality, though legality is the main one emphasized most in the literature. Incidentally, I don't think the "inane" sentence conveyed the idea that if unsafe abortions don't outright kill women, then they're no big deal. Anyway, if someone would like to draft a non-inane sentence based on the four sources mentioned, then that would be appreciated, or I could try again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Better map
Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments7 people in discussion
This map is not entirely accurate. However I have only been able to check it with regard to the UK. The 1967 UK abortion act has not been extended to N. Ireland. Northern Ireland should not be blue (or green either). Abortion is not legal on request in N. Ireland except in circumstance pertaining to risk to the life of the mother. It is mostly in those circumstances that abortions have been performed in hospitals in N. Ireland. There has been some debate over the numbers of abortions being performed and whether they have all been legal (ie. anything outside of risk to the life of the mother is deemed illegal), so I think another colour needs to be added to the legend, for jurisdictions where it is illegal except for risk to maternal life. DMSBel (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The map does sort of need references for verification associated with it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've warned you, Doc James, at your talk page. According to one of the two editors who you reverted today, "Inaccurate, no source. Lebanon is incorrect, many middle eastern states incorrect. Contradicts 'Religion and Abortion'".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The image has been there a long time and there is no consensus for its removal. BTW per the UN abortion is illegal except to save a woman's life in Lebanon www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/lebanon.doc . Thus I do not see wrt this country that it is wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That UN link doesn't work for me on two different computers. Anyway, I highly doubt that Egypt, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Oman, Lebanon, and UAE allow abortion for "mental health" reasons, as the map currently seems to imply.[43] The current map is grossly inaccurate and should be removed, instead of edit-warred back into the article. Two editors have tried to remove it today, but one editor has violated 1RR to jam it back into the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No this is a very small problem that I have fixed by just altering the grammar. I have no problems accessing the files. Google docs will pull them up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I replaced your bare link with a formatted link, and edited your grammar so that it's more understandable. There are still problems. For example, the map indicates that in Brazil abortion is illegal with exceptions for rape, maternal life, physical health, and/or mental health. In reality, according to the UN as of 2007, Brazil allows an exception for life of the mother, rape, or incest, but not for physical health, mental health, et cetera. So, I'll fix that. Evidently, the map cannot be removed even temporarily, so we must adjust as best we can. The map is still defective; for example, it shows illegality in the Dominican Republic with no exceptions, whereas the UN says there's an exception for the life of the mother. Also, the UN says that Ethiopia and Sudan allow abortion in cases of rape, whereas our map says otherwise. It's basically a crappy map, and I hope we can remove it until it's fixed (I don't know how to fix images like this).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well you could start a RfC to see if there is support for your opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I already know there's support from another editor. You reverted both of us, and you're not even denying that the map has errors. Why not start an RFC to see if there's support for you being immune from sanctions at this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I am only checking the UK at the moment. Both the map above and the one in the article are incorrect when compared to the above link (UN abortion policies site). Initially I had thought that it was only N. Ireland within the UK which is the wrong colour (above) but correct in the map in the article. I now see from the website DocJames linked to above that Abortion is not actually legal on request in the rest of the UK - it is only permitted on grounds ranging from socio-economic to risk to the life of the mother. It is not permitted on grounds of rape or incest. The UK should not be coloured blue.
from above site:
UK and N Ireland
Grounds on which abortion is permitted:
To save the life of the woman Yes
To preserve physical health Yes
To preserve mental health Yes
Rape or incest No
Foetal impairment Yes
Economic or social reasons Yes
Available on request No
Additional requirements:
Abortion is legal in England, Wales and Scotland when two registered medical practitioners (only one in an emergency) certify that the required medical grounds as set forth in the Abortion Act of 1967 have been met. The termination of pregnancy must be carried out (except in an emergency) in a National Health Service hospital or in a nursing home, private hospital or other approved place. Abortion is legal during the first 24 weeks of gestation. The consent of the spouse is not a prerequisite of the medical termination of pregnancy. The Abortion Act of 1967 does not apply in Northern Ireland.
With regard to the countries Anythingyouwant mentioned (Egypt, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Oman, Lebanon, and UAE) these all permit abortion only on ground of risk to life of the woman.
The section therefore should at least be tagged until this is cleared up.
Is there not a basic map with country names somewhere in WP Commons that could be edited to change colours? My geography is not great and it would help checking if the country names were on the map.
wp:WikiProject Maps can usually assist with that sort of technical detail, but they'll need to know which countries are in which group. LeadSongDogcome howl! 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks LeadSongDog, I had a look in WP Commons, looking specifically for an uncoloured or grey world map but with the names of countries, does not seem to be one, unless I missed it. Unless the legend is expanded (which I would strongly favor - as we have no classification for at least half a dozen middle eastern countries) the UK (Great Britain and N.Ireland) would be better as black (varies by region).DMSBel (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
would be best? DMSBel (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason why a section can't have more than one tag, though one tag is sometimes sufficient. The globalize tag was inserted by the editor "NuclearWarfare" last year, apparently for reasons other than the map.[44] I inserted the disputed facts tag yesterday, regarding the map. The disputed facts tag seems appropriate, because the map is not factually accurate. It's not merely a question of omitting or emphasizing certain parts of the world, but rather it's about presenting bogus, false information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a graphics person. I'd be glad to create a new map if it will solve this dispute. Could someone give me concise, yet detailed instructions on what needs to be changed? Is there consensus on that front? If there is, it seems simple enough to just make a new map, and I'd gladly do that. Also, inline dispute tags are better than section tags if the whole section isn't what is in dispute, but instead a single image...-Andrew c[talk] 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The map has a footnote attached, and the footnoted source is pretty clear. Whoever does the map just needs to make sure it matches the footnoted source. Some of the errors have been identified above in this section. If you think one of the current tags needs to be downsized, perhaps a better course would be to remove the image for now (a big image needs a big tag).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly busy, so maybe it was dumb of me to volunteer in the first place. I'm not going to read the above discussion, and I'm not going to compile sources myself. If someone can give me a list "change X country to Y color" for corrections, and other actionable suggestions, I can easily make the changes. But if it is going to force me to become involved in a content dispute and take time to do research, that's more than what I bargained for. I apologize if that makes my offer less sweet or whatever. I just don't have the time to devote to much more. -Andrew c[talk] 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Andrew Thanks for the offer. We will need to figure out the exact changes needed. Most of the map is correct. Just a few small clarifications needed. Will let you know when we figure out what needs to be done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to find consensus on the legend first. There seems to be countries where it is only legally permitted on grounds of risk to life of the mother. Is there any problem with having a colour for that? I think that the general grounds on which abortion is legally permitted in each country is what the map should indicate. The addition of "and in some countries physical and/or mental health" to the orange and brown classification seems rather unneccessary when we are doing this on a country by country basis. 62.254.133.139 (talk) DMSBel (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the source used in the article (World Abortion Policies 2007) the following countries only permit abortion on the ground of saving the life of the mother:
Africa:
Djibouti, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Somalia, Angola, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe, Egypt, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lesotho, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal
South-Central Asia:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Sri Lanka
South-Eastern Asia:
Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines
Western Asia:
Lebanon, Oman, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Europe:
Ireland, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco
Caribbean:
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Haiti
Central America:
Guatemala, Honduras
South America:
Paraguay, Suriname
Melanesia:
Solomon Islands
Micronesia:
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau
Polynesia:
Tonga, Tuvalu
If we just take out the "...and in some countries physical and/or mental health" from the legend (refering here to the map currently in the article, not the one above) it would reduce the amount of changes needed to a minimum.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Any objections? DMSBel (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes if someone could create a map with these changes that would be great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignore my earlier comment about removing the words "...and in some countries physical/or mental health" from two of the keys in the legend. I have just been gone through the source comparing it with the map. Currently the brown and orange keys in the legend covers several grounds. Some countries that are brown (ie. all those listed above) only permit abortion on grounds of to save the life of the woman. In others this is widened to preserve physical or mental health. I had uploaded a map based on the one in the article that distinguishes those countries where abortion is permitted only to save the life of the woman. However I see some countries have passed legislation since 2007. So I will have to try and update it for that.DMSBel (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded a map:
but it still needs some changes. For instance Spain's abortion legislation has changed, (I had not been aware of this before uploading). Important Please Note if making changes, some previous changes to earlier maps were to change the status of countries from the de jure (legality of abortion) to the de facto (actual practice). This section is on abortion law, not abortion practice, make sure that any changes are representative of the legal status of abortion in the various countries. DMSBel (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The countries in dark red, are those where abortion is only legally permitted on the grounds of saving the life of the woman.DMSBel (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Picture of abortion
Latest comment: 12 years ago91 comments14 people in discussion
According to the FAQ, "in the first quarter of 2009, various encyclopedic images related to abortions that show an intact embryo and fetus have been introduced to the article". As of today, those images have been completely removed. OrangeMarlin says there's no verification that the image is what the caption says it is. Well, the OB GYN who took the picture in India has stated what it is, and it sure isn't an ice cream cone or a windmill.
