Talk:Abortion/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Progress report (and suggestions) II

• Opening paragraph: Done.
• Definitions: A few issues remain to be addressed. However, for the most part, the current outline is good.
• Incidence: Done. However, the table remains to be reinstated, following changes which need to be made to it. These are addressed in the thread "Clarify the percentages?" in Archive 17.
• Forms of abortion: Partially-completed. See individual sections for more.
  • Spontaneous abortion: This really hasn't been touched since the first Progress Report.
  • Induced abortion: Addional sources and information needed for all sub-sections ("Surgical abortion," "Chemical abortion," and "Other means of abortion")
• Health effects: Still needs a reorganization and sourcing. The "Suggested effects" sub-sections ("Breast cancer," "Fetal pain," "Mental health"), however, are largely complete.
• History of abortion: Done.
• Social issues: Partially-completed. Does anyone have any ideas for futher issues needing coverage?
  • Effect upon crime: Done.
  • Forced abortion: This section needs to be sourced and written. This is an idea that's been kicking around since "Abortion related to the disabled community" in Archive 12.
  • Sex-selective abortion: Done.
  • Unsafe abortion: Done. However, I wouldn't mind adding regional information, such as that presented in the sources listed at "Next on the Agenda: Unsafe Abortion" in Archive 15.
• Abortion debate: The current version is pretty good. Suggestions?
  • Public opinion: Polling data from additional countries is still needed. Any volunteers?
• Abortion law: Done.
• Historical perspectives: Recent edits have suggested that there are issues with the "History of abortion" section. The current version focuses almost entirely on the history of abortion procedures and fails to cover the debate. Perhaps a "Historical perspectives" section could be created under either "Abortion debate" or "History of abortion?"

-Kyd 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, you're amazing. I agree with Historical perspectives, under Abortion debate. Otherwise, all I can do is applaud and admire. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured this sort of outline was a little too long for the to-do list. :) -Kyd 07:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Abortion pictures: This subject is remarkably void of actual pictures. Earlier posts have suggested that any actual picture showing the products of abortion would be a "shock picture" or "pro-life" biased. It is absurd to consider such a picture for either side if the picture is the simple result of this subject. At least have a medical diagram like that famous partial-birth one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.12.24 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 March 2006.

This is an encyclopaedia article, not a pamphlet. And, FYI, three pictures have been added to the article in the past week or two. -Kyd 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The images currently on the page should be medical images. The ones we have now are all of tangential issues. The MAIN purpose of the article is to make one familiar with what abortion is, and a secondary purpose to inform the reader about other things associated with abortion. The photos now present are a poor use of images for an article about a medica procedure. Good 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm saying. A medical article needs medical pictures. An ancient engraving, or even some chemical composition is really quite...meaningless. Abortion is about the removal of a fetus. It defies reason to suggest that the article doesn't need at least one picture (or at least a diagram) of a fetus being extracted or of a fetus that has already been extracted.

Straw poll, opening line

Moved to: Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

Infanticide & Eugenics

These are featured prominently in the disputed paragraph. There is no reputable, reliable source that associates abortion with them. I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph, only to have it reverted twice by Kyd. Here' how I wrote it:--Pro-Lick 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Some abortions are undergone as the result of societal pressures. The most common pressures include prevention or rejection of other contraceptive methods, attempting to avoid disabled people, preference for children of a specific sex (sex-selective abortion), disapproval of single mothers, insufficient economic support for families, or efforts toward population control (such as China's one-child policy). All of these may be the result of either personal fear or force. In many areas, especially in developing nations or where abortion is illegal, women sometimes resort to "back-alley" or self-induced procedures. The World Health Organization suggests that there are 19 million terminations annually which fit its criteria for an unsafe abortion. ^[1] See social issues for more information on these subjects.

Well, "attempting to avoid disabled people" is clearly the wrong phrasing. That sounds like crossing the street so as not to walk by the guy in the wheelchair. Otherwise, I don't see what the problem is with your paragraph, or why Kyd is reverting it... Kyd, whaddya say? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick has failed to clariy what exactly is objectionable (and thus why the wholesale blanking valid information could be considered in any way acceptable). -Kyd 05:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now accepting rewrites for the disabled phrase. Presently, "the stigmatization of...". "Objectionable" is unsourced allusions to things that have, at best, an indirect relationship with the article topic.--Pro-Lick 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears to me from the above that he's saying that we have no source authorizing us to refer to "infanticide" and "eugenics" in particular in the section in question - is that true? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why only "infanticide" and "eugenics"? Why not "compulsory sterilization", too? -Kyd 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks. Compulsory sterilaization is not abortion nor invloves abortion. It should be removed too.--Pro-Lick 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a comprehensive discussion of to what societal pressures can lead. It serves to show the issue in greater context. Are we so myopic that we can't see the forest for the trees? -Kyd 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should focus on the main societal issues, not highlight rare and insignicant categories. That's more appropriate for the history page.--Pro-Lick 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Abortion photo bias

