Talk:Abortion/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Abortions in New Zealand and Australia

I suspect most of you are from the US but it would be helpful if you could expand the articles from other countries for example, NZ. As mentioned in the NZ abortion article Abortion in New Zealand the law currently only allows abortion when it a risk to the mental health or physical health of the mother. This is similar to the law in some (all?) Australian states I believe. Generally speaking I believe, it has been interpreted rather loosely to allow abortion on demand i.e. to mean that anyone who genuinely wants an abortion (and is not being pressured) into it can get once for mental health reasons. This is a big amibigous and technically there may be a legal risk to doctor I believe. The article on Australia isn't too bad but the article on NZ needs more info around this. I'm a bit to busy to add to it but perhaps someone could? Maybe try recruting some people from NZ to help you. To start you if, these links may be helpful [1], [2] and also try some of the local papers e.g. [3] as the issue is 'hot' recently due to the publication of the controversial (and IMHO flawed) study (by an NZ 'pro-choice' doctor) on the supposed mental health risks from abortion. IMHO, the situation in NZ is also somewhat similar to NZ in that most political parties don't want to 'rock the boat' and even Drs appear to be satisfied with the way it works now. Although there is an ongoing court case by an anti-abortion group and there was also a (failed) attempt to change the law to force parental notification by Judith Collins a opposition MP 1.5 years back. And I'd have to say, given the current political climate in NZ, I suspect any attempt to clamp down on abortions will probably fail. Nil Einne 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spontaneous abortion percentages

WAS: Need a source for the claim that 78% of pregnancies naturally don't come to term, and that 15% end in spontaneous miscarriage

Otherwise it will have to come out as unsourced information. 136.215.251.179 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard numbers as high as 40% cited before, but 78% seems a bit....um.....high? DonaNobisPacem 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• http://health.families.com/reproduction-1031-1033-eph

" Only 20 to 25 percent of fertilized ova result in successful pregnancies. The rest fail to divide, fail to implant, or miscarry. Many of these unsuccessful pregnancies are genetically abnormal."

• http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm

"On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent." (after fertilization of the ova) Which also has "This is the first really concrete information we have about when pregnancy starts in humans – how long after fertilization does pregnancy begin,"

KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sort of showes us all how iffy the new (since the 1970s)definition of pregnancy is considering how little data there was to support such a new definition!136.215.251.179 14

09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As a parenthetical note, if you'd followed the link to the main article on Miscarriage, you would have found the same figures there, sourced via a footnote to " Roberts CJ, Lowe CR. Where have all the conceptions gone? Lancet 1975;1:498-9 "

so it was already sourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the text accordingly. The numbers are far from definitive, but possibly the best estimates available. 136.215.251.179 11:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

health.families.com is not a good reference - there is no indication of where this website gets the percentage it uses. Do you know what its source is? The article should rely on something more substantial given that there is little to no real solid information on this topic since women often don't even know when they are pregnant. I don't think you want to open up the pandora's box of citing unsourced articles regarding information that is NOT consensus in the medical community. 136.215.251.179 14:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

doesn't matter since we are not using it as a source - if you're curious, feel free to track it down. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

1. The www.families.com is NOT a good medical research source ESPECIALLY when the information cited is not backed up by any research, and the research that does exist contradicts this source (read on). 136.215.251.179 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2.There is a major (though understandable) flaw in this wiki article's analysis of the one very credible source it does cite. If you read the text [4], you will find that of all fertilized ova that implanted during the 9th through the 12th day, cumulatively only 25% miscarried (48 of 189). This wiki article misrepresents what the percentages actually indicate by falsely concluding that the cumulative miscarry rate by the end of the study was much larger than 25%, when in fact the only thing one derive from the study would be that through day 12 there was only a 25% miscarry rate.

"The risk of early loss was strongly related to the time of implantation," the authors wrote. "Early loss was least likely when implantation occurred by the ninth day (13 early losses among 102 pregnancies, or 13 percent) rising to 26 percent (14 of 53 pregnancies) when implantation occurred on the 10th day, 52 percent (12 of 23) on the 11th day and 82 percent (9 of 11) with implantation after day 11."

3. As such we will need to re-work this section to convey what the research actually indicates. 136.215.251.179 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Alright, I'm having a hard time parsing everything here. As I understand it, 136 is telling us that the current statistics are misleading bcecause they're not detailed enough?--Tznkai 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article flat out gets the percentages wrong. First, the widely accepted rate of miscarraiges is 20-25%. [5] Second, the research (Wilcox) cited by killerchi actually confirms the 25% rate. There is NOTHING in that article to support a miscarry rate any higher than 25%. Third, the wiki article falsely uses a rate (78%) more than triple the accepted rate and more than triple the rate in study killerchi has cited! Fourth, the www.families.com website article cited is just a bad source and should not be cited in this article (espcially since it is not the widely accepted figure). Fifth, other websites are currently copying this misinformation from wikipedia and repeating it. 136.215.251.179 15:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1 As I recall this is confirmed pregnancies only.

2 Is this in discussion, or the article itself?

3 not sure what the source of this one was, but it doesn't surprise me as days 0-12 or so are particularly deadly. We have a source somewhere?

4 I don't see this cited in the article anywhere

5 Irrelivant. We want accurate info period, don't need to convince us.--Tznkai 16:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. No one has cited any published conclusive data on rate of miscarriage including unconfirmed pregnancies, although I have read it is thought to ad another 20-30% (making the overall rate at most about 50%). But there is no study to confirm it.

2. Incorrect rate % is in the actual wiki abortion (and miscarriage) articles.

3. Source is NOT cited in the article (other than referencing the wiki miscarriage article that has the bad info). Source were listed here in talk by killerchi. The study cited actually followed 199 pregnancies. 10 fell out for unspecified reasons - 189 went forward with the study. Of those, 141 pregnancies continued past 6 weeks, and 48 miscarried by the end of the 12th day. (Total 189)

136.215.251.179 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You must have meant something else for #1. Conclusive published data for the miscarriage rate for unconfirmed pregnancies? If they aren't confirmed, no one knows there was a miscarriage. This is nonsensical. Why don't you think this through and rephrase?

Also, please stop referring to me as Killerchi. If KillerChihuahua is too much to type, just type KC - thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sources did not pan out - and so now you are nitpicking. Clearly my point is that the absolute most that it could be is 50%, but even that number can't be confirmed (as you apparently now agree), so the actual confirmed number is less than 1/3 of the number you insisted it should be. Thanks for being a good sport, KillerChihua. 84.146.200.239 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how my calling #1 nonsense, which it is, somehow has become me agreeing to a position I have not stated; nor can I see how you manage to deduce that I "insist" on anything, as all I did is post sources on the talk page for consideration.

Please call me KC. It is much easier than KillerChihuahua, which you seem to have trouble typing. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest polling information has been added

January 2006 CBS news poll:

• 27% always legal, 15% greater restrictions, 50% only legal for rape/incest/life of the mother, 5% never legal
  • 70% think there should be more restrictions than those currently in place (remember, every woman in the USA can get an abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy no matter what as long as she can pay for it - there are parental consent laws in some states for minor girls but the Supreme Court requires an easily accessible and streamlined judicial bypass and requires the judge to grant permission in all cases unless the girl indicates she is not voluntarily seeking the abortion)
  • 55% think that 95% of the legal abortions in the USA should be outlawed
  • only 27% support current abortion law (always legal)

This data is very similar to the data in the Nov 2005 CNN poll. Other polls that ask generic questions about keeping "Roe" or overturning it seem to mask the actual views of those being polled since few people have any real idea of what the current laws actually allow. When asked to be specfic, clear majorites want all or most abortions (all but rape, incest or life of the mother) outlawed.136.215.251.179 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} -- Otherwise it will have to come out as unsourced information. --Quasipalm 13:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

By now most editors realize that there is a link to all the recent US polling data in this section. That link has not been erased - I added a duplicate link. 136.215.251.179 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, recall that statistics are one of those tricky things when adding the results together isn't actually all that accurate. Something to do with them skewing the numbers to make it look prettier or some such. Anyway, do we have the text of the actual questions asked anywhere?--Tznkai 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that - it appears that splitting up those who want to outlaw at least 95% of the abortions into a bunch of seemingly small % is quite tricky indeed! I am sure you agree that this CBS poll and the CNN poll consistently show that a sound majority wants abortion to be illegal - as a minimum - in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Most folks would have a hard time realizing that from this article. Not sure why you wish to keep it that way.136.215.251.179 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to touch statistics and modify them in anyway. I also notice, conspicioulsly, CBS/CNN managed to confound legal/moral/ethical permission. Again. I prefer not to spoonfeed the reader though, so we're replicatating what the poll asked and published as exactly as possible.--Tznkai 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

See the link in the article - it gives the wording. 136.215.251.179 16:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we make mention of the fact that this poll suggests 95% of Americans consider that abortion should remain legal? It is easy to apply any point of view to statistics. I am not convinced that push poll results have any place in this article. Proto t c 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

we do not interp the results. The reader is perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions from the results.--Tznkai 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a service to readers to alert them to the fact that a 55% think abortion should be legal but only in very rare circumstances, that another 15% think it should be more resticted than it is now but legal, and that 27% think the law should stay the way it is with abortion being legal for any reason, during all 9 months of pregnancy, even for sex selection. But I don't think most other editors would agree. 136.215.251.179 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Tznkai -- the reader can draw conclusions on her or his own, we don't need to get in the business of reworking poll results to highlight a single editor's POV. --Quasipalm 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

So, here's the deal: I set up a little structure to help determine which polls we include in the U.S. section back in Archive 14 [6]. In short, 1. the cirumstances in which abortion should be allowed, 2. abortion access, 3. opinion on Roe vs. Wade. Thus, I removed the CNN poll, as it was redundant with the updated poll Goodandevil added. We now only need to find an updated poll to deal with item two on the list: access.

Goodandevil seems determined to prove something. I prefer, like Tznkai, to let the numbers speak for themselves and to let readers draw their own conclusions. You could shift the conclusion regarding the CBS poll the other way if you altered your filtering mechanism: "75% of Americans think abortion should be available in some form (27% + 33% + 15%)." There is a January 2006 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll listed on Polling Report in which Americans who consider themselves "pro-choice" outnumber Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" by 11% (you can't criticize the poll as being "undefined," either, because there is data for those who "Don't Know What Terms Mean"). [7] Again, the data don't like being pulled and tweaked. It makes them uncomfortable. -Kyd 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is foolish to think this source is the end all, be all. While I would guess that the majority are not in favor of abortion (as approximately 80% or higher of America is Christian), but one should be more analytical. The most viewer grossing television shows get maybe 30 million viewers, so at best possible means the CBS Poll is getting maybe 10% of America's opinion. Not to mention a potential slant of the viewers of CBS. While I don't disagree with the poll, it's hardly even worth debating on. -TKO

10 million Indian girls aborted

Recently reported by the Lancet and NYT and Reuters, et al. Added to the section that discusses this as a potential phenomenon. 136.215.251.179 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Describing fetuses as girls is inherently PoV. I have reverted this edit, I'm afraid. Perhaps you could consider a less weighted version to provide these facts, and suggest it on the talk page first. Proto t c 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you find Reuters to have a pro-life bias. That is certainly not a widely accepted view. My initial version used language quoted from the Reuters article. The whole point is that India has a girl deficit now. Apparently that has been lost on you. 136.215.251.179 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

the two quotes are redundant with eachother, common sense dictates we take the less emotionally charged statement.--Tznkai

You currently have made edits which contain info not present in the cited article. Editors are bending over backwards to be silly here. I made a neutral edit by adding this India info using Reuters wording. Now we have a convoluted and tortured section that is twice as long as it needs to be. 136.215.251.179 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

both wordings are in the reuters article, its a direct quote from somebody, not the reporter's. Also, I'll remind you to assume good faith. We are ALL horrified (I'm reasonably certain of this anyway) by the practice of sex-selected abortion. Especially on such a massive scale--Tznkai 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous sources on the issue of sex-selective abortion. However, accommodating the subject in the current article is awkward, given the lack of a relevant section. I propose the creation of a "social issues" section to accommodate unsafe abortion (which would be an awkward fit under "health effects"), sex-selective abortion, forced abortion (i.e. under China's one-child policy and the issue of forced abortion upon disabled women raised in Archive 12), and so on. -Kyd 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. I really am going to find you an article Tzar hat.--Tznkai 18:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:-) I like organizing things. I'm an INTJ. It's almost second nature. -Kyd 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why create a new article when we have Sex selection abortion as a stub? --Quasipalm 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well looky here, there's more! Sex-selective abortion and infanticide (poorly written article though) --Quasipalm 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) all in favor of simply adding one of those to See also? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already listed under See also. It needs to be address because it's a major issue, like unsafe abortion or forced abortion, although these are getting close to neologisms. -Kyd 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Kyd's suggestion of creating a new sections. All of those issues deserve atleast a breif mention in the article I think, and fitting it into an organization profile is a good thing.--Tznkai 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention it as an option, see which way the wind blew. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fetal Pain

