Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Straw poll, opening line

I'm going to be bold here and construct a rough straw poll of available options. Please feel free to add further proposals.

Please sign your name with (#* ~~~~) under a position you support or oppose (with no spaces), preferably adding a brief comment. You may wish to sign your name to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Background: The first debate on having "death" in the lead sentence was tied to the extensive unborn/human vs. embryo/fetus debate. It was decided human was an ambiguous term and allowed one to infer personhood (human being); whereas embryo/fetus were more accurate and neutral. When it came to putting "death" into the lead there were many proposals; but it was argued death also was accurate and neutral. This is how the current version was agreed upon by both sides of the abortion debate and those in the middle. - RoyBoy 800 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Original:

  • Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Others differ, however, placing this initiation at fertilisation (also called conception).

Proposals:

  1. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.
    Support

Caroline

  1. Oppose
  2. An abortion is the cessation of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.
    Support
    Oppose
  3. An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
    Support
    Oppose
  4. An abortion is the termination of an embryo of fetus' gestation in a womb, so as not to result in a live birth.
    Support
    • "White" and "chalk." It really is just a complicated way of saying "death," but I can't oppose it on editorial or or idealogical grounds. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose
  5. An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.
    Support
    Oppose
  6. An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
    Support
    Oppose
  7. An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
    • I just reworded my previous submission (one up) to clear up some issues addressed under "A solution......" and adding the embryo line (as is in every other definition).DonaNobisPacem 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support
    Oppose
  8. Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).
    Support
    Oppose
  9. "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." Or, in other words, maintaining the current version.
    Support
    Oppose
    • The only issue I have with this one is that it falls down in the case of one of mulitple fetuses being aborted, while the pregnacy continues for others. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

#*"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the biological death of an embryo or a fetus."

  1. Support
    • Qualifying "death" puts to rest concerns over the POV inferences of the word without precluding the possibility or commenting on the validity of such alternate interpretations. -Kyd 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose
    Puzzled

Sorry. This was posted accidently with the above (#9). Didn't intend for my own Preview dabbling to end up as real suggestion (damn copy and paste). -Kyd 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

RoyBoy, thanks for setting this up. What do you think of formatting the poll so that people can place support or oppose comments below each option, rather than each comment being a support, as it's set up now? Something like:

  1. [Suggested opening sentence]
    Support
    • I support this option
    Oppose
    • I oppose this option

Does that sound like a good idea? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just suggest support by the supported opening sentence - otherwise, one has to then write oppose under every one opposed, etc. Although, I suppose it is possible someone might oppose all, or support more than one.....hmmmm......yeah, your suggestion is good.DonaNobisPacem 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried some reformatting - if someone doesn't like it, please feel free to change it back, just be sure not to lose anyone's comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Works for now, I didn't implement it as there are so many options; but hopefully this straw poll with help us narrow it down to a few quickly, and/or combine the wording of a few together to get an uber opening sentence. - RoyBoy 800 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to sign votes, to insure one vote/option/editor?DonaNobisPacem 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I look like an idiot - and sometimes I am ; ) - thanks to whoever edited my votes.DonaNobisPacem 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Goodandevil, if I understand your question correctly above, you're asking whether we should mention that the word "abortion" not only refers to the actual ending of gestation of the fetus, but also to the aborted fetus itself. The thing is, I don't know whether that's correct. I think that the result of an abortion is called an "aborted fetus", not an "abortion". I'm sure that if I'm wrong about that, someone will point out which reliable source uses "abortion" to refer to the dead fetus, at which point, I'd agree with you; and let's include it then. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one reliable source [1] that lists one meaning as "an aborted organism". Good 21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's often used in that sense in medical parlance. In the same way, abortion clinics sometimes refer to an aborted fetus (with or without amniotic sac and/or placenta) as the pregnancy or the pregnancy tissue.

I would prefer to set up separate POV descriptions of abortion, based on the majority/minority views in the general population as per WP:NPOV. Preliminary list of POVs in (descending) order of popularity: (1) Held by those who want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as euphemistically as possible (e.g. in order to make it less difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. descriptions authored by abortion clinics (2) Held by those who do not want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as repulsively as possible (e.g. in order to make it difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. pro-life descriptions. (3) Medical/legal. An easy starting point would be to convert the current article to reflect the #1 POV it already approaches, and add the #2 and #3 views separately. AvB ÷ talk 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be contributing any further input on this matter. I hope the other users are able to resolve the issue; until then, I'll uphold the stable version (i.e. "death"). -Kyd 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the poll

Support Medical, Reliable, Reputable sources as per official Wiki policy.