This features "self abuse", not the Tansy pills it is forced to note with a comment underneath. Another example of trying to portray abortion negatively. It has a place in a section on the ad history of abortion, not here. That, or make it clearly visible and focused on the Tansy pills portion of the ad.--Pro-Lick 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a terrible photo, that doesn't actually illustrate what it purports to. The most prominent words in the image have nothing to do with abortion, and it's therefore misleading and prejudicial. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know that clicking an image can enlarge it? -Kyd 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Don't you know that no amount of enlarging that particular image makes the relevant text legible? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Caton's Tansy Pills! The most reliable remedy for ladies. Always safe, effectual, and the only guaranteed women's salvation. Price $1. Second advice free. R. F. Caton, Boston, Mass." -Kyd 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have a better monitor, or a better browser, or better eyes than I do. I can read on the image page that the ad says what you claim it says, according to the uploader. When I save the image to my hard drive and enlarge it with my picture viewer, the resolution is far too poor to make out those words. I maintain that it's a terrible image, with the relevant part practically invisible, and the irrelevant words "Self-Abuse" appearing large and clear and misleading readers. I was misled, the first time I saw it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, some of us can use a magnifying glass or a image resizer, too. It still doesn't change how the image appears on the main page or the ads that get featured instead of the ad that is supposedly being featured.--Pro-Lick 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making the close-up image, Kyd. I think that works better. Now, a new reader's eye is caught by the right headline, and the text is available without having to click through. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't mean to be snappy. I'm merely trying to juggle a thousand things at once (most of it being research for History of abortion. -Kyd 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I was too harsh, I think, calling it a "terrible image". It's actually a really cool image that we're lucky to have in the article. "The only guaranteed women's salvation" - I guess any definition of abortion we end up using will be less POV than that! -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to read. Making out the words consists largely of staring at it hawkishly and filling in the blanks. I found it after two days of restless Googling. I imagine the original discoverer scanned it from microfiche (which probably accounts for the poor resolution). I'm currently transcribing the rest of the ads -- which, so far, are putting to bed all notions of prudish, buttoned-to-the-collar Victorians in my mind. -Kyd 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've transcribed about as much of the ad as I can. Thinly-veiled ads for aphrodisiacs, male enhancement pills, and an abortifacient. Read if you feel like being tittilated, disgusted, and/or mildly amused. -Kyd 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive and thnak you.--Pro-Lick 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Priorities

The Progress Report rots above 20 "death" discussions. The to-do list collects dust because all of our manpower is dedicated to circular debates and POV-coddling. Any effort toward productive work (see "Complusory abortion") is quickly snuffed by the "death" talk. What can I say, I've been editing here almost a year, and I still don't know anything about priorities. I'll tie up a few loose ends, but, then, I'm done here. -Kyd

I agree with your sentiment, and apologize for briefly getting caught up in debate as opposed to progress. I personally appreciate all of your hard work and time you have put into this article. Abortion is a very touchy issue for many people, and I feel there are always going to be POV warriors trying to make things their way, instead of encyclopedic. But you can't make people stop being passionate about this issue. I've tried to avoid the debates for the past couple days, and now am waiting for the steam to blow off before contributing again. I hope you decide not to leave us, because seriously, your work and input does NOT go unnoticed. Thank you for all you have done over the past year.-Andrew c 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just came back from a vacation and was evidently biting off way more than I could chew to compensate for my Wiki-absence. I've cleaned up the mess that my exploding Wiki-stress thermometer made (sorry if anyone got splattered with Wiki-mercury). The gripe about skewed priorities, however, stands. But, I guess the only thing to do is duck out of the debate and get down to business. -Kyd 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If death isn't a priority, why argue against the sources? Let the sources speak and leave it at that. It would give us all more time to work with you on the priorities (rather than view them as a distraction).--Pro-Lick 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suicide rates revisited.......

I know that the Finland study on suicide rates was discussed a fair bit here a while back - is it worth putting into the article their claims of an increased risk of suicide of 650%? That seems fairly significant to the study.....I know one of the biggest objections to having more information in this regard has been the claim that it is due to existing conditions at the time of the abortion that increased risk of depression, etc. occurs - but I found a citation of

Morgan CM, Evans M, Peter JR, Currie C. Mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion. British Medical Journal 1997; 314:902. text here

which stated that A record-based measure of suicide attempts before and after abortion has shown that the subsequent increase in suicide rates among aborting women is not related to prior suicidal behavior but is most likely related to adverse reactions to the abortion.

Also included was a citation of

7. Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren FJ,, Cougle JR, Coleman, PK, Strahan T. "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," Southern Medical Journal. 2002;95(8):834-841. text here

that found that higher suicide rates subsequent to abortion persist for several years and are highest for younger women.

Also, in a letter published to the British medical journal by Reardon [2] - he states that:

"Four large, record-based studies have found a significant and strong association between abortion and elevated mortality rates compared to women who carry to term....There have yet to be any studies that contradict these findings."

In my opinion this is worth inclusion - opinions?

Reardon is a definite no-no in terms of bias. [3] So is Ney, who, frankly, does not understand the first thing about the scientific method in coining a syndrome which relies on some sort of pseudoscientific psychic foreknowledge: [4]

P: Tell us about some of the other effects that abortion has on the larger family and on society.

N: Certainly. Well the other thing of course, since I am a child psychiatrist, I talk to children. And it soon comes to my attention in interviewing children that they begin to suspect or frankly they know that one of their siblings was aborted. So what is it like now to grow up in a home where you suspect or you know that one of your little unborn siblings was aborted? It creates a whole range of very, very deep conflicts. And we now call that post-abortion survivor syndrome.

They have in common many of the conflicts that were found in those people who survived the Holocaust. For instance they have survivor guilt. They feel it is not right for them to be alive. And they wonder why they should be selected when their little siblings were selected to die … which is precisely what happened to the people from the Holocaust. Why were they selected to live and some of their friends, relatives, and family were selected to die? And it leaves this deep sense of guilt. And that is a difficult, difficult thing to treat, because it is so deeply embedded. And of course with that is how can you trust your parents? Are they capable of killing you too? They killed one of your little siblings. And then it comes down to one of the deepest fears of all children, which is my parents might kill and eat me. And of course you see that in children’s stories like Hansel and Gretel, the wicked witch is going to put them in the oven. In various cultures, in various parts of the world all have deeply embedded this very deep fear that children have that their parents might kill and eat them. And of course abortion comes very close to that. And so it creates an enormous distrust of your parents. And if you can't trust your parents then it is likely that you are not going to trust parent-like figures: teachers and everybody… priests. How can you people like that who take life, innocent life, or don’t protect it as much as they should?

