Talk:Abortion in South Africa

Morning-after pills

At 01:44 on 22 March 2007, a user at 76.185.10.76 said "morning after pill is NOT abortion,http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592 completely false and a myth that needs to stop."

IMO there is no need to exclude the morning-after pill from an abortion article, because:

• One of the ways in which a morning-after pill can work, is to prevent implantation of the embryo. If by the time the embryo exists, a method is used to expell it, that method is called abortion (if viewed against the definitions for abortion in the Wikipedia).

It is true that the morning-after pill may not be an act of abortion if the blastocyst hasn't formed by the time the pill is taken, but the fact is that emergency contraception also work by after the blastocyst (embryo) has formed. -- leuce 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Morning-after pills (take II)

Question: Can the morning-after pill be used for an abortion?

Answer: Yes, in some cases.

Reliable, neutral references:

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

"In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of fertilisation..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

"Emergency contraceptive pills ... are drugs that ... prevent ... post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

Therefore, emergency contraceptives can cause abortion, and in South Africa, it is not illegal to have an abortion that follows such usage of emergency contraceptives. -- leuce 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these sources actually support the claim that emergency contraception is abortifacient. If you have a source that says A and a source that says B, you cannot combine them to support claim C, because this is original research. You would need a source that conclusively supports claim C, or, in other words, one which stated that "the morning-after pill is an abortifacient." Also, such a source would need to be independent of Wikipedia itself, as we can't use one Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article (WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources"). The point is that we need sources to publish any claims on Wikipedia, and, if a source says one thing, we need to stick with what it says. The anonymous editor's source states:

"Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop."

One reliable source has been presented that states EC is not used for abortion — in comparison to none which state it does. The claim that EC is used as "a means to terminate pregnancy" in this article does not reflect what that source says and is thus original research. -Severa (!!!) 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the "one reliable source" is the quote you quote above, then you are misquoting it. The purpose of the text quoted is to help differentiate between the abortion pill and the morning-after pill. It's "definition" of EC should be read in that context. Besides, it doesn't say that EC is not used for abortion. -- leuce 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. If you insert a change, and another editor reverts it, please do not put the controversial content back into the article, until you have talked with the user and reached an agreement to put the text in. On wikipedia, we work collaboratively, and edit warring is a form of disruptive editing that works against consensus. The recently added content is completely unsourced, and just adds multiple POV (why the "so-called"? which is a wikipedia word to avoid). It very well may be relevant, if there was a reference, to state matter-of-factly that emergency contraception is legal in South Africa, but not in the non-surgical abortion section. The abortion pill (mifepristone) is different from emergency contraception, which is simply a higher dose of the chemicals found in regular oral contraception. I also agree with Severa that the logic provided above cites unreliable sources (we cannot cite wikipedia as a source) and strings together original research, which is also forbidden.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about not quoting the Wikipedia itself (although I do believe it is better to use the same definitions of terms in related articles, don't you agree?).

The reason the other editor gives for not including my sentence is the "fact" that EC is not an abortificient. Really? Well, let's see...

Here are some non-Wikipedia sources (just Google for "morning-after pill" + blastocyst) that show that EC can and is often used as an abortificient:

http://www.epm.org/articles/morningafterpill.html

The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens ('morning-after pill') for several days, beginning shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization but often prevents implantation of the blastocyst. -- [Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998)]

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/morningpill.html

1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo. Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as a typical "contraceptive"). -- Pontifical Academy for Life - Statement on the So-Called "Morning-After Pill", Vatican City, 31 October 2000.

I believe it is unscientific to use a definition quoted from one source to prove a point in another source, but this that is what is expected here, well, here is the definition of "abortion" from a well-known dictionary:

http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion

The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion in South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181402/http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a92-96.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a92-96.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306144401/http://www.gautengonline.gov.za:80/miscimages/006.abortion.pdf to http://www.gautengonline.gov.za/miscimages/006.abortion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427161307/http://www.doh.gov.za:80/docs/pr/1997/pr0128a.html to http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/pr/1997/pr0128a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726212858/http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/2387_Dawes_StateofchildreninGauteng.pdf to http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/2387_Dawes_StateofchildreninGauteng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)