Consensus, whether you call it straw poll or something else, is not how an encylopedia is written. You can use the majority of reliable, reputable sources, per official policy. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy."--Pro-Lick 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Some people would see this straw poll as an opportunity to explain why you feel various options are or are not accurate, NPOV, etc. Refusing to participate in a dialogue is a great way to claim later on that your input was ignored, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Already read it and quote it on my user discussion page. E.g.:
  • "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
  • "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
And who says that simple vote-counting is what's going to happen here? How many Wikipedia straw polls have you seen begin and end? Oh yeah, none. A straw poll is a good way of feeling out the various arguments. Nobody who knows this place is suggesting a simple vote-count. We're trying to find out what the pros and cons of various options are.
You're right that consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Unfortunately, when there's disagreement as to what constitutes NPOV, there's no acid test for determining whose interpretation of NPOV is correct. So, we try to explain our views to each other, and we figure that if we can get a consensus to agree that we've found a good NPOV, then we're better off than we would be without that agreement. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my fervent wish that consensus be declared void at least in clear-cut cases of original research (i.e. total absence of reputable sources), and preferably everywhere else. But it won't be happening anywhere soon. Wikipedia is built on the assumption that consensus will in the end result in NPOV language in the articles. NPOV is based on popularity/acceptance of views. The general idea is that consensus is a good way to gauge this. You would have to make Jimbo change his mind in order to remove the consensus aspect. FWIW, I fully agree that WP:NOR forbids editors to create a starting line pretending to be The Truth that is not even stated and undisputed as the majority view by the majority of notable reputable verifiable sources... AvB ÷ talk 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how this particular poll is violating NPOV in the first place. Up above on the talk page, we have several references that do not use, and several that do use, the word death in association with the fetus. Many that do not go on to explain that the fetus/embryo dies prior to or after an abortion. All sources are medical/reliable; so it remains to find a consensus as to whether or not we are going to take the route with or without the word death - yes, POV's come into play in the arguments themselves (on both sides of the issue, might I add), but if both are being used in the medical community, we have to make a choice, and consensus is the best route.DonaNobisPacem 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what is original research in this instance. - RoyBoy 800 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, RoyBoy - and what are considered "reliable sources." WALTR 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Original research includes your opinions, arguments, and straw polls. As noted every time you make a post "Content ... must be verifiable." Your opinions and straw polls do not meet the requirements. Consider reading the link AvB provided. It is official policy. As for the |reliable sources, click. Same page, posted before the attempt to violate policy with a vote of a small group of people that have no claim to expertise on the subject. Or, if they do, should have no problem adding it as a source above. If you have an issue with a specific source, post it below as a comment. That section is not for opinions. In other words, you will need a reputable, reliable, and, very likely, medical source. Of course, if you have such a source, you are free to add it to the list. As a final note, the list presently has a consensus of non-death definitions.--Pro-Lick 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd tweak that to say, "the list I decided to compile in a bold WP:Good faith but ultimately misguided attempt to change the article, based on my interpretation of a few specific WikiPolicies". As to "death" in the lead, I've noted on your talk page, Encarta is a reliable source more appropriate for Wikipedia, as we aren't writing a medical textbook but rather an encyclopedia. This forces us to take a broader look at the issues surrounding the procedure and write them in summary style; unlike medical sources that focus on the procedure itself rather than its issues/results/debate. We have a much smaller academic buffer here; it is a luxury we simply don't have.
To profess we need a reliable (or a consensus) of sources for stating that "death" is part of the abortion process isn't required by WikiPolicy... because "death" (or, no life, unable to survive, etc.) falls under "state the obvious" for articles. Now one can certainly disagree on how the obvious facts are presented and worded; but it would be a waste of time and demonstrate significant gap(s) in understanding of WikiPolicy to assert it was "original research".
Thinking you can somehow divine WikiPolicy better than numerous experienced editors and admins is curious. Then again that does crop up from time to time, especially on controversial articles. Your input/ideas are welcome (after all we are likely going to change the lead soon as a result of your edits, and Andrew c bringing up an old debate). However, your "my interpretation of this and that policy makes me right" attitude is not welcome here. Everyone has similar editorial input here; but that is a double edged sword as while people will listen to you, if they disagree for reasonable reasons... your edits won't make the cut. Such is life at the Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to see where there's a misunderstanding here. In writing a Wikipedia article, we make different kinds of decisions. One broad categorization, that might be helpful to consider here, is that of content decisions versus stylistic decisions. As far as content goes, the main policies to keep in mind are Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No amount of consensus can override these policies. No amount of consensus can justify the suppression of one reliable source, or the use of spurious, unreliable sources. Furthermore, we don't even seek consensus (or majority, or supermajority) among reliable sources. We report what they say, and if they disagree, we report that. That's all on the content side.
