Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Looking through wikipedia's various articles on abortion, there's a anti-abortion violence article and the article on unsafe abortions that seems pretty pro-choice biased, particularly in the section

Incidences in the U.S. after 1973 In 2005, the Detroit News reported that a 16-year-old boy beat his pregnant, under-age girlfriend with a bat at her request to abort a fetus. The young couple live in Michigan, where parental consent is required to receive an abortion.[18][19][20] In Indiana, where there are also parental consent laws, a young woman by the name of Becky Bell died from a back-alley abortion rather than discuss her pregnancy and wish for an abortion with her parents.[21][22]

Which perhaps accidentally seems to highlight the pro-choice argument that illegal abortions or parental consent laws are dangerous for women, while ignoring the fact that professional abortions do on some occasions result in complications and even death for the mother (as shown here: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/legaldeaths.htm and here: http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM this source has quite a bit of potential for bias but I've selected some of their cases randomly and they appear well documented)

Can we look into these issues and portray them in a more neutral/balanced manner? (also we might mention that several doctors have been found performing abortions without licenses/with expired licenses etc. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/09/state-5654/ ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A few problems with that...
--You'd need to find a real source.
--The 2005 incident you cite is not "pro-abortion violence."
--No evidence that doctors performing abortions without a license is any more prevalent than any other kind of medicine.
--You'd have to be careful around WP:UNDUE. Even if you do actually succeed in finding incidents of "pro-abortion violence," the article needs to reflect the fact that it is not a phenomenon while anti-abortion violence is extremely prevalent. Roscelese (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Them Dead, Dead Fetuses

Dylan Flaherty's recent change restored a versions which seems to have been arrived at by consensus, and on that basis was proper. He adds "we should discuss this". The top of this talk page shows where in the archive this discussion has taken place. I have not had time to review 5 whole archives' worth of discussion, but did a quick review of the opening arguments and the 2 proposals in archive 4. I am not happy with the end result.

There does seem to be consensus regarding the POV introduced by the word "death", in that it begs the question of what kind of death we're talking about, which begs the question of whether the fetus is a human being/person/human life (these three terms are not coequal). What I don't see addressed is the matter of focus. The current wording, drawn from a legal text, "expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death" focuses on the precious, precious fetus instead of the entirely irrelevant "meat envelope" that happens to be surrounding the precious, precious fetus. Why not just drop all reminders of the meat envelope and expunge the word "uterus" as well?

An exhaustive list of alternative definitions has already been considered here: [1] Inexplicably, the definition in the lead sentence in the lead paragraph of a general article on abortion is drawn from a legal text. If we scroll down to the bottom of the article, we see that this article is categorized in medical and ethical, but not legal categories. A consensus seems to have been arrived at in the archives to the effect that no specific field, such as medicine, be considered as offering an authoritative definition of abortion in a general article. But the legal definition was chosen anyway. Why?

When I want to gain a general sense of a word's meaning, I look for consensus using a multiDictionary such as alphDictionary, which is capable of searching 1,060 English dictionaries online. A search on abortions returns 29 under General, 7 under Business (law) plus one hack, 2 under art, 11 under Medical, 2 under Science (natural abortifacients), 1 under Tech (veterniarian), 1 for Computers, and 2 under Miscellaneous (philosophy and dreams). Guess how many times the first entry is "termination of pregnancy", "end of pregnancy", "cessation of pregnancy", etc followed by "expulsion of conceptus" as the secondary meaning.

(Remarks withdrawn as they had been written under the impression that "embryo" does not cover the pre-implantation products of conception. Ermadog (talk))

I would suggest we review these definitions from MedLine Plus (US gov't source) "A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries...The term miscarriage is used often in the lay language and refers to spontaneous abortion.)" See, no mention of the inconvenient meat envelope, although it is implied in the term "pregnancy". Or this "An abortion is the spontaneous or induced loss of an early pregnancy. The period of pregnancy prior to fetal viability outside of the uterus is considered early pregnancy." from eMedicine The phrases "loss of a fetus" and "prior to viability" imply that the parasitic growth is indeed dead as a doornail, has shuffled off its mortal coil, has rung up the curtain and joined the choir invisible, and is now up in heaven strumming on a harp with JHWH or Zeus or somebody and generally is a dead parrot and we should all throw a huge humungous wake and celebrate its passage to the Other Side, where it will evade a life of mortal toil on this earthly plane; and we will all one day join him/her/it in singing the eternal praises of the Cosmic Muffin, Cthulhu and the Ghost of Christmas Past. There is no more need to emphasize the death of the fetus any more than there is need to draw attention to the fact that my prize roses came about in part due to a merciless slaughter of countless slugs. If you insisted on doing that in my garden, I'd shove my cane up your nose and chuck you out.

If someone familiar with the archives could point me to the section in the archives addressing the matter of focus, I'd be much obliged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is based on a false premise. If you think about it, I'm sure you'll recognize that referring to the death of the fetus (or embryo) does not imply that it is a person.
For example, a pregnant dog is not a person, and the canine embryo inside it is also not a person. If the dog's pregnancy is aborted, the fetus dies, but it was never a person and never would be. No matter what species we're talking about, the fetus is composed of living cells and when an abortion is involved, they wind up dead. If the fetus dies, this leads to an abortion. If it is aborted, this leads to its death. Whether it's a person, non-person, potential person or even a potential pet is irrelevant to whether it was alive and is now dead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
My argument is not based on a false premise; and this point is made in the archived discussion, where, as I said, my point was actually acknowledged as valid. Context provides meaning; and in this context, we are talking about human life. We are talking about the actual life of the prospective mother, whose body is undergoing a process known as pregnancy, as well as the actual life of a potential human being called the conceptus, which is merely a growth within the prospective mother's uterus. The term "death" here takes on connotations that favour the "pro-life" position which asserts that the fetus is an actual human being. Therefore, the use of the term "death" in this context is a form of logical fallacy known as argument from assertion, specifically argument from implied assertion. Any number of euphemisms could be used to blunt the force of this argument; but, editors here have made a very conscious and deliberate choice to employ a term which pushes POV. There is generally not as much emotional baggage if we use the term "death" in reference to a dog fetus. Most of us dog lovers, while regretting the incident, would just get over it. But most of us also recognize that there is significant difference between dog life and human life. The clinical definitions I have provided manage to make the point that the fetus is dead as a door nail without resorting to emotion-laden verbiage. Why can't Wikipedia?Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You did say that the conceptus is actually alive. When something that was alive ceases to be alive, we call that death. Therefore, it is entirely accurate to speak of the death of the fetus or embryo. Now, if we called it a baby, that would be biased terminology. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yah, I did say that the conceptus is alive. You obviously didn't read what I said after that; so, I guess I'll just repeat it - although that's probably a waste of time since you obviously didn't read it the first time: Context provides meaning; and in this context, we are talking about human life. We are talking about the actual life of the prospective mother, whose body is undergoing a process known as pregnancy, as well as the actual life of a potential human being called the conceptus, which is merely a growth within the prospective mother's uterus. The term "death" here takes on connotations that favour the "pro-life" position which asserts that the fetus is an actual human being. Therefore, the use of the term "death" in this context is a form of logical fallacy known as argument from assertion, specifically argument from implied assertion. The debate is about what kind of life it is, not whether it's alive. Now, what part of that did you fail to understand? Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ermadog, your original post was very much damaged by a cut & paste error you made that left an unclosed tag, hiding everything afterwards. I did my best to restore the original, but you're going to want to double-check the words to make sure they are what you wanted to write.
I appreciate your rollback and apologise for the sloppy proofreading. I have no excuse; I must have been tired. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I didn't roll back the entire edit, I just corrected the broken part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've read your entire message, where you go into the exhaustive list of definitions, I find myself exhausted but unconvinced. Calling a fetus a "parasitic growth" does nothing more than make your bias painfully obvious. And it doesn't help that you don't seem to understand the medical terms you use; for example, you confuse fertilization with pregnancy.
I have a file on my hard drive containing common uses of the term "parasite" It is a compilation of meanings obtained by searching on parasite at alphaDictionary, which is capable of returning entries from 1,060 English dictionaries. The scientific definition requires that an organism be a member of a different species; but, the medical definition does not. The entries from general usage dictionaries are evenly split on this point. Here are two that apply: 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism; 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return (Webster's 11th). The fetus is most definitely a parasitic growth. It derives it nutrition directly from the host body's food supply from within that host body; it derives its entire substance (with the exception of a small amount of paternal DNA) directly from the host body's substance; and its metabolism is directly entwined with that of the host body and often has a detrimental effect on the woman's health (the fetal brain doesn't even begin to take over the most basic of bodily functions, breathing, until week 34). It most definitely is living in a relationship of biologic parasitism within the body of the prospective mother. I wouldn't use it in a wiki article, because of the emotional baggage; but, I use it in wiki talk because it is an accurate presentation of my argument. I have withdrawn my remarks about the secondary meaning not applying to early drug induced abortions because I was under the impression that the term "embryo" does not apply to the pre-implantation organism. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A parasite is a son who won't get a summer job, not a fetus that has nowhere else to go. As for drug-induced abortions, whatever the morality of the morning-after pill, it does not technically qualify as an abortion because there is no pregnancy until implantation, which this pill prevents. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A parasite is also, as I have demonstrated, anything living in biologic parasitism with another organism. If you believe otherwise, you have a lot of dictionaries to correct. As for the morning-after pill, many "pro-lifers" do believe the conceptus is a human being right from the moment of conception and that the pill is therefore an abortifacient. The pre-implantation organism is a product of conception. Ermadog (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As it happens, I am one of those pro-lifers, but I can read a dictionary and I try to be fair and neutral.
As it happens, I read more than one dictionary, for the purpose I have previously described: to gain a consensus of current usage. That's why I use alphaDictionary and look through all the entries from all the relevant dictionaries. For instance, for abortion, I omit the tech dictionary. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at this entry, there are three definitions. Of these, the first and last are metaphorical, based on similarity to a biological parasite. The second references the related term, "parasitism". That entry offers three more definitions. The first and last are circular, but the second is very clear and relevant:
"an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures" - emphasis added
Two or more kinds, as opposed to a human woman and her human fetus. I rest my case.
I addressed your "two or more kinds" point above. Please re-read it. Hint: it has something to do with the consensus that can be obtained at alphaDictionary. You don't get to choose just one out of many listed definitions and claim it is "the" definition. You pick the one that is best for the context. The definition I use has equal currency with the one you chose. The metaphoric sense is quite appropriate when using the adjective "parasitic" as a modifier for a noun when a reference to the relationship of biologic dependence is intended. The relationship of the conceptus to the prospective mother is indeed parasitic, for the reasons I've enumerated. btw the first definition at Merriam-Webster is not metaphoric. It is the historic definition dating back to ancient Greece, where it originally referred to a class of priests officiating at certain religious feasts. The modern scientific meaning originated metaphorically and over time took on the more precise meaning found in science texts today. See also Websters 1828 or 1913, both of which are online. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As for conception, that term has two related meanings: fertilization and implantation. There has been a shift over time from the former to the latter, for reasons both medical and political (and some of this is controversial). Medically, pregnancy is now defined from implantation, so the morning-after pill cannot technically be considered an abortifacient, although you're right that some people jump from "morally equivalent to abortion" directly to "identical to abortion", which is a simple factual error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Extreme "pro-lifers" are trying to have the conceptus declared a full legal person from the moment of conception Concerns over ‘Personhood’ Physicians, families detail their worries of Amendment 62 These referenda have failed before, but they keep trying. I should note that children do not have full personhood at law until they reach the age when they can enter into legally binding contracts. I take it you are not one of those "pro-lifers". Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm just going to let what I wrote before stand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the point I've made about the term "death" is acknowledged as valid in the archives, where the present formulation is acknowledged as being an unhappy compromise, I will continue to raise this point. I'd like an explanation of why editors think "loss of the fetus" is less neutral than "death of a fetus". I would also like an answer to the question I raised about why we are using a legal definition instead of a general definition. I would also like to know why we are using a definition that focuses on the fetus instead of on the woman in whose body the pregnancy is taking place. Ermadog (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Loss" is a dishonest euphemism. It's not like we misplaced the fetus; we know exactly where it went. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess Oxford, American Heritage, and MacMillan are all dishonest dictionaries. These guys all think "loss" means destruction, especially death of a loved one. And that's only the first three of the 31 entries returned with an alphaDictionary search. Ermadog (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It's still a euphemism. I can lose a pen, but an organism actually dies. Pens don't die, except metaphorically. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Destruction, listed as a meaning of loss in many dictionaries, is not a euphemism. "Prolife" however, is a euphemism. "Life" is a general term. Therefore, "pro-life" is a general term. You likely don't defend the lives of the bacteria you slaughter with every breath (there are branches of buddhism that do revere all life forms and offer eternal prayers on their prayer wheels for all life); so, we know that you are really pro- human conceptus. So, don't talk to me about euphemisms when you use them yourself. Ermadog (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the discussion is productive with regard to editing this article, so I'm going to remind us both that this is not a forum and let you have the last word with regard to the earlier discussion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be producing a Request for Edit, in accord with Wikipedia guidelines for consensus, as soon as I have finished digesting the contents of the archives, unless I can see that my concerns have been addressed there. Ermadog (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the discussion concerning the first paragraph, and thus "death" issue can be found in the subpage and 5 archives, found here Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Hope this helps your archive search. -Andrew c [talk] 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, if you've followed this discussion, you know that I am aware of where the archives are, and that I've raised some of the points in that discusssion, some of which you were involved in. You will also see that I have raised some specific questions with regard to that discussion. I would welcome any attempt on your part to direct my attention to specific sections where these questions are addressed in the archives. I am also fully aware that there is no common ground between those who want a total ban on abortion and those with any other position. Either the fetus is a human being, in which case killing it for any reason other than self defence (i.e. the pregnancy itself fatally threatens the mother's life), in which case all the usual sentences for homicide should apply, or it isn't. Where there is no common ground, there is no possibility for meaningfull discussion. All one can do is describe as fully as possible what the points of disagreement are. In civil society, the majority of the discussion takes place in the middle ground, where people don't want a total ban, but neither do they want complete decriminalization. Either the fetus is a part of the woman's body and thus no one's business but her own, or it is a proper object of discussion of civil society at large. There are few points of discussion possible between these latter two camps, either. It's a connundrum. Ermadog (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I wasn't sure if you had seen the subpage archives in addition to the regular archives. That said, I have not been following the discussion, sorry. It's a case of TL;DR. What you wrote regarding the debate in the public sector of America and finding "common ground" seems off topic and not relevant to this article. We should be guided by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not by the greater moral/political debate in society. -Andrew c [talk] 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy can be terminated in several ways. When it is terminated by a live birth, you don't have a successful abortion. When pregnancy terminates because a live fetus dies (naturally or because it is killed) and is then expelled from the uterus, that is an abortion. When the live fetus' is removed (spontaneously or through outside intervention) and dies in the process of removal, that is also an abortion. When one of two twin fetuses dies (naturally or because it is killed) and is expelled from the womb, that is an abortion, but the pregnancy continues. Many abortion definitions in medical dictionaries also do refer to the death of the embryo or fetus. The current line that mentions death is necessary to provide an objectively accurate definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, can we archive this in the First paragraph archive? Would help keep track of timeline on the topic cropping up. - RoyBoy 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet vote

