Talk:Abortion/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

TWO MOTIONS

Motion 1: I move that all "death in first paragraph" material on this page be moved to Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph.

Motion 2: I move that "death" in paragraph one be tagged { { Dubious } } as an interim solution to prevent edit war without end.

Even though I feel strongly about both of these motions, I also feel strongly about giving civil discourse a chance. I will not act on either of these proposals without community consensus. Please comment. Struct 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I support both motions. Alienus 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins prevent edit wars; tags do not. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and did Motion 1. So if you are looking for a recent DEATH discussion, please visit the talk subpage!--Andrew c 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with both motions. The fact of the death is not disputed at all. The dispute centers around the use of the word death. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree' as per KillerChihuahua. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Tags are obtrusive and in such a case wouldn't resolve the editorial dispute. -Severa (!!!) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This article will be a constant war. ackoz

21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with (but tolerate) first motion. Strongly disagree with second motion. AnnH ♫ 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Motion 1 is a fait accompli. Kinda wish you'd waited, Andrew, but not a big deal. Anyone have any strong objections?

Sorry for not waiting.--Andrew c 00:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Motion 2, I count 5-2 against. It looks like some of the objections are to the form of the tag rather than the form of the sentence. Upon reflection, I agree that it's the wrong tag, I'm withdrawing my motion, and I'm submitting this one in its place:

Revised Motion 2: I move that paragraph 1 be tagged { {POV-section} } as an interim solution. Tags may not prevent edit wars, but this one could at least delay one. Struct 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and KC, the fact of the death is very much disputed, given that something that never lived cannot die. I will not cede that life begins at conception, that is not a scientifically established fact, anti-choice dogma to the contrary. Defining the cessation of viable cellular function as "death" is way too problematic. Otherwise, one could argue that women who ovulate and then menstruate are complicit in the "death" of their ova... or worse: that men who masturbate commit genocide! Struct 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the placement of the tag, take two. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One last item before I yield the floor: as an alternative, I move that "death" be changed to "destruction". Struct 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a random outside opinion: would "removal" of the embryo/fetus make more sense than death or destruction? Both latter terms have rather negative connotations and make a presumption that medical science has yet to support. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO that's too far in the other direction -- the anti-choicers will cry foul.

Should this entire section be moved to Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph too? Struct 02:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinions appreciated, but removal isn't in contention because it does not clarify what occurs to the fetus. Is it removed and frozen? Re-inplanted? Put in an artificial womb? It does not adequately define abortion; in a practical nor philosophical sense. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with using the "removal" euphemism. I agree that abortions should be allowed, safe and rare. The embryo/fetus dies in the process and any potential mother searching for information here will need to know that before she makes the decision. ackoz

11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You really think there's any chance at all that she doesn't know that yet? I take issue with the idea that we need to say "death" lest a potential recipient of abortion not understand. She understands better than you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, we try to avoid leading readers around by the nose. It's unencyclopaedic. -Severa (!!!) 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lead around by the nose"... can you clarify? Struct 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

I would argue that it isn't our preview to write in such a way as to assume the manner in which our information is to be used. We aren't writing an informed consent pamphlet, as Ackoz seemed to imply, but rather an encyclopaedia. We provide information, in as NPOV a format as possible, and let the reader determine its applicability to their needs. -Severa (!!!) 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, factualism above all else where possible. The problem here as I see it though is that there's a deep schism over whether or not death is a misleading, ergo non-factually accurate term. Struct 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) [ Darn it, I keep forgetting those dang four tildes! I'll learn eventually. ;) ]

Whatever... pamphlet or encyclopedia, both must be factual, not euphemistic. The fact is, that the embryo is alive before the abortion occurs and it is not after. IMHO there must be some death involved. If I am removed from somewhere, say, a bar, I don't necessarily lose my vital signs. ackoz

21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, this argument was mentioned and refuted some time ago. The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy. The foreseeable side-effect is that the embryo or fetus does not survive. When we take an animal and eat it, the purpose is to feed ourselves, not to kill the animal; that is a side-effect. Alienus 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the current wording states that it's associated with death, I don't see the problem. Homestarmy 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear to me at this point that the community is deeply commited to the word "death" and that my proposal to change that word is not going to gain any traction. I respect the WM process, therefore I'm going to withdraw my motions to change the opening sentence.

