Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

Verification of death/feticide

While I do not enjoy a belabored discussion of abortion as death, there are persistant requests for more verification. This particular journal article does verify that feticide (also called induced fetal death in the article) is part of abortion. Dr. Deb Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles, recently published research in the journal Contraception that discusses intentionally induced surgical abortion and refers to that process as feticide and refers to the induced abortion involving the death of the fetus.

  • LINK: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004276
  • CITATION: Contraception. 2010 Jan;81(1):67-74.
  • PMID 20004276 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
  • AUTHOR: Nucatola D., Roth N., Gatter M.; Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. deb.nucatola@pp-la.org
  • TITLE: A randomized pilot study on the effectiveness and side-effect profiles of two doses of digoxin as feticide when administered intraamniotically or intrafetally prior to second-trimester surgical abortion.
  • BACKGROUND: Digoxin is commonly used to facilitate second-trimester surgical abortion despite limited data regarding its safety and effectiveness for this indication. We conducted a pilot study to determine the incidence of side effects after digoxin administration and whether effectiveness can be improved with variations in dose and technique.
  • STUDY DESIGN: Fifty-two women presenting for elective termination of pregnancy between 18 and 24 weeks' gestation were randomized to one of four digoxin treatment groups: 1.0 mg intraamniotic (1.0 IA), 1.0 mg intrafetal (1.0 IF), 1.5 mg intraamniotic (1.5 IA) or 1.5 mg intrafetal (1.5 IF). Ultrasound was used to assess for the presence of fetal cardiac activity prior to the abortion procedure. Data on the presence and severity of pain, nausea and other potential side effects were collected before digoxin injection, immediately following digoxin injection and on the day after digoxin injection.
  • RESULTS: Digoxin effectively induced fetal death in 87% of women. The failure rate did not vary by route of administration (IA or IF) and was not lowered by increasing the dose from 1.0 to 1.5 mg. IF injections induced fetal death more rapidly than IA injections. Digoxin administration did not result in increased pain or nausea.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Have we not already decided that 'fetal death' is a very specific term and that breaking it into 'fetal' and 'death' could be misleading? Isn't that what you meant when you called it a "medical term of art" above? I think you may be arguing against yourself now. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following the discussion, because there's just too much of it. This page is 300KB, which is about 47,000 words (according to TextPad).
But I gather some people are trying to associate "death" with "murder" (that would be the anti-abortion side or pro-life as they fancy themselves). Let's try to sort out facts from values, shall we?
The tissue comprising the fetus always dies when there is an abortion. It doesn't matter whether the "abortion" happens on its own (which is the primary meaning of "miscarriage") or is the result of a decision between doctor and patient (see "induced abortion"). Every cell in the fetus that was alive becomes dead. Is everyone with me so far, on the facts?
I think the dispute is over what to call this.
  1. fetal death: Redirects to Perinatal mortality
  2. feticide: an act that causes the death of a fetus
    • "fetal homicide"
    • "child destruction"
  3. "murder" of the "unborn child" (anti-abortion advocates)
I'm just hoping this summary will facilitate our discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed: In fact no one was advocating that the article should state that killing of a fetus is murder. The genesis of the discussion is that some editors are advocating that a fetus/embryo does not die during every single abortion process (induced or spontaneous). Although it strikes me as very odd that it is necessary to do so, we were being asked to verify that in every abortion process a fetus or embryo dies. So I have posted this peer reviewed published Planned Parenthood medical research (that describes abortion as feticide/death) as verification. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur that the tissue experiences cellular cessation of activity--as some sources say, it is 'destroyed'. To say more than that is to take a stance that reaches beyond medicine and physiology into law and morality. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
concur the page is getting spammed mercilessly, Ed, and as you know when you and I agree, its a rare event and I tend to view it as an unassailable fact when that happens. The talk page has been spammed almost exclusively by 67.233.18.28, who is violating CIVIL, NPA, BATTLE, and to some extent SYNTH. No sooner do editors begin to try to discuss his points than he starts a new section, with another Wall Of Text. I for one am waiting for the discussion to become more civil and less verbose before I wade in again. Perhaps you will have better success encouraging 67.233.18.28 to refrain from burying us in his thoughts, and give the editors time to consider, reply, and reach consensus. At least one editor has decided to effectively ignore 67.233.18.28 until s/he stops violating WP:SOAP. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you greeted my posting of verification with a complaint about spam. The verification was requested repeatedly. I found an excellent source that verifies abortion practitioners do expressly state in clinical terms that abortion involves feticide (literally: "fetus killing") and death (from Planned Parenthod medical resarch published in a peer reviewed journal in 2010). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You speak as though I were replying to, or referring to, one post. I as speaking of the 114 posts you have made to this talk page this month alone, as of this time stamp, of which almost all (108) were made the 14th, 15th, and 16th. The volume of your posts seems almost to be an attempt at a war of attrition. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Killer: Following up and discussing the points made by others is "talk page activity". All of my posts have been a good faith attempt to support the spirit and letter of FAQ #1 of this article. I was responding to several editors who were (in my view) violating the spirit and letter of FAQ #1. Of course FAQ #1 may not be a "law", but I can't believe that it is acceptable (formally or informally) to edit in a manner opposite to the manner suggested in FAQ #1. All those who support the sprit and letter of FAQ#1 say Amen! 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad someone has made this point. The volume of the response is making true discussion difficult and I too believe that the goal is a win-at-all-costs "war of attrition". I'm quite willing to follow WP:CONS but this Hydra-headed response makes it impossible. Issues are not resolved but are merely abandoned and new fronts are opened. There are matters here which could be resolved if focused on. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You've proposed that the previous consensus articulated at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph should be overridden. Consensus can change, certainly, but only when the new consensus is demonstrated with the same level of clarity as that being overturned. When attempting to undo the previous consensus on such a highly disputed issue, spirited opposition by many editors is to be expected as a matter of course. Chester Markel (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
But per Argument Clinic, that isn't just the automatic gainsaying of the other's position, which is what we seem to have--the assertion that there are sources that say 'death' without a fair weighing of what are the best sources and what would be due weight, and whether 'death' would be better used later in the article. We're not making progress, The attempt by NW was a good way to move forward--now we're arguing about arguing. How can we have a fruitful new discussion about the matter? JJL (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the WP:SYNTH violation lies with supporters of omitting "death", since you're construing avoidance of the death/no death issue by some references as making a claim on the issue avoided: that no death occurs, or that death isn't significant. Every single MEDRS examined here that actually treats the issue of whether induced abortion causes fetal death concludes that it does. Period. No more original research, please. Chester Markel (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
I'm sorry, to whom are you referring when you say "you're construing..." - this is unclear to me. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Chester was adressing you, Killer. Perhaps not. Nevertheless, I concur with Chester. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Really? Where have I construed that? Please link the dif. I assure you, you are very much mistaken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
To my mind this is exactly backwards: What's WPSYNTH is adding 'death' when it is not attested by the majority of cources, as though most major medical texts and dictionaries are in error, incomplete, or intentionally presenting incorrect and/or biased information. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
My goal is to provide verification for the word death in the lede. Nothing more or less. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, no the discussion has had nothing to do with murder. It all started with the deletion of the opening sentence in the lede referring to fetal death. To make a (very) long story short, extensive research revealed that most sources do not speak of fetal death in their definition but rather say something such as, "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the fetus is viable". Some of us seem to feel that Wikipedia should reflect the definition used by most related sources, some of us have a different opinion. At least that is my understanding of the debate. Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur; Gandydancer has summarized the debate well. Its whether to include the word "death" in the lead. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is the issue in a nutshell. JJL (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I would rather say that some of us feel that euphemisms such as "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the fetus is viable" need explaining in non-medical terms. Just as gravida required explanation.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur; MichaelCPrice's comment is spot on. Editors from all points of view have consistently rejected the inlcusion of any euphemism in the lede. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
But what those who favor including 'death' may see as a euphemism, others (such as myself) see as a proper reflection of the fact that an embryo is not alive in the sense of something that can die--it's merely living tissue, not 'life'. What is a 'life' is an ill-defined matter, as is what can experience 'death', and I see the term 'death' as plainly inapplicable here. JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Then your disagreement is with the MEDRS which claim abortion produces "death of the fetus" or similar already cited in great abundance in this discussion, and with the lack of MEDRS to refute them. Your own POV doesn't override the sources. Chester Markel (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Comparing pubmed queries, "(((review) AND abortion) AND death) AND cochrane" gets 13 hits. "(((review) AND abortion) NOT death) AND cochrane" gets 111. While the word death does get used in these reviews, it is quite infrequent. Substituting "termination" for "death" in these queries gets the exact reverse result. Clearly authors choose one or the other and do not mix the terms.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
And according to Merriam Webster, one of the meanings of "terminate" is a synonym for "kill". Given that some of the reviews do use the word "death" in describing the fetal outcome of abortion, its reasonable to construe "terminate" as having the same meaning, as used in context. Remember, per WP:NOR, "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Therefore, we are by no means stuck with the exact words of the sources, only the information conveyed. If "termination" is being used as a euphemism for "killing", Wikipedia is not bound to do the same, particularly when Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Euphemisms councils editors to avoid this practice in most cases. Chester Markel (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
I would assume that the references are speaking of the termination of a pregnancy. Gandydancer (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It is the end of a pregnancy, not the end of a life. There's nothing euphemistic about that, but saying ":ends a pregnancy" rather than "terminates a pregnancy" would be acceptable to me. But using this to wedge in 'death' isn't reasonable. JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that terminate can be a euphemism for kill. I'm having trouble agreeing that the definitions supplied by NW contain such euphemisms. It seems a question of context. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, context is important. Consider the centrality of ensuring a properly timed fetal death to an abortion procedure: "doctors typically cause the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb and then remove it. But now, if the fetus is not dead as it begins to emerge, a provider may be accused of violating the law. So the lethal injections beforehand..."[1] It always struck me as a little odd that any definitions of abortion would completely omit such vital information. Now, it seems fairly obvious that termination is used both to describe the ending of a pregnancy and as euphemism for killing the fetus, in those descriptions of the procedure which make no mention of fetal death. While it's rare to see double entendres in the medical literature, abortion is anything but a typical procedure. Chester Markel (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Context is indeed important. Your quote is taken out of context and misleading on the point of centrality "We do not believe that our patients should take a risk for which the only clear benefit is a legal one to the physician," Dr. Philip D. Darney, chief of obstetrics at San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in e-mail. He has chosen not to use the injections."[2] and is out of date on the issue by five years. Considering 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2008 the procedure doesn't seem rare but I'm not sure what measure you are using for "typical". ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I cited the source to support the assertion that fetal death, properly timed, is an essential component of abortion, not that said death is induced by an injection of potassium chloride or digoxin in all cases. As the article notes, there's some disagreement as to what the precise timing must be: some physicians believe that they would be violating the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act if they weren't certain the fetus was already dead before removal of any portion from the mother's body. Thus, they use KCl or digoxin to kill a potentially viable fetus before attempting removal. Others contend that procedures which might require the fetus to be killed after partial delivery are still acceptable, and are willing to take whatever legal risk accompanies this. The methodology is a detail for the purpose of the introduction, unless perhaps you want to us to provide a short outline of methods used by abortion practitioners to kill fetuses: poisons, dismemberment, etc. While I believe that would be informative, useful content that could certainly be cited to a number of MEDRS, any attempt to add it would be extremely controversial. Chester Markel (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Kill fetuses? Surely you'd grant that your biases are showing here? JJL (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In this discussion, copious quantities of MEDRS have been cited to show that abortion procedures do indeed kill fetuses, and none to say they don't. That's the conclusion dictated by the references. Chester Markel (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

(unindent) Thanks, Gandydancer, KillerChihuahua, and Michael C. Price. I understand that the issue is how to introduce the article, specifically the wording of the lede. A standard definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy".

The issue, then, is whether or not it is helpful (or good or fair or neutral) to emphasize the idea that the end of the pregnancy involves the "death" of whatever the zygote has turned into (embryo, fetus, "viable fetus", "premature baby").

There are moral and legal implications connected to this, one assumes. For example, most US states (sigh, I lack a worldwide perspective) have little controversy over abortion in the first trimester. But there's been a furor over "partial-birth abortion" (i.e., Intact dilation and extraction). (Head's not out, nothing is born, it's just fetal tissue vs. Hey, that's cheating, you just killed a premature baby.)

Perhaps the most intense controversy is over abortion of (what anti-abortion folks call) "a baby that could live outside its mother's womb". I hate to use such a cumbersome term but viable fetus is a red link. As Chester Markel points out, removing the fetus before it is legally dead (?) and then killing it when it's almost "out" or completely out is considered "murder" by the "pro-lifers" (and by laws in some places).

So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Or at least some phrase which draws attention away from the idea that "something was alive before all this".