Guess it's not important enough for the article, but here is a strange site of a couple who lets internet users decide about the child: birthornot.com Knopffabrik (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like little more than a scam. [2] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

European court decided against Ireland law in December 2010

In December 2010, decision of european court is published. 92.252.42.183 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Lead should be three or four paragraphs. It is also go to have it follow the outline of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Counter-arguments have already been presented above, by both myself and another editor, and need not be repeated here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." That's the guidance from MOS, so if you want to argue against it, then the place for that is at WT:LEAD. It would be more profitable here to seek consensus on what the "important points" and "notable controversies" are. --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead picture

Kaldari has a point; a picture of a demon performing an abortion is hardly a fair representation. According to statistics, 0% of all abortions are performed by demons. Could we please replace the demon with a doctor? I'm willing to do the Photoshopping, if necessary. Or we could just drop the image, which might be simpler. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a historical image. I do not see anything wrong with it. Historical and culture images can be in the lead for articles about procedures. If you have something better to replace it with I would be happy to consider it. Would this one be better?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No that image also fails to be neutral. (The claim in the caption that it is "promoting hospital abortions" is false, BTW.) Historical does not equal NPOV. For example we don't begin the Jews article with an historical anti-semetic caricature, or the African American article with an historical photo of a lynching. Showing that abortions are performed by demons (no matter how historical) does not seem to be a neutral reflection on either abortions or abortion doctors. What's wrong with having no image in the lead anyway? Kaldari (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
May I recommend Image:Abortionmethods.png?
Better? Dylan Flaherty 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely neutral, but I don't think it would work very well in an infobox. Kaldari (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right.
How about the third one(Vacuum-aspiration_(single).svg)? Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I really just don't understand why this article has to have a lead image. There are so many different types of abortions and aspects to it (historical, legal, medical, political, etc.) that I don't think it makes sense to choose a single image to represent the subject. We have plenty of broad medical articles that lack lead images for this very reason. For example illness, disease, healing, health care, mental health, preventive medicine, etc. Kaldari (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
So, does that mean this one is out of the question?
Seriously, I'm fine with having no image, if the alternative is worse. Demonic abortions are not just non-neutral, they're rather bizarre. Dylan Flaherty 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this issue seemed to favor having no image, but I'm not sure if it was enough to be considered consensus. Regardless, I've never seen where the consensus for the current image was established. Kaldari (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest giving it a day or two so that editors can respond. If there seems to be a consensus in favor of dropping the image, we should do that. Dylan Flaherty 08:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For aesthetic reasons, I prefer an artistic image to a diagram or a graph - may I suggest this medieval image? Although the contrast should probably be touched up.
13th-century drawing of a midwife preparing an abortifacient herb for a pregnant woman

Roscelese (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that as well. Dylan Flaherty 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that image, although my first choice is still no image at all. Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I boosted the contrast and cropped the new image. Does that look better? Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Roscelese (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with this medieval one aswell. What would the caption be?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Same here. How about something along the lines of "Drawing of an herb-induced medieval abortion". Dylan Flaherty 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(this is a paraphrase of the description at Commons) "13th-century drawing depicting a midwife preparing a concoction for a pregnant woman from the abortifacient herb pennyroyal"? Too long? Roscelese (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something in between: "Medieval drawing of a midwife preparing a concoction from the abortifacient herb pennyroyal." Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I like the caption someone added to the image at right. It seems to be about the right length. If it's too long, you could chop off the "for a pregnant woman" as that is easily understood. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy. Dylan Flaherty 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, how does that caption look? I took out the mention of pennyroyal since I don't want to be responsible for a surge in deaths by pennyroyal poisoning. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It fits, both in content and size. I'm happy with it. Dylan Flaherty 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I'd prefer no image at the top and simply moving the present image down. But, I could live with the status quo as a second choice, although it would probably be more NPOV to not have a demonic image at the top (unless a demonic image is more representative of ancient attitudes than a non-judgmental image). Regarding the 13th century image of two women, even if it shows preparation for an abortion, I don't see that it adds much to the article; for one thing it's not apparent from the image itself what's going on. The woman is not discernibly pregnant, and the Pennyroyal held by the attendant was traditionally used for increasing menstrual flow (i.e. for an emmenagogue instead of an abortion). The image summary does not mention abortion: "Drawing from a 13th-century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius's Herbarium, depicting a pregnant woman in repose, while another holds some pennyroyal in one hand and prepares a concotion [sic] using a mortar and pestle with the other." The book from which this image was scanned says it was an abortion, but it's unclear what that conclusion is based on. In any event, nothing in the image itself looks like an abortion, whereas the present image at the top seems more suggestive of an abortion (the woman's protruding stomach is being pressed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect that abortions look more like the medieval picture than the demonic one. For example, 0% of all abortions in America are performed by demons, and the majority are in the first trimester, where you wouldn't expect a particularly conspicuous swelling. Dylan Flaherty 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In the 13th century, a woman would likely not have known she was pregnant until well after the first trimester, i.e. not until "quickening". If one were a wiseguy, one might also mention that pennyroyal is now used for abortion about as often as demons are now used for that purpose. Anyway, it looks to me like Kaldari may have cropped out the only thing in this 13th century image indicative of an abortion: the original caption at the upper-right portion of the original scanned image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that women in the 13th century were all mentally retarded, so we can't just assume they would have somehow failed to notice a missed period, much less three of them in a row. As for pennyroyal, it has been replaced by RU-486, for reasons of safety and effectiveness. The value of this drawing is that it shows that abortion has been around for some time, as an action that women have voluntarily taken. The demon with the hammer doesn't convey this information. Dylan Flaherty 06:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Periods can be missed for a variety of reasons, and quickening was the confirmation of pregnancy. The 13th century image makes me curious; what's the meaning of the stack of stones (?) beneath the pregnant (?) woman? Do we have a translation of the cropped-out inscription? Anyway, like I said, my preference would be to have no image at the top. As I recall, this demonic image was put at the top in a rather unilateral way. Regarding interpretation of the demonic image, it presumably would have been interpreted as feticide rather than abortion, if the woman was not in cahoots with the demon. I've given my opinion about this, and don't expect to have much more (if anything) to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How about we have no image for now, as that seems to be the most popular opinion (judging by this discussion and the last one). And if any picture gains reasonable consensus after that, it is welcome to fill the spot. Does anyone object to that course of action? Kaldari (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to have an image in the lead. It does not matter to me which of the two. If someone wishes to put this new one in and move the engraving to the body of the article feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kaldari, but would not object to the status quo. The new proposed image is something of a euphemism; the woman is not apparently pregnant, there is no contact with her, no pain, no blood, no suggestion that something is aborted, and no visible indication of an abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I don't think there is any solution that is going to make everyone happy unless someone is willing to compromise a bit. @Doc James: Why do you feel that having a lead image is so important? @Anythingyouwant: Do you really want the lead image to feature pain and blood? Are there any other encyclopedias that lead their abortion articles with such graphic images? Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, my preference would be for there not to be a lead image at this point. But if we are to have one, it should not be a complete euphemism. The present image suggests some actual characteristics of many real abortions (physical contact, pain, pregnancy, etc), whereas the suggested image does not even discernibly show an abortion (for all we know it may be a very old advertisement for abortion, no one has provided a translation of the cropped-out inscription, and the facial expressions of both women indicate that they are happily and serenely enjoying whatever it is that they're doing). Kaldari, there is common ground between myself and Doc James, and that is the status quo. If you want to go look at other Wikipedia articles about surgical procedures, I think you'll find that some do show blood (e.g. Coronary artery bypass surgery). But I'm not suggesting we have to show blood at the top of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Before we get opinions, we get facts. The medieval drawing does not, in fact, show anyone smiling or happy. The woman on the left is conspicuously pregnant, which is clear not only from the "bump" but from her classic "hand-over-bump" pose. The only "encyclopedia" that leads with a graphic picture for abortion is Conservapedia. Dylan Flaherty 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dylan here. The woman on the left is clearly pregnant and seems to be grimacing. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the original caption from the book it was scanned from: "Pennyroyal being used as an abortificient. This drawing accompanying a 13th-Century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius' herbal shows a person holding a sprig of pennyroyal and preparing the drug with a mortar and pestle, while the patient waits with her legs demurely crossed. (Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, MS let. 93, fol. 93)" Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The uncropped image has somewhat better resolution, so you can see the facial expressions better. I'm still curious what the text in the uncropped image translates to in English.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember much Latin, but the last few words say something about having a baby ("produce/make a child/infant"). Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a translation would indicate whether it's therapeutic or elective, whether it's an advertisement, et cetera. Between an ancient image that shows an abortion, versus an ancient image that shows preparation for an abortion, I'd go with the former.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And would you say that the demon image is more likely a therapeutic or an elective abortion? :P Kaldari (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It is more likely elective, according to the source. It illustrates a method of abortion (i.e. massage abortion) identical to that used today, except that it's been transposed to the after-life. According to the source, it's likely a punishment for what the woman did during her life. The earliest medical text (the Susruta Samhita) said abortion was okay to save a woman's life, so the woman in this image would have been punished for an abortion that was not needed to save her life, which suggests that she got an elective massage abortion during her life. Or so it appears.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't see how an image suggesting that women who get elective abortions are going to be punished by demons in the afterlife is NPOV! That's about as POV as it gets. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
History is what it is. Anyway, I'm on record preferring no image at the top, and opposing the unilateral way that the present image was put at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>OK, so far we have the following 8 users expressing support for removing the lead image and are OK having no lead image for the time being: Me, RexxS, SHEFFIELDSTEEL, DigitalHoodoo, MastCell, HiLo48, Anythingyouwant, and Dylan Flaherty. We have 2 editors who's opinion on removing the lead image is unclear: Andrew c and Roscelese. Finally, we have 2 users who oppose removing the lead image: Doc James and Huey45. Huey45 is indefinitely blocked, so that leaves only Doc James. Unless Doc James can offer some compelling reasons why we should retain the image, I'm inclined to go ahead and remove it per the reasonable consensus of opinions expressed. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The current top image has been somewhere in this article for eons, and it would be best to move it down rather than completely delete.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think everyone would agree with that. It's a useful image for the article, just not good as the lead image, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer for there to be an image, because I like images, but if we can't agree on what the image should be, I'm okay with removing it. (I'm still in favor of the medieval image - which, Anythingyouwant, is a medical abortion rather than surgical, hence the lack of physical contact - not so much out of POV issues as because it's easier to see what's going on - but maybe someone can find another PD historical image that isn't already on Commons?) Roscelese (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think most of us would prefer for there to be a lead image of some sort. Since there seems to be a lot of disagreement though, I think it would be best to remove the current image first and then concentrate on building consensus for a lead image that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Where is all these peoples support for no image (MastCell etc.)? They have not commented in this discussion. Can you link to where they have.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned, I would not object to keeping the current image at the top. On reflection, it seems silly to object to an image merely because of the caption underneath the image. The bas relief accurately shows what a massage abortion looks like. If you all want to be patient, I could try to get a photo of a massage abortion instead of a bas relief of a massage abortion. The advantage of using a massage abortion is that there's no blood and guts (which the pro-choicers dislike) but also it's not people just hanging around stirring potions before the abortion occurs. By the way, it looks like Dylan Flaherty has been blocked indefinitely.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Wow, this article seems to have a high percentage of participants who get blocked indefinitely! I would love to see other photos to choose from, but considering how many people oppose the current image, I don't think it makes sense to keep it there in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Doc James: The previous discussion is here, from a few months ago. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes Kaldari, we both better watch our step. Me more than you, I suspect. Anyway, regarding the picture now at the top, am I correct to infer that you would have no problem with it being there if we merely say in the caption that it accurately depicts a massage abortion, without mentioning our friend the demon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I am am strong supporter of images in the lead. I think they add to the article. Yes this is a historical relic. Why this generates so much controversy I have no idea. But it does explain that abortions have been going on a lot longer then Wade verses Roe. And thus in a ways put the topic into perspective. Some people are under the mistaken beleif that before abortion was legal no one had it and the making it illegal is the solution to the "problem" I however would be okay with other historical images not being set on this one. I guess we could take this to RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Can the lede image, and move it back to the historical section where it was however many moons ago. Regardless of bias problems, it doesn't set the right tone for the article, the image is historical, the article has a broader focus, including (primarily) medical focus, as well abortion as a social phenomena (including historical, philosophical/ethical, legal perspectives) and so on. Even if we focused on the medical aspect, no diagram or other depiction of a particular method is adequate, because no procedure dominates the field, now or then. I'm not sure there is an image that can capture it, as there is no collective mental image or symbol that is representative. (Don't do what I just did and do a google image search to see if I was wrong. You'll regret it if you do, its pretty gruesome.) Also, watch the U.S. centric-bias thats easy to slip into. Its terribly easy to start thinking of abortion primarily through the eyes of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but its an unbelievably huge topic.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, a significant portion of the English speaking world is spending time with family because of breaks from work and/or school, and a smaller portion, but still very large is celebrating Christmas, and generally, getting into debates about this difficult topic is not on the top of the to do list in those circumstances. Just something to keep in mind when worrying about the response rate.--Tznkai (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Tznkai: Agreed. I would love to take a break from this debate as well. Let's just leave the discussion open for now. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: It might help with the NPOV issue somewhat, but I'm sure someone would change it back to accurately describe the image at some point. I also share Tznkai's opinion that it doesn't really set the correct tone for the article. For a topic that touches so many areas, choosing one image to represent it doesn't seem appropriate. Even the childbirth article, which is arguably more narrow in scope, doesn't have a lead image. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@Doc James: Your argument is a perfect argument for why that image should be featured in the history section, not in the lead. It is great for conveying the historical breadth of abortion, but it doesn't given any sense of abortion's current importance in the world or what what an abortion actually means in current medical practice. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>Since it appears that discussion of the lead image has died off, I would like to try summarizing the results. It appears that a sizable majority (70%-88% depending on how I count it) support removing the current lead image. Objections that have been raised include: fails to be NPOV, does not set the right tone for the article, and too specific to convey the breadth of the topic. There is one strong supporter of the current image, Doc James, who believes that it is important for the article to have a lead image and that this image is neutral due to its historical quality. While several editors have expressed support for the article having a lead image, it does not appear that there is consensus for the "demon image" to be the one used. It appears that the best course of action, per this and the previous discussion, would be to remove the current image and then start a new discussion on what image (if any) could work as a new lead image. Given the contentious nature of the topic and the wide range of opinions, it would seem to be prudent to establish consensus on any new lead images before inserting them into the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sticking with my preference for no image in the lead. But that's not the same as urging immediate removal. First off, this image was put in the lead by edit-warring that simultaneously overhauled the lead's text. In my opinion, the image in the lead counterbalanced the POV problems in the lead's text. They should not be considered separately. If a change must be made immediately to the current image, it would be far preferable to merely remove the demon from the caption. I also dislike the idea of waiting until later to decide whether another image should go in the lead, but removing the present image now; the present image is the most suitable image available, and if it is removed then it ought to be removed with the understanding that no other currently available image will take its place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. You state several different preferences in the above paragraph, some of which are mutually exclusive (or seem to be). I'm proposing that the "demon image" be removed for now, and no other image take it's place until such time as one is found that can reach consensus. Would that be acceptable to you? If your preference is for "no image in the lead" it seems like a solution that you would agree with, correct? Apologies if I'm misconstruing your statements. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Also I'm not sure I can buy into the arguments that 2 conflicting POVs = NPOV. If there are other POV problems in the lead, those can be dealt with separately. Trying to tie several issues together will only result in confusion and conflict, not consensus building. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize, this is a frustrating and complicated article for everyone to work on, and it's been in an especially difficult pickle the last few months. I don't think my previous comment above contains any contradictions. There's no urgent need to remove the top image, given that we could merely tweak the caption to emphasize what is most relevant about the image instead of mentioning the demon (though perhaps the demon could or should later be restored in a more palatable way). Removing the top image now would pave the way for replacing it with another image that's currently available at Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and I don't want to pave the way for one of those other images because I think this is the best one currently available. Of course, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that another fantastic image might become available in the future, but Tznkai laid out some very good reasons why the currently available images all suck (so to speak). I'd be okay with removing the top image immediately with the understanding that no other currently available image will replace it. As for tying the image to the lead's text, yes that does complicate things further, but looking at things holistically is not necessarily bad; please be involved with both. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any realistic chance that another image will be able to gain consensus for appearing in the lead any time soon. All the images suggested so far have had significant issues raised and do not appear close to achieving consensus. I don't think removing the current image "paves the way" for a replacement. The only thing it does is allow all images to start from equal footing in being evaluated for the lead. I also support having no lead image and will probably oppose any replacement unless it is a really compelling suggestion about some totally new image I haven't seen yet. I also don't think there's much point in dragging this issue out further by tying it with other issues as the discussion on the lead image has been going on since June (albeit with a significant gap). I think everyone who is going to express an opinion on this has already spoken and are unlikely to change their opinions significantly based on a tangential issue. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then, as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead and move the image down. Good luck not getting reverted by another editor. I tried to move it down in June but was reverted. And please look at the lead holistically. Moving the image down will exacerbate certain POV problems with the overall lead, while lessening other POV problems.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