However, I'm also deeply appalled by that word's (in my opinion) inaccurate and inflammatory misusage. I cannot in good conscience participate in this discussion or contribute to this article so long as a deeply entrenched (as I see it) non-neutral perspective remains, and I hope y'all will respect that in return. I'm removing this article from my watchlist and considering it a non-neutral, unreliable and inaccurate source. I hope you'll take my word for it that I'm doing this for reasons of conviction and not to be a bad sport. Thanks for your consideration and comments. Struct 21:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Death" is in Encarta, that makes me unsympathetic to this perspective. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One point that I'm not seeing in this discussion (at least not with this specific example) is that "death" does not just mean murder, which I would define (vaguely) as "morally wrong death". "Death" is a biological process which happens to fetuses, flies, bacteria, vegetables, and fungi. (Not to mention chickens, which, to reference an earlier argument made here, do, in fact, die in order to be eaten, if not at the exact moment of eating. Yet I eat chicken, because I happen not to think that all instances of killing are murder.) In addition, I will agree that a fetus is unquestionably "alive" at the moment of conception, and even further before that, because eggs, sperm, and embryos are all active biological matter. I still lean on the pro-choice side of the issue, but I think it's important that we get our terminology straight throughout. The way I usually think of the debate is that it's not a question of whether an embryo/fetus is alive but whether it possesses a "soul", or whatever we should call that which has a right to exist for its own sake, like you and I have. (My extremely POV answer is no, as I would say also for the chickens/insects, etc, but I feel a lot of empathy for the opposite answer, both when it comes to pro-lifers and vegetarians.) --Lenoxus 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Motion 3 There should be more definitions for abortion, the killing f an unborn fetus is not the only thing that abortion means. \/\/@||@(3 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Disclaimer"

The thing I added is not a real disclaimer (I don't think that wikipedia needs something like that) but a warning. As it is subject to frequent edits by not-so-informed editors, the information contained in Wikipedia can be misleading. (for other reasons please see the template's talk page). I would appreciate if someone suggested some better wording, because this doesn't actually fit "abortion". ackoz 10:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Health Warning

I have never seen the disclaimers you mentioned in Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer before. And I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time now (not editing tho). What is your reason for removing the templates? I suppose not everybody knows what wikipedia is (and that it can be edited by anyone), and you should suppose not everybody is that smart to check - most people just read something and if it sounds scientific (or if they LIKE it), they will believe it. Visible warnings/disclaimers should be placed on every page about health or healthcare, like every other serious webpages concerning health and healthcare. ackoz 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We also have a guideline of No disclaimer templates so this template should be deleted anyways. JoshuaZ 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of help

I discovered Ethical aspects of abortion today and saw a ton of gramatical errors. I think there are also bigger issues, but was hoping editors on this page could give it some of their attention (seeing how things have slowed down here). --Andrew c 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather disorganized, isn't it? It reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. I'll see what I can do. -Severa (!!!) 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much. Excellent work as always. --Andrew c 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to business

Great work on the new introduction! Now that it's done, though, it's time to return to that which still remains to be addressed. Thus, I think we should pick a goal from the to-do list, and roll up our sleeves. :)

Also, due to the concerns raised over the placement of the Jizo statues photo, I've prepared a chart from selected data in the study "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries" to fill the empty Incidence section. It's way too wide, I know, but give me your opinion nonetheless. -Severa (!!!) 09:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work!!!!! This is good data. One area for improvement though: "Ending parity and desire of nulliparity" is jargon the typical reader would never understand. Can you put this in terms that are readily understood? I think this is a fancy way to say "does not wish to be pregnant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.215.181.120 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 4 May 2006

Thanks. The labels are limited for space. "Ending parity and desire of nulliparity" is a shorter, but slightly more complicated way of saying, "Does not wish to have any more children or wishes to have no children at all." Changed to, "To end childbearing or remain childfree." -Severa (!!!) 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this chart acceptable for addition into the main article, then? -Severa (!!!) 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, what does this have to do with abortion? Homestarmy 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It apparantly has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Fomz 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New Study Needs to Be Cited

Could someone help with adding a new reference to a recently published study on the mental health consequences of abortion?