In the spirit of "no censorship", maybe it would be better to have an image that actually shows the blood and guts, but this image has been the compromise for years.
OrangeMarlin's edit summary is this: “Absolutely no verification that this is actually a photograph of a 10 week old fetus.” If the objection is the "10 week" figure in the caption, then the caption could have been edited without removing the image. Moreover, the "10 week" figure is attested to by the creator of the image, and it is also confirmed by looking at the size of the fetus in relation to the hand holding it. A fetus at 10 weeks LMP (i.e. 8 weeks after fertilization) has a crown to rump length of 3 centimetres (1.2 in) which is consistent with the image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I also have some concerns about use of flickr images. However the issue of the map (discussion above) is to me of greater priority. It would be a pity if this sidetracked things from correcting the details of it.62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Further there has been substantial discussion about including the image in question during the past two years, I think an RFC would need to be held before removal. I would prefer better verifiability myself, but the fetus in the picture does appear to be developmently about 10 weeks old, by comparison with other images on the internet. I acknowledge however that I am not an expert. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, something very obvious about this had eluded me until now. The picture is of a 10 week old fetus, but the surgical procedure carried out was not an abortion, but a Hysterectomy. The picture description states: A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. Removal of the womb is not a theraputic abortion. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. That's what the image shows, and it's sometimes called a "hysterectomy abortion". According to the Wikipedia article Hysterotomy abortion, “the rate of mortality for abortion by hysterotomy and hysterectomy reported in the United States between 1972 to 1981 was 60 per 100,000, or 0.0006%.” The term "hysterectomy abortion" can be found in Google Scholar, for example.[45]Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Pictures are intended to be representative of the subject. In this case, the hysterectomy was performed because of cervical carcinoma in situ, with abortion of the fetus as a result. The photo is poorly representative of the topic because a) vanishingly few abortions are performed by hysterectomy (it's completely unheard of as a means of therapeutic abortion in the first trimester, as far as I'm aware), and b) this particular hysterectomy was performed for a cancer (or, in this case, pre-cancerous) diagnosis.
Secondly, removing and photographing the fetus after such an operation is unusual, to say the least. Posting such a photograph on Flickr is perhaps even more unusual. Given the large number of... unusual aspects associated with this photo, I think we should not use it. I'm not personally totally comfortable trusting an anonymous Flickr user's assertions about the photo for our purposes. I doubt that any other serious, respectable reference work (e.g. Britannica) would include a photo with such poorly attested provenance. MastCellTalk 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you MastCell, I was meaning to come here to explain my reasoning, but real life intervened. There isn't much for me to add to what MastCell said, except that I might "guess" that the photo was indeed representative of a 10 week old fetus, but that's purely original research or synthesis. This photo is not from a reliable source at all. I have no idea if it's photoshopped, or if it's even a physician who posted it. Given that it's not reliable, we can only infer that it was placed there for POV purposes only. That fetus cannot survive, it cannot think or feel, it is not much more than a mass of cells. The photo obviously tries to make a case that it isn't. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical of the photo on so many levels. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The use of Google Scholar and Wikipedia as sources is well....laughable. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Anythingyouwant. I still think an RFC should be held, as the image has been in the article for quite a while, and I have not had time to go through all the discussion that surrounded it's inclusion to see if these concerns (including my own have been discussed earlier). Anythingyouwant has been with this article much longer than me and was involved in the earlier discussion. I don't see a problem with using Google Scholar. I am going to revert - to allow further discussion. DMSBel (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(outdent)Well if we're going for age, I believe I've been here longer than Anythingyouwant; but frankly how long you've been editing any particular article is not generally useful. We don't give points for longevity. OTH, what might be relevant is that Anythingyouwant is still under sanctions for disrupting Arbortion related articles in order to push his POV. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted. I suggest he back off a little from trying to get another inflammatory image inserted in this article. Had I been paying attention when it was added, I would have said something at the time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief. Now I notice that DMSBel is under editing restriction[46] - "topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Wikipedia space pages." This is not specifically a sexuality page, but it certainly seems to fits the "broad interpretation". Should y6ou even be here, DMSBel? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, given that I reverted DMSBel, who is restricted from this article, do I have to self-revert, or am I good to go. Didn't know that DMSBel was topic banned. Figures. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You cannot self revert at this point; two other edits have succeeded yours. You've been warned and are now aware of the 1RR; no need for anything else. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this page included in a "broad-interpretation"? As you see I am not being contentious here, in fact I have put an image back into the article that I am not completely in agreeance with because it seems that the image has been here for some time and I think there needs to be further discussion before it is removed.DMSBel (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly this is not Ejaculation or Cum shot; however in broad terms, sex is required for pregnancy which is required for abortions. This is under the "broad interpretation", but barely. It may be best to discuss this with GeorgeWilliamHerbert, who if I'm understanding the sequence correctly (I'm still reading the ANI thread) was the one who enacted the topic ban, correct? I must say I'm not terribly impressed with your approach. You state you don't support the image, yet you put it back - but its clear the one person who does support the image is Anythingyouwant, already on thin ice where Abortion articles are concerned, and he is the only person who spoke against topic banning you. A bit too much of the one-hand-washes-the-other for my taste. Of course it could simply be that the two of you see things the same way; but I suggest you widen your mentors and find someone to edit with and emulate who has not come quite so close to being site banned. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I follow the article talk pages mostly, I don't generally know who here has any sanctions, current or expired. DMSBel (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have asked GWH, who implemented the topic ban, and his ruling is that DMSBel's behavior is not problematic enough to make him "want to stretch the ban to cover it, at this time" and adds the comment that "DMSBel is aware that misbehavior will garner attention." So we have an answer; DMSBel's topic ban does not include Abortion at this time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
en that it's not reliable, we can only infer that it was placed there for POV purposes only." - I don't think this inference is valid.DMSBel (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
RfC's are a waste of time. But if you're going to open it up, I'm going to make sure "death" is removed from the lead, since a fetus is not alive, so it can't be killed. If you're going to open one shitty can of works, I get to open my own. Go for it. By the way, I reverted the POV picture. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than "looks legit" here. Leaving aside the appropriateness of the photo to this article (which is highly questionable), what do we know about its provenance? It looks to me like an anonymous Flickr user is the sole source on which we're basing our interpretation of this image. Am I missing something? Does this strike anyone else as questionable? Moreover, how do we know that the patient who underwent surgery consented to have this image reproduced on Wikipedia? Absent such consent, should we feel comfortable using the photo? There are actual legal and ethical issues here, and blowing them off with "looks legit" seems cavalier, to say the least. Maybe one of the reverters could explain to me why a serious, respectable reference work would illustrate its medical articles with photos from an anonymous Flickr user, lacking clear patient consent? MastCellTalk 05:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
From my take on the law after consulting with a medical law group in Canada, as long as there is no identifiable person consent is not needed. Also I remember something from American law that says that people do no have any legal rights over parts of there body once separated from them ( this come up from court cases where the police find peoples urine and test it for drugs ). Consent not required. But this is just a side note and has nothing to do with if we use this image or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James on those points, which rebut MastCell's point. Also, I object to removal of longstanding content without consensus. This image is unusual in that it depicts a particular fetus that has DNA different from the DNA of every other aborted fetus, but it also has features in common with many abortions.. No one has identified anything in this image to suggest it's anything other than what it purports to be. Motion pictures of sex acts and erotic pics of underage girls are necessary according to Wikipedia policy to prevent censorship, but such considerations are never applied at this article, which is why there has never been an image here of what an abortion actually does to a fetus. So we have had this image instead, for years, in response to a huge RFC (linked in the FAQ) in which a majority of editors supported such an image. KC, without addressing whether or not I should be under sanctions for the rest of my life (as you gratuitously have alluded to), my opinion is that you and OrangeMarlin would be much more deserving of such sanctions than I ever was (and more). Your joint removal of longstanding content without consensus is yet another case in point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Off-topic, but I'm kind of amused - the proponents of keeping the image probably overlap a good deal with the opponents of arguments like "it's not a person" and "it is a part of the patient's body" which Doc James is citing as possible laws that would allow it to be used. ;) Its provenance is still questionable, though, and should probably be discussed beyond this talkpage. (Consensus can change, ATYW.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's no more questionable than for thousands of other Flickr images at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: Its not my opinion; it was ArbCom's Remedy: "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." (emphasis added) so I suggest you drop this line of attack. You're falsely attacking me for what your actions brought on yourself, via an ArbCom remedy, and you're doing it on an article talk page, not an appropriate venue to offer your opinion that ArbCom sanctioned the wrong editor.
