Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Images of Abortion

On articles such as penis and vagina, nice graphical pictures are displayed to show exactly what a penis and vagina are. Why is the same thing not done for abortion, the ultimate result of a penis and vagina? Could the "editor consensus" be hiding something from the public? Megastealer 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This raises interesting questions. Should we include pictures of late term abortions where the fetus is extremely deformed as the result of abnormalities (and wouldn't have been viable outside the womb) warning - this link is to a medical website with a photo of a herniated fetus?
At what stage of gestation should the picture of the abortion be? Surely, we can't clutter the page by having all the stages of gestation represented. Eight weeks is around the average stage at which women seek an abortion. This is a link to the abortion of an 8 week fetus provided by the Medical Library at the University of Utah. The photo isn't sensational, so I do not have faith that it will satisfy your desire to "display" an abortion. --IronAngelAlice 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an image of an abortion at each trimester? Megastealer 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this topic has extensively been covered in the past, if you'd look at the archive box there are some links to past discussions. Wikipedia policy concerning graphic images isn't a "other crap exists" sort of thing, where other articles' content should be used as rationale for the rest of wikipedia. Instead, specific consensus needs to be raised on each talk page of the article prior to including said graphic content. Furthermore, another issue is wikipedia's image use policy. There simply aren't many (or any) free images of abortion. I mean, just about anyone with a camera can take a picture of genitalia, but not many people can take a picture of an abortion procedure (I also think it may be good to have an illustration of the actual medical procedure, instead of just a bloody photo. ask yourself, which one is more encyclopedic?). So if you have any free content, or have either the access to photograph a procedure, or the artistic skills and knowledge to accurately draw diagrams, please feel free to bring proposals here to talk. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article could be improved by mentioning photographs. Such as: "Photos of aborted fetuses are not included in this article primarily because inclusion requires consensus. Such photos are, however, available on the internet from pro-life organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Any objections?Ferrylodge 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason for disclaimers, per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Next, it is unencyclopedic to mention talk page discussion in the main article space (and is that even an accurate summary of why there are no pictures of aborted fetuses?) Next why direct people to pro-life websites? Why not, hypothetically speaking, equally say "please refer to a graduate level medical text on obstetrics/gynecology..."? So yes, I object to that proposal.-Andrew c [talk] 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You have some good points there, but so do I. Let's instead write: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from pro-life organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Any objections? By all means, we can also footnote whatever texts you please, as well as providing further relevant links. I am not aware that Wikipedia has further articles about organizations which make such pictures available via internet.Ferrylodge 02:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I would like to insert the following sentence into the article, I'm not sure where to put it: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." Does anyone have an opinion about that?Ferrylodge 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that none of us would have any trouble obtaining the rights for such an image. Megastealer 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this article could be improved by mentioning photographs. Perhaps the issues surrounding abortion pictures (and alleged abortion pictures) should be covered as part of the Abortion_debate article, since that is a topic where such photos are arguably notable. Incidentally I also don't see how this article would be improved by adding links to pro-life organisations.
To be honest I find this entire proposal rather confusing. Why would we want to include such a bizarre statement? We would be better off providing a link to Google image search... except Wikipedia isn't a link directory. It is not our job to tell people how to find images of things. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Look at the two images on the left-hand-side of the present article. They depict abortions. However, the quality is far inferior to a photograph. Isn't a rock engraving from thousands of years ago inferior to a photographic image? I don't think that is debatable.

The present article provides many external links in the external links section, SheffieldSteel. I'm not sure if that's proper or not. However, I was not suggesting doing so. I was suggesting linking to relevant Wikipedia articles, about organizations that provide pictures of the thing that is in the title of our article. Doesn't it make sense to at least discuss pictures of the thing that is in the title of our article?Ferrylodge 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(to sheffie) Then you would have no problem keeping that as your wikipedia standard and removing all real photographs of penises and vaginas and just leaving their depictions? Megastealer 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't press the issue any further, but I think real photographs of abortions at different trimesters would be very educational as to what actually goes on.

Ferrylodge, apologies for not misinterpreting the internal links. However, that doesn't change my view on adding them to this article. As for illustrations, I am not opposed to adding a neutral image if one can be sourced.

Megastealer, I personally do not own a "wikipedia standard" although I do one day hope to adhere to one. I will not oppose your suggested removal of images - although I do suggest you discuss it here and here first. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they already had this discussion, and the majority of people felt that "I concur with Theresa. It's not a question of censorship -- I absolutely believe that we need good images on this article. We just don't need quite so many. They make the article appear too cluttered. Nandesuka 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"

I also concur with Theresa, we need good images on this article. Megastealer 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs good photos. But years of discussion have not led to any. As a first step, we should at least indicate organizations that make abortion photos available. SheffieldSteel, if you think the photos from the Priests for Life are somehow misleading, then let's also mention a prochoice organization that provides what you think are non-misleading abortion photos on the internet. Just name one such organization, please, if you can. I note that the Priests for Life photos have been reprinted in reputable sources.
Anyway, I also suggest to modify the misleading caption accompanying the rock engraving. According to the source of that photo, it is a "Bas relief decorating the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, dated circa 1150, depicting a demon performing an abortion upon a woman by pounding a mallet into her belly." Without such a caption, the image gives the strong impression that abortion was an accepted practice in 1150. Our article gives no hint that the abortion is being performed by a "demon."Ferrylodge 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, again, that provision of abortion photos by pro-life or any other groups should be documented, if anywhere, at Abortion debate. It seems to be quite irrelevant to this article. On the other hand, if you wish to suggest images to illustrate this article, then by all means post them here. Maybe we could have an RfC on the subject?Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I am hearing: it's fine for this article to discuss pro-choice groups like the Guttmacher organization, but any photo from Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is ipso facto non-neutral and cannot be mentioned in this article, much less displayed. I ask again: is there any set of photos on the internet that you believe is an accurate depiction of an abortion? Do you think the photos at Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform are phony?
As I said, I intend to change the caption in the Angkor Wat photo if no one objects. And I see no reason to exclude a sentence like this from the article: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." If you think all of those photos are non-neutral merely because of the publisher, then please explain why we shouldn't toss out all other info in the abortion article that is from a POV source.Ferrylodge 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never said anything on this page about pro-choice groups, so I don't know where you are "hearing" it from. As for the question of sets of photos from the internet: I personally don't think that photos would illustrate the subject or inform the reader as well as diagrams would. I believe this is why diagrams are used in medical textbooks.
Also, be aware that "I see no reason to exclude" is not a good argument for inclusion of material. And if you want to document the fact that certain pro-choice (or other) groups make photos of aborted fetuses available on the internet, might I suggest that the best article for such material would be Abortion debate? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection if you want to briefly mention what organizations or sources provide diagrams of various abortion techniques, via the internet. But diagrams of various abortion techniques are a different issue from photos of the products of abortion. There is slight medical purpose for the latter. There are many reasons to include a sentence like the following in the article: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform." This article is avoiding showing the reality of what abortion does. If every photo at Wikipedia had to have a medical purpose, then there would be far fewer photos. Your "personal" view that diagrams should be included is no reason for excluding photos, much less for barring any mention of organizations which provide such photos via internet.Ferrylodge 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to mention any organisations providing diagrams or photos. I cannot see any reason for including your suggested sentence in the article. Your argument that wikipedia is avoiding or covering up the "reality of abortion" leads me to suspect that your wish to include photos is based on a desire to influence readers emotionally, which is strictly against wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what part of the NPOV policy you are referring to, but you might want to check out this section: let the facts speak for themselves. I am not suggesting that we include photos of aborted fetuses with captions that lecture readers about how evil it may be.
Please see Wikipedia policy on external hosting of images: "Wikipedia does not allow direct display of external images but you can link to them using external link form. For example, see this image on this page. An external host may be a good place to put images while you decide which ones belong on Wikipedia; you can also show collaborators what you have." In this instance, I have not even gone that far, instead merely linking to articles about organizations that provide such images.
Obviously, this is a very frustrating discussion for both of us. However, upon reflection, I hope you will see that providing relevant and notable information is better than omitting it. It should be clear that I am trying to find some sort of middle ground here. Otherwise, I'd be insisting on inclusion in this article of actual images of aborted fetuses, or direct external links to such images.Ferrylodge 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how providing images of abortions is "middle" ground. I agree that the problem of choosing which photos to include would lead to cluttering the page with images from sources with various points of view (pro-life vs. pro-choice). The idea of including images is best left to the "abortion debate" page.--IronAngelAlice 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This simply isn't neutral. To put it in perspective, why not add Videos of animal slaughter are available on the internet from organizations such as PeTA and the Animal Liberation Front. to the Slaughter (livestock) article? Because perhaps PeTA and the ALF are not neutral sources? Perhaps because there are more notable/neutral sources for that content? Saying "PeTA has used graphic images of animal slaughter as a type of activism for the purpose of shocking viewers into sympathizing with their political and moral cause. However, these images have been criticized as being inaccurate and in bad taste." is different that slyly directing users to said videos on their websites. We already cover this issue of the pro-life movement's use of graphic imagery at Pro-life#Types of activism: The truth display. -Andrew c [talk] 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c, the article you refer to on Slaughter (livestock) is barely more than a stub, and is certainly not an example of what a good Wikipedia article should be. Are you saying that this abortion article should omit sources that have a POV? I would be glad to do that. Can we get started on that right now? You say, "there are more notable/neutral sources." Please tell me what source on the internet has neutral/notable photos of aborted fetuses, and also please exaplain why you believe that none of the photos from Priests for Life or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is notable/neutral.
IronAngelAlice, in case you didn't notice, including the following sentence in this article would not involve choosing which photos to include, and would not clutter the page with images from sources with various points of view: "Photos of aborted fetuses are available on the internet from organizations such as Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform."Ferrylodge 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. See here.Ferrylodge 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ferrylodge, your POV pushing is becoming blatant and annoying. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did KillerChihuahua come from and why is it inserting itself in a thread only to criticize Ferrylodge? It appears nowhere else on this page. May I use it (the user name) as an example in a new topic I am considering? I am thinking of starting a new topic titled "Wikistalking".LCP 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, mentioning that photos of aborted fetuses exist is POV. Is it harassment too?Ferrylodge 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, I think we are confusing several different issues. The sentence you would like to add belongs on the pro-life page. The article on abortion here should be concerned with medically accurate information, and describe the history and societal issues surrounding abortion using academic literature. Links to Priests for Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform are inherently meant to persuade, not inform. --IronAngelAlice 18:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to utter another word in this discussion, because I seem to be on the verge of being accused of harassment.Ferrylodge 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, you should not feel discouraged from discussing your ideas here. Please understand that abortion is a very polarizing topic, and passions are easily inflamed for all potential editors. This discussion was productive because we can establish the difference between an intent to persuade using emotions vs. an intent to describe using medically accurate information and academic literature. Please do not take any criticisms personally. --IronAngelAlice 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that part of the reason that abortion images are seen as highly graphic content stems from the same reasons that detailed images of the dripping-with-blood placenta, the furiously-screaming woman, her baseball-sized vagina, and a shriveled up, gooey, but later absolutely adorable infant aren't on the Childbirth page. Simply put, they're unnecessarily evocative. Mind you, childbirth is a procedure that practically any mother who has vaginally-delivered a baby will be able to describe. It's something so commonplace to the world that it would make total sense to have it all, in 10 megapixel color, on the childbirth page so that mothers who haven't experienced it will be able to read up on (and see) the process. However, we refrain from doing so due to the sheer content of it all-- even though it's something as basic as childbirth. Same goes for sex. We don't have two humans having intercourse, and we don't have two gay guys having anal sex (well, technically we do, but it's actual classic-period art as opposed to a huge photo of buttsex :P).
If one were to assume that abortion was clear-cut murder (as several people have obviously expressed their concerns over), the images still would still not have a place on the page, because their semi-analogous counterparts on murder and death in general also wouldn't have a place there, either. We have tasteful free images of dead soldiers on Death, but we don't have the free images of body parts from explosions or close-ups of people being blown up in Murder, Death, or even Explosive, because that's unnecessarily evocative-- even though it's still considered death by intentional explosive, which is murder. Similarly, we don't show bullet holes ripping through someone's head on murder or the shooter shooting the victim, either. It's simply over-the-top and unnecessary.
Thus, while abortion is a highly-charged topic that is emotionally tasking to various groups of people, we must try not to lose perspective when it comes to the content we choose to include. More importantly, this particularly holds true when it's potentially disproportionately weighted over content of equal validity, as this is the very definition of not having a neutral point of view. So if you would like, we can propose having people getting their brains blown off in murder or gunshot wound, but we would probably need to establish consensus first. --slakr\ talk / 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you are arguing that it is unnecessarily indecorous to include graphic images. I think that that is a good argument for the examples you provide. However, the argument does not work in this instance and the analogies fail. Here’s why.
First, because dispelling error is an important part of providing accurate, NPOV information, pro-lifers are eager to include pictures of fetuses, live and aborted, to counter lies propagated by some pro-choice advocates; namely, that what is being aborted is a “blob of tissue” (http://www.euthanasia.com/jenniferoneill.html). If the lie were that “murdered adults turn into happy white puppies,” I am sure you’d see a similar press to include pictures of murder victims on the Murder page.
Second, this issues has different moral implications from any of the examples that you provide. No one is morally offended by the sight of a placenta or even a corps of someone who died of natural causes. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to introduce indecorous images for those subjects. Images add nothing to the truth value of articles speaking about those subjects. Similarly, an image of someone who was murdered would arguably not add much to the truth value of the article on murder. However, many people find images of aborted fetuses not only indecorous but also uniquely morally offensive, like pictures of the holocaust. And that is the reason why the images should be included. For those who are pro-life, the omission of images would be analogous to omitting images from the Holocaust page. Those images are absolutely necessary to convey the horror of the Holocaust. Pro-lifers think that images of fetuses are absolutely necessary to convey the truth about abortion. Hence the omission of images evidences a profound pro-choice POV.
As evidenced on the Holocaust pages, truth trumps decorousness. Because abortion is a moral issue about which many, many people have very strong ideas and feelings, an argument for omission predicated by decorousness does not hold water.
And finally, it is at best arrogant to assume that Wikipedia editors have a right to “protect” the squeamish sensibilities of readers in this type of situation. At worst, it is disingenuous. I agree that there is no need to offend sensibilities when there is no moral issue at stake and nothing in particular but grossness is communicated by a visceral image. However, that is not the case here. LCP 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You make excellent points. The Holocaust was most definitely a uniquely horrific period in modern human history, and Godwin would most definitely agree with you. The vast majority of the Western world agrees, essentially, there is no controversy (except for fringe theories) when it comes to the moral reprehensibility of the Holocaust and of genocide in general. As such, images of the Holocaust are readily used on The Holocaust, but at pain of pre-emptively comparing apples to oranges, they are low-resolution, and they are in black and white, and they depict the end result of adults being inhumanely mistreated by adults. Most importantly, we all agree that it was a horrible thing.
So, if one were to use The Holocaust as a basis for adding images of excised fetuses or blastocysts, then it would only be fair that they be low-resolution, in black and white, and evoke emotions that represent the viewpoint held by the overwhelming majority of the world: that abortion is de facto and de jure illegal and morally reprehensible-- just like genocide. However, while genocide is illegal on an international level, abortion is socially and legally acceptable in many countries in the developed world.
It is also not sufficient to justify media inclusion based on the grounds of a particular act being morally wrong, as there is controversy even with murder as to its shades of acceptability (see also: capital punishment and war). Again, since the morality of the acts are controversial, adding full-color, high-resolution, modern pictures displaying arbitrary electrocuted convicts, botched lethal injections, pictures of innocent victims, and people who were hanged, again, is unacceptable because it connotes a non-neutral point of view by tugging at the heartstrings.
Lastly, and most importantly, justifying addition of emotionally-charged, highly-evocative media simply to counter an opposing viewpoint on a highly-controversial issue inexorably invites edit warring and turns the article into a war zone. Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is not an anarchy. Not to mention, it raises huge concerns over neutral point of view, as any rational reader can only assume one thing after seeing multiple full-color pictures of bloody tissue and/or fetuses strewn about the article: that the article is overtly biased against abortion, thus turning the article into a soapbox for denouncing abortion. Long story short, it's a pain in the butt (not to mention it's arguably against policy) to include those types of images. --slakr\ talk / 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. I think part of the problem is the idea of what is thought of as NPOV. You state, “because it connotes a non-neutral point of view by tugging at the heartstrings.” This is non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because something pulls on the heart string it is not NPOV. And I did not say that images should be included because abortion is a moral issue. I was very careful to avoid that idea. I said they should be included because Pro-lifers think that images of fetuses are absolutely necessary to convey the truth about abortion. I do think your argument involving the international courts bears some weight. But ultimately it fails. The number of people who claim a pro-life affiliation are not merely a small minority (like, say, holocaust deniers). There are lots and lots and lots of them. Another thing to keep in mind is that while the courts have ruled that a woman has the right to have an abortion, it is universally accepted that abortion is not a good thing. Some support abortion because they see it as a woman’s right, but no one is just pro-abortion.
Regardless, I think you make a good point about how including photos might turn this page into even more of a war zone than it is. But answer this: who would object to the images? Answer: only editors who are pro-choice. I don’t know how to speak to the issue of how to keep the page from turning into war zone, but I trust you see my point that the omission of images betrays that the page bears a pro-choice POV. And even though the text is not badly balanced, the omission of images (of any sort) destroys its credibility as much as might the inclusion of great, big, hi-res images. How would you propose this problem be resolved? Seriously. I would like to know your thoughts. I think a good compromise would be to include a image of an embryo and a fetus at various stages of development.
By the way, I am not ready to talk about the quality of the images. I haven’t really thought seriously about it. However, I would add that the quality of the images on the Holocaust page has everything to do with the technology behind the photos and nothing to do with a sentiment to protect sensibilities.LCP 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct; the number of people who claim a pro-life affiliation are not merely a small minority-- that's my point exactly. I think I forgot to clarify what I said, as it looks like it was easy to accidentally invert it: we can all agree that the Holocaust was bad, but we cannot all agree that abortion is bad; thus, while evocative pictures have a place in The Holocaust (since they represent almost all of society's viewpoint that the holocaust was bad), they have no place here, because there is considerable voice opposing abortion, though the majority viewpoint is that it isn't totally bad. If we all agreed that abortion was 100% wrong (like genocide), then those pictures would be perfectly acceptable here, just like on Conservapedia's right-wing version, but even there they don't have pictures of dead fetuses. The very reason why images of fetuses and bloody tissue shouldn't be included stems from that very problem: there is significant controversy. Pro-life isn't an insignificant movement, nor is pro-choice. However, that's the exact reason why neither can be POV-pushed in a scientific article about a medical procedure: the consensus is against it. That's why we have Abortion debate.
An article on the medical procedure of liposuction is no more POV by favoring fat people and the condition of obesity for failing to include pictures of bloody excised adipocytes than including them. The same holds true for the medical procedure of abortion. By not including pictures of the end result, we're in no way endorsing or denouncing the antecedents the allowed it to come to be.
Lacking images does not inherently "destroy credibility," because having them doesn't inherently "create credibility," either; for, the heavily-photographed Loch Ness Monster would agree-- if he/she existed. You also suggest adding images that are already in Pregnancy, which would be redundant. We don't include pictures of abortion there, so we shouldn't include gestational phases of pregnancy here. I also hope that in the future you refrain from dealing in absolutes when it comes to content decisions on this article. For example, people who oppose pornography being added to sexual intercourse aren't inherently conservative nor abstinent. I, for one, don't think overt pornography would have a place on that article for the time being (again, due to POV concerns), but it doesn't mean that I'm against people having sex (which would be ironically funny, but whatever :P). The same holds true for this article: someone can oppose a graphic content addition without having inherent motive behind it other than sticking to policy. In the future, I implore you not to assume inherent bias based on objections over content.
This cannot be emphasized enough: this article's title is Abortion, a medical procedure, whereas Abortion debate is for controversy dealing with political/social debate surrounding the medical procedure itself. If you feel that social viewpoints need to be given weight on the medical procedure, please do so at Abortion debate, the debate about the medical procedure. Images of fetuses, dead or alive, belong on Fetus (or maybe Aborted fetus, if you feel it should be created?); stages of pregnancy belong on Pregnancy; debate about the morality of abortion belongs on Abortion debate. --slakr\ talk / 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think part of the problem in this discussion is that I did not make myself clear enough as you seem to be arguing against things I did not write:

Straw man #1: LCP wants to include graphic, disturbing images.
Response: When I said, “By the way, I am not ready to talk about the quality of the images,” perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I think images, perhaps illustration, need to be included of what is being aborted. I thought I made it clear that I was not necessarily talking about graphic images. By insisting that I am talking about graphic images, you are creating and arguing against a straw man.
Straw man #2: LCP would agree that “Excised adipocytes” is analogous to a fetus.
Response: There is no moral debate about the moral value of “excised adipocytes” from liposuction. The inclusion of images of “excised adipocytes” would add nothing to the article on liposuction. I think it is eminently reasonable to doubt that anyone who goes to the liposuction page feels that the article lacks a NPOV because of the omission of “excised adipocytes”. “Excised adipocytes” has no moral value by any stretch of the imagination. “Excised adipocytes” from liposuction is not a living being. Sexual intercourse, on the other hand is a much better analogy. And I would point out that the page on sexual intercourse does include many images detailing the act. Notice also, the article on Caesarian section also includes an images (a quite graphic one at that). Why are these images included? Because they help the reader understand the act. Similarly, images, albeit illustrations, are necessary for one to fully understand abortion as even only a medical procedure.
Straw man #3: LCP said that omitting images inherently destroys credibility. You then again argue by analogy.
Response: I did not say that lacking images inherently destroys credibility. I said the lack of images--in this article--destroys its credibility. Other editors agree with me.

Another part of the problem is that you are making unwarranted false assumptions.

Unwarranted false assumption #1: Abortion is only a medical procedure.
Response: This claim is inaccurate and POV. Why inaccurate? Miscarriage is not a medical procedure. Why POV, like euthanasia, pro-lifers cannot separate the medical act from the moral act. Please see below quote Wikipedia NPOV policy as to why this is matieral.
Unwarranted false assumption #3: Abortion as medical procedure does not require images.
Response: At least two editors of this page think otherwise.
Unwarranted false assumption #4: Sticking to policy means omitting images.
Response: Please, show me this policy.
Unwarranted false assumption #5: Redundancy of images is automatically a bad thing.
Response: This would be true only if the redundancy added nothing to the truth value of the article. The inclusion of images needs to be weighed against the value the images add to a given article. And in terms of space required on the server to support images, redundancy is a good thing. I am sure you understand reuse better than I do.
Unwarranted false assumption #6: My illustration that this issue breaks down in terms of pro-life vs. pro-choice camps is unwarranted.
Response: As a general rule, I do not assume that anyone who opposes my arguments on a particular issue is generally ideologically opposed to my general position. In fact, I don’t even think ideology enters into most debates. This, however, is a special case. Show me a single user who is pro-life who opposes the inclusion of an illustration of what is being aborted (AGAIN, I am not talking about a graphic images), and I will give you your point.
Finally, please, tell me what illustrations will harm (and again, I am not talking about graphic images that would make even a forensic pathologist puke). Tell me how illustrations gravely violate Wikipedia policy. Also, although I use the fact that pro-lifers generally would feel that images should be included, please understand that that is only a secondary argument that is, nevertheless, supported by Wikipedia policy:
"The [NPOV] policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.”

My main argument is that the lack of any image of what is aborted or any mention of how what is aborted is disposed of harms the credibility of this article.

I hope that in the future you refrain from reducing my arguments to straw men, and I implore you not to assume that I generally indulge in assumptions about inherent bias based on objections over content.LCP 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I implore you not to assume that I generally indulge in assumptions about inherent bias based on objections over content
That stemmed from your earlier sentence: But answer this: who would object to the images? Answer: only editors who are pro-choice, which is an assumption about inherent bias based on an objection over content.
..hope that in the future you refrain from reducing my arguments to straw men
Unfortunately I have at no point attempted to misrepresent your arguments, but if you believe I have, then I apologize. Please inform me as to where I went wrong so that I can help to clarify any misunderstandings on my part; however, please actually quote what I say, because I feel as though my arguments, themselves, are being straw-manned through oversimplification in your claims of straw-manning. (and I think I just went cross-eyed from typing that last sentence).
With regard to your quoting of neutral point of view policy:
I think I already understand NPOV policy, and I assure you that I definitely understand your point: you want images of fetuses and/or aborted fetuses and/or excised tissue in the article because you feel that it would represent the viewpoints of pro-life advocates. Essentially, you're saying that the article loses credibility by not including the aforementioned images, because not including them is fundamentally omitting the pro-life point of view. These are the the basic assumptions that I've been going on, but again, correct me if that's not the case. However, in my opinion, in order for this to hold true, we would also have to include an image of smiling women and her doctor shaking hands after an abortion to fully represent the pro-choice view, as well (as ridiculous as that sounds). Why? Because 100% pro-life would have one believe that aborting a fetus is a morally bad thing (i.e., one is killing a would-be child), while 100% pro-choice would have one believe that aborting a fetus is a morally good thing (i.e., one is making life better for the would-be mother).
Again, whether these arguments hold any credibility whatsoever is out of the scope of this discussion. But, again, we have to look at the two theoretical but plausible extremes. Are the pro-life people willing to have pictures of smiling mothers talking to their doctors and/or a beautiful family who still has a mother because she got a life-saving abortion? No, this is a pro-choice content addition, even though one could justify it as holding true in many cases. However, on the opposite side of the coin, should we include pictures of dead fetuses who will never grow up to be adults? No, this is a pro-life content addition, even though one could justify it as holding true in many cases.
Show me a single user who is pro-life who opposes the inclusion of an illustration of what is being aborted
I would get my entire family to register, but then they'd all be single-purpose accounts. Aside from that, I feel like that might be goading editors into canvassing for a cause.
...pro-lifers cannot separate the medical act from the moral act.
That's not our problem. Pro-life objections are objections to the medical procedure itself based on varied arguments, and if they're unable to separate the concept of the medical act from their objections to it (i.e., separating the medical procedure from the moral act), that's not our problem, because we've tried our hardest to include all points of view. We've already:
Long story short, most of the editors on this topic, pro-choice and pro-life alike, know how to separate the medical procedure from the debate.
People holding biases from both sides are drawn to Abortion, the all-encompassing article, arguably because it has the most visibility out of all of them. It's like people who want to modify Main page-- it has the most visibility. Like I said, as a crude metaphor, pro-choice people would have smiles, bunny rabbits, and happy teenagers pasted all over the page. As another crude metaphor, pro-life people would have fetuses and children plastered all over the page. Don't believe me? Try this little experiment:
  1. Run over to google, type in "pro-choice" and visit the first site the pops up. As of this writing, the top site is prochoice.org. Notice the soothing baby-blue background, the smiling woman, and the warm text. Notice the emboldening wording and the lightly italicized fonts. Also notice the lack of abortion pictures or fetuses. The entire page exudes "hey, abortion's totally okay."
  2. Do the exact same thing with "pro-life." As of this writing, the top site is prolife.com. Notice the black background, the large, bolded text, and the weary picture of a woman in surgical dress eying some gloved hand with a strange medical device of god-knows-what in it, plus a link to the full video of "A Mother’s Anguish." Notice, there are not one, but two pictures of the fetuses towards the top of the page, but later on a bonus shot of tiny human feet, a surgical picture of a bloody baby hand, pictures of children, another picture of a fetus, and some other large-text, bolded links.
The de facto criteria as to the certain things that shouldn't be included on controversial pages lie in the opposing viewpoints, themselves, as you can generally assume that the leading foundations aren't neutral. In order to establish a neutral point of view, we don't find ways to squeeze our viewpoints into the page by wiki-lawyering; instead, we use common sense. We look at the pro-choice page and ask ourselves, "why does this page, at first glance, make the uninformed reader feel that abortion is okay?" We then do the same thing to the pro-life page and ask ourselves the same question, "why does this page, at first glance, make the uninformed reader feel that abortion is not okay?"
The conclusions to the questions are obviously debatable, but as a general rule of thumb, I've found that you simply try to detach from the debate completely and look at the two pages with brutal indifference. Bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand, I'll tie it all together by comparing them by only examining the image content:
  • On their most high-visibility areas, the pro-life page emphasizes pictures of fetuses and surgical procedures, while the pro-choice page does emphasize either.
Going by this alone, an argument could be made to include pictures, because not including them is siding with one particular point of view (like LCP is arguing); however, it's clear from the anti-abortion site that including pictures of fetuses and abortions, in general, seems to be one of the key appeals made by the pro-life site. This stems from the fact that they place them in the most high-visibility areas and have numerous references to them. It therefore seems to me that including those pictures in Abortion (the most highly visible article of all the abortion-related articles), in and of itself, could be seen as siding with a particular point of view.
Therefore, the anti-abortion site places photos of fetuses and abortions in the most conspicuous spots of the most conspicuous pages as an attempt to push its point of view through emotional appeals via visual media (i.e., videos and pictures), so placing similar photos on the most conspicuous article (i.e., Abortion), is simply following the POV of the anti-abortion site. As a result, they are omitted-- not because we endorse pro-choice (whose site did technically omit the photos as well), but because the photos are not critical to understanding of the topic. If someone wants to see a picture of a fetus, they can go to fetus. If someone wants to see a dead fetus, they're out of luck, because we do not have an article about dead fetuses. I suppose that's just not in the cards for the time being.
Finally, dare I mention the Encyclopedia Britannica (but I suppose it's quasi-okay in this one instance)? Compare EB's article on global warming with EB's article on abortion. Notice the surprising lack of images on the abortion article? That doesn't mean that their article loses credibility, but they, too, understand that including images of aborted fetuses, or even fetuses in general, creates a clear neutrality condition on an otherwise facts-only article.
--slakr\ talk / 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Slakr, thanks for taking the time to craft such a thoughtful and thorough response.
I do think you previously (unintentionally) misrepresented my position, and I did not take that personally. I was annoyed only over your “imploring”. I am sorry if the rhetoric of my response was over the top. I thought I was representing your rebuttals accurately. Inadvertent misrepresentation is apparently an inevitable part of the dialectic at some point. In any case, I do think you represent my argument fairly now. I also think Killer Chihuahua hit the nail on the head earlier when she pointed out that no one is every going to be satisfied with the is article.
I think you make a valid and important point when you indicate that there is a broader www context in which this article is interpreted, and in that broader context, certain images are always associated with particular rhetorical ends. It is truly unfortunate that the pro-choice movement is so reticent to publicize what is being aborted. Perhaps this is analogous to the pro-life side being unable to see the “benefits of abortion.” In the context of the humanity that is being sacrificed, the “benefits of abortion” have no meaning for pro-lifers. I would be more than willing to have pictures of smiling, post abortion women shaking hands with their doctors included on all pro-life pages and web sites. I don’t think deliberate omissions and deceptions help anyone on either side of the debate. Misrepresentation of the facts, through commission or omission, is always hurtful to all in the long run.
I am ready to “lay down my sword” in this debate and leave it to others, if anyone is interested. However, here are a few closing thoughts you might consider.
I would strongly contest your assertion: “pro-lifers cannot separate the medical act from the moral act…. That's not our problem. Pro-life objections are objections to the medical procedure itself based on varied arguments, and if they're unable to separate the concept of the medical act from their objections to it… that's not our problem….” You have no authority with which to make this claim. I could equally say, "if those who are pro-choice cannot see the moral implications of the medical procedure, that is not our problem." Here is why I think the you can’t separate morality from the medical procedure (and this is not a pro-life argument):
Fact: Humans are moral creatures. (Note, both pro-life and pro-choice arguments are moral arguments.)
Fact: Abortion has profound intra-personal and social moral implications according to both pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice.
Assertion: Therefore, it is the separation of the “medical procedure” from its moral value that is, arguably, synthetic. Trying to separate the “medical procedure” from its moral meaning is like trying to separate the medical procedure of euthanasia from its moral meaning. Such attempts, whether you are for or against euthanasia or abortion, are a monstrous betrayal of humanity. I am NOT saying or implying that you are a Nazi, but it is exactly this type of thinking that enabled the Nazis. “You must separate your moral ideas about injecting carbolic acid into the veins of the subject from the medical procedure itself.” I do not mean to impugn you or your value system (and I am the first to admit that I know nothing about either subject), but I do feel that I need to point out that the assertion you made, especially in this context, is very, very dangerous.LCP 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"You have no authority with which to make this claim." Eek, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply as if I was speaking for wikipedia, everyone else, or anything; it was a reference to us as in we who are the editors of Abortion (including yourself). Therefore, it should read "if the pro-lifers can't separate it out, the onus shouldn't be on the editors of Abortion to appease one point of view by morphing an article that deals primarily with the scientific aspects of abortion into a primarily philosophical/moral debate;" i.e., "it's not our problem," because we've already done that by covering the moral debate in Abortion debate. Again, I apologize if that came off as anything else. I definitely need to work on qualifying things like that. :\
But yeah, I totally understand and agree with your points, even though Godwin's Law is playfully in play :D. Yes, humans are undeniably moral creatures, and abortion has profound intra-personal and social implications. I agree completely. Moreover, I also agree with your assertion. In fact, I agree with most of what you say-- it is impossible to separate out morality from subjects which pose moral controversy. Hence, we include a brief summary of the controversy and links to the article pages, because we can all pretty much agree that the article would be seriously lacking (not to mention that it would be horribly point-of-view) if we left mention of controversy out of it. I would never argue for such omissions, and again, if I came across as implying anything close to that, I also apologize. Long story short: I agree wholeheartedly with you that the viewpoints of morality (obviously both sides) should be included. And, as luck would have it, they are; plus, they have their own pages if visitors want to read up more on it.
Thus, I think the only place we really differed was over whether morality should be conveyed through image content. My sole objection to including pictures of fetuses and aborted stuff resided in what I believe to be an inability to balance them per WP:NPOV. That is, I felt that including such images might create an imbalance that would be impossible to re-balance. A smiling woman (at least to me) just doesn't really balance out when placed next to an image of a fetus-- dead or alive. I mean, who wouldn't side with the fetus? Infants and babies, in general, are absolutely adorable (again, in my opinion, but c'mon-- they're freakin' adorable :P). Arguably, however, this might be one of the reasons why pictures of babies, children, and fetuses are more prominent to the pro-life point of view.
A simple summation of my opinion: from the point of view of a psychology nerd, if the goal were to evoke the greatest sympathy for the pro-life point of view, I would put a picture of a fetus in the header; and, if the goal were to evoke the greatest sympathy for the pro-choice point of view, I would put a picture of a smiling woman in the header. If we put both, one of the two polar points of view will unavoidably be favored by default, so I feel that the only way to keep everyone relatively content with the article's neutrality is to simply put neither the smiling woman nor the fetus and call it a day. :P
In the end, it should be stressed that I think that we're on the same page when it comes to the importance of including elements of morality in the article. We simply disagree as to how we should go about that and/or how to give equal weight to both points of view. However, as for now, I, too feel that I should leave the argument to others, since we've been going back and forth for a while now. I'll go bake some cookies for us to eat in the meantime. =)
--slakr\ talk / 08:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New notice at top of article