lead text

Overall, I am glad that there is a serious discussion here about whether or not to have an image in the lead. The same unilateral changes last summer that put this image in the lead also put the following sentence in the lead: "frequency of abortions is, however, similar whether or not access is restricted." I see from the archives that this sentence has remained controversial. Because we are now in the mood to reconsider what happened this summer, I want to give fair warning that I'll soon be raising holy hell about that sentence. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to that sentence's re-examination. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
... What the hell did you all (or whoever?) do to the lead over the past half year? The lead is supposed to be about surveying the topic, not getting into the nitty gritty of abortion social policy. I haven't checked the validity and applicability of the citation, but it doesn't belong in the lead. Come 27th local time, I'm in favor of removing it from the lead and putting it into the appropriate subsection.
Just as a quick thought, my understanding of the lead is that it should cover roughly the following: defining the topic (what is it), reporting the incidence data (who and where) the significance (why do I care?) and possibly a brief overview of methodology (how) and no more.--Tznkai (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor boldly edited the article in June, which was fine. I reverted, saying, "Many concerns about bold rewriting of article. Discussion & consensus are needed first." Instead of discussing per WP:BRD, the material was edit-warred back into the article.[4] Regarding the sentence about abortion restrictions not affecting abortion rates, I will be providing detailed arguments against that sentence no matter where it's located in this article, because I believe it fails NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(Perhaps this should be split into a new thread?) Fails in what way? I mean, if there are reliable sources that say differently, by all means they should be added, and we could obviously have a discussion about whether the sentence belongs in the lead, but I don't see the POV problem with the statement itself. (It's not that the proximity to the discussion of unsafe abortion violates WP:SYNTH, is it? Because that could theoretically be true, but in this article, the source discusses both points, so it would be odd to separate them.) Roscelese (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that say restrictive abortion laws can substantially reduce the number of abortions. This was discussed a little bit here in June, and since then, but not in a major way. I haven't got time for it right this second, but rather wanted to give people a heads up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
'Kay, cool. Time's always an issue. So someone can go looking, and then both study results can be mentioned (though not in the lead, because controversy in the lead is annoying). I'd still suggest keeping non-contested findings of the Shah and Culwell studies in the lead, though. Roscelese (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Tznkai has a good plan.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think what we did was reference the article to high quality peer reviewed review articles per WP:MEDRS thus making it reflect current scientific opinion to a greater extent. Have continued this discussion below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved most of the second paragraph, which I may have put together myself way back when (there is an annotation that seems to suggest that) to the unsafe abortion part of the article, then combined the appropriate sections. I'm not totally happy with it like that, since some explanation of abortion being safe versus unsafe is useful information up front, but I believe the current lead is superior to the previous one. The lead should be an introduction, something you could read a little green man from Mars and have them roughly understand what it is you're going to be talking about for another ten screens. Every word should be accounted for carefully.--Tznkai (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall participating in a very similar discussion nearly 2 years ago. Maybe we should produce an executiove summary of all long winded circular discussions and post it at the top of the talk page. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Started in its own section. Just because an editor feels something is controversial does not make it so. We have a major scientific review published in 2009 that states this in its conclusions PMID 20085681. If one has other major scientific reviews that state otherwise I would be more than happy to look at it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, I'll provide details soon, when the holidays are over. In the mean time, all the material you want is in the article, where you want it, so I don't imagine that you're in any rush. That's the advantage in defying WP:BRD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved the sentence to the unsafe abortion section, as it is the closest to the proper place. If the citation says what it sounds like it said (I don't have time to check for a few hours) then it should be written, as it is the most recent reliable study. I removed the "however" because that makes the statement argumentative instead of a presentation of bare facts.--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As this is an important point should also be in the lead. Agree with the removing of the however.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? Something being "an important point" isn't a satisfactory reason to put something in the lead. An introduction is a survey, not a collection of important points. Most of the article is important, thats why its written!--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The sentence is not cited to any source available freely on the internet, which says something about its prominence in a truly vast literature (or rather its lack of prominence). It is sourced to two studies which extrapolate from a comparison of current policies in different countries, to arrive at an incredibly broad statement that seemingly applies not just to present policies in different countries, but also to changes of policy in a single country, and to all policies in history, and to all policies which might be devised in the future. As mentioned, I will soon demonstrate that the statement is false even as to present policies. See you after New Year's.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I support Tznkai's edits today, but am not surprised at all by their reversion. Also note that this sentence in the lead does not appear to summarize anything later in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Refs do not need to be freely available. It is a review article in a major journal.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But if the assertion were sufficiently prominent in the literature to belong in the lead, then you would be able to find something to cite among the zillion freely available reliable abortion sources online. And since when does material belong in the lead that doesn't summarize material in the body of the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why doesn't someone add the information to the body of the article as well as keeping it in the lead? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Because a lead is supposed to summarize, not regurgitate. Because the material in the lead is not prominent in the literature. Because the lead cherry-picks the literature to avoid reliable sources that contradict the assertion. Because the material was improperly edit-warred into the lead. Because the lead of an article like this needs to be short and simple as Tznkai explained. Because the assertion is much broader than the factual information discussed in the cited sources. Etc. Etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're still waiting for someone to add those reliable sources that contradict those studies. Once those are added, I fully support keeping the issue out of the lead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Good. After New Year's, and may you all have a happy one. When people violate WP:BRD, I don't feel any need to rush forth with information that others don't care about, but I guess waiting six months is sufficient. I'm off to the theatre now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

← The distinction between safe and unsafe abortion belongs in the lead, since it is central to understanding modern medical, societal, legal, and demographic aspects of the subject. I agree with Tznkai that the statement about relative frequency of abortion could reasonably be removed from the lead and covered later on, in sections about the legality and safety of abortion. As to the source's availability, it is freely available to any editor who is able to drive, walk, or ride public transportation to a nearby library. Let's drop that line of argument right now, since it flies directly in the face of core Wikipedia policy.

More broadly, the idea that restrictive abortion laws do not influence abortion incidence is part of the mainstream public-health understanding of the topic. It's not limited to a single source. For example, Sedgh et al. 2007 found:

Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively. The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances.

That paper was published in The Lancet, is freely available online (I believe), and has been cited ~82 times, indicating quite a substantial impact (incidentally, the impact of scientific papers is generally measured by citations in the literature, rather than by the number of freely available Google hits). There are more such sources. The article simply cites one or two of the most recent, preferably reviews, in accordance with existing sourcing guidelines. That compliance with guidelines should not be exploited by editors wishing to "debunk" the existing medical literature, nor should we pretend that this finding is limited to one isolated source.

More generally, I'm concerned by Anythingyouwant's promises to "raise holy hell" and to "demonstrate that the statement is false". When we, as editors, start investing a lot of energy in demonstrating that findings from the reputable medical literature are false, then it's time to take a step back, re-read WP:NOR and WP:V, and maybe consider whether our participation is motivated primarily by a desire to advocate a personal agenda rather than summarize existing knowledge. MastCell Talk 18:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual you ignore and take out of context what I have said. I said that the material is problematic for a long list of reasons, none of which have anything to do with my personal opinion. Because a lead is supposed to summarize what's in the body of an article rather than regurgitate or address matters not in the body. Because the material in the lead is not prominent in the literature. Because the lead cherry-picks the literature to avoid reliable sources that contradict the assertion. Because the material was improperly edit-warred into the lead. Because the lead of an article like this needs to be short and simple as Tznkai explained. Because the assertion is much broader than the factual information discussed in the cited sources. Feel free to disagree with those points, but do not feel free to pretend that those points do not exist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Until sources are provided these "points do not exist". That you refer to the Lancet as "cherry-picking" and have not provided "reliable sources that contradict the assertion". I share MastCells concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You focus on one of the listed points, to the exclusion of all the others. And regarding that one point, I provided several reliable sources in June, and promised many more if you would abide by WP:BRD. You didn't so I didn't. Plenty of sources will be coming soon though. The statement in the lead is false as a statement of uncontested fact. If my use of the word "hell" concerns you and MastCell, then please forgive me for offending your sensibilities. Can we drop this now until after New Year's?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Link to these June sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a pinpoint diff handy, but it's in the "Culwell" section here. I'm on my iPhone, getting ready to go out with friends, but that link should suffice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
And not one appears to be a review article published in the last 5 years in a major journal. There is nothing there to match the conclusions of a Lancet review and a WHO statement in 2007.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You have no right to insist that every reliable source be a review article in a journal. Wikipedia policy defines “fact” as “a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources.” You don't get to defy that policy and a slew of other Wikipedia practices whenever you like. I cited a few reliable sources in hopes of slowing you down and getting you to discuss wholesale changes to the article before jamming them into the article, and you refused, preferring to use the voice of Wikipedia to convey a POV that is disputed, instead of having a discussion about how to neutrally describe what's in the literature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Here we have Wiki consensus WP:MEDRS. Thus please find a review article in a reputable journal. This is how science is done. This is what Wikipedia will present as fact. Attempting to refute it with primary sources is not acceptable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I discussed sources in June that are NOT primary sources.[5] A "review article" is generally understood to be an article that reviews other articles that are secondary sources, and only a small fraction of journal articles are review articles. If you will only consider review articles, then you are turning a blind eye not only to every book ever published, but also the vast majority of journal articles, most of which have never even been mentioned in review articles. More generally, statements and analyses describing abortion "restrictions" are often considered by scholarly articles in the social sciences, not just medical science. This Wikipedia article is about much more than a technical surgical procedure, as is the statement at issue in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You will need to actually provide this source for review not just link to a link that in fact does not contain any sources at all.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what you're referring to. The links I provided in June were all live links at that time, and I have not tested them to see if they still are, but would be surprised if they have all gone dead. Moreover, as you said above in this talk page section, "Refs do not need to be freely available". Indeed, the refs now cited in this Wikipedia article for the statement in question are not freely available on the Internet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no requirement that a lead be short or simple. Nor is it desirable for a complex article covering a broad range of issues to have an over-simplified lead. The guidance from LEAD, quoted below, is what we should be aiming for: to summarise all the "most important points" and "notable controversies". Our job is to come to an agreement of what those are, not decide beforehand that the lead must be limited to a certain size, and then try to pare it down to fit. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Short and simple is a basic rule of good writing Rexx, and "the most important points" and "notable controversies" could threaten to regurgitate the entirety of the article. The key terms are actually summarize concise and stand alone. I'm not talking about an arbitrary size, but a well written lead is concise, which means it will be exactly as long as it takes and no longer, because wordiness in fact reduces the amount of information actually transmitted to the reader. Thankfully, we do in fact, have the notable controversies about abortion mentioned with as they take up the majority of the final paragraph.
I agree with MastCell that the difference between safe and unsafe abortions are a major and introductory part of understanding abortion as a topic, and should remain in the lead and that the disputed citation overall valid, assuming no one lied, which I do. (Moving on to my opinion) The actual incidence numbers other than the overall incidence rates should be moved. As for the "similar whether or not" sentence, are there relatively recent figures or responses to that study that dispute it?--Tznkai (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The answer to the last question is yes. I can get started listing some of them here tomorrow (Thursday) beyond the ones mentioned in June, if we can't put it off until after the New Year's. I'm supposed to go climb a (small) mountain on Saturday, so I was aiming for Sunday or Monday, but could get started now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Short and simple are indeed admirable stylistic attributes, Tznkai, but in an encyclopedia, accuracy is paramount. The art of précis is conciseness, not omission, but I don't think we are too far apart there. This article has 32 KB of "readable prose" plus four short lists, and summarising the six main sections accurately in three paragraphs is a difficult task. I actually think that the current lead does the job remarkably well, although I feel it skims too lightly over the current methods of inducing abortion, and fails to mention anything about complications. Nevertheless, I'm not arguing for a complete re-write, but emphasising that the current lead does its job well, and attempting to cut out any of the points there would not be an improvement. I still feel it would be helpful for editors here to agree a consensus on the content of the lead. All I'm seeing at present is declared intentions to remove content that has previously been deemed important, simply on the grounds that "shorter is better" – and I'm certain to disagree with that. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The most recent (and probably best documented) example I can think of is Poland and of that I give you what is probably the most relevent paragraph from Patrick J Flood's work "Life after Communism: Democracy and Abortion in Eastern Europe and Russia" - "An important part of the decline in the number of abortions and the abortion rate is attributable to legislative and regulatory changes. Throughout the communist period the number and rate of abortions rose and fell in tune with changes in the decrees governing the legal availability of abortion. The Polish and Hungarian pro-life statutes, together with the restriction on public funding of non-medical abortions and requirements for parental consent and mandatory counseling, have certainly contributed to the decline in these countries. It is not possible to wave away these results by simply alleging vast numbers of illegal abortions.