Here is the reference: Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Ridder, E.M. (2006). Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 16-24.

This is an important study because it is longitudinal rather than cross-sectional in design, and also because they statistically controlled for confounding variables, such as prior mental health and demographic characteristics (e.g. socioeconomic status).

This study was conducted in New Zealand as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which has been studying a New Zealand cohort since birth. The study has spanned 25 years. They examined women between the ages of 15 and 25, and found that 14.6% had had an abortion. After controlling for confounding variables, they found that these women who had had an abortion had increased levels of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, and substance use disorders. These mental health consequences only appeared after the abortion and, given the control of confounding variables in the analysis, this finding strongly suggest that these mental health problems were caused by the abortion and/or events surrounding the abortion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brobbins (talk • contribs).

I would be concerned about the reliability of such a study. Are we sure it is sound, and has it been repeated? I suggest we wait for conformation before inputting it. Jefffire 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry is the official journal of the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, which is the leading international journal in child and adolescent psychiatry. They have a strict peer-review process, so they would be highly unlikely to publish such a study, especially of such a highly charged issue, unless the research was impeccably accomplished in terms of validity and reliability of measures. Nevertheless, for those who are curious and would like to examine the study yourself, it is available on-line in pdf form here: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x?cookieSet=1 or here: http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/view1.pdf. A study of this magnitude, in such a prestigious medical journal, really needs to be referenced in the abortion article. Certainly any limitations of the method and design should also be referenced, in as balanced a way as possible.

Fair enough. Might well be a good idea to add it in. Jefffire 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, I added it, then it was deleted wholesale, rather than revised to her liking, by Severa. I hope that we can be a little more respectful with added content. I did raise the issue here in the talk space, and was thoughtful about how I integrated it into the section. I will try again, this time keeping things shorter and more to the point. I hope that fellow contributors will be respectful with any revisions and not simply delete the post because it offends their political sensibilities. I am referencing established medical journals here, including only peer reviewed articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brobbins (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 May 2006.

Abortion, being a top-tier article, requires the streamlined coverage of a broad array of topics. Thus, doubling the size of sub-section without adding much in the way of new information to the article is something to be avoided. I remember that the Christchurch Health study was suggested before and so I will try to trim mention of it down to the meat of its findings. However, as for the other study, which, I am sure, was snuck into the article in good faith, it is a definite no, as Reardon has been flagged for bias (Archive 19, "Suicide rates revisited"). -Severa (!!!) 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. As for more detailed coverage, or other studies, I recommend that you submit your information to Post-abortion syndrome, where brevity would not be such a concern. -Severa (!!!) 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbins (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 May 2006

Article concerns

Hm, I though I added some time ago that the first modern case of abortion legalisation was in the Soviet Union. What happened to that? All that remains is an article emphasising that abortion has always been around (and conveniently ommitting that abortion has also always been controversial, and usually illegal.) I suppose I have to dig though the logs for an explanation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintermann (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 May 2006

In the future, please avoid inserting your comments at a random location on the Talk page, as this interrupts the logical flow of discussion, if not the comments of other editors, and results in confusion. Also, please remember to sign your comments at the end using three tildes, like so: ~~~~.