We can mention Reardon and Ney's findings if we note objections to their methodology, which is not without criticism, or relax our standards pertaining to author bias (which means admiting the JAMA study on fetal pain, too). Perhaps other users won't share my concern; however, I felt it needed to be noted. I don't mean to be harsh. I appreciate your research efforts. I'm sure the other sources will prove useful. -Kyd 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that whenever there is professional criticism of a source by peers then the article needs to mention it?Good 21:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Media Abortion Bias Source

I have often posted here that the media (at least the US media) generally embrace abortion as a solution that should be available to all pregnant women. I note this simply to assist us all in realizing that data indicates that the media (journalists and entertainers) viewpoint does not reflect popular opinion. The source for this is research available here. According to this research, at least 96% of persons in these media favor abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. I am looking for similar research regarding academics and will post it if I find it. It should make us all take pause before simply considering media-generated information as neutral sources. This can also help explain why "pro-abortion" euphemisms are so prevalent in the media and thus in our culture (and why journalists adopted the made up term "anti-abortion" despite the fact that the commonly used standard English term is "pro-life"). Good 09:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

                   Elite Opinions  (source: [5]

"We designed the three samples to include people who have reached positions of significant influence and power in their respective professions. The business sample includes chief executive officers, chairmen, presidents and vice presidents of Fortune 1000 companies. The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines, and wire services. Finally, the Hollywood sample includes the writers, directors, and producers of recent top-grossing films and highest-rated television shows."

             By: Total % who agree (% who strongly agree)

           Abortion--         Adultery    Gay lifestyle
         right to choose [a]   wrong [b]   acceptable [c]

Business 86 (62) 94 (61) 35 (9) Media 97 (84) 78 (45) 73 (40) TV/Movie 96 (87) 77 (41) 79 (51)

(a.)It is a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

(b.)It is wrong for a married person to have sexual relations with someone other than his or her spouse.

(c.)Homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality.

           Government          Reduce         Decrease
         guarantee jobs [a]  income gap [b]  regulation [c]

Business 34 (9) 24 (2) 94 (71) Media 71 (30) 75 (34) 39 (5) TV/Movie 63 (30) 61 (27) 39 (6)

(a.)The government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.

(b.)The government should work to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor.

(c.)Less government regulation of business would be good for the country.

Good 09:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

G&E: please, please use short section headers. Long ones make it very hard, if not impossible, to enter edit summaries. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Media bias can be an issue; in fact bias in general can be an issue. This is one reason we tend to really examine sources. We have over 70 references and not all are from the media. That said, "media bias" is often mis-used and over-used, and is frequently used to shore up a position when the position is tenuous.

The term "anti-abortion" has been discussed and rejected previously on this talk page, precisely because "pro-life" is more commonly used. However, to characterize "anti-abortion" as "made-up" and inaccurate is missing the point; if there are two positions, those who believe abortions are wrong and those who believe abortions are ok, then some consider a less biased way of describing them is "pro-postion" for both, or "anti-position" for both. And "pro-life" is actually a misnomer; most abortion opponents are also in favor of the death penalty. However, if we speak of "pro-choice" we must speak of "pro-something" to avoid the percieved inherent bias in having one side be "pro" and one "anti". Although of course there are other debates where that is a non-issue for both sides - I don't recall anyone suggesting that the death penalty be so described (pro- and anti- is the usual way of describing, and no one seems to feel that is an inherent implied bias.)

And thank you for shortening the header, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pro-life isn't found in the 1913 Webster's dictionary or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. No one here can come up with the word in a dictionary before it became used by anti-abortionists. Pro-choice isn't in them either, but it is the term that was invented 1st and then copied by anti-abortionists trying to gain spin leverage.--Pro-Lick 04:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The so-called study was using business executives as its reflection of "popular opinion" to judge media people. In other words, the study determined business executives do not reflect the opinion of people that actually get out and report on the world. The bias problem is from executives paying off people to perform a study with a pre-determined slant and outcome.--Pro-Lick 04:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick, your analysis is a bit off. The non-Media executives are NOT claimed to be representative of the general population in this research. I simply point out the facts one can garner from this study: those who control MEDIA content are 97% in favor of abortion. This is much higher than the views of the general population. From the research article: "The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines, and wire services. Finally, the Hollywood sample includes the writers, directors, and producers of recent top-grossing films and highest-rated television shows"). Logical conclusion: those who control the media have a pro-abortion bias that does not mirror society.

For those who have trouble following the relevance of the various groups in the study: The study simply included the NON-MEDIA execs as a control group of highly educated leaders to compare to MEDIA leaders (in order to see if it was simply education or leadership that might explain the views of educated leaders). After all, the CEO of Exxon Mobil or General Motors do not generally impact public opinion on social issues such as abortion - however the MEDIA does impact such public opinion. In this case, the study revealed that it was not simply education or leadership that correlated with the leaders' views, but the type of industry the educated leaders worked in - MEDIA (journalism and Hollywood) leaders favored abortion almost to a man, whereas non-MEDIA leaders tended to be more "conservative" but were not quite as monolithic on abortion. The point to underscore is that MEDIA (news/hollywood) influences public opinion, and MEDIA leaders are monolithic abortion supporters, whereas the general population do not monolithically support abortion. And my point has been deonstrated as based in analytical research: media information about abortion must be viewed with caution as the industry is led by monolithic abortion supporters.

Good 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

blame game--Pro-Lick 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of fetus

Please see Talk:American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Fetus.2FFoetus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that fetus is the one we should be using since we seem to have defaulted to using American English (no problem there). However: contrary to what you have written foetus is a valid spelling in British English, although as you say it is not preferred by medical journalists. Run through google.co.uk and you'll find that the spelling is in widespread use and is found in the Oxford English dictionary. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that, it was written by several other editors. Please take another look, and if you believe any part is in error please specify which part. Further, what was written is that foetus is used, in British spelling, but is not accepted by the British medical community. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should use the spelling agreed upon by the medical community. They are the expert sources.--Pro-Lick 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should use fetus exclusively to remain consistent. This falls under keeping the spelling used by the orinial author, not because foetus is seen as being incorrect - it has a history older than the US! |→ Spaully°τ 15:36, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

Agreed. FWIW, when I researched the use of the word feticide I noticed that the few Pubmed refs to foeticide all came from India (usually referring to the "female foeticide" practice). By the way, the latin word fetus is actually older than the UK and the US combined. When in daily use it had numerous meanings, such as pregnant, giving birth, or progeny. AvB ÷ talk 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The latin word 'fetus' did not originally however refer exclusively to what we now think of as a foetus, it seems to have originally meant "offsrping" or "young one" and was adopted with a different meaning later, it seems only 100 years or so before the variant arose.