Of course there were and are some illegal abortions; individual stories can be found, because every law is sometimes broken. But to extrapolate from anecdotes to massive numbers is an exercise in pure imagination. Such evidence as we do have, for instance on Poland, points toward a finding that carefully tailored abortion laws adopted after lengthy public and legislative debate are usually obeyed." (http://www.uffl.org/vol10/flood10.pdf)

I'd also like to just chip in that I find the current wording of the "unsafe abortion" bit in the intro to be a little confusing and would like to have it expanded by a sentence fragment or two to give the reader a better understanding of what most folks count as "safe" and "unsafe". - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Patrick Flood appears to be a retired diplomat and a pro-life activist ([6]), and the work you cite was published by University Faculty for Life, a pro-life advocacy group. As a thought exercise, imagine the howls of outrage that would result if I suggested using a retired diplomat's post on the NARAL website as a source for this sort of thing. I think that if we're going to discuss public health and epidemiology, we should probably rely on reputable medical and public health sources as the primary basis for our coverage, per WP:MEDRS. Such sources are easy to find, although it may be difficult to accept what they have to say. As a general concern, we need to look for the best available sources and follow them, rather than searching for sources that support our preconceptions. I'm seeing a lot of the latter approach, and not much of the former, here. MastCell Talk 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Addendum By the way, since you're interested in Poland, you might want to look at what the actual medical literature has to say, since they do things like conduct qualititative studies. Start with Mishtal 2010, which estimates that 97% of abortions in Poland now occur clandestinely as a result of restrictive abortion laws. While there are only about 200 reported abortions per year in Poland, the best NGO estimates suggest that 80,000–200,000 unreported and illegal abortions are performed there annually (confirmed in Pancevski 2006). Think about that: there are one thousand illegal abortions for every legal abortion - exactly the sort of "massive numbers" that Flood dismisses by assertion. The article also cites a flourishing abortion-tourism trend in Poland as a result of the nation's restrictive abortion laws.

Interview studies indicate that clandestine abortions in Poland are easily available, are advertised relatively openly in the press, and about half of all interview subjects were personally acquainted with at least one person who had undergone such an abortion. PMID 21111351 states that physicians were not required to report abortions under the Communist regime, leading to a near-total lack of reliable data and calling into question Flood's definitive pronouncements on the subject. I could go on, but I think it's instructive to note that the medical literature contradicts the assertions found in the pro-life source you've cited. If you don't care about Poland, just consider this a plea for a commitment to better sourcing. MastCell Talk 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Top picture is not neutral

Why is there a picture of a fetus right at the top of the article? That isn't neutral at all. It looks like the Conservapedia. Sparky2010 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That change was made against consensus and I am reverting it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No, conservapedia has this. Lets calm down with the rhetoric people.--Tznkai (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia has an interesting image of Hitler labeled just that near the bottom. Really not unexpected I guess.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Separately, as much as I love that picture, it was from, as I recall, a hysterectomy that also was an abortion, which would put it in a tiny minority of actual abortions performed. So, I once again return to the idea of "no image" for the lead.
That having been said, what in the world strikes you as "non-neutral?" about it? That it shows an intact embryo in gloved hand? That it is purportedly similar to the image that a non-neutral website would use? That its an accurate picture of the results of an actual medical procedure? Seriously, what? There is no sentimentality invoked or encouraged, no signage, no apparent endorsement of a position. If an image of a fetus is inherently non-neutral than we might as well close up shop, because at that point, we will have consigned all information to the partisans.--Tznkai (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Since an abortion is a procedure performed on a woman, one might expect there to be a woman in the picture. The framing of the "abortion debate" to obscure the women that the embryos are inside of is a POV trap that we don't need to fall into. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Abortion is also a (sometimes-)medical procedure that destroys a fetus, so one might also logically expect to find an image of a fetus in the infobox, no? NW (Talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we could debate that too. Maybe it's worth having a composite image. (ie. random example, if you look at any of the "[nationality/ethnicity] people" articles, like Italian people or Jews, the lead image is of several notable people. Maybe the lead image could be a composite of several abortion-related images. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I still have no idea what is wrong with the current image. No one is going to mistake a stone carving for what it is. Other pages use historical images in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with the current image (I like historical images) except for the fact that it's difficult to tell what's happening. I'm not sure if that's something that could be solved through brightening/contrast though, just because it's a carving rather than 2d art. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I (and other users) have made our cases in the above section, but my issue with it is not neutrality, it is topical applicability. A lead image should be able to sum up the topic at a glance, but the top level abortion article covers a series of abortion methods, the social (legal, philosophical, political) aspects of abortion, the historical aspects of it, etc. We have a number of good images for individual subsections as well as the lower level articles, but not one for the top level article. The image we have up top should correspond to whatever image that the median reader would see if they closed their eyes and thought "abortion" - and there is no such image.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, an induced abortion involves at a minimum, a (formerly, except in cases of selective reduction) pregnant woman, the death of a fetus and some sort of procedure, whether medical or unsafe, and possibly one or more doctors/practitioners. If we're really trying to encapsulate everything that is "involved" we have in addition, a male that was involved in the conception, a series of judges and lawmakers that have controlled the legal environment, and frequently family members that have influenced the decision whether or not to induce in whatever way. What I'm getting at here, is that if you try to understand neutrality in the lens of "whether or not the image includes an actor I think is important" you run the risk of absurdity. Images by their nature are susceptible to wide interpretation because, despite their press, they do not have a thousand words, but none at all.--Tznkai (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As discussed previously, it appears that an overwhelming majority of editors support having no image in the lead unless it achieves consensus here first. In that regard, the current image is just as problematic as the recently-removed fetus image. Both were added without building consensus first and neither are supported by a majority of the editors here. Since the previous discussion seems to have died out and it seems that everyone has expressed their opinions on it, I'm going to go ahead and move the "demon" image to the history section of the article and leave the lead space empty. I invite Doc James (or anyone else) to nominate any images they would like to appear in the lead for discussion here on the talk page. Once an image has achieved consensus here, and not before, it should be added to the lead of the article. This would seem to be the most diplomatic and non-disruptive solution to the issue. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone besides Anythingyouwant object to the medieval image? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a RFC is in order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternately - this has been a bit disorganized - maybe someone can start a new thread with a sub-thread for each picture, so that editors can vote on each picture whether they strongly support it, whether they accept it, no opinion, oppose, etc. (See Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center#Reference_by_reference_discussion for an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) with reasons of course... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While I think the old stone picture was interesting it is strange, dated, confusing and unrepresentative of the majority of abortions. I would very much favor a modern picture of a fetus/embryo/whathaveyou in some stage of the abortion process. I think the appearance of more than one image could be made to look decent. - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I did object, I've not yet seen or even heard of a proposal for an adequate lead image. I can discuss my objections again to each in turn if needed--Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I would support having further discussions/voting on the medieval image (or any image). Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi All, As I mentioned earlier, we had a strikingly similar RfC on this topic nearly 2 years ago (see FAQ#5 above). Most of the participants were arguing for or against inclusion or exclusion of particular lead images back then based on very similar POV/neutrality arguments you all are using now. Several of us, myself included, contended that its pointless arguing for or against an image based on POV or neutrility because everyone has an opinion about abortion one way or the other, and either way there's a heavy emotional load on those opinions. For me, its really a question of censorship first and foremost and followed by what constitutes good taste and applicability in image selection. The lovely picture of the intact fetus within an amniotic sac being held is far, far more sanitary than what the end product of surgical abortion actually looks like. This unfortunate little person was obviously carefully disected intact from a hysterectomy specimen, and presents itself as a very good specimen of an intact fetus. That said, it is a human fetus, and some people will find the image disturbing. For that reason, the use of an illustration or diagram was suggested as a reasonable approach in the last RfC, & I think that's what we went with before the fetus image arrived. Maybe it is time for another RfC, but in suggesting this I'd like to support Doc James' idea that we !vote to support/oppose all the current candidates for lead image and try to form consensus that way. History tells me the long winded discussion method will most likely end up with another "no concensus" result. Happy new year! Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uselessness of abortion laws

The lead of this article currently says: "The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted." We could cherry-pick other reliable sources to support the opposite statement: "The frequency of abortions can be greatly influenced by whether access is restricted." I’ll introduce some sources below for purposes of discussion; I am not suggesting that they should or should not be included in this Wikipedia article. What they show is that we are not describing the controversy, but rather we are taking sides in the controversy. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but c'est la vie.

According to a 2006 article in Time Magazine about restrictions on abortion without parental consent, "researchers writing in the latest New England Journal of Medicine report that in Texas at least, such laws have reduced the abortion rate significantly."

Likewise, restrictions on public funding have reportedly reduced the abortion rate substantially, according to a 2009 piece by Professor Harold Pollack for the New Republic, available via CBS News: "During periods in which no funding was available, three in every ten pregnancies to low-income African-American women age 18-30 that would otherwise have been aborted were carried to term."

For more info about the affect of abortion restrictions involving funding and parental consent, you can see Marshall Medoff, “Price, Restrictions and Abortion Demand”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues (2007). Medoff writes that abortion restrictions on funding reduce the number of abortions by about 35 per 1000 pregnancies, and restrictions on abortion without parental involvement decrease abortions by about 25 per 1000 pregnancies. I’m not saying that Medoff or the other sources are correct or incorrect, only that they contradict the statement in our lead.

The statement at issue in the lead does not accurately capture the spectrum of information and opinion in the reliable sources. For example, the two cited sources do not even mention or address abortion restrictions related to funding or taxes or fines, nor restrictions related to parental consent or involvement. They also do not address the change of abortion rate that occurs when a country legalizes the practice. And yet the broad statement in the lead seems to take a position about all these things.

Let’s take a quick look at the two cited sources. They are Shah (2009) and Culwell (2010). Kelly Culwell works for Planned Parenthood, so I would think it might be possible to strive for more neutral-looking sources in a Wikipedia article, unless we want to start including articles from the National Right to Life Committee too. Culwell barely touches on the subject we are talking about here (see her footnote 17 and accompanying text). I won’t argue with what Culwell writes, though I believe her logic is faulty, but rather will simply note that other reliable sources make claims contrary to Culwell. Here are a couple more claims contrary to Culwell:

  • “The estimated effect of abortion legalization on adoption rates is sizable and can account for much of the decline in adoptions during the early 1970s” (Bitler, “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number of Unwanted Children? Evidence From Adoptions”, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (2002)).
  • “A fall in the abortion rate was recorded during the early years of the national family planning programme prior to the legalization of abortion in March 1970 as women switched to the use of readily available contraceptives as a means of birth control. The rate fell consistently from 9.2 in 1965 to 6.7 in 1969. In the following year when abortion was legalized the rate jumped to 11.7 and oscillated slightly above this level until 1973.” Swee-Hock Saw, Population Policies and Programmes in Singapore, page 58 (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2005).

The scholarly debate about whether (and how much) legalization led to more abortions in the United States rages on, and yet the sentence at issue in the lead of this Wikipedia article implies who is right and who is wrong about it. See John Breen, “Modesty and Moralism: Justice, Prodence, and Abortion – A Reply to Skeel & Stuntz”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy” (2008). Breen writes, “social science evidence indicates that the incidence of the procedure underwent a dramatic increase following its legalization.” The sources cited in the lead of this Wikipedia article do not even address this issue, much less prove that one side is right and the other wrong. I strongly object to the way the lead of this article now takes sides in the matter.

In addition to Culwell, Shah (2009) is cited by this Wikipedia article. Shah purports to be a brief review article, but it does not review any of the matters mentioned above. It does not discuss the effect of abortion restrictions regarding funding, or the effect of abortion restrictions regarding notification, or the effect of abortion restrictions that are eliminated due to legalization. Shah says, “Whether legally restricted or not, a woman’s chance of having an abortion is about the same”, but Shah cites no source for that assertion, as one might expect from a competent review article. On the contrary, Table 2 of Shah shows great variations in abortion rates, from 11 per 1000 women in Oceania to 39 per 1000 women in Southeast Asia, so clearly a woman’s chance of having an abortion is NOT the same everywhere. There is no reason to take every word of Shah as gospel, and to completely ignore and deny the other sources I’ve mentioned. We need to present BOTH sides.

In 2007, there was a global study of abortion along the lines of Culwell and Shah. The New York Times reported about it on October 12, 2007. The Times wrote: “A comprehensive global study of abortion laws has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it….Anti-abortion groups criticized the research….”

Notice the following things about that New York Times article: (1) it does not announce with its own voice that the study reached a correct conclusion; (2) it reports that the study involved comparing different countries rather than studying the effect of policies in any one country; (3) it stated that the study’s conclusion merely “suggest[s]” that banning abortion does not save any unborn children; (4) it mentioned that the study is contested; and (5) it stated very clearly that the study is from a “reproductive rights group”. Our Wikipedia article fails to do ALL of those things.

