Talk:Abortion/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Picture in the lead

We should have a picture in the lead. The one I placed there is as good as any that we have. If someone prefers another I am sure I would have not great qualms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, at least two editors have objected to placement of that picture at that location, but you edit-warred it back after it was moved. I don't know why you started a new section here, when there's already a section above titled "Top pic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The demon picture is clearly inappropriate. It is neither an accurate illustration of abortion nor especially neutral. I suggest that the article remain without a lead picture until consensus can be shown for putting a particular image there. Otherwise, it will just be the subject of endless edit warring. There is after all, no requirement that an article have a lead image. It's fine without one in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion has a long history and historical picture are appropriate in the lead. An accurate depiction of an abortion is not required. I think the fact that it is a stone carving will inform people that this comes from a different time period. We could have an image of a bottle of methotrexate. But I do not think that would look as nice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No lead image until consensus can be built for one

Throughout most of this article's tumultuous history it has existed perfectly well without any lead image. Recent attempts to add a lead image have not achieved consensus and have only lead to dispute. I would like to propose that the current image be removed (as it is neither an accurate illustration, nor NPOV) and that no other images replace it until consensus is shown for one. This should keep debate on the talk page (where it belongs) rather than turning the article itself into a battleground. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure we'll find an image that will meet everybody's definition of NPOV, but until we do, I agree with Kaldari's suggestion. As I hate to lose images from an article, I would have suggested moving it back to the History section, but that is already full of images, so perhaps the Angkor Wat image is best left on the sidelines for the moment. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sign me up for the "not going to edit war about this" list. It's pretty hard to think of an image that would be widely agreed upon to be a good neutral lead image. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I though this image was good. It is historical so I hoped it would avoid some of the recent controversies. Does anyone have anything better to suggest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be historical, but it's also religious. Using religious imagery to introduce an article on a medical procedure doesn't seem very NPOV to me (especially considering it is a demon performing the abortion). My only suggestion for something better is no image at all. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The demon pic needs to go, and ought not be replaced by a dead fetus or other shock graphic. Agreed that the current top pic is inappropriately religious and POV. Besides that, it's anachronistic to a point of silliness (unless one wants to suggest that opposition to abortion is somehow "timeless" or pan-cultural). Better to have no top pic. Maybe worth an edit war, maybe not. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion could reasonably be considered "timeless" and pan-cultural, but I don't really want to get caught up in that digression. I'm personally not about to edit-war over the pic; I have a weak preference for no pic over the demonic abortion, but realistically I think it will be very hard to find a pic that satisfies everyone, so the most sensible approach might be to go picture-less. Which is unfortunate, since high-quality images are a key part of a great article, but such is life. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

POV images are NEVER part of a great article, and I cannot imagine one that would not be POV. No picture please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• While we're talking about pictures, we need to clarify the caption of File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg. Right now, our caption says that it shows "The uterus (womb), included the fetus" [sic]. That picture does not show a uterus. The uterus is not transparent; as you might expect, its walls are muscular, vascularized, and not see-through. The picture appears to show the amniotic sac and fetus. They appear to be detached from the placenta, which makes me skeptical that the fetus is alive at the time of the picture (as our caption asserts). Of course, since the image comes from Flickr, I'm not sure how to address the latter questions. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it was stated in the past that the procedure that produced that image is very rare, so presenting it in this article may give the wrong impression (or WP:WEIGHT). The source as flickr is also a bit shakey. I'd propose restoring the miscarriage image to illustrate the miscarriage section, and forgo using the uncommon, intact sac image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From what MastCell has said, it seems like it'd be impossible to write a caption for that image without engaging in some form of original research. Best not to include it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the Cambodian picture. It's really old and kind of obscure; just the kind of thing you would see in a proper encyclopaedia. (Huey45 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

That pic may be appropriate in the History section. Any illustration in the lead would seem likely to be expressing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcells suggestion of switching the fetus image. WRT the image in the lead I am not sure what POV the historical picture represents. I though it was well just historical. Before the current POVs existed. BTW I think the term would be mystical rather than religious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Cambodian stone carving is a lot more neutral than anything you would get from today. It seems a lot of you are just trying to push your own agenda to make this page an advertisement for your political position rather than a serious encyclopaedia article. Unprofessional editors like User:Objectivist have already made this quite clear. Some of you say the stone picture expresses an obvious POV; what is it? The demonic abortion carving would have been made to tell a story and to show that demons are capable of killing unborn babies. It would not have been suggesting that anyone who wants an abortion is evil, since people in antiquity didn't have the means to do that anyway, so you can stop panicking; your political agenda is not threatened by the stone carving.(Huey45 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Well, I don't believe in demons. Do you? It may not be a strong, current POV, but it is still a POV. It says demons exist. And they do nasty things. I am willing to accept it as part of the History section, but it really has little to do with the lead. We don't include pictures just because they are interesting. They need to be relevant. The bulk of the article isn't about historical views on abortion. That's only a tiny part of it. The picture also touches on that tricky area for abortion discussions of spontaneous abortions. That aspect always complicates things. I'm not trying to be difficult here, nor push a particular agenda. I would just rather see the words tell the story. The picture simply doesn't fit in the lead. Stick it in the history section. It WILL add value there. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does suggest demons exist, but that shouldn't really matter. It's not as if anyone's going to suddenly take up ancient paganism after seeing a fragment of a wall, is it? Abortion is not a new issue, so the ancient stone picture is essentially no less relevant than a modern photograph. Having the Cambodian demon story as the lead image will immediately show people that abortion was a concept understood by people thousands of years ago and they can get a vague idea of what that ancient civilisation thought about it. I for one think that the stone picture is very fascinating. An encyclopaedia doesn't have to be boring.(Huey45 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Updated sources/language needed.

1. Changes should be made to "Medical" section. Current says:

Medical

"Medical abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. [citation needed] Medical abortions comprise 10% of all abortions in the United States[17] and Europe.[citation needed] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medical abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medical abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically."

Proposed:

Medication

"Medication abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs administered by a physician, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the United States, medication abortions accounted for 13% of all abortions in 2005, and for 22% of abortions occurring before nine weeks’ gestation. [17] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medication abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medication abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone (marketed in the U.S. as Mifeprex, and in Europe as RU-486) for use in the United States in September 2000.

2. In the "Surgical" section, adding "of pregnancy" to the first sentence so it reads as the following:

In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method.[19]

3. The main "Incidence" section currently reads:

Incidence

The number of abortions performed worldwide has deceased between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 to 29 per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world with a decrease from 39 to 26 per 1000 women in comparison to the developing world which had a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions 22 million occurred safely and 20 million unsafely.[3] The incidence and reasons for induced abortion vary regionally. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 per 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), had a comparatively low rate of induced abortion, while others like Russia (62.6 per 100) and Vietnam (43.7 per 100) had a high rate. The world ratio was 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies (excluding miscarriages and stillbirths).[62]

Proposed:

Incidence

The number of abortions performed worldwide declined between 1995 and 2003 from 45.5 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 per 1000 women to 29 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world, from 39 to 26 per 1000 women, in comparison to the developing world which saw a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women in 2003.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions, 22 million occurred under safe conditions and 20 million in unsafe conditions.[3]

The incidence and reasons for induced abortions vary regionally. The lowest rates in countries where abortion is legal, such as Nepal and South Africa are 5 abortions per 1,000 and 6 abortions per 1,000 women, respectively. The highest rates in countries where abortion is legal occurred in Cuba (57 abortions per 1,000 women) and Russia (45 abortions per 1,000 women). Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. [62]

In the United States, 1.21 million abortions occurred in 2005, the most recent year for which complete data are available. The U.S. abortion rate is 19 abortions per 1,000 women. Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and four in 10 of those end in abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [64]

4. The "By gestational age and method" section currently reads:

By gestational age and method

Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. 90.9% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), 7.7% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.4% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.0% by "other" (including hysterotomy and hysterectomy).[63] The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the U.S. during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.[64] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[65] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[66]

Proposed:

By gestational age and method

Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2006, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found 88% of abortions were performed in the first trimester of pregnancy with the majority (62.0%) obtained at less than 8 weeks' gestation; only 5.0% of abortions were obtained at or later than 16 weeks' gestation. Approximately 3.7% were performed between 16-20 weeks and 1.3% were performed at 21 weeks’ gestation or later. 87.6% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), medication (nonsurgical) abortion accounted for 10.6%. All other methods accounted for a consistently small percentage of abortions (0.4%-1.7%). [63] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[66] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[67]

5. Under "By personal and social factors," the last sentence of the first paragraph currently reads:

The Guttmacher Institute estimated that "most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women" because minority women "have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy."[70]

Proposed:

The Guttmacher Institute estimated that a broad cross-section of U.S. women have abortions. Women obtaining abortions are most likely to be in their 20s, never-married and not living with a partner, below the federal poverty line, to already be mothers, to be white, have at least some college education or to be religiously affiliated. But certain groups of women – those in their 20s, black women and poor women are overrepresented among abortion patients. [71]

6. Within the section entitled, "Abortion law," there is a number of bullet points that follow the third paragraph, which reads, "Many countries in which abortion is legal require that certain criteria be met in order for an abortion to be obtained, often, but not always, using a trimester-based system to regulate the window of legality:"
Currently, the first bullet point describing the case in the United States says:

In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion.[95]

Proposed:

The court ruling of the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, significantly weakened the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in Roe v. Wade by giving states the right to enact restrictions that do not create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. Some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require parents to give consent or to be notified if their minor daughter requests an abortion. [95]

7. At the end of the "Abortion law" section, additional text is proposed so the last paragraph of the section reads as the following:

In the US, about 8% of abortions are performed on women who travel from another state.[103] However, that is driven at least partly by differing limits on abortion according to gestational age or the scarcity of doctors trained and willing to do later abortions. There are currently 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lack an abortion provider, and 35% of women live in those counties.

8. In addition to the textual changes, certain reference citations should be updated because of new data available from the Guttmacher Institute. The citation list should remain the same except for the following citation changes:

17. ^ Jones RK et al., “Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16.

62. ^ Sedgh, Gilda, Henshaw, Stanley K., Singh, Susheela, Bankole, Akinrinola and Drescher, Joanna . (2007). Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends. International Family Planning Perspectives, 33 (3). Retrieved 2010-06-16. 63. ^ Pazol, K., Gamble, K. S., Parker, W. Y., Cook, D. A., Zane, S. B., and Hamdan, S. (November 27, 2009). Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58 (SS08), 1–35. Retrieved June 16, 2010. 64. ^ Finer LB and Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96.

95. ^ Guttmacher Institute, Parental involvement in minors’ abortions, State Policies in Brief, 202010, <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf>, accessed June 16, 2010. Guttmacher (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC):— Guttmacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Pro-choice?

I noticed that the introduction mentions and links to the "Pro-Choice" thing. The name "Pro-Choice" is a deliberate misrepresentation and fallacy that encourages people to mistakenly believe that abortion is a women's rights issue when really it's totally unrelated. Referring to the opposite of "Pro-life" as "Pro-Choice" is akin to saying that Common Era is purely a political correctness measure; the name political correctness immediately conveys other suggestions and prejudices to the reader. I would say that all references to "Pro-Choice" ought to be removed from the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV, except where a specific mention is made that it's almost exclusively the "Pro-Choice" people themselves who call it that, just like the names Republic of China etc. (Huey45 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes, it should go, along with Pro Life. Both are sneaky, politically driven, marketing names chosen with the deliberate intent to make the opposite view sound bad when derived from the chosen names, eg. Anti Life, Anti Choice, or Pro Death. Just naming them is pushing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. While these are politically driven terms they are commonly used among the public and media.Boromir123 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite the common use, we cannot consider these terms as truth or even reasonably neutral representations. Should Wikipedia reproduce all common factual mistakes? How about all common grammatical mistakes? Nikurasu (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed recently in the archives Talk:Abortion/Archive_54#Terminology. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that archive just then and it appears that the discussion faded away without really being resolved. What if we still called them "pro-life" and "pro-choice" but explained early in the article that those names are almost exclusively used by each respective group to describe themselves? The article as it is now is encouraging the use of the political names. It's different to "Palestinian Liberation Army" and the like because the names "pro-choice" and "pro-life" represent sides of a debate rather than an actual organisation. It's akin to labelling the sides of a debate about Fat camp as "the fat pigs" and "the healthy people". (Huey45 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

We're not labelling anyone. This is an encyclopaedia, remember? As a tertiary source, we report what primary and secondary sources write on the subject. And pro-choice/pro-life are the terms used. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost right. We reflect what the best available current sources write. While those terms are still used by polarized sources, especially advocates of one or the other position, many of the best sources use plain English instead of Newspeak. Wikipedia should select and cite the best quality sources, then reflect their usage, not impose its own. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are like 2, maybe 3 instances where those terms are used in this article, and I think its in clear contexts describing sides of the debate. It isn't a major component of this article by any means, but perhaps it is controversial because it is in the lead (but really, would a lead of an article on abortion not mention the debate??) Otherwise, I find the amount of content this is taking up in the article rather minor indeed. As for but explained early in the article that those names are almost exclusively used by each respective group to describe themselves, this may be acceptable, assuming this is backed up by reliable sourcing. We should be mindful of sourcing vs. personal preference/knowledge. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct venue for this discussion. Pro-life and pro-choice are different articles. If "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not the correct names for them, perhaps one of more discussions ought to be initiated at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If and when a consensus has been established that those are in fact the wrong terms, it will be a trivial matter to update the terminology used in this article. Note that I'm extending the discussion to include both topics here, since to only change one name could give the impression of non-neutrality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SheffieldSteel, and would propose editing the article here to ensure every use of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are hyperlinked to those articles. This should make it very clear to any reader that those terms are being used in this article because they have widely-accepted and widely-used definitions. V (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, after reading this, I didn't think you were prepared to discuss editorial issues properly. Did anyone else here get harassed for advocating encyclopaedic neutrality?(Huey45 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