It's age as a variant makes it as correct as 'aluminum', given the scientific community is against it but there is widespread (almost exclusive in their respective countries) use. However no-one is disputing it should be fetus, as with the 'Aluminium' article. |→ Spaully°τ 17:50, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Possibly. Fetus was, so far as I can determine, first spelled foetus as a pseudo-hellenization of the spelling in the 18th century. As Avb correctly notes above, the word has a latin origin - hence the hellenization (Greek spelling) is incorrect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Foetus is the acceptable British spelling, (c.f. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Ed., 2002, p 997), and derives directly from the Latin word, spelled in the same manner (c.f., Cassell's Latin Dictionary, 1968, pp 252). The word has no predecessor from any other language, i.e., it is not from Greek, where had it been from Greek, the "ph" (Φ} would have been retained as the sound of "ph" and "f" were not, at that time, equivalent (in fact the "ph" was an aspirated "p", as in "p-huh"). Additionally, the word has no provable link to *PIE. The "foetus" spelling is slightly older, with the "oe" representing a diphthong with the sound founf in "boy", however, this sound was not in imitation of the Greek dipthong found in "οι", which had a similar sound, but rather the "oy" sound is one of the first of the *PIE diphthongs to develop. I hope this clears up this issue. Jim62sch 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Jim62sch's linguistic lingo: the spelling used in all but the oldest Latin sources is fetus. It did not originate in Greek or in the hypothetical proto-Indo-European language but originally appeared in Latin. UK English spelling is foetus. AvB ÷ talk 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Well, thank you Jim for your usual linguistic thoroughness; at least equal thanks to AvB for the translation from linguistic-ese to something the puppy can comprehend. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure guys, glad to help. AvB, I didn't realise that I'd made it that obtuse. Excellent translation, though. (BTW: "linguistic lingo" is a nice pun)  :) Jim62sch 20:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Teehee, could well be me underestimating present company & puppies. AvB ÷ talk 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical, or not?

Please explain the basis for holding that the professional opinions of these doctors/organizations/resources as to the definition of pregnancy do not qualify as "medical" opinions:

• Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 2004 (provided by Merck Pharmeceuticals online) [6]
• The GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA of MEDICINE, SECOND EDITION, 2002 [7]
• National Institutes for Health (Meriam Webster Medical Dictionary) [8] and [9]
• MedicineNet.com [10]
• The Center for Cancer Education, University Of Newcastle upon Tyne [11]
• Dr. Joseph A. Spinnato, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky and 50% of the Ob/Gyns of Louisville, KY [12]
• American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [13]
• From Association of Pro Life Physicians [14]
• 227 doctors listed here who have signed on to this medical analysis

Our friend Kyd and perhaps others have claimed that defining pregnancy as beginning at fertilization is somehow NOT a medical definition. In light of these many listed references that agree with the fertilization definition, such a stance seems to no longer be defensible. Good 16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

However it turns out, I support your pursuit of reputable, reliable, medical sources to determine the beginning.--Pro-Lick 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments or refutation of the many medical sources that use the alternate medical definition, I have edited the article accordingly. The existence of these many medical sources is a fact that cannot be refuted. There should be no dispute that the definition be described as a "medical" one. I do understand that people may wish to re-word my edit for style. Good 09:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with G&E - he does have medical sources, that have nothing to do with pro-life organisations, identifying pregnancy as starting at conception. Even the pro-life associations - being associations of doctors, their alternate definition can correctly be identified as medical. It is obviously indicated that it is not the primary definition, but an alternative - I think it's ok as it has been reworded.DonaNobisPacem 09:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that this article uses the medical community's (i.e. the first) defition of pregnancy throughout... otherwise some information (such as the "10-15% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage") could be confusing or misleading.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical term for period between fertilization and implantation

1. What is the term for this period?

2. Is a woman gestating during this period?

Good 16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What? None of the 227 American Life League doctors can provide an answer?--Pro-Lick 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a specific term - there may not be one. The WP article on Fertilization states: "The time from actual fertilisation (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored" (under Fertilisation in mammals/Human fertilization) and Human fertilization has a good bit more, but it ends prior to implantation, as one might expect. Implantation is a redirect to Pregnancy. I have of course looked outside WP, but this seemed a good place to start, as other articles here might have references. Gestation is "the carrying of an embryo or fetus inside a female viviparous animal." Not sure how much help that is. Where were you thinking this term would be useful? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to answer q2. Gestation is another one of those terms - although apparently (and I have not made an exhaustive study) gestation is generally considered to begin with fertilization not implantation. Some sources give it as a Term to Avoid, as it is also used to describe post-implantation develelopment of the embryo. And I know that wasn't much help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1. What is the term for this period?

For the embryo, it is preimplantation development, such as cleavage. I do not believe there is a term for this period in reference to the woman because there is no physical changes until implantation.--Andrew c 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Is a woman gestating during this period?

The woman isn't doing anything during this period. It isn't until after implantation and the blastocyst starts releasing hCG do changes start occuring in the woman. Like I said, IVF fails 20-30% of the time. Putting an embryo inside of a woman does not automatically make her pregnant. A handful of pro-life doctors having opinions otherwise doesn't make these women any more pregnant.--Andrew c 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the first 6 sources listed in the section above, none of which are pro-life doctors or advocacy groups? You must have, or your comments make no sense - unless they are disingenuous. And I don't think you are disingenuous. By the way, every blastocyst and every zygote is also at the same time, biologically speaking, an embryo. Good 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Breast Cancer bias