When it comes to stylistic decisions, we have to make decisions about how to phrase, couch, and present the facts that are composed of the reliable sources we've found. Phrasing can be very powerful, and one phrasing can imply a POV where another phrasing can sound more neutral. Decisions about how to word something aren't the sort of things that we can cite and back up with sources, and that's where consensus enters the picture. Deciding that one way of putting a definition is more accurate and neutrally phrased than another is not original research; it's an editorial decision. When it comes to controversial editorial decisions, we try to build consensus regarding the best way of putting something. A straw poll is a perfectly valid way of gathering information about what arguments people have for and against certain editorial decisions. A straw poll isn't a simple vote count, it's an attempt to find out what people's issues are with various options. Barging into Wikipedia for a week and announcing that all straw polls constitute original research... you're just wrong about how Wikipedia works. Don't tak my word for it, go work on a hundred other pages, and see how things go around here.
Here's yet another good thing to know about Wikipedia, Pro-Lick. Our policies and guidelines here are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive. What actually determines how Wikipedia works is not what it says on a page somewhere. It's the common practice established by a functioning culture of regular Wikipedians. One who would contribute to Wikipedia would do well to become familiar with this culture and its ways before trying to single-handedly change how this site works. That's if one wants get any work done, as opposed to just generating static. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware what your opinion on what is more appropriate. The consensus of the reliable, reputable sources as per WP:V overrule your POV, however. Or to put it your way, your POV is misguided and does not make the cut. Sources do. Sources support no use of death. And so do the 5 pillars of Wiki, as pointed out above.--Pro-Lick 18:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean; your selected sources. God forbide you had a POV on this matter, wait a second, you DO! You happen to think finding sources without death makes your position correct. Well since you found the sources; maybe, just maybe, you went looking for those sources because it was you POV death should not be there. Don't hide behind your sources; and please stop making use of my irony meter. RoyBoy 800 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The list above can be added to. Why haven't you? It can be checked, and can be commented on below it. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. I.e., you can add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of your opinion is that your hiding behind unsourced POV.--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
A 5 pillar reminder: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."--Pro-Lick 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"Wherever possible," yes. It's not possible to find a verifiable, authoritative source that says that the definition of abortion has to include or exclude the word "death". All we know is that some sources use that word, and others don't. (There are other words that some use and some don't, like "gestation", "embryo" and "expulsion".) Most that exclude the word "death" from the first sentence include it a little bit later. That's a stylistic decision, not a content decision, that an editor at each source has to make. That includes us.
Now, Pro-Lick, the following are serious questions: What part of "if reliable sources disagree, then we report that they disagree" don't you understand? Also, what part of "You don't know more about how Wikipedia works than those who've been at it for years" don't you understand? What part of "Wikipedia policies are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive," don't you understand? Do you fail to understand the difference between content and style? I really would like to see your answers to these questions.
Even more than that, I have a suggestion. Go find an administrator who has nothing to do with this page. Find one who strikes you as fair and impartial. Ask them whether your take on Wikipedia policies is the correct one. (See also what they think of your habit of removing others' comments on your talk page, in particular, comments informing that that removing others' comments is considered disrespectful.) When you've determined that community understanding of our policies is that you're right and we're wrong, then come back here, with the community behind you, and let us know. When that happens, we'll all say, "you were right all along, Pro-Lick. You wandered into Wikipedia, and immediately understood it better than the rest of us. Please teach us more." Until then, I'm amused at your hubris. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
More opinion. What part of the vast majority of reputable, reliable sources agree that death is not part of the definition for abortion is not understood? See WP:V.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's an easy one - I don't understand why, when a source doesn't use a particular word in a definition, you take that as an assertion by the source that the word in question "is not part of the definition". I don't understand why you aren't distinguishing the idea being conveyed from the particular string of words used to convey it, when the former is very clear, and the latter clearly variable. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a deep breath Pro-Lick, we aren't slow. We've understood your position; and have taken great pains to explain how and why you are utterly wrong; and are naive regarding WikiPolicy. Requiring a consensus of sources is a ludricrous proposition for controversial subjects. The logic is simple, simce it is controversial; one could find a variety of reliable and unreliable; authoritative and nonauthoritative sources to back up differing positions and perspectives. It is a huge investment of time and energy and ends up accomplishing nothing. That is why we prefer civil discussion to argue for one position or another. Based on the discussion the article evolves. Your position regarding the lead is flawed and naive; drop it. - RoyBoy 800 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, more opinion, combined with name calling. Very impressive. The list above can be added to, can be checked, and can be commented on. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. You add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of you opinion on the use of death is that it is "flawed and naive".--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