Your original remarks in this section hardly exhibited neutrality, since they focussed solely on altering a description of just one side of the issue, when we all know here that both sides have created lopsided descriptions for themselves. If you had actually been exhibiting neutrality, HiLo48 would not have needed to mention the other side of the coin, because you would-have/should-have done that already. V (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the article on Abortion shouldn't mention the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", despite the fact that those are the most popular terms used to describe pro- and anti-abortion ideologies? SnottyWong ^prattle 19:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) We need to reflect the best quality literature. If people are serious in improving this page, grab a recent review article ( email me if you need a copy of anything ) and start improving the article. We are not here to direct science but reflect science. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to show how bad an alternate description can be, even with "pro" in it, (rhetorically!) how about we replace "pro-life" with "pro-enslavement-of-women-to-animals"? After all, not even the most late-term human fetus ever born had more mental abilities than any of many ordinary animals, and to force a woman to carry a fetus to term is to enslave her for the benefit of that animal.... V (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, in the United States, at least, per the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery is legal. It merely requires a crime to be committed, followed by "due process of law", first. So the anti-abortion crowd simply needs to criminalize pregnancy, after which every pregnant woman can be sentenced to childbirth! V (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you be called "pro-camel's-nose"? "pro-red-herring"? Will you stick to what we're actually talking about rather than getting on your soap box to lecture about your views on abortion every time you sit at your computer? (Huey45 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

What you were originally talking about in this section was the claim that "pro-choice" was a faulty/inaccurate description, and should therefore be removed. There's no doubt that the description is politically stilted, just as the label "pro-life" is politically stilted, and I might agree that per the WP:NPOV rules, some alternate labels should be chosen. Nobody has seriously suggested any such labels, though, and many have pointed out that despite the stiltedness of the existing labels, they are widely known and used. In the vein of a non-serious alternate label for "pro-choice", how about "pro-freedom-from-control-by-men-who-can't-pass-their-worthless-genes-on-by-any-means-other-than-forcing-women-to-carry-pregnancies-to-term"? :) V (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on that previous sentence. In Nature the female generally decides what male will fertilize her eggs. This is mostly true even for humans (relatively few cultures still routinely arrange marriages) --and even after marriage, a woman can still decide whether or not her husband will fertilize her eggs; I think the Kinsey Report of the 1940s found that, based on family blood typing, something like 10% or more of all babies born could not have had the fathers specified on the birth certificates. Next, I've read (probably not in RS, though) there are a few cases where a pregnant woman has, through sheer will-power, refused to "carry that man's baby", and miscarried as a result. For all I really know about such claims, perhaps the odds of natural miscarriage simply worked out in "favor" of those few women. If it was true, though, then it might be really interesting to see biofeedback being used, instead of surgery or morning after pills, to terminate pregnancies; they would be utterly indistinguishable from natural miscarriages, to any anti-abortionist!!! The net result of all the preceding is, it is stupid for men to try to control women and their pregnancies. V (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the Pro-choice and Pro-life articles both have separate sections specifically for this issue. All we need is a link to one (or both) within the introduction to this article and that should suffice. See Pro-choice#Term_controversy and/or Pro-life#Controversies_over_terminology. (Huey45 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

I note the controversy sections in both those articles mention the Associated Press as indicating "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" as being more neutral descriptions of the two sides of the debate. Perhaps that would work in this article --or, more exactly, "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights"? Much of the controversy can be narrowed down to arguing over whether or not such a right should exist. If it doesn't, then "pro-choice" is not possible --not quite in the sense that since there is no such thing as a right to violate the law of gravity; choosing to violate it is meaningless-- but political Laws are supposed to be that concrete.... But if the right-to-abort exists, then the anti-abortion crowd has to stop trying to take that right away, and focus exclusively on convincing pregnant women to carry-to-term. Now, regarding the question of whether such a right exists, it will immediately be pointed out that "might does not make right", and so the technical ability to do an abortion does not equate with a right to abort. On the other hand, what of Nature? Miscarriages are Natural abortions! If Nature can do it unthinkingly (even to women who want to be pregnant), why can't it be done thinkingly, by women who don't want to be pregnant? More, Nature (many mammals including humans on occasion) can do something called "fetal resorption" --I'm surprised there is no Wikipedia article on that topic. When the environment is unfavorable, a pregnant animal can literally suck the life out of the fetuses she is carrying. http://www.vetinfo.com/dfetsorb.html This is controlled by hormones (triggered by the environmental condition), notably a very low level of progesterone. Anyway, it is to be noted that when a pregnant human woman seeks an abortion, often this can be traced to an unfavorable environment.... V (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion is an issue where we have to look beyond the purely legal situation. While figures are obviously hard to collect, in places where abortion is illegal, plenty of it still tends to happen. There have always been what are known in my country as "backyard abortionists". In most communities, a woman knew were to go to get one done. That means that even when abortion is illegal, a choice still exists. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your statements are basically correct, but they also don't really address my previous point about "might making right". The technical ability to abort does not automatically equal a right to get an abortion. It merely allows people to choose abortions regardless of rights --the anti-abortionists will be the first to say getting an abortion is exactly equivalent to choosing to commit murder just because you have access to a gun. But of course the anti-abortionists are making a couple of unproved assumptions in that analogy. First they are assuming that there is no such thing as a right to abort, and second they are assuming that unborn humans are persons, such that killing those persons qualifies as murder --and incidentally being the reason why there would be no such thing as a right to abort. So far as I'm aware, though, neither assumption has any valid supporting evidence for it, mostly because there is no data at all supporting any claim that a human fetus is in any measurable actuality superior to an ordinary animal (if it is equivalent to an animal in every measurable way, how can it be a person?) --and partly because, as implied in my prior post above, to the extent that Human Law should be consistent with Natural Law, and since miscarriage-type abortions are quite Natural and common.... V (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that simplistic labels are just that, simplistic. OK, one could argue that Pro-lifers are the absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, believing that abortion is never, ever justified, no matter what. Many are not Pro-life beyond the abortion debate. There are those who support the death penalty, and those who support "just" wars. (Some possibly support unjust wars.) Those are anti-life activities. Back on the abortion issue, apart from the aforementioned absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, there is a continuum of opinions, ranging from those who strongly oppose abortion in almost all circumstances but believe it justified in certain rare situations, to those who believe the mother should always have a choice, no matter what. I'm not sure which of those people are covered by the term Pro-choice. There are those who are strongly opposed to abortion but don't believe governments should be telling them, or anyone else, what to do on a moral issue like abortion. Given that spectrum of opinions, and the inaccuracy of the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice, I don't like seeing them used in an article like this, unless we're simply describing specific organisations that use those terms in their names. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Measuring the "abortion rate"

The article says that "abortion rates" are the same in countries where it is legal and illegal. But there are two ways of measuring the abortion rate: the number of women per 1000 per year who have abortions, versus the abortion to live birth ratio. If you're pro-choice, you'd see the "abortion rate" as being the rate at which women are affected by abortion, but if you're pro-life you'd see the abortion rate as the rate at which embryos and fetuses are affected by abortion. Why does this article A) measure the incidence of abortion in pro-choice terms, and B) not even say that this is how the incidence of abortion is being measured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee. you've used a fine tooth comb on the article to identify that difference. I've read it many times, and again just then, to see what you were talking about, and I can't see it. It probably is there, but you will have to point it out for me. One of my concerns about counts is that methods of counting are bound to vary between countries, and this is a global article. In my country, Australia, numbers of elective abortions are not at all clear because they are included in numbers which contain several other medical procedures. That makes it certain that global figures cannot contain Australia's figures, or if they do, they are wrong. Global figures for abortion is a difficult area. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

When I spoke of the "method of measuring the incidence of abortion," I wasn't talking about data collection, I was talking about how that data is presented. What does this article mean by "abortion rate" - "X number of 1,000 women per year" or "abortion to live birth ratio"? The former is how it would be measured by pro-choicers, and the latter is how it would be measured by pro-lifers. Since the article linked to is from a pro-choice organization, I'm betting on the former. But that's how the pro-abortion side would measure the incidence of abortion, so this part of the article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And you would like it biased the other way? Be very careful about that. Neutrality is what we seek. I understand your point. If we can, we simply need to mention exactly what has been counted in the figures presented. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Telling readers what has been counted, and where, would assist in alleviating my concerns too. No point even giving figures if they aren't truly representative. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I want it to include both the number of abortions per 1,000 women per year and the abortion to live birth ratio. I don't want it to say "abortion rates are the same whether legal or not," because this is a leftist trope and it is based off of the "x number of women per 1000 per year" measurement.

-- Austin Nedved (I didn't have time to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.84.79 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your goal is fine, but may be hard to achieve. See my earlier comment about actually sourcing these figures at a global level. Feel free to go for it though. As for it being leftist, I think your biases are showing. That's a pretty odd adjective to use in this discussion. I've never seen the abortion issue as a left vs right one. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that when someone says "abortion rate", people would tend to think of the number of abortions carried out in a set time period, eg "abortions per year". Regardless of how this "rate" is determined, it should be completely clear in the article. The most useful figure would be the ratio of births:abortions, since it doesn't get complicated by population size.(Huey45 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the most appropriate figures and measures would be those used by reliable secondary sources. Which are those? MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should include both the number of abortions per 1,000 per year AND the abortion to birth ratio. If this article is to be neutral, it cannot favor the pro-choice method of measuring the incidence of abortion over the pro-life method, much less treat the former as though it is the one and only "abortion rate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to be clearer in describing what you feel is a problem. The words "abortion rate" appear exactly once in the article in the section By gestational age and method, and that section contains only the percentages of abortions performed by different methods and at different stages. I see nothing there that relates to measuring an "abortion rate" in the way you describe. The only nearby text that might fit your concerns is "The number of abortions performed worldwide has deceased between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 to 29 per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age)" – is that what you mean? If so, it's sourced to a 2009 review from Shah & Ahman of the WHO, published in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, which explicitly states "Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion". If there are any reliable sources of equally good quality that contradict their conclusion, then I would suggest you bring them here, so we can present both sides of the argument. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my last few edits I went to the best most recent sources I could find, read it, and starting adding content from it. Thus the 2009 review article from one of the best OBGYN journal in the world ( it has to be good cause it is from Canada ) :-) If you can find other comparisons that refer to other data from an equally good source feel free to add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"After 1973, legalization of abortion led to an approximately tenfold increase in the total number of abortions, though there is some dispute over the prelegalization statistics.[62]". from Wikipedia article Abortion_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_legalization It is also a fact that the supply of children available for adoption basically disappeared after abortion was legalized, leading to adoption from other countries (sorry no cite but is easy to confirm).

There may be third world countries were corruption is widespread where abortion laws (and many other laws) are ineffective. They should not be confused with countries with effective law enforcement where legalization makes a vast difference in availability and safety. Tomtul2 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. So many issues. How can the abortion rate be effectively measured when it is illegal? Even though, when I was young, abortion was illegal where I lived (not in the USA, but not third world either), "everyone" knew where to get one. But I doubt if those illegal backyard abortionists kept formal records which they submitted to any national survey. So, no meaningful statistics could possibly exist. That the number of children available for adoption shrank at the time you mention would have been due to many factors, among them the pill, and a greater acceptability of single mothers keeping their babies. Again, very difficult to find meaningful statistics. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage.

The sentence "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage" is junk. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) While the risk to subsequent pregnancies is relatively low, abortion decidedly does impair them. - Schrandit (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't know how many will find your comment, hidden as it is.

Then, your sources are convincing:

1. 2003, admits in intro that previous studies have been inconclusive, then reports on study with 600 subjects
2. MayoClinic, rare but serious risk
3. Denmark, 1999, huge study checking only for pre-term, post-term, after abortion(s)
4. 2003, review showing strong and plausible association and a dose-response relationship indicating causality
5. 1980 in JAMA, concludes "that multiple induced abortions do increase the risk of subsequent pregnancy losses"

This should be more than sufficient to warrant your editing the sentence you refer to as junk. Go for it. - Hordaland (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's three primary studies between 1980 and 2003 (Levin, Zhou, Dhaliwal), a 2003 review (Rooney) and a 2009 expert opinion (Harms). The current sentence is hardly junk because that's what the 2004 Grimes overview says. If we went by the strict rules of MEDRS, then the later secondary source (Grimes) is preferred over any of the four primaries and the earlier secondary. However, I'm not prepared to push that argument. It would be worth searching for a more recent secondary to settle the apparent conflict between the two secondaries – Harms is obviously basing his opinion on something. I'd strongly suggest opening a new section (where this would be more visible) and linking back to here in an effort to seek consensus before making an edit which may be challenged on the grounds I outlined above. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) removing support from Rooney, having read the refs in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - doesn't alter my overall opinion. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis from 2009 is PMID 19301572. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LSD, that's a compelling analysis (even though I can only see the abstract). It looks to me like it settles the issue of the effect of abortion on subsequent pre-term birth, although I will take someone with better medical knowledge than I (that's most of you) to write a good summary. Does anyone know of any recent secondaries addressing the issues of other late sequelae? --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong paper, that one speaks to pre-term birth. PMID 20362515 from 2010 makes it clear that present evidence is inconclusive on the association of various outcomes with distinct methods. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (ref. 4) is not a suitable source for any assertion of medical fact. Despite its generic title, it is the publication of a fringe right-wing political group. It has a very poor track record of correctness and zero scientific currency. It certainly fails WP:MEDRS and should not be cited here. The other sources look reasonable, and we should probably discuss how to best summarize all available sources in the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure I can find more sources if needed but right off the bat from google the Mayo Clinic, the American Medical Association and the United States government all say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies. Why do we say it can't? - Schrandit (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we be a bit more careful with our assertions? The American Medical Association says no such thing - you're quoting an article published in JAMA 30 years ago. That's not exactly an AMA position statement, any more than the hundreds of other articles published in JAMA in 1980 reflect the current opinion of the AMA. I would appreciate it if you could clarify your claim that the "US government" says that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies, as I don't see it sourced in this section.

The Mayo Clinic reference ([1]) does not state that abortion increases the risk of subsequent miscarriage. First, it completely exonerates medical abortion of any such effect (you seem to have skipped that part). Secondly, it states that surgical abortion can rarely result in uterine scarring which can lead to infertility or miscarriage. Of course, carrying a pregnancy to term and having a C-section can also lead to uterine scarring. The Mayo Clinic piece does not suggest that abortion increases this risk over the baseline associated with pregnancy, unless I'm missing something?