Regarding the image, there is obviously no consensus at this time to keep the image, regardless of how long it was in the article. Remember that consensus can change; remember also such incidents as the Seigenthaler incident, which show that clearly inappropriate content may go unnoticed for an extended period of time. Our only productive way forward is to discuss the images appropriateness and merits at this time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a little amused too, and puzzled. I don't agree with the picture captioned as it is but if there is a long standing consensus (and lets face it this page is hardly one to slip under the radar easily), then I would only risk getting myself sanctioned if I stood against that consensus. So you see that's rather an important issue for me. As these things frequently turn one way then the other, it's rather easy to completely inadvertently and without any intention of disruption find oneself being "hung out to dry". I rather object to that sort of editing culture! As for the picture I would prefer to see a caption change, if it is kept.DMSBel (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not consulted a lawyer, and I suspect that laws and practices regarding patient consent differ across various jurisdictions, so maybe it's best to omit the legal argument. I think there is a strong ethical argument against including photos of aborted fetuses without some sort of indication that the patient consented to their prominent display on a highly-viewed page of a top-10 website, but maybe we should table that for now since it's distracting from more immediate concerns.
No one has actually addressed my core objection. We know nothing about this photo's provenance beyond what has been provided by an anonymous Flickr user. I think that is far, far below the bar we should aspire to use to illustrate medical articles. Again, no serious, respectable reference work on Earth would use an anonymously uploaded Flickr photo of unknown provenance to illustrate a medical article.
As a secondary concern, the image is in no way typical of therapeutic abortion - in fact, it's extraordinarily atypical. Using it as one of the (relatively few) photos in this article is misleading.
If the objective is to show the most representative image, would it not simply be one of a woman taking a pill? Boring, perhaps, but representative. LeadSongDogcome howl! 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Or an IM injection as we give methotrexate primarily here in Canada. I could get a photo next time we do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) If those who question the "provenance" of the image would say exactly what they want, and say how it might be obtained, then I or someone else could perhaps try to get it. On the other hand, I see that the grounds fir objecting to the image have shifted during this discussion, so perhaps any effort to keep the imagery neutral would be futile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
They haven't "shifted"; there are multiple objections. Let me ask a counter-queston: under what circumstances do you think an anonymously uploaded Flickr image should be used to illustrate a controversial, high-profile medical article? The arguments for keeping the image so far seem to boil down to: a) it's been in the article a long time, and b) various other Wikipedia articles contain questionable images. Neither one is particularly convincing to me. I'm open to more convincing arguments to keep the image, but they would need to address at least two questions. First, how can we vouch for the accuracy of this image and its description when it's been uploaded anonymously to Flickr? And second, even if the image is exactly what it purports to be, how do we justify using a vanishingly rare, non-representative circumstance as a general illustration of the topic? MastCellTalk 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like you've answered how the "provenance" could conceivably be proven to your satisfaction. If you look at the huge RFC on this subject (linked in the FAQ), you'll see that this image pretty much satisfies the requests of a majority of the commenters there, by showing what is aborted during an abortion of a fetus at a typical time during pregnancy. No one has pointed to anything in the image that gives any indication of inauthenticity. No one who has urged removal has suggested any comparable substitute. If anonymity of the contributor of a photo like this is the main problem, then can detailed info about the contributor be provided via OTRS to satisfy that concern? Like almost all images at Wikipedia, this one has representative aspects and non-representative aspects, and I don't see how the non-representative aspects detract or mislead in any way. If anything, the nonrepresentarive aspects portray abortion as a non-bloody, non-gory procedure, which hardly conforms with the suggestions above that this image is part of some pro-life conspiracy. If an image of a more typical abortus (bloody and gory) were inserted here, it's been made very clear that it would be removed in a heartbeat despite rules against censorship, so ruling out an image like the one in question would just exacerbate that problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a very high-profile, highly viewed article. I think we should aim to make it conform to the highest possible standards for Wikipedia content. To me, that means we should use images from identifiable, reputable sources, and the reader should be able to verify that the source of the photos is legitimate. That pretty much rules out random Flickr images.
To be clear, at present there is absolutely no way that this image meets the standard set forth in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". It's obvious to me that anonymous Flickr accounts are not "reliable, published sources" appropriate for controversial medical content. It's an obvious policy violation at present, at least from where I sit.
I suppose if we had some concretely verifiable information about the contributor and the image (e.g. via OTRS) that would help. I personally still wouldn't be comfortable with it, but I wouldn't stand in the way if a consensus of others (ideally without a history of agenda-driven editing on the topic) felt that this was sufficient.
Really, though, I think the time would be better spent finding images that meet the high standard we should be aspiring to, rather than bending over backward to try and keep an image that's going to be borderline even in a very-best-case scenario. I'm going to stop now, and let others chime in since I don't want to beat a dead horse if I'm totally out on a limb here. MastCellTalk 00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Best point I think that was raised is this is not an image illustrating the concept of a normal 'abortion'. It is, in a round about way, sort of related, but admittedly comes from a very unusual situation. I don't think we need to hide behind the motives. The reason this image was included was because some users felt it was important to illustrate what was being aborted, without necessarily showing gory, shock images found on pro-lifer's signs (and I can't help but think this image isn't much removed from a prior contender, File:Lifesize8weekfetus.JPG). Do we keep the image because we, as a community, think it is important to the topic to show the fetus, even in the context of an unusual hysterectomy? While important, I think the issue of providence is more nitpicky, and skirts this bigger issue. We could probably address those providence concerns with some legwork, but the bigger issue, IMO, would still remain on whether it's appropriate to use a very atypical abortion procedure to illustrate "abortion", and whether the actual motive behind the image, to show a fetus, is still important to the community. -Andrew c[talk] 14:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Many similar images have been considered for this article, per the RFC linked in the FAQ. And yet those now recommending removal of this image have still not suggested any alternative, which kind of suggests to me what MastCell calls "agenda-driven editing". That's unfortunate, because NPOV should apply as much at this article as any other. The sudden fastidiousness about sourcing also strikes me as very selective, given the consistent opposition to even mentioning pro-choice affiliations in any of the footnotes. I agree that Flickr might not be the best source to use, if anyone could point to the slightest aspect of the image that appears inaccurate, but anyway sources have been proposed other than Flickr. Holding this image to an unusually high standard does not seem credible to me, nor does refusal to apply that standard to any other alternative images. The image from Angkor Wat of a bas relief is not representative of your average type of abortion either. I would appreciate if those opposing the image in question would go look at the RFC and say here whether any alternative would be more acceptable.
Also, if we're going to try to be honest here, how about acknowledging that the Flickr pages for the contributor of this image already do indicate her name, her location, her occupation, and much more. I have never contacted that contributor, but I could do so to get more information, either for public display at our image page, or for private disclosure via OTRS. But I need to know what to ask for; do we need her birth date and marital status? If what we need is a non-anonymous Flickr account, that's what we already have.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all. Making my occasional rounds to the page, thought I'd throw in my two cents. Probably Andrew c is the only one who'd remember me, and, on that subject, why hasn't anyone given him a barnstar since 2007 for his vast and ongoing corpus of work on WP:Abortion? He's richly earned it, but I'm not active enough to give one out. Anyhow, on topic:
It seems to me that the anti-picture faction is putting the pro-picture faction in a Catch-22: it can't be one of those nasty gory pictures from a common abortion, because that's offensive, but it also must be representative of common abortions, so it can't be from rare procedures like a hysterectomy abortion. Here is the trouble: common abortions are gory and visually offensive. Inescapable fact of abortion. I sympathize with both "horns" of the dilemma, but we have to pick a value here: do we prioritize representativity (a word I just invented) or do we favor sensitivity?