The Guttmacher study described by the New York Times appeared in Lancet, and let’s call it Sedgh (2007). Sedgh (2007) says that “highly restrictive aborton laws are not associated with low abortion incidence” worldwide. But no source is footnoted for that statement in Sedgh (2007). Even granting that the quoted statement is correct, could it be correct because some countries with highly restrictive laws, such as African countries, do not provide adequate access to affordable contraceptives (thus driving up the abortion rate)? Or because the highly restrictive laws in Africa are not enforced? Or because women are not treated as equals in many African countries, and are therefore subject to marital and non-marital rape? Sedgh (2007) does not elaborate in the slightest about any of these factors (or point to any elaboration), and I don’t see why this particular source should be used to completely eclipse and silence other reliable sources that find laws can reduce incidence of abortions. Especially given that Gilda Sedgh wrote in 2010: “In countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, it is extremely difficult to obtain reliable counts of the numbers of procedures performed.”

Instead of cluttering up the lead with categorical one-sided statements, let’s strive for some more neutrality. And how about mentioning in the lead undisputed stuff like the later in pregnancy an abortion is sought, the more restrictive the laws tend to be? Or maybe mentioning how prevalent sex-selective abortion is in the world. Like Joe Friday said, “Just the facts”. And what the heck is a statement doing in the lede that does not summarize anything in the body of the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the time article, it indicates that there is some disagreement in the literature as of 2006, and I'd like to get my hands on the actual underlying articles rather than the news piece. The Pollack peice is an op-ed, and can't be used as a source. Medoff I believe is an economist, and what journals in that field are considered sound is outside of my balliwick. I'll see if I can find the underlying source in the disputed statement in between my other duties this weekend so I can comment more usefully on it.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that Pollack would be an adequate source for this Wikipedia article. Rather, he specifically names sources for his facts and figures, so I was just taking a shortcut instead of citing them directly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This was the only thing I could find on the matter: "In several states where provider numbers increased, such as California, Georgia and New York, abortion rates decreased between 2000 and 2005. Three of the nine states where abortion rates increased (Maine, Maryland and New Hampshire) had a decrease in provider numbers, and three (Alaska, Colorado and Connecticut) had an increase of two or more. In states that had few providers to begin with, such as Arkansas, Mississippi and North Dakota, declines in the number of providers likely further restricted access to abortion services and, in turn, contributed to lower abortion rates." --Jones RK et al. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008. I doubt this would be a very useful source, however, as they seem rather equivocal on the matter, especially by using the word "likely". Kaldari (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
As AYW is aware, the process of identifying reliable sources has been followed thoroughly in this article; the implication of "cherry-picking" is a smear on the good-faith efforts of many editors and ought to be retracted.
An article in Time Magazine is hardly a suitable source for refuting conclusions from reviews published in the highest-quality scholarly journals. If the article is sourced to published works, then let's see them to decide if they carry enough weight to mention.
Pollack's comments reported in the CBS News opinion piece are interesting, but likewise need to be sourced to where they were originally published.
If Medoff is right and the observed reductions are causally related solely to the reduction in funding, then that is also noteworthy, but 2.5%–3.5% reductions don't contradict the text currently in place.
The statement in the lead does not capture the spectrum of opinion in unreliable sources, but it does encapsulate the conclusions of the best reliable sources – and that's what this article should be stating.
Both Shah and Cullwell's reviews carry the weight of the peer-review and editorial process of the journals in which they appear, and do not rely on the author's reputation for that authority. It is therefore disingenuous to cast aspersions on their conclusions, based on an author's place of work. When an author working for the National Right to Life Committee has their work published in an equivalently respected journal, it will be worthy of consideration for inclusion in the same way.
I don't think that anyone would disagree that freely-available contraception reduces both pregnancies and abortions, but the fact that illegal abortions are naturally under-reported casts doubt on the simplistic studies that cannot distinguish between an increase in abortions and an increase in reporting rate.
The sentence at issue in the lead is sourced to secondary reviews published in highly-respected scholarly journals. It doesn't get any better than that, and the conclusions in those reviews are not disputed in equivalent reliable sources. This is not an issue of Wikipedia saying who is right or wrong, it's an issue of Wikipedia reporting uncontested findings from the best sources. If there is a real scholarly debate, where does it appear in JAMA or Lancet?
When Shah said, "Whether legally restricted or not, a woman’s chance of having an abortion is about the same", that statement was peer-reviewed and scrutinised by the editorial process involved in the article's publication. We take it as read that both he and the peer-reviewers were aware of the source literature and trust their judgement – whether or not every single statement in the review is directly attributed to a source. That is "Gospel" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, otherwise you are suggesting that we prefer the amateur opinion of any editor over the experts in the field. We present both sides where controversy exists in the reliable sources. We don't use hearsay and primary studies to refute the findings of reliable secondary reviews.
You miss the point when you assert that variations in reported abortion rate between countries implies that differences in legal status is the determining factor. Availability of contraception, social attitudes and comprehensiveness of reporting are much more likely to produce the variations.
The NYT piece seems to be reporting Lancet 2007, vol 370, no 9595, which seems to be based on PMID 17938093 (currently used as reference 4 in our article); further commentary is available at GPR. Having read each of those, I really don't see what contradiction you find with our current text, other than it reports what the three sources say, rather than quoting spokespeople from Guttmacher and National Right to Life. We create articles by reporting the best sources, not by quoting a couple of peoples' opinion to create a news story. We have the policy of WP:UNDUE to guide us,; it's a pity NYT doesn't.
I disagree that Shah's conclusions are disputed in scholarly sources; WP:GEVAL applies here until a contrary view is supported with something approaching the same degree of authority. I do agree that all the important issues around late-term abortion (legality, mortality, procedures, etc.) are conspicuously absent from the lead. Would you like to propose some summary text that could be added? --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. A contested study by a pro-choice group observes that Africa has restrictive abortion laws which aren't very successfully enforced. So the study concludes that no restrictive laws anywhere can possibly reduce incidence of abortion. We latch on to that conclusion, disregard the context, disregard all studies that analyzed other evidence to reach other conclusions, and present the conclusion in the lead as uncontested fact, without any further explanation in the Wikipedia article. That's not cherry-picking? Given that the material was edit-warred into this article contrary to WP:BRD, perhaps "POV-pushing" would have been a better description than "cherry-picking".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Our criteria demand that sources be considered contested only when disputed by other equally reliable sources, not just by the say-so of an editor. I'm afraid I can't recognise the description you make of a "contested study by a pro-choice group" in our references, so you'll need to be more specific, if you wish to make a point. In the meantime, you could address the point I make that Shah (2009) is an uncontested reliable secondary source of the highest quality by providing equally authoritative sources per MEDRS. It is not sufficient to attempt to discredit a reliable secondary source by amateur analysis, otherwise you are asking Wikipedia to substitute your opinion for that of the expert peer-reviewers and editors in the journals where it was published. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
1. - This is a dispute over the effectiveness of law, MEDRS does not apply.
2. - Shah isn't the be-all-end-all of abortion, they even concede their their methodology is limited and prone to error.
On top of the sources already listed here I can point to outstanding ones indicating that abortion either increased after legal expansion or decreased after legal contraction in Romania, the US, Turkey. Hell, even where Planned Parenthood gives the trend a nod. If you really want I can find more. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a claim about the incidence of a medical procedure. MEDRS does apply. In any case, why would you not want to follow a guideline that insists on only the highest quality of sourcing? If a finding is worthy of inclusion, it will have been published in a high quality source.
All methodologies are limited, and the conclusions in Shah 2009 are reflected in Culwell 2010.
The El-Shahawi (2000) Romania review published by the UN provides one of the clearest examples of how under-reporting of illegal abortions hides the true abortion rate: ... unofficial estimates suggest that nearly 20 per cent of women of reproductive age may have become infertile because, on average, a woman may have undergone at least five illegal abortions by age 40. That's 5,000 illegal abortions total per 1,000 women, or an annual illegal abortion rate of at least 167 per 1,000 women aged 15–45. The reported legal abortion rate rose between 1989 and 1990 from 39 per 1,000 women to 199 per 1,000 women – totally accounted for by the reclassification of illegal abortions. The rate subsequently fell as a result of increased availability of contraception to 79 per 1,000 women over the next six years. More importantly, the document shows a rapid decrease in maternal mortality ratio at the same time, a sure sign that unsafe abortions had declined dramatically.
"Trends in Abortion in the United States 1973-2005", Guttmacher Institute (2008) is absolutely clear: Prior to the nationwide legalization of abortion, information on the number and rate of abortions was not gathered, and estimates of illegal and self-induced abortions varied widely. In the years immediately following the Roe v Wade decision, the number of LEGAL abortions grew rapidly for several reasons. The number of physicians trained and experienced in the procedure increased, and a nationwide network of outpatient abortion clinics developed that enabled women who would previously have had an illegal abortion, or would not have been able to obtain one at all, to do so legally in a medical facility. It also clearly shows the ten-fold decrease in abortion-related deaths following legalisation.
"Abortion and Contraceptive Use in Turkey", Senlet et al (2000), published by University of North Carolina, actually examines the relationship between use of contraception and rate of abortion and is a very interesting paper. On page 13, it does include the statement The abortion rate and ratio sharply increased between 1983 and 1988, following the legalization of abortion in 1983, which certainly supports your case. However, it also shows that by 1998, the rate of 25 per 1,000 women had fallen to just below the pre-legalisation rate of 28 per 1,000 women (1983). Although the paper is old by MEDRS standards, I think that it covers an important area not examined in our article, the relationship between contraception and abortion, which may be notable enough for an article of its own.
There's enough evidence to show that following legalisation, reported abortion rates initially rise and then steadily decline in almost every case. I still don't see the evidence that contradicts "The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted", since the initial rise in reported abortions following seems to be mainly caused by an increase in reporting, not by any significant increase in the total number of abortions.
Please go ahead and find some more sources. There's surely a lot more we can say about this issue, and examining reliable sources is the best way to research it. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I do want the highest quality sources, pigeonholing us into only using sources from one field may prelude us from the inclusion of important data.
While the reclassification of previously illegal abortions as now legal abortions accounts for some of the rise in abortion these sources are consistent in stating that this does not account for the total rise in the number of abortions, for instance;
Guttmacher - "The number of physicians trained and experienced in the procedure increased, and a nationwide network of outpatient abortion clinics developed that enabled women who would previously have had an illegal abortion, or would not have been able to obtain one at all, to do so legally in a medical facility'."
Turkey - "Trends in the United States have been similar to those in Korea and Turkey. In the United States, the 'legalization of abortion in 1973 led to a brief period of increase in the abortion rate."
Planned parenthood - "Legalization of abortion has the initial effect of increasing the number of reported abortions, as legal abortions replace illegal ones, and it probably also increases the total number of abortions as safe services become more widely available."
I agree that the contraception-abortion link would probably be worth an article. I'll look for more papers. - Haymaker (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Schrandit/Haymaker, I don't think you've read carefully or understood the sources you're citing. The "US" source you cite (from Guttmacher, which keeps the most reliable abortion statistics in the US) states clearly that "In the years immediately following the Roe v Wade decision, the number of LEGAL abortions grew rapidly." (Caps in the original). That does not mean that the overall number of abortions increased. The "Planned Parenthood" source you cite (actually a scientific paper from the peer-reviewed medical literature) clearly attributes declines in abortions to the increasing availability of effective contraception, and concludes by stating: "Legalization of abortion and access to abortion services do not lead to increased reliance on abortion for fertility control in the long term." That is, liberal abortion laws do not increase the abortion rate, directly contradicting the spin you wish to put on it. Let's get it together. I can't speak for others (RexxS appears more patient than I), but I'm not sure how much longer I'm willing to correct this stream of attempted original synthesis and outright misrepresentation of sources. MastCell Talk 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I never addressed the availability of contraception or the long term fertility rate, I do not know why you brought those up. The Guttmacher institute, which apparently keeps the most reliable abortion statistics, unambiguously states "[liberal abortion laws] probably also increases the total number of abortions as safe services become more widely available.". - Haymaker (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that we might be able to give more detail on the effect of legalisation, something like:
  • "When abortion was legalised in countries such as USA, UK, Romania and Turkey, there was an initial [or sharp?] rise in the number of abortions reported, followed by a steady decline to rates similar to those pre-legalisation. This was accompanied by a significant drop in maternal mortality.{cited to various}"
I believe that much is certainly true, but it may be considered SYNTH, unless sources exist that make those points already. It's always a problem in trying to make a global statement when we only have sources dealing with specific countries. It's also difficult to separate out causality, since we know that legalisation is often accompanied by a increased provision of both facilities and contraception (which probably have opposite effects on the abortion rate). It's clearly a complex relationship that probably deserves a more detailed description, but I'm aware that the article is already close to the upper limit of readable prose. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
When facts are disputed by non-fringe sources, it's not our role to determine who is right and who is wrong; we need to say it's disputed. That goes double when all sides acknowledge the extreme difficulty of determining the number of clandestine illegal abortions occurring now and in the past. Even in terms of plain English, the sentence in the lead is problematic; if access to something is truly restricted then that means the thing is inaccessible. No one disputes that strict abortion laws have zero impact on the abortion rate if they're not enforced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Very fair point on the current synthyness, I am confident that the more digging we will do the more academic sources we will find devoted exclusively to the topic. The effectiveness of these laws is a very, very complex thing and perhaps it cannot adequately summarized in a single sentence. Maybe move it from the lead and give it its own section? - Haymaker (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:Summary style, the appropriate place to elaborate on this subject would probably be at sub-articles like Abortion law and Abortion in the United States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The current sentence is:

The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted.[2][3]

Used twice, once in the lead and once in the Unsafe abortion section. The underlying sources state:

Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion. [...]However, a woman’s chance of having an abortion is similar whether she lives in a developed or a developing region: in 2003 the rates were 26 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 in developed areas and 29 per 1000 in developing areas. The main difference is in safety, with abortion being safe and easily accessible in developed countries and generally restricted and unsafe in most developing countries.

and

It is well understood that legal restrictions do not lower the incidence of abortion; thus the abortion rate of 29 per 1000 women of reproductive age in Africa, where abortion is mostly illegal, is similar to that of 28 per 1000 women in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds [17]. The difference is the high death toll in Africa, where the abortions are predominantly unsafe.