A notice has recently been inserted at the top of this article, without discussion. The notice says:


This new notice is unnecessary, and is also inaccurate. The second sentence of the lead paragraph already very prominently links to miscarriage. Moreover, the notice incorrectly says that “abortion” is medically defined as “spontaneous abortion.” That is incorrect, according to the lead paragraph and the sources cited therein: “it is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability” (emphasis added). Additionally, the notice at the top may give some people the impression that the article does not contain any medical information. Anyway, there was no discussion of this new notice, so I'll restore the previous version, with an invitation to discuss at talk page.Ferrylodge 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and I agree that the use of "medical" in the text is just inaccurate. By its very nature, the abortion procedure is a medical procedure.-Andrew c [talk] 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I was worried about that notice too. It seems rather like a subtle attempt to redefine the article's subject matter. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph and technical language

There is virtually nothing in this article about what is being aborted. Pictures af an aborted fetus have not been allowed. Even mentioning other Wikipedia articles about organizations that publish such pictures has not been allowed. The article has pictures of women who get abortions, but none of the abortus. I would like to insert a paragraph on this topic.


I would also like to point out that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we are supposed to "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."

Thus, words like "man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" are not necessarily preferable to "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb". Favoring the former words over the latter runs counter to Wikipedia policy, and it also (perhaps unintentionally) favors a point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. If and when words like mother, baby, child, and womb are technically accurate, then they should not be blacklisted. Doing so tends to dehumanize the child and tends to minimize the parent-child relationship. Obviously, these terms will not always be technically accurate, but when they are they should not be avoided like the plague. For example, the word mother is very often used in medical contexts (click on mother and look at the footnotes).

Speaking in plain and accurate English is the preferred course according to Wikipedia policy. I have no problem using words like "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" in Wikipedia articles, but words like "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" should not be frowned upon when they too are technically accurate. Good writing often involves using synonyms and a wide vocabulary, instead of using the same words over and over again.Ferrylodge 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we need to insert that paragraph into the article. I'm not sure why we should use an average figure in stead of focusing on the majority. The majority of abortions are not fetal, but embryonic. Furthermore, even the average number given, 9.5 is not during the fetal stage, so including all that information is misleading. On top of that, where did 9.5 come from? The statistics from England/Wales? What about using the CDC statistics for the US? (I calculated the average to be 8.9 there, even less "fetal" than the England/Wales data). And additional to all that, I'm skeptical of the characteristics given to summarize a fetus at that stage. They are just some cherry picked features that make the fetus seem as human as possible. And that concern of mine has been expressed before and dates back to when you inserted that information into the fetus article. What we get from your description is that a fetus has all the organs and features of a full grown person, has a heart beat and a working brain, it can move, and it has fingerprints. We could list a series of characteristics that dehumanize it as well, and that would be equally POV if listed in isolation (sex organs not visibly differentiated yet, skin transparent, brain-wave activity not continuous, hasn't started producing urine, bile, etc...). Wikilinking to the articles fetus and embryo, IMO, is sufficient, at least much more so than the proposed paragraph.
As for vocabulary, do you have any particular changes you'd like to make? Is the article weak in certain spots that could only be improved by the use of synonyms? I believe the phrases "unborn child" and "baby" should generally be avoided because, the latter because the term is vague and could just as easily be referring to a neonate or infant, and the former because of connotations (just google search the term). "Mother" and "father" are also controversial terms that should generally be avoided. Those terms do not generally connote a temporary state. Furthermore, women who have had abortions, yet have no other kids are not regarded in society as "mothers", and the "fathers' in these situations are even less regarded as such. That said, if there are specific places where you believe these terms would improve the article, we can consider them. Perhaps the context could help me understand, but generally speaking, it's best to avoid these concerns and use language that may not be as 'colorful' as these proposed terms.-Andrew c [talk] 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I had hoped for a more progressive attitude. Apparently, you believe that it is just fine for this article to contain virtually nothing about what is being aborted. Do you also object to the image, or is that too "colorful" for you as well?Ferrylodge 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate or neutral or an appropriate illustration. The source article is aimed at parents-to-be who are looking forward to having a baby, not those considering having an abortion and seeking impartial information. I support Andrew c's objections, and I am concerned about the motivation behind this. I vaguely recall this article saying that the heart was rythmically contracting but not circulating blood (sourced to a medical textbook) and Ferrylodge changed it to say that the heart was beating (sourced to a "family doctor" website, after others pointed out what the other source said). And this is progress towards what, exactly? Ferrylodge has been working away for many months now, attempting to alter this article in any way that might conceivably persuade a reader not to get an abortion. In my opinion this is the ultimate betrayal of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In other words, no images of an intact fetus, no images of an aborted fetus, nothing that might convey reality. I get it.Ferrylodge 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with reality. I do have a problem with inappropriate inaccurate non-neutral images specially created for pro-life or happy-family websites. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
So, we should look for a miserable family, and ask them to draw a fetus? I really have no idea what you would find acceptable. Do you seriously doubt the accuracy of the image? Click on it, and you will be led to a rotatable 3D image. It's quite amazing. But all you can see is propaganda. Is there any image of a fetus at Wikimedia that you feel is accurate?Ferrylodge 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent]I thought I gave a fairly well thought out, civil response, however, your replies seem to be increasingly patronizing. I refuse to engage in a discussion which is degrading as such. If you want to civilly address any of the points I brought up, or make an honest, new proposal taking our concerns under consideration (not a joke proposal such as finding a miserable family to draw a fetus), I'm willing to continue this discussion.-Andrew c [talk] 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I gave one and only one response to you in this section, to wit: "I had hoped for a more progressive attitude. Apparently, you believe that it is just fine for this article to contain virtually nothing about what is being aborted. Do you also object to the image, or is that too "colorful" for you as well?"
You now refuse to answer that question. You refuse to have any image of a fetus in this article. You refuse to allow this article to contain any description of what is being aborted. Please don't point your finger at me and accuse me of incivility, when it is you who apparently cannot put your POV aside and work toward a neutral and informative article.Ferrylodge 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There really is no problem with the text and image per se -- it is reasonably accurate. One could add additional text that describes the immature developmental aspects of a human embryo/fetus as well, as Andrew points out. The terms mother and father have specific biological meanings (i.e., the female and male parents of offspring, respectively), and in the context of biological pregnancy there is nothing inherently controversial about them either (any more than fetus or embryo), aside from one or the other "sides" objecting to their usage (i.e., mother and father "sound" emotive; fetus and embryo "sound" like laboratory terms; in the end, both statements are a POV). Regardless however, this text describing the early fetal stage of development is essentially tangential to article, the topic of which refers to either a natural process (miscarriage) or, more typically, an artificial surgical or chemical procedure. The links to fetus and embryo are thus sufficient and more appropriate here as Andrew again points out. LotR 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be mentioned that fetus and embryo are not inherently professional terms (as the thread-starter suggests). They're the accepted terminology for teaching high schoolers biology, and they're the most general (but specific) terms that don't evoke a misleading or non-neutral point-of-view. A simple example: abortions can be done on many animals-- not just humans-- so the term embryo is better than unborn child, since the term "child" evokes images of a child playing in the park (as the article Child suggests), which clearly wouldn't apply to a cat embryo. However, human embryo is a safe alternative to human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote-- the latter a clearly technical hodgepodge of scientifically-correct, accurate terms that would be most appropriate to a scientific audience. Thus, we use words like embryo to describe embryos in an article about Abortion (as opposed to "Human Abortion") to prevent us having to clean our keyboards every three days from having to type all that scientific nonsense and to prevent peoples' heads from exploding and/or going cross-eyed :P. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I will soon be slapping a POV tag on this article, because it has virtually no information about what is being aborted, not even an accurate image of a fetus like the one shown above. Wikilinks to fetus and embryo are fine, but there should be at least the barest info here in this article about what the difference is between a fetus and embryo, and describing the point in time when an embryo becomes a fetus (i.e. at 9-10 weeks' gestational age). This point in time also happens to roughly coincide with when the average abortion takes place, at least in the UK and Wales. No one has suggested anything inaccurate about the image above. Inclusion of images of women in this article, while excluding images like that shown above, can only be explained by a POV, and so I intend to insert a POV tag at the top of this article.Ferrylodge 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "human embryo" and "human fetus" is better and more specific terminology. However, the clumsy and redundant terminology "human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote" is vague -- it refers to the human organism at any developmental stage beyond the blastocyst stage of development. "Human embryo" and "human fetus" are far more specific terms. The colloquialism "unborn child" is well known, indicating that the term "child," when placed in context, may refer to a "human fetus" or "human embryo." You are correct that this term can "evoke the image" of a cute, cuddly girl or boy. However, it is equally valid to say that "fetus" and "embryo," especially without the qualifying adjective "human," can evoke the image of a sterile, formaldehyde-smelling laboratory. So I will repeat my point: in the NPOV-eyes of Wikipedia, terminology favored by either "side" is a form of political framing, no matter how much either "side" provides justification for their favored jargon. LotR 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was using "human post-blastocystic multicellular diploid eukaryote" as an example of actual technical language only to illustrate the point that the terms fetus and embryo aren't technical terms, and that replacing them with "unborn child" is misleading, much like replacing them with "unborn adult" and "unborn politician;" thus, the most concise, most factually-accurate terms are "fetus" and "embryo," depending on the stage of gestation. --slakr\ talk / 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Safer than childbirth or safer for women than childbirth

Ok, we have had multiple individuals on both sides reverting, so this isn't a case of one person fighting consensus. If we need to, let's talk it out here. This wording was added a month ago without discussion. I believe I missed the edit when it happened, so I wasn't even aware of it. What are the arguments to keep it in? What are the arguments to remove it? Let's talk and stop edit warring. -Andrew c [talk] 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the word "most" as in "most women": From this ref: "PIP: The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control has collected data on abortion deaths since 1972. These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions perfomed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth.". That's not "most women", it clearly states that abortion before the 16th week is, in fact, safer than childbirth. To say it is "safer" does not state that it is entirely without risk. The phrase "most women" is not correct, from this ref: "For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth." This statement refers to contraception and surgical sterilization in addition to abortion, so we should not take our cue from the combined figures when we have a standalone statement on abortion to use.
Regarding the bit about it being safer "for the woman", this smacks of POV-pushing. The woman is the patient, and the figure is discussing her safety. To say that it is safer "for women" makes no sense. Do biological males get abortions? No. Is there anyone else who would be getting abortions? Other than transmen, no (and if we take them into account, "women" excludes them too). So to make a point of pointing out that it's safer "for women" is to allude that it is not safe for another person. The point is that unless Wikipedia is taking the viewpoint that the fetus is a person, this sentence should only say "abortions [performed under these circumstances] are safer than childbirth". Photouploaded 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the issue between the editors differently than Andrew c does. I did not see it as an issue between “women” or “most women”. I thought the issue had to do with who is effected in the procedure. So, I would consider two sentences from that perspective: “safer for women than childbirth” and “safer than childbirth”.
Perhaps the first step is to establish the factuality of what some editors apparently think is implied in the statement, “safer for women than childbirth”, namely, that it is not safe for the embryo or fetus. First, it should be pointed out that “safer for women than childbirth” does NOT imply that abortion is unsafe for others. To read that idea into the statement is logically fallacious. HOWEVER, it is understandable why some might take the statement to imply that abortion is unsafe for others—and resent that implication. Granted this, to avoid the POV charge, all that has to be proven to warrant the inclusion of “woman” (at least concerning whether it preserves NPOV) is that abortion is, in fact, unsafe for someone (or something) other than the mother. And this is easy to do. Fact: an embryo or fetus is a living creature (albeit some assert a non-human creature). Fact: in abortion the embryo or fetus (aka would-be baby) is killed. Fact: killing a creature is considered harmful to the creature.
Issues of logically fallacious reasoning aside, I think a weak (albeit valid) reason for inclusion has to do with making context explicit. Leaving “woman” out of the proposed sentence leaves several editors uncomfortable with the level of ambiguity. And since I have demonstrated that the inclusion of “woman” does not introduce POV, it should be included.
In terms of semantics, I think it would be good to include “woman” in the sentence since, logically fallacious or not, it does remind the reader that the woman is not the only creature effect in an abortion.
But none of the foregoing arguments are truly compelling. The only truly compelling argument is that “safer than childbirth” is incorrect. Abortion not safer than childbirth for the fetus or the embryo—regardless of whether one considers the embryo or fetus a human person. Abortion is universally, unequivocally deadly for embryos and fetuses. That is a simple fact. And since THE ARTICLE, INCLUDING THE SECTION ON “HEALTH” IS ABOUT “ABORTION” in all of its varied facets, it would be misguided to limit to the statement about the safety of abortion to only one facet (namely the effect on the woman) of abortion.
Along these lines, in case I have completely misread the issue, I would support Andrew c’s revision. Abortion cannot possibly be safer for all women (as implied in “safer than childbirth” and “safer for women than childbirth”) since some women die and suffer serious complications from abortion.
LCP 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Abortion cannot possibly be safer for all women (as implied in “safer than childbirth” and “safer for women than childbirth”) since some women die and suffer serious complications from abortion.
Bogus, bogus argument. As I said already, To say that abortion is "safer" than childbirth does not state that it is entirely without risk. Jumping out of a plane wearing a parachute is safer than jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Simple, yes? This statement says nothing about the empirical safety of jumping out of a plane wearing a parachute. Some people die and suffer serious complications from jumping out of planes wearing parachutes. That fact is not challenged by stating that wearing a parachute is safer than not. It's a comparative statement that states that one activity is safer than another, just the same as stating that when performed before 16 weeks by a doctor, abortion is safer than childbirth.
Furthermore, the relative safety determined in that data does not include the outcome for the fetuses. If that were true then the "safety" rate would be smaller than half of what it is in the case of abortion (with at least 50% of the "creatures" involved perishing with each abortion). To bring in the safety of all the "creatures" involved would be to calculate the number of lives lost among women who abort, women who carry to term, and the fetuses involved in each. We would have to incorporate women who die in childbirth whose fetuses survive. That would mean that dying in childbirth is actually "safer", overall, if the fetus survives. Does any of this make sense if we involve the outcome of the fetuses? No. Do the references refer to the safety of the fetuses? No!
It is factually accurate and supported by sources for the article to state "When performed before the 16th week [by a medical professional], abortion is safer than childbirth." Photouploaded 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) It should be abundantly clear, in context, that any discussion of safety or risk applies to the woman. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the embryo or fetus. Suggesting that its safety is an issue is simply bizarre.
I can't see any reason to include "for women" or "for most women" other than to point out that there is another being involved. Why make that point? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
“The morbidity and mortality of pregnancy: still risky business” states, “For most women, fertility regulation by contraception, sterilization, or legal abortion is substantially safer than childbirth.” This peer-reviewed article supports the inclusion of “most” and "women" and trumps the assertion that the inclusion of “most” is “bogus.”
“Standardized mortality rates associated with legal abortion: United States, 1972-1975” states, “Women in the age group 20-24 had a 2.3 times greater mortality risk in childbirth than in abortion and women over 35 had an 8.1 times greater risk.”
Although both articles are obviously about women’s health, both articles refer to “women” explicitly. This unequivocally supports the inclusion of “women.” By wanting to remove an explicit reference to women, it seems to me that Photouploaded is (perhaps unwittingly) inserting his/her own editorial bias.
Regarding Photouploaded’s arguments--which are immaterial in light of the direct quotes from peer reviewed journals--Photouploaded initially argued that to include “woman” would mean that the article is counting the fetus as a “person.” I have demonstrated that that is not correct. Photouploaded tacitly agrees with me that a fetus is a “creature” (as Photouploaded is at a loss as to what other type of thing a fetus might be). And as I have demonstrated, that another “creature” is involved warrants the inclusion “women.” And finally, although immaterial to this discussion, Photouploaded states, “If that were true then the "safety" rate would be smaller than half of what it is in the case of abortion (with at least 50% of the "creatures" involved perishing with each abortion). To bring in the safety of all the "creatures" involved would be to calculate the number of lives lost among women who abort, women who carry to term, and the fetuses involved in each. We would have to incorporate women who die in childbirth whose fetuses survive." This, in fact, is how I view the facts regading birth in general (as opposed to facts about only women)--except that I would say that a “baby” is born is childbirth, not a “fetus” as Photouploaded states. Although I am NOT pushing my POV here, I assert the fetus--conceived by humans, with human DNA, alive, destined for birth--is a human person. So, Photouploaded’s attempt at a reductio ad absurdum does not hold water.
LCP 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) How safe are agricultural pesticides? Very dangerous, if you count the millions of deaths that typically result from their proper usage. Such calculations of safety are meaningless. Instead, if A is intended to kill B, then the safety of A is measured in terms of risk to not-B.