Throwing up our hands in disgust and scrubbing all fetal photographs from the article is not an acceptable answer, because such a deliberate, permanent erasure of any touchstone between abortion and its concrete, definitional result deeply compromises the article's encyclopedicity (another word I just invented). Wikipedia, above all other encyclopedias anywhere in history, has insisted on the importance of graphic photography, and has, at times, walked right up to the edge of legality with its long-since uncontroversial images of ejaculation and pornography. And some Abortion editors not only refuse to show graphic images of a perfectly legal medical procedure that are highly central to the topic, but define acceptable imagery in such a way that it is impossible to include any direct photography at all, ever? The idea parodies itself.
Where I do sympathize with the anti-imagery brigade is its concern for verifiability and reliable sourcing. I just got finished criticizing an article that cited Yelp! reviews as a valid source; I'm not going to come over here and argue that Flickr is okay (although, as AYW points out, we've got a lot of information about the uploader. We could just contact her and reload it to Wikimedia Commons to make it as verified as most anything else on the Commons). I'll concede, also, that ads by anti-abortion groups are dubious under NPOV. It should be replaced by a better image from a better source. In the meantime, however, it should be restored-until-replaced. It is topic-relevant, is reasonably well-sourced (though not ideally so), a longstanding part of the article, and was pulled down without discussion (much less consensus) by a user (OrangeMarlin) who appears eager to relitigate large portions of the article in order to (forgive me for saying so, OM) push his POV. Those actions have already resulted in an edit war and an article protection by a third-party admin, which I think sufficiently demonstrates that they were undertaken inappropriately.
The TLDR version: put it back up for now and replace it as soon as possible with something better. And never ever ever edit the abortion article without discussing it first! :P Hope my perspective is helpful. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
BCWowbagger, you seem to be representing yourself as a person who knows something about this subject when you state, "Here is the trouble: common abortions are gory and visually offensive. Inescapable fact of abortion." I would like to know something about your experience in the field of "common abortions", since you state that the procedure is, as a matter fact, gory and visually offensive. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
They are fairly bland as surgery goes and less "gory" in fact than say an I&D of an abscess... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess you missed my point - that is why I am wondering why BCSWowbagger feels they are so offenive.Gandydancer (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand BCSWowbagger's assumptions. He seems to assume that the article must include some sort of photograph of the end result of a surgical abortion in order to be encyclopedic. I disagree. If I look at articles on various "perfectly legal medical procedures", I generally don't see post-surgical images of the removed material. Splenectomy doesn't have any images of extracted spleens; appendectomy, no images of removed appendices; etc. Granted, tonsillectomy does contain an image of removed tonsils, but notice that it's sourced to a published medical journal article rather than a Flickr account? We seem to be creating a false standard here - such images are not required or demanded elsewhere on grounds of encyclopedicity. Moreover, as Doc James pointed out elsewhere, given the prevalence of medical abortion in 2011, it might be most appropriate to show an image of a woman taking a pill to illustrate the procedural aspects of the topic.
As to Flickr accounts, I doubt I will ever be comfortable with using one to source something like this - how hard do you think it would be for me to create a Flickr account tonight with solid-sounding (self-provided) credentials and start uploading pics and case histories? But like I said, if I'm out on a limb here, I'll register my disagreement and accept consensus.
Finally, at the risk of distracting from more tangible concerns - am I the only one here who is uncomfortable with displaying an image of an aborted fetus with zero indication that the patient consented to its prominent display on a high-traffic page of a top-10 website? If the answer is "yes", I'll shut up about it. MastCellTalk 03:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading the discussion from the start but wanted to take plenty of time to form an opinion. I do have problems with the picture being used. How can it be possible to say that it's appropriate to have the fetus held in hand? If the article were about a tonsillectomy, would the extracted tonsils be held in hand? Or if about amputation, would you say that an amputated foot, for instance, is dead...or alive... And, perhaps beside the point, but why is the fetus not being held by a surgically-gloved hand but by a hand from (perhaps) the cleaning staff (going by looking at the glove).
But to move forward, I believe MastCell is correct, there is no good reason to have a picture of a fetus at all. Gandydancer (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Not an expert so I can't say if flickr is an ok source for pictures. To me it's about the picture not belonging here. I get the wikipedia is not censored idea, but at the same time isn't wikipedia supposed to stay neutral? There's a lot of things involved in an actual abortion--the woman, her uterus, the embryo, the doctor, the tools, the clinic. Only having a picture of no. 3 seems pretty selective. It basically frames the issue like peta pictures in the article about hotdogs would. You could argue it takes pigs dying to get hotdogs, that's a fact, why hide it? But it's not just facts that matter, it's how they're wrapped too. A slaughterhouse picture might be ok in an article about slaughterhouses, but stick it in the hotdog article and now it's not neutral. There's not being censored and then there's trying to make sure everyone sees The Truth because you think it's important for people to support your cause. Like they say you can't please them all and staying neutral is what we should go for in this case.Friend of the Facts (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Now we come to the meat of the objection. The group favoring removal's problem is not really with this particular image, but a general objection to having images of an abortion (or its products) at all. That's fine and dandy. Perhaps it is time to revisit the RFC of 2009. First let me make a couple of quick replies to specific comments made to my last addition. Gandydancer stated, "I would like to know something about your experience in the field of "common abortions", since you state that the procedure is, as a matter fact, gory and visually offensive." The answer is I haven't the faintest medical experience. I surmise this from the fact that, over the course of the four+ years I've been working on (or lurking around) the WP project, every single image of a common abortion ever proposed for this article was rejected for being a "shock" image. D&E's, D&X's, chemicals, saline, certainly any ultrasounds of any version of the procedure actually underway... They never survive the discussion process, because everyone who isn't a POV pro-lifer decries them as visually offensive -- and they can't disagree, because that's exactly why the POV pro-lifers want them posted. (Andrew c, who has a much more complete memory of this page than I do, can correct the record if I'm wrong about this.) The non-representative hysterectomy abortion image was selected specifically because it showed a recognizable conceptus without making the article look like something out of an Operation Rescue protest.
MastCell asked: "am I the only one here who is uncomfortable with displaying an image of an aborted fetus with zero indication that the patient consented to its prominent display on a high-traffic page of a top-10 website?" No, I share that concern. As I argued above, the picture, however longstanding its place in the article, has serious deficiencies, especially given its place on one of the most difficult articles on WP, and it should be replaced. In the meantime, we can contact the Flickr user in question (assuming AnythingYouWant is right about the user's contact info being public) and ask her. Per WP:Image, we can assume her good faith consent and identification of the image's subject until we can scrape together a good replacement picture.
Lastly, I reread my own post, and, on a second read-through, it feels like I accused OrangeMarlin of deliberate POV-pushing. That was not my intention, and I apologize if OM reads it and thinks that's what I meant. WP:AGF and all that. I only meant that the aggressive manner in which OM has taken action on this matter, combined with the outright threat to reopen the old first-sentence debate, does not look like carefully considered NPOV thinking from where I'm sitting.
Now let's talk about the wider question. The group seems to want to revisit the question of having images of aborted fetuses on the page at all. Cool. It may be valuable to everyone to reread the old RFC (linked at the top of the page) to get some starting points in the discussion. I'll be rereading that as soon as I'm done with this comment.
First, I think it is wrong to say that just because splenectomy doesn't have an image means we shouldn't. Splenectomyshould have an image. In a perfect encyclopedia, which WP one day hopes to become, it would have an image both of the operation in progress and the final results. The argument to the contrary smacks, to me, of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.
Second, there's this floating question of relevance. Every time images get brought up, there's an argument that if we included an image of an abortus, then we would need to include an image of a pregnant lady in an abortion clinic and maybe a separate picture injection, and then where would we be? I make reply: first off, I've no objection to including pregnant women and metheltrexate injections in this article. As I have perhaps made clear, I think images are fantastic. So, in general, does Wikipedia, albeit within certain reasonable limits which the Abortion article is not even close to reaching. A desire to add other images of equal weight is no barrier to adding this one.