I think the sentence is well supported, though I would prefer to report out the underlying statistics either instead or in addition, and the sources are reliable. I think the next questions are: (1) Are there reliable sources that directly attack these sources? and (2) are there reliable sources that directly contradict the findings?--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone attacks or disputes the notion that a country with very strict abortion legislation on paper may actually have such ineffective enforcement that its abortion rate is higher than the rate in other countries where the procedure may be entirely legal. The problem is taking quotes from the cited sources removed from that context, thereby implying a much wider range of consequences than the cited sources analyzed (e.g. abortion rates before versus after legalization in a single country, the affect of notification laws within a single country, et cetera). As far as the statistics in the two cited sources are concerned, Table 2 of Shah shows great variations in abortion rates, from 11 per 1000 women in Oceania to 39 per 1000 women in Southeast Asia, so clearly a woman’s chance of having an abortion is NOT the same everywhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That isn't necessarily a yes to either of my questions. Our use of the sources needs to be done felicitously and neutrally, but that does not go as far as into making our own critiques of them. I happen to think the second source I quoted above has some shoddy reasoning errors, but that doesn't matter. So, if for example, you had a reliable source that stated that abortion rates dropped after legal change in status, that would seemingly contradict the findings that "legal restrictions do not lower the incidence of abortion", and it would be profitable to find some useful way of discussing it in the article. We do however, have to find a source that makes that link, not make it ourselves. To put it another way, we cannot say "source says X therefor, Y" we need to find a source that says "therefore Y" --Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You have suggested repeating statistics from the cited sources, and that would be a huge step toward presenting what those sources say in context. If editors prefer to exclude the context and instead present overbroad inferences from the sources, then I suggest we also present sources that qualify or contradict those overbroad inferences. I mentioned several sources below (New York Times, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, do you guys mind if I move these recent comments down to the "uselessness of abortion laws" section so we can keep everything together? - Haymaker (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This article says: "The incidence of induced abortion varies regionally." This contradicts the statement in the lead that "The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted." Either the frequency is similar in all regions or it's not. The data show that it's not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Er, no, dude, because there are more factors than legality affecting the abortion rate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be a good substitute statement in the lead: there are more factors than legality affecting the abortion rate. The lead presently says that legality has zero effect, which is highly disputed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reboot

Let's start with the best available sources (as defined in relevant guidelines) and work from there, rather than trying to Google-mine quotes to support our talking points. I see the following:

  • PMID 20085681 (Shah & Ahman, 2009): A recent review article authored by two World Health Organization researchers and published in the reputable peer-reviewed medical literature, which states unambiguously as its conclusion: Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion. A woman's likelihood to have an abortion is about the same whether she lives in a region where abortion is available on request or where it is highly restricted.
  • PMID 20451196 (Culwell et al., 2010): A recent review published in the reputable peer-reviewed medical literature, which states unambiguously: It is well understood that legal restrictions do not lower the incidence of abortion; thus the abortion rate of 29 per 1000 women of reproductive age in Africa, where abortion is mostly illegal, is similar to that of 28 per 1000 women in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The difference is the high death toll in Africa, where the abortions are predominantly unsafe.
  • PMID 20451198 (Shaw 2010): A recent position paper by FIGO, the leading worldwide expert body the field, published in the reputable peer-reviewed medical literature and stating unambiguously: From an evidence perspective, it has been clearly shown that restrictive laws on abortion increase maternal mortality. The highest abortion rates are in countries with no legal access to abortion and restricted access to contraception. The lowest abortion rates in the world are in countries such as Belgium where young people are educated, there is comprehensive sex education in schools, and there is access to free or low cost contraception and abortion services.
  • PMID 17933648 (Sedgh et al., 2007): The largest, most prominent, and most recent study I can find addressing the question directly, published in Lancet and stating: The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence.

I have actually found very little evidence of serious controversy or dispute about these findings in the scholarly literature, nor in recent, high-quality sources. I'm left with the impression that editors are attempting to manufacture a controversy that does not exist in the scholarly literature, nor in expert opinion. Do good sources ("good" according to this site's sourcing guidelines) directly dispute, or even address, this apparent consensus seen in recent, high-quality sources? I'm open to hearing about such sources, but I'm not really up for more Google-mining, original synthesis, personal opinion, or apparent pursuit of personal agendas on this talk page. Nutshell: sources plz. Make that: quality sources plz. MastCell Talk 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As an initial matter, I disagree that medical sources need to be exclusively used here. The effectiveness of abortion laws is appropriately discussed in reputable social science journals, legal journals, and newspapers. Excluding sources like the New York Times and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is severely skewed. Moreover, even with regard to the particular medical studies you cite, none of them addressed the effect of strengthening or weakening abortion laws within a single country, but rather made international comparisons, and yet that fact is excluded from our "summary" in the lead. The statement in the lead ("The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted") is a poor summary of the cited sources for another reason: it suggests wrongly that the frequency of abortions is similar in all regions, which is not what the cited sources say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, your latter point is easily solved. "Legal restrictions do little to affect the frequency of abortion." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see, Roscelese, how that language addresses anything I have said. Another issue is that the cited medical studies place much emphasis on the high abortion rate in Africa where abortion is (at least on paper) highly restricted. The New York Times points out though that the high abortion rate in Uganda is associated not just with restrictive abortion laws, but also with unavailability of contraceptives. Do you know of any medical studies comparing abortion rates in two countries that both have widely available contraceptives, but abortion laws are only strictly enforced in one of those two countries?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you?

Data on abortion incidence and maternal mortality are collected and analyzed by epidemiologists and public-health researchers. If there is an actual controversy among experts about the interpretation of such data, then it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it by pointing to recent evidence of such a controversy in the scholarly public-health (that is, medical) literature. Again, sources, please.

I am not opposed to sources such as the New York Times (e.g. "Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare". I'm not sure where you got that impression. I'm simply opposed to abusing snippets of popular-press (or other) sources to try to "rebut" a clear expert consensus on the subject. As to the Harvard Journal of Public Health, you are presumably referring to a single article from 2008 published by an attorney who works on developing a "Catholic legal theory". The article in question is basically a lengthy exposition of the author's individual views about how coercive abortion restrictions can "overcome the culture of death" and teach women "to resist the temptation to destroy the life developing within them."

While that viewpoint may certainly be notable on a political level, the author's personal interpretation of abortion statistics in service of his argument should not be juxtaposed as if it "debunks", rebuts, or even seriously challenges the results of actual epidemiological and public-health research published in the relevant scholarly literature. MastCell Talk 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are presenting evidence that is peripherally related to the question - papers on the effect of contraception on the abortion rate, quotes comparing rates of abortion among all Africans to rates of abortion among all Europeans, the effects of contraceptives and abortions on maternal mortality rates, ect. I don't particularly expect to find scholarly discourse on those topics. Papers that ask the specific question "when this country expanded/constricted abortion laws was the rate effected" there seems to be very little debate on the matter. - Haymaker (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We must be looking at different sets of papers. Those I cite above clearly and unambiguously address the effect of abortion laws on abortion incidence and maternal mortality. I'm not sure how we can make progress if you're serious about your assertion that these sources are "peripheral" to the question. MastCell Talk 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"From an evidence perspective, it has been clearly shown that restrictive laws on abortion increase maternal mortality. The highest abortion rates are in countries with no legal access to abortion and restricted access to contraception." = pretty ambiguous. - Haymaker (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that as ambiguous at all. The language is quite definitive (e.g. "clearly shown"). MastCell Talk 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The above quote lists two possible causes for an effect. You seize on one of these possible causes while the researchers deliberately included another. - Haymaker (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
MastCell, I am glad that you do not wish to exclude the New York Times, which describes a serious controversy, though our lead takes only one side of that controversy. Regarding your criticism of the article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, it is no less a scholarly source and a scholarly article than the various medical articles you cite by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice personnel (one of which Tznkai correctly described above as "shoddy"). Incidentally, I asked whether you know of any medical studies comparing abortion rates in two countries that both have widely available contraceptives, but abortion laws are only strictly enforced in one of those two countries; I obviously asked that question because such a study seems to be conspicuously lacking in the literature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, my problem is not with the Times, but with your (mis)use of it. The article, which is after all entitled "Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare", does not reference any significant scientific controversy. It describes, at length, a major scientific study, and then goes on to quote a spokesperson from the National Right to Life Committee, in the context of describing the reaction of anti-abortion partisans to the study. That's not a description of a scientific controversy - it's a description of a scientific finding disputed by a specific political lobby. Using that Times article to "teach the controversy" is a misleading and poor editing practice which ignores the actual content of the source.

Likewise, when we discuss abortion statistics and related epidemiology, recent peer-reviewed public-health literature is preferable to a lawyer's personal plea for stricter abortion laws. That's codified in this site's sourcing guidelines, but it should really be a matter of simple common sense and good editorial practice. As to your belief that a specific research question is "conspicuously lacking" in the medical literature, I will again ask you to keep your personal opinions to yourself and focus on the best available sources. MastCell Talk 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked if anyone has come across a study comparing abortion rates in two countries that have similar contraceptive access but very different abortion restrictions. There's absolutely nothing opinionated or improper about me asking that question here at the talk page.

MastCell, you have indicated elsewhere that you have no objection to removing the sentence in question from the lead. So, I don't quite see the purpose of us arguing here.
You apparently don't disagree that none of the cited studies address the effect of strengthening or weakening abortion laws within a single country, but rather make international comparisons, and you apparently don't disagree that that fact is excluded from our "summary" in the lead. You apparently don't disagree that the statement in the lead ("The frequency of abortions is similar whether or not access is restricted") is also a poor summary of the cited sources in that it suggests wrongly that the frequency of abortions is similar in all regions, which is not what the cited sources say. You also apparently don't disagree that the statement at issue in the lead fails to take account of the availability or unavailability of contraceptives which the New York Times says is a notable factor when comparing abortion rates and abortion laws in different countries.
Since you apparently disagree about none of these things, let's remove the sentence at issue from the lead, and move on from there. I don't see why we need to haggle forever about which reference is most pristine. But if you want to keep arguing about that, I will continue to say that the controversy reported in the NYT is not a controversy that our lead should take sides about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see reporting current, well-sourced expert opinion as "taking sides". If you like, we could indicate that international scientific studies show X, while the American pro-life lobby disagrees with those scientific studies. That's what the Times source says, actually. I would be fine with moving the sentence out of the lead and down to the article body while we hash it out. I'm not really OK with removing it with a promise to "move on from there", since past experience leads me to believe I'll end up feeling like Charlie Brown after Lucy promises to help him kick a field goal. That's just me, though. MastCell Talk 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly disagree that the NYT article demonstrates any controversy among reliable sources, as a spokesperson's comments quoted verbatim in a news report hardly complies with our guidelines on preferring peer-reviewed works. I will repeat my objection to removing further material from a lead that is too short, in that it already fails to adequately summarise the Incidence section for one. We should instead be looking for consensus on what other issues from that section should be added to the lead. I'd suggest that the variations in abortion rates between regions, at different stages of gestation, and by method employed are all important points deserving consideration. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
MastCell's plan sounds fine to me. The lead should be a result of consensus, not a half-baked product of edit-warring. The problem is not just omitting what the "other side" says, but also accurately characterizing what the medical studies say. The NYT itself is a reliable source; there is no requirement that everyone it quotes be a reliable source as well in order for the quotes to be Wikipedia-worthy.
I'm not an expert on Charlie Brown, so will keep my personal opinions about Mr. Brown to myself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent) The NYTs is not always correct and there are better sources for medical questions. If better sources disagree we go with the better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Plan to move sounds dandy to me, I'd also like to point out that the American pro-choice lobby also disagrees with that study. - Haymaker (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stats in Abortion Law

Hi. I was just reading the Abortion Law segment, and found this: A few nations ban abortion entirely: Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Nicaragua, with consequent rises in maternal death directly and indirectly due to pregnancy. I believe the text is a bit misleading and could be written better, whereas the text implies that the consequent rises in maternal death occur in all four countries, although the citation only refers to Nicaragua, not to either Chile, El Salvador or Malta. Perhaps it could be written better, so the statement doesn't involve the other countries into the situation present in just one. Cheers. 201.220.232.61 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Nico

Contraceptives

In May of 2010, Nicholas Kristof had an opinion piece in the NYT that could be useful for this article.[7] I'm not suggesting that we cite it in this article, but rather Kristof's piece contains a useful summary of a Guttmacher study to which he links. Here's what Kristof says:


In my opinion, these facts belong in this article. Also, regarding the 25 million abortions that would no longer occur, most of those would be in developing countries where access to contraceptives is most difficult and where abortion is more likely to be restricted by law (notice that such a vast reduction in the abortion rate in those countries would very obviously render abortion much less likely in countries where it is restricted, though I have not yet found a source explicitly pointing this out).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the study is relevant, then we should probably cite the study itself rather than an op-ed discussing it. MastCell Talk 04:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, that's why I said, "I'm not suggesting that we cite it in this article." BTW, can we go ahead and remove the problematic sentence now from the lead (but not from the section where it also occurs)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Which "problem text" are you recommending we remove? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence MastCell was talking about here. That's the sentence about the abortion rate being the same whether or not it's restricted, i.e. the sentence that Tznkai said would preferably recite the info upon which it is based. Right now, the sentence is unclear, and potentially misleading as discussed at length in previous talk page sections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning the fact that abortion rate are not changed by its legality is important and should stay in the lead. This is supported by excellent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
And it is challenged by equally excellent sources. It should be removed from the lead and examined in greater depth in its own section. - Haymaker (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Without wanting to open a "can of worms" about 'prevention', from all that I've read in the sources I would enthusiastically agree that more mention ought to be made of the fact that availability of (especially modern) forms of contraception has a direct impact on abortion rates. Discussing the ways in which this medical procedure can be avoided seems a legitimate topic, and ought – IMHO – to make clear that availability of contraception is one of the most important factors. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, then - regarding sources:
  • If we use Guttmacher, then be aware that the study referenced in the Times editorial is now outdated and has been updated to reflect a decline in neonatal mortality. The updated version is here.
  • PMID 12709307 (Marston & Cleland 2003): Concludes that increased contraceptive use leads to a decline in abortion rate, although this effect can be obscured if fertility rates are simultaneously changing.
  • PMID 17126724 (Grimes et al., 2006): Access to safe, effective contraception can substantially reduce—but never eliminate—the need for abortion to regulate fertility. The effect of national contraceptive programmes on reducing the rate of abortion is well documented. The authors estimate that even with "perfect" use of contraception, approximately 6 million unplanned pregnancies would occur annually (the current figure is estimated at 27–33 million).
  • PMID 20663746 (Serbanescu et al., 2010): Specific to the Republic of Georgia, which has the highest documented abortion rate in the world. Found that "the increase in use of modern contraceptives was a significant contributor to the recent drop in abortion." Concludes: "Efforts to increase availability and use of modern family planning methods in Georgia should lead to a direct and measurable decline in the abortion rate."
  • PMID 21111353 (Shah et al., 2010): Notes that access to contraception can contribute to a reduction in (unsafe) abortions. Concludes: "However, contraception alone cannot and will not reduce women's need for abortion, which is as much a part of women's life experience as their ability to become pregnant."
Open to other sources, and to thoughts about how to summarize them. MastCell Talk 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I plan on putting a POV tag on this article soon, unless the sentence is removed from the lead that says there is no link between abortion rates and abortion restrictions. By my count, four editors are okay with removing it from the lead, but leaving it in the section on unsafe abortion for further discussion. However, the editor who edit-warred this statement into the lead wants it to stay.