It might be most accurate to say that the results are conflicting; in fact, that's exactly what PMID 20362515 says - it points out the methodologic limitations of published studies, including recall bias, poor controlling for confounders, and the problem of choosing an appropriate comparison group. The authors concluded: "In summary, despite two systematic reviews and several primary studies, the evidence supporting the effects of IA on subsequent reproduction is sparse and conflicting." MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"The American Medical Association says no such thing" - so what? The American Medical Association isn't the only one that matters. I thought it was common knowledge that abortion affects future pregnancies. After all, there are numerous studies with this conclusion. In fact, I've never heard anything to the contrary in Australia. User:Schrandit is absolutely right. (Huey45 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

I humbly suggest that that particular piece of "common knowledge" would definitely need a decent reference. My understanding is that an abortion may affect future pregnancies, but in many cases has no such impact at all. But I certainly wouldn't put that in the article without a source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But Schrandit is wrong when he claims that "... the American Medical Association ... say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies" - which was the point being made. Are you seriously suggesting that we should write "abortion affects future pregnancies" and cite it to 'common knowledge'? --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am I right to discern 3 key points from the most recent secondaries then?

• Induced abortion (IA) and spontaneous abortion both show an increased risk of subsequent pre-term birth of about 25% for one abortion, or about 50% for more than one. Swingle 2009 Swingle 2009
• Medical abortion shows no association with adverse effects on subsequent pregnancies.
• IA (in general) has conflicting evidence concerning any adverse effects on subsequent pregnancies. Lowit 2010 Lowit 2010

If we could agree what the key points are first, then perhaps someone could suggest an improved/expanded version of "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage", using the later reviews to replace Grimes? Is this a way forward? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If we want to go to actual position statements of major medical organizations, RCOG states: "There are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility. Abortion may be associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent miscarriage or preterm delivery." [2]. (Not to reopen old wounds, but they also state categorically that "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon."

According to ACOG ([3]): "Most doctors agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies." (...and, on an earlier topic, "The risk of a woman dying from giving birth is at least 10 times greater than the risk from an early abortion.") MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To touch on a point I've just made elsewhere in this article - When and where abortion is made illegal, it still occurs, usually in less desirable form than where it is legal. These are the abortions that deliver the greatest risks of impairment to the woman and to later pregnancies. I would actually like to see a lot more in the article on the reality that making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It leads to less safe abortions. But figures for illegal activities are obviously hard to collect, and thus sources are not easy to find. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, I'd prefer to leave on one side the issue of legality, as it is obviously such an emotive topic in some places - and only has an indirect effect on abortion. I would prefer to concentrate on giving the issues of unsafe abortion equal weight in the article - as the difference between safe and unsafe has the most direct and dramatic consequences. I'd like to think that it would be possible to write a perfectly good article describing all of the medical issues, using high-quality sources.

In the case under discussion (the effect of abortion on subsequent pregnancies), I believe we have at least three secondary sources laying out the facts for safe abortion and I'd like to see us developing the article to reflect those. I would also like to find good quality sources addressing the issue for unsafe abortions, but agree these may be harder to find. I don't think that searching for sources on sequelae of unsafe abortion should stop us working on improving the text concerning safe abortion in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something about miscarriages, which are Natural abortions, might also be appropriate in that discussion. It is my understanding that a fairly high percentage of women who have multiple children experience a miscarriage during those years. And so far as I know, except where the "RH-factor" thing is relevant, those miscarriages do not affect the ability of those women to have other children. Note that from the evolutionary standpoint, it most certainly is beneficial to a species for its female members to be able to experience miscarriage and still have offspring... so mammals have had millions of years to adapt to miscarriages, with humans benefiting thereby, with respect to abortion! V (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Swingle 2009 does consider spontaneous abortions (SA) in the review and gives approximately the same odds-ratios for subsequent preterm birth as exist for induced abortions (IA) - sorry I used acronyms in the key points above (I've expanded them now for clarity). Do you have any reviews in mind that lead you to your views on miscarriage not affecting future pregnancy in general? If so, they would be worth including. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a page that talks about miscarriage statistics: http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/f/miscarriagestat.htm It seems I wasn't mistaken; if a woman has several pregnancies, the chances are fairly high that one will miscarry. That page doesn't say much about pregancies after miscarriage, but taking the statistics at face value, we might say that if a woman has 5 pregnancies, 1 might miscarry; if she has 10 pregnancies, 2 might miscarry, and so on. Meaning that the miscarriages didn't change the rate of non-miscarried pregnancies. This link: http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm has this quotable thing on it: "An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages. The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time."

Next, anyone who knows basic stuff about evolutionary theory knows that any factor that can allow an organism to have more offspring tends to enhance the survival of that organism's species. It very simply and logically follows that if we examine two pregnant females, and one has trouble breeding after a miscarriage, while the second doesn't (or has less trouble), then the second will probably have more offspring and pass on the genes that allowed her to have less trouble breeding, after a miscarriage happens. The logical result, after enough generations, is that the rate-of-trouble, after a miscarriage, would go down all across the species. Here's a page that talks about evolution and mentions miscarriages (though not quite in the same way I just wrote): http://perette.barella.org/Science/evolution.html

A humorous aspect regarding the preceding is an alternate interpretation for biology, involving Creationism. We are told that the human species is at the pinnacle of Creation, and therefore it should logically follow that humans should have various traits that must be at least as good or better than the equivalent traits of other animals. If so, then it also logically follows that human females should generally have an excellent ability to have normal pregnancies after a miscarriage! (Which the data in this case supports, heh!) V (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything in the sources you gave that speaks to the issue of whether having a miscarriage increases the likelihood of a subsequent miscarriage. You're making the assumption that the probability of future miscarriage is unaffected by a previous miscarriage to get the "2 out of 10", and then using that to confirm your assumption. If the overall probability of miscarriage is 0.2 (say), then it would still be true to say "The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time", even if the previous miscarriage increased the probability to 0.3 (say). The source doesn't have the information to allow us to distinguish between no effect and a 50% increase! I also found it troubling that http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm contains the three statements "There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year"; "More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage", "Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage", which I have difficulty reconciling. Additionally, I wish evolution were that simple; if it does such a good job (either from a Darwinian or Creationist point of view), then I'd expect humans to produce their own vitamin C, as almost every other mammal does. As it happens, we don't – and I'd like to know whose bright idea that was.

Anyway, look at Bhattacharya 2009: "A previous miscarriage is known to increase the likelihood of a subsequent pregnancy loss" although that shows the difficulties in quantifying the increased risk. For a fuller review of effects of previous miscarriage, see RGOG's paper: "The key findings were that women who had a miscarriage in their first pregnancy had a higher risk of adverse outcomes in their next pregnancy compared both to women who had a successful first pregnancy and women pregnant for the first time". There's plenty in those two papers alone to fill out a couple of sections, although I'm unsure how much detail belongs here and how much should really go into the article Miscarriage. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You ignored what I said about "at face value", which referred to all pregnant women, instead of the subset that had experienced abortion (not to mention the quote I pulled out of the second link). OF COURSE having a miscarriage automatically puts a woman into the smaller subset, which includes all those women who practically always will have a miscarriage (say, because of the RH-factor thing, among other reasons). Also note that in many countries the total birth rate has dropped in recent decades; that means a lot of women can beat the general statistics simply by not having any pregnancies after the first or second--which again reflects poorly on those who have enough pregnancies that a miscarriage is almost a certain thing. Regarding Vitamin C, this is one of those pieces of evidence that Evolution not Creation is the correct explanation; primates lived in trees for so long, where fruits containing Vitamin C were common, that the genetic machinery (read: "extra baggage") could be dropped without penalty (earlier ancestors did have those genes). Basically, humans penalized themselves by moving awy from those trees --without, of course, knowing the consequences.... I'm all in favor of using Genetic Engineering technology to put those genes back (after which, after World War III, any survivors will forget that WE did it, and when they invent Science all over again, the Creationists of that far future era will gleefully point out the human ability to make Vitamin C, while no other primate has it, as evidence of a Designer, heh!!!) V (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought what you meant by "at face value" was "1 in 5" implied "2 in 10" for the same individual, which of course relies precisely on the independence of a repeated event from its predecessors. About 1% of women have recurrent (>2) miscarriages, so obviously multiple mechanisms are at work, but the bare data doesn't allow us to draw conclusions on what mechanisms are at play. I'd agree with you on the probable mechanism of loss of vitamin C production in primates (since the only other mammal with the same problem is a fruit bat), and I was very amused by the thought of future ID-proponents seizing on human genetic modifications to justify their stance. Thanks for that. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you think about the equally amusing other side of that coin? If centuries after WW3 our civilization becomes as mythical as Atlantis, then what might the Atlanteans have done that today's ID-proponents blame on a Creator? :) V (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A classic example of misreading a correlation. Yes, women who experience miscarriages are statistically more likely to have problems with later pregnancies, but that isn't because the miscarriage CAUSES the later problems. In some women, pre-existing problems with their reproductive system CAUSE the miscarriage, and are also likely to cause problems with future pregnancies. Please don't confuse correlation and causation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I promise you, I've never once confused correlation and causation. Although I do confuse sources - I had inadvertently swapped the links for Swingle and Lowit in the key points above – I'll refactor that now. Anyway I think we will move forward faster if you concentrate on what I'm actually suggesting, rather than putting words into my mouth like "cause" that I never used. Please take a look at Swingle 2009 and see if you can summarise:

• Common adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth following 1 and > or = 2 induced abortions were 1.25 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.03-1.48) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), respectively ... Analysis of spontaneous abortion and subsequent preterm birth revealed a similar common adjusted OR ... on the control preterm birth rates

better than I did. I'm very happy to see suggested text that improves on what we have. --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

NY Times: The New Abortion Providers

This article could be a good source for the article, particularly on abortion practitioner trends and training in the U.S. - RoyBoy 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, although given that it is entirely US-specific it might be most appropriate for abortion in the United States. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New section draft: In art, literature, and film

Here is my draft for a new section for the abortion article. One thing I presume will need to be changed is my use of the movietrain.net for the film paragraph. If deemed necessary, it shouldn't take too much effort to ref RS movie reviews. Please edit the text, just note your changes (or suggestions) below. - RoyBoy 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, found it hard to find other notable art from other eras, such as medieval, Renaissance time periods. - RoyBoy 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Art serves to humanize the abortion issue and illustrates the myriad of decisions and consequences it has. One of the earliest known representations of abortion is in a bas relief at Angkor Wat (c. 1150). Pro-life activist Børre Knudsen was implicated in a 1994 art theft as part of a pro-life drive in Norway surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics. A Swiss gallery removed a piece from a Chinese art collection in 2005, that had the head of a fetus attached to the body of a bird. In 2008, a Yale student proposed using aborted excretions and the induced abortion itself as a performance art project.

The Cider House Rules (novel 1985, film 1999) follows the story of Dr. Larch an orphanage director who is a reluctant abortionist after seeing the consequences of back-alley abortions, and his orphan medical assistant Homer who is against abortion. Feminist novels such as Braided Lives (1997) by Marge Piercy emphasize the struggles women had in dealing with unsafe abortion in various circumstances prior to legalization. Doctor Susan Wicklund wrote This Common Secret (2007) about how a personal traumatic abortion experience hardened her resolve to provide compassionate care to women who decide to have an abortion. As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices herself and her loved ones made. In 2009, Irene Vilar revealed her past abuse and addiction to abortion in Impossible Motherhood, where she aborted 15 pregnancies in 17 years. According to Vilar it was the result of a dark psychological cycle of power, rebellion and societal expectations.

Various options and realities of abortion have been dramatized in film. In Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) an underage woman decides to keep her baby, moves in with the father and finds herself involved with drugs, has no opportunities, and questioning if she loves her child. While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple. Other films Dirty Dancing (1987) and If These Walls Could Talk (1996) explore the availability, affordability and dangers of illegal abortions. The emotional impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy alone is the focus of Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) and Circle of Friends (1995). As a marriage was in trouble in the The Godfather Part II (1974) she knew the relationship was over when she aborted "a son" in secret. On the abortion debate, an irresponsible drug addict is used as a pawn in a power struggle between pro-choice and pro-life groups in Citizen Ruth (1996).

I think this is a great idea for a section. Other things:

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Friday Night Lights

Vera Drake

The House of the Spirits

No Longer At Ease

Spring Awakening

The Sound of the Mountain

A Raisin in the Sun

The Adventures of Augie March

As I Lay Dying

Hills Like White Elephants

Most of these aren't "about" abortion, so they're not in Category:Dramatic works about abortion, but they include it. Roscelese (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The incidence rate

The incidence rate should all read per 1000, not per 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.48.227 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You might (or might not) want to source the figures to http://www.who.int/entity/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/abortion_facts.pdf (freely available), rather than PMID 20085681 (which doesn't allow the figures to be verified without a full text subscription). It's only a minor point and I understand if folks prefer a WHO to a WHO/Guttmacher source. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortion law section - UK

There appears to be a conflict between the text and the graphic [4] used in the section with regard to the UK. The unsourced text says:

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

Whereas the graphic shows that abortion is legal on demand as opposed to being shown as having a restriction. Or am I misinterpreting something? Bleakcomb (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on reasons for abortion?

Would this be worth adding, somewhere near the beginning?--TyrS (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very complex issue and there are many possible reasons. It may need to be more than a "small" section. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've adjusted this section title accordingly :) I do believe such a section would be beneficial. --TyrS (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Thanks!

I searched the Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup5, and found one major edit by Jagged 85. Tobby72 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit actually seems pretty good. I've tidied the cites somewhat and tagged some of the weaker points, but 85 seems to have drawn upon a high quality source (ISBN 0195160010, google preview available) and given a reasonable representation. If I were to fault the edit, I'd say it neglected the social/legal dimensions discussed in favour of the purely medical-history dimension, but it was the History section after all.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The frequency of abortions is, however, similar whether or not access is restricted."