Second, however, there is a false equivalence being drawn here. These proposed images are not of equal weight. Abortion, per the article, "is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus" (and I'll leave the last clause of that sentence aside, because I do not want to reopen that discussion at the same time as this one). The most relevant image for the article, then, would depict "the termination of the pregnancy," especially "the removal or expulsion of the fetus." The best image to use would be an image of an in-progress abortion. There's a longstanding consensus against doing that. However, I think if we're reconsidering the consensus on images, we should reconsider everything -- and it strikes me as relevant, topical, illustrative, and inherently uncontroversial to include an in-uterine view (with reliable, NPOV-sourcing, of course; i.e. not "The Silent Scream") of an in-progress abortion.
However, if the in-progress abortion image remains outside consensus (as it always has), then the next-most-relevant image is that of the fetus just after its "removal or expulsion." To illustrate childbirth, the best image would not be "a pregnant woman" or an undisturbed vagina or even an injection of anaesthesia. The best image would show the process of expelling that baby from the vagina or, failing that, the end result (a messy, ugly, dare I say visually offensive new baby), and, if there's space, all those other incidentals I mentioned before. (The childbirth article notably manages to accomplish both these goals in one image.) To illustrate impregnation (as distinct from pregnancy), the best image would show (as well as possible) the introduction of semen, the fertilization of the ovum, and implantation in the uterine lining, or, failing that, the pregnant woman who resulted and, if there's space, the inputs of the process (semen and ovum). To illustrate abortion, the best image would show the removal or expulsion of the fetus, or, failing that, the expelled fetus that resulted and, if there's space, the tools which expelled that fetus (drugs, curette, etc). From a purely definitional standpoint, abstracted from the controversy and the very impassioned stances about rights on both sides, abortions are about fetuses, not about women, and not drugs -- just as splenectomies are about spleens, not about the people who have them. If for whatever reason consensus rejects the idea of including an image of an abortion in progress, then the ideal, most encylcopedic abortion article (which is what we're all going for here) will include some image of the direct object of the abortion process.
Now, I know some of the editors are concerned that, if there is an image, POV pro-lifers will push particularly emotionally evocative images in order to forward their POV. Jimbo himself has warned about the power of images to inherently attack NPOV. There are a number of ways we can avoid this, whether by somehow finding a particularly non-gory yet illustrative image or by including multiple images of different fetuses aborted at different stages by various methods, or even creating some kind of combo image illustrating the varying products of abortion (a la the eleven-doctors composite image at the top of The Doctor). There is a lot to discuss about particular choice of images, and I think, based on the opinions given here, that the Abortion article is ready to have that discussion again. But blocking images of the abortus entirely is, I strongly believe, not appropriate for the World's Greatest Encyclopedia in an article about abortion. Once we get past that idea, I think we can address what I consider much weightier encyclopedic concerns, like Friend of the Facts's NPOV worries.
Finally, leaving all the foregoing arguments aside, there seems to be an underlying current of thought here that suggests that abortion is perfectly comparable to any other perfectly legal medical procedure. While it is a perfectly legal medical procedure, the intense moral debates around it, the constantly embattled social and legal ground on which it stands, set it importantly apart from other medical procedures in some important respects. Discussions around splenectomies rarely revolve around spleens and their biological, physical, and moral status, and I've never heard of someone being confronted outside a hospital with a picture of a dead spleen. Discussions around abortions, however, are focused strongly on the status of the fetus. Fetal imagery is an important and widespread element of societal apprehension of abortion, as no one on any side would deny. While it would be ideal and unobjectionable for an article on splenectomy to include some images of the operation and the spleens that were extracted from them, it is particularly important for the abortion article to include some examples of the imagery which dominates so much of the general understanding of the procedure throughout the English-speaking world. Wikipedia does not shy away from this in other controversial departments: Friend of the Facts points to the article on abattoirs, which includes extensive imagery of the components, process, and outputs of the slaughterhouse process. WP editors stood by the most controversial imagery of the decade in its article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, because the images themselves were central to understanding the concept being discussed.
I expect at least one respondent will argue, "Okay, fair enough, then we should include those images on the abortion debate article, because that's where we deal with the controversy". While that would be an improvement on what some of the most vociferous imagery objectors would establish, it would still be to miss the point. Just as slaughterhouse and is the place for pictures of what happens in slaughterhouses, this is the article about abortion; pictures of what happens before, during, and after an abortion belong here. The most relevant images for the abortion debate article, as the editors there would rightly argue, are images of people arguing and protesting -- which is exactly what that article currently uses.
I do have one specific question, and that's for Gandydancer: you spend a whole paragraph talking about whether it's appropriate for the abortus to be "held in hand". I'm genuinely confused. Are you arguing that it's appropriate or inappropriate? I don't see what would be particularly right or wrong about holding the products of a surgery in hand when taking a picture of it, whether we're talking about abortion or tonsillectomy or amputation. It provides a nice sense of scale, I suppose, but other than that very minor point I really don't follow your argument. Can you elaborate?
Finally, lest the original topic of discussion be forgotten: while we have this discussion, the image of the hysterectomy abortion, which was inappropriately removed, should be temporarily restored, but, as soon as possible, replaced by an image that does not have the same technical deficiencies as users like MastCell have outlined.
The imagery consensus is dead! Long live the imagery consensus! :D --BCSWowbagger (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I was clear with what I wrote before. Basically I wanted to make an analogy with another issue where protesters use pictures to get their message across. Peta and animal rights activists do it and so do prolifers. So a picture of an animal being slaughtered would be ok in the slaughterhouse article because it's relevant and shows what the article is actually about. But the same picture in an article about a meat product wouldn't be appropriate. The only real reason it could be there was because someone thinks it's important to "show the truth" about meat to get people to go vegan or whatever. Or pictures of maimed civilians on the army page trying to convince people to be antiwar. It's the same thing here. Fetus pictures are ok for fetal development articles because they show what those articles are about. But tied to abortion those same pictures create problems. Fetuses are only one of multiple things involved in an abortion surgery, so why pick and choose just them to show? And how many encyclopedias have a fetus picture in their article about abortion? Do we want wikipedia to be marginal because we just go through hoops to suit everyone's agenda and don't focus on what makes a good encyclopedia? I get that there are folks who think that picture shoiuld stay because it either does no harm or makes the article better. But other folks are disagreeing with it being there and when two sides can't see eye to eye about what to do it's probably best to play it safe and do nothing. I'd say it's probably not worth the time looking for the perfect compromise fetus picture when the idea of such a picture in this article isn't really ok to begin with, but other people had different reasons for not wanting the picture from flickr here and I guess they might think differently. But to me it would be like debating whether the hamburger article should have a picture of an electrocuted cow or a cow with its throat cut when it shouldn't have a picture of a slaughtered cow at all. And I wouldn't call this the "meat" of all the objections (though given the analogy you can call it the meat objection) because it's my own personal reason and so far everyone else has given their own reasons which are different from mine. Also if what's wanted is to show an abortion in progress isn't that already covered by the diagram of the abortion surgery already there in the article?Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit to finding it difficult to determine what if any POV the picture was putting across. It seems fairly neutral as pro-life adverts tend to place emphasis on the dismemberment of the foetus. I would have no problem with it being kept in the article until such time as another is found to replace it. I would only request that it is captioned to explain that the procedure was a primarily a hysterectomy but resulting in a synchronal termination of the pregnancy, rather than refering to the entire procedure as a theraputic abortion. It should not be removed solely because of doubts over verifiability without some attempt to contact the uploader. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Gloved hand
I have been asked:
I do have one specific question, and that's for Gandydancer: you spend a whole paragraph talking about whether it's appropriate for the abortus to be "held in hand". I'm genuinely confused. Are you arguing that it's appropriate or inappropriate? I don't see what would be particularly right or wrong about holding the products of a surgery in hand when taking a picture of it, whether we're talking about abortion or tonsillectomy or amputation. It provides a nice sense of scale, I suppose, but other than that very minor point I really don't follow your argument. Can you elaborate?