What arguments are there, other than "the source says women"? The other reason to include "women" is to draw attention to the view that another being's safety is an issue. There's no need to make that point, as I've said, and NPOV says we should not do so. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You state, “if A is intended to kill B, then the safety of A is measured in terms of risk to not-B.” I think you raise an interesting point. However, here is the problem. The deaths of fetuses is not as morally unambiguous as the death of insects. What do you do with this fact: the Nazi’s intended to kill Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, gays, etc.? Should we not include their numbers in our account of WWII dead since these poor souls died as the result of the intended and “proper” use of gas chambers and carbolic acid?
Regardless, in the context of several editors who see it fit to include “women,” I think that "the source says 'women'" is the most cogent argument. If the sources didn’t say “women”, or if the page were titled, “Women and Abortion,” or if even the section were titled “The Health Effects of Abortion on Women,” then I don’t think we would be having this discussion. I brought in extra-textual arguments only to demonstrate that there are valid reasons for respecting what the original texts says and that any move to remove “women” is arguably more POV than including “women.”LCP 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LCP, you said: I assert the fetus... is a human person. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the stats refer only to the safety of the person undergoing the procedure. As Sheffield Steel stated, the context makes it abundantly clear who this person is: the adult. Therefore, there is no reason to point out that it is safer "for women" unless your intention is to point out that there is another "human person" involved; a belief which you have admitted openly. The preexisting ref clearly states: "These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth." Not "safer for women" (emphasizing the termination of fetuses), not "safer for most women" (emphasizing the risks of abortion), but simply, abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth. Period. There is no reason whatsoever to augment this statement with editorial commentary. It stands on its own. Photouploaded 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The text also states, "Women in the age group 20-24 had a 2.3 times greater mortality risk in childbirth than in abortion and women over 35 had an 8.1 times greater risk."LCP 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
... which means that abortion is safer than childbirth. Photouploaded 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
...for women. ;-)LCP 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
...which goes without saying. Photouploaded 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. There is no compelling need to include "for women". The meaning is clear enough without it.
  2. Adding "for women" puts forward the viewpoint that the safety of another being is an issue. This is the "pro-life" viewpoint.
  3. NPOV policy says that we must present information neutrally.
  4. NPOV is non-negotiable and nothing trumps NPOV.

I'm not sure what else there is to say. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, completely. Photouploaded 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph of this article, we define abortion as a procedure which results in the death of the fetus/embryo. Isn't it redundant to imply abortion isn't safe for the fetus/embryo, when by definition the procedure results in their death? I think I'm starting to see the view that we don't need to add "for women" to this sentence.-Andrew c [talk] 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That there is another creature that is effected isn’t an “issue.” It is a fact. And it isn’t even pro-life fact. NPOV Fact: there is a living creature in the womb. NPOV Fact: It is killed. This is a “health effect.” This undermines your premise #2. It is your premise #2 that is POV. Furthermore, The inclusion of “woman” isn’t editorial. It is explicitly stated in both texts referenced.
But perhaps you are right. Since the entire section speaks only of the health effects of abortion on the woman, perhaps the naming of the section is the issue, not the inclusion of the word “woman” in the text in question.
I must say, I am deeply impressed by the unbiased zeal for grammatical efficiency that informs my opponents regarding this issue.LCP 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There's really no call for such incivility. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not being uncivil.LCP 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a bit of editing activity, yet no significant increase in talk page activity. As it stands on the talk page, we have Photouploaded and SheffieldSteel clearly against the inclusion, me on the fence leaning towards exclusion, and LCP for the inclusion. It can be assumed that FL is for the inclusion based on the fact that he inserted it, without consensus or discussion a month ago, and because he has reverted back to the included version. ElinorD and KC have both reverted Photouploaded, but it isn't clear if they were fighting a disruptive editor, or making a stance on how they feel the article should be (they should comment here on talk so we know). Regardless, there doesn't seem to be consensus to include the phrasing, and the talk page discussion has been unambiguously leaning to the exclusion side. So what I'm saying is, those who keep reverting to a version that isn't supported on talk, you should probably comment here. In this situation, words are louder than actions. That said, should we remove the controversial phrasing that has yet to have talk page consensus until the discussion is done? If things change, we can always restore the text once there is consensus.-Andrew c [talk] 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove the controversial phrasing, as there is no consensus to include it. Photouploaded 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That’s like saying, “since the jury is hung, we should execute the defendant.” Since there is no consensus, the most inclusive reading of the texts itself should hold precedence. In other words, the benefit of the doubt needs to go to the text. And both texts say “women” and one says “most women”. At worse, it is redundant. At best, it clarifies meaning for readers who, through no fault of their own, are too dull to understand that it is implied.LCP 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The studies cited are from 1978 and 1994, and are limited to the United States population. It is therefore NPOV and factual to state the dates and geographic limitations of the studies cited in the article, which do not cover either abortion or childbirth safety beyond the US. More documentation is needed to make the universal statement presently in the article. Please see my change to the article reflecting the above limitation.--Ajschorschiii 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Also, sentences reporting scientific studies with dates should properly be in the past tense. I have made this change. --Ajschorschiii 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The final footnote #24 supporting the sentence, "The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed,[32][33] but remains less than complications that may occur from carrying pregnancy to term.[24]", does not support the use of the phrase "less than complications" but is specifically about morbidity and mortality, which are quite different from simply "complications." I am changing the phrase in the article to read, "but were reported in the US in 1994 as remaining less than the morbidity and mortality from carrying pregnancy to term." Scientific articles in the past should properly be reported in the past tense.--Ajschorschiii 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Photo has changed the statements to which I refer above to the present tense, without adding to this discussion. Years ago, I was taught that when writing a summary of scientific findings, to report the findings in the past tense, since science is ongoing. The past tense also would give the writing a factual, NPOV tone, which would add to the encyclopedic quality of this article. Also, to remove the dates 1978 and 1994 from the sentence, as Photo did, gives the reader less information on which to form an opinion. Photo's comment in the edit that the studies have not been refuted can only be made from a factual point of view if Photo has read every study in the world, in every language, that is currently extant. Since no one has this knowledge, the convention of using the past tense, and referring to the date and scope of studies, keeps the article within factual and NPOV boundaries. I ask Photo to reconsider his or her changes.--Ajschorschiii 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I support and restored your change. The removal of your text is just another instance of Photouploaded edit warring.LCP 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's profoundly uncivil to talk about the actions of someone who is participating in a discussion, as though they weren't there. — Photouploaded 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Were you talking to me? I wasn't present. I was getting my teeth cleaned. I am sure you will be happy to know that my teeth and gums are in the best of health. My dentist even gave me a free tooth brush!LCP 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems an attempt to garble the information being presented. This insistence on using the past tense is not being duplicated with any of the other dozens of statistics cited in this article, such as "The World Health Organization suggests that there are 19 million terminations annually which fit its criteria for an unsafe abortion." and "In the first twelve weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method., "Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy." It's odd that you would insist on phrasing this in the past tense. It gives a feel of uncertainty to an otherwise simple statement. Also, the list of medical professionals who might perform an abortion is not supported by either source, and serves only to increase the bulk of stipulations on the truth of the statement.
Here is your version:
As reported in 1978 and 1994 studies limited to the US population, when performed before the 16th week by competent doctors — or, in some states, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants — it was safer for most women than childbirth.
And here is one suggestion for improvement:
"Studies on the US population in 1978 and 1994 reported that when performed before the 16th week of pregnancy, abortion is safer than childbirth."
This version is nearly a direct quote from the first reference, which states:
"The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control has collected data on abortion deaths since 1972. These data, controlled for age and race, show that abortions performed before the 16th week of pregnancy are safer than childbirth."
There is no need to weigh down the sentence with unnecessary (and unsourced) information. Simply stating the date and the word "reported" makes it clear that the report was published—as all reports are—in the past. — Photouploaded 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Health effects" to "Health effects of abortion on women"

  • NPOV Fact: there is a living creature in the womb--regardless of the humanity or lack of humanity of the creature.
  • NPOV Fact: It is killed.
  • This is a "health effect" on a creature that is party to the procedure--regardless of the humanity or lack of humanity of the creature.
  • NPOV Fact: some people say this creature is human. To them, the death of the fetus is definitely a health effect.
  • NPOV Fact: some people say this creature as non-human. To them, the death of this creature is inconsequential.
  • NPOV Fact: The current “Health effects” section does not speak to the health effects of abortion on the fetus.
  • Therefore, the current name of the “Health effects” section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human.
  • This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia NPOV rules.
  • Therefore, the name of the section should be changed or information about the health effects on the fetus should be included in this section.
  • Since health effects on the fetus are discussed elsewhere, including them in this section would be redundant.
  • Therefore, the best solution is to rename the section.

I strongly oppose this suggestion. It would be a blatant violation of NPOV rules to name it "Health effects of abortion on women" because this would emphasize that abortion had other "health effects" on 'someone' else. It is not Wikipedia's place to indicate that the fetus is a person. Are we going to create a companion section called "Health effects of abortion on the fetus", complete with gory descriptions from an in-utero point of view? Please. Photouploaded 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you do. You keep on making the same claim, but you keep conflating several ideas. A creature does not have to be a "person" to suffer health effects. Worms suffer “health effects.” The NPOV fact is that another living thing is involved. The NPOV fact is that not only the woman suffers health effects. Ergo, the title is inaccurate. At best, it lacks the level of refinement you insist upon above. Nevertheless, let's look at personhood. Perhaps you are right to suggest it is an issue. You state that a fetus is not a person. And that is POV. Namely yours. You imply that it is POV to say or imply a fetus is a person ("It is not Wikipedia's place to indicate that the fetus is a person"). However, to state or imply that it is not a person is also POV. So the page already is in violation of the NPOV rules. That is what the name change will fix. So now we have two arguments for changing the name of the section. And to perhaps anticipate the repetition of a response attempted by Sheffield Steel above, even abortion supporters would reject the idea that the killing of a fetus, be it person or not, is as inconsequential as the killing of an insect. LCP 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely did not "state that a fetus is not a person", or similar! Please be much more careful of your wording if you choose to restate another person's position. Using direct quotes can help in avoiding these errors. I'm waiting to hear from others before I comment further. Photouploaded 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
So you think a fetus is a person?LCP 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hah! I assumed good faith in thinking that, perhaps, you had made an honest mistake in attempting to represent my viewpoint, but your behavior makes it clear that your intent was to corner me. So, rather than admit that you misrepresented me, and even apologize, perhaps, now you fire a single, personal question at me? That is terribly ill-mannered, LCP. Mainly, in light of this, (and also in an absence of any benefit my answer could provide the article) I have no interest in answering your question. Photouploaded 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
“Ill mannered”? Apologize because I inadvertently misquoted you? You’re so funny! Anyway, I did not intend to misquote or “corner you” (as evidenced by my line-through). Had that been my intention, I would have been a little bit cleverer! Regardless, you did answer the question, albeit reluctantly and perhaps unwittingly. BTW, even if you had provided an explicit answer, I would not have held it against you or your "argument". While you are cogitating on that, you might also want to consider that fact that in real academic discussions the participants make no secret of their affiliations.LCP 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Now you have ascribed to me both words I did not say and a position I did not claim. Yes, you struck through the first instance, but what good is that when you immediately do it again? You claim that I "did answer the question", even having the gall to insinuate that I might have done so without realizing it. How tedious. What actually happened was that I said that you "made an honest mistake in attempting to represent my viewpoint" and that you "misrepresented me". The words "mistake" and "misrepresentation" were intended to refer solely to your act of claiming that I made an outright statement that I never made, not to imply my position. I made it clear that I had not answered your question in any form. For you to infer that I had is vexing, and it is very tedious to have to correct you again.
You seem intelligent enough to become aware of this error, and to stop. Please do so immediately! It is taking too long to have to correct you each time. Surely you must see how detrimental this is to the improvement of the article. We only have so much time we can spend here, and instead of spending it on the noble goal of improving Wikipedia, we're stuck here. If you choose to continue here, please stop misrepresenting me so we can get to the business of the article. Thank you. Photouploaded 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Photo, if someone misunderstands you, it is less divisive and hostile to AGF and rather than accuse them of wilful misunderstanding, to simply clarify your meaning. A simple "I seem to have been unclear, allow me to clarify" or "You seem to have misunderstood me, this is what I meant" avoids attacking other editors, and as an added bonus, is easier to type than attacks and accusations, which are pointless. Remember to comment on the content not the contributor. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While what you have said is correct, I find it troublesome that while bringing up the topic of civility, you focus only on me. For example, LCP's comment: "you did answer the question, albeit reluctantly and perhaps unwittingly." Is it not profoundly uncivil to infer that another editor failed to grasp the meaning of their own words? It seems you unfairly target me, alone. Photouploaded 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Out of respect for Photouploaded's comments and in the interest of saving time, I am tagging my comments so that those who care can avoid the metadiscusion. This comment has two facets: metadiscussision and forensic discussion.
<metadiscussion>
I am, admittedly, an ass sometimes. I have been pointed even with KillerChihuahua. (And she has been pointed back—good for her or him I say!). However, you claim to be interested in not wasting time, so I really cannot understand why you spend so much breath on non-topical meta-discussion. Whatever.
</metadiscussion>
<forensic discussion>
I think you’ve misattributed the source of the “tesious”ness. The tediousness tediously entered into this tedious discussion at its inception--when the word “woman,” although a directly quoted from two sources, was tediously deleted.
</forensic discussion>
<metadiscussion>
If you are going to attempt to patronize me by correcting me, I would be more impressed by arguments (such as Sheffield Steel’s below) or at least bigger words and wit. I do my best (which I’ll be the first to admit is very humble), and I just don’t see how you are keeping up your end of the bargain. Simply repeating the word “tedious” and giving me imperatives really doesn’t do anything for me. I find it tedious.
</metadiscussion>LCP 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That you repeated the word "tedious" seven times indicates to me a kind of attitude with which I do not wish to interface. Admitting that you are, at times, "an ass" does not give you license for such a thing. Please consider reviewing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; if you will uphold the spirit of these policies, we will be better off. Photouploaded 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the pesticide example was causing confusion based on the value attached by the reader to some of the parties.
Question If asked to find the safest method of execution, assuming relevant data was available, would your answer be...
  1. The method that is most likely to leave the condemned person alive; or
  2. The method that is least likely to harm anyone else?
Answer 1 is correct in a narrow and mathematical sense, but it is not going to be useful to any plausible real-world enquirer.
The above renaming proposal is frankly bizarre and supremely irrelevant given that it is perfectly clear what the purpose of the procedure is. The health of the fetus or embryo is only an issue insofar as the procedure is consdered a failure if it survives. I also strongly oppose this proposal. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
“Mathematical” is an impressive word (even if it would apply only had you created a syllogism), and the parallelism in “frankly bizarre and supremely irrelevant” is nice, but I don’t see how the clarity of the purpose of the procedure has any bearing, whatsoever, in the proposal to rename “Health effects.” Perhaps you would be so kind as to walk me through your argument step by step as I have done above in laying out my proposal. While you are at it, I am also interested in learning more about how “narrow mathematical sense” differs from “broad mathematical sense”, “mathematical sense”, and simply “mathematically”, and how any of these apply to non-syllogistic arguments. Thanks in advance for your kind attention!LCP 04:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm and incivility don't help anyone.