I'm really going to have to ask to see the citations for that one. - Schrandit (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they listed already? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085681 - RoyBoy 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

The second paragraph of this article pretty much repeats a standard pro-choice argument, as if endorsing it (rather than merely describing it). (For example, the anti-abortion point of view is that there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.) The lead paragraph of the article should be made more neutral. Bwrs (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" abortion is found in virtually every reputable scholarly source on the risks of abortion, and so it seems proper to reflect it in our article. The positions of political partisans are amply detailed on Wikipedia, but we need to maintain a distinction between the rhetoric of pro-choice/pro-life partisans and our presentation of reputable scholarly knowledge about abortion. Since major scientific and medical bodies draw the distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" abortion (and since it is amply supported by fact and statistics), I don't see an issue with our presentation. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur, not justification for change as it stands--Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Restating one of the key arguments of pro-choice partisans as if it were fact in the second paragraph of the article is blatantly non-neutral. In fact, the neutral point of view policy states it even better than I can: “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.” Bwrs (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We are required to work with reliable sources which is not the same thing as maintaining a balance between two opposing points of view. The split between sage and unsafe abortions is found in the vast majority of reputable sources. The claim that there is no such thing as a safe abortion is a position of some anti-abortionists and can be reported as that view but it is very doubtful if it has any place in the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The safety of abortion, when performed legally and under appropriate medical supervision, is well-established. It is among the safest of surgical procedures; safer than receiving a dose of penicillin; and substantially safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Those are not pro-choice claims; those are facts, substantiated by reputable expert medical and scientific bodies.

If the safety of abortion is indeed a partisan talking point, then in this case it would appear that pro-choice partisans are closer to reality than pro-life partisans - but that's not really the issue. When we discuss the safety of a medical procedure, we rely on reputable expert medical opinion, not on some sort of artificial compromise between the positions of two political factions. I would hope that this is an obvious extension of our mission to write a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsafe abortion is what happens when the anti-abortionists win and it is made illegal. Abortion still occurs, but not with proper medical support. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the argument that “there is no such thing as a safe abortion” for illustrative purposes only. I agree that serious, respectable reference works should explain facts accurately, based on reliable sources. The writing of the second paragraph is, however, just all-around non-neutral; for example, the assertion that “[t]he frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” is one of the chief talking points of pro-choice partisans. Bwrs (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's a talking point for Opus Dei, the John Birch Society, or the Knights Templar. It happens to be true, according to experts in the field (e.g. PMID 20085681, from the World Health Organization). Are you suggesting that we downplay this well-sourced item because it conflicts with partisan pro-life rhetoric? See argument to moderation, or, as Daniel Okrent once said: ""The pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true." MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There could be another factor in the claim that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. The other factor is the life of the fetus, which always dies. Obviously, abortion is unsafe for the fetus!! But by not mentioning that little detail, the anti-abortionists want people to think that for the pregnant woman, abortion is also unsafe, see? Propagandistic misuse of the language, and lying by omission, is what it really is. V (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead need not be sympathetic to anti-abortion POV to be neutral, I've undone your template. Continue discussion here to see the issue through. I may join in, but MastCell appears to be on point. - RoyBoy 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not seek for the lead to be sympathetic to anti-abortion POV; rather, I only seek for it to be neutral (and factually accurate), as it is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides. Bwrs (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, do you have an alternative wording from "safe / unsafe". Such as legal vs illegal? Is this better, more accurate, why? Please provide a path for discussion beyond, this is wrong. However, if the sources / organizations do universally use "safe", so I'm unsure how it can be made more neutral. - RoyBoy 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I was saying, the use of language describing abortions as “safe” or “unsafe” is not the main focus of this dispute; rather, the second paragraph needs to be made more neutral as a whole. Bwrs (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not productive to complain that something is not neutral and factually inaccurate without explaining why you think that. I count 9 facts in the second paragraph:

1. Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually
2. 22 million safely
3. 20 million unsafely
4. maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions
5. unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths per year
6. unsafe abortions result in 5 million disabilities per year
7. One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure
8. Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits
9. The frequency of abortions is, however, similar whether or not access is restricted

Now, which of those nine is factually inaccurate? – given that they are sourced to recent, peer-reviewed, secondary sources of the highest quality per WP:MEDRS. Our text faithfully reflects the issues expressed there. The editors here are not in the business of substituting personal opinion for the content of the best sources, so what foundation does your opinion about the second paragraph of the lead rest on? --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the last of these items that is problematic in terms of neutrality. Bwrs (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain a bit more your concern? Also, if you are concerned with specific content, inline templates are much more helpful, as it focuses the discussion. Finally, the Culwell reference was discussed a bit a few months back Talk:Abortion/Archive_38#Culwell. There was some concern there, but I believe through looking up other citations, the fact was verified, and we were in agreement in keeping it (though I wouldn't say there is strong consensus).-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Culwell is not the sole source; for example, PMID 20085681 (from the WHO) makes a similar point. Additional sources beyond those can be found, but it's not clear to me what we're hoping to achieve. The objection seems to have nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing or content policies, but more with the fact that a single editor views a specific fact as "non-neutral". Adding more references to those we have already doesn't seem likely to change that situation. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the earlier discussion. The facts remain that: the lead paragraphs set the tone for the whole article; the second paragraph is written in the form of an argument in favor of keeping abortion legal, rather than in a neutral manner; and the assertion that “[t]he frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” is non-neutral at best. The {{POV-check}} tag is really the second-best thing; a better thing would simply be to describe the argument rather than to assert it (this is paraphrased directly from Wikipedia's content policy). Bwrs (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an argument; it's a well-sourced fact that the incidence of abortion is similar whether access is legally restricted or not. One could argue that abortion should therefore be legal, but we don't make that argument in the article as far as I can tell. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is structured as an argument for keeping abortion legal, and of the two sources for the concluding statement, one of them is written by researchers affiliated with a pro-choice organization. Bwrs (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the paragraph summarises the sections below, accurately reflecting the reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. The reliability of sources depends on the editorial and review process involved in their publication, and these are impeccable in this case. The credentials and affiliations of authors are only a concern when relating their personal opinion as "experts". This is not the case here. If you want to draw your own conclusions from what reliable sources say, we have an article on Abortion debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, I'll ask again: do you have a specific proposal for text to replace what is currently there? Nandesuka (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell. I thought that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" was the stuff of satire, not an argument I'd ever see someone making on Wikipedia. Roscelese (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are equating the argument in the second paragraph to “reality”; not I. The actual reality is that the concluding statement is, at best, hotly disputed. Bwrs (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

People have provided a number of citations (two OB-GYN journals, Lancet, the WHO) to support it; that means that if you don't think it's true, you cite something to disprove it, not cry "the facts have a liberal bias!"

Also, very sneaky, you are, claiming that it's an "argument" rather than a fact only slightly more complicated than "the sky is blue." Roscelese (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The concluding statement is not “complicated,” but just because something is not complicated does not make it true. If it really were proven true by sound scientific methodology, after all, the debate over keeping abortion legal would be over by now. Also, you are right that the concluding statement (taken in isolation) is not an “argument”; rather, it is the whole of the second paragraph that is written non-neutrally. Bwrs (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs: this is all a bit too diaphanous for me to grab on to. Perhaps instead of arguing whether in the abstract if the existing language is "not neutral enough", you can make a specific, concrete proposal for a rewrite? What text, specifically, would you replace the existing paragraph with? That might be easier for editors to evaluate. Nandesuka (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph could be kept short: “Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these performed under conditions safe for the mother, and 20 million unsafely. While maternal mortality seldom results from abortions performed by medically-trained providers under hygienic conditions, abortions performed by unskilled providers or under unsafe conditions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year.” Then, the “abortion debate” section could contain a paragraph saying something to the effect, “One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure. Forty percent of the world's women are able to access medical or surgical abortions within gestational limits. According to abortion-rights proponents, however, the frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted.” (And if opponents of abortion have some counter-argument, briefly mention it.) Bwrs (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, while I deeply appreciate your interest in keeping the language fair and balanced, I don't see this as an improvement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To put it simply, in the lead you want to replace the phrase "safe abortion" and attribute the statement about similar frequency of abortions. There is considerable prior discussion on these sort of suggestions and it would help if you looked them up. The phrase "safe abortion" is used regularly in the sources and contrasted to "unsafe abortion". It is unnecessary in the lead to define these terms, since their meaning is clarified within the main text, and reflect the definitions found in many sources. The lead is required to summarise the main points of the text, and it is not appropriate to over-elaborate detail contained there. The hard evidence of the sources also supports the contention that the frequency of abortion is insensitive to access, and for that reason it is stated, not attributed, in the lead. Perhaps it would be more productive to examine and improve the section Incidence, if you feel that the counter-arguments from opponents of abortion have sufficient mainstream reliable sources to support their inclusion. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly concerned with your classification According to abortion-rights proponents. Where are you getting this? What evidence do you have that peer reviewed journal articles and statements from the World Health Organization should be reduced to According to abortion-rights proponents? I understand that you are uncomfortable with these finding, and that perhaps you personally disagree with them. However, to my knowledge, we have no evidence that they originate from "abortion-rights proponents" and such a classification clearly is used to belittle the sources (which are entirely reliable, and of quite high caliber, in terms of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines). Maybe I am not examining the sources critically enough, so I'd like to see your evidence that the sources require such a qualification as "According to abortion-rights proponents". And if these findings are controversial or not factual, I'd like to see conflicting sources which hold opposite conclusions. Without such sources in place, we have no policy based reason to question them. We can't insert our personal views or distaste for sources into an article. We only follow sources, whether we like their conclusions or not. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy itself requires that Wikipedia attribute biased statements rather than assert them in our own voice. There may be expert opinion that the frequency of abortion is insensitive to access, but certainly no hard evidence. (We could, however, tweak the wording used to attribute the statement.) If it was indeed scientifically proven, the abortion debate would be over or, at least, would take a far different form than it does now. At the very least this finding is extremely controversial. Bwrs (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is a biased statement? Please cite your sources. Your personal opinion doesn't matter. Furthermore, what is your evidence that all of the sources discussed on this talk page (and the two we use in the article) only represent "abortion-rights proponents"? Maybe your proposed wording above was a bit careless, could you suggest another wording that meets your idea of NPOV "attribution", that also doesn't go above and beyond what is found in cited sources? Finally, I don't follow your reasoning in your last sentence. Regardless whether or not statistically the legality of abortion historically has effected the rates, on a global scale, there still may be valid moral, religious, and ethical reasons to oppose abortion. I don't think any pro-life individual would "give up" and decide God stopped sanctifying life, just because laws haven't been able to stop it in the past. The abortion debate is not over because of this statistical analysis.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwrs, you're not qualified to judge the bias of a source simply on the basis of your personal opinion. That job is reserved for reliable secondary sources reviewing the source in question. To use your own logic, if any such secondary source existed, it would have brought here by now and the text amended. You really need to start bringing some quality sources to the table if you want to see any change in consensus for the current wording. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed another unsupported tag. The point of these POV templates is to get editors discussing POV at the talkpage. That's already happening, no tag required. Now could somebody please cite the WP:MEDRS source that they think would justify changing the lede and tell us what change it would be used to support? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the purpose of the tag is to bring in discussion from users with all different points of view, and most of the participants in the current discussion have similar points of view, the tag should stay to allow for a broader discussion. Reliable sources for both sides of this debate exist but I shall leave it up to somebody with proper training in statistical methods to select the best ones. (I presume that such people exist on all sides of this debate or, ideally, somebody who has no point of view on it at all.) Furthermore, the meaning of the {{POV-check}} tag is far milder than that of the {{NPOV}} tag, even if they are similar in appearance. Bwrs (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{POV-check}} tag is for use when no discussion is taking place (see Template:POV-check/doc and WP:NPOV dispute#Adding a page). The {{POV}} tag is for use when there is a genuine dispute in a article that is reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view; its purpose is to attract a broader range of editors who may be able to help arrive at a consensus where none exists. That template documentation states "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." I see no dispute here that meets those terms; and I'll ask again what "high-quality reliable sources" contradict the sources used for present text? You need to understand that an NPOV dispute can only occur when equally high-quality sources arrive at different conclusions, not when you personally disagree with a reliable source. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy requires that evidence be selected and used in a neutral manner, which the second paragraph does not, and also requires that we assert facts about opinions rather than opinions as facts, which the last sentence of the second paragraph does not. However, rather than have me select those sources which are best in my opinion to illustrate the existence of an opposing point of view (merely acknowledging that it is controversial should not be controversial?) I would prefer flagging the article for the attention of more expert, disinterested editors. Hence the tag. Bwrs (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how a peer reviewed, statistical analysis published in a reputable medical journal somehow turns into an "opinion"? Is the methodology flawed? Did they make errors, or perhaps sampling bias? When it comes to NPOV, it almost always involves balancing multiple views. You have yet to demonstrate any conflicting views on this topic. It sounds like you know of such sources, but are refusing to provide them to us, because you'd prefer the article to be flagged, instead of fixed?? We need to work to fix articles, not to "tag and run". -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV defines “fact” as “a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources.” The assertion that “The frequency of abortions is...similar whether or not access is restricted” may or may not be true, but it does not fit the definition of facts as being statements about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. Furthermore, this dispute is not just about that one statement, but about the second paragraph as a whole, which encapsulates one of the pro-choice movement's main arguments in a nutshell but in Wikipedia's voice rather than in a neutral manner. And it can be resolved simply by breaking up the paragraph, moving the controversial part into the abortion-debate section, and tweaking the wording a little bit. Bwrs (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy requires a "careful selection of reliable sources ... for producing articles with a neutral point of view". Fortunately for medical articles we have specific guidance on how to achieve this in WP:MEDRS and I'd recommend reading it. This articles scrupulously complies with both NPOV and MEDRS. The NPOV policy actually says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources". As there is no dispute among reliable sources, the last sentence is asserted as fact. I should warn you that continually attempting to create a dispute based only on your personal opinion is likely to be viewed as disruptive. I am willing to AGF so far, but you are going to have to bring forward for examination the sources on which you are basing your views – I assume your views are based on sources, aren't they? --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not seriously arguing that there is no serious dispute about the truth of the statement, are you? Again, maybe it really is true, but if you assert that its truth is not seriously disputed, the burden of proof that it is not seriously disputed is on you. Furthermore, the second paragraph as a whole is a classic pro-choice talking point, and I have offered a suggestion on how to re-word it to make it more neutral. Bwrs (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, it is a fact that the incidence of abortion is similar whether or not access is legally restricted. It would be an opinion to conclude that abortion should therefore be legal - and we do not endorse such an opinion anywhere in the article, as far as I can tell. We report the fact. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a clear argument that abortion should be legal, even if you do not directly state it. Bwrs (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So let us be clear:

• You have been told that an NPOV dispute occurs only when reliable sources disagree and you have been pointed to the policy.
• You still maintain that a dispute exists, based so far on only your personal opinion, not on any source.
• You have been asked numerous times to state the reliable sources that contradict the cited sources, but have failed to do so.
• You now suggest that a burden of proof lies upon others to find sources that may not exist. If such sources exist then you may find then and make your case; yet if they do not exist, you require proof of non-existence for others to make their case – a classic argumentative strategy which ensures your demands can never be met. If you claim sources exist, then the burden of proof can only be upon you to produce them.
• You claim that the second paragraph is a "classic pro-choice talking point", but what is your source for that claim? Your own personal opinion again?
• You claim that the second paragraph is a "clear argument that abortion should be legal", but what is your source for that claim? Your own personal opinion again?