I am arguing that it is extremely inappropriate. Although legal aspects are discussed, this is basically a medical article about a medical procedure. Medical pictures in medical textbooks do not show human body parts held in hand for visualization and certainly not for "a nice sense of scale". Gandydancer (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Other Wikipedia medical articles uncontroversially show fragile objects held in a doctor's hand.[47] And other Wikipedia articles uncontroversially show a doctor's hand supporting or posing an object that's being photographed.[48] This very article about abortion has a drawing of a doctor's hand that is about 75 times bigger than the abortus shown in the same drawing.[49] None of the hand images I've just linked to is crappy or different from what's typically in medical textbooks and articles. I don't see a consensus to remove this longstanding image (and replace it with nothing), and no consensus to overturn the majority opinion of the image-RFC that's linked in the FAQ, but if people want to open a new RFC please feel free. I'd have no problem with tweaking the caption, or with requesting further info from the image contributor (if someone would specify what info would be sufficient). Another possibility might be for us to locate another image of a hysterectomy abortion that is copyrighted in a textbook or article, and simply refer to that image via footnote for anyone who wants to verify the authenticity of this image that we've used for years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The aspiration drawing would of course have a hand doing the procedure. The debridement would as well since it is a procedure. How many photos did you find other than photos of a procedure? Gandydancer (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see much support for the image. And what support there is seems based in large part on the length of time it's been in the article, which doesn't actually address any of the concerns raised here. You can feel free to request more info from the uploader. It won't convince me - I don't think that anonymous Flickr images are appropriate for articles on complex and controversial medical procedures, and I don't think that emailing the uploader necessarily makes the images any less anonymous, given the low bar for creating a Flickr account. But you may convince others, and if you do I won't keep fighting this. I will probably never feel that it's ethical to display an aborted fetus without some indication that the patient consented to its display in this context on a top-ten website, but there isn't much I can do about that, and if my concern isn't shared by others then I guess I have to accept that. MastCellTalk 05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask yet again MastCell: is there any image at the image RFC (linked in the FAQ) that you would agree to? Additionally, Wikipedia has lots of images of skulls and skeletons without any indication that the deceased agreed to publication. There's no indication in the tonsil article, or hundreds of other Wikipedia medical articles that the patient consented to publication of the removed body part. To say the least, I am skeptical of these sudden new standards for this article. I suppose if I obtained evidence of consent, there would be some other objection, given that you haven't even commented about the possibility of using an alternate image. It seems the goal here is to simply deemphasize, censor, and hide any image of this sort. I oppose that type of agenda-driven editing, and so did a majority of commenters on the above-mentioned RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Holding a fragile item in hand is quite normal. Keeping the delicate amniotic sac from rupturing was likely the reason. It also assists with picture taking as the person holding the object can tilt his hand or move into a better location for lighting etc. than if the object is just placed down on a surface. The picture is used on numerous other wikipedia sites, some of which have multiple pictures of foetuses. This is by far the best picture we currently have. DMSBel (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Also just to assist discussion, and as it is rather a nuisance to have to keep going to Wikipedia Commons, or an archived RFC to search out this picture since its sudden removal from the article, could we post the picture here for sake of reference. New editors (to this page) reading this may not be aware of the picture under debate. DMSBel (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree that the photo should be returned just so new editors to this article can look at it. I am new here and I had no problem finding it. Anythingyouwant, you continue to argue that Wikipedia contains "many" and "hundreds" of articles with similar photos and yet to this time you have produced only one "held-in-hand" photo. You supplied a debridement procedure photo with a hand holding an instrument - as one would expect for a procedure (as in the aspiration drawing for this article). Also note that the debridement photo does not show a chunk of dead tissue held-in-hand or even otherwise. Then you went on to say that the tonsil article has a photo without permission. That was not what I found. I did find a very good infected tonsils photo by (our very own!) Doc James and he noted that he had written permission for his photo.
Another editor states: "Holding a fragile item in hand is quite normal." I have had no luck in getting Anythingyouwant to produce evidence of this statement. Can you back up your statement please? Perhaps it is to be expected for a Flickr photo and it's another good reason that, as MastCell has explained, Flickr is not an appropriate source for a medical article such as this. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I was asking if the picture could be posted here (the talk page) not back to the article, apologies for not making that clearer. I really don't see what is either inappropriate or appropriate in this case about the foetus being held in hand. If that is the issue then another image probably could be found, if not then this seems to be more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Verifiablility of the picture meets basic requirements (correct me if I am wrong), we have a name and location (of the uploader), details of the surgical procedure, the age of the woman, medical indications - so quite a bit actually. The uploader (to flickr) has also answered a question to clarify of the age of the foetus. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Friend of the Facts, I have read your posts and considered what you have said. I am in agreement with you position that a photo of a fetus is not appropriate for the article and I too find that the aspiration drawing, which does show a fetus, is adequate. A reader can, of course, click the fetus link and look a a picture on that page. Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, the issues are: a) the image represents an extremely atypical scenario, and is thus misleading if presented as the sole "medical" image; b) the image was uploaded to a Flickr account and currently fails WP:V rather unambiguously; c) to my mind, no serious, respectable reference work on Earth illustrates its medical articles with images culled from Flickr lacking any substantive verification; d) the ethical concern, which I won't belabor further and which may be unique to me. Rather than repeating myself further, I'd like to hear a few more voices. MastCellTalk 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT - I will add my edit before reading MastCell's "Actually strike that..." post)
MastCell I do want to address your ethics concern. I find it VERY disturbing that this image has been used in Wikipedia till now. Since one is forced to attempt to imagine the circumstances of the mother of this fetus and her feelings surrounding its termination, one must accept the possibility that she suffered a great deal over this abortion and the last thing she would want is to have her "child" displayed on Wikipedia. That several editors here do not seem to understand this suggests to me a real lack of empathy for this mother (and all mothers as far as that goes) - and perhaps her legal rights as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, strike that. I will elaborate on the ethical concern a bit. Suppose you were a woman who discovered she was pregnant, but then discovered shortly thereafter that you had a serious precancerous cervical lesion. Suppose you were faced with choosing lifesaving surgery with the knowledge that it would end your current pregnancy and your future chances of childbearing. Suppose you manage to get through this and move on with life, and then one day you discover that a picture of your fetus has been featured for years on a highly-trafficked website and viewed thousands of times daily as an example of "abortion".
We're clearly capable of great heights of moral fury when someone adds "lol he is gay" to a BLP, so why is it hard to see the potential for real-life harm here? If you support (or demand) the inclusion of this photo, shouldn't you feel some sort of moral obligation to determine whether the patient knows that their fetus is being used to illustrate our article?
I'm comfortable with images uploaded by our medical contributors because a) they're identifiable by their real names; b) they typically vouch explicitly for patient consent; and c) the images are generally much less emotionally charged for the patient than the one we're discussing. I'm fine with images taken (with appropriate permissions) from medical journals (e.g. the tonsillectomy photo), because there's a clear chain of provenance and medical journals generally demand that authors certify that appropriate human-subjects protections exist. MastCellTalk 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
To Gandydancer: I was asking if the picture could be posted here (the talk page) not back to the article, apologies for not making that clearer. I really don't see what is either inappropriate or appropriate in this case about the foetus being held in hand. If that is the issue then another image probably could be found, if not then this seems to be more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Verifiablility of the picture meets basic requirements (correct me if I am wrong), we have a name, location and profession (of the uploader), details of the surgical procedure, the age of the woman, medical indications - so quite a bit actually. The uploader (to flickr) has also answered a question to clarify the age of the foetus, and indicated a willingness to answer any other questions. I don't "demand" it's inclusion in the article. I do support it's inclusion (with amendments to caption along the lines I suggested earlier). 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
My post immediately above, had forgotten to sign in. DMSBel (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The image under discussion
A fetus removed via a therapeutic hysterectomy abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer, at about 10 weeks LMP, in India. An aborted fetus (abortus) is rarely intact like this.