As for your concerns, obviously, a lot has happened since you made four edits to this article two years ago. -Severa (!!!) 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Not redundant. Google links haevily to wikipedia now, and directly to the articles. Average uneducated internet user only sees the article and doesn't really know how things work here PLUS the disclaimer at the bottom is insufficient with regard to the fact, that in some articles, latent nonsense / politically biased / extremist information (how many times do I have to repeat that until you get it, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, enough??) can be entered and go unnoticed for months. For instance in the case I mentioned above. If most of wikipedians think that "it's clear to everyone that they should check the edit history and then decide if they trust the article", most of wikipedians are extremely short-sighted. ackoz 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by "should already know". Quite impressive that you think that a user who hardly ever heard of wikipedia before "should already know" about how things work here when he comes sraight from google to the article. ackoz 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't our responsibility to inform every user at every article what Wikipedia is. It crowds the articles and is essentially spam to the growing numbers who do know what it is. While I know Wikipedia is not common knowledge, given its prominence in Google and on the internet, it soon will be. And John Seigenthaler isn't relevant here, so you can stop repeating it whenever you choose. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ControversialArticle

Template:ControversialArticle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion in Canada.

There are some changes in Abortion in Canada that might interest editors of this article. Al 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I reverted the last batch of edits by this user, and will try to keep an eye on things when I'm around... roma rin

[talk to her ] 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The more things change, the more things stay the same. The edit-war continues. Al 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 1st paragraph

Please direct all future inquiries regarding the first paragraph of this article to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Any such posts made here, on the main talk page, will be moved. If you are looking for a thread which has "disappeared," check there. -Severa (!!!) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

% of conceptions fail

acording to miscarriage article: Miscarriages occur more often than most people think. About 25% of women will experience one in their lives. Up to 78% of all conceptions may fail [1], in most cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant.

according to the abortion article it's 10%-50% not 78%(78 let you assume great acuracy in the number,the tow together asumes 10-78% fork,frankly i can do bater than that in my kichen) and it don't say "before the woman even knows she is pregnant". which number is corect,i know that the real number is huge,and it'would be nice to add up the before women nolege prase(it gives the impression that some how abortion it's trivia,from natures perspective).78% of all conceptions that fail,if you concidering that you have a soul from the first second of conseption .... it's realy not negligable.i mean it's important for the debate on abortion.--Ruber chiken 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The margin tends to rather wide, as I understand it, because of the inherent difficulty in assessing miscarriage at stages when most women don't even know they're pregnant. -Severa (!!!) 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Father's rights

I'm not entirely sure why there isn't at least a small section about father's rights (concering abortion) under social issues. It is valid and it presents another angle about the issue. Might someone add it? (I'm not entirely sure that anyone would like my version even if I do attempt NPOV.) Chooserr 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it not more appropriate on the pro-choice/pro-life pages? It seems politically more suited there, specifically the pro-life page. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it may belong on Fathers' rights -- under a new section about abortion. (Currently it's mostly about child custody issues.) -Quasipalm 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article Paternal rights and abortion deals with this issue. However, the current content of the article is limited to arguments for and against paternal rights, and should be expanded to contain real examples such as the Tremblay v. Daigle case in Canada and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the United States. I believe that this article should first be cleaned up, expanded, and sourced before beginning work on a summary section for "Social issues." Also, I would like to attend to one of the longer dwellers on the to-do list before launching into a more recent suggestion. -Severa (!!!) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I overhauled the entire article. Now there's something to work from. -Severa (!!!) 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rhythm method

I found an interesting article in today's news. It may be worth pointing out on one of wikipedia's many birth-control related pages...

A British study suggests the Roman Catholic Church-approved "rhythm method" may kill more embryos than other methods of contraception.

The "rhythm method" relies on abstinence during the most fertile period of a woman's menstrual cycle. For women who have regular 28-day cycles, that occurs around days 10 to 17 of the cycle.

It's believed the method works by preventing conception from occurring. But Professor Luc Bovens of the London School of Economics says it may owe much of its success to the fact that embryos conceived on the fringes of the fertile period are less viable than those conceived toward the middle.

-Quasipalm 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

An economics professor? Rhythm method? LOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.250.16 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 May 2006 .