You are entitled make your own interpretations of the neutrally presented facts, but to require that Wikipedia must change its policies to accommodate your discomfort will never be acceptable. I trust that concludes our discussion until such time as you see fit to bring forward MEDRS-compliant sources supporting your claims. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Species

The first sentence ends with "other species". That's true, but wouldn't it be more precise to say "other mammals"? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. Certainly some fish species (e.g. the common guppy) are live-bearing and sometimes abort.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept that. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Various snakes bear young alive, also. http://www.xcalak.info/visit/uk/reptiles-uk.shtml V (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

True to text

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this change. The comment reads "true to text", but it's about a movie, so I'm not sure what text is being referred to. I would genuinely appreciate it if someone would explain. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at User:Schrandit's other edits, I'm guessing it's an attempt to insert POV language. Roscelese (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to look at the edits than to try to ascribe motives to other editors. The text "keep her baby" was originally part of the addition of the Art, literature and film section by RoyBoy on 13 August [5]. It was then changed to "carry her pregnancy to term" by Dylan Flaherty on 6 September (edit summary: "neutral") [6], reverted by Schrandit on 7 September ("true to text") [7], and re-reverted by Andrew c on 11 September ("what text is this true to? see talk") [8]. *Shrug* We really need to replace edit-warring with proper discussion. I suppose the answer to Dylan and Andrew's question is "true to the text originally written" – but as that sentence is unsourced, that doesn't really help decide which phrase is best. In my mind, it depends on whether the mother either made a decision to carry on with her pregnancy, or made a decision after her baby was born to keep it. I couldn't resolve that by reference to IMBD, so I'd suggest that finding a reliable source may be the best way to decide the question. If there's no reliable source that supports either view, then I'd reluctantly suggest deleting that sentence as WP:OR. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The character does give birth and raise the child, but I think you must recognize that in the context of the article, "keep the baby" has a different connotation - perhaps "carry to term and raise the child" would be appropriate? Roscelese (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking when I changed it. I realize that any change here is bound to be controversial, so I'm not surprised or bothered by the fact that it was reverted. What confuses me is the stated reason, which just doesn't make any sense to me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My logic is intent but in the end I have no preference, tweaked it to better reflect plot. - RoyBoy 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, it's a pity that the section omits mention of "Up the Junction", possibly the most influential book and film, which dramatises the issues surrounding illegal abortion in the UK in the early 1960s. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see any reason to object to it being included. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs there. Roscelese (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Add it soon? - RoyBoy 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm researching good sources to try to give some context. Actually, I was wrong in my linking above; the book was first dramatised on TV as part of the BBC's Wednesday Play series in 1965, and that was what I was remembering. Here's part of a paragraph from BFI Screenonline:

• "This spirit of social intervention peaked with Nell Dunn's 'Up the Junction' (tx. 3/11/1965), which included a vividly realised scene of a back-street abortion that caused howls of protest. The drama was timed to coincide with a parliamentary debate on the Abortion Law Reform Bill, and as such attempted to intervene in the political process ... This opened the series up to accusations that it was deliberately contravening the BBC's pledge of impartiality."

Perhaps I'm trying to over-elaborate, and I'd be content with anyone adding something while I think about it. The movie was rather flawed, compared with the book, but sources are easier to find online for film reviews, e.g. NYT. Should be enough there to get some flavour of the subject and of the impact it caused on the UK abortion debate. Both of those sources should stand up as RS. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, that whole section needs rethink. Most of it would be better placed in Abortion debate than in the medical article.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's much more relevant to the main article than to the debate article. However, has there been consensus against establishing a separate article on abortion in art/literature/drama/film/whatever? Roscelese (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find anything in a quick search of the archives, and in any case wp:consensus can change. A content fork (without inserting any particular POV of course) would seem to make sense. WP:WikiProject Books might be helpful too.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think the structure should be? By medium, or by subject? (Ie. "film," "literature," vs. "stories about abortion providers," "stories about women who have/consider abortions" - the latter, I think, could perhaps also include a list, without elaboration, of stories in which abortion features but is not a major part of the story (The Godfather II, for example). That could be too subjective, though. Roscelese (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.112.50.92, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the "Induced" section, I believe that the following sentence;

"A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in many ways. The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as it ages",

should be changed so that 'as it ages' reads 'as he or she ages,' or something along similar lines.

The reasoning being that an embryo or fetus has a gender. A babies gender is determined at conception by the sperm. 71.112.50.92 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will change this to "which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses." to skirt the issue. Nandesuka (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call here, "pregnancy progresses" is probably more accurate anyway - the former wording makes it [the fetus] sound like a wine or something... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate and misleading translation

I'm sure this must be a regular problem on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is dealt with or where I can find a discussion about it. As I specifically noticed the problem with this article I thought I would try discussing it here. A friend of mine recently needed information about abortion, however she is Georgian (the country near Russia). I read through the English version of this article and then handed the laptop to her - she switched to the Georgian language and I saw the look of horror on her face as she read. Because the Georgian version of the article (which is much smaller than the English version and has no references at all) includes this (translated by google): 'Artificial abortion negatively affects women's health, the psyche, the nervous system, often cause irritation, inflammation genital organs, hormonuli function and menstrual cycle disorders, infertility and early siberesa (Childlessness women of all reason 30%). Particularly harmful during pregnancy, the first abortion.' This is obviously quite shocking to read, quite different from the English version and totally unreferenced in all its claims. I see there is obviously a difficutly in making sure the various translations of the page are to the same standard, but in this case it seems it would be better if the Georgian language page didn't exist at all! (You can access the Georgian language page here to see the small size and lack of references: http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%90%E1%83%91%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98 Sorry if this is the wrong place to try and discuss this issue, but I really couldn't see anywhere else to begin. ABMalone (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes sometimes Wikipedia is worse than nothing. Sorry to hear about this. It is sometimes hard to keep controversial topics accurate. I am unable to speak that language and thus unable to help. Please remove the wrong stuff on that page by using the edit button and providing the reason in the edit box that appears. Wikipedia is created and maintained by volunteers like you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Juno grammatical problems

There's this line about the movie "Juno": "While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple."

It's an incomplete sentence and has a pronoun without an antecedent ("it"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.34.181 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this is awkward, so I tried to fix it. I don't think anyone will object to the change I made, although maybe someone can improve on it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The map

Hi. Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sdukeminloodwig3, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The following sentence located in the Abortion article is not an unbiased scientific statement, but rather extremely biased towards the pro-choice stance: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely." This statement only makes sense to those who do not think killing a fetus involves danger; as the entire point is to intentionally put the fetus in a situation so dangerous, that it is ultimately killed. This is analagous to stating that Nazi concentration camps were "safe" because the Nazis most often did not accrue damages to themselves. Of course the flipside is that the statement "All abortions are unsafe" is also biased, because it assumes the opposite. the only way to fix this issue within the Abortion article is to remove the statement entirely, or edit it to be nonbiased. It could easily be changed to to the following statement that most everyone could agree on: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring without negative bodily health effects to the mother, and 20 million that do accrue negative, and potentially fatal bodily health effects to the mother"

I expect this to be kicked back by a pro-choice person claiming that it is already a clear fact, and that there is no bias, but hey I figured I might as well try, considering how obvious this one is.

Thank you for your time. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a few hours to spare, you might want to read the discussion archives (see the top of this page). You'll find that we've been over this question before, including this recent discussion. We follow the terminology of reliable sources, where possible choosing ones with a wp:WORLDWIDE perspective. In this matter, we used the terminology adopted by the World Health Organization, about the best such source that I can think of. You might also have a look at this edit which User:Andrew c made on 3 June 2010 to see some efforts to downplay the term you object to. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also enjoy reading Godwin's Law and/or Reductio ad Hitlerum.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the pro-choice stance is institutionalized, and has become entrenched within the viewpoints of official organizations? If you go to the WHO website, you will find that they support the need to offer "safe abortions" to women that want them. This would only be possible if the WHO supports the idea of legal abortions. This is not unbiased. Therefore, by citing WHO as a source, you are not making your point stronger in terms of demonstrating neutrality, but rather quite the opposite. If an organization was completely unbiased regarding the abortion debate, it may do things such as observe and present data regarding abortion, but it would certainly not openly suggest that abortion should be "safe" and readily available to women who want it. How is that neutral? That aforementioned viewpoint assumes that the common anti-abortionist viewpoint, "abortion is murder" is wrong. Neutral entities cannot take sides within the abortion debate, without themselves losing their neutrality. But I guess I may be missing the point. If I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter how biased something is, as long as comes from an official organization, right? Let's forget about WHO and all the other "neutral" organizations out there regarding this abortion issue for just a moment, and focus on the actual sentence that started this discussion. Let's analyze it for a moment without assuming WHO, or organizations like it, are infallible. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The WHO definitely promotes the idea that medical interventions, including abortion, should be done in the way that is least harmful to the patient. Its that nasty old Hippocratic oath. You seem to think that this necessarily means they are biased or taking sides, but in much of the world there are far more nuanced understandings of the debate. Where a third-world mother in a war zone has high-risk multiple pregnancies, should she risk her own life and perhaps those of all her dependents in a attempt to survive carrying them all, or is surgical reduction a "safer" choice? In societies that blame and punish rape victims, is it "safe" for those victims to give birth to their attackers' children? If those women would instead choose amateur or quack abortionists over trained professionals, would the aborted foetuses be any more "safe"? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is also possible that there is no such thing a "pro-choice stance", other than in the minds of those who label themselves "pro-life" (and vice versa). The fact is that such mindsets are far from a universal phenomenon. In many countries no such debate exists, or has long since been sidelined as unproductive. It is very difficult for me to take such perspectives seriously, but perhaps that is because I live in a country where views on abortion are not constantly couched in those sort of terms. It may well be that the WHO has a bias, but why not rationalise it as a scientific bias (as opposed to an unscientific bias), as seems likely from my point of view? Why should any individual editor's view determine what sources are suitable? Once we start allowing our own world-view to become the filter for sources, we lose the pillar of neutral POV that Wikipedia depends on. So how do we proceed – by the consensus that we use the use the best quality sources available, as described in WP:MEDRS. We don't start judging the sources because what they say makes us uncomfortable in our world-view. We put that aside, and rely on the processes of publishing in quality literature, of peer-review, of editorial oversight, of authorial reputation. The WHO may be seen as biased from a particular point-of-view, but that bias is the same bias that will be seen to exist in mainstream literature, and it's not our job to judge that, but merely to accurately and neutrally report what we find in the best sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in conclusion, it makes no difference if WHO is biased or not, because they are an official organization, so we must take their word as an authoritative source. I realize that it doesn't matter how biased the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. But seriously, do you agree that an abortion can only be "safe" if one does not consider the dangers involving the fetus to be worthy of of our concern? I am not saying the proposed stance is right or wrong, but it is certainly extremely biased, because it chooses sides regarding a key and central element of the abortion debate. It doesn't matter if the WHO says it or not, the sentence is biased and everyone can see it. It is convenient for people who do not see the dangers of the fetus to be worthy of our concern, (at least to the point of including it in statistics), that organizations such as the WHO appear to agree with them. This allows one to completely dodge any direct analysis of the sentence itself, and just say "The WHO said it, if you disagree you are wrong, end of story." I challenge anyone to actually analyze the sentence itself to look for any biases (such as the obvious ones I have pointed out), without reverting back to the "WHO said it, I agree with it, any bias is irrelevant, case closed" mentality. Sdukeminloodwig3 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, since bias is a perception of the viewer, the correct phrasing is "It doesn't matter if I perceive the WHO as biased or not, because it is an authoritative source". You are correct in stating that it doesn't matter how biased you think the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. I do agree that abortion, by its very nature, results in the death of a fetus or embryo, so it is illogical to consider the safety of the procedure in terms of that outcome. I accept that you think the sentence is biased, and that everyone who shares your mindset can see that. I would also accept that those who share your mindset, but are of the opposite view (what you would call 'pro-choice') may not see the sentence as biased. You obviously haven't accepted that others, like myself, don't see the issues as 'pro-life/pro-choice', and that they might see the sentence as unbiased, simply because it conforms with what reliable sources say. I completely disagree with your assertion that a reader viewing the sentence has to evaluate it as 'choosing sides', or that it is a key and central element of the abortion debate. The central issue for me is whether a woman has an abortion in a setting that renders it "amongst the safest of medical procedures", or in one that demonstrably leads to serious and sometimes fatal sequelae. That is the issue addressed by the sentence. I'm not sure what value you believe there to be in including statistics for the mortality rate for fetuses in abortion. Surely it is implicitly assumed to be 100% by definition? I'd suggest that as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is required to "dodge" analysis of reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, everybody's amateur detective work is elevated to the same status as academic peer-review and the oversight given to documents published in the scholarly mainstream; and that's no way to write an encyclopedia. That is the "end of story", and I'm sorry if you see it as closed-minded to respect the consensus on how we work here. --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that statement could be could be considered somewhat biased by anti-abortion advocates. According to the article, "One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure." I did find a source claiming that legality is less of an issue than sanitation, since most illegal abortions are performed in undeveloped countries. Here it is, for whatever it's worth. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/world_abortion_estimates.htm Amyrillis 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyrillis (talk • contribs)

"Source" =/= "study." Even if the "source" weren't an anti-abortion organization, it doesn't even make an attempt to cite research. Roscelese (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a jot what label you care to put on the publisher, that opinion piece falls far short of meeting WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. Contrast that with Shah & Ahman 2009 (the source cited in the article), which is peer-reviewed, published in a reputable scholarly journal and clearly explains its methodology and results. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New page: History of Abortion Law Debate

I have created a new page for the Wikipedia abortion project. I had found myself incorporating the same material to various pages in the project and, under the advice of RexxS, I decided to create a whole new page. This allows for some welcome pruning in the larger abortion pages. In the history section of the main abortion page, I plan to excise everything up to the 19th century, as this is where the history of the modern abortion laws begins in the West. I will just summarize the pre-history as briefly as possible, and add a see also tag pointing to History of Abortion Law Debate.