  1. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the embryo or fetus.
  2. The majority of abortions are successful.
  3. Therefore, it is normal and intended for the embryo or fetus to die during an abortion.
  4. There is another entity involved in the abortion process, i.e. the woman.
  5. The purpose of an abortion is not to injure or kill the woman.
  6. An abortion is attended by trained medical staff.
  7. The medical staff are concerned with the health of the woman, but not that of the embryo or fetus.
  8. It is neither normal nor intended for the woman to be injured or killed during an abortion.

I hope this is clear enough. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Using language inaccurately in an attempt to impress and multiplying pejorative adjectives doesn’t help anyone.
I do now have a much clearer understanding of where you are coming from. And although I still want to change the title of the section, I think I do see your point. Here is my rebuttal. I think it applies to your premise #7, “The medical staff are concerned with the health of the woman, but not that of the embryo or fetus”. In response, I assert that the intentionality of the medical staff that provides abortions is not the only thing that should inform Wikipedia’s view of the subject. NPOV does not mean “as viewed in the eyes of medical professionals who perform abortions”--especially since those particular medical professionals arguably have the most POV position of all. The rest of my argument is the same as above and hinges on “the current name of the ‘Health effects’ section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human.”
Thank you for outlining your position. It was clear enough for me.LCP 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-proposal I suggest the section be renamed from "health effects" to "health risks". I think "risks" is more accurate than "effects" because the section talks about chances, rather than certain consequences. It also defuses the above debate, by reducing ambiguity about who might be considered at risk during an abortion, as opposed to being affected by it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This change might, perhaps, give needed warrant to your argument and overcome my objections. I am willing to entertain this idea. I’d like to mull it over and get input from other editors.LCP 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Health risks was discussed previously, I will see if I can find it in the archives. It might help to see previous views on this issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find it. It seems the section was "Health risks" through Archive 13, then sometime before end of Archive 15 it became "effects". If I recall correctly, the reasoning was that in some cases abortion is not a "risk" but a positive effect - for example in cases of therapeutic abortion, and also since abortion is safer for the woman than full term and delivery "risks" was inaccurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have watched this debate and have not commented because I had a neutral stance, but I am now beginning to understand the point about changing the section title. The page discusses a term that can refer to both a natural process (miscarriage) or, more typically, an artificial surgical or chemical procedure performed upon a female parent in gestation (aka, mother or pregnant woman) with the intention to terminate her pregnancy, resulting in the destruction of the offspring, usually in utero. The Level 1 Section title "Health effects" is therefore vague, and even a bit confusing. At the least, it should be demoted to a subsection under "Induced abortion" -- do we really have anything to say about the health effects of natural miscarriages? Right now, I am leaning toward the proposition that it be changed as has been proposed, which provides more clarification on the section content. The only rational counter argument I have heard is simply that it is redundant, but I have not been convinced of this yet.

There was an edit conflict and I did not see the new proposal. I agree it is an improvement. I would also suggest the section be demoted to a subsection under "Induced abortion." LotR 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at the phrase "health effects" the more it looks like a bastardisation of "health risks" and "side effects" - and the more I think it should be one or the other.
I like LotR's suggestion to move the section, and think the above post raises other good points. What information is available (and how much should be included) about health risks/effects associated with natural miscarriage? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Miscarriage#General_risk_factors will help. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a tangent: I just noticed that Miscarriage speaks nothing of associate risks to the woman when that happens--such as infection if parts of the aborted fetus are not expelled or complications resulting from the D&C.LCP 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not good! but I see you are already on it. Good catch! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
(multiple e/c) My bad. That's exactly what I was wondering about - the health problems that may occur, during/after a natural miscarriage. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I would support deprecating the header level and moving the section (and renaming the section in accord with comments by LotR) to provide clarity. I am neither for or against a repeat of health risks associated with spontaneous abortion. I am inclined to include merely a statement to the effect that there are risks and a link to the Miscarriage page.LCP 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you suggest the non-risk health information go, such as the information that an abortion carries less risk to the woman than delivery, or the studies which show that abortion is often less of a mental health risk than having an unwanted child? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I am confused. I thought we were talking about the whole “Health risks” section. Not that that is much help as I don’t see where to move that either. Are we talking about moving/depricating the whole thing or just parts? In either case, perhaps LotR has some ideas.LCP 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the entire section titled "Health effects" (currently Section 4) be moved under Section 3.2 "Induced abortion" as the current Section 4 only refers to induced abortions. I did not intend to generate the additional work of having to write up the impact of miscarriage on a women's health. Also, having a mirror section titled "Health risks of spontaneous abortions" would not make sense given they are a natural, spontaneous process. The point KillerChihuahua brings up about previous editions of the page is something to consider, but under the context of induced abortion, it would not be any more out of place than having similar sections under other medical procedures or medications -- any of these has an intended beneficial end, but they also carry "risks" or "side-effects." LotR 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that there are one or two references to miscarriage in that section. It might be best to move them here, for further attention if necessary, rather than move them under "Induced Abortion". Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than move with undue haste, we examine this carefully. Since section 4 has miscarriage information and positive health effects, to rename it Health risks and move it to below Induced abortion would require some text surgery, as well as discussion on where to place the (now homeless) information. Rather than have a chaotic result or a confusing result, IMO it would be beneficial to discuss the pros and cons of renaming and/or moving the content at all, and how best to proceed if consensus is to rename and/or move. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree and I am confused again. How is moving the section going to speak to my main objection with the title, namely, “the current name of the ‘Health effects’ section, by disregarding the health effects on the fetus, currently represents the POV of only those who regard the fetus as non-human”? Thanks.LCP 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposals (just food for thought):

  • Move the sentence in "Health effects" on miscarriage to a new subsection called “Health risks” beneath “Spontaneous Abortion”.
  • Rename “Health effects” to “Health risks” (thought, for reasons stated, I still would prefer “Health risks to the woman”—but I’ve said everything I have to say on that topic.)
  • Deprecate the header level of “Health risks” so that it (and its children) fits as section 3.2.4 (beneath “Induced abortion”)
  • Break “Suggested effects” into two sections: “Suggested effects: positive” and “Suggested effects: negative”. LCP 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the sentence in question that would be come a new one sentence subsection of miscarriage? I just re-read the section and didn't see any content that need to be moved (are you talking about the very last sentence under the "Mental health" heading?) Next, I do not believe we need to move "Health effects" under another header. If you note, every section following "Health effects" (namely, "History of abortion," "Social issues," "Abortion debate," and "Abortion law") all deal with induced abortion. In fact, I would say that this entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage. I do not believe we need to move sections 4 through 8 under the heading "Induced abortion". Splitting up the suggested effects also doesn't make sense. What are the positive suggested effects? Is it the single paragraph which directly contrasts the "Mental health" section, starting with Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients?
While I can understand your desire to organizes, I don't think proposals 1,3 or 4 would work. As for #2, "Health risks" is ok, but what about "Risks & Side Effects", which is the phrase Planned Parenthood uses, or we could just use "Risks" as The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does, or even "Side effects and risks" as American Pregnancy Association does. I agree that "Health effects" is oddly phrased. -Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[68] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression." is under Suggested effects/Mental health.
I agree, “this entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage”. Following the suggestion to rename the section, what do you would you do with, “Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients?”LCP 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If the "entire article is basically the induced abortion article, minus a sentence in the head and a summary section recapping the spinout article miscarriage" then the article should be trimmed back so that it discusses its intended content with appropriate weight. Rather than do that, I still advocate that this section be demoted as has been proposed (LCP has some specific proposals for this). This section is not the same as the others because the bulk of it relates directly to induced abortion medical procedures. Otherwise, by the same line of reasoning, we might as well promote the subsections 3.2.1-3.2.3 to their own Level 1 section since the entire article is about induced abortion. Again, I am not advocating that, but rather illustrating why "Health effects" should be demoted (and, BTW, "Risks & Side Effects" is certainly an improvement in this context). The other sections mentioned do not necessarily need to be demoted since they do not pertain explicitly to the actually medical procedures. Alternatively, a new Level 1 section could be created entitled "Issues concerning induced abortion," and these sections could be put under this one. So, we might have the following revised outline:
   * 1 Definitions
   * 2 Incidence
         o 2.1 By gestational age and method
         o 2.2 By personal and social factors
   * 3 Forms of abortion
         o 3.1 Spontaneous abortion
         o 3.2 Induced abortion
               + 3.2.1 Surgical abortion
               + 3.2.2 Medical abortion
               + 3.2.3 Other means of abortion
               + 3.2.4 Risks & side effects
                       - 3.2.4.1 Breast cancer
                       - 3.2.4.2 Fetal pain
                       - 3.2.4.3 Mental health
   * 4 Issues concerning induced abortion
         o 4.1 History
         o 4.2 Social issues
               + 4.2.1 Effect upon crime rate
               + 4.2.2 Sex-selective abortion
               + 4.2.3 Unsafe abortion
         o 4.3. Abortion debate
               + 4.3.1 Public opinion
         o 4.4. Abortion law
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links
This allows us to keep most of the content of the current page, but in a more logical and explicit structure. Either that, or we should just trim back or remove the large sections that implicitly refer only to induced abortion, as this page is supposed to deal with the generic term "abortion." LotR 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I just now noticed that the "Incidence" section also only talks about induced abortions. This could be demoted under the Sections 4 or 3.2 I proposed above -- were I the only editor, I would probably go ahead and do that, but it may be too many changes for everyone. The article is just too heavily weighted on induced abortions. Perhaps we should just change the Section title as Andrew suggests and let it go at that. Sigh. LotR 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, sections 2, 2.1 and 2.2 don't say a lick about "miscarriage" so they would need to be demoted to some subsection. We don't have a single external link dealing with "miscarriages", so section 11 would need to be demoted. The see also section also doesn't really deal with miscarriages either. Really, look at the article. We mention miscarriage in the lead once. We define it in the "Definitions" section and explain it a little bit more in the "Forms of abortion" and briefly mention it for comparison purposes in the effects section. This article is always been, in my mind, primarily the "Induced abortion" page. I also believe we treat the closely related topic of "miscarriages" appropriately, according to how we should summarize and spinout content. I don't see what could be trimmed, or how we are giving too much weight to the topic of miscarriage. We need to mention it in the lead because there are definitions of the word "abortion" which are synonymous with miscarriage. Mentioning it in the definitions section makes sense to more fully explain the lead, and the "forms of abortion section" is the summary section for the spinout article. The remaining 3 mentions of the word are simply there for comparison purposes in regards to statistics and related studies. I'll repeat what I said above. Changing the heading makes sense, but switching up the outline doesn't. -Andrew c [talk] 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is a question, how much content (and what parts) would you trim that deal with "miscarriages" in order for you to feel comfortable leaving the outline the way it is. I think if we ever get around to expanding the lead to an appropriate 3-5 paragraph suggested length, it would be even clearer what the article is about. Maybe that will be my next task.-Andrew c [talk] 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an idea to solve the miscarriage problem:
  • Leave the lead as it is
  • Leave the current paragraph on miscarriage in place
  • Collect the rest of the info in the article on miscarriage into the section on miscarriage at the top of the page since it is mainly just a summary and a pointer.
  • Expand the lead to state that the article is primarily about induced abortion.
Then we just have to deal with…
  • the naming of “Health effects”
  • the omission of information about what is being aborted, including the disposal of aborted embryos and fetuses. But don’t worry, I am not talking about picture of fetuses in dumpsters! The disposal of aborted and fetuses has been a big deal in this issue for both sides. It has been an abomination to pro-lifers and an embarrassment to abortion clinics. If anyone wants to debate this, may I suggest a new thread be started?
LCP 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, you have misunderstood me -- I was suggesting that the trimming back should be on induced abortion, not miscarriages. Yes, I already noticed and commented on the Section 2 material being "induced abortions only" also. But the article is supposed to be about the generic term "abortion," correct? Indeed, the article immediately makes the distinction that there are two basic forms of abortion and describes these in Level >=2 subsections. But then, without any indicators, the article immediately starts labeling the remaining Level 1 Section Headers as if the article "assumes" the reader knows that it "really" is about induced abortions, and that the stuff about miscarriages is just window dressing. That simply makes for a poorly structured article (not too mention redundancy with an existing article on induced abortions). Were I lead author, and my identity was revealed, I would either (1) cut back most of the disproportionately weighted material on induced abortions and replace with a "Main article: Induced abortion" link in its place, or (2) keep the material, but restructure as I have already proposed. Understanding that "deleting most of the material on induced abortions" would unlikely pass consensus, I leaned toward restructuring, but then realized that even this would have difficulty getting by on a such a page (as evidenced by this lengthy discussion). So I have already conceded and have supported your proposed simple change to "Risks & Side Effects." I also support the ideas proposed by LCP above. LotR 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This was brought up long ago, and the then-consensus was to have most of spontaneous abortion content at Miscarriage, and induced abortion here, with mentions of the other in each (if you follow). This may still be a worthwhile distribution of content; I have no strong opinion one way or the other at this time. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute template

When I attempted to add a dispute template to the section over which we disagree, User:KillerChihuahua immediately reverted this addition. In the edit summary, KillerChihuahua stated: "A minor content dispute does not call for a tag, especially the "totally-disputed" tag. Photo, you are being disruptive again." I feel that this statement fails to WP:AGF. Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute makes it very clear that this use of a dispute template is supported:

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:
  • if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: [emphasis mine]
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
The multiple page lengths discussing this issue indicate that a dispute has arisen.
  • paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning.
This I did, actually I added {{disputed-section}} as to be minimally disruptive on the readability, only to be labeled "disruptive" by KillerChihuahua.

Does anyone else find the template to be problematic? We haven't resolved this, and the template may draw new voices to the discussion. At least, it will alert readers to the presence of a dispute. Photouploaded 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You used {{totally-disputed-section}}, which you have now replaced with {{disputed-section}}. Either one indicates a dispute about the accuracy of the content. We have no such dispute. We have a minor content dispute about the best phrasing to meet NPOV. This is not an accuracy dispute which calls the content of the section into question. The section itself is well written and sourced. I strongly support the efforts to reach consensus on the minor phrasing issue in question. A template, however, is overkill. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As I demonstrated, the use of a template is indicated in the presence of a dispute. Also, whether or not to include the word "most" does affect the accuracy of the content, as I stated in my initial edit summary. The length of the disputed sentence is short, but it has given rise to such lengthy debate, here, that placing the template is a good choice. Photouploaded 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with KillerChihuahua. And I would add the dispute is not only minor but also "tedious".LCP 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That is now the eighth time you have used the word "tedious", adding to your seven uses of the word in one of your previous comments, which seemed intended to call me out for using the word twice in a two-paragraph comment. Your repeated use of the word strikes me as antagonistic. Please stop. Photouploaded 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I found your use of "tedious" inspiring. You hit the nail on the head. “Imitation is the greatest for of flattery.” Regardless, did you mean “stop using he word tedious" or “stop responding”?LCP 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)LCP 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your "demonstration" consists entirely of pasting content from a page which explains a template - it isn't even a guideline page, let alone a policy page. My I suggest that at 178 edits, you may have a less clear grasp of the appropriate use of tags than other editors who have considerably more experience with Wikipedia, and that you are arguing rather than availing yourself of an opportunity to learn. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
For an editor who recently chided me for the necessity of commenting on content, rather than the contributor, you seem to give yourself a wide rein when doing the same. As an administrator, are you aware that Wikipedia:Disputed statement, an editing guideline which is "generally accepted among editors and... considered a standard that all users should follow" details the exact same course of action as that which I detailed from the template page? Photouploaded 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Sure am. Please read that, and also WP:DR which you will find is a policy. Guidelines are just that... guidelines. They "guide". Policy trumps guidelines, every time. However, some guidelines denote blockable behavior - such as WP:DE. Please note especially Rejects community input and the policies linked to in the Campaign... section. Consider this a warning. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Community input" is not the same as "a bulk of chastisement from one person". Now you are waving your administrator status over my head. I have been clear and provided refs for what I am doing and why. Please back off. Photouploaded 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You have received warnings from Andrew_c, Gscshoyru - twice, me about deleting Ferrylodge's post, which he commented on here, along with mentioning WP:CON; you were blocked by Walton One, I pointed you to WP:CIVIL here. This in addition to multiple comments and suggestions from multiple editors, the pasting of which would take another entire section. I will now "back off" and stop trying to help you, as you clearly would rather do without the assistance of an experienced administrator to help you learn. The warning, however, stands. You have now moved my post again, and you are well aware of TPG as both Ferrylodge and I have explained it to you. You have chosen to replace the template on the article, thus edit warring despite having only seen opposing positions on the talk page, and none supporting inclusion of the template, thus going against consensus (such as it can be at this early juncture.) Make another personal attack, edit another post by someone else, in short break a single policy and I will very likely block you in order to give the regular editors of these articles a much needed break from your hostility and disruption. You have shown no desire to learn the rules, or to learn how to work within the rules on Wikipedia, and have POV-pushed using incivility, ABF, personal attacks and hostility to one and all. It is a pity you reject the help you have been offered. If you have a change of heart, let me or someone on the mentorship program know and I or they will be happy to help you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You've made me feel really unwelcome over something as little as attempting to restore the order of a threaded discussion. I'm absolutely serious, I think you should review WP:NAM and WP:BITE. Photouploaded 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to intrude on the conversation, but it seems to me (and my weird mind) there are quite a few sections on many controversial articles that could have {{totallydisputed}}, {{disputed-section}}, and the like added to them-- probably perpetually-- for whatever reason. However, if we did that, the tag would lose its meaning and its weight relatively quickly (as they'll become commonplace). That's why I try to use those templates very sparingly on controversial topics, and only when necessary to evoke discussion and consensus-building. That's why I propose, as a happy median, that while we can argue over what policy says this or what policy says that, we instead try to focus on the question: is the tag essential for now, or can we just solve the problem by discussing it in a new section on this talk page-- without even bringing up the stuff related to the tag/untag? Obviously there is no right answer, but I, personally, feel that we should try to use self-restraint when it comes to adding dispute tags on high-traffic, highly-controversial article (if at all possible) until we've at least tried to raise our concerns on the talk pages (like this one). --slakr\ talk / 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Slakr, your input is welcome, you are not intruding. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not another image discussion

First draft, no labels

Maybe due to the heated stuff above, now isn't a good time to bring this up, but I've been working on a little project: a freely licensed image of an abortion to illustrate this and related article. So here it is.

