Talk:Abortion/First paragraph redux

Current form without wiki-links (as of 29 Mar 2006, 2250 EST):

An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus in a womb, resulting in or from 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.

As it stands, I feel the above paragraph is concise, accurate, and non-ambiguous. I'd like to hear if we have consensus for this version, or if there are substantive objections, what can be done to improve it. Justin Eiler 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of repeating myself, this definition is akin to defining eating in terms of the death of plants and animals. The goal of eating is not about killing, and any killing is an incidental, if foreseeable, consequence. In the same way, the goal of abortion is to abort the pregnancy; to end it. The death of a fetus or embryo, as well as the loss of placental and other tissue, is not the goal, just a foreseeable consequence. Using "death" in the definition erroneously emphasizes a side-effect that is politicized, instead of sticking to the clinical facts. Alienus 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a lot of us are going to be repeating ourselves--I do want to apologize for that, but I felt that starting over from square one was the only way to make a "clean start" on the discussion.

As far as "this definition is akin to defining eating in terms of the death of plants and animals," I have to ask this--but it is a forthright question, not a jab or an attempt at insult. Is it possible that "death" is actually a neutral Denotation, but has received an unwarranted negative Connotation in the context of abortion? Or in other words, is it possible that the negative rection that the word "death" gives to some people in the above sentence is, itself, POV--and if it is, how do we avoid that POV without resorting to inaccurate euphemism? Justin Eiler 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the eating analogy makes no sense

Alienus says, above and elsewhere, that using "death" to define abortion is "akin to defining eating in terms of the death of plants and animals." This seems wrong to me, and here's why. The concept of abortion is similar to the concept of delivery, in that they both represent ends of pregnancies. When there is a neighboring concept, a definition needs to make it clear where the boundary is. That boundary in this case is, precisely, death. If we don't somehow include the idea of death, whether or not we use the actual word, then we have failed to distinguish abortion from the next-door concept of live delivery.

There is no concept that means the same thing as eating, except where the food is alive. If there were, then any definition of eating would have to specify that we're talking about eating dead food, to distinguish from the other kind of ingestion of live solids, which would have some other name. Without such a concept, "death" is not necessary to distinguish eating from other activities. It is necessary to distinguish abortion from other types of deliveries. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's not accurate. There is indeed a neighboring concept, which is oral sex. "Eat me!" Alienus 17:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't not called meat, either. ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, naughty, Alienus! :D

In all seriousness, while various forms of "eat" may be a euphemism for oral sex, the primary meaning of the word relates to consumption of food. (Alright, Alienus, stop snickering and making protein jokes! :D) "Eat" as a euphemism for oral sex does what all euphemisms do: it uses a less "offensive" term for an object or activity. But the purpose of a Wiki article has nothing to do with offense: we neither seek to be offensive, nor do we go to the extreme of political correctness to avoid offense. Again, I have to ask--is it the word "death" itself that is POV, or is it your reaction to that word in this context? Justin Eiler 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I told you to eat me, I wouldn't be literally asking you to ingest me, or even metaphorically to fellate me; I'd be making a dismissive comment. My intended meaning is pretty clear in this context, but the humor of my original comment comes from playing on the ambiguity. It is this ambiguity that not only provides material for humor but also leads to potential for bias.

It is literally true that abortion kills human cells, but "kill" is a common word with many meanings, only some of which are appropriate. Even meanings that are literally correct may prove inappropriate due to misleading or biased connotations. Consider that someone who kills is, by definition, a killer. This morning, I parked my car and killed the engine, therefore it follows necessarily that I'm a killer. Is that why you're backing away from me? I also killed a mosquito once, so I'm a serial killer. Call the police!

Now, you may find this example absurd, but a strict Jainist who follows ahimsa would say that I generated negative karma by killing that mosquito. In an article on ahimsa, we would have to be very careful about the use of "kill" or "die", even when discussing mosquitos, because it has different connotations to different readers. In an article on abortion, we must recognize that there are people who call gynocologists "murderers" because they "kill" fetuses and embryos, so we likewise have to be very careful with that term.

When a term is ambiguous and some meanings are very negative, it's best to avoid it entirely if we can. If we can't, we should at least limit and downplay its use, so as to avoid the risk of saying something that, depending on interpretation, is highly partisan. Certainly, leading with a definition of abortion that speaks of death is a huge step in the wrong direction. Alienus 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, that was well-said. I wonder, does the currently suggested double definition seem satisfactory to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal, but it's a step forward from what we have today. I'm not trying for perfection, just incremental improvement. At this point, I would endorse any definition that does not go out of its way to highlight "death". If the result can be made even better, we'll take it from there. Alienus 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]