  • Number of times consensus is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times poll is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times vote is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times descriptive is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times any of the above words are used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in how many times verifiable and sources are used.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to get into policy quotes - from Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words:

Notable: A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject. Even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable. Often it is valuable to see how people thought, or competing views of the time.

Hmmmm......even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable....and valuable.....hmmmm. I hate to sound condescending, for I admit that is what I am doing: but this citation and bickering over policy is doing nothing but increasing the file size of this page. Discuss the article: if you want to discuss and work on policy, go to a policy discussion. The majority of editors here have been around a while, and are familiar with many policies - that's why they don't quote them all of the time. Ok - done venting. DonaNobisPacem 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Number of times Pro-Lick has convincingly argued a point using WikiPolicy: 0
  • Number of times WikiPolicy refers to following WikiPolicy to the letter and ignoring experienced Wikipedians and other considerations (style, balance, policies like consensus): 0
  • Number of times new users feel after reading some WikiPolicy they can WikiLawyer their POV into an article: big number
  • Number of times WikiPolicy says one can cherry pick sources then gloss over others (sources and people) in pursuit of an agenda: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in your Wiki-blind spots. (edit conflict) Ahhh, thanks DonaNobisPacem. :"D I recall a quote of some sort, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. RoyBoy 800 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exacctly. All DonaNobisPacem's stats are unverifiable opinions posted in the form of stats.--Pro-Lick 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a small question - which stats are you referring to? If you are talking about the ones about yourself/Wikilawyering/cherry picking etc. above, you can view the edit history - I didn't add them. My venting stopped with my signature above. DonaNobisPacem 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Your POV, however, on the wikilawyering and cherry picking. I can make up an identical list about you and tell you to go look at your edit history. In the end, it amounts to namecalling and does nothing to forward the cause. FYI, cherry picked from WP:POL, which is policy (and links to the 5 pillars): "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy...."

Pregnancy beginning discussion

This is getting so long it's interupting the flow of the Straw poll. I'm moving it here so that it can continue without obstructing to discussion or being obstructed. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, do you have a source for this NOT being a medical definition? I have posted several sources to the contrary. Of course I am not claiming it is THE medical definition - but A medical definition. I don't mean to muddy up your comment, but this seems like the best place to ask the question. Good]

It's a definition. Not a medical one. [2] -Kyd 11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That link appears to be broken. Does that link give a medical definition that is different than the medical definition that I have sourced several times here (if so no news, as we all know that one medical definition is implantation)? Quite frankly some doctors and medical references do not accept that pregnancy begins at implantation and instead maintain that fertilization is the start of pregnancy. Once the gestation period of the fertilized embryo begins inside a woman (which happens immediately upon fertilization), they view there to be a pregnancy until that gestation ends. AGI and many others have a different medical opinion. But the alternate definition is based on science/biology/medicine and it is the medical opinion of those who hold it (I have repeatedly posted links to the sources). AGI has good info sometimes, but when it comes to controversial issues regarding abortion, it is inherently biased as it is part of "Big Abortion" (the abortion industry and the abortion lobby). There are in all likelihood more Ob/Gyns whose professional medical opinion is that pregnancy begins at fertilization than who adopt the ABC link. Not sure what is so disturbing about noting in the article that the alternate definition is based on medicine (instead of whimsy or religion, etc.), as we do with the ABC link. Good 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here it is in PDF, if that helps: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.pdf. It quotes the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists, "A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete." I wouldn't consider them biased. Never said that doctors couldn't hold the opinion, but, pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization doesn't seem to be the standard medical definition of pregnancy, even if some members of the medical community hold that opinion. Saying it was a medical definition because some doctors believe this would be undue weight in my opinion. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kyd. I commented about this above, but didn't seem to get a response. The IVF page says that only 20-30% of IVFs result in pregnancy, where your definition would say 100% result in pregnancy. Also, the definition you copied a while back say "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body", and I believe the operative word here is developing. A blastocyst can only develop so far if it doesn't implant. I think its good to note that some people believe life (or pregnancy) begin at fertilization, however this use of the word is simply not accurate medically. --Andrew c 14:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Some medical/biological/scienific experts use a different medical/biological/scientific definition for pregnancy. This has been sourced. If you have a problem with the sources (posted repeatedly on this talk page), please state what they are and please be specific. "But those are not medical definitions" is a PoV and not all agree with it (certainly not the medical professionals who are using the alternate medical defiitions!). Again, I am not advocating that the article give equivalence to alternate medical definitions. I simply want them described as "alternate medical definitions" or words to that effect. There is no basis to simply call them "definitions". Good 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting left margin)