I used Image:SpirellaCorsetry02.gif as tracing reference for the hands and Image:Illu repdt female.jpg as tracing reference for the internal organs and body outline. The references I used for the procedure itself come from two sources: Jones, R. E. and Lopez, K. H. Human Reproductive Biology. p. 425; and Decherney, A. H. and Pernoll, M. L. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment. p. 684.

So what do people think? Questions, comments? If you have access to a good library, you can check the references. If not, you can preview the pages using google books or amazon search inside (both have diagrams as well). I chose the first trimester vacuum aspiration method as it is the most common method. Note, this image is not complete. Depending on the feedback, I will try to address concerns, add labels, make some finishing adjustments, and upload the final file in SVG format.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. If you don’t want to get flack, you’ll need to depict the fetus accurately and to scale (or have a call-out with an accurate image of a fetus or an embryo) and state the age of gestation of the embryo or fetus depicted in the procedure.LCP 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't see it in the gif thumbnail, but in the actual image I've been working on, there is an embryo in the amnionic sac (same embryo from Image:Month 2.svg). But again, you should look at the diagrams in my cited sources (that is, if you don't want to see an illustration of an embryo). -Andrew c [talk] 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
First draft looks good, what were you thinking of for captions? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The illustration looks fine to me. Thanks for taking the initiative to make it, Andrew c! I have just one question: What section of the article do you think it would be most appropriate to include under? -Severa 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't worked on this any further. I was a bit discouraged by the reaction and all the other ongoing debates raging at the time. The most logical place for the image would be under the "Surgical abortion" section (and perhaps we could move the exiting chart up to the "Induced abortion" heading and place this image on the left midway between "Surgical abortion" and "Medical abortion"). As for caption, I haven't came up with anything yet, but probably something along the lines of "A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at 8 weeks gestation." And if we need more for the article, we could include another two sentences like "The vagina is held opened by a speculum in order for a tube (called a vacurette) which is attached to a suction pump to be inserted through the patient's cervix. The products of conception (embryo, uterine lining, amionic sac, etc) are then evacuated through the vacurette." Any other ideas or feedback would be helpful. I'll go ahead and finish up the diagram then over the next few days, and we can work together on any remaining issues. -Andrew c [talk] 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Understandable, the entire family of articles was in chaos, but that problem is gone for now. I look forward to seeing teh finished product, and many thanks for taking this on. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you weren’t discouraged by my comments. But since mine is the only “reaction,” I assume that you found my comments discouraging. I did not intend to discourage you. As I said, “I think it is a great idea.” I do also think you need to be careful as pro-lifers are highly sensitized against the idea that all that is being aborted is a “blob of tissue.” Your image seems to depict a “blob of tissue”. You will restart the debate on images I had with slakr as the conclusion we reached cuts in both directions. I don’t know how you can get around that. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, I do like your work and the idea of including an illustration.LCP 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you did not discourage me. Your comment was helpful, and it is noted and hopefully the next version will be clearer in that regard. The discouraging stuff was the stuff going on outside of this thread.-Andrew c [talk] 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Added cite in methods section

I added a cite in the methods section (paragraph starting with "Reported methods of unsafe"), but I also added a sentence that is also described in the article about the prevalence of use of self-induced abortion in comparison to developed countries (abortion legal). I'm not sure if that's going to be a problem (i.e., if it should be in another section), since the article applies to both enumerating self-induced methods and their prevalence, but I figured I'd add it anyway since the to-do list wanted more cites :P. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Fetus at 10 weeks' gestational age.

I will be putting a POV tag on this article. The article includes several images, but no image of what is aborted in a typical abortion. Previously, I have suggested images of aborted fetuses, but that suggestion was rejected. Then I suggested wikilinking to articles about organizations that present such images, and that was rejected too. Yesterday, I suggested simply presenting an image of a 10-week fetus that is intact, and I was accused of presenting "inappropriate inaccurate non-neutral images specially created for pro-life or happy-family websites." That charge was false. It is very clear that this article deliberately presents virtually no information about what is aborted in a typical abortion, and deliberately presents images of women while omitting any image of a fetus. There is nothing inaccurate about this image, and the time has come to label this article to warn readers that its neutrality is disputed.Ferrylodge 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This image has not been clearly identified as an artist's rendition, and it is not illustrative of the section in which it was placed. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about Abortion-- not Pregnancy. If someone viewing the page would like to know about the stages in pregnancy, we have a decent article on it. Moreover, the caption and your description is misleading, as it's 10 weeks gestational age, which means it is 8 weeks after fertilization. --slakr\ talk / 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I also moved the {{POV}} tag to {{POV-section}}, since your concern arises over fetus-oriented issues. There is also a discussion above over inclusion of images and the reason that consensus is against it for the time being. --slakr\ talk / 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Moving the tag to this section is fine. I have clarified the caption so it makes clear it's a drawing, and makes clear the difference between gestational age and fertilization age. And it most certainly is illustrative of the section in which it is placed.Ferrylodge 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the tag based on arguments above in "Images of Abortion".LCP 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, what does the image have to do with "pain"? This isn't an electrocardiogram of a fetus being aborted, its a picture of a baby-looking fetus at time of abortion, clearly biased towards conflating the fetus with an infant. If the image is to go anywhere, the "fetus" article is appropriate. I see no rationale whatsoever to include it in the "pain" section. This is POV-pushing with a vengeance. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and I don't care about the placement of the tag or the image (which isn’t to say that I don’t think placement is unimportant; I just haven’t given it any thought). However, I do like the tag in the context of the issue of the omission of images. At the same time, I don’t think I want to see it as a general indictment of the entire article. People have worked hard to be balanced about the information in the article. Too bad there isn’t a tag that states, “This article is arguably missing important information”.LCP 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As one of the most edited and vandalized articles on wp, this article could arguably support every tag known, according to at least someone. As it is a well written and thoroughly referenced article with an active talk page and very few actual edit wars, however, tagging is needless clutter and misleading - if we manage NPOV then both sides of the abortion debate are going to be unhappy with the article, and if we are only making one side unhappy then we're probably biased in one direction or another. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is no NPOV regarding this issue. It’s kind of like the Church of England under Elizabeth I. It was displeasing to all. Here is a truly stupid idea that I was originally going to post just for fun. Maybe there is a kernel of value in it that someone with a better mind than mine can extract. Why not have two articles on the abortion page: Abortion from a pro-life point of view and abortion from a pro-choice point of view? Then the only argument will have to do with which one is on top.LCP 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Won't work. We have the Pro-choice and Pro-life and Abortion debate articles. This article is a top-tier article, and as such must be a medically accurate article about abortion, with brief mentions of, and pointers to, the debate issues. What you're suggesting is like merging Abortion with Abortion debate, yes? Or merging Pro-choice, Pro-life, and Abortion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ouch?

Here is a new proposal for an image that can be used in the fetal pain section. Hope you like it better than my attempt to make an accurate, actually diagram of an abortion. Enjoy.-Andrew c [talk] 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you're bold enough to post that image here, I will post a link to sandbox (using permanent link since it won't last). Inspired by LCP's ideas on having "versions". Feel free to edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I, for one, support KillerChihuahua's version. ;) I take it it would be outside the scope of fair use to use Image:2010-poster01.jpg, though, wouldn't it? :D --slakr\ talk / 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Joking aside, though, I totally support Andrew c's graphic (not the joke one-- the procedural one) if you guys want to include it, as it's educational in nature and, from what I can see so far, it is relatively neutral and pertinent to the article. This is about a medical procedure, and you could easily have fooled me into thinking that that was from a textbook. Good job =) --slakr\ talk / 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

It seems to me that this talk page could go for a {{FAQ}}. Any thoughts? --slakr\ talk / 07:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but summarizing the arguments/conclusions can be a bitch. (In other words - if you'd like to take a shot at it, I think you should.) Tvoz |talk 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Green tickY Done. It's totally preliminary, but I simply stuck to what the archivebox had and to non-controversial policies. Hopefully I don't get beheaded. :P --slakr\ talk / 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the effort. Nice work overall. I do have problems with #4.
1. My edit, which specified that past discussion were focused on shocking images, was reverted. It is not at all clear that past discussions established that all images are either POV or shocking.
2. There were less than 12 (or so) editors involved in past discussions of including photos. To state that there was “consensus” seems misleading. As I read the history, it would be more accurate to say that that “no consensus was reached.”
3. The analogy fails as a fetus is NOT a body part of the mother. To suggest that it is ignores basic medical facts. A fetus has its own unique DNA and CNS. This is a unique situation. Thought I am not advocating the inclusion of graphic photos and illustrations, many medical articles do feature graphic or disturbing images, so “no precedent in other medical articles” is incorrect. See the following. It is a result of merely a very quick search on just terms that came to mind: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
LCP 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, #4. I assumed that that would be one of the problem children, as it did necessitate inclusion of subjective content (i.e., summaries) to get the points across. The main reason that I reverted the "shocking" edit was that it's not inherently obvious how "shocking" applies to the pictures without looking at the archived discussions. From prior discussions, it seems that some bloody tissue, for example, wouldn't, to one point of view, be considered shocking, even though another point of view would consider them shocking, thus creating a problem of neutral point of view and begging for reinvention of the wheel. That is, it would lead to yet another thread about "an image of a fetus isn't shocking" countered by "au contraire, an image of a fetus is shocking" riposted with "Is not!" followed by "Is to!" etc, until a bunch of mediation committee guys have to step in and say "Is to." Of course, that would defeat the purpose of the FAQ, so we leave "shocking" out of the question, since the discussions actually define why images of fetuses and tissues are, in themselves, shocking in the scope of this article (at least, according to the people who were involved in the discussion). Argh, typing all of that made me cross-eyed. :P
Anyway, to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any of the stuff from prior discussions-- only trying to summarize them. When I wrote "no precedent," it's the best as I can come up with without writing an entire paragraph elucidating the various points (that particular discussion was a beast, btw :P) that led to explicit consensus being declared (without any redirecting response after that). In all, I think that their point was that since the other medical topics don't show excised tissue (i.e., the end result of all of the procedures), abortion shouldn't show excised fetuses/tissue either; furthermore, based on the other discussion topics, the presumed uniqueness of the subject matter (i.e., fetal tissue has its own CNS/heart/skin/is a human/etc) wasn't enough to justify inclusion of a fetus or removed tissue.
Keep in mind: whether or not those arguments have merit is beyond the scope of the FAQ, as they merely represent those particular discussions. They're not the law of the land by any means.
Also, when I say "consensus," it doesn't only apply to the individual discussions, but it also applies to them taken as a whole as well. As a whole, the trend has been not to include pictures of fetuses or removed tissue, thus forming a long-term consensus of not including them. The main reason I chose to even include #1 (yanking "death," arguably a pro-choice bias) and #4 (adding pictures, arguably a pro-life bias) is that they truly are frequently asked questions that have been frequently answered. Again, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with how they were answered or if those were the correct answers; however, the trend has been established (so far) against inclusion/alteration on both parts. That's what I tried to get across in the FAQ-- the conclusions, correct or not. So if I suck at getting that across, I definitely apologize and totally support some brainstorming to figure out how to rectify that.
The beautiful thing is that none of this is law of the land, and nothing is set in stone. Things can always change, and everything's open for discussion 24/7. The point of the FAQ isn't to close the door on discussion, but rather to help avoid redundant discussions, arguments, fights, namecalling, and the like. It's there to help avoid rehashing old points, therein allowing us to focus on improving the article instead of arguing amongst ourselves. On the topics I chose to include, it looks, at least to me, like we've already passed the proverbial "3rd time's a charm" mark and then some, and little new rationale for inclusion (or removal) of various things has been given. Thus, I made a FAQ and tried to carefully craft the wording to avoid POV issues.
Speaking of, on a personal note, the main reason I came here (as opposed to working on the bajillion other things on my wiki to-do list) was for the challenge of an extremely POV-centered environment. It's easy to choose sides in an argument, but it's considerably more difficult to honestly try to remain as neutral as possible. Maybe I love self-abuse ;). Anyway, all I'm saying is that I truly am trying to act as an outside robot to sift through the muck, and I'm trying to minimize the footprint of my actions as being seen as POV-pushing (since left or right, any move toward center is seen as POV pushing).
Anyhoooo... back to the FAQ. :P If people have objections to the wording/conclusions, let's talk about it, but try to make sure that the proposed changes are as selfless as possible and simply indicative of the past arguments. I'm definitely not claiming my version is A++ perfect, so if it needs to change, I'm confident we can figure it out. =) --slakr\ talk / 04:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In general, my concern is that others will be discouraged from participating. So, it would be great if you could add your disclaimer to the top of the FAQ and perhaps encourage readers to actually go look at the arguments before deciding that previous conclusions, as stated in the FAQ, are common law.LCP 01:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, #4 is a problem for me because there is an ongoing debate AND I think the statements, although tidily consistent, are a bit off. The following are the minimum changes that I would like considered for #4:
  • “consensus is consistently no” to “no consensus reached.”
  • “no precedent in other medical articles” to “many medical articles do not contain images.”
I appreciate your efforts and hope that they will result in time savings in the future.LCP 01:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are a couple proposed changes, but I'm kind of confused on a couple. You mention #4 but then there are references to others. Anyway, I'll try to enumerate the proposed changes:
  1. Add to the disclaimer encouraging readers to look at arguments before deciding that previous conclusions are common law.
    Done. I had already taken the liberty to add a bit to the disclaimer since your last post. Furthermore, KillerChihuahua added emphasis to the "consensus can change" part (here), and as of this writing, that's the current wording (in the disclaimer/intro). Sorry if the first draft didn't make that point clear enough (i.e., that things can change). Anyway, take a peek at it and see if that's sufficient.
  2. Change "consensus is consistently no" (in the disclaimer) to "no consensus reached."
    Changed. Well, technically the overall consensus is that they shouldn't be included. They never have been included, and every time someone's brought it up, they haven't been included; moreover, on the middle one, the end of the thread explicitly states "consensus." By sheer nature of the exclusion of the material in face of prior objection, too, consensus is that it shouldn't be included, but you'd have a point that it isn't consistently that consensus has been explicitly said to have been established, and not all of the threads were not as equally in-depth. Plus, after seeing your concern over the wording, I also realize that the current wording is a little harsh, so for now I changed it so that it reads, "and for now we're leaving them out." I think that that's much more pleasant and more inviting to change *shrug*.
  3. Change "no precedent in other medical articles" to "many medical articles do not contain images."
    Not done. We should probably avoid "many" as it's a weasel word. Also, while it's true that various medical articles do not contain images, that's not the reasoning behind the arguments given. Rather, the reasoning is that even on the articles about surgical procedures with images, that do no contain images of the body part(s) that was/were removed (for whatever reason). They note that this applies to non-controversial articles as a whole, as there aren't severed hands in Amputation (even though there is an amputee). Thus, so far the precedent is that the person on whom the operation is being performed (i.e., the amputee) is shown after the wounds have healed, but we aren't showing the arm being sliced off with blood going everywhere or the disembodied arm; but, that's on non-controversial articles. Applied to Abortion (a controversial article, so more caution must be taken), we could technically show a lady standing there (which is trivial), but we can't show the disembodied fetus. I'm not exactly sure how to modify that one, though I'm definitely open to suggestion if it needs to be worked out.
One last comment. I do think that the analogy fails. That a fetus is analogous to a removed body part is highly questionable in any context. (Were this not the case, I would suggest that pro-choice pages would be rife with images of fetuses.) A fetus has its own DNA and CNS and, if not aborted, is destined to posses a humanity that no one dares to question. That is not something you can say about, say, a gall bladder. So, I would still assert that the verbiage should be changed. I agree that “many” is a weasel word in that it is suggestive of magnitude. Perhaps "some" or “several” would be better.LCP 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, lemme know what you think. Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!LCP 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Images of abortion procedures don't belong here simply because this is not the article about abortion procedures; it's about the topic in general. We don't have pictures of Appendicectomy in the surgery article, and we don't have detailed pictures of frot in the homosexuality article.