Another section with undue weight and bias to a fringe view that is viewed as myth by the medical community. It needs rewriting to give it context. The Breast cancer article doesn't even mention abortion. Yet another indicator that this section along with the POV fork article it links to have little if any significance outside a politicially motiviated groups that use it for propaganda.--Pro-Lick 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Myth, not quite, do better research; I'd hate to think all those scientists were doing studies on a "myth". Good point about the breast cancer article, I think it should be mentioned somewhere; but I wanted that to come about organically. However, it does indeed undercut the ABC article. I'll get on it at some point, thanks. Although no ganrantees it'll be kept of course. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course they won't keep it. It's for actual breast cancer information, not pseudoscience.--Pro-Lick 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously not in a position to say that (that being what constitutes pseudoscience, pro-choice POV warriors say things like that). If you continue to attribute your POV to others (ie. medical/scientific community), you won't be permitted to edit articles; that sort of behavior and arrogance is entirely unacceptable here. Just as the NCI is not in a authoritative position to say what is and is not "accepted" research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, NCI a reputable, reliable source. Or RoyBoy.--Pro-Lick 02:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you were't aware, the NCI does not constitute the whole of the medical and scientific community. This isn't a debatable point; and I didn't question the NCI's reputation; I'm clarifying to you they are not authoritative on what is "acceptable" research. You want them to be; because that follows with what you consider acceptable. Stop hiding your POV behind sources. I don't mind your POV in the least; I mostly take issue with your "I'm right" attitude; stemming from consistenly preliminary research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Same POV argument repeated. Have a better source, provide, don't hide.--Pro-Lick 05:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You need a source for me to demonstrate the NCI doesn't represent the whole of the medical and scientific community; and isn't the authority on what constitutes "acceptable" scientific studies??? Get real, and get off your high-source-horse. This is ridiculous on its face; and made more so by asking me to find a source to prove a fantasy of yours wrong. Honestly Pro-Lick, how can I find a source that would state that, when only you have been asserting they have that authority to begin with. It is your POV, you don't have a source to back it up, yet you are pretending you do in order to gloss over that its your POV. I don't need to find a source to state the obvious. (BTW, in case you don't know, the strength of the evidence "well established" is an internal assessment by the NCI; rather than an international or even national standard) The NCI is influencial, yes, authoritative, nope. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As to a rewriting, I don't see that happening; and is completely unnessisary. But your objection does remind me of a similar objection from another editor with whom I've collaborated... it does hit home the need for context; my thinking has been to tease them with an ambiguous opening so they will feel the need to read the article so they could be better informed on the subject. But I guess that's a little foolhardy of me; perhaps adding "The ABC hypothesis currently has little support in the medical community." or alternatively "Most in the medical community are skeptical of the ABC hypothesis; and it is seen by pro-choice observers as pro-life propoganda." to the end of would do the trick? You could propose changes; but again a full rewrite, I'm unsure how that's required. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a sample rewrite under a subheading later.--Pro-Lick 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

MedicineNet.com list of conditions that "increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer". Abortion is not listed.--Pro-Lick 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the title of the article Pro-Lick. If you come across a word that looks like "hypothesis", let me know. Then think about how that word may provide context as to its status in the scientific community. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the meaning. The problem is that it gives it a far more official sound than the scientific and medical communities give to what they consider unfounded fertilizer. You'll also note that despite all this, I haven't changed or removed "hypothesis". The problem I have is that you feature the least scientifically valid research in the article. It should highlight the consensus view of authorities on the subject, no? If it were truly up to me, I'd put that doctor and his hypothesis into an article on medical quacks and purge everything else on them from Wiki as WP:VAIN. For now, I guess I'll write the Coca-cola Stomach Cancer Cure hypothesis article using my interview-based evidence with Coca-cola executives.--Pro-Lick 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Some consider it fertilizer, many are non-committal/skeptical and a few support the hypothesis. Such polarization and black and white notions are rare in scientific research; but you would actually have to delve into the research to comprehend that. Positive results exist which are far removed from Brind; and some positive results were acquired without using interview-based studies. By the way many interview-based studies have not been discredited; rather allegations of response bias etc. have been leveled. And some of those flaws are indeed valid; the problem is no one has bothered to see if they had a statistically significant impact on the studies in question. But for people pre-disposed to thinking the ABC link is a myth, mere allegations is enough to remove them from consideration. Doesn't sound terribly scientific to me. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish is a POV. I quoted actual research responding to the anti-abortion lecture circuit "scientist" who has a total of 1 peer reviewed article published that is officially considered obsolete. Just read below. It starts with "Odd".--Pro-Lick 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

POV also qualifies for your assertions of "unfounded fertilizer" and "obsolete". There is no doubt anti-abortion people are interested in the ABC subject to undermine abortion in the United States, and they are willing to pay someone who indeed has published a peer reviewed article on the subject; to discuss it with them. This anti-abortion dynamic is elaborated on in the ABC article; but is noted after, and made secondary to the scientific studies. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How many peer reviewed articles? 1, as I stated. And which are not obsolete? None, as cited below...--Pro-Lick 05:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What cite? And before you tell me, I assure you that you are wrong on obsolete. Because if you are referring to the letter sent to the journal by Melbye; that would be like me saying; oh Brind sent a letter to the journal with this and that objection; that makes the Melbye study unreliable. Which of course is not the case. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd that the article references Brind's complaining, but doesn't reference, for example, the Danish authors correcting him: "We find [Brind's] argument self-contradictory and based on fundamental misconceptions about the cohort design." (New England Journal of Medicine, June 19, 1997).--Pro-Lick 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to; because the ABC article does mention that. (do a find on self-contradictory) Don't even attempt to present yourself as knowledgeable on this subject; I am way ahead of you. The article explains how (at least on the self-contradictory point, which is what it focuses on; since someone else removed the entire quote a long time back), they are being disingenuous rather than corrective. I'd encourage you to try and find Brind's response; but then again if you're not interested in that; then you've only done half the work necessary to actually know what you are talking about. (If you are not prepared to look at both sides, then don't consider yourself ready to edit controversial articles) If you need clarification on things, try something different, actually ask me about it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion article (section on breast cancer, of course). Please focus. If Brind's response appeared in a peer-reviewed medical publication, then source it. Otherwise, the only reputable, reliable source is the one provided by the Danish authors. The simple reality is Brind's claim is presented as the majority and authoritive source, when, even as you admit, few (and even fewer sourced) actually support Brind's claims.--Pro-Lick 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not presented as the majority or authoritative in the least, the wording specifical names him (an individual rather than an organization) and his objections. It clarifies there wasn't unamnimous support for the conclusions at the NCI workshop. That is notable, I certainly agree with you that it is not authoritative in any way. (and actually, specifically regarding his comments about the NCI workshop, I'm unaware of any reputable source that repeats them; but he is an expert and he was at the conference)