I would say that these POVs regarding the start of pregnancy (including the medical POV) are just that - points of view whose popularity/acceptance (but not their truth) needs to be gauged. I would prefer to see the distribution of the main POVs in the general population sourced. As an example pertaining to the point under discussion, it would be interesting (and necessary) to find out the size of the minority that view s as murder the use of IUDs preventing implantation of the newly developing embryo in non-Islamic countries. Reputable sources reporting this should be easy to find. If they are not, we can't say it. AvB ÷ talk 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a number of quotations showing it is a view held by the Catholic Church - of course, intent is taken into account - if one does not know that the IUD could prevent implantation of the embryo, then it is still considered murder, but the user of the IUD is not morally culpable (guilty) of the action. Those quotations are probably archived by now.....I believe it also involved similar statements on IUD's from Physicians for Life, and some other well known Pro-Life medical associations......DonaNobisPacem 17:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's some (of mine and others) from Archive 15 (I've only put a small sample - go to the archive for complete quotes):
  • From religioustolerance.org "Pro-life agencies and many -- primarily conservative -- faith groups [as well as] Canadian Physicians for Life [are] opposed..." [3]
  • Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient."
  • Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo."
  • On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that "Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility."
  • the following is a vatican statement equating use of the morning-after pill to prevent implantation as morally equivalent to abortion [4].
And some pro-life medical associations that hold the same view:
  • American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [5]
  • From Association of Pro Life Physicians [6]
I know that doesn't give the size of the demographic, but it gives the general demographic (Christian, pro-life) - interestingly enough, that is not an insignificant number of people...DonaNobisPacem 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's something interesting to consider with regard to actual development (Wikipedia article, not external and I have not verified the article, though it is not disputed or under NPOV like certain other articles).--Pro-Lick 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with anything?DonaNobisPacem 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with the development of the embryo. Something to consider in deciding when pregnancy begins (presumably, an embryo can start developing a sex once pregnancy is officially underway).--Pro-Lick 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It should not be surprising that certain characteristics are not determined until after implantation - how would that effect whether or not the woman could be considered pregnant?DonaNobisPacem 18:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
A common, real-world aspect of being pregnant is discussing whether it's a boy or girl. One can not hold that discussion until when?--Pro-Lick 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Now we're getting into the realm of original research anyways, but.....a real world aspect of being pregnant is also saying "What do you think our baby will look like?" That takes quite a while longer to answer!
Anyways, it appears the clitoris article is a bit misleading (or presenting non-conventional POV anwyays) - see [7] at discover.com. The clitoris article is talking about the genital development, NOT the sex of the baby - perhaps they refer to a potential influencer of males with female sex organs (although the discover article indicates that is due to missing genetic information, not hormonal influence).DonaNobisPacem 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think "missing genetic information" sums it up well enough.--Pro-Lick 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(moving indent left) OK, I'm not sure you got what I was trying to say - the Discover.com article says sex is determined at conception - XX or XY. The article goes on to say that males with female genitalia result b/c of missing genetic information - that information doesn't miraculously appear at implantation, it's still missing then - I think the clitoris article is merely trying to say that implantation triggers the development of the sex organs. It does not determine what those organs will be.

Anyways, as I said above, it doesn't really effect the question of the definition, so if you wish to continue the discussion we can take it to one of our talk pages.DonaNobisPacem 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Google search on baby sex determined when. Plenty more expert opinions to consider. The consensus seems to be that it's a bit more complex. Not complete disagreement, more like oversimplification for the sake of child-safe TV.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the same search I had performed - most of the hits talk about determining the sex of the child (determining, as in finding out by ultrasound or other methods) as opposed to when it is set. And yes, it is possible to have XO (XY, with Y chromosone missing SRY part, that results in a female) or XXY (which results in a male) - but these are STILL determined at conception. For the first number of sites that discuss when a child's gender is determined (set):
  • From medline: The genetic sex of a child is determined at conception. The mother's egg cell (ovum) contains an X chromosome, while the father's sperm cell contains either an X or a Y chromosome. These X and Y chromosomes determine the child's genetic sex.[8]
  • From Nova Online:As with all other eggs in a woman's body, the cell contains one female-determining X chromosome. A sperm cell, however, may contain either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. If the fertilizing sperm cell contains an X chromosome, the egg will develop into a female. If it contains a Y chromosome, it will develop into a male. Note: It is possible, however, that a fertilized egg cell containing a Y chromosome will develop into a female or an intersexual (person of ambiguous gender). For example, if the Y chromosome is missing the SRY gene, which is located near the end of the short arm of the chromosome, the egg will develop into a female.[9] - note it is still determined at conception
  • The discover.com quote above (determined at conception)
  • From Kidshealth.org .....your baby's sex is determined at the moment of fertilization...[10]
  • A Washington Post article that discusses the sorting of X and Y chromosone sperm for gender-selective IVF - wouldn't make sense if the sex were determined at implantation, would it? [11]
  • From St Francis Hospital The sex or gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. A woman's egg contains half of the fetus' genetic material and when fertilized the male sperm contributes the remaining half. The father determines the sex of the child which is carried by the sperm. The 2 sex chromosomes in a male's sperm are X and Y and the 2 chromosomes in a females egg are X and X. If fertilization occurs between a Y & X, the result will be a boy. If fertilization occurs between an X & X, the result will be a girl.[12]
  • From Maternity Mall: At the moment of conception, your baby's gender is determined thanks to the sex chromosomes in the father's sperm.[13]
  • From a Daily Southtown article on gender-selective IVF : A baby's sex is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes the egg. A male sperm contains the Y chromosome, while a female sperm contains the X chromosome. A female sperm cell is 2.8 percent heavier than a male sperm cell. [14]
  • From Babycentre.com The gender of the resulting embryo depends on which type of sperm burrows into the egg first — sperm with a Y chromosome will make a boy baby, and sperm with an X chromosome will make a girl. [15]
So that's the first three pages.....let's face it, the gender is determined at conception. The only thing that is more complex is the possibility of XO and XXY chromosone pairing (or tripling?) - it doesn't change the fact it's determined at conception.DonaNobisPacem 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comicstrip Poll

Can't forget to get get the consensus of what comicstrip artists think. Add your submission below:

  1. Slowpoke
  2. Oliphant
  3. Wasserman
  4. Auth
  5. Toles
  6. This Modern World
  7. Something Positive
  8. Wolverton
  9. Wilkinson
  10. Telnaes
  11. Wuerker

