Talk:Indirect abortion

merge to Abortion?

I don't see why this isn't part of an article on Abortion. As the article stands, it may be more appropriate for this section of the Christianity and abortion article. In any case, it is a single-editor essay that doesn't live up to the very general title of the article. tedder (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many people have begun to edit it by now. It is an important term in Catholic terminology about abortion and should probably be kept as such. But it also has uses for secular ethicists who are trying to understand the various moral perspectives on abortion. ADM (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

to save the life of..

Here's the current lede:

• Indirect abortion is the name given to an abortion procedure which has a therapeutic medical effect, presumably to save the life of a ______.

The blank is either "mother" or "pregnant woman". User:Schrandit changed it back to "mother", saying "reverted back to consensus definition". Where is the consensus given? The talk page is effectively empty, so no consensus was found.

I changed it back to "pregnant woman" because it seems like the most neutral wording to use. Please leave it alone and discuss here, not by edit warring. tedder (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

About that. Since the article's inception, until the now banned sockpuppeteer edited it, it used the term "mother" and the source uses the term "mother". I figure we ought to go back to the term "mother". - Schrandit (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter what was used previously, what's your rationale for preferring "mother"? tedder (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is 3-fold at this time;

• What was used previously does matter a bit, according to Wikipedia:Consensus part of consensus is built over time through concurring edits and I think the history clearly demonstrates that "mother" was heavily favored previously.
• "Mother" is the term in common use. It is used in conversation, religion, medicine and by the law, it makes sense to use it here.
• Our sources use "mother" and we should try to be loyal to them. - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no other comments, I will proceed. - Schrandit (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for changing it back, but it'd be nice to get a consensus/third opinion to back you up on it. Maybe drop a line at Talk:Abortion? tedder (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, I'll give it a shot. - Schrandit (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first used the term, I had in mind the concept of gestational mother (or mère-porteuse as they say in French). This means to say that even if a pregnant woman is not literally the genetic mother of the child, it is still a valid scientific usage to call that woman a surrogate mother. [1] ADM (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for proving my point: in your examples, the word "mother" is applied only with a modifier to show that it's only sort of like a mother, or one aspect of motherhood, as opposed to simply being a mother. An "expectant mother", for example, is a woman who expects to become a mother, not a mother. The same applies to "gestational" or "surrogate". CarolineWH (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So..."mother"? - Schrandit (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that would violate WP:NPOV, so we can't do it. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How? - Schrandit (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not neutral to refer to a woman who terminates an unwanted pregnancy as a mother. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and your edits have been reverted by a number of people other than myself, so please don't pretend to be surprised. We must follow WP:NPOV no matter what a source says. The only exception is that we can't change direct quotes, and you'll note that I've avoided doing so. If you disagree, build a genuine consensus, and then be prepared for an RfC to prove it. CarolineWH (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You, and thus far, only you insist on the exclusion of the term "mother" from articles pertaining to abortion on POV grounds. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that shows that the term "mother" is worthy of expulsion. You have not explained anything; you have merely insisted that it is true. I believe, strongly, that I have demonstrated that consensus on this page favors the use of the term "mother", feel free to challenge that in any way you wish. - Schrandit (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you this just once, so I'd like you to think carefully before you answer. Is it really the case that nobody else has objected to your "mother" changes and reverted them? CarolineWH (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what the only other 3 users to ever edit this page wrote, none of them objected when I asked to revert to the previous phrase and al concuring edits previous to you favored it. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've clearly objected to it, as have others, including responses at other pages that might by sympathetic to the use of the word "mother". Be careful to not confuse the lack of tendentious editing in response to yours as implicit agreement. tedder (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this page, not any other. You said you understood but asked if I could try to illicit a 3rd. opinion, I tried, read the responses and then asked if anyone objected if we reverted back to the previous version, I waited 3 days and no one did. I think that was quiet reasonable. - Schrandit (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting N days doesn't really matter if there hasn't been consensus for the NPOV term, despite implication of silent consensus. tedder (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspected this topic would be controversial so I brought it to the talk page and solicited other opinions. After ample time no voice for "pregnant mother" emerged and I reverted back to the term that is found in the references and that was used unabatedly and without controversy for the first 6 months of this article's 8 month existence. Shy of going out and trying to solicit for yet further third opinions or a full-blown RfC I don't know what else I could have reasonably been expected to have done. - Schrandit (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go file an RfC. CarolineWH (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that the term mother is correct in such cases because it is not the same as nurse or teacher. Suppose if a pregnant woman died towards the end of her pregnancy, but the baby survived and went on to live a healthy life. The child would perhaps be raised by a nurse and would receive an education from his schoolteachers, but he would most likely still refer to his original biological parent as his mother. Likewise, when a child is adopted to another family and is raised separately from his biological parents, there is still a strong desire for him/her to get to know his original father and mother as the child gets older and becomes more mature. ADM (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As do I, the wikiproject that I was referring to in my last edit was wikiproject Abortion. I didn't realize that this was not listed under that project yet and I will list it as such now. - Schrandit (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks OK if I change back to "mother" per the Wikiproject abortion discussion? - Schrandit (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Per this section? There's clearly no consensus to use a POV term here. tedder (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mother" is a biologically accurate and NPOV term, but "pregnant woman" is more specific, and thus should be used. In addition, not all pregnant women are mothers (a surrogate, for instance). ✍ (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Double effect

This indirect abortion thing seems to be related to the Catholic doctrine of double effect. I recommend research in that direction.--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)