Bovens is not an economics professor, he is a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics. --Rocketfairy 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting find, Quasi. My recommendation is to take it to rhythm method. On a secondary note, it's reassuring to see that all three of us involved in this discussion have trouble spelling "rhythm." Darn silent "h." -Severa (!!!) 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice

Editors of this article may be interested in the events on pro-choice. Al 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you fuse the pro-choice article with basically a pro-life related article? Homestarmy 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuse? Al 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean the merge template the person who seems to be edit warring with you, he wants to fuse the "Anti-abortion controversy" article with pro-choice? Wouldn't an article on the controversy bit sort of have alot of pro-life parts in it? Homestarmy 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe RoyBoy IIRC or someone else marked that merge a few months back. I think there is more info on the talk page of anti-abortion movement. The idea was to merge relevent info with both pro-life and pro-choice.--Andrew c 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its DonaNobisPacem suggestion. However, after a short glance; I'm entirely prepared to merge Pro-life activism to Anti-abortion movement soon. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Post-abortion syndrome

This article is on the precipice of an edit war. Additional user input might be helpful. -Severa (!!!) 03:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. BTW, check the history to see who started reverting and the discussion page to see what has transpired. The article does need input from a variety of users. It has suffered from severe bias in the past and it still needs more work. I plan to help make it a better article and encourage more others to do so too. Darrowby 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Law

The section on UK law is not correct. Two doctors do not need to agree that an abortion is socially necessary, they simply need to agree that continuation of the pregnancy will entail greater risk than an abortion. Given that (almost always), this is the case, this is defacto abortion on demand, though with the caveat that the law does not oblige the state to perform that abortion. There are no practical legal limits on abortion before 24 weeks in the UK.Ros Power 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable source to cite, we should make this change to the text. Al 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4350259.stm AvB ÷ talk 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The key quote is that the law requires the doctors to certify that "continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination". As Ros pointed out, abortion in the first trimester and well into the second one is almost always safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, so this is no barrier. On the other hand, as the article points out, some doctors are obstructionist about this, and getting two doctors to agree is a pain. Al 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The precise wording is, in fact, "medically or socially necessary." The majority of sources support that, in the U.K., two doctors must approve of an abortion before it is performed:

-Severa (!!!) 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the text in the Act that uses the term "medically and socially necessary". As a point of fact, the DoH (Department of Health) in the UK have verified my point in writing to me, that basically all abortions are legal on these grounds in the UK before 24 weeks. However, Alienus is correct insofar as doctors have the ability to conscientiously object to abortion, and as more and more of them become educated about it, an increasing number are refusing to be involved in the orchestration of the killing of the unborn. However it remains factually incorrect to state that there is any theoretical or practical protection of the unborn child in the UK before 24 weeks, or that people have any legal responsibility to protect those that they conceive through their own volition. Ros Power 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant the wording of the sentence in this article to which you made reference in your initial post:

"In the United Kingdom, as in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed."

The "medically and socially" bit is intended to refer to grounds upon which abortion is permitted in the U.K., which, according to Abortion law, are physical health, mental health, rape, incest, fetal defects, and socioeconomic factors. I hope this resolves any confusion. -Severa (!!!) 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but the point is that by it's inaccurate to state "medically and socially necessary". What this implies is that there are criteria an abortion request must meet before it's permitted, such as a direct risk to a woman's mental or physical health, rather than the default "risk" of simply continuing with a normal pregnancy. By that criteria, it would be medically necessary to abort ALL children. The statement in the article is misleading and needs qualified.Ros Power 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This Needs to Change

In the United Kingdom, as in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed.

I do think this is misleading and needs to change. It suggests that there is at least a nominal, cursory, legal protection of the unborn child in the UK. This is simply fallacious - there simply is none. All that the two doctors have to state is that the abortion will cause less harm (to the mother only, obviously), than continuing pregnancy. Ros Power 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ros, maybe you can review your comment in light of the fact that abortion is significantly more dangerous (to the mother) than childbirth in most cases (I'm fairly certain of this). If that is the case, the situations in which abortion will cause less harm that continuing pregnancy will be relatively few.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.94.136.99 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 June 2006.