Depending on how the article is worded, we may have to have one section for fetal pain in the 2nd and 3rd tirmesters and one for fetal pain in the 1st trimester. Be careful when editing this section. The medical scientific and legalfact is that fetuses who experience pain can be aborted for any reason at all. IIf editors try to muddle that fact as if it were a mish mash of the unknown, then appropriate steps will need to be taken.136.215.251.179 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A source to help affirm such conclusiveness would be helpful, Goodandevil. -Kyd 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article lists "fetal pain" as a subsection under the "suggested effects" section. But thousands of legal abortions happen in the second and third trimseter, a gestational age when all agree fetal pain is a real phenomenon. Thus, for thousands of abortions, fetal pain is not a merely a suggested effect, but a real one that the medical community acknowledges. The article should address this. Suggestions? 136.215.251.179 11:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article on fetal pain should address this, not the article on abortion, which is long enough already. Proto t c 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article includes fetal pain and lumps in abortions that no one denies involve fetal pain with those abortions where fetal pain is not certain. As it stands, this article misrepresents all fetal pain issues as disputed, when in fact no one disputes that som legal abortions subject the fetus to pain. It should not be that hard to fix. Again, suggestions what do people suggest for removing this clear mischaracterization from this article? 136.215.251.179 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for input and now have tried out various versions to include this non-POV fact (that a fetus in fact can experience pain). The article needs to explicitly state this, rather than simply noting there is a controversy about pain experience. The controversyu shoudl not mask the fact that is not in controversy. Please suggest alternatives for including this undisputed FACT rather than simply editing the fact out. 136.215.251.179 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Contraception

I stripped the sentaces of all the whys, the waht nots, etc. Who where when why is not important. I'd like to try simply stating the plain fact and letting the article take care of the rest.--Tznkai 06:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tznkai, I have edited the section header as I considered it a typo.

In the article, I restored Ann's earlier version, leaving aside the issue of whether "Emergency contraception" is a neutral term. It certainly is controversial enough that the mere statement "A pregnancy that is prevented before implanation but after conception is termed emergency conception" is not enough. Either we leave out the whole field of "post-fertilisation, pre-implantation" issue here, or we should give proper coverage to the whole issue, including the "moral part".

I also disagree with Alienus when he says that "Moral equivalence is not the issue" (it certainly is an issue worth mentioning). He is correct in saying that "Someone could believe that a fertilized egg is a "human life" yet still recognize that pregnancy begins with implantation", but that doesn't warrant his edit, as it is the human life part that is relevant to the issue and NOT the definition when pregnancy begins.

I believe the now restored version addresses all issues best(leaving aside the EC wording issue). I certainly cannot see any inaccuracies in it.

Str1977 09:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Brief mention of OR and CITE, as well as editorializing. Morals are tricky; they need to be attributed and cited, and quite frankly, might not belong in this article at all. Abortion debate and Conception are more appropriate venues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KC, saying that morals don't belong here (and frankly, this is merely one sentence) is POV (and a quite extreme one). Of course, morals are dealt with in a more comprehensive way in another article. My sentence also serves the purpose of referring readers to the colloquial usage of "abortion" in debates. And we don't any citations beyond what we already have as this doesn't indulge in any debate but rather only points to the fact that there is a debate. Str1977 11:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they didn't belong; I said they might not belong. That's not a POV, that's a concern about the appropriateness of an inclusion of an item in the article. How on earth can a legitimate concern, calmly and simply expressed, translate in your mind to an "extreme" POV? Please read what I wrote, and don't read what I didn't write. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KC, yes I did read your post carefully. But maybe my post was written not clearly enough. I would kike to apologize for that.

To say "moral don't belong here" is an extreme POV, but you appearently didn't advocate it - you only mentioned it. Not your concern is an extreme POV, but the view that morals don't belong here is POV. There is in fact no difference between an excplicit pro-choice POV and a "no morals here" POV. Str1977 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The pro-choice view is a moral view that holds that morality in general - other than personal morality of the pregnant mom - has no role. Of course the pro-choice view itself is a moral view. Public policy debates always involve public morality. 136.215.251.179 12:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I still feel that is not POV, I am trying to prevent POV. Morals as a whole are inherently prone to dispute. There are two extremes of which you are considering only one: abortion is immoral, abortion is moral. Saying the question is "anti-abortion morals only" or "no morals" is leaving out the other extreme, as well as shadings in between.

Moving forward, you feel (if I understand you correctly) that the moral considerations of preventative abortion aka emergency contraception, should be included. So there is a choice: to include or not? and if the decision is to include, then there is the question, how to phrase in an NPOV manner, give due weight, and cite appropriately. Concur? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KC, to reiterate: to exclude something because they issue doesn't matter is a POV, as opinions on what matters and what doesn't are different. That a statement discounting morals is itself a moral statement is of course a paradox that those who say so mostly don't get.

Any moral considerations should, if included, be put into the debate section. And there they should be properly referenced. But ... the bit about "moral equivalence" is IMHO part of the definitions section, as it addresses the incongruity between the present definition medical of pregnancy (and hence the medical definition of abortion) and the defintions relevant for the moral debate. In fact, in explaining here that for moral purposes, EC while not medically/technically abortion, is seen as morally equivalent, we are saving us the trouble of including an extra section on EC in the debate section, as we have set the foundation that - in moral terms - EC goes together with abortion, one way or the other.

Str1977 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. To exclude something because it doesn't matter is not necessarily POV, in fact, it usually is not POV. Example: It may be true that G. W. Bush made mud pies on his 5th birthday and his grandmother took a picture, but it most emphatically does not matter, and should be excluded from an article on Geo. W. Bush.

Further, this is the first time the opinion on what does and does not "matter" has been raised, with you pontificating at me, about what I have no idea. What point are you trying to make? Please try to be clearer in your meaning. Are you suggesting that Morals be included? Which morals? Where? Please be specific and clear. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we move from talking about morals to a talk about ethics. Morals can be tricky because the word has a connotation of innateness -- it often traces back to one's feelings ("abortion is icky") or religion ("my deity decrees..."). A discussion about whether to include a mention of EC and ethics (since it follows a more public and evolving approach) could lead to a better consensus. There's a reason we have Bioethicists and not Biomoralists. --Quasipalm 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with Quasipalm. Ethics are germane; morals leads down a sticky path full of conflicting views and sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I used morals and ethics interchangebly. If you are drawing the disticntion Quasipalm makes than it is of course ethics, as this has nothing to do with feelings or religion.

Anyway, I don't want to include an ethical debate at this place but only address a terminology issue relating to the incongruity between the current medical definition of pregnancy and the settings of the ethical issue.

KC, of course there are things that are either off-topic or merely not notable enough. But wouldn't you agree that GWB'S mud pies are quite different to our issue. And EC sentence as it currently stands (alone) is unacceptable. Str1977 08:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

One at a time: I was indeed drawing that same distinction; ok; then please be a little clearer; Unacceptable to you, perfectly satisfactory to me.

I tweaked your addition slightly. IMHO it is still too long and comma ridden. Sentence currently reads: "Medically, methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergeny contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is considered equivalent to abortion by those who believe that human life begins at conception."

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear KC, thanks for your tweaking improvements. I am open to any stylistic or grammatical improvements. E.g. we could merge the "Pregnancy is defined by the medical community ..." with the "methods of birth control that prevent ...", linking the two via "hence" and dropping the "medically". Str1977 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New or changing definitions are a sign of controversy and possible linguistic manipulation to advance certain views. Its shameful to think this article would rely so heavily on such definitions without mentioning that the genesis of the definitions themselves has been controversial. 136.215.251.179 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the "emergency"? A medical emergency is an injury or illness that requires an urgent need of medical attention to alleviate an immediate threat to one's health. If a woman has sperm inside of her, medically speaking there is no emergency. There may be a personal desire to quickly address the matter, but is is NOT a medical emergency. Fertility is a sign of health. Contraception, medically speaking, is not actually health care as commonly understood - rather it is elective medical treatment (similar to elective medical treatment to make one look younger). Contraception by definition always inhibits the normal natural state of reproductive health. The exception is the rare case of a woman actually suffering from a medical condition that makes pregnancy dangerous to her health. 136.215.251.179

The definition of an emergency can be found here. It does not need to be a threat to one's health to be an emergency situation, not all emergencies are "medical" in nature. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We agree, there is no medical emergency. 136.215.251.179

Indeed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What in tarnation is a "crisis pregnancy centre"? Since when has pregnancy been a crisis? *tiptoes away* -Kyd 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The definitions for medical emergency and emergency are no mystery. Using the non-medical term "emergency" and mixing it in with a medical term "contraception" is interesting. 136.215.251.179

"Contraception" isn't only a medical term. Please use a dictionary prior to posting. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RoyRoy, not sure how you have missed it. I did one better than that - I used wikipedia! So now you say that contraception is medical when that context bolsters your point, but it's not medical when that context will bolster your point. Pray for us, George Orwell. 136.215.251.179

So now RoyBOy, you have stated that both words, "Emergency" and "Contraception," are being used in a nonmedical way when used in the term "Emergency Contracpetion". That is an interesting view. So, in fact, you believe that "emergency contraception" is not a medical term? 136.215.251.179 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a medical term. There are contexts where it can be medical, where medical advice and special circumstances require professional intervention as you noted above. Usually however, it is birth control choice available to women; since stopping a pregnancy could be viewed as "maintaining human health", as in maintaining her non-pregnant status then I guess it is "medical". But that's a debatable point since a pregnancy is a natural biological state which has health benefits as well as dangers. Clear as mud? Good. Since a pregnancy cannot begin (in biological and medical terms) until implantation this discussion is moot; and contraception wether in a medical or nonmedical context is appropriate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps none of you have read Nineteen Eighty-Four, or you all simply accept whatever Jabberwocky is offered by the powers that be. 136.215.251.179 15:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodandevil, stop trolling. If you have something constructive to offer, do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though I sympathize with what you are saying, 136..., this constant bickering is not achieving anything. Whether we like it or not and whether there were ulterior motives or not for changing definitions, we must stick to the definitions as they stand - and the medics have their say in the medical field. 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am all for using the definitions, but with full disclosure that those definitions have a murky pedigree.136.215.251.179 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Which word has a murky pedigree, the word emergency or the word contraception? Or does it depend on what the definition of is is? Don't you think your splitting hairs here? --Quasipalm 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The new definitions of pregnancy and contraception. It all goes back to the politically motivated re-definition of pregnancy (and contraception) in 1965 that was created exclusively to get around then-existing federal law. Of course we never hear about it because those who report on these matters embrace contraception as a social good - and the truth about this lingusitic end-run is less important to many than the end result (widespread acceptance of contraception). As with abortion (Roe), the end result mattered more than actually complying with the constitution. 136.215.251.179 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain to me, like I'm an idiot (because it may well be true):

1. What the old definition of pregnancy was.
2. What the new definition of pregnancy is.
3. What the old definition of contraception was.
4. What the new definition of contraception is.
5. The way I understand it, Griswold v. Connecticut did not redefine these terms, it simply stated that the constitution implies a right to privacy. So, who, in your opinion, did the re-defining?

--Quasipalm 17:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[8] gives a well-documented history of the deliberate linguistic shenanigans.84.146.219.105 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the authenticity of accepted definitions. They are accepted definitions, and how accepted, by who, and whether they should accept them can be left to diffrent articles. (Abortion debate should have a pretty massive section on changing definitions).

Pregnancy is defined as beginning at implanation. This is, as far as I can tell, a widely accepted definition by various people with and without medical degrees. As it was pointed out, it has a certain benifit of common sense, as petri dishes cannot be pregnant.

Emergency Contraception is as stated, a poor term, but I've got 1.8 million google hits and no better terms to move the article to. If someone else does, feel free and we will accomidate within the article as needed.