The question remains, though, for all of us contributors: how or whether the lede should mention that abortion involves a change in state from the fetal tissue being "alive" in some way to another state. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Nope, don't see it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, quick reply - been there done that. The discussion did center around that issue for some time. The problem is, if even the best minds can not agree, is this something for Wikipedia editors to tackle? Can you have death if there was no life to die? See for instance Wikipedia Life: "Since there is no unequivocal definition of life...". Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
!
Ed, please leave out "moral .. implications" - remember NPOV, COI, etc. Our job is to state accurately what the RS's say; not make moral judgments. Secondarily, I concur with MCPrice - I don't see it either.
Gandydancer and NW have made excellent points regarding the terminology used by the medical literature, which per UNDUE should have the most weight in our deliberations here. So far, I have seen little effort to directly address their statements and concerns. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have seen at least 5 editors address the concerns of Gandy amd NW and provide citations and well-stated analysis. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, but this is exactly the kind of useless post I am talking about when I refer to spamming the talk page. You assert 5 editors have addressed the concerns; but you do not link a single dif, or state how they addressed the concerns; in short, this is one more bit of useless non-information which does not move the discussion forward at all. Do you understand what I'm talking about now? If you are going to post, post something which conveys some information. Otherwise, you're just doing the text version of running your mouth. I am sorry if this offends, but I am trying to help you communicate more effectively. If your posts convey no information and irritate rather than communicate, you harm your own cause, so to speak. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually considered asking 67 to furnish that information and decided against it. It was my feeling that when we seemed to have moved forward from that argument to the argument about a decision regarding which published definition was the most acceptable for a Wikipedia article, I saw no reason to cover old ground. Since it remains an issue with him/her, perhaps s/he may want to reopen it with the "citations and well-stated analysis" information in a separate section. It should be interesting because I do not feel that the information is available - anywhere. I feel that this is the reason that most of the definitions that we have found do not use the term "death of the fetus" rather than 67's idea that there is some sort of conspiracy on the part of the medical profession to avoid using the word because abortionists must or should feel guilty for killing a baby. If all of medicine, philosophy, and theology do not agree and the Biological Criteria for Life are not fulfilled by the non-viable fetus, it is not our place as Wikipedia editors to even dream that we are in a position to make the decision about life and death. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please help me understand UNDUE. The article (as editors seem to historically point out) covers abortion from all angles (social, biological, human, veterinary, medical, political, etc.). In this broad context, does UNDUE elevate medical texts that are silent regarding an alleged (meaning a fact that the parties are trying to verify) fact such that the silence would dispositively trump medical and other texts that assert the same alleged fact to be true? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it not obvious that including an "alleged fact" in the lede would violate WP:UNDUE et al. nine ways from Sunday? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noting your misunderstanding - "alleged" is often understood as an adjective used to describe an assertion that is in the process of being verified or rejected. I have edited for clarity. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That would violate WP:V, actually, if I understand your statement correctly. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(after ec) I do not understand your question as written, so I will simply explain UNDUE in a general way. Let's say, for example, we are writing about nails. An authoritative work about nails, written by an expert on nails, and used as a textbook, or source for a textbook about nails, would get a lot of weight - we would regard it as definitive. A differing view from a nail manufacturer's website would get considerably less weight, as would a newspaper article about nails. Finally, a politician or celebrity's comments about nails would get no weight at all, unless in their article, not the article on nails. And your cousin Bob's random comments on nails in his blog not only gets no weight, mentioning them on a talk page might be considered a violation of WP:FORUM. Giving a newspaper article the same weight as an authoritative text by an expert is a violation of UNDUE - you are giving a less important source undue weight. Applying this here, then medical texts on Abortion carry the most weight; other sources carry less and less weight the farther they move from authoritative sources. I hope this helps; if this does not address your question please try rephrasing. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If an article covers what is equally a social and political and veterinary and biological and medical issue (such as this article), then
  • Would UNDUE require that a medical source that does not address one specific fact trump a reliable widely-used medical dictionary that does address that one specific fact?
  • Rephrased: Would UNDUE require us to consider a medical source's silence regarding one specific fact to be the same as a refutation of a medical dictionary's verification of the same specific fact?
67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This is poorly phrased in the context of this discussion, IMO. The medical texts being discussed are not silent on abortion; they cover abortion. They do not all use the word death, which is not at all the same. In other words, your question is loaded, and therefore fallacious. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, WP:UNDUE would indicate that it the majority of most-respected sources are silent on a matter then adding in the lede rather than as a less-well-placed point lower in the article is not appropriate. However, WP:UNDUE primarily refers to fringe views, and I would not characterize this as one. But it does phrase matters in terms of minority views: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " The idea of abortion always involving death is apparently a minority view--it certainly is not even mentioned in most major WP:MEDRS JJL (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's the crux of the matter: whether silence on a particular point should be interpreted as a positive claim, in violation of WP:NOR. And that's assuming that the no-death references are actually silent on the substantive issue, and not using "termination" as a euphemism for "death". Chester Markel (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
No, it's only the crux of the matter if we assume your conclusion--that if any sources use 'death', the term must occur in the lead. 'Destruction' is an equally unopposed term that appears in some sources. Why not include it? You're sitting on the fact that there are sources that use this term. How about engaging the point that 'viable' is the preferred term in modern technical literature? JJL (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't just have any sources which describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome - we have thousands[3]. "Destruction" is either a euphemism for "death", quite likely given the number of sources which use "death", or nearly irrelevant. Something ultimately thrown in a medical waste incinerator would be "destroyed", would it not? If this is all such sources are actually claiming, then it isn't really a salient point. "Viable" has its own problems: are we saying that what would otherwise constitute an abortion procedure, post viability, is infanticide? The late term abortion dispute is not one we should be taking sides on in the introduction. Chester Markel (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
We do not have thousands of sources which describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome--you have a Google search that turns up the phrase thousands of times. That is no argument at all. JJL (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As ought to be obvious by now, many editors disagree with you, and believe that my search results are generally contextually relevant, and that many specific reliable sources cited by many editors also establish fetal death as an abortion outcome. Want to achieve consensus? Present a better argument, or take a position which has more widespread support. Chester Markel (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Slow down, Chester. For something to "die" it must first be "alive". But we're not talking about debridement of tissue from an organ of the patient's body. The zygote grows into an embryo and then (typically) into a "viable fetus" (if that's the right phrase); and frequently the result is the birth of a human child. But there are legal distinctions here (not to mention those pesky moral ones, which influence legislation), and as you may know these have strict and often crucially important implications.
If at any point this "mass of living tissue" is considered to be "alive" it can imply that it is a human being (see Beginning of personhood), and that would also imply that "ending its life" is infanticide, homicide, or even murder. Do we really need to open that can of worms in the lede?
Maybe we need a section on Implications of ending the pregnancy which can introduce these issues. --04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The MEDRS cited to support "death of the fetus" and similar claims are asserting biological death only, not death of a person. Antibacterial claims that "bactericidal agents kill bacteria". Are we pushing a POV that use of bactericides is murder? Hardly. The fetus is comprised of human cells, but the same principle applies: if we wrote in Heart transplantation that excessive delays in transportation of the heart will kill it, no reasonable reader will be construing that as a description of the death of a person (the intended recipient might die for lack of the organ, but that's a separate issue.) Ultimately, the prior consensus, still largely supported today, is that "death of the fetus" is a biological fact, and the moral, religious, and political debate over abortion concerns whether or not the killing of the fetus constitutes murder, depending on whether one believes that the fetus is a person/human/sentient. We shouldn't proceed under the premise that claiming killing/death is the same as claiming murder, then reject the former claim because of the obvious POV of the latter. Chester Markel (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
In this case a reasonable person could possibly so construe it, though, and it's far from clear that that's the right, or only, conclusion. (Indeed, one wonders if that is what is desired by some who seek to have 'death' in the lede.) You say "the prior consensus [is] still largely supported today". How do you know that? Would it be helpful to have a straw poll? We're certainly going in circles right now. JJL (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer a concise list of sources and verbiage used by the sources be complied prior to any such straw poll. LeadSongDog, NW, and others have made varying statements regarding the medical literature and terminology used; it appears the weight might be slightly towards termination rather than death. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We could, I suppose, say "The cells of which the fetus is comprised die", but sources for it would be questionable. The MEDRS, in describing the "death of the fetus", are referring to the point at which the overall organism dies. The later death landmark, when almost all of the individual cells are dead, is not as well researched. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
This is the issue of 'cellular death' vs. 'organismal death' and indeed I am not of the opinion that a blastocyst in an early spontaneous abortion experiences the latter as opposed to the former. The matter is not simple, and googling a couple of phrases doesn't help us understand the matter any better. JJL (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Chester, with no commentary on the rest of your arguments, I must agree with JJL that a Google search is worse than useless in this particular instance. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How else can one establish anything about thousands of MEDRS in this context? To the best of my knowledge, there are no review articles considering whether or not the fetus dies as a result of abortion. So we're in a pickle: use individual sources (accusations of cherry-picking) or use the Google Scholar results (accusations of lacking contextual relevancy.) Chester Markel (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
The problem is that the word "death" has two meanings: a technical meaning and an emotional one. Technically, tissue that is removed from its supporting structures, dies. Plants die when you pick them, cancers die when you excise them etc. Emotionally, death is the opposite of life, and there is a whole load of baggage around the point at which life can be said to exist. Under the circumstances, and particularly given the fact that the life/death terminology is an integral part of the political football that is abortion policy, it's probably better to avoid the term. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to consider that if we believe the embryo/fetus to be biologically alive me must consider the placenta to be biologically alive as well, since it is the placenta that carries on the life-supporting activities of nutrition, respiration, etc.? We never think of a placenta as having died, and yet in the case of the pre-viable fetus it is even more alive, biologically speaking, than the fetus. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


This is part of the issue of separating the cellular death the tissue experiences from the organismal death that is highly unclear for the sort of reason you indicate--a blastocyst or embryo doesn't clearly satisfy typical definitions for a living thing, like homeostasis (it has considerable help there) or the ability to reproduce (which is there in potential but not actuality). To my mind the biggest point here is that 'alive' is a very ill-defined matter--a sort of Sorites paradox, a fuzzy line to be crossed--while viable is fairly clear: A fetus that is delivered outside the womb would either survive as a neonate or would not. The fuzziness there is much less--we can't tell exactly when that happens, but at some point it must, whether we can currently test for it or not. JJL (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd go further--the technical meanings include not just biological and medical (which are related but not necessarily the same) but also legal, for example. In addition, the biological definition is quite fuzzy; indeed, it almost has to be, for biology is the study of living organisms, and living organisms are what biologists study. (This is common to many fields: Chemists study chemicals, physicists study the physical world, mathematicians study numbers and concepts built thereupon, etc., and while you can bury the circularity in synonyms to some extent the underlying problem remains.) 'Death' is a loaded and over-loaded term that needs much greater elucidation than can be given in the lede. It's disputed; it's not the mainstream term used in the medical community; it's widely used in the context of heated political debates; it carries an emotional impact that is not intended here, as I understand the reasoning for the current form; and it is absolutely unnecessary, as seen from the lack of use of the term by medical references. JJL (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to qualify the meaning of "death" as in the introduction as referring to life sciences issues only[4], but you reverted me[5]. That "the biological definition is quite fuzzy" is your own original research. "Death" is only "not the mainstream term used in the medical community" if we consider references which avoid the topic of fetal death entirely as actually making some positive claim, in contravention of WP:NOR. This problem has been explained many times already. And even the lack of treatment of the "death" issue by some sources is assuming that they aren't using "termination" or similar language as euphemisms. Chester Markel (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
It's not OR that defining life is difficult; see refs. 11-16 at Life#Definitions, for example. We disagree fundamentally on reading the sources. You claim some "avoid" using 'death', while I believe they chose not to do so because they felt it was not appropriate to use that term or another term was more appropriate; to my mind, it's OR on your part to infer that they deliberately avoided using it. More to the point, it simply doesn't follow that if some sources use the term 'death' and others do not that we must, therefore, use 'death'. This is both a matter of WP:WEIGHT and of editorial/stylistic decisions even beyond any decision as to what is the most accurate way to describe matters. The preferred description in the medically community appears to be to refer to viability. The existence of sources that don't go that route doesn't compel us to do anything. JJL (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Suppose that 1/4 of all biographies of Rick Santorum in reliable sources mentioned the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality and 3/4 omitted any information about it. If I removed all material concerning the controversy from the Santorum biography on the grounds of purported WP:NOR or WP:WEIGHT violations, a number of editors would be very angry with me. And they'd be right. Yet your argument that since a majority of descriptions of abortion in MEDRS don't mention fetal death, we can't either, despite the thousands of sources that describe "death of the fetus" as an abortion outcome, is just as spurious, and would never be tolerated for a moment by the community in other contexts. Chester Markel (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Well, firstly, 25% is a lot--what percentage do we have here? From the quality sources (vice random searches), it appears to be a much, much lower number. Secondly, that's a fact and is set out in its own full article, but reasons have been given why 'death' may be more of a judgment and need much more elucidation of its nuances here. Thirdly, that article doesn't define 'Rick Santorum', but the sentence we're speaking of does puport to define 'abortion'. Finally, no one is suggesting we omit any mention of it, but questioning whether it should go in the first sentence of the lede, unqualified. The controversy you mention isn't even in the first paragraph and is in fact not even alluded to until much later in the article. The second paragraph only mentions he's known for his stance on homosexuality among other things--not that there's a controversy there. So, your point proves mine. JJL (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the old talk from 2006 to try to get an understanding of the thinking from back then and I ran across a statement that I really like. This editor had given the matter a lot of thought and eventually changed his or her mind about the use of the word death in the definition in the lede. Here it is:
I have also revisited my view on the inclusion of the word "death" in regard to its being a loaded word. I now think its inclusion may introduce more bias than its exclusion. The former says that there is death, the latter does not say there isn't....I'm now willing to support something like a simple "An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it has attained viability" AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

outdent

By way of explanation and discussion in this talk page (and in no way suggesting that original resarch be included in the article because using death has been verified by many MEDRS) I offer this: The peer-reviewed Planned Parenthood medical research cited above details the use of digoxin injections by doctors performing abortions so as to intentionally induce "fetal death" in pregnancies up to 24 weeks. Other MEDRS has been cited that discusses "fetal death" exclusively as a spontaneous abortion in which the fetus dies before it is removed or expelled. We can see in the Planned Parenthood research that medical professionals do consider doctor-induced "feticide" (the word used by Planned Parenthood's doctor) to be "fetal death". If we then look at still other MEDRS, some of them can be understood to say that abortion is the termination of pregnancy by removal of what is always a non-viable fetus. Some editors state that because MEDRS have verified that late-term abortions are performed on viable fetuses (verified by MEDRS and by court testimony and congressional testimony of late-term abortion doctors), this points to the falsity of any generally-applicable definition for abortion that includes the abortus's non-viablity. Some editors have even cited here RS that indicate doctors and judges allow that as part of an abortion procedure doctors should/do intentionally kill a breathing fetus that has been removed from the uterus. But in fact, if we look closely there is no real contradiction in all of this - it might be that because the law is not quite clear yet, some MEDRS continue to include mention that in an induced abortion the fetus is not viable. And even then, these MEDRS definitions can be seen as a tacit mention that the fetuses are not viable (alive) when expelled or removed precisely because the fetus has been killed (aka destroyed) by the abortion procedure itself. In compliance with the laws (that still might not clearly permit the killing of a post-partum living fetus as part of an abortion), these MEDRS are written to make it clear that death must be accomplished (induced and completed) in utero. So in the end, what is expelled or extracted is a non-viable fetus (because the doctor already performed feticide in utero). While none of this synthesis should be included in the article, it is offered to explain why fetal viability might be included in some definitions, and why that inclusion need not be seen as a "conflict" or as an affirmative statement that fetuses don't die in an abortion. Finally, this is all a discussion of only the medical jargon used by some abortion providers and some doctors. Cloudy medical jargon should not force the hand of the lead of a generic definition of abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.237.145 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following is a description on the website of an abortion clinic that tells potential patients about abortion procedures that the clinic offers. http://www.cherryhillwomenscenter.com/abortion.aspx It is offered only for discussion here on the talk page to show an example of the langauge used by those who perform the abortions when describing them to their patients:

  • For patients that are 18 weeks pregnant or more by LMP, the physician will also administer a medication called digoxin on the first day of the abortion procedure. Digoxin is administered directly into the fetus to induce fetal demise (death). This is administered at 18 or more weeks in a pregnancy in order to prevent a live birth and also to ensure that the fetus is unable to feel any part of the abortion procedure. Medical evidence is unclear as to the exact time a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, but some studies point to a time around 20 – 22 weeks. We feel that administering digoxin is the most humane thing we can do in order to ensure that the fetus does not experience pain during the procedure.

This abortion clinic uses the word death to describe what the state of the fetus after the doctor administers a fatal injection to the fetus. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should "death", verifiable fact since 2005, be removed from lede?

"Death" has been verified since 2005

  • by a sound widely recognized dictionary (which supplies everyday definitions that apply very broadly),
  • by a legal dictionary (which supplies definitions from a legal perspective), and
  • by a medical dictionary (which supplies definitions from a clinical/medical perspective).

The publisher of these dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, has determined that the best primary definition in all 3 of these reference books is the same.

  • [As an aside: Perhaps this is because in the contemporary everyday English-speaking culture, when abortion is at play, the sociological, philsosophical, moral, legal, political, biological and medical factors are all implicated; in other words even when we think of abortion in everyday terms, most people realize the many issues that are associated with it. This could be a reason Merriam-Webster chose to use the same definition in all three dictionaries.]

In addition we have medical and veterinary textbooks and peer reviewed resarch that verifies that the offspring in utero dies or is killed as part of the abortion process. Nothing has changed since 2005.

There cannot be any serious plausible debate as to whether "death" has been and remains verified as a medical, biological, veterinary, and scientific fact. It is an insult to editors to carry-on as if this is actually open for debate.