And, although Wikipedia is not censored, the pictures that we do have try to be informative without being graphic. — Omegatron 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eek, I hate to cut you off, but this section is about discussing the content of the FAQ at the top of this page. There's a thread discussing the justifications for including/not including these images earlier on this page (under the "Images of Abortion" section). --slakr\ talk / 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just the US, or is abortion "safer" in other countries as well..

I think it is misleading to say that in the context of 2 isolated years in a single country, abortion may be safer than childbirth. So I decided to go and get some more sources. I don't believe in source piling, but hopefully these will demonstrate that the additional language is not necessary. Here is from a pamphlet from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists "For most women, an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby".[7]; and if the last link was too dumbed down for patients, there is RCOG's Evidence-based clinical guideline which states "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon"[8]. Then there is "Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1990", by Stanley K. Henshaw International Family Planning Perspectives, which states. "The provision of abortion under modern medical conditions has reduced abortion mortality to an extremely low level in developed countries that have legalized the procedure. The aggregate mortality rate of 13 countries for which accurate numbers of deaths and abortions are known is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. The procedure in these countries is now safer than pregnancy and childbirth." I also found a 1982 source for the claim in the US "Researchers Confirm Induced Abortion to be Safer for Women Than Childbirth; Refute Claims of Critics" Family Planning Perspectives.

Therefore, I propose removing "As reported in 1978 and 1994 studies limited to the US population." We can consider adding or replacing citations if necessary. If anything the part about "competent doctors or, in some states, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants" could probably go. We could replace it with either "in developed countries" or "legal abortion" or perhaps both. What do you think?-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Nice work. To avoid the "piling on" problem, use one footnote that contains all the references and the quotations above. I think that "under modern medical conditions" is a better qualifier than "in developed countries" or "legal abortion". It seems more neutral (there's no risk of it being seen as flag-waving for legal access to abortion, for example) and it seems to more directly describe the factors contibuting to safety. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Rephrase as you suggested, and add all the sources. I'm tired of people complaining something isn't well sourced enough to satisfy them. As with Intelligent design, another contentious article, the more sourcing the better, and those are excellent. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The only part I care (and have cared) about is, "For most women" (at least under the current structure and title nomenclature). And I do kinda like the idea of speaking of studies in terms of what they "found" (past tense, as suggested by Ajschorschiii). But as Photo pointed out, that would require quite a bit of rewriting.LCP 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for splitting up the conversation. I did not realize the discussion was still ongoing up above (for example, I hadn't even noticed Ajschorschiii's comments before now). I was wondering if we could wrap up the two issues. Here is my proposal, rm the whole first paragraph of the "Health effects" section. Add the following sentence to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph (which would be the new first paragraph): "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure, which is considered safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week under modern medical conditions". I suggest keeping the Grimes reference, but replacing the Cates reference with the Henshaw reference noted above. -Andrew c [talk] 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I’ll be the first to admit that I can be dense sometimes. And I hope that you believe when I say I am not being deliberately obtuse. But, I don’t see how your proposed amendment solves the problem with the name “Health effects.” I do see how it selves the problem having to do with miscarriage. Thanks.LCP 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I wasn't trying to address either issue here (miscarriage or the title "Health effects") :) This is getting so confusing with all these discussions. It seems like you are trying to close up the issues that have been discussed under the topic Proposal to change "Health effects" to "Health effects of abortion on women." I was trying to address my concerns with the recent additions that I mentioned at the first post in this thread, and build on the discussion from Safer than childbirth or safer for women than childbirth. This is confusing how the discussions are all over the place. Anyway, regarding "Health effects" I believe we were moving towards renaming "Health effects" to something like "Risks and side effects". The exact wording has not been settled, and maybe we should discuss that topic in a different thread. I am trying to address how to deal with the sources related to "safer", and how we phrase it, especially in light of the changes that were made yesterday by Ajschorschiii.-Andrew c [talk] 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I should have stopped after..."I’ll be the first to admit that I can be dense sometimes." How about we pretend I didn't say anything here?LCP 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

I think it should be clear that admins here such as Andrew c and Killerchuhuahua ridicule the notion of fetal pain, and are detrmined to make sure that their pro-choice POV is fully reflected in this article. No images af an aborted fetus are allowed. No image of any fetus is allowed. Only clinical words like "uterus" may be used. The word "mother" and the word "womb" cannot be used even once. No more needs to be said. I will replace the POV tag at the top of the article, and you two biased partisans will undoubtedly remove it and have me banned for even questioning your perfect objectivity.Ferrylodge 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridicle the notion of? No indeed, your reading comprehension is pathetic if you have ever seen either of us do anything of the sort. I did indeed remove the grossly inappropriate image which was stuck in that section. And one person's sour grapes do not a POV dispute make. So far your reasoning for POV dispute is firstly, an unsupported accusation that I and Andrew are "pro-choice" which is, frankly, your bias, and secondly, is irrelevant. I'm not a cow but one presumes if I edit the "cow" article no one will slap a POV tag on it because an editor is "anti-cow" or some such silly nonsense. No, you'll have to do better than that. Your other reason for POV tag is your bizarre campaign for "womb" - an inaccurate and non-specific term - and your desire to see "mother" used more often. This is a content dispute, Ferrylodge, and adding a POV tag is disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to continue this converstation because you refuse to be civil. This article deliberately omits any description of what is being aborted, and deliberately has only images of women without any of a fetus.Ferrylodge 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that KillerChihuahua is a conscientious editor who attempts to avoid POV. Perhaps it helps to remember that the closer one is to a POV dispute, often the harder it is to see the POV. NPOV directs us to “fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute”. If an article exclusively (or preferentially) uses the language of only one side of a dispute (“Woman”, “Uterus”) and excludes the language of another side of a dispute (“Mother”, “Womb”), then that article has failed at NPOV. Reading this article, as it stands, it appears to represent abortion as if it is primarily a medical topic. Social issues and the abortion debate are presented in subsections as if they are tangents to the “real” medical meaning of abortion. This is fundamentally a POV approach. One could just as well write the article to portray abortion as primarily a social issue, and present the medical concerns as a subsection. Given that the very framework of the article leans towards a clinical approach to this topic, I think that Ferrylodge’s desire to see greater use of words like “womb” is reasonable. One can argue that those words are lacking in precision, but one can’t deny that those are words commonly used by one of the primary views in this dispute. I would encourage all parties to try to show more understanding. - Hoplon 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hoplon: thank you for your friendly, if somewhat inaccurate, post. Woman and uterus aren't "on one side" - they are language neutral. "Mother" and "womb" are inaccurate. This is a top-tier article, and as such, the medical is the focus. Abortion debate, Pro-choice, and Pro-life are the "issues" articles.
Ferrylodge: I have been quite civil - that you disagree with my analysis of your edit does not equal incivility. Your dislike for my terminology, ditto. Your snide insinuations that editors who do not agree with you are biased in one direction or another (personal remarks) or that editors who do not agree with insertion of an inaccurate term are "disruptive" and should be blocked, your constant comments on contributors, not content, your bizarre assertion that because consensus does not support your desired phrasing, an article is somehow "POV" - this is all dishearteningly reminiscent of Sam Spade. Your tactics are extremely disruptive and you are engaging in a low-level war to harass those who will not allow you to "own" articles. I am not impressed, nor am I concerned by your accusations, which are irrelevant, nor with your demands that those who do not support your minority viewpoint edits "should be blocked". Take care, Ferrylodge, you are hovering close to blatant disruption yourself. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I would respond by pointing out that just because one perceives woman and uterus to be "language neutral", it does not follow that they actually are language neutral. Framing is a major part of the abortion debate, and by choosing to use the framing preferred by one side of the debate, Wikipedia appears to implicitly endorse that side of the debate. One book in particular that I am aware of that explored this topic is Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Because they were writing about how the discourse was being shaped, the authors were particularly conscious in their choice of language. Here are some brief passages from that book that appear somewhat relevant.
In the end, the authors of the book decided to use the word “fetus” consistently, but they explicitly recognized that the word was neither neutral nor frame-free. Wikipedia cannot make the same choice as those authors did; our policy of NPOV does not allow us to simply embrace non-neutral language for the convenience of consistency.
To be clear, I am not endorsing any particular recent edits of reverts, but I am agreeing with the point that if Wikipedia chooses to exclusively or preferentially use the framing preferred by one side of a debate, then we are not “fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute” as NPOV requires of us.- Hoplon 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And I am at a complete loss as to why you are directing this essay on NPOV at me, as I have not objected to the term "womb" nor "mother" from a specifically POV stance, nor have I objected to "fetus" at all. Why you feel it necessary to explain something I understand, and object to positions I do not hold, is beyond my comprehension. Please reserve your efforts for addressing concerns which have actually been raised, and to the editors who have raised those concerns. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Because you directly addressed me in your (15:39, 20 September 2007) comment (replying to a comment of mine which mentioned you but was directed at Ferrylodge), and you advanced the position that "woman" and "uterus" were neutral terms. - Hoplon 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Mother is a perfectly accurate term (albeit somewhat unspecific as it can refer to non-human organisms) -- in most contexts, it means "female parent." A female in gestation has already parented offspring, even if the offspring does not survive to the point of viability or birth. I'll grant that some, when discussing abortion, may have a POV that does not like the warm and fuzzy "sound" of the term "mother," but this has nothing to do with being accurate or not. Under certain contexts (e.g., when abortion is not intended), no one has a problem with terms such as "maternity clothes," and no one shouts " 'maternity' is an inaccurate term!" If one wants to be accurate, then one should always specify "pregnant woman" -- a "woman" by herself is not necessarily pregnant with offspring. LotR 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Mother is a completely accurate term in most instances - I took the opposite side of the debate on the Pregnancy article, for example, when another editor wished to exclude the word - but in the "Abortion" article, general consensus is and has been that as an abortion is specifically to prevent motherhood, using "mother" is inflammatory and POV, as well as inaccurate. Your assertion that motherhood begins at conception is a narrow, minority viewpoint; see discussion on Talk:Mother. Motherhood begins at birth, adoption, or marriage (in the case of step-mothers) not at conception. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A rhetorical question: Who is the mother of an aborted fetus? - Hoplon 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of this page only, I would (for reasons I have made plain) prefer “mother,” but the only place that I am theoretically uncomfortable with the use of “woman” instead of “mother” is in miscarriage. My wife had a miscarriage, and she felt the loss as a “mother”, not merely as a “woman” (and I do not intend “merely” in a evaluative sense). On the other hand, while all mothers are women, not all women are mothers. Woman is, from this perspective, a more general term. And, to complicate things further, “mother” has several meanings. 1. One who is pregnant and intends to give birth, 2. one who has given birth, and 3. one who plays a nurturing, feminine role. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the pro-choice camp would argue that there is a corollary to #1; namely, “One who is pregnant but does not intent to give birth cannot be called a “mother.” This is predicated on the idea that biologically, motherhood is strictly limited to only those who actually give live birth. The problem with the restriction, however, is that it denies that those who miscarry suffer as mothers who have lost a child-which no one would want to do. It also denies the hope of those who are preganant who want to have children.LCP 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it inaccurate? Because there are some who don't like the sound of it? Note that I never said "motherhood begins at conception" (and even if I did, I don't know whether that would be a "narrow minority viewpoint" -- what's the whole abortion debate about then?) -- "motherhood" and "mother" are two different terms. What I did say is that mother is an accurate term since it means "female parent." The direct intention of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. But just what exactly does it mean for one to be pregnant? There are plenty of pregnant women who would take issue with the statement that their motherhood begins only after they have given birth, so "inflammatory" is dependent upon one's POV. My point is the same as that stated better by Hoplon above. I am merely trying to illustrate the point. LotR 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, but we are trying to be as neutral as possible. While it is arguable whether mother is accurate, it is not arguable whether woman is accurate, as all pregnant persons are women by definition (with the single opposing view of Photouploaded, who would prefer neither term, but will accept "woman".) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of word choice: I agree with KillerChihuahua's comment directly above about "mother" vs. "woman." This seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia's general practice of referring to individuals or groups as they self-identify (for instance, keeping it in the abortion debate, "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" or "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion").
LotR stated earlier that "A female in gestation has already parented offspring" and is therefore accurately described as a female parent, i.e., a mother. To me, this reasoning for why "mother" is accurate is just as problematic as the use of "mother" itself. Speaking as someone who has been, briefly, a "female in gestation," I would certainly not characterize myself as having "parented offspring," and I would strongly oppose someone else referring to me as such. I don't think I'm an odd exception in this respect, nor is that identification in conflict with accepted definitions or connotations of the word "parenting." Obviously many women feel differently about this - in particular, as LCP brought up, women who have been pregnant but have not given birth due to miscarriage (although as one of those women, I don't share that sentiment). Referring to the entire class as "women" allows those who identify as parents to continue to do so, while referring to the group as "mothers" imposes a descriptor on a significant portion of the group that they would themselves reject.
To me, this isn't about whether motherhood starts at conception or at birth, as others have suggested. It's about finding a term that most inclusively characterizes the people at issue, using descriptors which are common amongst pretty much all the individuals. Although omitting "mother" may not describe as comprehensively the identity of some of the people in the group, it avoids using a term to which others in the class would actively object.
As for the term "womb," aside from my own personal opinion that this word sounds kind of archaic, I wanted to point out that on Wikipedia "womb" redirects to "uterus." Maybe that doesn't really matter, but I figured I'd throw it out there. - Tropaeolum majus 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (Note: I'm actually a long-time Wikipedia editor, but I'm commenting from a sockpuppet account for the sake of privacy.)
Note. I remember seeing a sizable number of topics dealing with both removing and adding to the "fetal pain" subject in the archives, though it might take me a little time to sift through them.
Ferrylodge: I totally understand your concerns. Admin status can be a little intimidating (especially when something as imaginably feisty as a "killer chihuahua" has it, heh), but please don't let it worry you. Check out the info page about admins first. Long story short, it's not a big deal, because all things considered, admins have as much voice as you have in discussions. That said, admins are not entirely dense on the countless policies, guidelines, essays, and precedents, so while admins frequently may seem to embody The Man, they're usually just trying to help keep things in line. However, if admins do mention things like no personal attacks, article ownership, and another policies, I suggest you do not simply dismiss it wantonly. Everyone has bias, but Wikipedia has various policies to which all editors-- even admins-- should adhere.
Also, some people who've been around the wiki, myself included, occasionally use humor as a defense mechanism to try to keep things light. Everyone-- nearly everyone-- thinks that their page and their viewpoint should be treated with the utmost seriousness and morbid sensitivity it deserves. This can be a considerable feat, because many of your fellow editors have responsibilities to the entire site, and being 100% serious 100% of the time is an immense feat. It's basically just gallows humor, and I apologize if it comes off as insulting. --slakr\ talk / 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Back on topic, according to our Wiktionary, mother requires the female to have at least once child, and whether or not a fetus/embryo constitutes a child is a core issue upon which POV lines are drawn for this issue. This would rule its use out per WP:NPOV, since use of it definitively requires the assumption that the fetus/embryo is a child (a clearly pro-life argument contrary to its pro-choice equivalent of the fetus/embryo being goo). Though, sticking with consistency, our Wiktionary also defines child as a son or daughter. Thus, in this instance, mother is an inaccurate term, since the son or daughter (the child) has yet to be born. If you feel the definition of the word should be changed, please discuss it at Wiktionary]. When it comes to womb versus uterus, however, it would seem the words are denotatively interchangeable as far as Wiktionary is concerned. Though, technically-speaking, womb has more ambiguity to the word than the single-definition uterus, which creates more room for ambiguous connotation. So, while I'd object to using "mother," I'd be neutral-semi-hesitant to "womb" based solely on Wiktionary.
My concern, however, is more of how the change, itself, is framed as a rider to a bunch of other desired changes. Had it been a change that stood alone, e.g., "Hmm, I think 'womb' would be better in this sentence," instead of one that was lobbed in together with a bunch of other highly-POV arguments (pictures of fetuses, abortions, etc), it would be considerably less controversial, but by-proxy it seems to me to be a POV-motivated change. --slakr\ talk / 06:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PAS