As to the Danish authors; that is also notable, but the section in the Abortion#Breast Cancer sub-section is a summary of the entire subject. Putting the back and forth of that specific discussion is unnessisary, too detailed and begins to bloat the section; which again is meant as a summary. On this specific line of questioning, I apologize to you Pro-Lick, it was a reasonable concern to raise. But to not put the back and forth of the Danish response and Brind's response wasn't an oversight on our part; but an editorial decision. You simply cannot put that quotation without further explaination and rebuttal; but again that's a lot of information that simply does not belong in the lead. Which I will be reverting tomorrow to avoid me further violating the 3RR. I take WikiPolicy seriously, as I believe it leads to better articles and a better WikiCulture. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If the give and take is too much, it seems best to not include only Brind's objection. Summarize the net effect, that the hypothesis is not accepted by the medical community, that the medical community considers there to be no link at all, and leave the detail for the other article.--Pro-Lick 06:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you are trying to be reasonable on this; however you are simply wrong on "the hypothesis is not accepted by the medical community". Most of the medical community see no link, not all. Please, I beg of you to stop being idealogical about this. The problem I have with removing it, is that it provides the impression the workshop was unanimous in its conclusion. Since Brind (and Daling) were at the workshop, that isn't an accurate account. Perhaps the Brind mention sentence could include "minority view" or something like that, because I indeed wouldn't want to give the impression his was an authoritative view. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical Textbook Samples

Medical professionals must really take the abortion breast cancer hypothesis seriously. It's mentioned a total of 0 times, that's right ZERO times, in Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2nd edition (May 2002). Even more impressive, Brind's work is so well respected and his expertise so well regarded that he is mentioned - take a deep breath, this is amazing - 0 times. ZERO. The screening section quoted in full:--Pro-Lick 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Screening for breast cancer. Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the United States; the risk of developing breast cancer increases from 1:25 at age 40 to 1:8 at age 80. In addition to age, other factors that determine a woman's risk for breast cancer include age at menarche, age at first full-term birth, presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, family history of breast cancer, and presence of high-risk benign breast pathology. For those at low risk, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends routine mammography every 1–2 years for women in their 40s and annually thereafter. This is in addition to annual clinical breast examination. The USPSTF recommends routine screening every 1–2 years, with mammography alone or mammography plus annual clinical breast examination for women aged 50–69 years. Mammography interval is still controversial ( Table 1-16). For asymptomatic women between the ages of 50 and 69 years, the data support a 30% reduction in breast cancer mortality associated with annual or biennial mammography and clinical breast examination. Controversial data demonstrate a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality associated with annual mammography among women between the ages of 40 and 49 years. The problem of comorbidity in women older than age 70 complicates data supporting screening recommendations for this cohort of women. Although strong evidence supporting mortality reduction from breast self-examination is lacking, breast self-examination is recommended as a screening modality for breast cancer beginning at age 25.

Book: Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002

• Number of times Abortion-Breast Cancer mentioned (with or without hyphens): 0
• Number times Brind is mentioned: 0
• Number of times abortion is mentioned in Chapter 14 - Breast Diseases: Diagnosis and Treatment of Benign and Malignant Disease: 0

Comments

While Brind is of course not respected in most medical circles; I'm curious as to how him being mentioned or not in a specific textbook makes him "respected" or "not respected". Is this supposed to be a joke; is this your idea of "research"? Does this mean every doctor not mentioned is therefore not worth listening to? And why would a hypothesis be mentioned in a medical textbook, who's editorial focus is likely on established concepts. Am I to assume from all of this you are student? Because that would put all of this hassle, bravado and "taking on the world" into context. Reminds me of the another objection raised from a textbook. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Not everything of importance is accessible on Google" - RoyBoy 800 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• "present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue" - Nephron T|C 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) and confirmed by Kyd 09:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibid--Pro-Lick 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And? What does that have to do with your above point(s) sucking? Which was, Brind is not in this textbook (or any textbook RoyBoy's aware of), therefore I (Pro-Lick) can characterize him (Brind) as I see fit. BTW, great link on the Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States. Best article I've come across on the ABC subject; and that's my impression from just skimming it tonight. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nerts - I lost a source. I had found a report online a few days ago that might be useful to this section - it mentioned the US NCI criticized the 1999 Denmark study's methodology (so I would assume this study did not play a major role in the 2003 decision?). If anyone finds a similar reference, it would be important context in the article to say something like "In 2003, the US NCI (despite criticism of the 1999 Denmark study) blah blah blah...." As it stands, the article seems to indicate the Denmark study was one of the influences upon the 2003 decision......another study that will be interesting to see the results of - if you type in abortion breast cancer on the NCI search, you will see a grant request for a study in China using their medical records, by Dr Lu (I think that was his name).....I checked out his web site, and reviewed some of his other studies - interesting stuff. Be interesting to see what his conclusions are.DonaNobisPacem 09:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." "Strength of Evidence Ratings Key" - highest ranking.--Pro-Lick 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You do understand the political context that workshop was convened under? You also understand, one study, just as with one organization; does not (exclusively) hold the keys to scientific Truth. I mean if they listed preterm delivery under "Epidemiologic Gaps"; could it be possible they overlooked something else? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research? Or sources?--Pro-Lick 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you insist on editing the ABC article; I'd like to think you read the entire thing carefully before editing it. Then you would already know what I'm talking about. The ABC article is one of the most heavily sourced articles on Wikipedia... why would original research be involved? [15] - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ABC Link

"CONTROVERSIAL": The sentence prior to the ABC section notes that the topics in the section are controversial. Repeating this is both redundant and appears to be an attempt to insert POV by underscoring the point.