Once the editors who seek to remove "death" from the lede concede that it is a verifiable fact that death of the offspring is part of every abortion, then we can have a sincere discussion as to whether the lede should be changed to delete this verified fact. Until then the discussion here is silly and not accomplishing anything. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct that your position is that we can have a reasonable discussion of this issue once we concede that you're right? JJL (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No. Though I suppose someone who assumes bad faith and who does not understand verifiability might think that. I am inviting everyone to acknowledge that the verifaibility policy, as applied to this article, requires all editors to acknowledge that the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for abortion (which states that an abortion includees the death of the fetus or embryo) is verification that allows us to include that fact (death) in the article. This talk page has much discussion that argues from the perspective that "death" has not been verified. Much of the non-stop debate is about an issue that is not open for debate - one cannot make a good faith claim that "death" has not been verified. If editors keep debating whether this fact (death) has been verified, and keep arguing as if the article cannot include that fact because it has not been verified, then we are wasting our time arguing about including that fact in the first line. I am not demanding that anyone accept the lede. Rather, I am insisting that editors follow verifiability, which will require them to stop suggesting or claiming or premising that death should not be in the lede or anywhere else because it has not been verified.
  • Those who don't want "death" in the lede MUST use a different argument (other than verifiability) to try to persuade. It is a violation of verifiablity and a form of stalling to do otherwise.
67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

===========


I am happy to stop starting new threads (which I suppose is new underlined sections?) until all the prior threads on the talk page are resolved. What is the method to determine that an open thread is resolved? As a point of order, I started this thread to end the endless debate above that does not even address the real issue, which is not whether the death has been verified (it most aboslutely has been since 2005), but whether there is consensus to delete death from the lede. Killer Chihuahua distorts what is going on here and is POV pushing. I am requesting that KillerChihuaHua be disciplined for the constant stalking of eveything I post and the nasty tone in posts to me and the POV pushing. KillerChihuahua is being uncivil and I don't have to accept that. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please post a dif of me POV pushing. As I have not even expressed an opinion on whether the word "death" should be in the lead (this year, anyway), I suggest you are in error that I have violated WP:POV. I'm ignoring your accusation of "stalking" as absurd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Your denial of stalking would be more plausible if you would politely assist the editors who have been consistently editing under the pretense that "death" has not been verified. Given your prior comments in years past, you obviously understand that "death" has been verified. That is not open to debate. Yet you have not admonished those who keep ignoring the dictionary citation (as if it did not exist and did not confirm that "death" is verifiable) and making assertions that death is not verifiable (or refusing to acknowledge (when asked) that it is. That is one good reason why I don't consider your actions to be in good faith. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that doesn't even make sense. Nothing you have said has anything at all to do with stalking. You are accusing me of ... not admonishing those who disagree with your assertion that a DicDef trumps all other sources (no one has said the dictionary fails WP:V or WP:RS, so your harping on V is unintelligible to me; you're tilting at windmills again and arguing that which was never asserted.) I have no reason to admonish editors for disagreeing with you. Failing to admonish them has absolutely no relation to stalking at all. You're not even making basic sense in this post. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I am straightforward and direct. You can't stand that. And please stop coyly pretending that your anger is not involved with the way you are behaving. Please stop being obtuse. You have decided to target me. I called that stalking. I am sorry if I confused you because wikipedia has a more narrow definition of stalking. Your tone just sucks and I am sick of your incessant nastiness. I am going to stay away for 24 hours, and I suggest you look inside and cut the crapola (latin for crap) when I return. Thanks. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not angry. I'm puzzled. We seem to be having a communications problem of epic proportions; you seem to be becoming more and more hostile, making more and wilder accusations against me. I think you are wise to take a break at this juncture. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the sentiments expressed by MastCell and KillerChihuahua here. Opening new fronts before old ones are closed is a standard stalling tactic. JJL (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Your posts advocate a position that WP:Verifiability ["The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."] is inapplicable to this article, at least not when it comes to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion and "death". Because you won't follow verifiability, from this a reasonable person draws the conclusion that you don't agree that death is part of abortion, and it is no stretch to conclude that this has tainted your hounding of me and your posts on this talk page, and your advocacy against the letter and spirit of FAQ #1 of this article. This is all an indication of your bad faith editing here, though I won't discount that there could be some other explanation. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression you had actually bothered to read the FAQ you keep citing. Had you done so, and read the archives, you would have found that I have been involved in the death/notdeath debate since the beginning, and my position has always been clearly and strongly in support of the use of the word death in the lead. If you'll note, I have not even indicated whether I'm open to changing that view on the talk page this go-round. I've confined myself strictly to policy; comments aimed at assisting the discussion to move forward, in keeping with my mediator experience; and requests for brevity, clarity, and civility - all of which you have ignored. The earliest edits of mine regarding the use of the word "death" that I've found are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=43502685&diff=prev and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=43590121&diff=prev both from Mar 2006. Before that the main debate about that section was how to describe the abortus. Now, I ask again: as I have in no way indicated this year what my position on the use of the word "death" might be, how on earth can anyone logically accuse me of POV-pushing? You are equally in error about your presumption regarding my views on WP:V vis-a-vis the MW dicdef. In short, you are accusing without evidence, and indeed have continually wrongly stated what you erroneously think are my views, and I would appreciate if you cease such actions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
67.233 Please stop with these baseless personal attacks and attempts of misdirection. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask once again: What is the basis for the implied authority of this fact? It's presented as though it has the authority of an ArbCom decision yet I believe--please correct me if I'm mistaken--that it's merely a statement of the 2005 consensus. JJL (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, while the word "death" has been in the lead since 2005 (and on and off from 2001), the debate and resulting consensus was from 2006, not 2005. I don't mean to nitpick, I merely offer the correction for accuracy's sake. You are correct, the FAQ#1 merely documents the consensus arrived at, at that time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You used the word merely, which is W-R-O-N-G. In addition to documenting the consensus, FAQ #1 ALSO cautions editors to acheive a new consensus before changinf the lede to delete "death". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks. I'd suggest then that those here who are citing the FAQ might stop as it's redundant with citing the 2006 consensus (the fact of which is not in dispute). JJL (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Citing FAQ #1 is most helpful. Twice in the last few days some have edited the lede with disregard for the letter and spirit of FAQ #1 as if they had not read it. FAQ #1 is there to assist editors who are interested in being civil. It is a much more specific and helpful reference point than stating "it's been this way for years", and it presents context and tone. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support measure, with additional note that such leading and argumentative approaches as calling current phrasing "verifiable fact" rather than "established consensus" be addressed as well - if 67.233 cannot phrase his comments in a non-confrontational fashion, some sort of remedy must be found. This has gone beyond irritating spam and well into disruption. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Because you mis-state what is going on, I will correct you, KillerChuhuaha: That "abortion" includes offspring death is verifiable by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion. The issue is whether there is consensus to delete that verifiable fact from the lede. Your comment and tone above are intended to avoid dealing with this absolutely correct framing of the content of this talk discussion. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the suggestion by MastCell; I'm in basic agreement with KillerChihuahua's suggestion but am unsure how such civility could be enforced absent a permanent judge being appointed to this page (which isn't a bad idea). JJL (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment taking the foot off the gas would be advisable 67.233.18.28. Allow us to reconstitute the rationale of why "viable" wasn't selected in 2006. This will provide context for why death was chosen, and we can have constructive dialogue from that starting point; well I hope it'll be better than reiterating positions and wiki-policy. - RoyBoy 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the historical perspective will be helpful. It seems consensus has been lost and not yet regained and I would certainly find it a constructive approach to see the rationale laid out in summary form (as some have briefly attempted to do above, which was helpful) and be able to refer to it as we discuss how best to construct the lede. I also appreciate your comments directed to me above and am also willing to slow down and try to make better progress. JJL (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I agree that it would be a good time to take a look at the reasons that death rather than viable was selected in the past. That said, I do not at all feel that any of this extremely long and sometimes exhausting conversation was "wasted" - and that includes the many posts that 67 made. I came to this discussion having never given the issue any thought at all and till now I believe that I would have said certainly the fetus dies - it was alive, and now it's dead. But it really bothered me when someone said that it was so obvious that anyone that thought differently should get kicked off the article, and so I looked into it more deeply. I think that what is so beautiful about using consensus is that first there is a lot of brain storming - and we could have not gotten here without first being there. I think I have been lucky to have 67's perspective because I have needed to hear what I don't agree with besides what seems to make sense to me. And while there is nobody here with the expertise to give us an answer, even the Supreme Court did not attempt to do that, reading the posts I find that there are plenty of Wikipedia experts here to help us decide what is the best answer for a Wikipedia article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic banning someone for too fervently articulating the view held by thousands of reliable sources, and apparently refuted by none, is an exceptionally bad idea. And essentially everyone participating in this discussion, myself included, is involved in the content dispute. A community consensus for a topic ban would only exist when expressed by uninvolved users. This is why such matters are normally discussed at WP:AN or WP:AN/I, not on article talk pages where uninvolved users are extremely rare. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
I need to correct your statement. As a matter of fact Orangemarlin did not "fervently articulate" his position. If I remember correctly, he stated it only once and joined in the discussion only rarely. Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement? Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought we were voting on the opening of new threads, not on topic banning someone? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure what we are voting on? I do concur with RoyBoy's comment 67.223... needed to throttle back a little on the new sections, but starting a new section is an understandable thing to do if a discussion is drifting away from its main issue and I don't see that it was a "stalling tactic". Perhaps a "steering comment" would have been better, but looks like water under the bridge now. Still I oppose any ban, a comment was given on the editor's talk page and I don't support any further action. I too concur with Gandydancer that the IPs comments have been candid and would continue to be valuable to the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well that's not exactly what I said. I feel they have been valuable but I did not say they would continue to be valuable. One must be able to move forward rather than just run around in circles. Not sure how to put this nicely and I'm not sure that I need to, but I felt that 67 was really coming unglued near the end. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unglued?? As I see it, it was just a case of an editor becoming more sure of what he was debating, and becoming a little frustrated by others veering off the main points. Anyway I apologise if I summed up your words inaccurately. If the issue (opening new sections) had been a major one, it should have been taken to an AN/I first, for un-involved comment. There was no repeat after the issue was raised. Anyway - water under the bridge. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead edit - viable - Current form of first sentence

The current version is: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before the fetus is viable." This is a well-supported version that doesn't use contentious and/or ambiguous terms. The only real unaddressed issue I see is that Selective reduction doesn't terminate the woman's state of pregnancy. I think this can be clarified later in the article--it doesn't merit a caveat here, esp. because of the use of 'a' (vice 'the') in the phrasing. I would not have used 'viable' if I were crafting a defn. myself but it is well-attested based on the sources provided by NW on this page. The use of Viability (fetal) addresses the able-to-be-born-live issue without raising the currently-living issue. JJL (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why has the lede been changed twice in the last day when there is no consensus? Are you violating 1RR? 71.3.237.145 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Me? No. I didn't change it. I've only made one edit in the past several days--to revert a change made under a premature claim of Talk page consensus. But it looks to me as though what was made were primarily new edits--perhaps one reversion of 'death', then new editing--apart from NuclearWarfare self-reverting while editing, which I can't believe is intended as a violation (WP:1RR refers to WP:3RR which refers to undoing another's edits). JJL (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. NuclearWar has made changes that do not enjoy consensus and ignore the FAQ #1 for the Abortion article. I think you actually reverted this yesterday when someone else did the same thing. Thanks. The current version is not acceptable. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing a fair amount of agreement on the Talk page about the current version. What would it take to "officially" declare consensus? We can't expect universal agreement. (WP:CONS says: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.") This approach--checking the significant new sources as an experiment--seemed to enjoy broad support as a way of moving forward, and I personally am fine with the wording that is now in there even though 'viability' would not have been my preferred wording, but it'd be good to find a clear new consensus on what is obviously a contentious matter. JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The presumed consensus is insulting, and the way this was done could lead NW and JJL to be topic banned. However, it is obviously a bold good-faith attempt, so we won't go down that road this week. (I am suggesting to revert it yourselves, I won't be so balanced if an admin is required to intervene.) I can do it myself, not from some sense of ownership of the lead, but from y'all ignoring the FAQ and archives.
Anyway, please clarify, did you read any of this? Talk:Abortion/First paragraph The first archive, I was even studious enough to put "viability" in the summary! Here viability is first discussed, I believe the conclusion there and much later on when the lead was being developed, is "viability" is a term usually used for birth. It is somewhat out of context for an abortion. Certainly viability is a consideration for a therapeutic abortion done for medical reasons/risks, but that's a fraction of abortion cases and misconstrues what an elective abortion is. - RoyBoy 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Roy, I have only been an administrator for two years or so, almost four full years fewer than you. But I certainly have been around the block enough to know that none of JJL or my edits is even remotely close to being deserving of a topic ban. Please drop the red herring. NW (Talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a red herring, this week, and I didn't know you were an admin. I expect better: your change was against a long established - very well discussed - precedent. That by itself qualifies as poor judgement (I won't expand on further minor faux pas). But since it was good faith, in the end I'm glad to say you're absolutely right. However, even my cursory participation on this round indicates the leads been repeatedly messed with. Not promising. - RoyBoy 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if there were fewer threats of seeking topic bans, ANI, etc., and more good-faith discussion. As for me personally, I ask you this question: Since I didn't make the edit and since I ask immediately above your comments how we can get to a new consensus, what are you complaining about me for? Simply because I disagree with you? Is it not apparent that I made this new section so we could discuss the change that was made, despite the fact that I largely agreed with it? I call your bluff: Get me topic-banned for this. I've left space below for your reply. JJL (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll take quick issue with any editor claiming consensus cavalierly (I don't have enough digits to count how many times pro-lifers claimed it here), it's something to be avoided in disputed articles/topics. Do you disagree? If viable remained in the article -- while discussion continued -- I wouldn't be using qualifiers such as "could". To be clear, it was warning of how bad that edit/support was; not a goddamn game of chicken. - RoyBoy 01:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
An editor acting in good faith will never edit an endelessly-discussed-from-every-possible-angle long-established consensus lede that has a constant history of being questioned but confirmed, and even includes as the number 1 article FAQ an explnation that makes it clear that in order to change the lede (which might be possible, but only after significant dicussion involving dozens of editors over several weeks' time) you will have to put in some work to try to gain a new consensus. Do you really not understand this? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please AGF and do not make such accusatory absolute judgments which claim a good-faith editor would never be bold. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
KillerC: Take a does of your own medicine, please. Please AGF by exerting some self-control before alleging others have not assumed good faith, or at least by being consistent in accusing others of violating AGF . My comment mentioned good faith in a less provocative tone than JJL did when JJL used it in reply to RoyBoy. In fact, I had already compelemnted JJL just above, and only mentioned what would be (and what would not be) good faith behavior of an editor only after JJL violated AGF in reply to RoyBoy. Why did you single me out, but you failed to invite JJL to AGF? Inquiring minds want to know. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You said "an editor acting in good faith will never". My response was directly to what you stated; I reminded you not to judge another's good faith, or lack thereof, so sweepingly. I am sure you meant well; I in no way accused you of failing to act in good faith. Please let me know if you are still confused. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I hear you (should I have said "a sane editor acting in good faith will never..."?). ;0) 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That personal attack is even more appreciated. Keep it up. NW (Talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Now to the point: The edit was in keeping with the experiment that was described in advance and I find it the wording and the fact of the edit quite reasonable. According to WP:CONS, consensus can change, and referring to previous consensus or old Talk page archives as an argument against forming a new one is discouraged. That doesn't mean we have a new consensus--it means all should work collegially toward achieving consensus. Your pointer to a discussion of 'viability' over 5 years ago is largely irrelevant. What do you have to say about the matter in light of the recent discussion and new sources? JJL (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I continue to AGF with you (and everyone) as I believe you see it as reasonable; moreover I'd be in agreement if this was early 2006. I haven't read through and processed the furious recentism of the talk page, but I don't see the reinvention of the wheel happening soon (but I am reading). If this sounds flippant, intentional, apparently we banged this out on teletype in the dark ages and archives shouldn't be rigorously consulted on a keyword ... did bioethics/society revolutionize in 5 years? Perhaps it's just new arrivals being over enthusiastic. (not a bad thing in of itself)- RoyBoy 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Society didn't change, but you know what did change? The growing use of high-quality secondary sources instead of whatever comes up in a Google search. The few times that high-impact sources are mentioned [7], [8] to a lesser extent, almost universally supports exclusion of "death" from the lead sentence. It has only ever been Wikipedia editors trying to add their preferred wording that led us to this. Using definitions only from the highest quality and highest impact reliable sources, I am at a complete loss to see how one would end up there. NW (Talk) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely sympathize with your position and confusion; and appreciative you found pertinent archive sections. It seems clear we have let you down, and not provided in summary fashion the relevant source(s) to how viable was found wanting. We are reconstituting below, and will correct this oversight hopefully shortly. - RoyBoy 14:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Abortion has nothing to do with whether the fetus is viable or not - the definition inserted above would mean that abortions post the viabiltiy range are not actually abortions, which of course is ridiculous. And yes, the old consensus - which is also proper contentwise - still stands. Str1977 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that consensus can change. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can change but there is no indication that it did in this case, especially given how often this has been discussed. I know you know about this because we were both there some time ago. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
First off, thank you for mentioning that you were canvassed here. I'm glad that people are following appropriate procedure and informing people that they have not come here on their own volition.

I have reinserted the four definitions that I had added to the article in a footnote earlier. They are properly sourced to far more authoritative sources than "Gynecology for Lawyers"; I hardly think that anyone can object to that as a first step.

With regards your comment about viability being ridiculous point to define abortion by, please tell that to Dr. Schorge. It was he (and colleagues) who edited the textbook Williams Gynecology, which states exactly that: "Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability." But I'm sure you know better than a Vanderbilt/BWH-MGH trained OB/GYN.