Here is the image under discussion. per request of another editor. It was in the article for a long time until recently edit-warred out of the article without consensus. The article is presently frozen due to the edit war. No one has suggested any replacement fir this image, no one has suggested any copyvio, no one has pointed to any inaccuracy or inauthenticity of what's shown in the image, no one has pointed to any legal right of the mother that may have been infringed, the contributor's name and occupation are available, and the caption to the right makes clear that this is not a typical image of an abortus. A majority of commenters at the image-RFC (linked in the FAQ) agreed we should include an image of this sort.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This is already on Wikipedia and is from a more reliable source. Also not a typically abortion as it is a tubal pregnancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The tubal pregnancy image is also from Flickr. Was it from a miscarriage or an intentional abortion? In any event, this abortion article included an image of an aborted embryo along with the image under discussion (which is a fetus rather than an embryo) for many months, which was fine. Obviously, an image of an embryo looks less "human", and is also less typical of when during pregnancy intentional abortions actually occur (see chart in this Wikipedia article), and for those reasons I don't think the tubal pregnancy Flickr image would be a substitute for the image under discussion. I would not suggest that we need a signed affidavit from the woman who had the tubal pregnancy, consenting to the photo.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop referring to the RfC as if it supports your position. It closed as "no consensus", and a substantial number of editors explicitly took issue with the view you put forth at the time (some supported you as well, hence "no consensus"). The lower image shows a surgical salpingectomy specimen rather than a miscarriage, since the Fallopian tube is visible surrounding the embryo. A significant proportion of elective abortions are performed at 7-8 weeks gestational age (the age of the embryo in the lower image), as our article makes clear, so in that respect it's reasonably representative regardless of whether it looks "human" enough to you. On the other hand, I agree that images of tubal pregnancies are better suited for our article on ectopic pregnancy rather than for this article, which is more focused on abortion of potentially viable pregnancies. MastCellTalk 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem acknowledging that there was no firm consensus at the RFC to include an image of an aborted fetus, but I see no reason to stop pointing out that a slim majority of commenters at the RFC were in favor of including such an image. Contrary to that majority, you are instead arguing to remove any such image from this article, even if it is a longstanding image that has been in this article for over a year. As for your further attempts to impugn my position and motives by suggesting that an image does not look "human enough for you", I want to suggest MastCell that you re-read my comment above in which I explicitly referred to the chart in this article describing when during pregnancy abortions typically occur, and also explicitly referring to the majority of commenters at the RFC. This matter has nothing to do with my personal views or what looks human enough for me, and really I am getting tired of your years-long attacks. Your view now seems very clear: no image of an aborted fetus is acceptable in this article, because it looks too human. I am now going to take a break from commenting here. It would seem that you have cut out the part of this article that you dislike the most, and that you are not inclined to put it back. That is a loss for WP:NPOV, but maybe in a century or so this political issue will have calmed down sufficiently that Wikipedia administrators will no longer feel the need to shield readers from pertinent facts that they intensely dislike.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am not suggesting we use it as it too has many of the issues as the other one. Ed Uthman has also posted this image on his own site and he is a fairly well known pathologist. Have discussed Wikipedia with him. He is happy to have his work here. But I agree this the image is best on ectopic pregnancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll list the reasons I strongly object to this photo for the abortion article:
The Flickr source - the author's collection contains only 2 medical photos, which seems odd to me. Her other photos are just average, if that, but these 2 are quite stunning and even beautiful. She claims to be both a student and a doctor - which if either is she? Under what circumstances did she obtain the specimen? Did she obtain permission from the patient, the surgeon, or the hospital? Why is the fetus held in a cleaning glove rather than a surgical glove? Why does the photo claim that the fetus is alive?
Why is it so important for an article on abortion to show a quite stunning photo of the fetus at this stage of development when abortion actually covers several weeks of development, and according to our article around 88% of abortions are done within 12 weeks. To show a 10 week old fetus really is not a good representation and not appropriate for this article. The drawing of the aspiration procedure is appropriate for this article.
Let's face it, if this fetus was in the Cutest Fetus Contest, it would win first prize. The photo may or may have not been posed for cuteness, but it sure did turn out that way. None of that weird bulb at the back of the head/neck like those odd goldfish have. None of the skinny ribs look of a half-starved and almost dead children we see from Africa. Not at all! This fetus practically looks like a darling wee babe in a bassinet, and add to that the fact that it is gently held in an adult's hand. If one is looking to make a fetus seem quite dear and defenseless, look no further. Poster Child for How can those mean mothers kill me.
Doesn't it seem odd that we'd look for a generic-type illustration of a embryo or fetus and come up with a fetus obtained from an extremely rare "abortion" with the fetus intact within the amniotic fluid-filled sac?
This is a medical article but it can not be denied that it's much more than that. Keep in mind that there are many people who will look at any photo of a recognizable human and have no doubt what-so-ever that a baby has been murdered. They see a corpse of an innocent baby. To those of you in the medical field, you know that many babies are born that die after birth due to congenital defects and you have seen them. Would Wikipedia show that dead baby to show their defect? Do we need to show a stillborn to demonstrate that? Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your first point, if 88% of abortions are done within 12 weeks, then a 10 week old fetus is as good a representation as one at any other stage. And why use a mediocre picture if there is a better one?
"The photo may or may not have been posed for cuteness..." - with the fetus still in the amniotic sac, there would be no way to pose this picture "for cuteness". "So sad", rather than "oh how cute", is the most common response I have seen in the comments about this picture.
This was not the only picture considered, there were about 7 under consideration. There is also a six week embryonic age (8 weeks gestation) photo: DMSBel (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[QUOTE] "I don't understand your first point, if 88% of abortions are done within 12 weeks, then a 10 week old fetus is as good a representation as one at any other stage."
Please furnish me with your link that shows what percentage of abortions are done for each week of gestation so that I too may know which week represents the best one to choose. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Going by the sources used in the article it would seem that around 9 weeks gestational age is when most abortions are performed in the United States and UK. (The data for before 9 weeks is a total figure, which does not help us differentiate on a week by week basis, so overall there are more abortions performed up to 9 weeks). I fully realise this is not a global picture. But unless there are issues with the charts then I don't see that we would be using an unrepresentative picture if it was of a embryo/foetus between 6 and 10 weeks gestational age.
[QUOTE] "So sad", rather than "oh how cute", is the most common response I have seen in the comments about this picture." Exactly. You don't see anyone saying "So sad" for Little Squid Baby, do you. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually one of the comments on the flickr page for the ectopic embryo did express sadness. The majority of the remarks there expressed amazement. I find it difficult to figure out why you responded in manner you did, so while continuing to WP:AGF, you are beginning to make that difficult (for me, if not for others) by using provocative language such as "Little Squid Baby". If you still find it difficult to discuss the merits or demerits of the various pictures, perhaps you would be better editing another article you feel less strongly about?DMSBel (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
DMSBe, I have to admit that my first impulse was to respond to your post saying, "Oh lighten up, I was just joking". But I'm glad that I took a little time to think about what you said and I realize how insensitive I have been. I was aware that many people look at a photo of a fetus and see it as "a baby - but smaller" for lack of better wording. But I had forgotten that they may see a photo that does not yet look human in the same way: a complete human being. I hope you will accept my apology as I was not trying to be provocative, I was just being thoughtless and I will be more careful in the future. Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your apology. Going to take a break from editing this for a bit.DMSBel (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even going to get into a huge debate about this; I'll state that now, seeing as I know how heated the topics at this article can get and I am not fond of repeating myself over and over again. But as this is the Abortion article, I feel that a picture of an aborted embryo or fetus, or both, should be in this article. Whether in the lead or lower body of the article. And I cannot be convinced otherwise on that. No agenda. No passionate feeling either way. Just what I feel is common sense. People feeling justified that abortion is wrong by seeing the images or people not wanting the images seen to help advance their pro-choice stance are not valid reasons for censorship, seeing as Wikipedia is not censored. Flyer22 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Does any other serious, respectable reference work show images of aborted fetuses to illustrate their coverage of abortion? I think the answer is no, in which case I'm at a loss to understand why we should. If I'm wrong and other reference works do use such illustrations, I'm happy to rethink that objection. MastCellTalk 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If by "respectable reference work," you mean non pro-life organizations, even though they are considered "respectable work" by some, I don't know. But even if they don't, this is Wikipedia. We generally don't go by others' rules. Just as we don't when it comes to how we apply WP:Logical quotation when most other publications don't use this (which has been especially debated at that talk page time and time again). Just as we don't when it comes to using real penis images in the Human penis article, provoking readers to call it porn and complain on the talk page there (back when it was originally titled Penis), when other serious/respectable works just use drawings/diagrams. It's why there is even a "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. This is a medical article about abortion, and as such...there should be an image of what abortion is. Whether we use a picture of an embryo, fetus, or both. It's silly to me not to. My opinion on that won't change. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, we do have an image of what an abortion is. Apparently, you think diagrams aren't sufficient and we need photos, but that's a separate question.