The article on PAS has been changed to reflect the prevailing academic literature and research about the existence/non-existence of the syndrome. I'm proposing that the following information also be reflected in the PAS section on the Abortion page, or perhaps the section be removed from the abortion page as it is a political discussion, not a medial one:

Post-abortion syndrome(PAS) is a term used by opponents of abortion[1] to describe a proposed diagnosis of psychopathological characteristics which some claim may be observed in some women following a medically induced abortion.[2]
The term was coined by psychotherapist Vincent Rue in 1981, when it was described as a variant of post traumatic stress syndrome. At that time, PTSD had only been accepted as an official diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980.
American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS. PAS is not included in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Prior to 1994 the DSM III-R listed abortion as a "psychosocial stressor." Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion." Abortion in this context is pregnancy loss before 20 weeks that can be spontaneous or medically induced. Opponents of PAS have alleged that abortion is a benign experience and that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes.[3][4]

--IronAngelAlice 10:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... how about "Opponents of PAS have alleged that elective abortion is a benign experience and that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes" (without italics)? I'm sure no-one seriously asserts that miscarriages are pleasant. That concern aside, the above proposal looks straightfroward per WP:SUMMARY. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there are valid concerns outstanding, I have reverted back to the previous long standing version so we can continue to discuss this here on talk. LCP's changes to the above had some issues as well, which is also why I reverted. It phrased the pro-life sentence as if the way pro-lifers use the term "PAS" is different from what the section is describing. It also removed language which presented PAS as the opinion of a some researches. -Andrew c [talk] 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the current version. The one that replaced it was unacceptable. While I want to be careful not to overstate PAS, in the new version PAS was presented as if it is primarily a pro-life POV--leaving the reader with the impression that the idea is merely pro-choice propaganda with no basis in science. Imagine if we had started the U of C study paragraph with the sentence, “Those who are pro-choice deny the existence of PAS.” This sentence structure gives everything subsequent to it a political slant.LCP 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the name of the institution should be added in the first paragraph or removed from the second.LCP 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The third bullet point in the following illustrates something I would like to avoid here: “There are many examples of improper phrasing: proponents "observe" while opponents "assert." Plain violation of NPOV.” [9]LCP 00:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that arguing for the existence of PAS is a political tactic. Please read: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
This has all been discussed on the PAS page. PAS as it is represented in the current paragraph on the abortion page misrepresents medical studies.
--IronAngelAlice 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"arguing for the existence of PAS is a political tactic" only according to the NY Times; Not according to researchers in Spain, Finland, and NZ—who, unlike the journalist in the Times, published in peer review journals. We need to present the info from the Times and the research from Spain, Finland, and NZ--without trying to use them to cancel out each other since doing so would be editorializing and constitute original research.LCP 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposed paragraph:

(outdent)American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize the diagnoiss of Post-abortion syndrome (PAS). PAS is not included in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. [3] In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data available to determine the existence of "post-abortion syndrome". The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress." [5]

There are some academic studies that argue for the existence of PAS. According to a report issued by Spanish social workers Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata, symptoms attributed to PAS are "dreams and nightmares related with the abortion," and "feelings of guilt". Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata examined ways to categorize PAS under the assumption that it exists and is related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Abortion is illegal in Spain except in cases of rape or incest.[6]

A study from New Zealand completed in 2006 which used gathered data about children and young adults (ages 15-25) who sought abortions over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion. According to the authors of the study, the association between abortion and depression, "persisted after adjustment for confounding factors."[7] However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. Also, the study cites David Reardon several times. Reardon is a long time pro-life advocate who has authored several medical studies even though he has a degree in "Biomedical Ethics" from an unaccredited correspondence school. Reardon has been repeated rebuked by medical professionals.[8]

Other studies argue that abortion has a neutral or positive effect. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that, counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term.[9] Another study in 1992 suggested a link between elective abortion and later reports of positive self-esteem; it also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the procedure are most strongly influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors.[10] Abortion, as compared to completion, of an undesired first pregnancy was not found to directly pose the risk of significant depression in a 2005 study.[11]

--IronAngelAlice 17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your effort is a big improvement over what was originally here and on the PAS page, but it is still less acceptable that my revisions. Here’s why. Your lead makes the article too US centric and discredits PAS before even defining it. I know that you are not trying to push a POV, but the end results looks as if you are. Instead, first state what PAS is. Then state that its existence is debated. This is standard format for encyclopedia and dictionary entries.
The following section of your suggested revision is problematic as it clearly has a rhetorical purpose that is entirely POV and, therefore, original research: “However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. Also, the study cites David Reardon several times. Reardon is a long time pro-life advocate who has authored several medical studies even though he has a degree in "Biomedical Ethics" from an unaccredited correspondence school. Reardon has been repeated rebuked by medical professionals.”
If you can quote the researchers directly and in context, that would be great. And you also need to put first things first. If the researchers concluded with (to paraphrase) “there wasn’t a perfectly clear causal relationship, but the data suggests a causal relationship”, you can’t reverse the statements to suggest that the “no causal relationship” part holds more weight. In other words, I am very uncomfortable that you are not respecting the rhetorical intent of the authors of the studies.LCP 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything written has been cited - including the problems with David Reardon. Please take a close look at the citations before you accuse me of POV and original research.

If the first paragraph is too U.S.-centric, then please add information about how the diagnosis of PAS is handled in other places. As far as I know, the "PAS debate" is mostly centered in the US because of Reardon and his politics. --IronAngelAlice 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not only what you say, but how you say it; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight. You start out the section by discrediting PAS even before you define it. You give more weight to a letter published to the NY Times than you do studies published in peer reviewed journals. What you do include it its favor is loaded with weasel words such as "claim to have observed". Someone has even questioned the presentation of the U of C info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome#Problems_with_Representation_of_Empirical_Studies. Both this section and the PAS page deserve a NPOV tagLCP 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could demonstrate to me how my text violates Wikipedia rules either literally or in spirit.LCP 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How is your version better than this:
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a set of mental health characteristics which psychologists and researchers have observed in some women following an abortion. According to Spanish researchers Carmen Gomez Lavin and García Zapata, symptoms attributed to PAS are "dreams and nightmares related with the abortion," and "feelings of guilt". Lavin and company examined ways to categorize PAS under the assumption that it exists and is related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.[12]
Researchers at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago Medical Center in the United States have concluded that the existence of PAS is a myth.[13][14] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10, and not considered a medical condition by the American Psychiatric Association.
LCP 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My version is specific, offers more information and is clearer. Do you have a problem with the references/citations? --IronAngelAlice 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is not only about references. It is also about how you say things. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Again …
  • You start out the section by discrediting PAS even before you define it. When introducing new ideas, encyclopedia articles and sections in articles start with “XYZ is…” Your section starts with “American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize….” Do you see any problem with this?
  • You give more weight to a letter published to the NY Times than you do studies published in peer reviewed journals.
  • What you do include in PAS's favor is loaded with weasel words such as "claim to have observed".
  • Someone has even questioned the presentation of the U of C info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome#Problems_with_Representation_of_Empirical_Studies, and no one has responded to this claim.LCP 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


  • When we discuss PAS, it should be clear that the vast majority of medical researchers and psychologists agree that PAS does not exist. Since PAS is not a recognized diagnosis by the vast majority of medical researchers and psychologists, there is no definition of PAS by doctors and researchers. Therefore, to acknowledge that PAS is not a diagnosis that is recognized by medical professionals is important to put first.
  • The reference to the NY Times is a 10-page article, not a letter. The article puts into context the use of the PAS "diagnosis" as a political weapon, not a medical diagnosis - and is therefore appropriate as a reference. The NY Times article also provides interviews on a plethora of top researchers who do academic, non-biased research on the topic of abortion - all of whom conclude that the vast majority of women suffer no adverse effects from abortion, and that PAS has no basis in non-biased medical research.
  • I agree that we can change the wording in the Spanish research paragraph to delete the word "claim."
  • The U. of C. info has been cited and referenced. If you have a specific change to be made, please explain it to us.

--IronAngelAlice 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first bullet, I have no issue with this. I have an issue with how it is written. A definition needs to start with "XYZ is...”.
Regarding your second bullet, the NY Times is a liberal press publication. Nevertheless, I am not saying that the article does not have credibility. I am saying that it does not bear as much weight as a peer reviewed journal article. I am not saying that it should not be referenced. I am saying that that should be reflected in how its conclusions are presented.
Thanks for your third bullet point.
Regarding your forth bullet point, is there more than one of you, are you royalty, or are you using “we” to imply that all of the other editors here share your concerns? Regardless, I would like the page to indicate what type of article it is. Is it new research or a statistical review? Context is important.LCP 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is one issue that may help solve some of this dispute. The section simply is not about "post-abortion syndrome". The New Zealand study does not use that term. The Finnish study does not use the term. Even Readon doesn't use that term. All the studies dealing with positive mental health effects clearly are not about "post-abortion syndrome" (though I haven't searched them as I did the others for the term). Therefore, I suggest we use a different introduction to the section. Instead of starting off defining a term that only a few researchers used (which gives the allusion that all the following cited studies also deal with the same term, which they don't), or starting off negating the term, why not start off more generally. I propose something along the lines of: "The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most researchers have found that there has not been a causal relationship between the two. Some researchers have found that abortion has a positive mental impact, while others have found a negative. A handful of studies have proposed a psychological syndrome, sometimes called "post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome", although the APA does not recognize it". I'm not proposing these exact words, but we should summarize the actual content, and make sure to present ideas with due weight. This section should be about abortion and mental health. We should discuss multiple studies from multiple POVs (which we currently do). We shouldn't start off and define the section based on a term that most of the studies don't even use. What do you both think about that?-Andrew c [talk] 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your insight. I support the idea that the section simply is not about "post-abortion syndrome". I am leery of "Most researchers have found that there has not been a causal relationship between the two." I would be more comfortable with "Most researchers have not found a causal relationship between the two." How about we let what is there settle in a bit?LCP 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the "Mental health" section is overly long and unbalanced as compared to the version of 02:22, 12 June 2007. It is twice as long as the other "Suggested effects" sub-sections and its focus has shifted from a broad overview of the topic to one which is narrowed on criticism. The original structure of the section was to briefly introduce the topic, then to weigh evidence of negative, positive, and neutral mental health effects in equal measure. I do not believe there is any call for expanding the "Mental health" sub-section beyond the length of the other "Suggested effects" sub-sections. I also do not think it necessary to go over specific aspects of the controversy surrounding the abortion-mental health hypothesis in greater detail than done in the June 12 revision. This is a top-tier article, and, as such, its job is to summarize relevant sub-articles in a manner which is both concise and thorough. Detailed coverage should be reserved for Post-abortion syndrome as it is not limited by the same WP:SIZE concerns as a top-tier article such as this one. I understand that under WP:NPOV#Undue weight we should seek to present competing views in proportion to their acceptance among experts. However, the side on which the majority of scientific opinion (and evidence) falls on the abortion-mental health question isn't as clear as it is over, say, the question of whether dinosaurs existed millions of years ago or only a few thousand. If the majority of scientists agree that there is no significant connection between abortion and negative mental health, we can make a brief note of this fact, as we do in the ABC hypothesis in "Suggested effects: Breast cancer." I just don't think it is necessary to make an effort to highlight more opposing than supporting evidence in the "Mental health" sub-section.

I do not see it as necessary to note the legality of abortion in the countries in which studies were conducted. I cannot see this having any bearing upon the findings of the studies, and, unless a source is given to establish otherwise, I don't think it's appropriate to include this information in this section.

The reference to maternity blues and postpartum depression was added, I believe, to address an editor's concerns over the implication that abortion is the only reproductive event which can result in an effect on mental health (see Archive 19, "Mental health changes").

Regarding the scope of the "Mental health" sub-section, it's not solely about what is referred to as "post-abortion syndrome," and care was taken not to conflate "post-abortion syndrome" with conditions such as depression after an editor expressed concern (see several threads in Archive 24).

I'll thus be restoring the June 12 version. We've been around the block a few times with the "Mental health" sub-section and I hope we can focus a little on some of the uncompleted to-do list items now that there seems to be a lot of activity on this page. -Severa 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully support your revision. If you haven’t already, can you please also look at Post abortion syndrome??? Thanks and welcome back!!!LCP 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't catch your welcome back message sooner. Thank you very much, LCP! The Post-abortion syndrome article looks like it's changed quite a bit since I last gave it a once over, so, being that it's a lot to take in right now, I'll look into it a bit later. -Severa 09:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharp Curettage

"Sharp Curettage" isn't a proper noun (as far as I could find from google hits), so I lowercased it and stuck it in italics. Though, it should be noted that the term isn't specifically mentioned in the WHO cite at the end of the sentence, so it might be an idea to move it out of that sentence and into the one introducing the term it's A.K.A.-ing. --slakr\ talk / 09:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallup poll rewording

The current wording is slightly ambiguous, as the latter clause could be relatively easily misread as "79% of males favored [it] and 67% of females favored [it]," when in reality the poll says that of the 72% favoring, the demographic of the favorers was 79% male, 67% female. Thus:

Current state: "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favor of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favor."

Proposed rewording: "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favor of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those who responded in favor, 79% were males and 67% were females."

I figure it's a non-controversial change, but I figured I'd run it by here first (just in case) :P --slakr\ talk / 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong here. If 79% in favor were male, and 67% in favor were female, then we have a case of 146% (unless, perhaps there were a significant number of respondents who identify as both male and female?) If you average 79% and 67% you get ~73% (which is basically 72%, I guess there was rounding somewhere).-Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what he's saying, and clearly we need to rework this as its causing confusion in any of the versions. Here's the situation (which is a lot like those word problems from 3rd grade math, like "You have a dozen apples. Sally takes half and gives half of her half to her mother. How many apples does Sally have?"):

  • 72% are in favor
  • 100 percent OF the 79% who are in favor are divided by gender as follows
  • 79% male, 67% female
  • The remaining 26% are not divided by gender or identified by gender, so we don't know the percentages there

So how do we word that so no one is confused? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the poll said that 79% of those who were male were in favour, not that 79% of those who were in favour were male. Perhaps this form would be less ambiguous: "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 79% of male and 67% of female respondents were in favor of spousal notification; overall support was 72% with 26% opposed." Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG! :D I knew I wasn't good at math. :P See, it's a good thing I ran it by here first =). Anyway, your wording is much, much better. For now, I'll go sit in the corner and work on my addition so as to avoid this problem in the future. ;) --slakr\ talk / 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bazelon, Emily. The New York Times. Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?
  2. ^ Gomez, Lavin C & Zapata, Garcia R."Diagnostic categorization of post-abortion syndrome", Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2005 Jul-Aug;33(4):267-72.
  3. ^ a b Stotland NL. The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome. JAMA. 1992 Oct 21;268(15):2078-9. PMID 1404747.
  4. ^ Cooper, Cynthia L. Abortion Under Attack
  5. ^ Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
  6. ^ Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata, Garcia R. (2005). - "Diagnostic categorization of post-abortion syndrome". Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 33 (4), 267-72. Retrieved Setepmber 8, 2006
  7. ^ Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.
  8. ^ New York Times: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?
  9. ^ Zabin, L.S., Hirsch, M.B., Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21 (6), 248-55. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  10. ^ Russo, N. F., & Zierk, K.L. (1992). Abortion, childbearing, and women. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-280. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  11. ^ Schmiege, S. & Russo, N.F. (2005). Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study Electronic version. British Medical Journal, 331 (7528), 1303. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  12. ^ Gómez Lavín C, Zapata García R (2005). "Diagnostic categorization of post-abortion syndrome". Actas españolas de psiquiatría. 33 (4): 267–72. PMID 15999304.
  13. ^ Stotland NL (1992). "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome". JAMA. 268 (15): 2078–9. PMID 1404747.
  14. ^ Journal of the American Medical Association, 268 (15), 2078-9. Retrieved December 7, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_29&oldid=1050409996"