EC is a little fish in a very big pond. This is not the battleground where we take on the definitions of the Pro-life Pro-choice terminology debate of the week. We need to mention EC, because people are going to wonder why it isn't here. Thats all.--Tznkai 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are times when discussing definitions is appropriate (see Partial birth abortion#Etymology and Terrorist#Etymology). Is emergency contraception such a term? My person opinion is no, but even if it is, I think that Emergency contraception is the place for it -- not here. --Quasipalm 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

EC part II

I'm sorry to see that this bit

Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Medically, methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergeny contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is considered equivalent to abortion by those who believe that human life begins at conception.

has been removed. I think it's important, relevant information, and I think Str's change in wording was a big improvement. Also, I don't think it was so long that it really had to go. Tznkai, you say we need to mention EC, because otherwise people will wonder why it's not there. Surely the reason they'd wonder is precisely because of the issue of whether or not it's the equivalent of an abortion (which means that that point is relevant). After all, people won't wonder why we don't mention condoms in the abortion article. I'm not going to revert (at the moment at least), because I haven't read the whole discussion on this talk page, and there may have been some consensus that I missed. (I'm not going to read it tonight either, as I'm very tired.) Just in the meantime, can I put on record (in the most civil way possible) that I'm a dissenting voice? AnnH ^(talk) 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged and recieved. I removed it because I was annoyed with the massive amount of creep that occured while you were on vacation (see what you did? Just Kidding). I'm not sure how comfortable I am treating EC as a "special case" within the world of the article, just because some people in the real world do and some do not. If we could find a way explain it for the entire paragraph, I would like that. I'm not sure I'm in the right here myself, and its nice to have some newer views involved.--Tznkai 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The terms "medical community" and "medical terminology" have been coming up an awful lot. Although I do advocate the use of medical terminology and definitions when it can help bring NPOV to an article, or resolve debate when that terminology is neutral, Wikipedia is by no means a place where only the medical majority definition/terminology/POV should be presented. If a significant portion of a population holds a belief, then that portion should be represented here. Those who believe that life (ie pregnancy) begins at conception as opposed to implantation, are not an insignificant number (especially as one must not restrict one's self to the US, or Western nations). That said, there are a number of people who view EC as an abortifacient (or at least as a potential one, as it could either prevent ovulation if it hasn't occured, prevent fertilization if it has, or prevent implantation if fertilization has occured/occurs anyways). On the other hand, it does not change the fact that as far as simple definitions go, it does not fall under abortion in a purely technical sense.

SO - what I would propose : either add a bullet under definitions for EC, state what it does, and then refer people to the abortion debate section below to address the issue; or remove the reference to EC from definitions entirely, and simply address the issue in the debate section(Tznkai, I believe you agreed to this earlier up the page). DonaNobisPacem 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked the verbiage Str1977 and I had worked together on: "Medically, methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is considered equivalent to abortion by those who believe that human life begins at conception." One puppy's opinion, that seems to cover it without getting mired in it. Its a little comma laden at the moment, but we can tweak it if other editors see merit in this version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your wording - I thought people were complaining more about it's location than the wording at this point. It could be refined by saying that "... however, prevention of implantation is considered equivalent..." as that encompasses all methods of contraception that prevent implantation; but if people are happy with wording/location, I'm not going to belabour the point! DonaNobisPacem 06:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Hrm.. As the statement begins with "Medically, methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception..." wouldn't immediately following that with prevention of implantation look and read a little redundantly? The way it is written, the common term is defined, then the ethical consideration of when pregnancy begins according to different beliefs is addressed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - what I was trying to say was that there are other products not under the blanket term emergency contraception that prevent implantation - as an example, I was explaining earlier on that any contraceptive that prevents implantation would be seen as a (potential) abortifacient from the point of view of the Catholic Church, and various pro-life groups. This would indicate that more than just emergency contraception is seen as the equivalent of abortion...however, emergency contraception is probably the most commonly addressed issue, so whatever you think works is fine with me.DonaNobisPacem 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the use of medical definitions, what is the acknowledged practice on Wikipedia as a whole? For example, does the obligation exist to post traditional Chinese medicine's alternative standpoint into every medical article? Does every definition in geology have a qualifier pointing out creationism's alternative standpoint simply because there are is a significant minority opinion? It seems like some exceptions are being made because this is a controversial topic. Is that the right thing to do? Hadamhiram 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hadamhiram, you are misunderstanding something. The medical definition is the medical definition and is included as such (though debatable and not revelation, but it's up to medics to discuss this) - the broader definition however is common and valid in ethical considerations ("equivalency") and hence a note about this is included as well. Str1977 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Social issues

Opening a new thread for discussion of the proposed "social issues" section. Should this section be an independent section in the article or should it be slotted in elsewhere ("abortion debate")? This is to cover unsafe abortion, sex-selective abortion, and forced abortion, among other things. I've taken the liberty of moving my Unsafe Abortion draft here for approval:

Main article: Unsafe abortions

Where and when access to safe abortion has been barred, due to explicit sanctions or general unavailability, women seeking to terminate their pregnancies have sometimes resorted to unsafe methods.

"Back-alley abortion" is a slang term for any abortion not practiced under ideal conditions of sanitation and professionalism. The World Health Organization defines an unsafe abortion as being, "a procedure...carried out by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both." [9] This includes a person without medical training, a professional health provider operating in sub-standard conditions, or the woman herself. A few reported methods of such self-induced abortion are the misuse of the ulcer drug Misoprostol, abdominal massage and trauma, and the insertion of non-surgical implements such as knitting needles and clothes hangers into the uterus.

Unsafe abortion remains a concern today due to the higher incidence and severity of its associated complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, haemorrhage, and damage to internal organs. The World Health Organization estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world anually and that 68,000 of these result in death. [10]

-Kyd 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but IMHO move it to the article space. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just giving everyone an opportunity to subject it to their POV filter. BTW, where shall it go? -Kyd 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking 6, between History and Debate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a seperate section, right? I'll probably work on the sex-selective abortion piece tonight so that the social issues sextion will not be empty but for unsafe abortion. -Kyd 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my thinking, as a new section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sex-selective abortion preview. Comments?

The advent of both ultrasound and amniocentesis has allowed parents to determine sex before birth. This has lead to the occurrence of sex-selective abortion or the targeted termination of afetus based upon its gender.

It is suggested that sex-selective abortion might be partially reponsible for the noticable disparities between the birth rates of male and female children in some places. In India, the economic role of men, the costs associated with dowries, and a Hindu tradition which dicates that funeral rites must be performed by a male relative have lead to a cultural preference for sons. The female-to-male sex ratio in India was skewed, from its biological norm of 100 to 105, to an average of 108 to 100 in 1991. [11]. Researchers have asserted that between 1985 and 2005 as many as 10 million female fetuses may have been selectively aborted. ^[12] The Indian government passed an official ban of pre-natal sex screening in 1994 and moved to pass a complete ban of sex-selective abortion in 2002. [13]

The situation is similar in the People's Republic of China, where there is also a historic son preference, in addition to a one-child policy which was implemented in 1979 in response to population concerns. Sex-selective abortion and infantide might be behind the shift from the baseline male-to-female birth rate of 105:100 to an elevated national rate of 117:100 in 2002. [14] A ban was enacted upon the practice in 2003. [15]

-Kyd 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble: abortion may be responsible for a birth rate, but infanticide is not by definition (child must be born to be killed in infanticide, yes?) First sentence, second paragraph, suggest reword or remove infanticide. Sentence 3, suggested modification to: In 1991 the female-to-male sex ratio in India was found to be skewed from its biological norm of 100 to 105, to an average of 108 to 100. (fewer commas, flows a little better I think.) Third para, first sentence, perhaps: ...where there is also a historic preference for sons, in addition....

Feel free to reject any or all of these ideas. The puppy is not on a soapbox about minor word-smithing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph: Okay, you're definitely right about the confusion caused by the use of the term "infanticide" in conjuction with the phrase "birth rates." Addition of "parially" notes that there are other factors at work. The initial Wiki-link of "sex-selective" abortion links to the article sex-selective abortion and infanticide. So, hopefully, this is sufficient, because this article is discussing S-SA, not infanticide.

Second paragraph: Breaking it down with three commas, in my opinion, helps to seperate the first ratio from the second. If others agree, though, I can change it, because it's minor.

Third paragraph: "Son preference" is the academic term for the phenomenon. Here's a Google search [16] with the first few hits seeming to be scholarly treatises on the subject. This term, alone, seems to garner more data on the subject than the term "sex-selective abortion" did. There are reams and reams of data which I would like to incorporate, but, again, this is a summary. Although, I'm going to primary source the India study from the Lancet, but that requires registration first, and right now I need lunch.

Thanks for feeding my need for feedback!-Kyd 20:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some more research for the purpose of posterity:

• Son Preference in Anhui Province, China: from the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
• Son Preference in Asia - Report of a Symposium: from the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Son Preference and Its Effect on Fertility in India
• Modernisation and Son Preference
• Sex-selective Abortion: Evidence From a Community-based Study in Western India
• The Social Context of Sex Selection and the Politics of Abortion in India
• The Practice of Sex Selective Abortion in India: May You Be The Mother of a Hundred Sons
• Abortion patterns and reported sex ratios at birth in rural Yunnan, China

What to make of this all? -Kyd 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sections have been added to the main article along with the sources utilized. The sex-selective abortion section became longer than intended. However, I felt that a broader context on the issue was needed. Hopefully, I have amended all of the errors. If not, feel free to correct me. Thanks! -Kyd 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures?

I'm too lazy to search for public domain images outside of Wikipedia (it took no less than four days of tireless Google searching to dig up the "Dr. Caton's Tansy Pills!" clipping). So, now that we're approaching the end of our article revision (although, granted, the end keeps reaching farther and farther into the horizon, as we think up new topics to cover), let's illustrate our prose. Here's some (rather hasty) suggestions:

• 
  Early feminist leader Susan B. Anthony was opposed to abortion
• 
  Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, campaigned for the availability of birth control
• 
  Tanacetum vulgare, or tansy, an abortifacient plant
• 
  A coin engraved with the now-extinct silphium — a plant reputed to have been abortifacient
• 
  Mentha pulegium, or pennyroyal, a reputed abortifacient
• 
  The molecular structure of the abortifacient drug Mifepristone
• 
  Pro-life activists stage a silent demonstration

The photograph of the pro-life activists could be considered NPOV if it is presented in the context of individuals expressing their POV. A balancing image of pro-choice demonstaters would be nice; however, I am unable to unearth one. -Kyd 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few with wikipedia-friendly copyright on Flickr. [17] My vote is on [18]. Ok, just kidding. --Quasipalm 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pennyroyal is prettier than that, pity the image isn't. Were there any pics of Black cohosh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tansy, mifepristone pro life all look great. Not sure what to do with the first two portraits.--Tznkai 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

History of abortion or abortion debate? Maybe add a section on historical perspectives of abortion. -Kyd 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the three Tzn mentioned. As for the portraits, Susan B in Social issues; I would not necessarily include Sanger but if we do then she goes there as well, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with using the picture of pro-life activists, as long as it is used in the context of pro-life activism. As Kyd says, a picture of pro-choice activists used in a similar context would be good. Might be worth asking a pro-choice supporters' group online - they no doubt have some good pictures kicking around that they'll be willing to give permission for. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The ideal pic would be the money shot of pro-life and pro-choice activists confronting one another on the steps of the Supreme Court. Any Wikipedian living in D.C. should be able to get such a shot on any day that an abortion case is set for argument. bd2412 T 13:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going ahead and adding in Mifepristone and the pro-lifers. Is there consensus of which of herb pictures should be included and and where they should be put? "Other means of abortion" or "history of abortion"? Is there an ethical concern here? Perhaps don't include pictures of the extant plants? -Kyd 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The extant plant pictures won't help 99.9% of the people find them, and the remaining .1% is smart enough to google search it.--Tznkai 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2006.