The current page is lacking in information about the evolution of abortion law from its earliest formulation in the non-Occidental historical texts. Many of these texts are widely available from reliable sources on the internet; so, I was able to present that material fairly and in an encyclopedic fashion. But researching the evolution of abortion laws in non-Occidental historical jurisprudence is beyond my capabilities. I wouldn't know where to start.Ermadog (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo choice

I've been thinking about this photograph. It's a very clear, professional medical photo and it's certainly relevant, but it's bothered me from the first time I saw it, yet I never could put my finger on why. It's still bothering me, so I'm going to try to.

1. It's not from anything like a typical abortion, since this one was was done as a side effect of a hysterectomy. This leaves the woman entirely unable to become pregnant again, unlike a typical abortion.
2. Also, in a typical abortion, the embryo is torn to pieces by suction or is scraped off from the uterine walls, reduced to pieces. Here, it's entirely intact. This makes the photo highly unrepresentative. It does not show the real output of an abortion, which is a collection of parts that the abortionist has to check carefully to ensure that nothing was left behind.
3. The motivation for this abortion is purely medical, not elective. The poor woman had cancer and could not be treated without ending her pregnancy. It's a tragedy, but very different from the much more common motivation of simply not wanting to have a baby. Again, not representative.
4. While it varies by country, 10 weeks is to the right of the central bump of any histogram. To be representative, we should show a younger embryo. The timing for the surgical diagram at 6 weeks is about right. While I'm on that image, I have say that it was hard to follow, even though it was nicely done. Maybe a less schematic view, like a real photo of the procedure, would be better.

As usual, I'm not going to be bold by editing this article. I'd just like your feedback: Am I nuts to be bothered by this image? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. When I had a suction aspirator abortion, the end product looked like a strawberry milkshake.Ermadog (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. If there's some agreement that this photograph is inappropriate, what would be the right next step? We could remove it or replace it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some representative images at Embryo#The human embryo. It might be appropriate to for someone to start a new page, or section on an already existing page, on the controversy surrounding if and how the anti-abortion forces misuse images for allegedly propagandistic purposes. As I am currently busy with another abortion related article. If someone else wants to start that, I will help out by pointing to sources for the "yes, they do misuse it" side. Once that page is created, we could remove all similar images to that section, letting readers make up their own minds about how relevant the image is. btw I once picked up the product of a stillbirth in the course of my job cleaning out a delivery room. It was all rubbery and floppy and not at all baby-like.Ermadog (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a discussion in the archive Abortion/Archive23#A picture of abortion. It doesn't seem to have resolved the "it's not representative" issue.Ermadog (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not willing to remove it unless there's some consensus behind the change. So far, there hasn't been any disagreement, but also no agreement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, I have seen enough "retouched" abortion images from the "pro-life" side to be generally suspicious of any photo whose source cannot be traced, especially anything as pristine as this. I may have missed it, but I don't see any indication of this doctor's affiliations. We know how some of the most famous fetus pictures, the ones by Lennart Nilsson, in the world were staged. Here is an online exhibit of the development of the technology of fetal imagery Making Visible Embryos; and here is a compilation of relevant text excerpts from the exhibit An Abridged History Of The Imagery Of The Human Embryo. That file contains an excerpt from a "pro-life" Manual advising campaigners to show only the pictures that look like babies - because otherwise they might change their minds. The "pro-life" crowd know full well what they're doing when they promote propagandistic imagery in place of honest discussion. For a discussion of how "The Silent Scream" was cobbled together, have a look at Facts Speak Louder Than the Silent Scream. A scholarly discussion of the evolution of "pro-life" propaganda can be found here: [www.uffl.org/vol%204/cassidy4.pdf The Movement and its Message - Pro-life Educational Campaigns and Their Critics]. I don't have any particular problem with this image. It is within the age range for typical abortions; and, quite frankly, it doesn't look all that human to me. It looks like a Grey Alien, only pink. I've seen lots of blood and guts in my days as a delivery room cleaning lady. I've also slaughtered lots of chickens, slugs, crabs, etc. I can see how it would upset some, especially city folks with little acquaintance with such things, and also young and impressionable people. So, I'm undecided and was hoping for some more feedback. Ermadog (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo is amazing, and a good addition to this page. It is not gory or shocking. It has always been strange to see that abortion was the only medical procedure or occurence in wikipedia that did not include a photo of the procedure or occurence. Glad that it now does! Erma, are you advocating that a "strawberry milkshake" (to borrow your term) abortion image also be added to ensure balance? I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Protetion

Abortion is a huge contriversy. there are many people who would change it to suit the own opions. I think it should be semi-protected. Another solution iis to have certian people check this every day to check for vandlism. Wikiagoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Article is already semi-protected. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...

I was editing an abortion-related article that kept referring to women who kill their unborn babies as "mothers". That's not how I see motherhood! To be quite frank, I find the use of the term in that context to be both distasteful and likely inaccurate, but I'm hesitant to impose my personal feelings upon an article.

I looked at Abortion for guidance but was unable to find "mother" being used this way, so what I'm wondering is whether this is indicative of some sort of consensus. Under what circumstances should we use "mother" for women who have never given birth to a child? Dylan Flaherty (talk)

From your post, I'm assuming you prefer the term "women who kill their unborn babies"? MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the term I used and I stand by it. However, I did not suggest that Wikipedia should always do as I do. In fact, I've made no suggestions about what term to use; I've only asked about the consensus.

I've noticed that, in Abortion, they are consistently referred to as just "women", so I'm asking if that's the consensus or just a coincidence. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked in the talk archives and I've found previous times that debates over the use of "mother" has occurred:

• Jan. 4, 2006: Talk:Abortion/Archive_15#Medical_definition
• June 23 - July 13, 2007: Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph
• Sept. 16 - 18, 2007: Talk:Abortion/Archive_29#New_paragraph_and_technical_language
• Sept. 20 - 21, 2007: Talk:Abortion/Archive_29#POV
• Nov. 1 - 9, 2008: Talk:Abortion/Archive_31#mother
• Nov. 1 - 23, 2008: Talk:Abortion/Archive_31#Problems_with_terms
• Apr. 25 - 26, 2009: Talk:Abortion/Archive_33#First_paragraph:_unborn_offspring.2C_embryo.2Ffetus
• Apr. 29 - Nov. 21, 2009: Talk:Religion_and_abortion#.27Mother.27_vs_.27pregnant_woman.27
• Nov. 22 - 25, 2009: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion/Archive_3#.22Mother.22_vs._.22Pregnant_woman.22
• Nov. 9 - 10, 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_34#Indirect_abortion

I suggest that consensus is that "pregnant woman" is the preferred term. But, as the debate has pointed out, this is not a unanimous conclusion.

Exceptions might possibly be made for:

• Direct quotes from reliable sources.
• Legal terms such as "life of the mother exceptions".

Also, I notice that people who make a crusade of supporting either "pregnant women" or "mothers" tend to be banned from editing Wikipedia.

Witness the cases of Spotfixer and his ban and/or CarolineWH and her ban.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the section on my user page, User:Kevinkor2#Abortion_and_Loaded_language.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was naive. I had imagined that, given how basic this issue is, the editors would have long ago come to some consensus. But when I skimmed through 4 years of links, all I found were the same arguments being thrown back and forth; and when I say "thrown", I mean the way it's done in dodge-ball, except perhaps with murderous intent.

I realize that abortion is a controversial matter, one that brings out strong emotions from all sides, but I have rarely seen such obnoxious behavior coming from presumably sane adults. I'm very glad that some of the crazed crusaders have gotten banned, and I have no intention of joining them.

My first instinct is to just give up. That's also my second instinct. My third is to see if there's a solution. Is there some official process by which we can get a binding ruling on this topic? Or do we need to go from article to article, trying to build a local consensus? Or, really, should I just give up? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Map of Abortion Laws by Country

Under the article titled "Abortion", there is a map of abortion laws by country. It says that in Canada, abortion is "illegal with no exceptions". Here is the link:

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

This could not be further than the truth because Abortion is legal in Canada in every form without exception. I demand to have this changed. There is also another problem, under the article titled "Abortion Laws". It says that in Canada abortion is "legal on request". It should be changed to say abortion in Canada is legal in every form without exception. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.77.187 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, 24.87.77.187.

The map colors were changed in the image without the legend being changed.

I made corresponding changes to

• this article
• Pro-choice

and K. the Surveyor already made changes to Abortion law

Hmmm... If this happens again, I suggest we make the image and its legend into a template so the change only has to be made in one place.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

oops. I missed the second part of your request, 24.87.77.187.

What is the difference between "legal upon request" and "legal in every form without exception"?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Aborted Fetus Photo Caption

The source of the photo indicates that the fetus was aborted when it was 8 weeks old and 10 weeks after the last menstrual period. Thus the photo is representative of a fetus at at a stage of development that is typical for induced abortions in the West. It also indicates that fetus in the photo was actually alive at the time the photo was taken. The caption might want to note these facts for the reader's clarity.

Caption at source: "A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. The fetus is still alive. The author of this image states that it shows a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (i.e. from LMP), instead of 10 weeks from fertilisation."

Caption currently in article: "A 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus."

Caption suggested for article: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus, still alive when the image was taken."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the purpose of the image is to simply show what a foetus at that stage of development looks like. Whether that particular one was alive or not at that particular time is irrelevant to that purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - we agree that the fetal age ought to be accurate: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A request to include; Anti-Abortion

Hello.

On the main page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion Paragraph #1 ends with the following;

"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations, often involving the opposing pro-life and pro-choice worldwide social movements (both self-named). Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as access to family planning education and contraceptive services has increased.[5]"

My Proposed Change is this;

"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions of the world there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; often involving the opposing pro-life, pro-choice and other anti-abortion [129] social movements (all self-named).

Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"

As you can see, I would like to request the addition of a third social movement that is not a sub to either of the above (pro-life nor pro-choice.)

The term "anti-abortion" is already being used in numerous articles on Wikipedia, including the primary article on Abortion. However, there has been no attempts made to distinguish between those of us who are indeed "anti-abortion" and those of us who are "pro-life."

The reason for my request is quite simple.

There are a significant number of people who oppose abortions for reasons other than the "sanctity of life" or for the religious reasons most commonly found in the "pro-life" movements.

In fact, when the words "anti-abortion" are searched for on Wikipedia, it returns NOT to an article on the "Anti-abortion" movement, but on the "pro-life" movement instead.

Recognizing the fact that there are points at which a secular and a religious line of reasoning can intersect (namely the premise that life begins at conception),... We who call ourselves "Anti-Abortion" as opposed to "pro-life" use a scientific basis (only); not a spiritual / religious one for the claim.

Indeed, many in the "Anti-abortion" (more specifically; anti-elective-abortion) movement are Atheists and/or Agnostics (see www.Godlessprolifers.org)

Unlike "pro-lifers," we "Anti-aborts" argue almost exclusively from a Constitutional and scientific perspective.

As such, (we) Anti-Aborts are also more apt to support the "Death Penalty" and the "Rape Exception" for example.

This is my first attempt to affect a change to an article on Wiki, I apologize in advance if I have failed to follow the appropriate protocol for doing so. Chuz Life (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have references that describe the distinction between prolife and anti abortion. Currently the term just redirects to pro life.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your Question, Doc., I tried to make the distinction clear, myself (in my original post) and you are correct, Wiki currently re-directs back to "pro-life." I and a large number of others (www.GodlessProlifers.com) would like to draw a line between those of us who use a religious basis for our views and those of us who do not. In my own website (www.ChuzLife.net) I also try to make this clarification.

I'm certain that I can compile a list of others, as well. Chuz Life (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a guidelines that discusses sources here WP:MEDRS. Do we have any textbooks or journal articles that make this distinction? I am not sure the above site are sufficiently notable / authoritative for use. Also is this just an American distinction? The rest of the world is not as vocal either way.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc

Your link refers to a need for sourcing "medical" references and claims. The distinction I am hoping to make is one of social/ political in nature.

Here are some references for your consideration;

Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument

Links I am also sifting through. (while at work) --Chuz Life (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of of neutral POV policy involves "undue weight". This means, we shouldn't give more space than deserved for less prominent views. We shouldn't confuse NPOV with "present all views as equal". Also, we have a conflict of editing guideline, WP:COI, which suggests that editors with strong ties to organizations beliefs should be cautious if not outright avoid editing on topics which they have advocacy, financial, or other ties to. From a reading of your posts, it seems like you want us to change the article to accommodate how you personally perceive the abortion debate, without demonstrating that this is how independent sources present the abortion debate. While the mainstream view may very well be a "false dichotomy", and this has been brought up multiple times before how reality falls more into a spectrum of views than a polarizing pro-/anti dichotomy, I see no evidence that your proposed 3 category distinction is notable, or even used by anyone independent from your organization.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, DocJames, Andrew C; "Is it your contention that all who oppose elective abortions are doing so from a religious basis?"

If not, you must recognize my point of contention; and the benefits to Wikipedia; in acknowledging fact where facts are found.--Chuz Life (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is the "scientific basis" you use? (in one or two sentences.) HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't matter. On Wikipedia, we only follow sources (if they meet our editorial guidelines). I think the issue you bring up is a red herring. To my knowledge, there is nothing inherently religious in the phrase "pro-life". So saying someone is "pro-life" does not imply that they are only making religious arguments, or are not capable of making secular arguments. This seems like the point you are trying to make. That "pro-life Christian" and "pro-life" are one in the same? But this confuses me more, because the organization you cite, godlessprolifers.org, uses the "pro-life" phrase in their URL. Maybe this is answered more below. Seems the discussion has blown up, and I'll see if I can find the time to read it and reply, but since you mentioned me by name, I felt I should answer you directly. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood that this forum was not for the debating of issues; However, some of the information that answers your question has already been provided here;

Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument

--Chuz Life (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To respond to my own cite (as I only discovered the article regarding Don Marquis today in trying to address Doc Jame's request) I have to add that I am not completely satisfied with (nor do I agree with) all of the points raised in the article I linked to.