Results and tweaks

Here are the versions that acquired broad support; I've copied editorial notes and have tried to carry out the tweaks requested. Please support only your preferred option (and specify original or tweaked); but suggestions on other options that might make you switch your vote and support them instead are encouraged. - RoyBoy 800 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Original: An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
Tweaked: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
Support and Further Discussion
  • Conditional support if "removal" is added. I could support this, although I'd reword it to avoid two occurrences of "resulting in". Perhaps the second one could be "and causing". Also. I'd prefer "removal or expulsion" to simply "expulsion", as that would provide more clarity for the case of induced abortion, as opposed to miscarriage. AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
  • I'd support this one, with "removal" I suppose, if it loses the phrase "resulting in the termination of pregnancy", which is not true of all abortions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Original: An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.
Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth.
Re-Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth.
Support and Further Discusison
  • This one has potential - I think it didn't get a fair shake on the first round because of its unfortunate wording. I would further tweak it to "An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth." As I keep mentioning, a pregnancy may continue despite an abortion. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to be confused as support for polls, but in case the others want to know which one to vote against because I support it, I would support the original, tweaked, or GT's retweaked version.--Pro-Lick 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This definition looks very euphemistic since it seems to deliberately omit a significant and "unpleasant" detail; namely the death of the embryo/fetus. After all, that's why abortions are so controversial in the first place! Omitting this very significant part of the definition thus doesn't seem right. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree with the sentiment of Wade; I would like to note this is one of the best alternatives I've seen. It is simple, inclusive and to the point. On one side I do firmly believe the consequence should be noted to clarify the controversy of the procedure; on the other I appreciate Pro-Lick's objection that "death" could personify the fetus. Ultimately the problem is, that is in the eye of the beholder, and is insufficient to find "death" wrong or POV. The question I find myself now asking myself with this version; does/should the controversy be hinted at in the definition... or should we just define it in simple terms? Hmmmm... I think a dictionary can so simple terms, we as an encyclopedia cannot? - RoyBoy 800 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I know this nicely dodges the issue of death by defining abortion as a non-birth ending of a gestation, and that refers any issue to how "birth" is defined, in its own article. The fact that the relation of abortion to death is what makes it so very controversial is important, but not technically part of its definition. I would be happy to see that somewhere in the lead, if not in the defining sentence. Extending a thought that's already there: In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. The controversy stems from the fact that many consider a fetus to be a full human being, in the moral sense, and therefore consider abortion to be murder. Something like that? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy tweak

I assume this is a seperate proposal, so here is its own section. I have not implemented a tweaked version, others more familiar with the subject are encouraged to jump in. - RoyBoy 800 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Original: Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).
Tweaked:

Examine the power of the euphemism "terminate"

This word became a common euphemism for "abort" after 1972 when abortion which had been a crime throughout the United States became legal in all 50 states. It now is being served up here and elsewhere as the definition of abortion itself. It becomes a circular definition without a reference to life and death: Abortion is termination, and termination is abortion.

Terminate simply means end. The termination, end, cessation, halt, stop, etc. of human pregnancy is either a birth or a death of a human child at some stage between conception and fetal maturity. If every human fetus expelled from a human womb was an abortion, the human race would cease to exist.

Has the pregancy of women who have given birth to living children, completed but not terminated? patsw 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would we say that a "birth" is a termination of a pregnancy resulting in a living baby? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking, that would be correct.....if that helps.....DonaNobisPacem 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Why it should result in living baby? smth. dead babies are born. Or it's not birth than? --tasc 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to feel out the limits of the word "termination", not to provide an authoritative definition of "birth". One must speak carefully, mustn't one? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions Without Euphemism

Terminate is not a euphemism. The poor babies get terminated. Want no euphemisms, define it one of these ways:

  • An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with beating the baby to death.
  • An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with a death camp for babies.
  • Abortion is killing a developing baby inside a pregnant woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabyBomber (talk • contribs).

Uh, terms like "death camp for babies" seem a little POV. How about something like "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with killing of the preborn child"? Hmm, "killing," although technically accurate, might also be too emotional. And yet I despise euphemisms. How about "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with causing the death of the preborn child"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