"UNPROVEN": The word hypothesis itself already places the reader on notice that the idea has not been proved. Good 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since hypotheses are unproven, it shouldn't be a problem to state it's unproven. Controversial actually can imply something true that is not generally accepted. Of course, if you prefer, we can leave the 1st sentence and I can add sentences like this: “In scientific terms, ABC is as disproved as a hypothesis can be. No medical manuals or textbooks mention it or Brind, major cancer ogranizations don’t includes abortion as a risk factor, and all follow-up studies have shown there is no link, much less a causal relation.”--Pro-Lick 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be true; the disproved bit. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your POV already. Sources?--Pro-Lick 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have research on "disproved" as none of the (scientific) sources assert its been disproved (partisan pro-choice op-ed pieces do though). I'll go to bed now, safe in the knowledge I don't need sources to torpedo your transparent POV's. I'll reiterate it, so it sinks in. Disproved is a pro-choice opinion; it is not reflected in the research; nor is it an accurate interpretation of the NCI findings and their scope. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BC Preventing Implantation

I take issue with this paragraph:

Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is generally considered equivalent to abortion by those who believe that human life begins at conception.

According to the EC page, there is a big controversy over the actual mechanism. Because there is no evidence to show that EC actually prevents implantation, I believe it is misleading to suggest otherwise on this page. How can we reword this section? Are there any known methods of BC that actually prevent implantation that we could list instead? --Andrew c 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that there is no evidence - it is that there are no case studies on frequency, which is a bit different. I have used some articles before (one in the American Medical Journal, 2000) which argue EC prevents implantation.....I'll see if I can find them.DonaNobisPacem 00:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the emergency contraception article, especially the part on controversies (and check up on their sources). From the information presented in that article, it seems misleading to conclusively say EC prevents implantation. At least, we should change it to "May hypothetically prevent implantation some of the time".--Andrew c 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ACOG and AGI also acknowledge that one mechanism of the drug is to prevent implantation.Good 16:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The ACOG eh? This is from ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists, Number 69, December 2005

Earlier studies documented histologic and biochemical changes in the endometrium after administration of the combined regimen, suggesting that emergency contraception may alter the receptiveness of the endometrium and inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg (6, 18, 22–24). However, several more recent studies have not supported these findings (16, 19, 21, 25–28), and the endometrial changes that have been observed may not be sufficient to prevent implantation. ...

Emergency contraception is sometimes confused with medical abortion (32). However, whereas medical abortion is used to terminate an existing pregnancy, emergency contraception is effective only before a pregnancy is established. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy during the 5 or more days between intercourse and implantation of a fertilized egg, but it is ineffective after implantation. Studies of high-dose oral contraceptives indicate that emergency contraception confers no increased risk to an established pregnancy or harm to a developing embryo (33).

--Andrew c 17:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the AGI piece that relies on ACOG as a reference. Good 19:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How familiar are you with the biology involved? Your ACOG quote is interesting in that it says that prior to "implantation of a fetilized egg" the pills can effectively "prevent pregnancy" (which of course ends up killing/destroying that fertilized egg), and then inexplicably concludes that the pills pose no risk to "a developing embryo". Yet countless medical and biological references are clear that a "fertilized egg" prior to implantation is a developing embryo! Its precisely this sort of non-sensical euphemistic and political tiptoe-ing that makes the ACOG look like it has a pro-abortion dog in the fight. If a fertilized egg is destroyed, then a developing embryo is destroyed. So how much trust can one put in anything ACOG publishes when such an obvious error is in one of its bulletins? Here, ACOG should have just stuck with its party line about implantation and not tried to toptoe any further. Good 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What do y'all make of PMID 15839167? -

Lakartidningen. 2005 Mar 7-13;102(10):754, 756-7. [Emergency oral contraceptives do not interrupt pregnancy. Women are withhold the treatment which is erroneously placed on a par with abortion] [Article in Swedish] Marions L, Gemzell Danielsson K. Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. lena.marions@karolinska.se

Emergency contraception (EC), which prevents pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse, has the potential to significantly reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and thus the need for abortion. EC is, however, frequently confused with induced abortion, making the method unavailable for millions of women for religious and/or political reasons. In this paper we discuss available data on the mechanism of action and efficacy of the current accessible methods. The main mechanism of action, of emergency contraceptive pills, is to postpone or inhibit ovulation, while the insertion of a copper IUD prevents implantation.

This 1999 one sounds authoritative: PMID 10561657

The mechanism of action of contraceptive method is essential for the development of new methods. It also influences cultural and individual acceptability of a contraceptive method. Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices have multiple biologic effects. Some of them may be the primary mechanism of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For the combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only methods, the main mechanism of action are the inhibition of follicular development, ovulation, and as consequence, corpus luteum formation. Further, it is also involved in the alteration of the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. For hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence will indicate that prevention of implantation actually results from the use of these methods. Once implantation has taken place, none of these methods are effective and pregnancy proceeds normally. The precise mechanism of IUDs remains unclear because of difficulties in carrying out relevant investigations in humans and the limitations of extrapolating findings from animal studies. However, several studies evidenced that IUDs exert their primary effect before fertilization, by impeding the ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes or by reducing the ability of sperm to fertilize an ovum. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another oldie PMID 10375845 AvB ÷ talk 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

G&E: Now you want to argue over the definition of embryo? Just because an article doesn't use your definition of embryo, does not mean the study is any less valid. I mean, just look at the second link your provided us above: "After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus." Embryo can mean two different things, you know?--Andrew c 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you missed? The ACOG bulletin excerpt talks about the pills destroying a developing embryo at any time during the 5 days prior to implantation - there is NO dispute that at 4 or 5 days after fertilization the entity is an embryo - or that such an embryo is already developing. So, ACOG's conclusion in the same bulletin excerpt that these pills do not cause any harm to a developing embryo is simply ridiculous and, again, exposes ACOG's pro-abortion advocacy (or medical ineptness - but we can assume they are NOT inept). Good 05:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So to answer my question about wanting to argue over the definition of 'embryo', the answer is yes? When you say there is "NO dispute" were you taking into account definition 2b from answers.com and the definition you linked to that I quoted? Furthermore, I found no evidence that the ACOG bulletin said "the pills destroy a developing embryo". In fact, the part I quoted specifically said "However, several more recent studies have not supported these findings, and the endometrial changes that have been observed may not be sufficient to prevent implantation." So if any of these points are wrong, then yes I have 'missed' something. However, I feel like I have been dragged into an argument. Can we focus more on the issue I raised in regards to the article. I have edited the EC section, and other editors have revised my edits. Do you have a problem with how that section is currently worded? I personally do not like the term "believers" as a noun. "Those who believe" sounds better to me. Also, I'd rather have the more general hormonal contraception page linked to as opposed to singling out EC. However, these two suggestions were changed by other editors. I feel the current wording is an improvement, so I'll give it my nod if it looks ok to you (and everyone else).--Andrew c 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From NFPRHA's Aug '05 journal [16]

• Emergency contraception works the same way as other hormonal methods of contraception. Depending on the time in the menstrual cycle in which it is taken, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, interfere with fertilization, or prevent implantation.2

From RHRC, citing a 2004 publication [17]

• ECPs prevent pregnancy by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, preventing fertilization, inhibiting transport of the fertilized egg to the uterus or preventing implantation.