I am sorry to have to inform you that I have had this out with the DoH and the fact is that we have abortion on demand in the UK, for the reasons I have stated. I don't like it, I don't like it one little bit, and I think it is a complete perversion of the spirit and intent of the 1967 Abortion Act, but those are the facts, and I still think the statement in the article is misleading. Why do you think pro-abortionists try to dispute the existence of PAS?Ros Power 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is not significantly more dangerous to the mother than childbirth - we did a great deal of research, which is in the archives somewhere, and only anti-abortion sites claim that, without any studies or references. Abortion is very, very slightly more dangerous, and that is disputed. The difference is insignificant. A stomach stapling operation is more dangerous than either, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath

No mention of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take before qualifying which prohibits them from killing unborn children. This seems like an ommission from the article. Ros Power 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The oath is usually not used in its classical form anymore. We don't swear by Apollo, Asclepio, Hygieia and Panceia. We don't believe in these gods anymore, so why would we. We don't participate in the family life of our teachers. We, however, do use knifes in our work. I could go on but it makes no sense. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't speak. ackoz

14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't respond to the troll, but Hippocratic Oath breifly mentions abortion -- you should probably take your purposfully inflamatory suggestion there. -Quasipalm 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no trolling, if it is clear that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about. I didn't say that there was no abortion mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath, I was arguing, that only a minority of med schools use the classical Hippocratic Oath nowadays. According to this [1] BMJ article, only 3 medical schools in USA and Britain use the Hippocratic Oath. If the contributor thinks, that the prohibition of abortion contained in the Hippocratic Oath should be included in the article, because "all doctors take it", he is wrong, uninformed on the subject, and should do some reading before trying to discuss the contents of the article.

On the subject of my behavior: I am tired of editors, who try to push their own uninformed, mostly completely wrong ideas and "truths" into the articles. This is why Wikipedia only creates noise, and is not a reliable source of information. This one is exactly the case: The contributor has no idea about the oaths doctor take, still he uses his own ill assumption as an argument to support his pro-life POV. I think I proved his ignorance well enough with the article I provided. You calling me troll is less civil than me claiming, that he doesn't know what he is takling about. ackoz

17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ackoz, my comments were directed at Ros, not you. -Quasipalm 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever they were directed at, it would have been better not to make them. A few short comments from a newcomer to the page (and to Wikipedia) which clearly showed a POV but were not in any way abusive did not warrant language like "troll" and "purposefully inflammatory". All editors on this page, whether pro-life or pro-choice were new to Wikipedia once. See WP:BITE. AnnH ♫ 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they were abusive. I said they were "purposefully inflammatory," which makes Ros - by definition - a troll. See internet troll: "a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." Also "Disruptive trolls: Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis." Seems pretty straight forward to me... but perhaps it came off ruder than intended. -Quasipalm 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The part of the Hippocratic oath which relates to abortion, "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion," is open to interpretation as either a sweeping ban on all forms of abortion or merely those induced by pessary. As noted at History of abortion, Hippocrates recommended a questionable method for inducing abortion — jumping up and down — to a woman on one occasion, and also gave an account of performing a surgical procedure in documents attributed to him. I think these are facts which would be worth mentioning if we were to discuss the Hippocratic Oath in such a context. -Severa (!!!) 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer. I was always under the impression that physicians took the Hippocratic oath as part of their graduation, it seems I was wrong. It would seem appropriate at least to mention the Hippocratic oath and how it was interpreted as protecting the life of the unborn child, even though today the unborn child is largely undefended in many jurisdictions in which it was/is taken. It would be appropriate to parallel the change in the law with the change in the oath or its usage.Ros Power 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that could be a useful addition, but maybe it's more in line with History of abortion than this top level article? -Quasipalm 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)