As KC and JJL note above, consensus can change. I have looked through the previous discussions, and I have to say that I believe I have done a more comprehensive literature review for the exact definition of the word abortion than has been done by Wikipedia editors before now. I honestly affirm that there was no bias in the method I used to look textbooks up; I had never read a single one of them before and I put down everything I read. Consequently, I find it ironic that you and Chester (et al) would wish to keep "viability" out and "death" in. Almost every single one of the references (please read them above, looked for the green collapsed box) mention fetal viability, and almost none mention death. Perhaps there is a case to be made that fetal death needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. I honestly have not made up my mind yet, but any discussion of such needs to include solid academic (not necessarily med. biological, but med. ethical or med. historical too) sources that prominently state that the definition of abortion includes "death" as a key component. Our guideline(s) demand nothing less. NW (Talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NW, what procedure are you talking about? I don't need no procedure to post here. Yes, I was informed by some IP that something was going on here but given that I have been involved in this article for quite a while, I see no reson why that should interest you. I haven't done anything clandestine. And I am certainly here on my own volition! I am not forced!
On the issue: you are obviously confusing different meanings of abortion. This is a general encyclopedia and hence must take the generally accepted meaning of the word into account first (specialist meanings may of course be mentioned as well). And Abortion is generally defined in such a way that non-viabiltiy is not a prequisite for it. This would mean that late-term abortions are not actually abortions, that no one ever survived his or her own abortion etc. Worse still, your wording can be taken to imply a POV that abortion results in the death of only those not viable anyway - given the very controversial nature of the issue certainly a no-go. This is the reality of how the word is defined and no "comprehensive literature review" can change that.
"Perhaps there is a case to be made that fetal death needs to be mentioned in the first sentence." Given that it is the centrepiece of the ethical controversy, which in turn makes this issue more prominent than other medical issues, it certainly is. And we already have a source stating the obvious. :::Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If you "honestly haven't made up [your] mind yet", then it seems premature to make a prominent edit that requires consensus before you have reached concensus even within your own mind. By the way, is there a reason your comments are written as if the most widely cited, most widely relied upon, best-selling American English dictionary does not include "death" in its main abortion definition? Assuming good faith on your part, there must be an explanation, because you indicate that we have to rely on "sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death", and other editors keep explaining to you that Merriam-Websters regular, medical and legal dictionaries all do just that ("abortion:the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"). 67.233.18.28 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a falsehood that I made any such edit, and I request that you retract that statement. I certainly didn't revert it, but I didn't make it. NW (Talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster is, as you point out, a dictionary. NW made it clear that he was looking at academic, medical sources. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (used by medical professionals), I will repeat and extend for those that might want or need clarification: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" in the core basic definition of abortion because fetal death or embryonic death is the sine qua non of abortion.
  • The pregnancy cannot end unless the fetus goes away:
  • If the fetus goes away and lives (even for a short period), there is a live birth and no abortion.
  • If the fetus goes away and dies before or during the process, there is an abortion and no live birth.
I say again: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary includes "death" because "death" is the sine qua non of abortion. All the medical literature and scientific literature agrees, but Merriam-Webster is bold enough to state it plainly, which is actually a very wikipedia thing to do.
67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
67..NW supplied valid sources as part of the discussion above and made a WP:BOLD edit. Are you refuting the sources ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you read too quickly. I did not refute anything except NW's implication (or premise) that there are no medical "sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Artifex, are you indicating that despite the big red bold FAQ warning, etc., that it is both a good practice and a good faith practice for editors to plow ahead and change the lede to the abortion article? It seems self-explanatory that the opposite it true. Or do you find NW to be either inexperienced at wikipeida or lacking in basic reading comprehension skills? For goodness sake the lede has always been controversial and the article is under protection because this article is not generally as amenable to bold changes as other articles are. Is this really that hard to understand? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not indicating anything. I made a statement and I asked a question. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked a question, too! We're kindred spirits. My question followed from your (odd) question about refutation of sources, which was a non-sequitur to my post. My question was very logical because your post indicated affirmation for a bold non-consensus edit to a controversial lede that has a big red bold FAQ (that warns people not to change the lead without consensus and makes it clear that acheiving such consensus will likely take no small amount of work) in an article that is protected at least in part because people edit it all the time without consensus. So, I asked you if you REALLY REALLY REALLY think that it is good practice and good faith to make such a an edit. Now, I know you did not intend to indicate anything (as you replied to me above). Thank you for your answer. I now ask you whether you find it is both a good practice and a good faith practice for editors to plow ahead and change the lede to the abortion article without spending significant time and effort to achieve consensus after input from many (dozens of) editors? Just asking. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Second the question. I see no issues with NW's research and/or sources, and am interested to know whether 67.233 is objecting to those sources, and if so what his/her objections are, or if s/he accepts the sources and research. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I answered the question above: "I did not refute anything except NW's implication (or premise) that there are no medical 'sources that prominently state the definition of abortion includes death'". 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: Do you accept that "abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/abortion) is a: 

*verifiable 
*abortion definition 
*from a medical dictionary 
*that "prominently state[s] the definition of abortion includes death"?

It would be helpful to know. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I question whether Merriam-Webster fits the criteria for major medical dictionary or major OB/GYN textbook. It obviously isn't the latter, and out article notes that "The three major English language medical dictionaries are Stedman's, Taber's, and Dorland's Pocket Medical Dictionary. Other significant medical dictionaries are distributed by Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of medical and scientific literature, and their French division Masson." Merriam-Webster isn't one of those. The nearest medical school to me (a public state medical school) does not even have it in their library collection, though they do have Stedman's, Taber's and Dorland's. NW (Talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
NW:
  • Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary is a medical dictionary. It is used by medical professionals. It is included in the websites of major medical and healthcare companies and agencies as an online medical reference text.
  • Perhaps it does not meet your definition of "major medical dictionary", but that peculiar factoid should not effect the lede.
  • Wikipedia articles about everyday topics, such as abortion, should not read like medical texts. It is good to have a fairly simple medical reference text available to assist in keeping the article text simple.
  • It can be helpful to have more information, but nothing in the references you mention refutes the Merriam-Webster definition (which also that publisher's standard dictionary definition and legal dictionary definition).
  • Come to think of it, the Merriam-Webster definition is so good precisely because it is so broadly applicable and is accurate in every single situation that occurs that could be described as an abortion.
  • Whereas the abortion definitions in the medical dictionaries you listed all fall short because they are not applicable in some verifiable abortion situations.
67.233.18.28 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that "the abortion definitions in the medical dictionaries you listed all fall short because they are not applicable in some verifiable abortion situations" is certainly OR. No one is disputing the existence of sources that use 'death', but the evidence clearly indicates that the best and most widely used sources do not. I'd also say that in the context of the described-in-advance experiment and the comments of those editing at the time that the edit was very reasonable and not even bold. That's not the same as claiming that there's a new, widely-accepted consensus. But repeatedly citing a FAQ that contradicts the basic notion that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit is inherently self-contradictory. JJL (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence that MWMD is a medical dictionary used extensively by medical professionals. I note in particular that it fails to be listed here, a list of books that all medical libraries should have. The three dictionaries that I suggested are all listed on there. NW (Talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The change to the definition was backed by sources and seemed in the spirit of this site's bold guideline. It got undone but no one put it back and we're here talking about it now instead of having an edit duel. Besides one of the two ips taking part here (I'm sorry I'm having trouble keeping track) changed the therapeutic abortion definition twice and no one really commented on it so evidently there's room for being bold as long as it doesn't go too far. Another thing is that not using "death" is not the same as saying it doesn't happen. That would be something explicit like "abortion is the expulsion or removal of an inorganic mass called a fetus or embryo from the uterus." There's a lot of things about abortion that aren't mentioned in the definition. Like it doesn't say anything about the expulsion or removal of the placenta, but does that mean the placenta gets left in? It's just brevity and the fact that references apparently don't see fit to mention placentas in their abortion definitions unless they refer broadly to "products of conception." Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

67.233 Are there sources claiming the definitions in the medical dictionaries listed are incorrect some way? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is absolutely verifiable that there are both errors and omissions in the major medical dicionary definitions.
  • Are you really unaware that abortions are routinely performed post-viability (and that this is verifiable)?
  • Are you really unaware that abortion always involves the death of an embryo/fetus (and that this is verifiable)?
67.233.18.28 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide sources claiming the definitions in the medical dictionaries listed are incorrect some way? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I can. But since I and others already have, I am not going to invest time in doing it again. Let's presume we have a person who psys attention to the abortion situation in western English-speaking society. That means that we have a person who knows that if a woman is 30 weeks pregnant, she can get a legal abortion if she wishes to have one in the USA, for example. If a medical dictionary states that abortion is limited to fetuses that are not viable, then that same person understands that the medical dictionary includes incorrect information, at least incorrect as far as an accurate factual discussion about abortion by non-doctors. Of course this fact of post viability abortions in the UK and the USA is verifiable (as I have posted elsewhere on this page). But I won't waste my time because I can't see that it would further the conversation to repost the same verification (or any other verification). Can you help me see how it would be helpful? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This is simply OR. You're putting your judgment against that of the many physicians who wrote and reviewed all those texts and other sources. You're refusing to accept the prominent sources that don't agree with your POV. We have to rely on the best expert resources, not those left after you personally exclude ones you don't like. And abortions performed by non-physicians? Of course it happens, but so do other sorts of unlicensed pro-active of medicine. It doesn't change what a thing is that some people do it incorrectly. My mother things that colds are caused by going out without one's jacket rather than by viruses. Should we update Common cold accordingly? JJL (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It would be helpful to have sources considered WP:MEDRS and/or WP:RS that support your claim against the edit in question and revert by authority of the FAQ. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What precisely is the "authority of the FAQ"? Is it enforced by some Arbitration Committee ruling, for example? It sounds like those favoring the use of 'death' are trying to create a principle of impotence here--that every attempt to change the leded is banned by for one reason or another. JJL (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have sources that support your claim that abortion does not always involve the death of the fetus or embryo.

It would be helpful to have sources that support your claim that abortion cannot occur after viability. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC

Why existing consensus used "death" instead of "viable"

@GTBacchus (below), may I refer you to the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability? For the past several years now, it has been something along the lines of: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." For the purposes of this discussion, we should be treating both Williams, Gabbe, and other reference works of similar stature, as if they were Holy Writ, not saying "Well, these references are wrong" and ignoring them. I understand that there are some less-prominent references that disagree with the definitions give in Williams Gyn., Comp. Gyn., Taber's and Steadman's. They might not contradict it, but they provide...shall we say as additional qualifiers to use the word properly, in their view. That opinion in a minority opinion. The only references that even comes close to meeting WP:MEDRS thusfar provided that can be directly verified is the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary & Blueprints Obstetrics and Gynecology. As I explain above, MWMD is not a dictionary that appears to have a wide following compared with others in the field. Blueprints I explained earlier as well. This is a simple matter of due weight and verifiability, not truth. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community as expressed through the most prominent overview textbooks and dictionaries is what should be followed.

67, those statements are merely not being addressed in the first sentence, because that is the way the overwhelming majority of the standard, authoritative sources have put it. As ArbCom said many years ago, "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." NW (Talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, hi. I'd prefer you didn't quote basic policy to me; I'm very familiar with it. I know about "verifiability, not truth", and I also know that there has never been a broad-based community consensus for this encyclopedia to relate information that we know to be false. If such a consensus ever has carried the day, I'd like to see that. Why don't we ask over at WT:V what they think? Surely bringing the question before a larger audience can't hurt, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The people at WT:V might have an issue with this massive discussion being imported over there, but I would have no objection to using other noticeboards like WP:RSN or WP:NPOV to attract people here. NW (Talk) 16:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever's clever. :) It seldom hurts to add people to a discussion in a neutral way. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
My vote is to narrow down what we got right/wrong in 2006 (now below), and clarify for everyone. Then chisel/add clay from there. More editors in a ballooning talk page may not be helpful; especially if they start from square one and think "termination" is the best option. - RoyBoy 06:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to assume certain conclusions--that the current lede is fundamentally accurate and just needs to be slightly modified (which in fact I don't really disagree with), and that 'termination' is not the best option, which is much less clear to me. I think we're moving in a useful direction though and am pleased to see that. JJL (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, something so heavily discussed / edited should move in slight steps, that was my clay intent. :") As to termination, I'd add to my summation above that we also quickly found it frames the abortion procedure on ending a pregnancy. Seems straight forward enough, but ending a pregnancy does not specify what happens to its contents (are they placed in stasis? moved to another host? silly questions now, but the future holds many possibilities), and with selective reduction of a pregnancy its simply inaccurate. - RoyBoy 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
@67.233 I made no such claims. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Merriam Webster certainly fits the definition of a reliable source. And given its standing it might better reflect the whole, comprehensive meaning of the word. It doesn't need to be a top-notch academic medical dictionary to do that. Still, it is a medical dictionary, hence it is also scientific. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Just for reference, here is our previous def list, and some discussion. - RoyBoy 14:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I forget offhand why precisely the "scientific community consensus" position didn't carry the day in 2006, or 2007, or 2008 or 2009 or 2010. MastCell / GTBacchus / Andrew C do you remember? I'm a few years out of date here, but I think we dissected this prior. - RoyBoy 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I basically remember. We couldn't come up with a definition excluding "death" that didn't define lots of live births as "abortions". Also, we (by which I mean "I") dug up "Intrauterine 2", the source where we saw precisely why the definitions in the medical sources are written the way they are. It would be great if we could include that in the article, but I'm not sure just how or where we would do that. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
NW did a great thing, and created a note section where we can put the pertinent information. Currently it has notes as to the disputed nature of defining abortion, if there is a succinct clarification of how a medical defs are not appropriate, that would be good and should take precedent. Can you provide the details / link, thanks to you and your fast access cerebrum. - RoyBoy 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I wish it were faster. I'll have to do some digging, but I can do that. I've recalled a little bit more just by sleeping on it.

We were trying to write a well-supported definition that accurately informed readers what the article is about. Most definitions either implied that live births are abortions, or else that late term abortions aren't abortions at all. Both of these are contradicted by the actual scope of the article. The current lead sentence, on the other hand, accurately reflects the scope of the article.

The relevant content of Intrauterine 2 was that the terminology surrounding abortion was designed by the medical community for political rather than medical reasons. Those medical sources, as they pertain to the question of the precise definition of abortion, aren't independent of the political interests of the medical community.