Alright. So, add them? -Kyd 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it myself except for my clear incompitence with image markups.--Tznkai 00:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. Where: "history of abortion" or "other means of abortion?" As for the GWB picture, it's too relevant not to include, so where should it be relocated? "Surgical abortion?" It's a lot more relevant in "abortion law," though. -Kyd 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethics and Morality can't be seperated

Wikipedia: "Ethics (from Greek ethikos) is the branch of axiology – one of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic – which attempts to understand the nature of morality; to define that which is right from that which is wrong. The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy." IOW, morality is the basis upon which one determines what is ethical. Ethics is applied morality. e.g. "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral precept - and ethics is the application of that (and other) moral precepts to determine if one can morally kill in self-defense. Not sure why some are so afraid of morality appearing on this page. Being pro-choice is a moral view that excludes other moral views - just as pro-life is. 136.215.251.179 07:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

See Moral code as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears you're responding to my argument above -- although I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that morals and ethics can be seperated or that there is a clear delineation between the two -- I am saying that given the connotations and denotations of the two words, "ethics" is clearly a better word to use in this context. See my comment above in e.c. if you want to know why. --Quasipalm 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Herbs

Are there definitive studies about what herbs are abortifacients? What is the basis for declaring them as such in this article? Are such herbs so important (relatively) to include images of them in this article? 136.215.251.179

Read archives of this talk page, where both herbal abortion and images are discussed at length. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding images of herbs were discussed at length? 84.146.249.98 23:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still in discussion. These are relevant, NPOV images, which are already available on Wikipedia. I'm just throwing out ideas to see what sticks. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to submit them in the "Pictures?" thread above. -Kyd 01:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking, nutmeg has been used as an abortifacient since (if memory serves me correctly) Roman times - and is sufficiently effective that even some modern resources warn pregnant women to avoid consumption of large amounts of nutmeg in cooking/baking (I can try to dig those up if need be). As far as I know, it was one of the most widely used...although technically nutmeg is a spice, not an herb ; ) DonaNobisPacem 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting infromation. We should see if we can find a source. Also, we should add something to the history of abortion section about Malay/Thai massage abortion practices, for a more global perspective. The current focus is on the Western history of abortion. -Kyd 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Data for Pew Nov 05 poll is not credibly sourced

If you go to the link in the article, the link [19] has two sets of data for this poll for the exact same date/question. Need a better source for the poll since the person transcribing it to that website obviously has made an error. Then it can come back in.136.215.251.179

Poll has been resourced from primary data from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life web site. Polling Report made an error (only to be expected given the volume of data with which they're dealing). See the "sources" section for an external link. -Kyd 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding good data. As you discovered, and as I mentioned above, the data was unclear at the previous link. 84.146.249.98 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In accord with Tzankai's previsou comments, I am adding the actual question of the poll to ensure the poll and its rsults are not skewed. 84.146.249.98 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

request for input at Legalized abortion and crime effect

Hi, there appears to be a dispute brewing at Legalized abortion and crime effect that has spilled over into Steven Levitt. I have started a discussion at Talk:Steven Levitt to discuss the dispute there, while I haven't gotten around to responding to the revert at Legalized abortion and crime effect. Anybody here knowledgeable on these topics (esp. if you have a statistical/economics background), or at least willing to give an outside opinion? Thanks, BanyanTree 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"phenomenon in women to phenomenon in humans

In the opening paragraph, I changed it from reading "phenomenon in women" to "phenomenon in humans". This was done because abortion involves two parties and because the immediate context refers to a species of mammal (gender having already been established by the word "female"). It was reverted by someone who claimed it was already a talked about and settled issue. Talked about or not (I don't know), but there is still bias in this terminology. I propose changing it as I did. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, Guðsþegn, but I think the opposition relevant here is "any female mammal" vs. "female human" = "woman". True, abortion involves two parties but this applies to "animal abortions" as well. The objective of the sentence however was indicate that this article is restricted to abortion of humans. Of course, we could also write "female human" but "woman" seems more simple to me. Any other thoughts? Str1977 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My version, + Kyd's spelling fix: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses exclusively on the abortion of human pregnancy. As I recall its the pregnancy that is aborted, which isn't "in" the woman so much as occuring there. I just cut the male/female thing out since I didn't see the point, but thats just me.--Tznkai 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Second party?" POV cannot be resolved with the interposition of further POV. I think Tznkai's solution is eloquent and simple -- although I still fail to understand the issue with "women." -Kyd 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation was reverted, but should be adopted

Earlier today I changed the wording in the "Definitions" section as follows (my changes in red).

Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is generally considered a moral equivalent to abortion (and is often called abortion) by those who believe that human life begins at conception because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived.

My changes were NPOV changes because they gave explanation to what was unexplained. The subtle non-neutral POV of leaving dissenting opinion unexplained, and therefore presumably ignorant, existed in the original wording. The changed wording is describing why "those who believe that human life begins at conception" believe that "emergency contraception" (usually a misnomer because done after conception; etymology: contra + conception) is "generally considered equivalent to abortion", when the article just said it wasn't abortion. The reason: it is the "moral equivalent ... because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived." This is an accurate explanation meant to promote NPOV. I won't go into a revert war, but this absolutely should be included.

Wikipedia NPOV policy and its official explanation state that:

1. "articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly"
2. "the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so"
3. "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"

Contrary to the one who reverted my change claiming "POV", I propose that my newer language in this instance goes further in upholding NPOV policy than does the original language, and it should be adopted. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, Guðsþegn, but we had a hard time reaching this wording and your additions, while true, I don't think belong into the definitions section but rather in the debate section or into the respective articles on Abortion debate, EC.

Str1977 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it really is a different view of the definition, not just a part of some political battle. The alternate view is already mentioned, rightly, but not the slightest reason is given for the difference in understanding regarding the definition itself.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clearer without your contribution -- although I appreciate your intent. For example, "no per se fundamental change" ... huh? And "moral status of the one conceived" -- I'm not sure what my "moral status" is and I'm a grown, educated adult. Overall I think it just upped the word count but didn't add any real value. --Quasipalm 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Motion to table EC

Just as an agreement between all of us, how about we shelve any changes to the emergency contraception section for a bit? We're clearly going around in circles and coming back in a week and discussing it then may be a better plan.--Tznkai 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Scrap it entirely. The "Definitions" section is meant to be a place for defining terms -- nothing more, nothing less -- and something as sticky as this is just too tempting for editors on both sides to burden an otherwise stream-lined section with belaboured explanations of POV. And then start revert wars when they aren't pleased with the presentation of one or the other side. Move it to the abortion debate sub-section, or perhaps a new sub-section, under "Suggested effects: Emergency contraception," or, "Social issues: Refusal clauses," dealing with issue of doctors and pharmacists who refuse to perscribe the morning-after pill and birth control for the above reasons. -Kyd 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Refuse to yield to any POVing attempts from either side and keep it as it stands now. Str1977 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving it as it is now is clearly better than ditching the entire definitions section, but that doesn't make the current version free of POV. My proposal is an attempt to better uphold NPOV policy, per explanation already given. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I didn't suggest scrapping the Definitions section. After all, it was sort of my idea in the first place, to deal with intro-bloat. I'm just suggesting that we move all the discussion of EC elsewhere, because it's out of place in "Definitions," and might be less of a point of contention if it were presented within a better context. -Kyd 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, right now there is no discussion of EC, just a small reference regarding the definition in regard to EC. This should be kept. Str1977 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep the brief reference; it is not a discussion. AnnH ^(talk) 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since my pro-life brethren seem content with the situation, I will defer (though reluctantly), but there has to be a place for explanation that doesn't get reverted for no good reason. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page#Formatting and stop using bullet points inappropriately - thanks! I have formatted your post per guidelines. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Next on Agenda: Incidence

Below are plans for the new incidence section which I outlined a few days ago (which I am moving here):

The former "induced abortion" section was haphazard. I have created a new section, "Incidence," to contain information about the numbers of and reasons for induced abortion (and, additionally, statistics on miscarriage). Now, we need to update the information on reasons for abortion, in addition to adding statistics on the number of abortions performed annually. In the meantime, the section can also serve as a place for information on factors which influence the rate of abortions, such as sex-selection, unsafe abortion, until the social issue steps in and covers them in full. Let's find and review potential sources here. -Kyd 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pushing forward productivity on this article. Nothing gets done if you don't force it through -- in coordinated efforts, not haphazard edit-wars-in-waiting. Yeah, I'll probably end up doing it myself. I'm like that. For one now in the minority of non-admin regulars, I sure act like I own the place. *Is wearing Tzarina hat* Multiple user input is always best, though, as it propels the article forward in new directions (never would've had a social issues section otherwise). -Kyd 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Slight rewording of health risk balance

I've rephrased a section inserted by ZimZum about weighing up the risks of an abortion. While it raised a valid point, it sounded a little bit POV to me:

The original was:

The risk of complications increases depending upon how far the pregnancy has progressed. Risks caused by the possible complications of a pregnancy| are subsequently avoided.

I rephrased it to:

The risk of complications occurring can increase depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed, but these risks may be counterbalanced by complications that would occur from carrying the pregnancy to term.

I don't know, I might be splitting hairs here, but ZimZum's edit didn't sound right. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it was POV, but your wording is certainly an improvement. I put back the link to complications of pregnancies which will save a curious reader some time. --ZimZum 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - glad you approve of the wording. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidence table is meaningless

The incidence table is rather meaningless. It doesn't make sense to talk about the number of abortions per year per country where countries vary wildly in population. So what if Denmark had less abortions than the U.S. ... it also has a hell of a lot fewer people, too. The table needs to be changed to factor in population, like abortions per year as a percentage of population or abortions per year per 1,000 people. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There, it's gone. Now you can fix it. If you want it done differently, then do it yourself. The pool of regular contributors has been halved thanks to KillerChihuahua and Tznkai becoming admins. I was the only one left to move this thing forward. You weren't here three days ago when I put out a call for help/input/feedback/sources. Criticism is meaningless unless you're willing to offer the tools to help correct whatever's wrong. -Kyd 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, snappy. I have to comment: 1) not everyone has the time to check in on every article every day. 2) criticism is not meaningless, even when someone doesn't have the time or resources to fix something immediately. 3) you sound stressed... chill out! this isn't a job, you don't have to take sole ownership of this article.

I agree that the data was more or less meaningless. And, no, I don't have time to fix it. So there!  ;-) --Quasipalm 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Snark attack. Sorry. "Meaningless" on its own seems to discount difficult research. Also, rhetorical questions like, "So what if Denmark had less abortions than the U.S.?" (presumably typed in the tone of, "What are you — stupid?") are themselves "snappy." It is difficult to construct anything out of constructive criticism when it comes as contentious nitpicking. Longer explanations of why something is wrong (and preferably how it can be fixed), which are removed of the sarcasm, are certainly welcome. -Kyd 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Cyde has a history of snarkiness on this talk page: [20] and [21]. Even if the Simpsons reference made me snigger, it was still a violation of WP:CIVIL -- but, then again, everyone has their moments: [22]. "Pot, I do say, you're looking rather Stygian." - Kettle -Kyd 00:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. We all appreciate what you do for this article, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's just that I've been known to criticize when I don't have the answer myself in the past.  :) --Quasipalm 05:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I must have missed that call too, although I've mostly been only involving in reverting vandalism here. In any case, in an attempt to settle this dispute, I've put the table back in, albeit with percentage figures relative to the population of that year. The percentages are calculated based on absolute figures, and the references to those figures are listed besides the percentage. How does this sound? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I havn't been around here. The incidence table is there to provide information. Its nice to have it in percentage of population sure, it'd be even better to have it in context of number of women. How many are legal. Etc. etc. etc. Theres lots of great information we can put in, so lets not jump on people for not putting in what we want. That having been said, the table is right next to the Right adjusted TOC. Can we right adjust the table and re left adjust the TOC? (I stil ldon't get the mark up on this stuff)--Tznkai 08:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very true. I've completed the list now but most of the references contain the population broken down into male or female, and there's a lot of sites with updated abortion states, so if there's a need to add columns like this, then we can go ahead and do it as far as I'm concerned. As far as the markup is concerned, I'll sort that now. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I had initially considered including population counts in the table. However, I reckoned that this would be more "useless trivia," with which the article doesn't need to be burdened. In retrospect, though, it puts everything in context. The prospect of doing all that research over again was just so daunting. Thanks for both helping out. :-) -Kyd 11:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Cyde Weys had a point - the figures on their own were useless. He could have expressed it a little more subtlely than to trash others' hard research, but it was a valid issue. The results were certainly interesting, especially as Germany and South Africa are in general more religiously conservative (as a whole, the US just has the "loudest", as opposed to the most numerous conservatives) than the rest. I may sneak in a few more countries later on just to illustrate the contrast a bit better, and I'll take Tznkai's suggestion of including legal/illegal ratios and see if that helps. Anyway, you're welcome ;) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd considered adding more countries, too, but avoided it again because it was bit much information to include in the summary of a top-tier article. If you can find reliable data for most countries, where do you draw the line? I said 15. I only accepted countries in which abortion was generally legal; criminalization was a convenient way to thin out the pool of candidate nations (no point noting the, say, 75 abortions legally allowed per year in Ireland, or Egypt, or any place else that restricts abortion — or is there?). I tried to include non-Western countries, but, nontheless, didn't stray too far out of the G8. Tznkai suggested that we should create an "abortion statistics" article. Maybe an "abortion incidence" article, too? -Kyd 23:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Affiliations" -> "beliefs"