my edit on definition

I felt the defintion was incomplete, leaving it as an "ending of the pregnancy." Thats true but so is a birth. In both cases the pregnancy ends. The difference is that one ends as an expulsion of an embryo/fetus, and the other in a birth of a baby. Only the latter is able to survive on its own. That is why I expanded the definiton to point to the former instead of the latter. I'm not sure why this is controversial, as it's pretty straight forward. Giovanni33 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the definition that you posted in inaccurate. If a viable fetus is taken from the womb, and killed in the process, what do you call it? Your definition excludes "partial-birth abortions" from being called abortions. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's also not the case that an abortion necessarily ends a pregnancy. If a woman is carrying triplets, and two are aborted, but she's still pregnant, was that not an abortion? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's back to the negative definition: abortion is not a birth. It's something else. Something that dare not be mentioned. patsw 05:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the fetus able to servive on it own? I still call it an abortion. It's accurate because I use the words "associated with." It would be very rare to have a fetus aborted which could survive on its own. An abortion is almost always of non-viable fetuses (or embryos). And, an abortion does end the pregnancy in respect to the fetus being aborted. A pregnancy only exists in conjuction with a growing embryo or fetus. To remove that removes the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is still there that is only because in an unusual situation there it was only an abortion of one of multiple embryos/fetuses, which is still consistent with the logic of the defintion. Sometimes a definition has rare exceptions, which your senarios include, but these can mentioned in the next sentence, such as where some but not all fetuses are aborted. Giovanni33 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those situations are so rare. I've seen some sources to the effect that partial-birth abortions have occured in the thousands per year in individual clinics. Maybe that's false, I don't know, but partial-birth abortions are certainly very visible, as part of the controversy, and it would seem strange to define abortion in a way that excludes them at first. As for multiple fetuses, they're the norm in plenty of species, and I certainly don't know what kind of ratio of implanted eggs to eventual kittens, for example, is usual. Do you?
Maybe it seems that I'm harping on bizarre special cases, but I think we should at least try to come up with an entirely correct definition, before settling for a most-cases definition and a list of exceptions. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In light of your comments, its fair to remove the "before it can survive on its own," to make room for the very rare cases where it is possible, but also because it's not essential to the definition of abortion. So, I did that.
About partial birth being rare, I decided to look it up the facts [16] "There were 1.3 million abortions performed nationwide in 2000, according to the institute. About 88 percent were during the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 1 percent were performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy, when a fetus is considered having a chance of living outside the womb." And from the same site, "Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health." Giovanni33 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Without looking past what you've related here (the source is utterly biased, but I don't care), I would point out that 1% of 1.3 million is 13,000, which is... only 35 per day, on average. You could consider that rare or not so rare, I guess. I mean, it's a tiny fraction of the total; it's 4 World Trade Centers over the year - what kind of rhetoric are you spinning, right? I don't really care whether they're rare or common though, like I said, our goal is to be 100% correct and clear.
My only issue with what's up there now is that we're claiming an abortion is the end of a pregnancy instead of a gestation. I don't buy that there are multiple pregnancies going on when multiple fetuses are in a single womb. That's not how we actually use that word, is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "gestation" is so much more technical of a word that it would confuse readers, and maybe that's worth using the slightly less accurate "pregnancy" and leaving common sense to sort out the obvious details in the case of a multiple pregnancy(ies?). That doesn't sound so horrible.
The D-word... is another issue... I don't consider it either forbidden or mandatory, but I think the most concise and accurate definition would acknowledge that the essential difference between abortion and birth - the entire reason we distinguish them - the reason the word "abortion" exists as distinct from "delivery" - is that one results in a dead fetus, the other in a live infant. The problem is whether using the word "death", or one of its forms, brings in unacceptable baggage. That's not an easy question. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

With all of the above in mind...

Ok, I'm suggesting the following rewrite:

An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth associated with the expulsion of an embryo or a fetus from the uterus before it can survive on its own.
This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.
There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

I suggest changing the above (and whatever other variations we've been seeing) to:

An abortion is the ending of a gestation of an embryo or fetus in a womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.
Humans have used various methods to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human, morally speaking, and therefore consider abortion murder, whereas proponents of safe and legal abortion consider access to abortion to be a basic human right for women.

The definition is accurate, I think, and I think it's good to go ahead and introduce the controversy in the introduction a little bit more fully. It also has the nice feature that those who want to edit war about particular words can just alternate the phrase "caused by or sesulting in the death of the embryo or fetus" with the phrase "before birth" in the first sentence without really changing the meaning!