That's how I remember it, but I'll do some digging in the archives, and get more detailed information. Gimme a few hours; I've got a class to teach. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is this note section you refer to, Roy? I'm somehow dense and not seeing it. :P

I found the beginning of the conversation I was thinking of at Talk:Abortion/Archive 18#Change of definition??. That whole page is a helluva trip down memory lane... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tis my bad, I meant the death note section in the article, no matter. We need to discuss with recent arrivals. Then after we will see what will be added that section. Clearly we cannot expect bold editors to go through the detailed discussions we had in 2006. I've read over it quickly, it's late, indeed memory lane with Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Uterine_2 -- hopefully this will provide traction. - RoyBoy 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I will make my best attempt to congeal several crucial elements of our previous consensus for discussion, but I'll need assistance. - RoyBoy 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

termination was out of contention early because:

  • unnecessarily technical term (seen has euphemistic by pro-life), confusing
  • frames abortion as a medical procedure, encyclopedia's have a wider scope (ie. Wikipedia is not a medical reference book / dictionary)
  • refers to pregnancy, does not clarify what happens to its contents, confusing
  • selective abortions do not end the entire pregnancy, incomplete

not viable / non-viable was also not selected:

  • aborting viable fetuses do occur, eg. partial-birth abortions
  • defining viability is very problematic (eg. non-viable in Afghanistan / viable elsewhere)
  • can infer embryos are not going to be viable
  • would redefine abortion

death was used, but has issues as well:

  • Key objection: does not follow the medical/scientific consensus, conflicts with WP:NPOV
  • seen as emotional/moral pro-life language, addressed here
  • negative word, not valid, abortion is a negative subject

Comments

  • GTBacchus (or any editor familiar with the subject), if you have time, can you clarify in summary form with specific references / quotes, how "death" was found to be the best fit for WP:NPOV; and/or historic context on the medical community deciding how to describe abortion in a medical context, with the patient in mind. I can try later this week, but after a cold I'll be catching up with real life for a bit (though I am looking right now, I'd like to avoid a Wiki-lawyering clinic if possible). - RoyBoy 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I found what I was looking for:

Hmmm... You seem to really want to have firm rules here, to fall back on. We don't have those. Pillar number 5: No firm rules. That's uncomfortable, perhaps, until you're used to it. The answer you want is "policy states that we make sure that facts are verifiable, and we cite reliable sources as often as possible." Now listen though - the way in which those rules are to be applied is left intentionally vague. We figure that part out. Arguments like this one are where we try to feel out what the finer points of policy ought to be in our situation, because it's not the same from one situation to the next. Here, we're dealing with a sourcing issue, and it's not just simple, it's got some nuances. There's no acid-test we can fall back on, because this precise situation has never come up before. The closest thing we could find would be back in the archives where someone decided to use the word "death" months and months ago - have you gone back and read that? Oh, but "taking a vote" is absolutely not how it happens, nor is anyone suggesting that it should, that I'm aware of. I'll participate in poll after poll without suggesting that we determine article content by taking a vote - yikes! We certainly don't determine what an accurate definition is by taking a virtual "vote" among medical websites and other reputable online sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here was the reply:

Policy. WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." In other words, synthesize what is there. This agrees with WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Pro-Lick 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, do I have to explain how Pro-Lick is using policy incorrectly? - RoyBoy 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) @Everyone, please comment here. - RoyBoy 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for digging things up. I'm leery of all WP:IAR-based reasoning despite the fact that I think it's a valuable rule. This was the beginning of a straw poll that led to selecting 'death', then? JJL (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As you should be, but specifically here GTBacchus clarified that Wikipedia need not -- rely on -- editorial policy of others and source scoring. The primary goal of our very long discussion and consensus building was a rigorous lead that would actually work. One rule we adhered to steadfastly is: "...when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." WP:IAR is valuable, in that it forces us to look beyond policy minutia that isn't necessarily applicable and find a larger context that works for complex subjects. - RoyBoy 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
To answer the straw poll question, it was key to unburdening us with the "but these sources say this" and "oh yeah, well these sources say that" and "but weight is this" and "no, weight is that" and "historically this" and "who cares bout that". By early April we had made actual progress to drafting. Then by May it was by and large complete. I am thinking offhand of merging these archives into one large archive page for 2006-2007. It would make navigation a lot easier. - RoyBoy 04:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a fan of the straw poll as long as it's not too early on in a discussion all agree it's no more than that. Thanks again for digging around--it is helpful in my understanding of how we got where we are and should help bring us to the point more quickly in later discussions. JJL (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly, GTBacchus statement above is what unburdened us; and after much progress we had some mini-votes I think; with a final vote to make the draft live, but it was simply classic Wiki-collaboration than gave us the end product we have today. Re-doing that effort from 2007 to 2011 seemed foolhardy, and continues to do so. Generally straw polls simply delineate where people already stand, they do not clarify much more than that. - RoyBoy 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"death" of the fetus is not a medical term

To clarify:

  • When the abortion lede refers to "its [the fetus or embryo's] death", it is not a reference to the medical term of art "fetal death", which (as JJL has verified) is a medical term of art, which is used to refer largely (almost exclusively?) to spontaneous (non-induced) abortion after 20 weeks.
  • It would seem that the term was developed before the medical profession condoned inducing abortions after 20 weeks, and so it is no surprise that abortionists have not embraced this prenatal and perinatal term of art because the established protocol for abortionists is to never use the word "death" when talking to the pregnant and post-abortive patients.
  • In other words, it seems that doctors who are trying to assist a mother to deliver a healthy child have always acknowledged the death of the fetus, and doctors who are trying to assist a pregnant woman to kill and remove the fetus so as to end the pregnancy prefer to avoid any references to the verifiable death of the fetus.
  • None of this can support any deletion from the lede. It should make no difference to this article's main description of what an abortion is that the medical profession has chosen to create a parallel euphemistic lexicon for doctors who induce the death of embryos and fetuses.
  • Do any editors think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced?
For the record: Based on the feedback so far, I conclude that everyone agrees that a fetus is dead regardless of whether its death was spontaneous or intentionally induced by medical professionals. I suspected that most people would agree with that idea. Of course there is plenty of time to put your disagreement on record, so my conclusion might be premature. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether a fetus is killed on purpose (through an induced abortion) or dies spontaneously, the fetus dies; this is a medical fact and a biological fact, abortion practitioners' euphemisms aside.
  • The abortion article might want to mention this parallel euphemistic lexicon somewhere in the article, but the lede should not bow to such professional euphemisms.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, lay off the pro-life rhetoric about "abortionists". Personally, I'm not really listening to you until you figure out that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. That's just me, though. MastCell Talk 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
An abortionist is any person who performs an abortion. I also used the term "abortion practitioner". I did not know that term had some special political classification. As a matter of fact, I have seen it in medical and legal literature. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No, "abortionist" is a partisan political term used by the pro-life lobby. You will not find it in reputable medical or scholarly sources, which tend to use terms like "obstetrician", "gynecologist", or "abortion provider". HTH. MastCell Talk 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It is verifiable (by the most trusted dictionary in the USA) that "abortionist" quite plainly and simply means "one who induces abortions". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortionist. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If you don't understand the difference between dictionary definition and connotation, it's no wonder you're having trouble getting people to listen to you. MastCell Talk 22:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
For your information, Henry Morgentaler, a medical doctor who is by far the most famous abortion provider in Canada, self-describes as an "abortionist".
http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?review_id=719
If Morgentaler himself has no problem with the term, and since it seems to be agreed that abortion opponents also have no problem with the term, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this word. I also don't see why anyone should have a problem with those who use that word, just because they use it. 173.177.97.29 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not going to convince me with sophistry, misrepresentations, and anecdotes, because this isn't a high-school debating society. But feel free to keep going if I'm not your target audience. (The article you cite notes Morgentaler's self-description precisely because "abortionist" is a partisan pejorative, and so it's highly uncommon for an abortion provider to self-apply it.). MastCell Talk 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So long as it's "pull random sources out of [] day": abortionist noun (chiefly derogatory). NW (Talk) 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
zOMG and from teh Most Trusted Dictionary in the USA! :P Bottom line: "base the article on the best available reliable sources" does not mean "Google-mine a quote that supports your agenda". MastCell Talk 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This could be a good point to remind readers that calling MW "the most trusted dictionary in the USA" is not supported by any evidence--it's an empty assertion being made by someone who likes its highly atypical defn. of 'abortion'. JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I was specifically trying to address earlier Google searches showing the prevalence of this precise term but without context or definition. That's why I emphasized the precise 'fetal death' in my comments. I would also concur with MastCell that although this is only a talk page, the rhetoric you're using is somewhat distracting from the point at hand. JJL (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
JJL: This is a genuine question. And wikipedia encourages editors to resply to simple questions. Do you think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced?67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we should follow the medical sources, not my personal opinion. As it turns out, the best sources don't assert that a death occurs in either case, generally speaking. We should go with that. It appears that 'viability' is the preferred term. JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The constant use of rhetorical questions, unsupported claims, thinly veiled accusations of stupidity, et al. are not helpful. Claiming the medical profession has created a parallel euphemistic lexicon is pushing a POV that borders on disingenuous. Please stop. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Artifex: This is a genuine question. And wikipedia encourages editors to resply to simple questions. Do you think the article should adopt the premise that whether or not an abortus is "dead" is depenedent upon whether the death was spontaneous or induced? 67.233.18.28 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see Ignoratio elenchi. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The question is a legitimate one. When sources have been construed to indicate an absurd conclusion (that the fetus does or does not die depending on whether an abortion is spontaneous or induced), I think we need to step back and ask ourselves: is there something terribly wrong with the manner of source interpretation applied? In this case, we have copious MEDRS which do specifically claim that induced abortion causes "death of the fetus" or similar. But these references are held to be negated by the sources which simply omit any discussion of whether or not the fetus dies in describing induced abortion. I suggest a method of construing sources which produces a coherent picture, which is presumably what the MEDRS, being MEDRS, are trying to describe. The only way to resolve this discrepancy is to stop assigning special significance to the absence of information, and recognize that a source which makes no claims on whether induced abortion kills the fetus really isn't treating the issue. The result then, is that we have MEDRS for the view that both induced and spontaneous abortion kills the fetus, and none for the contrary. That some references would shy away from any discussion of the fetal death issue at all in the case of induced abortion isn't surprising: if abortion practitioners, or those associated with them, are writing descriptions abortion, do they want to put "death", or details as to the manner of killing in clear, non-euphemistic language? Sometimes not, if they believe that this would portray them in a negative light. Do they want to outright lie about the abortion process? Probably not a good idea either. So they simply avoid the issue of whether or not fetal death occurs entirely. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, per WP:NOR, avoiding the issue isn't making a specific claim on the issue avoided. Wikipedia isn't written from an "abortion practitioner POV", and isn't bound by such decisions to omit relevant information. Chester Markel (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Speculating on why the best sources omit 'death' is OR. They also don't mention whether or not fetuses are made of green cheese...clearly implying that they are? JJL (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a spurious argument. We have no MEDRS for the claim that "fetuses are made of green cheese" or other nonsense. Secondly, WP:NOR is only contravened when material not directly supported by a source is added to an article. The policy shouldn't be misconstrued to prohibit the talk page discussion of sources' POVs, and how to handle this. Assessing source reliability and the extent of permissible use is a frequent, useful, and accepted activity. Chester Markel (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’

Suggestion for new section

This is not on the to-do list but I feel it would be a good addition to the article. Please let me know. I'd like to expand some of the limitations to include religious beliefs, etc. if they actually are related. I have read that women in some areas have a very difficult time finding a provider, so it would be good if anyone can find that information. Also, I have used only U.S. info and it would be good to round that out as well. I have not yet looked at any related Wikipedia articles; perhaps I could find something in some of them. Please feel free to suggest better wording, etc., as I'm sure it could use some polishing.

Accessibility of abortion services

Factors affecting the accessibility of abortion services include gestational limits, number and type of providers, cost, and in some cases antiabortion harassment. A 2009 survey in the US found that most providers place limits on the gestational age at which they will perform abortions. At the time of the survey, the greatest proportion of providers offered abortions at eight weeks’ gestation (95%) and 64% offered at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later). Fifty-eight percent of hospitals reported that they performed abortions at 20 weeks’ gestation, whereas only 36% of abortion clinics did so.[1]

The U.S. survey reported that the majority of women who seek abortion services are poor and/or have a low income, and since most women pay for the procedure out of pocket, the cost of obtaining an abortion may prevent accessibility for some women. In 2009 in the U.S. the median charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $470. After the first trimester costs more than doubled with the median charge for an abortion at 20 weeks gestation at $1,500.[2] In some states lodging may add to the out of pocket expenses if the woman is unable to find a local provider. Costs may further increase if the woman is required to miss work and hire child care to fulfill a mandatory waiting period. as some states require. In South Dakota a woman is required by law to receive counseling at a "pregnancy help center" and to wait three days after meeting with a doctor before an abortion.[3] In Texas, a law will take effect in September 2011 that will require a woman to view a sonogram of the fetus, further adding to the cost of the procedure.[4]

A 2008 Guttmacher survey found "harassment is almost universal" at clinics and hospitals that provide abortions. Picketing, reported by 55% of the providers, was found to be the most common type of protest. More aggressive picketing such as attempts to block access and vandalism were also reported. Three percent of providers reported that abortion opponents had posted patient pictures on the internet and 15 percent said they had received at least one bomb threat.[5] Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20045953-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
  4. ^ http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/texas.abortion.sonogram_1_sonogram-procedure-abortion?_s=PM:POLITICS
  5. ^ http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/11/132829340/decline-in-abortions-appears-stalled-but-protests-rise
The idea is good, but it seems a bit US centric. The article is already quite US centric, and I think we should discuss restructing and shrinking #Society and culture before adding any more content to that section. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I like it heading. Following NW's restructuring idea...Could the Unsafe abortion section be incorporated/merged with a section like the one Gandydancer is proposing? Statistical data on unsafe abortions should remain in the incidence section but "Accessibility of abortion services" or the like might be a better place for the topic in general. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The content seems to be a bit one sided. For instance, it mentions legal restrictions that some states have imposed on abortion, but doesn't describe what rationales they have offered for these. What justifications have the picketers of abortion clinics described provided? Content is hardly neutral if it only treats issues from one perspective. Chester Markel (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
Chester, I appreciate your thoughts, however my intent for this section is to not get into the abortion debate, but rather to provide information about the accessibility of abortion services. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question of generic abortion debate. Your text is written from the POV of women seeking abortions. It describes specific actions taken by people to deliberately obstruct access to abortions, but doesn't mention their specific motivations for these particular types of conduct. There are many ways that someone could be a pro-life activist: why would they choose to picket individual clinics that provide abortions, rather than directing their protests at the United States Supreme Court? Why try to legislate against abortion within the restrictions of Roe v. Wade, rather than starting a campaign to impeach the justices responsible for that decision continuing to be the law of the land? You're describing a situation in which women seeking abortions will come into conflict with opponents of abortion, sometimes in person. I don't think that it's neutral to only describe the women's perspective, while leaving the motivations for abortion opponents to undertake the activities described completely opaque. Chester Markel (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)‘‘Comments of banned sockpuupet account stricken - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)’’
That doesn't make any sense Chester...John...whatever. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To go back to the original suggestion by Gandydancer, I think a section like this could be globalized. Access to abortion services is often limited even in countries where abortion is nominally legal (the US being only one example). In fact, there's evidence that such restrictions are responsible for the high rates of maternal mortality seen in some countries with "legal" abortion. If there's interest, I will start collecting sources (the WHO is probably where I'd start, as the leading global public-health body). On the other hand, this may be more appropriate for a sub-article on abortion law or the like. MastCell Talk 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates... is worth a read. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad that there is interest. I did find some info about how difficult it is becoming in the U.S. to find and afford a provider, especially in some states. 87% of counties have no provider. Three states have none. Some have only 1 or 2 and physicians must be brought in because locals are afraid to do them. Mississippi, for instance with so much unemployment and low wages has these laws in 2011: A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility. Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape, incest or fetal abnormality. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/mississippi.html Gandydancer (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Making progress on the lede sentence

It'd be good to come to a consensus about this. After so many days of engaging in discussions with what was apparently a sock puppet we certainly need a fresh start. I know it'd be helpful for me if the various IP addresses set up accounts so I could keep them straight--I think we now have three such accounts posting, and it's easy for me to lose track of who is whom.