might in part be influenced by the political and religious affiliations of the parties behind it. - A minor suggestion, but I think that affiliations puts in a POV; one can be affiliated with a group generally considered on one side or another of the debate, but it is the beliefs of the person and the propensity of letting those beliefs affect results that is typically more relavent. I suggest it be revised to 'might in part be influenced by political and religious beliefs of the parties behind it.' instead. --Lanzecki 09:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit it yourself Be bold!--Tznkai 09:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Boldness is not generally well rewarded on contraversal topics, or so my long term lurking of this site has led me to believe. But I'll roll the dice and see what happens.--Lanzecki 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article, due to its controversial nature, is already acknowledging qualifiers and popular opinions that are relevant (ie: the minority opinion that pregnancy begins at fertilization) though they differ from the positions of established authorities (ie: the medical community). That is fine. But I am disturbed that nowhere in the article (or in the discussions that I can find) is there any mention of the origin of human values. From a truly logical NPOV, humans have a radically biased position regarding the value of human life, human beings, and human children, fetuses, embryos, blasticists, and gametes. In all human societies, a newborn infant has more 'rights' than an adult chimpanzee. That is NOT a neutral point of view. I think this issue is profoundly relevant to the topic of abortion. Simply stating that, "complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues have a strong relationship with that individual's value system" with a slight afternote on religion does NOT adequately address the non-neutral nature of this article. It would be far more accurate and NPOV to state something like: "People in all human societies tend to value human life above all other forms of life. The basis of this seemingly inherent bias is cultural, religious, and possibly biological." Obviously members of a social species will evolve to value their own kind above others. Our cultures and religions are a form of social darwinian selection: societies whose members believe human life is more valuable than mosquitos have more children, and institutions that indoctrinate and enforce those values create societies which survive and thrive. But ultimately, the view that human life is special is NOT a NPOV; ultimately, that point of view is biased by our culture, our religion, and our evolved psychology. Once again, this is profoundly relevant to the issue of abortion and deserves to be addressed in the article. Hadamhiram 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened by your anti-human approach. But please reread the NPOV policy and what it means before you make claims about what and what isn't POV. Str1977 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how you label Hadam's comments "anti-human." I don't think that the comment said that we should put other life above human life -- simply that humans often devalue other forms of life. It's a fair comment and a good article suggestion, and it deserves more than your dismissive comment. --Quasipalm 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthropocentrism is a valid factor in the abortion debate. This isn't a sociology article, however, and I don't think it's worth investing massive amounts of text to it. A Wikified reference somewhere in the article should suffice. -Kyd 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Kyd's approach. Anthropocentrism should be addressed. But in sufficient detail to establish its true relevance. What bothers me about this and all other coverage of the abortion issue is that it is predicated upon massive assumptions, and the bias of those assumptions acts as a lens through which all other information regarding the issue is distorted. The truth is that the abortion issue is only an issue because the religious beliefs of some people in some societies give one particular type of biomass special status. In purely biological and rational terms, a week-old fetus has no more consciousness, self-awareness, or other emergent properties that make humans human than my left elbow or a t-bone steak. The unspoken assumption that fetuses are special because they have a spirit or soul undeniably predicates the entire issue! Laws in societies which claim to have separation of Church and state, like the US, are blatantly compromised by these unspoken religious assumptions. It is a massive violation of my first-amendment rights to make laws based on religious beliefs and values derrived thereof. Yet, no inkling of this is mentioned in the article whatsoever. To dismiss this with a pass mention of 'anthropocentrism' and to appeal to technicalities in the NPOV policy is tantamount to brushing the entire substance of the abortion issue under the rug. I don't think burying our heads in the sand or bending over backwards for political correctness is what wikipedia is all about. Hadamhiram 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We try to keep philosophical discussions to a minimum around here, as it impedes productivity, and might even create hostility. Some statement of principle is unavoidable, of course, as Wikipedians are people, and are going to be moved to share their POV at points. It's just a lot easier to make a case by explaining how you believe the article is lacking and what could be done to fix it. Otherwise, it's difficult to seperate the user's ideological statements from their practical suggestions, which, in my experience, makes it really easy to just blanket dismiss it all as "POV-pushing." I happen to agree that anthropocentrism is scientifically indefinsible. However, other editors don't share this viewpoint, and NPOV is about striking that delicate balance between accommodation and pandering. -Kyd 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the MAJORITY of people think a pregnancy begins at conception. Most people are not medical doctors and don't give much thought as to a new nuanced politicized re-definition of pregnancy that was invented in the 1960s. 84.146.255.126

There was a time when the majority of people thought the world was flat. The majority is often wrong. While it is appropriate to acknowledge the majority perception, it violates the spirit of wikipedia which is centered upon truth to give erroneous perceptions credence no matter how popular they happen to be at the time. As for conjuring images that the entire medical community of the modern world has somehow conspired to corrupt its own science with "nuanced politicized re-definitions" for the purpose of covertly defying current American cultural trends, that is well off the deep end and into tinfoil hat territory. Ref. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one; medical science, like all other sciences, adheres to those definitions which available evidence suggests are most likely true.Hadamhiram 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidence part 2

I was wondering do we want to put statistics for miscarriages in the incidence section as well? (if we can get a handle on them) if not hing else for comparison rates?--Tznkai 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A quibble: I still prefer that spontaneous abortion be included as a sub-section under a broad "forms of abortion" section, rather than a stand-alone topic of its own. I feel that this helps to link the article together thematically.

Where do I think miscarriage statistics should go? If we stick to the "forms of abortion" layout, then under "incidence," as "forms" is for medical explanations; if we instead choose "spontaneous abortion" as a stand-alone, then the statistics should be kept in the "spontaneous" section, because they would be lost in "incidence," which deals entirely with induced abortion. -Kyd 11:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking we could change incidence to general if we decide to keep my version of the organziation. So much of hte article is about induced abortion I wanted to get spontanues out of the way as soon as possible. I'm not really sure if my version is any better though--Tznkai 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if comparing # of abortions to total population is really a valid comparison? Perhaps by # of women of child-bearing age or by # of confirmed pregancies would be a more appropriate measure? Peyna 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Core Statements of Belief

I edited the pro-choice "core statement of belief" in the Abortion Debate section. The pro-life statement is: "Is the fetus a human being with a fundamental right to life?" The pro-choice one used to be: "Should the state or the individual have choice on the matter of abortion?" I changed the pro-choice statement to: "Does a woman have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy?" I felt this statement is a clearer representation of pro-choice sentiment. I felt the "state or the individual" part of the previous statement was confusing, especially since no pro-choicer I know advocates the state choosing to abort fetuses. 66.194.52.249 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit wasn't fully thought out for a few reasons. 1) You can be pro choice and still advocate for father-to-be consent laws, so the mother-to-be should not be singled out. (In other words, "individual" is better wording than "woman.") 2) You mis-read the question, it's an "either / or" question -- the implication is that pro choice people believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose and that the state should not. So, to answer the pro choice question in a pro choice fashion: the woman has the right to choose, the state does not. Make sense? -Quasipalm 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Health POV

The health section lists complication after complication, and you have to read very carefully to learn that an early-term abortion is safer than carry the pregnancy to term. Hiding this fact seems very biased to me, since it would leave readers with a misleading impression of abortion's safety. In fact, even the complications mentioned apply largely to later-term abortions, particularly those in the last trimester. It would be nice if, in addition to the accurate summary I changed it to lead with, we offered some statistics on the risks. I already dug up citations for a reduced mortality rate with abortion, but it would be better if we had rates for various complications. Since the alternative to abortion is childbirth, we should also list the rates of complications inherent in it. Alienus 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the unsafe abortion section should also not hide the unsafe abortions that are done in licensed clinics. 84.146.255.126

The article documents the number of fatalities from legal abortions, which happen to be less than the number from childbirth. Now, if you have some cited references on "unsafe abortions" done in licensed clinics, feel free to share them. Until then, this comment is POV. Alienus 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. 84.146.255.126

We already have statistics on mortality, which is much more objective than anecdotal evidence from a pro-life site. Why would we advertise such a partisan source when there are neutral ones available? Alienus 01:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsafe legal abortion due to unsafe (or at least questionable) tactics at licensed clinics

Abortion has complications associated with it. That is covered elsewhere - agreed. But some abortionists are bad doctors and some clinics are more concerned about "moving the meat" (higher earnings) and minimizing costs than about women's health. Some clinics notoriously won't call an ambulance if they have a complication for fear of losing other patients from the controversy - and some even require patients to agree to the no ambulance/no hosputal policy in writing. The most aggregious events are when doctors try to hide their mistakes or even simple complications and end up killing the patient by denying them proper care at a hospital. In any event, if you are unaware of these facts, I cn understand - the media does keep them well-hidden. But they are UNSAFE ABORTIONS, not simply complications associated with abortion. Or perhaps someone can explain why there is no difference between a money-grubbing quack abortionist who does shoddy work and the abortionist who actually tries to do things according tpo protocol. 84.146.255.126

The term "unsafe abortion" does not refer to the inclusive catagories of "abortions that cause harm" but a NIH or WHO (can't recall which) definition. We'll clear that up--Tznkai 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, agreed. The legal abortions I am speaking of definitely fall into the WHO definition as they were done either by persons exhibiting a lack of skill or within environments that ignore the minimum medical standards. Legality of abortion is not the issue. Independent of prevailing legislation, an unsafe abortion is defined by the WHO as "...a procedure for terminating unwanted pregnancy either by persons lacking the ncesessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards of both" (WHO,1993) which therefore exposes the woment to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. See footnote #1 at this link from WHO's website [23]User:84.146.255.126|84.146.255.126]]

That's a bit of a stretch. There's a difference between a doctor doing a bad job and a surgical procedure being done by an amateur without the right tools. Sorry, but no cigar. Alienus 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is mostly right here. If you can find me reputable examples of lisecned facilities using unsafe means, I think thats notable to put somewhere, but we're running into an undue weight and biased source problems--Tznkai 02:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV. This factual information is included and the reader is even alerted to the source of the information. Funny how a coroner's report or a mewspaper account is not enough for you.(Or perhaps you did not even bother to read the cause of death of the women in the link?) Why would anyone be so adamant that shoddy practices by abortionists and abortion centers be remain under wraps? Do you really believe that there are no quacks out there? There are quacks who are crappy doctors just trying to make money off of poor people in every field of medicine. And abortion's whole history is rife with such people. They get away with it because abortion is usually something people are ashamed of (and also because we no have a complicit adamanatly pro-abortion media) so the news rarely comes to light to the public. But you must certainly know that even among pro-choice obgyns they will admit that abortionists who have the assmbly line abortion clinics are looked down upon generally as people who have no skills and are the scum of their profession. 84.146.255.126

Thats the rub. Medical malpractice on its own is not especially notable. Give me a higher incidence rate for abortion, or how a number of abortion centers are poorly run, and get it out of some major newspapers, medical research, ethics inquiries (anything that isn't pro-____.com) and we're talking.--Tznkai 02:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have moved the goalposts, but no matter. Here you go:

• Brenda Banks: 35-year-old Brenda had a 13-week abortion at Hillcrest Women’s Surgi-Center in Washington DC on September 30, 1989. She went into shock after the abortion because of blood loss, so an ambulance was called. Despite being given a total hysterectomy and 20 units of red blood cells, she died the following afternoon. Her uterus had been perforated during the abortion and several major blood vessels had been lacerated or cut in two. When Banks family tried to sue the clinic and the abortion doctor, Llewelyn Crooks, they were unable to collect money from either, since Crook’s insurer was insolvent and the clinic carried no malpractice insurance. (District of Columbia Superior Court; “Woman died after abortion at Hillcrest in D.C.,” Defend Life, March-April 2001)
• Belinda Byrd: On January 24, 1987, Belinda, age 37, had an abortion performed at Inglewood Woman’s Hospital. During the procedure, her uterus was badly perforated. However, she was left unattended for three hours after the abortion, and was then detained an additional two hours before she was transferred to a hospital. After being in a coma for three days, she died. Belinda was one of 74 women who had had an abortion in the clinic’s single operating room on that day, and one of 24 women who were operated on during the last two hours of the day. When paramedics arrived at the clinic, they found Belinda in a bed that was covered with blood. State inspectors contend that no post-anesthesia evaluation had been conducted. Belinda died from complications on January 27, 1987. Her mother wrote to a Los Angeles district attorney: “I am the mother of [Belinda], victim of abortionists at [abortion clinic address]. I am also the grandmother of her three young children who are left behind and motherless. I cry every day when I think how horrible her death was. She was slashed by them and then she bled to death . . . She has been stone dead for two years now and nobody cares. I know that other young black women are now dead after abortion at that address. Where is [the abortionist] now? Has he been stopped? Has anything happened to him because of what he did to my [Belinda]? Has he served jail time for any of these cruel deaths? People tell me nothing has happened, that nothing ever happens to white abortionists who leave young black women dead. I’m hurting real bad and want some justice for [Belinda] and all other women who go like sheep to slaughter.” (California Certificate of death # 87-015832; California Department of Health Services Case No. 8-0001 “Accusation”; Amici Brief by Christine Smith Torre filed in support of Appellants in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services No. 88-605, reprinted in toto in Studies in Prolife Feminism, Vol. 1, No. 1; Associated Press 7/15/89; Los Angeles Times 12/3/87, 8/12/89)
• Dorothy Brown: Dorothy, age 37, underwent a first trimester abortion at a Chicago clinic on August 16, 1974. Hours later, she died from shock related to uncontrolled bleeding. The Centers For Disease Control reported a black, 37-year-old woman who died in 1974 after having a 14 week abortion at a clinic. The cause of death was hemorrhaging from an incomplete abortion. This woman was probably Dorothy. (Chicago Sun-Times, The Abortion Profiteers Series, November 12-December 3, 1978; Illinois Coroner’s Certificate of Death, # 621691; “Deaths from Second Trimester Abortion by Dilatation and Evacuation: Causes, Prevention, Facilities,” Cates, Grimes, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 58:4, October 1981, p. 403)
• Myrta Baptiste: This 26-year-old woman bled to death on December 18, 1982, after an abortion at Women’s Care Center in Miami. Her uterus had been perforated during the abortion, and although she showed signs of hemorrhage, an ambulance was not immediately called. Myrta was 10 weeks pregnant when she went to the clinic for a safe, legal abortion. Ironically, her abortion was neither. Her death is counted as resulting from an illegal abortion because although the clinic she went to was legal, the doctor who performed her abortion was not licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Another woman, Shirley Payne, would die after an abortion at this same clinic 17 days later. (“Fourth Woman Dies After Abortion At Miami Clinic,” The Miami Herald, January 5, 1983, 1D; “Cluster of Abortion Deaths at a Single Facility,” Kafrissen, Grimes, Hogue, Sacks, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 68:3, September 1986, 387-389)

I am not sure why you did not bother to read that the sources are all non-biased. It only makes sense that a pro-life site would be compiling the information. Moving the goalposts does not change the truth. There are dozens more specific instances, all with sources as you mention. No matter what you type women undergo legal unsafe abortions in the US. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? This section is not about mortality rates - its about unsafe abortion according to the WHO definition. 84.146.255.126

you've proved that bad things have happened. You've proved bad things have happened because of abortions. You havn't proved its prevalance, and its notabilty. maybe Some people get abortions for fun. This would not surprise me. This doesn't mean its worth a spot on the article under unsafe abortions. Its not about convincing me about the horrors of abortion. Its about convincing me that this is encylopedic. At anyrate a number of these things are intresting and might do well in the history article. None of them can be classified as current news since they'res nothing before1990--Tznkai 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have againmoved the goalposts - perhaps out of spite this time. "(“Fourth Woman Dies After Abortion At Miami Clinic,” The Miami Herald, January 5, 1983, 1D; “Cluster of Abortion Deaths at a Single Facility,” Kafrissen, Grimes, Hogue, Sacks, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 68:3, September 1986, 387-389)" is exactly what you asked for - but now its not good enough. Amazing. I have added the appropriate tags. 84.146.255.126

"The World Health Organization estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world annually and that 68,000 of these result in death. [52]"

Is this right? The ref at the end of this sentence links to an article on Sex-selective abortion in China. ?? --DanielCD 02:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference numbers in the article body do not match the numbers in the reference list. If you click the reference, though, it'll link you to the correct source, which is listed numerically in the "sources" section as #43. -Kyd 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not a place to attempt to prove something. If you had something substantive to contribute, Goodandevil (it is you, is it not?), perhaps you would've done your homework a little a little more thoroughly. Ranting about the "abortion industry" and the "liberal media" won't redeem a biased source. There's malpractice in all fields, and even good doctors are statistically bound to make to make mistakes, but accepting statistics on the incidence of abortion malpractice from Life Dynamics would be a little bit like accepting statistics on the rate of denist malpractice from dentistrysucks.org, wouldn't it? -Kyd 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can shuffle some of this off to Abortion debate and history, but that sad fact is medical malpractice isn't inhrently notable because its abortion. Still, we have some useful data, can we do something with it?--Tznkai 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, the sources are government offices, regular newspapers, and scholarly articles. You must have missed that fact. This is simply about UNSAFE ABORTION in the USA that is well-documented. Malpractice in legal abortion is a far different phenomena than an unpreventable death caused by abortion. Surely you understand the difference. And 4 deaths at one clinic (according to the Miami Herald) is not simple malpractice - it is an "unsafe abortion" clinic - unsafe and legal and noteworthy as an example of unsafe abortion in the land of abortion-on-demand that was supposed to save us all from back alley butchers. 84.146.255.126

Tznk, patting me on the head will not do. You must first admit that you have repeatedly moved the goalposts. Then patting me on the head might work. I have succeeded here in proving my poi nt - which is that your goal was to keep this information out regardless of any sources or WHO definitions. I am sure you all feel intellectually defeated and secretly shitty inside because you succeed only by sheer bullying. If you come back and re-read this in two days you will be asahmed of how obvious the cover up is. 84.146.255.126

Its a bad idea to tell an admin that you've disrupted wikipedia to make a point, just so you're aware. And for the record, I'm not patting you on the head, or trying to move the goal posts, I'm merely pointing at the goal posts and you're getting close and closer each time as I explain better. (hanlon's razor). If you can explain to me how the collection of incidents you posted here proves anything beyond "it happens and we know about it", I'm all ears. we need numbers.--Tznkai 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're treading dangerously close to a breach of WP:CIVIL with some of those comments. Even if this were a place for grandstanding (WP:NOT), you've proven next to nothing. It's sad, yes, but all medical procedures have a complication rate. However, we might as well put names to numbers across the board — deaths from improperly-administered anaesthesia, botched gastric bypasses, appendectomies, caesarean sections, etc. — as there's no logical, NPOV reason to single out abortion. Your source, I'm sorry, is not quite sufficient, as it is a partistan site which is reporting information secondhand. Going back to the original sources would be best, although I'd treat negative reports from "Defend Life" or "Studies in Pro-life Feminism" with suspicion, just as I would if an article, "Scientists Prove Abortion Cures Wrinkles," turned up in a publication called Pro-Choice Perspectives. We quote mortality figures for both the United States and the United Kingdom in the "Health effects" section. Is this insufficient? -Kyd 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited an article to add important information. My point was made by editing despite your bullying and changing the goalposts. I did not edit to make a point in the sense you seem to ascribe to it. I don't give a rat's apples that you are an admin (that just means you can be a bigger bully, but so what? someone would have objected to this information anyway. Its what people here do - they try to keep factual information unflattering to abortion out of the article. I find it amazing that an intelligent person woudl not understand the relevance of the information. This section discusses back alley abortions. Which is always part of the saga of why abortion is now legal - to prevent such butchery. Noting that such buthery happens and that similar quacks exists despite the change in the law is noteworthy and the most appropriate place to note it is in this section. Otherwise as a minimum such infalmmatory and emotional rhetoris as back alley abortion has no place in this section. Some clinics are very similar to back alleys. Have you ever visited a clinic in a low income neighborhood? I have. You would not bring your dog there. I have given you exactly what you asked for - or please explain how I have not. Otherwise you HAVE moved the goalposts. Funny how I knew you would. 84.146.255.126

The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control show that abortion is statistically safer than childbirth before the 16th week [24].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wisco (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2006.

How have you been bullied? If anything, you, Goodandevil, are the one who is being belligerant. You've a history of such behavior in this and other articles. Here are some of today's examples:

• WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and WP:POINT: Long posts which are more statements of opinion than defenses of your edits. Ex: "...And abortion's whole history is rife with such people. They get away with it because abortion is usually something people are ashamed of (and also because we no have a complicit adamanatly pro-abortion media) so the news rarely comes to light to the public."
• WP:CIVIL: "I am sure you all feel intellectually defeated and secretly shitty inside because you succeed only by sheer bullying. If you come back and re-read this in two days you will be asahmed of how obvious the cover up is."
• WP:CIVIL: "I don't give a rat's apples that you are an admin (that just means you can be a bigger bully, but so what? someone would have objected to this information anyway. Its what people here do - they try to keep factual information unflattering to abortion out of the article. I find it amazing that an intelligent person woudl not understand the relevance of the information."
• WP:3RR: Edit to intro paragraph of "Unsafe abortion" reverted thrice in response to reverts by Alienus and once in response to revert by Tznkai. Total of four reverts.

-Kyd 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I concede the point that medical malpractice and death caused by abortion procedures is a subject of note, I'm wary of your motives for including something like this in the article, not to mention where you placed it. The problem is that death caused by incompetence, lack of due care or just plain bad luck in an abortion procedure is no different than many other procedures. People have even died from doctors taking a blood sample. This is where the argument falls flat. I don't see why incidences where such a procedure has resulted in death through incompetence can't have a brief mention under Health Effects, as long as it is worded appropriately and sources are provided. You don't need to produce a list of cases to prove your point. You shouldn't even be on here to prove a point. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous IP speculation

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're using an anonymizing proxy server to access wikipedia, those usually get blocked--205.188.117.68 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. 84.146.255.126
    • No, you see, that was a rhetorical question, you are using an anonymizing proxy, that's not really in dispute--205.188.117.68 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am using standard internet service with no attempt to hide or be anonymous. 84.146.255.126

No, you're really not--205.188.117.68 03:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Standard internet service with no attempt to hide or be anonymous or knowledge that the ISP has that feature even available. I use standard windows, standard Norton, standard Explorer, standard ISP, and have not installed anything or used any means to mask any information. Assume good faith, oh anonymous one. In any event, thats my last word on the matter. 84.146.255.126

No, you really don't seem to understand... it's really easy to confirm this on my own--205.188.117.68 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You gave up awefully fast--205.188.117.68 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the ARIN output. It tells you that ARIN doesn't manage that IP range, RIPE does. (ARIN = North America, RIPE = Europe, APNIC = Asia Pacific). See http://www.ripe.net/ -- Curps 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind then--205.188.117.68 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a cute trick. It won't work.84.146.255.126

• How is it a trick? Is it some kind of conspiracy on the part of arin to make it look like you are an open proxy>?--205.188.117.68 03:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No its just you, Jamyskis! 84.146.234.117

• Yes, me and arin, fellow members of the ip cabal, at your service...Oh and 'Jamyskis'?--205.188.117.68 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Jamyskis. I am not going to wander down the lane. 84.146.234.117

• • I already said "nevermind then", you don't have to overeact like that--205.188.117.68 03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm...what's going on? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This isn't an editorial dispute; it's an issue of the continued disruptive behavior of one user. And, anyway, that user is a no-show, even if he were interested in being cooperative (and, believe me, we've been trying for months, if my suspicions of sockpuppetry are correct). So, why are we being issued a class detention? -Kyd 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's unprotected now. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -Kyd 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Because one person CAN RUIN IT ALL! For instance, I was disruptive on a bus going to Knott's for a school trip, so the bus had to turn around and everybody else didn't get to Knott's until noontime. The joy of a single person ruining it for everybody else! (Okay, not really: our prinicpal told us that he had done waht I had written above, I didn't do that, I'm a good kid). - Hbdragon88 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

New additions

Old paragraph:

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortions became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

Problem: Does not give any indication of what the current status is or an example of the political debate, leaving the reader to wonder.

New paragraph:

Although there have been many ways of inducing abortions throughout the centuries, the latter half of the 20th century saw intense political debate over the ethics and morality of intentional abortions. The groundbreaking amd controversial case of Roe v. Wade in 1971 established a "right to privacy", which was interpreted to give women the right to have an abortion and effectively legalized the procedure in the United States. Today, abortion is legal throughout much of the world, though regulated to varying degrees.