Whaddya think? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I could accept that version, GTBacchus, or a similar version beginning with:
An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.
I do object to any attempts to try to hide the fact that this thing inside a woman — whether it's a blob or a piece of tissue or a human child — dies. What this thing actually is is a POV; what happens to it is a medical fact. And since a dog can die, a cell can die, and bacteria can die, it's not implying that it's a human child to use that word. I also object to any attempt to hide the fact that abortions take place past the stage where the fetus could survive. Yes, it's an uncomfortable fact, but Wikipedia is not meant to hide uncomfortable facts. AnnH ♫ 09:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd have "Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human", without the "morally speaking". I can't see what that adds, or even what it means. I consider Str1977 and GTBacchus and Giovanni33 all to be fully human. I would consider killing any of them to be "murder, morally speaking" (though even in that case, the "morally speaking" is unnecessary), but I would never say that I consider them to be "fully human, morally speaking". AnnH ♫ 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't consider a zygote to be fully human, developmentally speaking, and I don't think that's controversial. On the other hand, you're right that it's a awkward locution. Maybe something like "...consider the fetus to be a human with moral rights"? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Unnecessary, but acceptable, in my view. If I consider you to be a human being, then I consider you to have moral rights. By the way, I know Americans say "have gotten" instead of "have got", but I presume the "humans have usen" is a typo?!AnnH ♫ 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... "use, used, have usen". Maybe it'll catch on. I see your point about "human" being equivalent with "fully human, with moral rights, and a soul"... for you. We can't assume all our readers believe that. It's entirely possible to consider an embryo "pretty much" human, but not deem it to have moral rights until a certain stage of development. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a note in support of AnnH's rv and edit summary: "Death" was result of consensus, had been there for months. Still being discussed. No consensus to change it. In fact it had been there (possibly with interruptions) for at least five years and three months. It's right at the top of the article back in December 2001 (unfortunately there are no earlier archived pages). It read:
Abortion, in its most commonly used sense, refers to the intentional early termination of pregnancy, resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.
AvB ÷ talk 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The death of the conceptus always accompanies an abortion. The death is not really what is controversial at all - that is a very simple medical/biological fact. Our feelings associated with this death is where the controversy lies. Those feelings are why spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is largely seen as a sad and unfortunate occurrence, and why induced abortion causes so much fuss. Its the moral significance we attach to the death that is controversial - not the death itself. This opening definition ought not skirt the basic and noncontroversial reality (the biological death of the conceptus) that underlies why miscarriage brings sadness and induced abortion causes controversy. But this opening definition should not discuss any such feelings, as the opening definition that has been in place for a long time has properly avoided doing! Good 12:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)
Regarding "moral rights", perhaps it would be an idea to refer to personhood and/or add "see also abortion debate"?AvB ÷ talk 10:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't realize that article existed. Yikes. The lead should link to abortion debate, somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Darn, you linked the article before I did, exactly as I was considering. :-) -Kyd 23:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First sentence edit warring

The first sentence has been stable and consensed upon in the past. I understand that people disagree with parts of it, and we have tried to discuss them. However, we never reached consensus. If editors keep changing the stable sentence without approval, it will sure keep being reverted. I feel that this applies to a number of other parts of the article as well. If you are a user, and you keep inserting your own version, without discussion or approval on the talk page, you are boardering on the edge of a POV warrior. I urge everyone to come to the talk page before making controversial and drastic changes to stable content in order to avoid edit warring. --Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To get things going, I feel pro-lick's version misses what, in my opinion, is the most important part of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy (or part of a pregnancy in the rare instance of aborting twins). I am not happy with the 'death' part of the old version, as mentioned above, but I am willing to let it go because I simply cannot think of any other wording that isn't a euphamism, and as a compromise to my fellow editors who feel it is important to include that fact.--Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the trouble with being ginger about language is that the single only reason that "abortion" is a different concept and a different word from "delivery" is that it involves death. Without that minor detail, there's no difference between an abortion and a delivery. If you're trying to perform an abortion, and the fetus somehow survives, then whoops, it was a delivery. If you're trying to perform a delivery, but the fetus somehow dies before you get it out, then whoops, it was an abortion. In order to soft-pedal that, we need a better reason than I've seen. Our top priority here is to be an encyclopedia, not to help spin language for one side or the other of any conflict. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Before able to survive

As the intro now stands:

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a mammalian uterus before birth, terminating a pregnancy before the developing organism has a chance to survive in an external environment.

This is not true in the case of partial birth or late term induced abortions.....DonaNobisPacem 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not true, but I think for a different reason. It should end "before the developing organism is capable of surviving in an external environment." Yes, with later term abortions if you put it in intensive care, it might survive. The odds are bad, and the risk of significant defects high.--Pro-Lick 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Says who? There are plenty of premature babies who survive, and yes, they may have "defects" (ie, health problems), but they still survive. And with partial birth abortion, we're talking about a child that is full term. So the baby is able to survive - and it's POV to say it cannot (considering that in a partial birth abortion, it is often necessary to do it before dilation occurs, to prevent the baby crowning and being legally declared a person).DonaNobisPacem 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Says who? The stats are on my side. And I don't know anyone that calls mental retardation or missing a limb health problems (except those that like euphemisms). And you seem to have a different definition of partial birth than what is common. Of course, maybe when its not just doublespeak and actual medical terminology, it will become precise and accurate instead of a euphemismistic weasel term.--Pro-Lick 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we are talking about two different things. I was saying that, at the time of a late term, a fetus may survive if born (and will most probably at the time of a partial birth abortion). If it happened naturally, it would be called premature birth - and premature babies do not necessarily suffer from mental retardation or missing limbs (in most cases I am aware of, it is susceptibility to infection, both viral and bacterial, due to under-developed immune systems, that causes the main problems, as well as a still-developing breathing instinct). If the fetus at that time were aborted and survived, then yes, we are talking about serious issues - missing limbs, saline burns, mental retardation, and the like. But the definition as it was worded implied that at the time of abortion, the fetus could not survive outside of the womb, not that after the abortion it could not survive outside of the womb. So that is what I was taking issue with. And please note: I tried to modify and work with the definition I found on the page when I got there, not revert it to my personal POV or choice.....DonaNobisPacem 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Premature birth--Pro-Lick 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_1&oldid=1136491249"