As I look at what's been posted thus far I see two key points being made: The number of sources that use 'viable' and the small number that use 'death' on the one hand, and the paucity of sources explicitly contradicting the use of 'death' in various reliable sources on the other hand. I see two main issues to be resolved: Is the use of 'death' accurate? If it is, is it a term we wish to use in the lede? In looking at issues from the 2005-06 discussion it seems that 'death' was chosen from a belief that other defns. in use were either too broad or too narrow. As we take a new look at the issue, with a different set of editors and some newly introduced sources, how can we best proceed constructively? JJL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can say for myself that the case has not been convincingly made to me that the medical defns. are inadequate. I see frequent references to cases that are exceptions--say, procedures past the point of viability--but I haven't had a connection made for me that indicates that that means the medical defns. are wrong or too incomplete to be serviceable. I understand some see this as obvious and I'm believed when I say that I don't. I understand why "terminate the pregnancy" is seen as inadequate for selective reduction of one of several fetuses in a multiple-embryo pregnancy but when I read the term I simply understand that this is its own special procedure related to, but not clearly a strict subset of, abortion; indeed, here on Wikipedia the Selective reduction article does not refer to the procedure as an abortion. I am aware that there are WP:MEDRS that do but this article reflects the same view I would have--a special type of procedure, akin to abortion but either different or such a very special case that it merits its own consideration. Regarding 'death', I'm not convinced that the fetus is clearly alive, and see it as a Heap paradox issue of when a blastocyst crosses the line to a living entity rather than merely a group of living cells. Overall I see 'Life' as a very complicated term--a view that entails a complicated meaning for 'death' too. Much of what I see argued in favor of bringing in 'death' reads as WP:SYNTH or undue WP:WEIGHT to me. I say all this not to invite discussion in this section but in hopes of making it more clear where I'm starting from and some of what I'd need to be convinced to move closer toward seeing 'death' in the lede. JJL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see that one editor less will make a lot of difference. And I don't see that a new set of editors would dig any deeper into this that the ones who have currently debated it, we can at least assume competence and access to sources for most of those editors who have already been involved in the debate over five years. You're "not convinced that the fetus is clearly alive, and see it as a heap paradox issue...." - That's original research WP:OR. Heap Paradox is talking about removing grains of sand from a heap and debating when it ceases to be a heap of sand! The difference with a developing embyro is that cells are not really comparable to grains of sand. I see no reason to pit reliable medical sources against each other, when basic embryology texts from 40 or so years ago and more recent ones from the last ten years remain constant on the matter of embryonic/fetal life. You seem to not appreciate that you need to not just convince the editors currently editing this page, but those involved in the earlier discussions too. Life and death are still everyday words, and terms. I apologise for not perhaps answering all your points in sequence. The blastocyst is the sac which contains the embryoblast. Embryo : lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full". re. your question regarding the line between a blastocyst and a living entity. Do you mean by entity that which possesses the characteristics of personality? As regards the beginning of life the answer is at conception. This is not a pro-life answer or a catholic answer, it is what is stated in the field of embryology.
  • Chronolab: Atlas of human embryology:[[9]] The first two weeks of the human development are called the preembryonic period. This period begins with the fertilization. Fertilization is the beginning of the pregnancy and can be considered as the beginning of a new life. DMSBel (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that we only need consensus among those editing now, and that we are in no way bound by any previous consensus--we are fully free to change consensus. We don't need to convince previous editors of anything; those here must forge a consensus to replace the one now seen to have been lost. There's no reason to believe that the current form is the best possible lede of all conceivable ledes, is there? Regardless of whether or not we come to a common understanding of how 'death' should be applied here, we might still elect not to use it there. This seems to be a sticking point: To my mind, even if 'death' is fully accurate, it doesn't follow that it must be in the lede. Would you agree that that's so? JJL (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you have to overturn the previous consensus, else you don't have a new consensus. Merely starting a debate doesn't nullify a previous consensus, such that you can question something and assume that makes the situation no consensus, then get a few editors to agree and hey presto. Doesn't work that way. In the case of a factual inaccuracy I guess the situation might be different, but here your objection is not factual inaccuracy, it is that you think the term represents "advocacy" in it's current position, whereas others read it in context as a medical term, which it is. An expression of advocacy might be something like: "Induced abortion equates to the murder of an unborn baby" But you have not shown that "death" in this context is advocacy, or factually inaccurate, or provided an alternative that has not already been discussed, and found to be less accurate or equivocal in some way. "before it is viable" is not an equivalent, or even factually accurate - it tells us something else altogether. To be sufficiently clear the definition has to be in language which allows reader to distinguish it from delivery and birth DMSBel (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You've arranged your opinions and approach so that the consensus can never be overturned to your satisfaction. To say that we must provide "an alternative that has not already been discussed, and found to be less accurate or equivocal in some way" is simply not how Wikipedia works. The prior editors from 2006 do not have any special status that makes their decisions unassailable. It's been 5-6 years now...we can discuss the same issues again, in light of the new sources and the current mix of editors. It's clear t me that 'viable' is preferable here. That a different group of people went another way half a decade ago doesn't make it wrong. You are, in essence, citing (the current state of) Wikipedia as a source--and that's not allowed. If you can't openly engage a new discussion it might be best to acknowledge that you're forgetting one of the key notions of Wikipedia, or which you were warned when signing up: Others may edit and change what you write; if this is bothersome to you, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. JJL (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to explain where my mind is at right now. First I want to thank all the excellent. intelligent posts by editors who have expressed both personal outlooks and their understanding of Wikipedia policy. There seems to be a good understanding of policy here and I trust that I can assume that they are experts in their field, so as to speak, and can come to a decision that meets guidelines. That said, I did read in the archives that Wikipedia did wisely leave a small fuzzy area, and I'd like to learn a little more about the fuzzy area.

As this subject was on my mind almost all day yesterday I was thinking how similar this experience is to my first experience on jury duty. The trial involved the building of high-tension power lines across property owned by many small farmers in southern Minnesota. The power company used a series of "dirty tricks" to purchase the properties needed for their right of way and eventually the farmers filed a class action lawsuit. The actual trial was heart-wrenching for me because it was clear that the power company was using very well-paid city slicker lawyers that made the farmer's lawyers look like a bunch of country bumpkins. As we began our jury discussion only one other person and I sided with the farmers. Eventually we did come to an agreement in which we voted for the farmers but gave them only a very small amount of damages. I was satisfied with that because I knew that this was the first of many lawsuits that were to follow and we had set a precedent. I was so sure of my position that I would have hung the jury if need be. It was my first experience of making a decision that strongly affected the lives of many others and I felt that the weight of the world rested on my shoulders. It was a very profound experience. Our decision here will certainly affect the thinking of many others, and perhaps to some extent their lives as well - I do not take it lightly and will come back to this thought again.

Thinking about this I was thinking that it could be considered that Wikipedia editors set a precedent five years ago when they decided to use a Wikipedia-made definition for abortion because they found it more accurate than the definition used by almost all other sources. Considering all the effort that went into coming to the decision, it could rightly be argued that any effort to change it would be almost automatically rejected. So it seems we are in that position once again and whatever is decided it will be the definition for some years to come, and perhaps especially so if the reference to death remains included since it would have held up through two debates.

About Wikipedia - how much authority does it have to affect what is thought of as truthful? I think it has a lot of authority. As an editor I notice the quotes which are very frequently used by newspapers and articles: "According to Wikipedia,..." You see it all the time. But over the years I have noticed that people do not really understand how Wikipedia works. For instance, I remember some time ago in the midst of some sort of crisis reading a blog in which the blogger said, "And the administrators even had to step in and [tag the article - I forget what the tag was]!". People do not seem to realize that WE are the "administrators" and any fool can tag an article (and sometimes do). Or look at our article Moose Lake, Minnesota. The Chippewa did not name Moose Lake "libaquechawen," which roughly translates to "the wandering lands of sorrow". That information was added to the article six months ago and has even been quoted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune since then. So...people may say, "Oh, you can't trust Wikipedia", but they still do.

To move forward to the alive/dead issue. My thinking has progressed to the point where I will no longer debate this issue because I do not feel that as a Wikipedia editor it is my place to attempt to come to a Wikipedia decision about an issue that varies so much from culture to culture, from one religious thinking to another, that has been debated for thousands of years with no consensus, where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life, and where the U.S. Supreme Court, when they debated Roe v. Wade, said in their summary:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

At this point, to my way of thinking anyone that supports keeping the death of the embryo/fetus wording would need to justify why they feel that Wikipedia guidelines would allow a definition not held by almost every other authority.

Sorry that this got so long and I hope I have stayed somewhat on track. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm glad you regard defining life/death as a waste of time; the issue was always a monumental waste of time. As for justifying "death" in the lead:
  1. result of previous consensus
  2. plain English, instead of mealy-mouthed medical jargon
  3. it's true (which is why abortion is contentious)
  4. it is the intent of abortion; highly relevant
-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My reply:
  1. consensus can change - that's how Wikipedia works
  2. "is viable" is plain English and certainly not "mealy-mouthed" medical jargon
  3. you may believe it's true and I have no problem with that
  4. the intent of abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy
I don't see where it will help with the ongoing discussion for me to go back and forth over this - you have stated your position and I have stated mine. We do not agree Gandydancer (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
DMSBel, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR COMMENTS FROM MY POST AND PLACE THEM IN YOUR OWN. THEY INTERRUPT MINE AND CHANGE THE NUMBERING. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My reply:
  1. of course; neverthless until the new consensus is formed the previous consensus carries some weight.
  2. "is viable" is not plain English and is "mealy-mouthed" medical jargon. If I ran over a cat and killed it, I would say it is dead, not that it is "no longer viable".
  3. glad you agree
  4. no, the intent is not to end an unwanted pregnancy, since a live birth will do that. The intent is to both end the pregnancy and kill the fetus.
-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand the meaning of viable. A viable fetus means a fetus that can survive outside of the womb. Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Which nicely illustrates that "viable" is not plain English! :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, it may illustrate something quite different. Wondering perhaps if I was not aware that medical knowledge was necessary to understand the meaning of "viable" I asked my daughter and she said, "of course, everybody understands that". She felt fairly certain that both her children would understand the meaning as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
'Viable' is plain English, but, as with Death, there is a Viability (fetal) for those who may have need of it. JJL (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad too :-), However it's truth doesn't depend either on someone not having a problem with him believing it, or on his believing it :-) Hang on I am starting to morph in Gandhi or something :-) Believing something doesn't make it true and something true is still true even if one doesn't believe it. DMSBel (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The intent of induced abortion is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by terminating the life of the fetus. DMSBel (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have always thought the term "viable" was misleading. Though to descibe it as "mealy mouthed" medical jargon sounds, well, very nearly spot on! An embyro is viable - it's just not supposed to survive outside the womb at 6 weeks. DMSBel (talk)

1) True, also see WP:CCC. 2) "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus" employs no words that a reasonably educated 16 year old ought not to know. 3) That's nothing more than proof by assertion. 4) Remember that spontaneous abortions have no "intent". As far as induced ones go, one could just as easily write "the intent of an induced abortion is to prevent the beginning of life of a fetus".

Anything else? NW (Talk) 20:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

NW, I apreciate the work you have done on putting the footnote together (even if it relegated Merriam/Webster outside the major league). But you need to back down a little. Michael C Price is short and pithy in his replies, but that's his style. I don't object to it. DMSBel (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that is a simple statement that a high schooler should be able to understand. I also agree that arguments about "intent" can be quite nebulous. Is the intent of an appendectomy to remove the appendix? Yes. Is it to save a person's life? Yes. Is it to prevent sepsis? Yes. If the appendix is ultimately not removed because it looks fine when viewed by the surgeon, was the procedure still an appendectomy? (Leave aside for the moment that removing it anyway would almost surely be prudent.) I don't know. If the intent was to remove it and that doesn't happen, was it exploratory surgery that the surgeon mistakenly believed to be an appendectomy? Was it a failed appendectomy? I'd call it an appendectomy with surgical discretion applied. It isn't helpful to over-think the root meanings of these terms. JJL (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


This is the English Wikipedia, not the american wikipedia :-) DMSBel (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Gandydancer was it your post earlier that listed the phenomena of life, I think I saw your name after it. There was quite a few terms linked. I was looking through the talk page again earlier and noticed it again. You said just above "where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life." Well going back to those criteria listed (I see now it was your post):