When I talk about "serious, respectable reference works", I'm talking about things like Encyclopedia Britannica, or MedlinePlus, or medical textbooks. It is a foundational principle of this project that we're trying to produce a serious, respectable reference work. Therefore, when we have a dispute, it makes sense to look at how other established reference works present a topic. We don't have to slavishly mirror their coverage, but if we want to depart from what seems to be a universal practice among serious reference works, then we should have a good rationale. I mean, something better than "penis pics!" or "WP:NOTCENSORED!", which is basically focusing on the trees and ignoring the forest.
Atlases of human anatomy are certainly not "censored", so how do they illustrate abortion? When I look online at Netter's Atlas, the lone image of therapeutic abortion I find is this one. Notice that a) it depicts a medical, rather than surgical abortion, and b) note the depiction of the embryo. That diagram is what we should aim for - it's instructive rather than gratuitously graphic. MastCellTalk 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A netter like image would be good for the lead... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
MastCell, first of all, don't put words into my mouth (or rather "into my hands"). I originally missed the fact that there was a diagram of abortion in this article (thought it was just an image of the female anatomy upon glancing over the article), and nowhere did I state that I prefer real-life photos to drawings/diagrams. On sexual topics, I certainly do not prefer them. I don't need to see real images of people having anal sex, oral sex, etc. Nor do I feel that it is needed for understanding how people engage in those acts. If you notice, those articles, which I have somewhat worked on, use drawings. And yet people still complain about the drawings used at Non-penetrative sex. So even then, drawings are not always an acceptable compromise. If we were to show a drawing of an aborted embryo or fetus, I would be okay with that. But, yes, I do feel that, on this medical topic, the real thing should be shown. My giving the logical quotation and human penis examples was a display showing that Wikipedia does not go by others' rules. It's a faulty argument to say that we should do what other encyclopedias and medical texts do. Because we generally don't do what they do, nor should we. "Wikipedia is not censored" is a an extremely good rationale in this case, because that's all I see -- this article being censored -- especially with comments like "Let's face it, if this fetus was in the Cutest Fetus Contest, it would win first prize... This fetus practically looks like a darling wee babe in a bassinet, and add to that the fact that it is gently held in an adult's hand. If one is looking to make a fetus seem quite dear and defenseless, look no further. Poster Child for How can those mean mothers kill me..." and "...it's instructive rather than gratuitously graphic." And as for "other stuff exists," I see you using that rationale as well -- we should do what other encyclopedias and medical texts are doing. Better reasons should be given if you expect me to feel that having real images of an aborted embryo or fetus should not be in this article. Above, you seemed to support showing an aborted embryo. I do as well. I just happen to also support showing an aborted fetus. You can keep debating this, but all I see are agendas trying to keep images out of an article, and I will be moving on soon (after once again making it clear that my stance won't be changing). I already said that I won't be getting into some huge debate at this article, and I mean that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am reading the posts and I want to continue to be part of the discussion but right now I can not find any time. A few hours or days... Gandydancer (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
While it may be true that none of the aforementioned medical articles or medical texts carry a picture of an abortus (I cannot vouch for every medical text), the argument does not really have weight, except in a article that is purely medical. The abortion article is much wider than that, it is also wider than induced abortion, and so specifically what would be or is included in medical articles does not restrict us here except in regard to the medical aspect of the article which should be illustrated appropriately and without violating Wikipedia's principles. The issue of whether to include a picture of a foetus is not one that can be addressed merely by reference to other medical works/articles, or even other encyclopedias. Neither can be invoked as an absolute rule to determine what we include here. By and large when the subject of an article is narrow in scope, I think it is good to try and maintain the scholarly manner/tone of respected reference works within the same field. So in a purely medical article a diagram might suffice. Obviously pertinent to the discussion is whether the picture used is of a embryo/foetus or an abortus. Given the scope of the article I think a picture of a foetus should be part of it.DMSBel (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're not really addressing my point. Whether one looks at medical texts, or medical websites, or general-purpose references, or other encyclopedias, one does not find pictures of aborted fetuses. That's true regardless of whether a site's scope is "purely medical" or whether (like us) it aims to be a general-audience reference. Such images are found generally found in partisan pro-life content. So by including such images, we position ourselves with partisan political writing rather than with serious, scholarly, encyclopedic content. I think that's a mistake. Every other serious reference work can, and does, cover this subject adequately without such images, so why do we feel that they're indispensable here? MastCellTalk 20:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have re-read your last post but you maybe don't realise you are setting up a false dichotomy there between medicine and surgery, and narrowly defining medical. Surgery is a speciality in the field of medicine. This article's scope is much broader than medical abortion (using RU486). I really think that you'll end up flogging a dead horse if you persist in trying to argue contrary. The article's scope includes that and surgical abortion. Also "every" is a very big word, are you familiar with such a wide range of medical texts to justify saying "every other serious reference work..."? DMSBel (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I took another look at the article. It's fine to refer to either medical or a surgical abortion. So not a false dichotomy as such, but that granted it does not change the scope of the article.DMSBel (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about medical vs. surgical abortion, so let's put that aside. I am explicitly not claiming that our article is purely medical, so let's set that aside as well. I'm saying that you can look at any serious treatment of this subject - in medical or non-medical reference works - and you will not find images of aborted fetuses. I've looked at quite a few such reference works, hence my statement. Of course I haven't seen every published work on the subject. I've repeatedly invited anyone reading to prove me wrong, and to show me a serious, reputable reference work which illustrates its coverage of abortion with such images. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm still open to you (or anyone) providing such examples. MastCellTalk 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, happy to leave those aside. You need to note though that I am differentiating in my earlier comment between a picture of a embryo/foetus and one of an aborted embryo/foetus. Are you opposed only to the latter or to both?DMSBel (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to comment again, there seems to be (at least with some editors), a slight suspicion that there might be a POV being pushed by both those wanting a picture and those not wanting one. As far as the original picture is concerned I don't see how considered by itself it pushes a POV, I can only speak for myself but seems to me to have a fairly clinical tone to it. It still may not be the best picture, however I'd like to hear MastCell's answer to my question before commenting further.DMSBel (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not basing my objections on a concern over POV-pushing. Basically, any image suggested for inclusion in this article is likely to look like POV-pushing to someone. I listed my concerns at length above, so I won't rehash them yet again here. Personally, I'm not in favor of a picture of an embryo/fetus. First of all, it's a can of worms - if it's too "early", then one group of editors will object that it doesn't look human enough. If it's too "developed", then another group of editors will argue (rightly, from my perspective) that it doesn't represent the majority of induced abortions. I don't think you'll find an image of an embryo/fetus that will satisfy everyone, and I think the article is fine without such an image. I don't think it's essential to high-quality encyclopedic coverage, and I don't think it's worth the trouble here.
I think a diagram of common methods of induced abortion is appropriate - we have one of vacuum aspiration, and we could add one of medical abortion (along the lines of the Netter diagram that I linked). These have the advantage of being serious, informative, clinical, accurate, and in line with how this subject is generally treated by serious, reputable reference works. I think they are more likely to inform the reader, and less likely to immediately suggest that we're trying to shock and/or censor. MastCellTalk 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There were no objections, no discussion about the picture for months, we had got round to actually discussing the text of the article. Then one editor comes along - deletes. Before anyone else suggests it, that's not "being bold" - being bold means "yes go ahead and correct the spelling mistake" or add a book to a bibliography, or things of that sort. Now you'll note that all of the lengthy discussion above has come from the picture being removed. A picture of a embryo or fetus can be serious, informative, clinical, accurate, and in line with serious reference works. As for example in this publication which covers the subject of abortion and which uses a picture of a human fetus on it's cover: The Troubled Pregnancy (Cambridge - Law Medicine and Ethics)62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies didn't realise I wasn't logged in again: (above post mine)DMSBel (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This article may not provide balanced coverage on a geographical region.
This section's factual accuracy is disputed.
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greig_syndrome2.JPG){kind=link}
![[48]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Necrotizing_fasciitis_left_leg_debridement.JPEG){kind=link}
![[49]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vacuum-aspiration_(single).svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}