That said, the reason for this thread is NOT to establish anything more than the fact that there is a significant number of people (some who probably haven't even realised it yet),... who (would) oppose the legality of elective abortions,.... while NOT coming from a religious basis or point of view.--Chuz Life (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of debating issues, it's whether you have a point or not. I deliberately asked you to present the justification here. To ask others to trawl through your sources is not likely to ever win support here. YOU must present the case. I did have a look though. And what I saw was simply another moral argument. That is not a scientific position, from my perspective. Moral positions are already mentioned in the article before and independent of religious ones. HiLo48 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If I am permitted and others agree to it, I will gladly provide a scientific (and Constitutional) basis for a "non religious" stance against the legality of elective abortion....

Is that welcome here?

And more specific to the purpose of this thread, "it's not about me" as an individual. Nor is it about that one cite that you have assessed.

The purpose of this thread is to gain recognition of the fact that there are those who (like myself) oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than a religious, values, and or morality POV. --Chuz Life (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I digress.

What are the requirments that would have to be met, for the editors here at Wikipedia to allow for the recognition of the "Anti-Abortion" movement,... as defined by "a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than those based on religion?" --Chuz Life (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Two points....

1. YOU need to demonstrate that there is something new in the position you are presenting. Something scientific (as you claim), that isn't just another moral position. Moral positions are already mentioned, independent of religious positions.

2. Mention of a Constitutional basis hints at an American perspective. This is a global article. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, I disagree on your assessment of my needs (above in bold).

It appears that Verification is key to getting changes and additions made.

I am not trying to make the case for or to justify a "new movement."

I am merely trying to gain recognition of a movement that already exists.

So again, I'll ask.

"What do I need to provide in order to gain that (said) regognition?"

Surely it's not a summary of my own justifications for my personal points of view.--Chuz Life (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may add; It appears the said verification has already been provided and is presently being cited under the "Pro-Life" articles here on Wikipedia.

Quote; "Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.'5' Many holding the pro-life position also tend toward a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a significant feminist element inside the movement.[6]"

Please take note that the in-line Verification cited is the very same one that I provided earlier in my OP.

Adding "Anti-Abortion" to your list of "social movements" contained in paragraph one is in keeping with,... not a challenge to the existing article.

Please consider this information as you further review my change request. --Chuz Life (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You might start by reading the wp:5P to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. We'll be here when you've done that. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the five pillars... and it's not clear why you felt it necessary for me to do so.

I have already met the Verification requirement for the changes to be made. I've gone even beyond that to show how the "secular humanism" movement against elective abortion is currently recognized in another (directly) related article....

So, my change will not be a matter of breaking any new ground. It's only a matter of recognition in paragraph one of THIS article,... what Wikipedia presently eludes to in another.

And the intent is only to show that there are more than two "movements" involved in the worldwide struggle over the legality of abortion. There are those who are "Pro-Life, Pro-Choice,... and then there are those who are (for the reasons already provided) Anti-Abortion" as well.--Chuz Life (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the first of the five pillars eluded you. There are many things that WP is not, particularly an advocacy promotion platform. We instead reflect what is said in reliable sources about a subject in approximate proportion to what those reliable sources say. That explicitly excludes blogs, wikis, online forums, etc. You would need to show that in such reliable sources there is significant neutral or balanced discussion of "anti-aborts" in proportion to the discussion of the other positions. A quick check of "Anti aborts" -blog -wiki -forum -forums -encyclopedia suggests that it is not, and particularly not outside the US. In any case, if you show that it can be justified, the sort of insertion you advocate would be more pertinent at Abortion debate than at Abortion. I would urge you to consider that if the goal is to list all of the positions people hold on the topic, you'll also need to create and justify similar pro/anti position descriptions for abortion (and abortion access), contraception, celibacy, sterilization, infanticide, starvation, suicide and all the other ways people find to avoid procreating. However, all of that is off topic for this article, which is only peripherally about how the decision to abort is made and principally about abortion itself. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The standards you are attempting to raise are above and beyond the standards posted by Wikipedia.

More significant than that is the fact that my request is directly in-line with another article already on Wiki.

Going further, on this Article, we have this; "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[18]" which only further supports my position.

But, again I'll digress.

Someday the movement will grow large enough to breech even your ability to ignore / dismiss it any longer. Either that or someone with more resolve than myself will pick up the topic and take it further.

This exchange has completely undermined by respect for "all things - Wiki"

All I was seeking is recognition that your site already eluded to in another article.

I may return to it later, but I doubt that I will.

(Archived in case of delete) --Chuz Life (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some who appose abortions are non religious. That is a great question though what percentage is religious and what percentage is no religious within the two movements. Some who support abortion are religious and we do not need a separate term for them. A discussion like this may belong on the prolife page but not this one IMO. Yes I do agree that this is a social science / religious discussion not a medical one. Thus WP:RS maybe more appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Antiabortion would be a subgroup of prolife it seems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the antagonizing tone?

Don't answer.... I already explained to you why it's not the case.

I have nothing more to add.

I have presented my case as best I could and with as much respect for the forum rules and requirements as I can.

It's up to Wiki, as for whether or not they (you?) want to supress or acknowledge the existence of a third movement in this article.--Chuz Life (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, I'll point out that the quotation above re the Reuters and AP stylebooks comes from the last line of WP's article Pro-choice. It is there cited to the AP stylebook (though I find I must question whether the AP stylebook really comments on the content of the Reuters stylebook). LeadSongDog come howl! 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuz Life, you'd do well not to whine about editors suppressing the existence of a movement that you cannot prove exists. Even putting aside the question of WP:UNDUE, since "anti-abortion" already exists as a neutral term for the euphemistic "pro-life" the burden is on you to prove that it has a discrete meaning. Roscelese (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The "us verses them" atmosphere in here is uncanny.

Your claim that I am whining is unfounded and (more to the point of this forum) un-productive.

If you or any of the editors simply wanted to see more proof and or (discrete) evidence of a separate movement,... you simply could have asked for it in the polite manner that the forum rules expect of all of us.

As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, I've yet to receive an explanation as to why the external website "http://www.godlessprolifers" carries sufficient weight in (THIS) one article (to support the idea of an Anti-Abortion Non religious movement),... but not in this one.

But then, silly me,... I actually took the promotion that "any and all are welcome to contribute" at Wiki's word.

It won't happen again.--Chuz Life (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

L.L., we can't use the term "anti-abortion" for a number of good reasons. (1) One is that it is not the preferred term of the movement, which calls itself "pro-life". Another is simple logic: there are those who claim to be pro-choice but anti-abortion. (2) There's no actual conflict. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1: I am not seeking to redirect or rename the existing "pro-life" movement. Have you not read the entire exchange and my proposed wording? I am seeking recognition of a third movement, not the redefining of either of the two already listed.

2: There is no conflict? Would you like for me to list some quotes from all over the world and a wide range of political affiliations where people are exclaiming "I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion?" Here are some others. (Click Here) --Chuz Life (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, I've yet to receive an explanation as to why the external website "http://www.godlessprolifers" carries sufficient weight in (THIS) one article (to support the idea of an Anti-Abortion Non religious movement),... but not in this one."

Because in that article it is used to support the statement "Some anti-abortion people are non-religious," while here you are attempting to use it to support the statement "There is a third movement that is both completely separate from the 'pro-life' movement and equally important." Two very different assertions. Roscelese (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The adjective "Very" is (in this case) subjective.

Had you clicked on the links I provided to searches where people are touting themselves as "Anti-Abortion" and are being adament about NOT being "pro-life"... You might at least begin to understand and accept the fact that the movement is real.

Does anyone mind if I ask where the reluctance to accept this movement as being fact (real?) comes from?

Why is there so much resistance to the simple acknowledgment that there is a growing number of people who call themselves "Anti-Abortion" but want to distance themselves from the primarily religious oriented "Pro-Life" movement?--Chuz Life (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first claim, I never heard of this fringe view and I see no reason why it should be given room in this article, or on Wikipedia in general.

As for the second, logic is not up for debate. It is possible for someone to believe that abortion is wrong (and want the number of abortions performed to drop down to few-to-none), yet still support the legal right to do the wrong thing. If this is a bit too subtle, perhaps this is a topic you need to give more thought to. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in the Abortion debate for 20 years plus.

As such, I am confident that I don't need more time, and (besides) Wiki has already acknowledged the (secular humanist / Anti-abortion) movement (though indirectly) in other articles.

I love how the site touts that "anyone can edit" but when you discover something that has already been cited on another article and seek to add it to the context of another,... suddenly (for whatever convienience to yourself and others) it's dismissed as a "fringe group."

Nothing like treating your new members like 2nd. Class citizens,... huh.

Would you be so kind as to entertain a POLL and or petition along these lines?

I frequent an international political forum where we are able to create polls along any subject we like. How about we see what percentage of those who oppose legalised abortion consider themselves to be "anti-abortion" as opposed to "pro-life" simply for the reasons that I have already stated (an angst towards religion)?

Or better yet, I can poll the entire forum on this exchange and whether or not the addition is merited.

I'm going to poll it regardless,... and for that matter... I intend to provide a link to it here as well.

Stay tuned--Chuz Life (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what we call atheists who are pro-life? "Pro-life". It's not a trick question. The nonreligious do not need their own term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand (or appreciate) the fact that there is a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions.... people who want to seperate and distinguish themselves from the (religious) stereotypical "Pro-Life" movement.

This is what spurred me to submit an amendment to the article in the first place.

WE don't want to be associated with them.

Read (again) what these people are saying about THEMSELVES;

"I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion"

Here are some others. (Click Here)

Unlike pro-lifers,... "anti-abortionists" support and can defend the death penalty, the rape exceptions to a ban on abortion and the use of birth controls and education to affect the abortion rate.

Anti-abortionists and the "pro-life" movement have little in common other than the want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why are you so dead set against accepting that as fact?

What is the downside in letting frustrated and or conflicted "pro-lifers" know that there is another movement afoot that supports the right for women to abort in a rape situation,... and who also supports the death penalty and sex education? Tell me what the downside is. --Chuz Life (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuz Life, I would suggest you start by reading WP:GYNOT as for why your Bing search is utterly inadmissible. After that, think about the difference between "people complaining on the internet" and "political movement." After that, if for some inexplicable reason you still think this needs to be in the lead, find reliable third-party sources - the way you would have to for any other Wikipedia article - that distinguish the "anti-abortion" movement from the "pro-life" movement. (Hint: You're not going to find any. The opinion in your own source is that "pro-life" does not imply religious, and your personal feelings about the subject are not a reliable third-party source.)

On a minor note, is it so difficult to make all your edits at the same time? When you make twelve edits when only one is needed, it makes it difficult for people who, like me, follow changes to articles by individual edits. Roscelese (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles LIKE THIS ONE only steel my resolve even further,... because they expose not only the incositancy in the first paragraph of this article,... but also the obvious bias towards slanting the playing field by the editors here.

Quote; "The anti-abortion movement is a Social movement|political movement opposed to abortion. Those within the movement seek to restrict or prohibit some or all abortions. Some involved in the movement also hold positions on other issues in bioethics and reproductive rights, such as opposing birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning."

"While "anti-abortion" is the neutral term most often used in news accounts, many people within the movement prefer to call their beliefs "pro-life" or "right-to-life", names that began to appear in the early 1960s. This designation is a controversial, perhaps even loaded term|loaded, term because it takes for granted that an embryo or fetus qualifies as a full living human, complete with concomitant human rights."

So You tell me,.... which "movement" came first,... and which has been in essense hijacked by the other.

And then tell me again,... why you can't afford to be consistent in this article with your claims made in another.--Chuz Life (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if your argument is that the "pro-life" article should be renamed "anti-abortion," no one's stopping you from advocating that at Talk:Pro-life. I do hope you're not still trying to prove that there is a discrete anti-abortion not-pro-life movement, because every source you've quoted has undermined that point.Roscelese (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude?

My argument is not that the "pro-life" movement should change anything.

My observation is that Wikipedia is being inconsistent in how it applies the labels... and it's obvious that in the first paragraph here, Wikipedia editors have not been consistent with regards to comments in related articles.

As for your refusal to acknowledge the distinction between an "anti-abort" who is non religious, who supports the death penalty and the rape exception.... and a "pro-lifer" who believes all life is sacred and opposes the death penalty and the rape exception? What can I say? It looks like willfull ignorance, to me. --Chuz Life (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"My argument is not that the "pro-life" movement should change anything."

I think this is part of your problem here. Advocating that the "pro-life" article have its title changed to "anti-abortion" isn't saying anything about what the "pro-life" movement should do. It's saying something about what Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia that strives to be accurate and neutral, should do.

If editors decline to accept your revisions, that doesn't mean we think your position is wrong. It means that reliable sources do not support a) its significance and/or b) its discreteness from another movement that is already mentioned.

"As for your refusal to acknowledge the distinction between an "anti-abort" who is non religious, who supports the death penalty and the rape exception.... and a "pro-lifer" who believes all life is sacred and opposes the death penalty and the rape exception? What can I say? It looks like willfull ignorance, to me."

Once again - take it to Talk:Pro-life. Currently, that article acknowledges both "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" as synonymous umbrella terms for the movement that opposes abortion rights.

Furthermore, you're not one to talk to me about willful ignorance, since you seem to be completely unaware that "pro-life" is generally acknowledged as referring to one's position, religious or non-religious on abortion, meaning that many who describe themselves as pro-life do in fact support war and capital punishment while opposing healthcare reform and things like that. Subgroups may use "pro-life" more broadly (see consistent life ethic), but it is in the end a political euphemism that refers to one thing only. Roscelese (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you just remove my comments?

Tell me you didn't.--Chuz Life (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit other users' comments, as you did mine. I reverted the page back to the way it was before you edited my comments; you are welcome to respond to my comment by quoting it rather than by editing it. You are not allowed to edit other users' comments. Roscelese (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How is separating your comments so I can better reply to them,... without changing even one word considered "editing" the comments themselves? --Chuz Life (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page guidelines explain the very limited ways in which editing another's comments may be permissible. In general, it simply isn't worth the trouble it causes. However, the point still remains that any insertion needs verifiable, reliable sources that so far have not been identified. Until someone brings such sources forward, all of this is purely diversion from constructive work. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider this change as a possible compromise;

"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion (both self-named) social movements.

Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"--Chuz Life (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? --Chuz Life (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph as you give it obviously can't be used, because the movements are not self-named "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion"; they call themselves "pro-choice" and "pro-life."