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena

  • 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
  • 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  • 3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  • 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
  • 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  • 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
  • 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you changed your view on this? It just that to my mind, the embryo / fetus does exhibit most of those phenomena. How can you post all that and then say "where the embryo/fetus does not seem to fulfill the biological criteria for life." Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I thought that was a helpful post (the earlier one), yet you simply listed these and drew no conclusions. Until just above (again unless I am misunderstanding you). DMSBel (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In that list, I'd say that an embryo has limited homeostasis (independent of the woman) and cannot reproduce its like (embryos don't reproduce embryos). It also has significant assistance with metabolism. Do embryos adapt and evolve? I honestly don't know how the earliest stages respond to stimuli. I see all characteristics of living tissue but less so of a living organism. JJL (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Embryos can't reproduce. LOL. Then children can't either. Samuel Butler had the answer for that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Making the claim that an embryo is a living organism is different from making the same claim for a child. It's a continuum, and there's no clear beginning of life...but there are significant differences en route from zygote to adult human. Humans reproduce to make humans. Do embryos reproduce to make embryos? The chicken quote is amusing but not an answer--humans can live on their own, but embryos cannot. JJL (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As usual, all red herrings. And your answer admits the falsity of your argument. You say embryos cannot live on their own. Exactly - with a placenta they live. Without it they die. Case closed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In fact at an extremely early stage of fetal development the female human offspring contains all of her eggs, such that maturity (and a mate) is all she lacks to reproduce: A baby girl is born with egg cells (oocytes) in her ovaries. Between 16 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, the ovaries of a female fetus contain 6 to 7 million oocytes. Most of the oocytes gradually waste away, leaving about 1 to 2 million present at birth. None develop after birth. At puberty, only about 300,000—more than enough for a lifetime of fertility—remain. Only a small percentage of oocytes mature into eggs. The many thousands of oocytes that do not mature degenerate. Degeneration progresses more rapidly in the 10 to 15 years before menopause. All are gone by menopause. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I have read enough. I have debated here for quite a few days. It's now getting ridiculous (if it wasn't to start with). Substantial efforts have been made by several editors and a footnote has been added to the lede. But that seemingly is not enough for these few editors. I have held back from using this description, trying to maintain good faith, JJLs comments seem to me to be sophisms. for instance - "Do embryos reproduce to make embryos"!! I have engaged with this editor, I have wanted to see exactly what the issue is he has with the lede. I am now convinced that it is just (along with OrangeMarlin) a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is now into WP:TENDENTIOUS There's nothing more to be said at the moment. DMSBel (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Answer to DMSBel regarding biological criteria for life. Yes, that Wikipedia Life article did have a lot to do with my present opinion. Reading the requirements, I decided that until the fetus is viable the placenta could be considered as much alive as the fetus since it carries on several of the requirements for life - and yet we do not think of the placenta as dead or alive. But keep in mind that I do not base my decision on this aspect alone; several other sources have helped me to form my opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I doubt whether anything I say would persuade you. At least I can say this that you have shown a willingness earlier in the discussion to consider the way others view things. Maybe you won't change your view, or maybe you'll read further and come to a different view. I am not going to get into the judicial side of the debate, I don't live in america, and from what I see it just is used as a bait by some to get users banned. All the best with you're editing. DMSBel (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is veering into a forum again. It should be made very clear placenta is alive as is an embryo/fetus, and a tumor. How we regard them is of no consequence, yes indeed a spectrum; but as a sperm and egg are alive, they die if they cannot meet, such is life. Which is what they are -- life -- or is someone to contend otherwise and lose their Good Faith freshness seal? Throwing heated politics and sensitive patients into the mix might suddenly make oncologists avoid saying a tumor dies (or arbitrarily just relabeling the smaller ones as they haven't ripened by X years), but it does die because it's life... I looked it up. This analogy isn't random, it was brought up in 2006. Also, a tumor shares aspects of a placenta (dense blood vessel formation) and embryo, both have rapid growth and intense resource usage. Sorry to disappoint, this isn't complex and has lost its sheen here in years past, its politics plain and simple. You should acknowledge this and try next week / month to convince anyone you haven't worn out that death should be moved out of the first sentence. Heads up, when I saw Encarta's definition, I stopped hedging on that too and moved on to other challenges at Wikipedia. Plenty to do around here, plenty indeed... now a moment of levity before I start going off the deep end again. "It's not a tumor! It's not a tumor - at all." - Arnold Schwarzenegger - RoyBoy 01:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RoyBoy, trying to understand your post - are you speaking to me?Gandydancer (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
To JJL, but your "we do not think" mention did inspire me a bit; so thanks. - RoyBoy 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
When you say "lose their Good Faith freshness seal" you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this matter cannot be acting in good faith. Is that really your position? Let me say again what I've said befroe: Even if you can't imagine anything ever changing your mind--in which case you may not be well-suited to an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit--does that mean it must be in the very first sentence of the article? JJL (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What I am saying, is everything listed above is life, when it stops being life it dies. Disagreeing with this, isn't disagreeing with me, it is disagreeing with reality and wasting our my time. What has aggravated me in this instance, "do embryos adapt and evolve" what is that??? Are you aware that conception is the culmination of sex? Which is one of the most successful strategies of driving the genetic variation of complex lifeforms; which in turn accelerates adaptation and therefore evolution. Any embryo is the very essence of these important biological forces.
As to it being in the first sentence, I wasn't being flippant, I was giving you sound Wiki-advice. If you intend to get something done, don't wear out your audience before trying to do it. There were doubts in years past, they've faded with every ill-advised attempt to outright remove death. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
So the 'discuss'part of WP:BRD doesn't apply here because the sentence is already in optimal form? How could you know that? You're quite pleased with your view of the matter but there are many ways to phrase this and this one is out-of-step with the most common ways to do so, and uses a very loaded term without regard to its many nuances and arguable applicability. JJL (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It is out of step, hence too much debating after, so that didn't escape me/us; it's my firm Opinion the lead is optimal at least for WP:Style because it doesn't require additional verbiage in brackets or reading sub-pages to understand. Death is only loaded in that it's a bummer (negative concept), viable is loaded re: its ambiguity, the sense it is out of step (out of place) on abortion (partially) fools you into thinking it is loaded; I understand as I felt the same in the past. However, this speaks to comfort -- not editorial wisdom. As to "without regard to its many nuances", ummm we've spent more time on that than most other aspects of the article, so you're wrong and presumptuous. This is why mediation wouldn't work in your favor. As to applicable, Encarta uses it, death seems completely applicable to a growth being operated on and removed. You can try and argue it, but that doesn't make it arguable. - RoyBoy 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
RoyBoy, I will attempt an answer but it is difficult when you make it so hard to understand your post and (apparently) use sarcasm. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that a fetus can die or not die. It is my opinion that if we go in that direction and attempt to determine if the fetus is alive and thus can experience death, we will have no choice but to go around in circles and never move forward. My research revealed that there is no universal agreement about when the life of the fetus begins and it follows that it can not be determined that it experiences death if it was never alive in the first place. As Wikipedia editors we should not rush in where angels fear to tread and then be foolish enough to think we found the answer. The evidence I offer includes the statement from the Roe v. Wade court and the fact that seven out of the eight references we offer do not use the word death in their definitions. I am speaking of only the lede definition, not the body of the article. At this time my position is that I feel that Wikipedia experts need to justify the reasons that our article has chosen the definition that so drastically differs from seven of the eight references we offer. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gandydancer, your "evidence" amounts to an argument from silence, and nothing more, and is therefore invalid. New life begins at conception. Find a source that says anything else! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a mainstream source that agrees with Michael Price: http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception# "Conception: From Egg to Embryo. At the moment when a lone sperm penetrates a mature egg, conception or fertilization takes place. To better understand the incredible process of conception, take a journey with us from tiny egg to growing embryo." 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my style of writing Gandydancer, it is a little dense, at times slipshod and occasionally funny. As to those sources, they are all avoiding and do not hazard (presume) to define when independent life begins. Nor do I, nor does Wikipedia. We have already explained several times why above: "In the end, "termination" frames the entire abortion article as a medical procedure. It is a bit more than that, as an encyclopedia we should -- in good faith -- acknowledge that reality." And mentioned in pieces above and years past, their avoidance of "death" is appropriate for their publication / audience / historic context, it does not make it prescriptive for us. If they were writing an encyclopedia, they may have used different prose. Britannica chose to go with: "before it reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation)" It's good, but what's with the brackets and did you notice the weasel word "usually"? Do you think weasel words should be avoided Gandydancer? Oh yes, brackets are needed because the definition is ambiguous. Viable lends itself to gaps and confusion listed here (did you skip past that?).
How do you know they're 'avoiding' the issue? JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Death lends itself to negativity (which is fine) and some feel that death implies an independent life is dead, hence killed. Well no, its life and its dead. Nothing more, nothing less. Inferring beyond that is the reader (the audience)... do you contend our audience requires clarity? I don't see clarity in viability. While the weight of the sources is impressive, I'm more comfortable with summary style accuracy that's easier to understand per WP:Style. The idea that because an embryo is not a human "being", and by being I mean a detached individual -- somehow this means it is not life -- is a fundamental misunderstanding of what these experts are avoiding to define in the first place. All the experts would acknowledge an embryo is an organism, it is true that it isn't self-sustaining... but neither is a 2 year old. Gandydancer... this isn't hard, at all. - RoyBoy 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the distinction you're drawing between 'life' and 'independent life' in your first two sentences above. It does, however, seem to go to my point: That 'life', and hence 'death', are just not that simple terms in this context and need further clarification. If it invites the reader to infer more than intended, as you suggest, then it's poorly written and should be changed. JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Your fledgling attempts of "when life begins", an exploration of independent life or ... awareness (religion's soul) arising has zero bearing on the fact an embryo is a lifeform. Coming from an egg and sperm that are lifeforms, and can die throughout, just as a tumor can. It doesn't invite, a reader always brings their expectations and prejudices to anything they read. If they don't expect to see death, they get upset. Not Wikipedia's fault they are use to reading about abortion from medical references. Britannica chose to follow those references; makes it wordy, increases difficult to understand, and misrepresents the abortion topic as a whole. - RoyBoy 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also far from clear to me that " All the experts would acknowledge an embryo is an organism". That's a very broad claim. JJL (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say Britannica went with "usually" because 19, 20, 21 weeks is debatable not "weaselly". Why should negativity in the lede be fine? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@ArtifexMayhem: Is abortion a routine purely clinical procedure with no moral / emotional consequences? Not involved in bitter and divisive debate and politics? If that's of little concern to Wikipedia then viable would be a better fit and we should commence restructuring the entire article to be a medical text. - RoyBoy 03:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
@RoyBoy: Abortion is defiantly a politically divisive issue. I might live under a rock, but do I have one of those hand wound radio thingys humor attempt. Moral consequences are just part of that political debate. Is you are saying that the negativity is just the normal baggage that goes with the word and I agree. I have mis-read your statement as meaning "abortion is negative therefore it is ok for the lede to be negative". Apologies, my bad. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
RoyBoy, Your position is that as an encyclopedia our definition would be expected to be broader than that used in medical literature, is that correct? You feel that 7 of the 8 medical references we have listed in the article (and the Supreme Court summary) do not use the word death because their avoidance of "death" is appropriate for their publication / audience / historic context" however, "it does not make it prescriptive for us". Then you go on to the encyclopedia Britannica, which also does not use the word death, and criticize their definition as being ambiguous because it uses the weasel word "usually" and finds the need to clarify the word "viable", a word you feel "lends itself to gaps and confusion".
How you have decided that fetal viability is confusing, ambiguous, or anything else other than correct terminology is a mystery to me. If I were to say "childbirth usually occurs 38 weeks after conception" would you say that "usually" is a weasel word? It is no more a weasel word than if I say, "viability usually occurs about the 20th week of gestation". Britannica used brackets to define what viable means for one who did not understand the meaning. At Wikipedia we would link the word to the meaning. Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That doctors regularly abort viable fetuses has been verified by unassailable and numerous MEDRS. Although some MEDRS do include viability in their abortion definition, I have not seen anyone here cite a MEDRS that actually affirmatively states that "viable fetuses are never aborted" (or similar affirmative denial that no viable fetuses are ver aborted). Can you cite any MEDRS that makes an affirmative denial? Even if you could, then we would weigh how much weight to give such a MEDRS given that we have overwheleming MEDRS (and abortion doctors' tetimony under oath, etc.) that confirms viable fetuses are aborted. While some might consider the abortion of a viable fetus to be bad medicine or even illegal, that does not negate the fact that sometimes bad medicine is practiced and/or laws are broken (when viable fetuses are aborted). But alas, there are MEDRS that declare loudly that aborting a viable fetus is good medicine and legal, so it is hard no to dismiss (as emotionalism or advocacy) any desire to include viability of the fetus in any basic definition. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that this discussion is not about whether the embryo/fetus dies or does not die. The discussion is about whether the definition used in Wikipedia should include the word death. I feel that if Wikipedia decides to use a definition so drastically different than that used by most others, they must back their decision with references. If our article did not use the word death but all but one of the references did, how much sense would that make? It would be pretty obvious that our article was seriously slanted. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@Gandydancer I do see viable as correct terminology, for a medical context. It is correct for Wikipedia too, but not clear. As to pregnancy "usually" being 38 weeks (excellent attempt, and I'm pleased to continue to discuss with you), going into labor (ending of the pregnancy) isn't ambiguous as the water breaks. You can, despite variation, pinpoint when the pregnancy ends and giving birth begins. JJL torturing us with his "life" explorations, at least demonstrated many have tried to define viable / awareness / the soul; and it isn't possible, that unknown makes viable less preferred for an encyclopedia. Death is a negative word (JJL says loaded), this makes many reasonable people believe it should be less preferred (this is incorrect). I'd emphasize, which word to choose depends on your editorial mandate. - RoyBoy 03:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
To go on to address the second section of your reply. Keep in mind that this discussion is about the definition in the lede, not about anything included in the body of the article. As I said some time ago, before this discussion I considered the fetus to have died - actually my thinking has changed very little about that. As a mother myself, I know that I would have grieved a miscarried "fetus" in much the same way that I would have grieved a fully developed baby. I would always think of it as my dear baby that died. But this article is not about my personal feelings. From my understanding about Wikipedia, we look at the information supplied by the best references available and that is what we are obliged to use in our articles. Wikipedia has no editorial staff to make the final decision about what to say or not say. We rely solely on good references because, for one thing, that avoids having pressure groups from taking over an article and claiming what ever they please. If we are to make an exception with the abortion article, whats to stop making exceptions for other highly-contested articles? Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that the references have somehow discovered the truth of the matter. I am suggesting that they have wisely avoided using the word death because they are well aware of the fact that there is no agreement about when life begins. Could you offer some references that state that life begins at conception? Gandydancer (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I could, but since they have already been proferred, I shan't bother. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I was about to say why don't you look back up the page? See CHRONOLAB: ATLAS OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO (bulleted above) If other embryology sources are produced that state clearly that life begins at conception are you going to change your mind? What sources would convince you? You see I have to ask, as so many have been listed. I'll certainly look out other sources, but is that the issue, are you going to be persuaded by scholarly embryology sources. What if I list a source and you have not heard of it? There was a list linked to with reference to medical dictionaries, earlier in the thread. It was a recommended works list for someone wanting to put together a small medical library. If there is an Embryology Section in it, and one of the books in it confirmed that life begins at conception, would you accept what it says? I would really like to know. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I would guess that everyone ignored your earlier post because they seriously doubted that a Swiss lab has proven that life begins at conception. Gandydancer (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh, run that by me again? Don't you see each time someone comes up with what you asked for, you keep pushing back the requirements you seek. First sources, then particular sources, then proof (but not from a swiss lab). Any country in particular you'd be happy with? Let me know which ones are out for you, before I waste my time. DMSBel (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I have never hounded you for repeated references. If I am mistaken, please point out the instances where I have wasted other's time by repeatedly being dissatisfied with references for no good reason. Also, could you please remember to sign your posts - it may be confusing for anyone reading this page who is not familiar with the editors. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to proffered references? Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
A search on this talk page for "Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth" will take you right there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure a report from the U.S. Senate (97th, 1981) Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers will qualify as WP:MEDRS but it should be a fun read. The thing is so old I had to order a paper copy, bleck ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Matthews-Roth is a faculty member at Harvard, and also a fairly prominent advocate against the use of embryonic stem cells. While there's certainly no doubt about her scientific credentials, I don't see how the opinion of one individual on this question is particularly notable, especially when her opinion is at odds with that of most of her scientific colleagues (at least on the question of embryonic stem-cell research). I understand that Matthews-Roth is frequently quoted in partisan pro-life material, but I don't think we should follow that example in prioritizing her statements above a more balanced and weighted discussion. MastCell Talk 16:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Who else cites her work? Photobiology covers quite a bit, she is most likely to have written on subjects and been cited more widely than pro-life material. This is what I have found in a quick search: [[10]]. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, her scientific credentials with regard to porphyrias are sound. I would have no problem quoting her work in an article about porphyria or the heme pathway. On the other hand, the topic here is abortion. Her statements on abortion tend to be cited exclusively by pro-life activists, as best I can tell. Can we make an effort to avoid sophistry? MastCell Talk 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to question her credentials based on who cites her. Where she is cited, is it not from papers she has written? Would those not be peer-reviewed? If there is something which though cited in a pro-life source, has also been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal I don't see that the citation would disqualify the reliablity of the original source? DMSBel (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to just pick people at random why not use PZ Myers? The definition of life is irrelevant. The sources provided do not use the word death. Extracting a custom Wikipedia definition for abortion is just making stuff up. We don't get to pick. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Some sources provided do, why should they be pitted against the others? If most reliable sources said emphatically the fetus does not die in an abortion. And one source was found that said the fetus does die, then we might be dealing with synth. But that is not what we have here. Multiple sources are used throughout the article to give a comprehensive coverage of the subject. DMSBel (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing progress on even the idea of how we could make progress. Should we look to getting outside opinions on the sourcing, or even at mediation? My experiences with non-binding Wikipedia processes doesn't leave me feeling much encouraged, but there is no consensus here and we're mostly going in circles, I think. JJL (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't shown that there is anything wrong with the first sentence of the lede, or that it contains anything that is not included in medical sources. The problem you are up against is not making progress it is convincing people there is a problem. DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If you are correct in that those that feel the word death should be left out of the definition compromise only a small minority, I would like to know that for a fact. If after all this discussion the majority feel that the lede should be left as is, I would not consider putting further effort into working for a change. Would it be possible to take a vote? Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I vote for a vote. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think those who want to change the first sentence of the lede need to demonstate first of all that there is a problem. Taking a vote would not establish that there is a problem, or indeed that the lede is fine as it is. I prefer to work from definitely demonstrated problems, that are solvable, rather than "we lot think this should be changed".62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
MCP and Gandydancer, Wikipedia is wp:NOT#Democracy, so we don't vote. Instead we present, consider and refute arguments based on evidence from verifiable and reliable sources in accordance with existing wp:Policy. So far, you're arguments here have been very long on rhetoric and very short on V RS substance. You may not like it, but that is how WP works. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
RE "very long on rhetoric and very short on V RS substance". I hardly see how I could give a source for or against keeping "death" in the definition, which is mainly what I have posted about. If you have found my posts to be less than meaningful, of course your opinion is important to you, but perhaps some others have found it valuable, as I do theirs. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! MCP did not bring up the vote, also his posts are pretty much the shortest and succinctist posts of most editors discussing this. One good reason a vote would be bad: Votes are the least effective way of convincing people. Unless there is a good reason to change something there is nothing to vote about. Arbitrary change based on "we lot think it should be changed" is always a bad idea and out of tune with the spirit of wikipedia.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog the argument is not about wp:V, nor wp:RS, nor about definition of life/death. It's about clarity and presentation. There's nothing new to say, everyone's said their piece. Which is why it's time for a vote. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I used the word "vote" in a casual sense - I should have said straw poll. I think that a good case could be made for a poll to find if a majority have enough interest in a definition change to continue to hash it out. I, for one, am no longer willing to put effort into discussion if a majority want to keep the definition as it stands. The "Elders", meaning those that participated in the old discussion (and I say that with respect), are understandably tired of this and have other things they would rather be doing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I am still a little leery about voting: A major attempt at clarification has already been made, by means of a footnote. You need to convince editors that its not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that the footnote doesn't address the advocacy claim. "resulting in... it's death" baldly stated (although it was sourced) without the footnote you had a shot at claiming advocacy, while it's footnoted your only ground of complaint against it's position is starting to sound more and more like "I just don't like it", or "I am ashamed wikipedia has this wording" - neither will run. Familiarise yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
RoyBoy made a couple of good posts since you made this post. I believe that I finally have some good points that I would like to consider before I call it quits. It is obvious that the previous group worked very long and hard to come to their conclusion, but it still does not follow that they were correct. He and others who defend the previous conclusion would need to do so again since it has been five years and there are a lot of new kids on the block. That said, there is always plenty to be learned from our "elders". I feel they need to share their experience, as RoyBoy has done, and I'd like to try to pick it apart, if I can.Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, new kids on the block have the option of reading through the archives. To expect editors to keep re-iterating reasons, debated in the past is simply WP:TENDENTIOUS. Wikipedia would grind to a halt! All experience is shared via the archives. Precedents in the debate are helpfully linked. Other editors have done that for us. It took time, it took effort. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: AJOG states that abortions do happen after viability

This 2009 piece in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology advises peer doctors about the ethics of the post-viable abortions they perform http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2809%2900620-6/fulltext#sec2.3:

  • "Some viable fetuses will be diagnosed to have severe anomalies. There is certainty or very high probability of a correct diagnosis and either certainty or a very high probability of death as an outcome of the anomaly diagnosed or certainty or a very high probability of severe irreversible deficit of cognitive developmental capacity as a result of the anomaly diagnosed. When these 2 clinical criteria [high certainty of correct diagnosis of severe anomaly AND very high likelihood that if born the baby would eventually die or be severely disabled due to that anomaly] apply, the beneficence-based obligation to protect and promote the fetus' health-related interests has reached its limits. Induced abortion or feticide when these criteria have been met in rigorous clinical judgment does not violate beneficence-based obligations to the fetal patient."