Is this turning it into an essay or being biased? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave all this for the discussion on political and moral views on abortion later in the article? It is too contentious a topic to summarise in 1/2 senteances in the introduction without being seen as biased towards one argument. |--Spaully 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Much of this is better on Abortion debate, or Abortion in the United States, as well. To rewrite the intro to a completely US centric (and incorrect) version, with one sentence to note that there is an entire world which is not the US as a last sentence, is horribly biased. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if there is another, more prominent court case, feel free to post that example instead. As the paragraph was ALREADY about the debate, I added an example and the current status. I'm not sure what you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't blank part of a section because you have no support for your rewrite and then leave the false edit summary of "per talk". And sign your posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the introduction is fine with or without the sentence regarding political debate. The problem with including select sub-issues in the introduction is to be careful not to weigh certain ones more than others. U.S. centric information does not belong in the introduction. Please keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. Peyna 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the concluding sentence without the Roe v. Wade mention, even though i'd prefer the sentence with any example (it had nothing to do with the fact that it was "U.S.-centric", as I said I would welcome another one instead...). So now that's settled. Apparently I stepped into a hornet's nest on the whole Americocentrism thing. Sorry. (Anonymous)

Even saying "Today, the procedure is legal in most countries, though regulated to varying degrees." is misleading. It is impossible to fairly characterize the issue in one short sentence in the introduction. By a raw count, the majority of countries actually prohibit abortion except for in special cases (rape or health of the mother). When a lot of people see "is legal" they will assume what is meant is "legal on demand." Peyna 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't push against consensus with constant reversions. This, in general, is considered hostile and uncooperative behavior, and will not make you friends. -Kyd 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You could try fixing the oversight instead of deleting it repeatedly. And I wasn't going against consensus just because I undid the "Reverted edits by whatever to whenever" message. I apologized for the misunderstanding. (Anonymous)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) .

(resent indent)

Why would you delete my message unless your were being anything other than hostile and uncooperative? Stop claiming ignorance. You're not a newbie: I checked your contribs, and they go as far back as June of last year. -Kyd 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message may not have been deliberately deleted. There's some kind of bug in the software, so that sometimes (not always) when someone presses "Save", the changes made by the last editor (or sometimes the last two editors) are completely undone. (And there's no "edit conflict" message. In fact, the edit wiped out might have been one from a couple of hours before.) This has been happening a lot lately. AnnH ^(talk) 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for informing me. If I would've know sooner, perhaps I could've saved face. -Kyd 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) as you have been repeatedly asked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Abortion Products

Well, I've asked before (and put it on the to-do list), but it has since been removed, and I don't see it in the article, so I'll ask again:
Information on abortion by-products, research
For example, cells taken from the placenta are used in research. Other things are also of use, stem-cells, etc.
~ender 2006-01-31 20:51:PM MST

"Definitions"

I noticed someone keeps trying to add "botched abortion" and "failed abortion" into the list of definitions. I have been unable to verify that these are in fact "medical" terms, and instead seem to be neologisms created by whomever to help push their point of view. http://www.medterms.com only lists the following for "abortion" medical terms: artificial abortion, habitual abortion, induced abortion, multiple abortion, recurrent abortion, spontaneous abortion, and therapeutic abortion. Of those, artificial, induced and therapeutic all have the same meaning. Habitual and recurrend both mean 3 or more miscarriages; multiple means 2 or more miscarriages. Spontaneous is the same as a miscarriage. Peyna 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So that makes the "botched abortion" and "failed abortion" miscarriages of miscarriage. --Her girlfriend 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard or Fake "Rule" (No shock sites or photos)

Kyd, these following topics all have disturbing, shocking images of graphic violence within the wikipedia articles:

• My Lai massacre
• Nguyen Ngoc Loan
• Lynching
• Rwandan Genocide
• Torture
• Holocaust

So why is there the constant mantra here on the abortion article that no such images can even be linked to the abortion article? Why are some shocking photos of human death considered acceptable, but photos of fetal demise are absolutely censored out by you? Why the double standard? 84.146.245.55

This is not a double standard. Images must be weighed according to the value they add to the article. Shock images are available for all types of surgery, but they are generally of no value to the completeness of the article. A massacre generally only has rather graphic images, and those images can add to the article. Your comparison is inept. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And after edit conflict I note you added a genocide and a torture to your list. Your POV is showing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The images on those pages are not all that disturbing or shocking and are appropriate to describe the incident. They also can be very important to understanding the topic. However, I question how much value "shock" photos would give to this article to help the reader understand what an abortion is? Peyna 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Implied by your answer:

• 1. There is no such actual rule.
• 2. Whereas it is helpful to understand murderous atrocities via shocking photos (cut the crap on whether photos of a lynched black man is shocking), it is in no way helpful to understand abortion by seeing medical diagrams of how the procedure is performed, or photos of the procedure or the fetal tissue after abortion.
• How open-minded. 84.146.245.55

I didn't put words in your mouth, don't put them in mine. Secondly, I limited my comment to "shock" photos, which I would define as those which include copious amounts of blood, severed limbs, etc. An image of a hanging is not the same as an image of a decapitation, for example. Peyna 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see your somewhat open on the issue. Even breast implant surgery has diagrams of the surgery within the main wikipedia article. Why is it harmful to add similar diagrams to this page? 84.146.245.55

An ultrasound of an abortion is a fuzzy black and white blob. It is in no way bloody or gross. It shows what happens - what abortion is. Why is that considered improper to link to that material? 84.146.245.55

I will be adding the link to "Silent Scream" (very tasteful clinical video that describes fetal sonograms and shows a sonogram during an abortion with POV commentary). There is no rational basis to keep the link off this page, especiallt when it is virtually the only way a person can ever witness this extremely common surgery without having an abortion (and even then, most abortion doctors won't allow the mother to witness the sonogram of the fetus at any time). 84.146.245.55

It's really simple: The implied purpose for shock videos is to add POV spin.

The analogies offered weren't at all analagous. Aside from the current American White House, you're not going to find a lot of people favoring torture, so there's not much controversy. On the other hand, there are large numbers of people on both sides of the abortion issue, so it's quite controversial.

Since most people see most surgery as disturbing, disgusting and generally shocking, showing such things here is not any sort of neutral act. Therefore, I fully support the continued removal of shock images, videos, and so on, including links.

If you disagree, make an argument that addresses my points. Alienus 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a general ground rule formed by consensus; it is not the random dictat of a single user. Please note that pro-choice sites are beholden to the exact same rule, so it is not an issue of one-sided censorship, although I will admit that it is harder to find pro-choice sites which contain material which would exempt them from inclusion. Women on Waves, for instance, features a picture of the naked corpse of a victim of a botched illegal abortion.

The issue with torture and genocide articles is one of control. We don't edit those articles, so, we leave it to those who do to help determine the sort of content which is suitable to them. I know that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, I wonder if a case could be made for individual discrimination based upon "good taste." There has been a long-standing debate on the feces article as to whether the article should feature an image of a human turd.

Abortion pictures and shock links, however, wouldn't lend themselves to the educational and encyclopaedic value of the article in the same manner that other objected images might. You can try to claim that abortion pictures are being delivered in a neutral, illustrative context, but it's hard to defend them as being anything other than argumentative. We're trying to write an informative article, here, not a pamphlet arguing for or against abortion.

In Archive 12, in a thread entitled "External Links," Tznkai suggested that all the POV links in the "External links" section be done away with entirely due to its rampant bloatation and abuse. It was I who defended the value of such links, albeit if the list was trimmed down, regulated, and reorganized. See also: "External Links overhaul" (Archive 12), "Picture survey" (Archive 13), "Too Many Links!" (Archive 14), and "Link to 'Aborted Children'" (Archive 14) for futher precedent. I instituted the warning in the hope that it would motivate people to refrain from bloating the section with non-essential, non-informative sites. The interests in winnowing out such links were twofold: to keep the text length at at reasonable size, and, also, to avoid turning this from an encyclopedia article into a soapbox. If such links must be included, then move them to an appropriate sub-article, where the purpose they serve would be much more of a constructive one. I had hoped that the honour system would work and that people would be able to govern the urge to shoehorn in POV links.

Perhaps Tznkai was right after all. -Kyd 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Killerchahua, it seems that every diagram or photo of an abortion or how it is performed would offend you. As you say with torture, with abortion the only images that could ever exist would offend you. SO your standard seems to be "I don't like such images, and despite the fact any image of abortion would be offensive, I stand by my view that no one should see abortion images of any type because no one can learn anything from them." That is quite an odd view since every since people generally consider it good to be informed about surgery - but with abortion your view is that more information is bad. 84.146.246.151

What nonsense! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you even bother reading a comment before you fire off a response? -Kyd 14:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the only reason that images or ultra sounds are blocked from the abortion page is because some people have person issues with seeing them (which these issues should be dealt with by seeking professional help or not going to links in which upsetting images may be present.) Yes some things are shocking, the truth can be disturbing, in such cases as lynching or the holocaust. I see no reason why an ultra sound of an abortion or medically documented images of abortion cannot be a link on the page. A warning above the link that notified the viewer that images may be disturbing would be a truthful solution.

Since the abortion page is not about botched abortions, but abortion in itself, I see no reason why the fetus cannot be shown after the abortion or during a surgical abortion, as seen by an ultra sound. There are not even any links available.

-lizxox 13:23, 7 February, 2006 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion

Well, the straw poll has conclusively proved two things to me: m:Polls are evil is re-confirmed, and the anons editing this page have no idea how to edit a wiki page. There are currently 2 support sections, 2 oppose sections, 1 empty comments section, and several links to shock images for no purpose that I can see. Suggest terminating this noble experiment in AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: Re-adding the trolling and shock image links previously posted under the guise of participating in a poll will be reverted as vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll cop to posting two of those links, basically, in an effort give people the option to see exactly what a "no" vote would be allowing into the article. Sorry. -Kyd 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to try to clarify, but in this case it ended up being a case of Don't feed the trolls. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll initiated by Kyd

In response to comments posted on this page noting that there really is no rule banning so-called "shock links" (and that there is no definition for what would be banned), Kyd started a vote (poll) asking if we should censor links to images of abortion procedures or results, and he invited commentary. After several hours, the vote was 3 to 1 against such a ban. Apparently frustrated with the results, he wiped out the entire vote/poll/commentary section (within less than half a day). I am adding it back, since such an action is clear vandalism. Some people like to hide discussion, and even like to hide what happens during an abortion. How sad that some people think that most people can't handle objective information. 84.146.206.84 (edits made during editing conflict appear here - Diff posted here to avoid any possible confusion: [25])

See notice above. If you had left comments in comments section, kept to format Kyd wrote, it would still be there. You vandalized the poll, format, layout, added hostile commentary which was completely off=topic, and now you are whining because the mess you made has been archived. Get over it. You did this to yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyd had a link to a sample site, and I linked to the same site as part of a response to discussion he initiated. Your slip is showing. You have no intent follow rules and apply them evenhandedly. None at all. You also tried to manipulate the comments rather than let them appear within the voting, as is the wikipdia NORM! 84.146.206.84

You are the one not following the rules - Kyd was trying to establish a consensus, showing an instance of biased information from both sides of the debate. You posted inappropriate material and once posting your view in the poll continued to voice your opinion rather than let others add to it. |--Spaully 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

THere was no inappropriate material posted. As I said, I linked to the SAME images as Kyd did, simply to respond to his incorrect use of the word "alleged". If you had any sense of fairness at all you would at least concede that point. Even Kyd concedes that he was the first to post any such links in this discussion. 84.146.206.84

Spaully, there is no rule that limits dicussion. Stop pretending that there is. You folks are rabidly censoring. The way you try to cut off any discussion is fascinating. Its not as if I am simply screaming "abortion is murder" over and over. I am actually positing arguments and then backing them up with information in support. I am amazed at how much this bothers some of you. 84.146.206.84 (changed to describe what happened, not the people who did it - no intent to attack personally)

rabid censors. is a personal attack. Please cease. Cross-posting to talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a prick is also a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good advice.84.146.206.84

I had no idea at the time that I started the poll that polls themselves were violation of m:Polls are evil. My bad. Sorry. But any comments regarding the poll's so-called validity are rendered moot by this guideline. I'm writing it off as a failed experiment and a lesson in what not to do on Wikipedia. -Kyd 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you recall, I tried to point this out to you in the beginning, but folks kept censoring my comments.84.146.206.84

(Follow up: And I also let that issue go despite that fact that several of you tried to hide the reality that you actually initiated what you called a "formal vote").84.146.206.84

Nevertheless, you asked for input and then erased it when you did not like the input. Such straw polls are not at all forbiden. Becuase they may not be fruitful or beneficial does not mean they are forbidden - and there is no RULE against them. But to elininate a poll simply becuase you realize your position is not very good on the questioned posed - well, that is not good wikipedia behavior and can be seen as evidence of the weakness of your view. 84.146.206.84

Not to worry, Kyd, that isn't a policy - just a general rule of thumb. I"ve seen straw polls be helpful, on occasion. Those instances were a good faith effort on the part of all concerned to get a feel for whether there was general consensus, and ppl simply signed the correct section, kept their comments to the comments section, and so on. But usually they don't work out well, as we have seen here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, killarchihuhua, votes followed immediately by commentary (often lengthy and including back and forth debate), is standard procedure at wikipedia when voting (here is an example:[26]). The vehemence exhibited here to keep fair comments explaining a vote (or clarifying the question) off of the DISCUSSION page is VERY telling. Most people realisze that people afraid of ideas are people who don't believe or don't understand their own ideas emough to discuss and defend them - and who are not confident their own ideas will hold up when juxtaposed to other ideas.84.146.206.84

From Wikipedia:Straw polls: "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." And that's without somone editing it to place the comments in the voting section, and have duplicate voting sections. Poll was removed because it was vandalized beyond use by unknowledgable editors, discussion still continues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

YOu keep ignoring that the stadnard acceptable practice is to vote and post comments explaining the vote immediately within the vote. If you keep ignoring it, it proves my point. That is NOT disruptive or somehow incorrect. Rather it is how people do it. Remvoing polls that you do't like IS disruptive and incorrect.84.146.210.228.