I'm sure there have been many long and detailed discussions (probably in talk:pro-choice and talk:pro-life) about why the articles for the movements are called by the movements' names for themselves, rather than called by AP neutrality guidelines, but we have to stick by that consensus. Roscelese (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was (is) my impression that the articles here on Wiki are supposed to have "world wide" application. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are primarily American (read the overviews) movements. Where "anti-abortion" is much more inclusive and descriptive of the worldwide view.

Your current article on "Pro-Life" expounds on this point where it states; "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States),.."

Why are you and the other editors allowing yourselves, or either or both sides to influence or to "frame" the debate in this Article?

You can drop the "(both self named)" caviot and go at it from the neutrality angle.... The angle which reflects the "worldwide" view and not just the "strong Christian" perspective of the United States.--Chuz Life (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then give us some sources. You know, the same thing we've been asking you to do the entire time. Prove that non-American movements don't generally call themselves "pro-life" and aren't associated with conservative Christianity. Roscelese (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't prove a negative. (you probably know that)

However, it's worth noting that the AP (as cited in current Wikipedia articles) defines the terms "anti-abbortion" and "abortion rights" as being "neutral terms" and it is those current Wikipedia articles that declare the "pro-Life" and "pro-abortion" lables as decidedly biased and/or loaded terms.

So, I have to wonder why it is that you are all so unwilling to use the neutral terms in this paragraph instead of those which Wikipedia itself has deemd to be inflamatory?--Chuz Life (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the nth time, take it to talk:pro-choice and talk:pro-life. The lead of the main article is not the place to boldly go where no consensus has gone before.

As for proving a negative, the extremely obvious solution would be to prove that they call themselves something else and are primarily secular. But of course you can't prove that, because they don't and aren't.

Please either find some sources or stop wasting everyone's time. Roscelese (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the first paragraph of this article, is it not?

As such, since I have an issue with this paragraph as it is currently written,... this is where I am addressing it.

Are you the sole editor in charge of this article? If not, who is?

Because, it appears to me that the paragraph as it is currently written (and as I have pointed out numerous times now) is misleading, inflamatory and exclusionary. The AP article (a source already being recognized by Wikipedia) is my basis for making this claim.

So,... with all due respect, I would like for some of the other editors to address this point. --Chuz Life (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your proposed change Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion (both self-named). It seems like those terms are the AP names, not the "self-names". It's hard to follow the conversation above because you write a lot, you don't indent, and you have too many small paragraphs. So I apologize if I am missing the point, but it appears you are proposing that we adopt the AP style guideline on what terms we use to call these movements. Currently, we are using the terms of self-identity, pretty broadly across Wikipedia. Any changes in our style guideline, such as this, I would think should be taken to a broader venue, as I'd highly discourage having one article use one style, and every other article on wikipedia using another. There should be some sort of centralized discussion. And would your proposal also involve renaming articles? We have pro-life and pro-choice now. Do you want them at other names? While I can understand you only want to focus on a single paragraph in one article, I'm trying to make you understand that such a change has a much larger scope, since it deals with a broader issue of naming conventions and style guidelines which would effect many articles. As to claims about what term is used more often we should consider WP:COMMONNAME. Read those guidelines, and explain how they support your prefer terms. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have requested input from other editors, I am posting. I concur with the following previously made points:

1. You write poorly for this venue. Long posts with poor indentation, unclear intent, too verbose, and overuse of bold. Be succinct; be concise. Be clear on what you want and cite sources.
2. We are not the AP. We have our own style guides. You need to read them, and read WP:CON too.
3. This is the main Abortion article. Changes here will affect many other articles.

and I have some new points to make:

1. You have received your answer, several times. You have supplied no sources, no valid or persuasive arguments for your desired change(s). You have persuaded no one; and until and unless you persuade people, no changes will take effect.
2. The correct phrase is "all due respect." Please make a note of it. Ignorance in a common phrase is likely to cause other editors to lower their opinion of your intelligence, and rate your input accordingly. Therefore, it is to your benefit to avoid such errors.

Hope this helps. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Andrew and I apologize for some of the confusion. This has not been an easy forum for me to adjust to. My proposed change has evolved ever so slightly as I have been challenged by yourself and others to supoport my position.

The change I am now suggesting is this; ""The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"

As you can see, the AP article is a source already used by Wikipedia in other articles.

In the Wikipedia Article titled; Controversies over terminology the article says; "Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. " The article concludes with; "The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".[46]"

The logic follws from that paragraph that the Anti-abortion movement came first (chronologically) and the "pro-life" movement came as the dogma heated up. Likewise for the "Pro-abortion rights" movement and the later defined "pro-choice" movement. My contention is with the Article here being written using the Narrower defined, more or less exclusive and already documented as inflamatory lables that TWO (but not all) of the groups call themselves,..... RATHER than the two most basic and INCLUSIVE and Neutral groups that they each fall under.

The reluctance here towards seeking and recognizing neutraility does not reflect favorably on Wikipedia as a factual and unbiased reference sources at all. --Chuz Life (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see the need to return to this article, for two reasons. One is because the now unfortunately named Chuz Life asked for input from others, and secondly to highlight that a couple of days ago I was saying exactly the same things to this new, single issue poster, but withdrew because of his(?) inability to even repsond to the points I made and the clumsy way in which his argument was presented. So, rather than the absence of other editors proving that you had some sort of a point, it in fact happened because of Chuz Life's inability to effectively discuss issues. We are not paid to be here. If a discussion becomes pointless, we just tend to go away.

As for that new name, I strongly suggest you drop it and find a new, non-issue related one. The name itself is simply another way of telling us all that you have very fixed views, and care about nothing else in global knowledge (our larger purpose here) than this one issue. Not likely to encourage healthy discussion. And you MUST learn more about how best to set out your posts here. Others have mentioned your lack of indenting and layout problems. Please try to do something about those issues. They really do get in the way of you effectively getting your point across. You really do need to look at some other articles here, if only to learn more about how it all works. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we are all to be respectful here. Some of you are making it very difficult. It's not about me, nor my agenda, nor the name I chuz to post under, nor my perceived intelligence, etc. It's about the subject at hand (in this case, the first paragraph) and whether or not a change is warranted. If the editors as a group are to serve as a democracy and rule that this change is not warranted? So be it. I presented the case to the best of my ability. I see an inconsistency where you don't. A unanimous group can still be wrong on something.

Life goes on.--Chuz Life (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of us have given advice. You have failed to heed it. I'm in no position to tell if that has anything to do with your intelligence, but it has a lot to do with an absence of effective discussion on this matter. It also says little about whether what you want in the article is a good idea. That will not be fully known until you find a way to better present your case.

NOTE: You STILL didn't indent! HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuz: The editors are not, in fact, to "serve as a democracy". Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please click on this link and read the content there: WP:NOT#DEM. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention on mastering this forum as I don't intend to frequent it that often. (despite your refusals to admit it and your emotive outbursts)I have provided sources to support my change request. An objective reader will see that I have linked to current and related Wikipedia articles Pro-Life, Terminology, the AP Styles link,... etc. to support my concerns.

You have blinded yourselves with a disgust for me and likely anyone else who would dare not cower to your authority.

So much for the "anyone can edit" mantra of the Wiki-world.

Thanks for the exchange, I will refer to it often. --Chuz Life (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a forum. If you can't be bothered to "master" how to do things at Wikipedia, then don't be surprised when you don't accomplish anything here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the editors (Lead Song) encouraged me to read this link about editing and posting. I think you could benefit from reading it too: Others' comments; "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Granted you're not directly editing my comments or posts,... but the un-necessary (unproductive) annoyance is still there. Can we please just stick to the subject at hand? --Chuz Life (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sure. You've stated you have no intention of mastering how to use a Wikipedia talk page, which you mis-called a "forum", and have posted numerous verbose posts in which you have failed utterly to convince anyone the change you want is desirable. In short, you've made it clear that you don't plan to learn about how Wikipedia works, but you want to get your own way on the article anyway without having to bother to learn that. I am now done with trying to talk to you, as you have rejected all helpful advice and stated clearly you don't plan to learn your way around here. If you change your mind, there are links on your talk page, and I specifically recommend you read WP:TPG and WP:CON, or for a quick intro, go through the Wikipedia:Tutorial (pay special attention to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages).) Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If there exists an editor that wants to be helpful on this, I would like to see an example from someone (anyone) how my requested paragraph change would look any different than the way I presented it. And how would you support it any differently?

I have explaind how the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded terms and how Wikipedia already states that (per the AP) the terms "Anti-Abortion" and "Abortion Rights" are more neutral and more inclusive. I have provided my change request and wording, links to support my claims and explanations for my reasons. You say that's not good enough? That's fine, I would like to see an example of what "the right way" looks like.--Chuz Life (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this issue

(please feel free to add any I missed)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_34#Terminology
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_39#Pro-choice.3F
• See Pro-choice#Term_controversy and/or Pro-life#Controversies_over_terminology.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Citations 4 and 5 and the statements they support be removed due to their conflicted interests?

Citation 4 is from Planned Parenthood International, citation 5 is from the Guttmacher Institute; while the Guttmacher Institute is no longer formally connected to Plan Parenthood it was originally started by Planned Parenthood, named after one of Planned Parenthood's former presidents/leaders of Planned Parenthood International, and still holds Alan Guttmacher in high regard, calling him an "Inspired leader

Patient teacher

Reluctant boss

Irreverent skeptic

Indignant advocate

Irrepressible boat-rocker

Old Testament prophet

Compassionate friend" and "much more". Guttmacher's site also points out that "no one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission" than Guttmacher. I Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher are both biased sources, and all facts supported by their citations should be pulled until put under review for non-biased citation, except for those acknowledged rather than challenged by those of the opposing point of view (example: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html ).

Furthermore the idea the legality of abortion not effecting abortion rates is illogical, and blatantly false. Rather than argue this in depth, I'll cite this blog post, who argues the case well and cites the Guttmacher Institute for his numbers. http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/

"Abortion in Ireland, for example, is illegal in most cases, whereas across the pond in England and Wales it is basically legal (though with more restrictions than in the U.S.). According to Guttmacher, the abortion rate for Ireland in 1996 was 5.9. For England and Wales, 15.6. That is, by Guttmacher’s own numbers, the abortion rate for England (where abortion is legal) is several times what it is in Ireland (where it is not). Presumably the lower Irish rate is not due to the country’s fanatical devotion to sex education and contraception."

"In the first year after Roe v. Wade, some 750,000 women had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every four live births). By 1980, the number of abortions had reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off." Why would abortion rates increase after Roe v. Wade unless the legality effected the frequency of abortions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Citation 4 is actually from the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, which seems to a well-cited scholarly journal, published by Elsevier, with the expected standards of [editorial oversight and peer review]. Citation 5 is from International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, which is published by Guttmacher, but still seems to be well-cited and has normal editorial review, with a named Editorial Advisory Board. I take it that your objection to the sources is based principally on who the authors are and the publishers. The best thing I can suggest is to find some equally good quality recent sources, published in a journal that meets our concept of a reliable source, which contradict the statements that those cites support. You may find it helpful to read WP:MEDRS, which outlines how we differentiate the best sources from stuff that anybody can write in a blog.

That brings me onto the blog you referred to. If BlackadderIV were to be an acknowledged, public author in the field, then his opinion would carry some weight. If he were to publish his essay in a scholarly journal subject to peer-review and editorial oversight, then we could use it as a source. Unfortunately, neither of those appears to be the case, so it's not really much use to us. That is, other than to illustrate a line of thought: that making something illegal reduces its incidence. I could point out that murder is illegal everywhere, but its incidence varies hugely throughout the world, which seems to indicate that factors other than its illegality determine incidence. The point is that homicide, as well as conception, often seem to occur without premeditation - which reduces the deterrent effect of the consequences. It's perhaps simpler to ask for some reliable source that supports the blog's suggestion, as that would save the arguments.

I don't share your characterisation that the legality of abortion not affecting abortion rates as "illogical, and blatantly false". Ireland is a particularly poor example, since it is relatively simple to cross the border into Northern Ireland where abortion is not illegal. Do you really think that doesn't happen? As for the experience of the USA (or the UK for that matter), do you really think the number of abortions pre-1973 was close to zero? Of course, nobody knows what the number was. I think you'll find the figures you quote are for reported abortions, and I don't find it at all unlikely that the number reported rose and then levelled off, once reporting no longer lead to prosecution. I would have thought that the experience of Romania would be far more instructive in terms of the effect of legislation on abortion rates (or even more so on maternal mortality ratio). The point is, of course, that illegal abortions don't show up in "abortion rates", because people are not going to report illegal abortions, but they do show up as in the MMR, where reporting is rather more difficult to avoid. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

: I really think that if the only sources for a point is authored by people so connected with one side of the issue, the source should be put under more scrutiny. Do we really need to find an issue that validates deterrence theory? This is the logic behind like every punishment connected with a crime. Is this good? "People will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear apprehension and punishment. Norms, laws, and enforcement are to be designed and implemented to produce and maintain the image that "negative" and disruptive behaviors will receive attention and punishment." http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html

: Although its definitely true that legality is not the only factor, its definitely a large factor in murder rates (according to deterrence theory). Thats why murder is illegal everywhere. You're argument points out that legality is not the sole cause, but it doesn't really prove that it has no effect. Likewise, your point that homicide occurs without premeditation is true to some extent, but this ignores the fact that it would logically follow that it would occur less if it were illegal, as the punishment would help deter anyone who thought about murder. But we're talking about abortion, and if a country makes abortion a crime, deterrence theory, as explained in the article linked, logically asserts that abortion would occur less as people would anticipate and avoid punishment.

: Lastly, I'm sorry I wasn't clear about my graph of abortion rates in the US. The point was that they obviously went up in the years following Roe v. Wade, indicating that the legality had a cultural impact beyond deterrence: it appears as though as more clinics were able to open legally and more women realized/became used to the fact that abortion was legal, culture changed, and rates increased. To assert that rates of abortion don't change when abortion is legal/illegal is to assert that rates in 1980 would be roughly equal to rates in 1970, which makes no sense given the fact that rates would have to drop the first year it was actually legal. Maybe some people in Ireland cross the border, but I doubt abortion rates of Irish women are equal to the rates that would be if Irish women could get abortions legally in Ireland. But honestly we could argue that all day. I get a "file not found page" when I click the UN link.

: Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)