The title of the piece is An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide. Interestingly, according to this AJOG article a doctor who aborts a viable fetus should call it feticide, rather than abortion. If the fetus is not-viable yet, its an abortion. If the doctor performs the same procedure on a viable fetus, he calls that a feticide. (FTA: "Abortion and feticide have precise, descriptive, medical meanings. When used with precision, they can and should be distinguished from each other.") Of course, feticide and abortion have always been synonyms, so this is a distinction made by doctors for legal and ethical reasons. The upshot is that regardless of technical terminology used only by physicians (has anyone ever read or heard in any mainstream venue of a doctor performing a legal "feticide"? - no, because abortion providers and feminists would howl if that term was ever used), a really late term abortion is still an abortion. I think the way it works is that a doctor performs a feticide on the fetus in utero, then he has to remove the dead fetus from the womb.

  • Is the removal of the "feticided" fetus then called an abortion?
  • How is this any different than any other feticide (because any "destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus" is a feticide according to Stedmans medical dictionary, so virtually all abortions involve feticide)?

71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How you can be so cruel as to suggest that a mother should be forced to carry a severely deformed fetus to full term is beyond me. The post-viable age severely deformed fetus should not be considered viable any more than the fetus that they know will die at birth. This is not cute little Down Syndrome babies they are talking about here. Most people have no idea what a "severe deficit" looks like or acts like. Do you? I have seen hundreds of them and it would have been better if they had not been born. I have always found it odd that it is the most religious people that supposedly believe in a wonderful place called heaven that have the most trouble accepting that it would be the best place for the very sick that are ready to die and the unborn who would supossedly go straight to heaven free of sin. I for one am getting pretty sick of all this BS. Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
See no such suggestion from the IP. DMSBel (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't presume what my personal feelings might be, Gandy. I have made no suggestions of any kind. There are many who advocate actively killing (such as feticide) those who have severe disabilities/deformities because they view death as better than a bad life. It is something to ponder, for sure (for gosh sakes most of us have had to face a similar choice: whether to euthanise a pet). There are many who oppose that idea, too. But all of us should be able to speak about what it is candidly (as this AJOG piece does). If you think its a good idea, then why can't we talk about what it entails?
I am offering WP:MEDRS that verifies that doctors kill post-viable fetuses in utero in one category of legal abortion (at least legal in the USA). I am also asking for clarification of the medical jargon's semantics so that our article won't rely on anything so tenuous. If you prefer not to acknowledge this information, that's your business, but it won't have any bearing on this article. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You are the one that refuses to accept the information. The article clearly states that a developing fetus regardless of age that has a severe irreversible deficit of cognitive developmental capacity need NOT be considered a viable fetus. And yes, I do think it's a good idea. And no I don't want to talk about it, and if I did you'd be the last person that I wanted to talk to about it. For you to argue that this is proof that doctors kill post-viable fetuses is the height of absurdity. I won't even get into your creepy comments about putting a pet to sleep. Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


I really am going to have to see a source that says that physicians are defining abortion incorrectly (or intentionally misleadingly) and not just have a WP:SYNTHesized argument for it. It may just be that Hard cases make bad law and also bad definitions, and that in the inherently fuzzy world of biology mixed with the variability of medical opinion this is a concern that the various orgs. and textbook authors have addressed with their choices. It may also be that even if 'abortion' is loosely used to describe some cases it isn't technically correct. We need to have a source indicating that the medical community has overlooked these cases, by an error of omission or commission, and not an argument for a Wiki-crafted defn. that is unlike any other one out there. Differing widely from the sources is antithetical to our mission here--we have to be very leery of doing so. JJL (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you won't accept sources except those that confirm your own POV. The argument for "before viability" is dead. It's a "late argument", you only had it nailed to the perch!!DMSBel (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
When an editor with a copy of Williams Obstetrics joined the discussion, what happened? We got confirmation that abortions are performed after fetal viability. The lower end of viability is earlier than upper legal limits on abortion. We have another source (BBC News) that confirms there are abortions in the UK performed after fetal viability. These are all on the current talk page, so you only need to look back. We have a third peer-reviewed source AJOG which confirms the first two. How many more would you like? DMSBel (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fresh approach needed

I have changed the lede replacing the phrase "before viability" with "resulting in or caused by fetal demise". I realise "demise" is something of a stilted euphemism. The issue of always and every of course comes into it, and one editor User:JJL has had an issue with that. But that is also problematical to "before viability", as another editor has confirmed from a MEDRS source. It seems to me although I'd appreciate other editors thoughts, that "before viability" is the more problematic phrase here. We could of course try most often before viability, resulting in or caused by the death of the embyro/fetus which would not exhaust the definitional sources. When we have a reliable medical dictionary which uses the term "death", this would not be synth. DMSBel (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Demise" is a mealy-mouthed euphemism. Better than "viability", though! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, its not great. Wish there was another way of saying it, "resulting in or caused by it's death" is the least euphemistic in this case. DMSBel (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The most recent consensus version of the lede should not have been changed because there has been no agreement that there is a new consensus version. We have exchanged a clear term (death) for a cloudy euphemism (demise). What is more, "fetal demise" is widely understood to mean stillbirth (a form of spontaneous abortion), but globally human abortion is induced several million times each year. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fetal Demise" is spontaneous. A new term was coined by practitioners: "induced fetal demise", which is intentional feticide as the first step in an induced late-term abortion. This "induced fetal demise" aka "feticide abortion" is most certainly performed on viable fetuses (as verfifed by many WP:MEDRS). For some reason the AJOG article http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2809%2900620-6/fulltext#sec2.3 chose to isolate the term feticide and redefine it to apply only to viable fetuses, but this goes aqainst Stedmans, which defines feticide as any intentional intrauterine killing of the embryo or fetus. In any event, although this article is helpful to editors in some ways to try to better understand the topic, such nascent medical jargon in one AJOG article cannot redefine the word feticide and thereby force wikipedia's hand to accept the absurd notion that an abortion of a viable fetus is not an abortion at all. This is not a medical article.

  • "Viable": no way because it contradicts MEDRS and the geat weight of evidence is that hundreds (likely thousands) of abortions are performed eash year throughout the world on viable fetuses. As was noted above, Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2219531/ highlights and praises the post-viability abortions done by slain late-term abortionist George Tiller. Also noted above, a group that helps women find abortion providers sponsors this link http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late%20abortion.html where a woman can search locally for late-term providers, many of whom offer post-viability (24+ weeks, 25+ weeks, and 26+ weeks LMP) abortions. The Viability (fetal) link mentioned above in this talk page indicates that "50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive".
  • "Fetal demise": no way because it contradicts MEDRS and common understanding that fetal demise is spontaneous.
  • "Death": there is no MEDRS that contradicts this and a dead offspring is the only thing that is common to every instance of abortion. Please keep in mind that the lede covers abortion, not just human abortion, and that offspring or young is an appropriate scientific, biological, medical and veterinary term for developing progeny.
  • As noted above, this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004276 in the journal Contraception written by a doctor working for Planned Parenthood verifies that feticide (also called induced fetal death in the article) is part of abortion. She refers to the surgical abortion and refers to one step in that process as feticide and refers to the induced abortion involving the death of the fetus. Of course, feticide literally means the act of "fetus killing" (analagous to homicide or infanticide).
  • Stedmans defines feticide as: "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus. Also called embryoctony."
  • Stedmans defines the suffix -cide as: "1. Killer. 2. Act of killing."
  • Random House unabridged dictionary 2011 defines feticide as: "the act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion".
  • As was noted above, this abortion clinic website http://www.cherryhillwomenscenter.com/abortion.aspx describes a late-term abortion this way to their potential patients. Note that the abortion clinic uses the word death to describe the state of the fetus after the doctor administers a fatal injection to the fetus:
For patients that are 18 weeks pregnant or more by LMP, the physician will also administer a medication called digoxin on the first day of the abortion procedure. Digoxin is administered directly into the fetus to induce fetal demise (death). This is administered at 18 or more weeks in a pregnancy in order to prevent a live birth and also to ensure that the fetus is unable to feel any part of the abortion procedure. Medical evidence is unclear as to the exact time a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, but some studies point to a time around 20 – 22 weeks. We feel that administering digoxin is the most humane thing we can do in order to ensure that the fetus does not experience pain during the procedure.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of website links, but the overwhelming preponderance of the medical sources goes toward viability being the key idea. We do have sources that call into question whether 'death' occurs (see the "On whether the fetus is alive" section above). I see a lot of arguing that the defns. given by the medical community are wrong but not quality sources explaining that that's so--that they're knowingly using the wrong defn. It seems like synthesis to me. The WP:WEIGHT of sources is clear: Viability is the issue. Why are we making our own, special, out-of-step defn.? JJL (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing the question of whether a fetus is a person or entity that has rights with the question of whether a fetus is alive. There is no debate about whether a fetus is alive. The use of the word death in the lede to describe what happens in every abortion (of fetal bovines, humans, canines, felines, etc.) is only controversial for people who wish to avoid stating or reading what is a biological fact. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, JJL continues to confuse the notions of life and death with notions of personhood. It's a waste of time debating with him. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that JJL can't acknowledge that the Cherry Hill, NJ, abortion clinic tells its late-term abortion patients quite clearly that the clinic doctors will perform a feticide expressly "in order to prevent a live birth". Well, that is because sometimes such fetuses are viable and are born alive. If on the talk pages JJL can't even agree that this abortion clinic is admitting that it sometimes performs feticides on viable fetuses, then we can't consider JJL to be editing in good faith. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
A clinic website--are you claiming that that is a WP:RS? Because unless you are, it isn't worth engaging the issue. If you are making that claim, then please be specific. JJL (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not claiming that, JJL. I am providing the link to demonstrate that it is not unusual or mean to use plain English to explain what abortion is. If an abortion clinic uses the word death to explain what happens to the fetus on its webpage (that is designed to assist women contemplating an abortion procedure), then complaints that wikipedia's use of death is somehow biased/false/inappropriate are hard to accept as good faith assertions. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You consistently take any disagreement with you as an act of bad faith. No one has disputed that some sources use the term 'death' in describing (some types of) abortion. But the WP:WEIGHT of medical opinion is clearly in favor of 'viable. It's inappropriate because it's not how abortion is defined. JJL (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) While the best refs say before viability would be willing to compromise at "most often before viability" Induced "fetal demise" is specifically in late termination of pregnancies as thus the current wording is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to propose "almost always before viability". We're fussing about a fraction of 1% of abortions. PhGustaf (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
PhGustaf, I see you've reverted the article to impose your "viable" view, claiming that this is the new consensus. Where did you get that claim from? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It's not just one person's view that 'viable' is the best term--we've established that that's the overwhelming view of the medical community, and are trying to follow WP guidelines by falling in line with it. Since 'viable' has majority support in the real world and on this page, it might be fruitful to try to work with it rather than claiming victimhood status as things are 'imposed' upon you. JJL (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the kind of discussion we need to be having. I prefer the standard medical wording. I think it's understood that in biology and in medicine there are always difficult cases that don't neatly fit the definitions. Biology is not mathematics. JJL (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The standard medical wording is found in Merriam/Webster Medical Dictionary. There is no need to maintain your painful agnosticism on the issue. DMSBel (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The position that that wording is "standard" is completely untenable. It's been shown to be wholly false. You may not agree that 'viable' is correct, but it's wholly standard. It's the mainstream, modal way of describing the matter. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(reply to JJL) This is why I argue that the best definition may well be, "The majority of medical texts define...". As I have already said, of the 1% of abortions done on post-viable pregnancies, the vast majority are done to remove a severely deformed fetus that would not live at birth or be utterly unable to exist in the way that one would call it a human person, or to save the life of the mother. One could argue that if a mother dies, the fetus will die as well. Of course if you wait till the fetus is certainly viable and the mother dies, is it ethical to exchange one life for another? Certainly the medical texts were well aware of that scenario, but they still went along with the definition of "before viability". I don't feel that we have to reinvent the wheel here. If it works for every medical textbook except the one that can be purchased for 99 cents used at Amazon, it should work for Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am reluctant to second-guess the medical texts as to why they define it as they do, but as we all know it's hard to have fully strict defns. in the life and medical sciences. Did penguins have to be classified as birds? What is the dividing line? Certain terms are used certain ways and we should document, not re-engineer, their use, I'd say. But, I'm by no means averse to having this sort of discussion, which is clearly moving in the right direction. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about my above post, I could as well argue that if most medical texts use that definition, would our definition need to state the obvious and state that that's what they state? ...perhaps not... :P OK, I think I've changed my mind...for now... Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's typical WP style to do that unless we are drawing a contrast between a medical meaning and some other meaning. JJL (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I see I have been incorrect to replace "caused by or resulting in its death" with "caused by or resulting from fetal demise". Thankyou to 67 for giving considered thoughts on this, together with research. Maybe it should be said at this point that any sort of attitude of epistemological nihilism towards the question is totally out of place here. What we can find from looking up a simple medical dictionary, we should be able to find on Wikipedia. I shall change the wording back to the previous consensus version. DMSBel (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
But your one medical dictionary is out-of-step with all the other ones...some of which are recommended for medical students, whereas your sis not. Beyond the fact that it agrees with your preconceived notions, why should that one dictionary be elevated over all the others that differ from it in a specific, consistent manner? JJL (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Late-term abortionists on post viable abortion:

The following doctors have made it clear that they have witnessed abortions of viable fetuses and/or that late-term abortions at the viable stage are typically done for purely elective non-medical reasons (the opposite of what some have been baldly asserting, which is that post-viable abortions are almost always done for anomalies or serious medical implications). Of course every doctor has different experiences. I invite someone to post other doctors on record to the contrary.

  • Abortion procedures are performed on viable fetuses and the proof is that annually dozens of them survive their attempted abortion - Dr. Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at London's St. George’s hospital, commented on the UK government's Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) report that 50 babies a year are born alive in the UK after botched National Health Service abortions (as reported by London's The Sunday Times, November 27, 2005) as follows: "They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation. . . I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine. . . If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks."
  • Slain late-term abortion doctor George Tiller stated in a speech to the National Abortion Federation in April 1995 in New Orleans that very few post-vaiability abortions were for complicated medical reasons: "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."
  • Late-term abortion doctor Martin Haskell (who invented partial-birth (D&X) abortion) has flatly denied that most late-term abortions are for fetal anomalies or some other serious medical probelm. He actually noted that nearly 100% of the 28+ week abortions he performed were purely elective: “Two of the criticisms that I’ve been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that-in the case of the D&X-that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure versus the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”
  • Also admitting that most late-term abortions are done on healthy fetuses and healthy women was the voice of the abortion provider lobby during the "partial birth" abortion debate, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who told the New York Times in 1997: "When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."

67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All but one of these unsourced bullet points does not use the term 'viable'. In some of these you're conflating viability (ability to survive outside the womb) with the numerical estimates of when it's likely to obtain. Some fetuses aren't viable at 30 weeks (say, in a case of a stillbirth). Viability is defined by survivability. That's hard to test and so it's helpful to have time/weight estimates of when it may have occurred. But your Haskell quotations, for example, doesn't comment on viability. Perhaps he didn't believe that those fetuses were viable. Similarly, for Fitzsimmons, maybe a 5 week old fetus would be termed 'healthy' too though it isn't viable. Viability is not equivalent to 20 weeks (say)...it's equivalent to ability to survive outside the womb (WP's article on it states simply: "Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus."). But answer me this: If your point is so obviously true, what is the reason for the fact that a clear majority of major medical texts defines it in terms of viability? JJL (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, anyone actually performing abortions would know that the "procedure" results in the death of the fetus. They are rather closer to the reality of the situation. If a woman going for an abortion asks "will the fetus be dead before you remove it?" the abortion practioner can't hedge on the question. DMSBel (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And Dr. Haskell, the man many think invented the "partial-birth" abortion procedure, has stated that 100% of the 28+ weeks viable abortions that he has performed were purely elective with no "fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure". Some here won't acknowledge this fact. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no agnosticism on the issue in an abortion clinic. There should not be any on Wikipedia.DMSBel (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_43&oldid=1093595870"