It is true that reliable sources suggest the current average abortion rate is similar in countries where abortion is generally legal compared with countries where it is generally illegal, but there are individual countries and whole regions (e.g. Oceania) where the abortion rate is much lower than average, and others where it is much higher than average. Moreover, in the developing countries where abortion is largely illegal, the abortion rate would be vastly lower if contraceptives were available as they are in developed countries where abortion is largely legal. The statement in the lead is misleading and simplistic for these and many other reasons. It does not reflect the dispute about accuracy of illegal abortion estimates, or about the impact of legalization in a single country, or the impact on abortion rates of funding restrictions or restrictions related to notification. In sum, I have recited reliable sources that indicate this sentence requires further work, and I would like to improve the section on unsafe abortion before reintroducing any statement like this to the lead.

Right now, the sentence in the lead strongly suggests that the uncontradicted reliable sources all agree that abortion laws merely harm and kill women without significantly affecting the abortion rate. That is a false statement about the uncontradicted facts. It takes what the reliable sources say out of context, and omits contrary information. For these reasons, I plan to insert a POV tag, because there is no indication that the editor who edit-warred this material into the lead will stop edit-warring about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see these "reliable sources" you keep mentioning which contradict the WHO. Rather than providing a link to some section that may contain a source can you just provide a review article that disagrees with this statement for us to examine ( i am not going to read op ed pieces even if they are from the NYTs ). Also which four agree that we should remove this statement from the lead? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is any particular point in my previous comment that you disagree with, feel free to specify it and I will again reiterate the reliable sources that I already described. I am not going to be confined to review articles, because WP:RS recognizes many other reliable sources as well. If you look at my previous comment, you will see that I acknowledge that reliable sources suggest the current average abortion rate is similar in countries where abortion is generally legal compared with countries where it is generally illegal. The sentence in the lead is a poorly worded summary of that fact, and it also omits important information needed for NPOV. The four editors you've asked about are myself, MastCell, Haymaker, and Tznkai.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the sources cited above, there seems to be a current, international, and essentially uncontested view in the scholarly public-health and epidemiology literature that restrictive abortion laws do not predict or produce a lower incidence of abortion. Anythingyouwant has produced evidence that some American pro-life partisans dispute that scientific conclusion, but I have not seen evidence that it is actually controversial within the scientific or public-health communities. Whether the objections of the American pro-life lobby are relevant to the findings of international expert bodies seems dubious to me, although it may be worth additional coverage in abortion law or abortion debate. Certainly it seems excessive to slap a POV tag on the article on the basis of this sentence's placement in the lead (versus the article body).

As I said, I'm fine with moving the sentence out of the lead, although I'd prefer to see if we can get everyone on board. I can see validity in both Tznkai's argument for moving the sentence out of the lead, and in RexxS' argument for retaining it in the lead. I don't think it's worth fighting either way, and it seems to me that there's somewhat greater support for moving it out of the lead at present. MastCell Talk 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct that restrictive abortion laws do not predict a lower incidence of abortion, in my opinion, but that is far different from what the lead now says, and even farther from what the lead now implies. Anyway, since there's greater support now for moving it out of the lead than keeping it there, I'll move it out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote and there is no consensus to remove part of the summary which is inadequately summarised already. Nevertheless I won't edit-war with you over it, as it has been removed once already, but I'll tag the lead as inadequately summarising the section, as that seems to be acknowledged here. Perhaps that will bring in other editors who can help decide how the lead should summarise epidemiology and health risk related to the procedure. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not based on a vote. It is based on reasoned debate. This was supported by two excellent review articles. There has been no disagreement in the scientific press and thus this should be returned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm took the day off, and may take tomorrow off to, seriously people, can we at least argue about the same thing instead of setting up and knocking down straw men? There are two issues. 1.) Is the sentence accurate, neutral and supported? 2.) Should it be in the lead? --Tznkai (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's four issues, not one. They should be restated individually: 1.)Does the sentence accurately summarize the literature sources cited? 2.)Is the sentence neutral? 3.)Is the sentence supported? 4.)Should the sentence be in the lede? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is generally supported by its current 2 sources, but a wealth of other reliable sources have have been produced that support the opposite conclusion. The current sentence falls short on accurately summarizing the debate, it should be cut and given its own section. - Haymaker (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move on and not get hung up on a single sentence that has generated so much dissent between editors, as long as the lead actually makes an adequate summary of epidemiology and health risk. I'd suggest something like:

  • Abortion rates are generally highest where there is a lack of availability of modern contraceptive methods, and vary greatly between different countries. Areas where abortion is legal have broadly similar rates to those where it is illegal, although estimating rates of illegal abortions makes comparison imprecise. Unsafe abortions occur predominately where the procedure is illegal.

That's five points that I think are important enough to be in the lead. The sources already in the body of the text would, I believe, support such wording. It may be that the distinction in the last point is more appropriately described as being between developed and undeveloped countries, rather than between legal/illegal jurisdictions, and I'd have no problem if that were preferred. I'd really like to see the tag I added removed, so I'd encourage other editors to contribute their thoughts on how the lead can be expanded to cover this section. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's almost as long as the paragraph that's being summarized. Also, it's not stated in the article that abortion rates are highest where contraceptives are lacking; on the contrary, abortion rates are similar even if contraceptives are lacking, provided that abortion is also illegal. How about:

  • The rate of abortions that are unsafe for women increases if contraceptives are unavailable, or if abortion is illegal, or if medical personnel are not well-trained and equipped.

Personally, I think the lead is long enough the way it is, because not everything in the body of the article needs to be repeated in the lead. So, I support removing the tag now, although we could continue to discuss improvements to the lead. Maybe this:
  • The total number of abortions in the world, and especially the number of unsafe abortions, could be greatly reduced by providing contraceptive access in the developing world to the same degree as in the developed world.
Of these two suggestions, I would prefer the latter. Another possibility:
  • The rate of abortion, including the rate of unsafe abortion, would be vastly lower in countries that restrict abortion access than the rate in other countries, if all women could access modern contraceptives.

Incidentally, I agree with Tznkai that the lead of this article should simply contain the information necessary for a previously uninformed reader to become well equipped to understand what an "abortion" is. In that sense, the lead needs shortening, not lengthening.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

As promised, I've tried to improve and expand the material we've been discussing. I have not gotten into the effects of abortion restrictions within any single country (e.g. effects of legalization, effects of notification restrictions, effects of funding restrictions). Maybe we can do that later. For now, the stuff reads as follows:


Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis

Hi everyone,

Back in June 16, 2010, there used to be an entire subsection under "Abortion debate" about the "Breast cancer hypothesis". It was removed by an edit by Jmh649 when he found the "Abortion debate" section was too long: "moved to a subpage as that is what we have it for".

Today, Christinebenson58 added a sentence back with her edit.

Thank you, Anythingyouwant, putting a link to abortion–breast cancer hypothesis with your edit! It was much cleaner than my attempt with a section heading and {{Main}} template.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Forty percent of the world's women..."

While looking into the citation for the other disputed statement, I looked for the underlying source here as well. The statement in the article is currently:

Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits.

This statement occurs twice: once in the lead, once in the Unsafe abortion section. The article supporting this citation says in relevant part:

Only 40% of the world population can access abortion without restriction as to reason, within gestational limits [13]. Everywhere else laws restrict access to safe abortion to a lesser or greater degree [14].

The underlying factsheet, for those curious, of the first sentence in the source is here. I actually have some criticisms of the math used, or rather not used, in this source, but that sadly, is original research.

Anyway, the statement in our article, as written is not supported as written by its source, which in fact purports to say that more than 40 percent have access to legal abortion. A more correct statement would be

40% of women worldwide may legally obtain an abortion regardless of reason, but within certain gestational limitations.

I have a concern here is that "gestational limitations" may not be clear to the reader, so further rewrite suggestions are welcome.

In addition, I don't think that particular statement, however rewritten is properly put in the Unsafe abortion section without a missing link in the chain of logic, a statement that supports the idea that (non-gestational) limits increase unsafe abortion incidence, which by my read the underlying source assumes but does not support. Once we have that statement (which shouldn't be hard to find), that statement can probably stand alone in the unsafe abortion section and the whole public policy question can be examined more usefully in the abortion law section. From the same underlying source, we also have this gem:

Safe, legal abortion is an extremely effective way of eliminating unsafe abortion and the deaths and long-term consequences resulting from it.

Which seems to get to the point quicker.

Finally, I continue to maintain that the statement, even upon reformulation to be accurate is unnecessarily detailed for the lead of the of the article, a point I think all the more obvious now that the true nature of the statistic as "legal access without restriction" rather than "any access" is clarified. The statement ultimately is talking about one (admittedly important) facet of the overall abortion law picture, not necessarily less significant than the accompanying statistics on no access whatsoever, life only, physical, mental, rape or incest, socioeconomic status, and so on. We would be better served by a sentence explaining the complicated international picture of abortion law.

In summary. (1) The statement "Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits." needs to be rewritten to conform to its source, (2) should be moved to the abortion law section and (3) should be struck from the lead. --Tznkai (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic here. I see no semantic difference between:
  • "Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits."
and:
  • "40% of women worldwide may legally obtain an abortion regardless of reason, but within certain gestational limitations."
since "an abortion regardless of reason" is just a verbose way of saying "an elective abortion", and without defining "certain gestational limitations" you only say the same as "within gestational limits" (meaning time limits, of course). If all you want to do is emphasise the legality of the abortion, then why not just insert "legally" between "to" and "access" in the original? I hope all of this isn't just to avoid a split infinitive?
Nevertheless, I don't have any other objection to your proposed wording (apart from the stylistic faux pas of starting a sentence with digits).
If you're looking for sources to support the assumption that non-gestational restrictions on abortion increase the rate of unsafe abortions, you could do worse than examine the sources Haymaker brought forward in the section above. The experience of the USA, where a 10-fold drop in maternal mortality accompanied legalisation, is particularly telling.
I would fully support a somewhat more detailed description (in the body of the text) describing the five categories provided by the source you quoted and the relative proportions of the world's population falling into them. I do take your point, though, that too much detail should be avoided, since the daughter article Abortion law exists in order to provide more depth.
Having accepted that the statistic is an important facet of the overall picture, I think you cut the feet out from under your own argument, since WP:LEAD exhorts us to "summarize the most important points". I'd again ask if you feel that the 1,000 words and 40-odd statistics contained in the Incidence section would be adequately summarised by a single sentence in the lead. If not, then I'd prefer not to cut out two of the three sentences currently there until we have some agreement on what issues covered in Incidence are to be mentioned in the lead. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Some semantics matter. Legal in this case, is the key word, as our article points out repeatedly, illegality is not necessarily a bar to an abortion actually being performed. The distinction I'm actually trying to draw out however, is that more than 40% of the world's women have access to legal abortion, not just "on-demand" (a buzz word I'm studiously trying to avoid writing into the sentence), but under certain limitations.
As for the summation point, the second paragraph isn't really summarizing incidence at all: it has one sentence dedicated to incidence, and the rest dedicated to unsafe abortion (which i think is more usefully thought of as a health risk or a stand alone section, but that is a separate point) As it stands, there are 2.5 sentences dedicated to unsafe abortion, one dedicated to access from a source concerned with unsafe abortion, and one dedicated to the implications of access, which comes from two sources dedicated to discussing whether on how to reduce unsafe abortion. So yes, I think 4.5 sentences on unsafe abortion is plenty for a top level article, of the 13 sentences in the lead. I think what is important to summarize is roughly the following
  • What is an abortion? (cause or result of the death of a fetus)
  • How is an abortion performed (Now, medicinally and surgically)
  • Who is involved in abortion (Gravid, fetus, usually doctor or doctor stand in)
  • How many abortions take place a year? (42 million)
  • What are the risks of an abortion? (low or huge, depending)
  • Where are abortions taking place? (everywhere)
  • When have abortions taken place? (since antiquity)
  • Why are abortions performed? (either for health or choice)
  • Is it legal? (depends on where)
  • Is it controversial? (yep!)
I think if I told a little green man from mars all of that, they'd be reasonably well equipped to understand the topic, without having to get into the details of what the risks are, an exact breakdown of reasons (which are fascinating, by the way), Roe v. Wade, what the latest techniques are, the different gradations of legality, the influence of the Catholic Church, and the the disproportionate impact on the poor, which is also one of the qualifiers for an abortion in some places, all of which are quite important. They are not however, the most important points, which I understand to be the information necessary for a previously uninformed reader to become well equipped to understand what an "abortion" is.--Tznkai (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, semantics matter most of the time, and I'm sorry for being rather "flip" about the word 'legally' – I agree it is important here. Simplification is not the same as summarisation, and leaving out key detail often results in the lead becoming POV. I understand your point that although only 40% of women have access to elective abortion, many more are able to have abortions legally, albeit with greater restrictions. This is another example of over-simplification, and the solution is not to cut the text, but to expand it, so that the nuance is clear.
The lead paragraph that concerns me is annotated as "This paragraph discusses epidemiology and health risk related to the procedure" and I think that the current 4 sentences don't do the job. In fact, I don't think that 32+ kB of readable prose (particularly in a top-level article) can be adequately summarised in 13 sentences without neglecting many key points.
What the Martian would be missing from your summary is that abortion rates vary dramatically and depend on multiple factors. They would have to read the section to even know that rates are not homogeneous across the globe, let alone why. More importantly, as the lead should be able to stand alone, it is deficient in explaining why almost half of abortions should be unsafe, nor does it make clear that unsafe abortions carry hundreds of times the risk; one set of figures are stated, but no contrast is made.
Finally, I think your summary doesn't really address the question "Who can have an abortion?", unless you intended that to be covered in the controversy point. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually planning on both cutting and expanding. Removing from the lead, but expanding the point further in the text. I think you've struck on important point to summarize really, that abortion rates vary dramatically and depend on a variety of factors. Unless the literature states with confidence (and maybe it does) that any one factor is determinant, i think we should either leave the factors to the main text, or cover them in the style in the current third paragraph.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The more I look at the sources, the more convinced I become that determining the impact each factor has is exceptionally difficult. Legal status, cultural or religious taboos, income levels, education, availability of modern methods of contraception all seem to interact or overlap in time. Legalisation in the UK (and a little later in the US) coincided with a wide-spread uptake of the contraceptive pill. Turkey's legalisation was at a time of social reform, and Romania was rapidly becoming westernised. I'm coming to the conclusion that you're right in not trying to elaborate the issue in the lead: "abortion rates vary dramatically and depend on a variety of factors" is probably a the basis for good summary in itself. While you're working on the lead, you'll probably want to coordinate with AYW about how much of the extra stuff recently added needs to be covered (see the suggestions about the impact of contraception on unsafe abortions, for example, in the section #POV tag below). --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by the use of a non-wp:MEDRS primary source to support this "within gestational limits" statement which in any case adds little to its predecessor. If we can't find a review that saw it as worth commenting on, then adding it to the lede certainly represents an wp:UNDUE weight. Would simply sticking to PMID 20085681 not be a better basis? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is being used to comment on law, rather than on medicine. I think it is very worthwhile to indicate that abortion being "legal" constitutes many different things to in different countries, sometimes even different things inside the same country. I doubt that the variants of the these laws would have been covered in medical discourse, but I could be wrong. - Haymaker (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" throughout the article

Despite no suggestion of it in the edit-summary, this edit changed instances of "pro-life" to "anti-abortion". Instances of "pro-choice" remain the same. It seems strange to deny the self-identified label to only one side in the dispute. So, I plan to revert this change so we can discuss it.