Please follow the link provided to Wikipedia:Straw polls before holding forth about standard practice. Also, please use Show preview and Edit summaries, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Killerchihuhua, explain your charge of vandalism regarding the straw poll

You have made the claim (yes, I looked up your contributions [27]), now back it up. What actually was the vandalism?

• Edits to the DISCUSSION page that you don't like, yes. But vandalism? What was vandalism?
• Making the honest "mistake" of violating a rule (that all can agree does not exist) by linking to Kyd's already linked (by Kyd) pro-life shock site as part of a legitimate discussion? (no)
• Posting anonymously? (no, that is allowed)
• Posting comments clarifying a poll question in the appropriate place so that people answering the question would know what the issue is before voting? (no)
• Including comments explaining a vote as part of the vote (as is done in many places where votes are conducted on wikipedia)? (no) (proof:[28])
• What exactly is it? My persistance? IS that vandalism? Is the fact that I have exposed a chink in the "no shock sites" "policy" as applied on this page? Yes, that is it. Thats all it is - or perhaps you can clarify? It seems that your charge of vandalism is being made personally against me to mask a desire to not be bothered with following the rules at wikipedia (such as not pretending rules exist in an effort to censor out things you don't like. And to falsely smear me at the same time). 84.146.206.84

Repeatedly ignoring consensus is vandalism. Maybe you should try being a little less persistent and let everyone here have a voice. Chill out, stop drowning out everyone else in the conversation. Throwing around rule-violations is usually a Wikipedian's last attempt at restoring order, so if you find you're the target of such accusations often, maybe you should reexamine your editing approach. And btw, keep some perspective. Even if this article was 100% pro-life or pro-choice, how much of a difference in society would it have anyway? Not much. If you want to use Wikipedia for advocacy, you're wasting your time; go write your congressperson instead. --Quasipalm 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quasi, since you fail to answer the specific questions, I guess you see that it was not vandalism as defined by wikipedia.84.146.237.55

Editing in accord with the rules while others change the rules to suit their current attempts to squelch a discussion ON THE DisCUSSION PAGE is NOT vandalism. Making lengthy contributions to the DISCUSSION page is NOT vandalism even if no one else is contributing to the discussion.84.146.237.55

Repeatedly ignoring the consensus of two people that this page should have special rules only when abortion opponents are discussing their ideas is good pratice. It is NOT vandalism. The minority should always ignore attmpts by others to bully them into silence. A vote was called for and in progress and when the discussion very obviously was going to result in the admission of such links (based on the weakness of any argument for censoring them), at that point the whole section was deleted. How convenient. This would be funny if it were not such a serious attempt to squelch discussion of pertinent matters related to the article. 84.146.237.55

84, please chill out. I'm off now, and I'm not concerned enough with this debate to give it anymore thought. But I think it'd be great if you would rethink your Wikipedia strategy. Your near-manic editing style, constant demands, and your inability to end a debate until you win may not be against any rules, but nor will it win you any friends. --Quasipalm 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

At least you seem to acknowledge that the arbitrary end of a discussion on the DISCUSSION page reeks of feces. 84.146.237.55

I acknowledged no such thing -- at some point the discussion has to end. Please read my posts before responding. I really have to leave before I start breaking WP:NPA. --Quasipalm 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I always read before postig - though the same can't be said for most of you. Many just whip out the Double Standards Handbook and start typing. 84.146.210.228

Huh? --Quasipalm 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us have given up with this guy at this point. I'm pretty much on the verge of taking this to RfC because he seems intent on disrupting discussion on this and other articles as much as possible until he has his own way. He's broken WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR and WP:VAND in the space of a month and yet has managed to escape with one 48 hour block - it really does defy belief. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Images is Allowed

Without some explanation that withstands scrutiny as anything more than an attempt to protect readers from exposure to what happens during an abortion procedure (and to sanitize the article from anything that sheds negative light, however objective, on abortion), it is hereby acknowledged that linking to abortion-related medical diagrams and ultrasound images is allowed within the main article, despite the fact that some people prefer not to view them. There is no rule nor is there any basis for banning such links. Such a ban goes against wikipedia policies. Links to other types of images may also be appropriate to provide more information about various topics within the article, and it is always wrong for any editor to claim that there is a policy banning such links or images (when there is in fact no such policy). If the article discusses coathanger abortions, then a link to images related to such abortions is appropriate for readers to click on if they so desire. Etc. 84.146.253.203

There is a basis for banning such links: consensus among the editors. Consensus is the trump card here on Wikipedia, so until you have more support, your link will not be part of the article. --Quasipalm 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BUt there is no ban and can't be. Each link gets discussed on the merits and there has to be discussion about why it shoudl or should not be present. That is where you have it all wrong.84.146.237.55

No, we don't need to re-discuss each link individually. We have reached consensus about shock images, and the verdict is a clear no. --Quasipalm 17:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding coathangers - that is a ridiculous idea, why don't we just start a "How to do backyard abortions" article?

As for ultrasound and medical images, I suggest you ask for a consensus in the talk page before linknig to them in the article. -|-Spaully 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The "ultrasound image" being discussed is the Silent Scream. Someone added a link to this two days ago on the Abortion page [29]; this is what precipitated the whole mess. -Kyd 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the silent scream, I would definitely consider this innapropriate in this article. | Spaully 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You both have it backwards. The original problem is that the across the board banning of illustrative links was done WITHOUT consensus or discussion. It was just announced. That is the problem. Thats not how it works. I am sur eyou all realize that. I have never even attempted to link to any images. Its about the principal that such links are automatically banned and deleted without any discussion on the merits. 84.146.237.55

You have no more authority to declare abitrary rules than I do. There remains a precedent, in practice, of zero tolerance for shock links and images (even if you've sabotaged the effort to create a hard consensus with disruptive behavior). Three instances of the enforcement of the informal rule against shock links from three seperate users:

• Abortion: Archive 14: See thread titled "Link to 'Aborted Children.'" User Cyde.
• Abortion diff: User Tznkai reverting the in-article addition of a shock picture.
• Fetal pain diff: User KillerChihuahua. I was the one who intitally reverted this. KC must have had the article on her WatchList and entered the fray of her own volition.

-Kyd 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "no shock links rule". And there is no definition of "shock links". Right now your definition is "links I don't like". That will not do. Again, each link gets evaluated - truly evaluated. And after discussion of why it should or should not be present the consensus will be known. 84.146.237.55

Here's your definition of "shock links." Shock links are links the vast majority of editors view to be shock links. Can we move on now? --Quasipalm 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Which requires a discussion of the link before simply banning it. You can't speak for what most editors would think. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DISCUSSION PAGE - TO FIGURE THAT OUT! Yet the very attempt to discuss this was BANNED! Amazing. I am sure you are not prouid of that fact. You cannot be. Its shameful. It makes it look like there is something to hide. You may want to encourage another approach. "No discussion on the discussion page" is a shitty policy. Currently, as of the last tally, the links should be allowed (the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of such links before the losers pulled the discussion). Since the side that was losing banned discussion of the topic, they have to live with the consequences of censoring without consensus. Last known consensus is to allow links. 84.146.237.55

All of Wikipedia is a shared space -- your sense of entitlement is misplaced. You can't demand that your link be discussed when consensus is that it has long been settled. Your goal here should be to win some friends among the established editors, instead of annoying everyone so much that they write you off as a shrill advocate for a specific POV. -Quasipalm 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The only users to vote for allowing shock links are Ronabop and you. The third was an anon IP, who I'm liable to believe was you, Goodandevil, as you have a history of anon IP sockpuppetry. Quasipalm, KillerChihuahua, and I have clearly stated shock links are a no-no. This moves the tally to 3/3 (if you AGF on the second anon IP vote). Other users, including Cyde and Tznkai, have followed "no shock links" in practice, although I'm to going to assume if or how they'd vote. The winds are clearly not in your favour. So, why push against them? -Kyd 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: I wasn't voting in favor of including "shock links" on WP, I was voting against a blanket policy of fixed authoritarian rules being applied to this article, which could lead to new editors confused about how consensus is reached on WP. Links and sites which are soapboxes are obviously a problem, but I wasn't happy with the particular solution being proposed. Ronabop 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you just violated WP:CIVIL twice in one post. Not a great move if you're trying to get people to become sympathetic to your view. -Kyd 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shock links violate NPOV, they are inherently POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Says you, capriciously.84.146.210.228 An ultrasound is not a shocklink - yet the "no shock links" dogma was used as reason for banning it out of hand. It happens to be the the only website that actually shows people what happens during an abortion (very clinically and with ultrasound). How sad (and very very very telling) that abortion supporters don't have any site that does the same. They don't want anyone to know. And neither does wikipedia, apparently. 84.146.210.228 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The silent scream is, to say the least, not an objective depiction of abortion. It is making a case against abortion, using emotive (and incorrect in many instances) language. Coupled to that it is outdated, made in 1984, and our understanding of the foetus during development during the last 20 years has progressed markedly. If you want a consensus on this particular link, I assure you this consensus will be against it - it IS a shock link. | Spaully 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I crawled over their (Silent Scream) content.... I had no idea that 'organized crime' was behind Ob/Gyn medical facilities. (er, yup, that's actually in one of their movies, no joke). :-) The Silent Scream movie procedure is a suction aspiration procedure (only one type of abortion), and the language used is fairly over-the-top. It doesn't meet my standards for "shocking", but it's clearly an advocacy piece, and intentionally misleading (and inaccurate) at times. It probably doesn't belong in this article page, just because it's not about abortion as a whole (it's only about one procedure, and clearly advocacy), but it may be suitable for one of the deeper pages. Ronabop 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this as well, and agree with your conclusion. It's pure POV, and not even the sane, measured sort. Alienus 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronabop. I personally wasn't "shocked" when I checked it out, but I did find it to be complete and utter POV garbage. However, it was inteded to shock, and there has been a consensus in the past about not including purposefully advocacy-driven shocking links.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

External links are for garnering more information on a specific topic. The links you post are not informational - they are to pictures that are displayed to deliberately push a point of view across, and it is for this reason that they are not allowed. I would even say that the link at Silent Scream is inappropriate, and would it be at pro-life. Silent Scream isn't intended to give information, it is intended to shock. Sites such as the NRLC and Prolife UK provide useful info on the views of pro-life individuals and are thus just about OK, but in their nature they belong only under pro-life for people looking for more info on those views, and not in an article like this one because they are inherently biased and not useful. I'm sure you'll get it one of these days, 84. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting

Might it be worth semi-protecting this page permanently? It seems to me that 99% of constructive edits come from people who have been Wikipedians for a while, and it seems to be a major vandalism target. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The level of vandalism is not high enough to consider protection. We usually don't semi-protect this article because the issues are usually borderline - extreme POV pushing is a content dispute, not vandalism. Futher, there is no "permanently semi-protect" at this time. George W. Bush is the closest thing we have, and it is vandalized on the order of once a minute when un semi'd. In other words, no. Does not even meet the level of vandalism required to semi, let alone consider keeping it semi-protected. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the issues with 84 are more content dispute than anything, I usually see vandalism regularly cropping up on here, and it seems we spend so much time dealing with extreme POV issues and vandalism that little is managed these days. Still, given the circumstances that semi-protection should be used in according to the Wikipedia guidelines, I see your point. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

I have reported User:Informativemiss for violation of WP:3RR here. Please make any additions you feel necessary. Natgoo 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know if you noticed that the edits changed. Maybe you forgot to look? (I didn't put revert the last time.) I don't know why you're so upset, but I made sure that the photographs on the last were authentic. Informativemiss 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but the anon's reverts were in exactly the same style as yours, and contained the same material. There is no consensus to alter the community's decision to not include links to shock sites. Please stop insisting. Natgoo 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)