We should either change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion-rights" or else allow the term "pro-life" to be used.

One could argue that the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion-rights" are not necessarily accurate. For example a person or organization may deplore abortion (thus being anti-abortion in that sense), and yet support a right to it within certain gestational limits. So the terms will probably be somewhat inaccurate no matter what we do. But I do object to denying only one side the self-identification. That does not mean we can't deviate from the self-identification sometimes, but maybe it would be best not to, especially if the two sides are treated differently in that sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was an unintended oversight on my part. I have no objection to the term "pro-life"; in fact, I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have typically been our preferred terms for these positions. I'm fine with your edit. MastCell Talk 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries (as they were my edits you reverted) also in that edit was a bit of a mix of up the "See also" section. I think it includes a larger than necessary number of other articles and many of them seem less then relevant. Thoughts? - Haymaker (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
See also section should be removed and important terms combined into the text per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems legit to me. - Haymaker (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, I recommend integrating the terms into the text before blanking the section. Thoughts? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I support there removal. I guess we could copy and paste them here. But lists of terms without context are IMO unencyclopedic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead Image Voting/Discussion

Here are all the candidates suggested for the lead image in the recent discussion. (Except the coathangers, that clearly was not serious.) Please vote on whether you enthusiastically advocate the image, would accept it but don't feel strongly about it, would support if X change were made, weakly oppose, strongly oppose, etc. Feel free to suggest other images. You are encouraged to provide your reasoning.

Angkor Wat

  • Would accept, but reluctantly. I have no policy argument against it, but it's difficult to see what's happening in the image and for that reason I would prefer something that was originally two-dimensional. That said, I'm still cool with keeping it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using the image of a demon performing an abortion as our lead does not reflect neutrally on either the procedure or those who practice it, regardless of the historical nature of the artwork. Although it isn't as problematic as some of the alternatives, I would rather wait for something better. Kaldari (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would imply that the best way to understand abortion is through a historical lens, which is not neutral, although not in the sense that we normally argue about it. Probably better just to think about it is as inaccurate: abortion can be well understood on a number of levels, whether as a moral issue, a public health issue, a legal issue, and so on and in combination.--Tznkai (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Its an interesting image, but its busy and kind of hard to figure out what's going on. I'd be happy to have this because of the historical perspective, but it doesn't reflect current medical practice, and had a kind of chaotic, calamatous feel to it. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - strange, confusing and not particularly representative of abortion. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Cannot be taken out of context. Interesting historical image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again historical is not the only framework for understanding of abortion, and if a lead image is needed it seems rather an obscure one to use for it.DMSBel (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Medieval midwife

  • Enthusiastically advocate. The figures are clear, it's morally neutral, it's historical. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the fetus from the discussion. Also, this does not show an abortion, but rather merely shows preparation for an abortion. Also, I would like to have a translation of the material cropped out of the image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose (exactly what I said previous image) Would imply that the best way to understand abortion is through a historical lens, which is not neutral, although not in the sense that we normally argue about it. Probably better just to think about it is as inaccurate: abortion can be well understood on a number of levels, whether as a moral issue, a public health issue, a legal issue, and so on and in combination.--Tznkai (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support'. Same as the angkor wat image, minus the chaos and calamity. A historical piece not necessarily relevant to current practice, unless RU486 is derived from a pennyroyal alkaloid. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - dated and hard to identify. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Cannot be taken out of context. Interesting historical image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - would be POV as a lead image as it gives the impression that an historical lens is the way to understand the subject, when it needs to be understood on multiple levels as per Tznkai comment above. It also is hardly clear in the picture what is going on. DMSBel (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - this is clearly a neutral image that shows an abortion from a non-emotional, non-political perspective. The historicity of it is a plus as well. WikiManOne (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion methods

  • Strongly oppose. As I state below, I favor artistic or historical images over diagrams, and this isn't even a diagram - it is not illustrative in the way I feel a lead image should be. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It tells the reader what current methods are available to induce abortion, and when they can be used. I imagine if one is in the situation of considering a termination, this could be some helpful information. There's no demons, no "how-to", no historical inaccuracies, and no emotional loading I can discern. The only thing it needs is a legend to explain the acronyms, which is no big deal. (Forgot to sign this post! Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC))
  • Oppose. I hate to oppose my own image, but I just don't think it would make a good lead picture. It has to be displayed at fairly high resolution to be readable. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Not an image but a diagram. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral : While reminding people that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not for providing advice.DMSBel (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This image would be good for an article titled "abortion data", but is not that relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian poster

  • Would accept. NPOV has been brought up, but this picture isn't anti-abortion - abortion was free and legal at the time, and the poster advocates against having midwives perform it, not against the procedure. (Which is another POV issue, but not the POV issue.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the fetus from the discussion. Also, this does not show an abortion, but rather merely shows preparation for an abortion. Also, this image doesn't look so great, and is getting ample attention further down in the article. Also, all the Russian language stuff is not good for an English language Wikipedia, even though we have a translation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Along with other issues (topical focus), this is the English Wikipedia, and accessibility to an English speaking audience is also a major goal of good writing.--Tznkai (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Without being able to red Russian, I infer from the pictures that if I have an abortion I will die. Too heavy handed. All medical procedures have risks, but death from a medical abortion these days must be vanishingly rare. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose While the poster may have a valid message and be important, it may not be the best one to use if a lead image is really needed here. DMSBel (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems hard to tell that it is about abortion in the first place. Also, the comic seems slightly biased based on the pictures, but I can't read Russian, so it may not be. Wikiagoo(talk) 18:11 30 January 2011
  • Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum aspiration

  • Weak oppose. I have no policy argument against it, but I think it looks nicer to have an artistic/historical image. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks too much like a manual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with AYW that there is a "how-to" element going on here, but it is an accurate and sanitary depiction of suction curettage. Perhaps the image would be better without the tags as a lead image and have a duplicate with the tags in the article to explain the workings of a D&C. For the record, I supported use of this image in the 2009 RfC. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Roscelese Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - it is far too specific to a particular abortive procedure for a lead image. And per Anythingyouwant it does make the page look like a manual WP:NOTMANUAL DMSBel (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weakly Suppport. It is a good diagram showing one patiular type of abortion, but a simplier one may do better. Wikiagoo (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but it would be better to show an objective photo image of the most common abortion procedure (such as a fetus with the surgical instrument poised to begin or part way through the physical degradation of the fetus). DEATH is ALWAYS part of an abortion, and usage of the word abortion most often refers to a human surgical abortion. An objective article would use an image that conveys this most basic and typical reality of abortion. One's views for or against abortion don't alter the fact that an abortion (as we most commonly use the term) is a surgical procedure done in the latter first trimester of human pregnancy. The image should be of that surgical procedure. Not a gory image, but a cold scientific one that may be unpleasant to those who don't like to think about what happens in any surgery. Just as a gory image is propaganda, no image of the basic surgery is also propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Therapeutic fetus

Are you suggesting that the image's author deliberately excluded the woman because of political framing, or that having this image (as the lead or at all?) would support/enact such political framing?--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The latter. I've no problem with using the image later in the article; I just oppose its use for the lead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the mother from the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Its a fetus! But for the existence of this little being, there would be no article! I understand some people may find the image distressing, but we're not here to provide counselling and emotional support, we're here to provide information. And it's a great picture. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - We could do better, but this is the best, most relevant and informative picture I have seen so far. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it is a great image it does not speak of abortion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the image is very untypical of an aborted fetus. It is also misleadingly titled here, 10 week-old aborted fetus might be better for the discussion. I also recall reading that the baby here was still alive. The photo's current position in the article (beside spontaneous abortion) is confusing. Any image should be beside the relevant text. While we should exercise due caution here about what image if any is used for the lead I have considerable doubt that this would be the one to use. I support no lead image. I am neutral leaning towards oppose about this one being kept in the article. DMSBel (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose its use in any way in the article. This is clearly advancing a WP:POV and is inappropriate in the article. WikiManOne (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does not relate to abortion as close as it should. Wikiagoo (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but it would be better to show an objective real image of the most common abortion procedure (such as a fetus with the surgical instrument poised to begin or part way through the physical degradation of the fetus). DEATH is ALWAYS part of an abortion, and usage of the word abortion most often refers to a human surgical abortion. An objective article would use an image that conveys this most basic and typical reality of abortion. On's views for or against abortion don't alter the fact that an abortion (as we most commonly use the term) is a surgical procedure done in the latter first trimester of human pregnancy. The image should be of that surgical procedure. Not a gory image, but a cold scientific one that may be unpleasant to those who don't like to think about what happens in any surgery. Just as a gory image is propaganda, no image of the basic surgery is also propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see how no lead image is strictly propaganda. I am still tending towards no lead image, but not towards no image at all. If you mean that ending the life (death) of the foetus/unborn baby is always the intent of abortion I agree, however it is not the case that every attempted abortion results in death - there have been survivors of abortion. I apologise if this has already been discussed. (Note: I am using foetus instead of fetus (on this talk page) from now on as I am from the UK and that is how we spell it. I agree with consensus on spelling in the article). User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No image

(tangent) Is there consensus at Medical abortion against a lead image? Because then if the medieval image isn't selected here, I'll float the idea there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Not that I know of, although it might be better suited for Abortifacient. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
True. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The abortion article is the top level article, trying cover a wide range of topics, including: significantly different methodologies across nine months of rapid fetal development, legal perspectives, philosophical, historical, cultural, societal and probably a few more that I'm forgetting. Any image would have to adequately introduce, cover and represent the topic as a whole, which I don't think any conceivable image is capable of doing. There is no shared mental image in our collective minds as to what an abortion is so I don't imagine there is an image we could make that would cover it. --Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Kaldari and Tznkai. Plus, there was an old and stable version of this article until recently that had no image in the lead, and I think that longstanding consensus counts for something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as above, in the situation a consensus can't be reached, no image at all would be better than one a bunch of us don't like. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An article of this magnitude deserves a picture. We're smart people, we can work it out. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Should have an image Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Seems the article was fine for a long period without a lead image, and a lead image is not strictly necessary as per many other important articles, also better none than a default image that most people don't agree with. Many of us do have mental images as to what an aborted fetus looks like. I am not against people seeing some of the photos, but not sure that wikipedia is the place for that, certainly not as a lead image. DMSBel (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think every article should have a good image that imparts, at a glance, the topic well. None of the proposed images do that. So, I am not supportive of "No image", but not supportive of any of the proposed images. Atom (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you're welcome to suggest more. Make sure it's public domain or under some other free license though, as we're not going to be able to plead fair use here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Why pretend that an image here is any different than an image anywhere else? The same trade-offs regarding the use of an image exist here as in any other article. It is the ultimate in PC to pretend that an image here would not be helpful and utterly appropriate. Images inform - which is the goal of wikipedia. As one said above: "We're smart people, we can work it out." I say this as one who spent hours editing this article over the course of years while stationed overseas in Europe and in Afghanistan and persisted in advocating (successfully) for the inclusion of the word "death" in the opening sentence. A scientific image that demonstrates this medical procedure will not be controversial; it is the refusal to let the reality of the image be seen that is controversial. Just as abortion ALWAYS involves a biological death, so too every objective image of an abortion (and abortion is overwhelmingly discussed and debated and thought of by humans primarily as a human surgical procedure) ALWAYS portrays that death. The image will be controversail only to the extent death is controversial. And death may be unsettling, but it is not controversial (unless one thinks the fetus is a person, but that moral view should not be factored into the main paragraph and image for an encyclopedic article about a factual medical/biological event). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia, because it is the "free" encyclopedia, has strict rules regarding where it's content comes from and how it is licensed. The reason why we are fairly limited to these images is because they are currently the only "free" images we have gathered. While it may be all well and good to propose hypothetical images, the reality is we can only use images which have been licensed freely. Do you have a specific image in mind? Do you know the licensing status? It is sometimes hard to obtain specific medical images because they may be protected for textbook or corporate use. It is easier to go and take a picture of the statue of liberty than it is to take a picture of an abortion in a medical setting, so a user created image may be out of the question. You may be able to contact a doctor who could be able to create and donate an image, but it may be a long shot. Anyway, not to burst your bubble, but we should focus on specific free images available to us, or work to obtain a better image (if we could all agree on that). Just something to consider. -Andrew c [talk] 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to 67.233.19.82. It's better to take people's comments at face value (while disagreeing) and ask questions without infering pretense, as per WP:AGF. People here have given reasons why they support no lead image. User:Tznkai is correct, this not a narrow topic - it stretches from medicine to law to philosophy with a whole lot in-between. I have based my own view on others comments with consideration of the options. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Composite image (composition presumably to be discussed if this option is agreed upon)

Edit request from 187.14.146.135, 18 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I want to request the change of the abortion law map picture for the updated version. The "Abortion Law" page already uses the updated version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend-2011-08-01.png (change: abortions are completly banned in Uruguay)

187.14.146.135 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_40&oldid=1142435171"