From Centre for Reproductive Rights (Jan 2005)[18]

• Because EC can be used at all stages of a woman's menstrual cycle, its mode of action varies. After intercourse, EC may prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation, blocking fertilization or preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

The Association of Reproductive Health Officials links to a newspaper article on the new research you mention above. The article triumphantly proclaims that EC does not prevent implantation - and then mid article admits

• Admittedly, this evidence is not conclusive. Scientists currently lack a test to determine whether a human female is carrying a fertilized egg. Thus, they are unable to study whether the administration of Plan B affects the fate of these eggs.

I think this last quote, in particular, is what should define NPOV on EC in the article; we simply can't say it doesn't prevent implantation, but we know (as admitted in the article) that because it works like conventional hormonal birth control, it could prevent implantation. As a side note - all of the quotes, including the article you mention from the AMA, are referring to hormonal EC. The primary method of contraception of the copper-containing IUD (also used as a form of EC), from the majority of sources I read, stated it works primarily by preventing implantation.DonaNobisPacem 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even AGI acknowledges that there is controversy as to when pregnancy begins medically (AGI considers the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization to be "widespread") and legally (AGI notes that "state definitions of pregnancy vary widely...18 states have enacted provisions premised on the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization...Six states have provisions defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation...some states seem to use the terms conception, fertilization and implantation interchangeably"). [19]

Abortion Myths

I think an abortion myths section would be a useful and informative addition to the page. To start:

• Post-abortion syndrome
• Increased breast cancer risk
• Abortion is safer than child-birth
• Abortion is only done in dire circumstances
• Knowledge and access to birth control will reduce abortion
• Partial-birth abortions are almost never performed
• Abortion is not a form of birth control
• Baby is not a medical term used to describe the fetus
• Unborn is a medical term
• Baby is a medical term for the fetus
• Baby is a medical term for the embryo
• Birth control does not lower abortion rates
• Illegalizing abortion prevents abortion
• Illegalizing abortion reduces unsafe abortions
• Child-birth is safer than abortion
• Abortion is only induced prior to viability
• Pregnancy makes you a mother
• Abortions are only done when the fetus looks like a "mass of tissue"
• Things that look like babies are babies
• Legalizing abortion increases abortions
• Most Americans consider abortion to be murder

---

Myths above this line, comments...

It's POV to start by calling them myths. Nothing wrong with showing POV on the talk page, of course, as long as it's recognized as POV; but it could be very problematic if you tried to get them called "myths" in the article. AnnH ♫ 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you would prefer we call them abortion lies? Abortion misinformation? Abortion misperceptions? Abortion propaganda?--Pro-Lick 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "misconceptions" or "falsehoods," provided its accurate. Myth, even used in this context still suggest a half truth, but esp. one that is part of an ideology. The principal usage is best for any religion. that is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. Giovanni33 09:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A "myth" is something proven to be non-factual - in the case of Post-abortion syndrome and increased breast cancer risk, these are postulated effects, under dispute in the medical community - but with no conclusive evidence they are false. That would make them disputed (as it is clearly indicated in the article) as opposed to myth.DonaNobisPacem 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A dispute of one very biased (anti-abortion pre test) doctor that has a financial interest, including a magazine titled something like abortion and brest cancer, is not worth calling disputed. Likewise, the syndrome has no independently verified cases.--Pro-Lick 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Financial interest? What is your problem Pro-Lick? If you focus on crap like that; what is to stop me from saying, the "abortion industry" has a financial interest in obfuscating ABC research. At best it only has a grain of truth, such conspiracy theories are lazy thinking. (For example, did it occur to you any monies gained could be to offset money put into the website etc. Last time I check Planned Parenthood didn't run on good intentions; everyone needs money to put back into the things they are passionate about.) Please research some more of the science involved, instead of focusing on the politics, because if you focus on one aspect of a issue; that is all you will find. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For 1 thing, specific evidence and a vague "abortion industry" indicating that you lack specific cases. As to conspiracy theories, one would have to be pretty lazy with google not to notice that the 1 disputer has claimed a conspiracy to "cover up" his unverifiable research. And the National Cancer Institute is on the conspiracy too. As to the science, that's already available. Just needs reading.--Pro-Lick 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Brind doesn't chalk it up to a conspiracy per say; but rather resistance to open consideration of the idea; as it does indeed have political pro-life taint. By the way, he was at the NCI workshop, you were not. I'm unsure what aspect you are referring to as unverifiable; but I would point out his meta-analysis on the subject was deemed to have "no methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded." [20] As to the science, I know damn well its available since I've read the original studies and the follow up letters and discussions in journals; and have used that material to write the ABC hypothesis article. I'd suggest you do the same prior to labelling things as "myths" based on a mediocre Google search. Not everything of importance is accessible on Google Pro-Lick. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I highly recommend everyone interested read that page. You'll find the part about breast cancer under the heading Long term effects of abortion (which are rare or unproven) including. It also addresses some other, using Giovanni33's term, misconceptions.--Pro-Lick 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, a doctor uses "baby" or "fetus" depending on whether the mother plans to keep the child or not. "Baby" helps a mother bond, while "fetus" helps prevent a humanization. I've read a few articles from the medical community in this regard, as well as hearing anecdotal evidence from doctors - I'll see if I can't dig up those articles.DonaNobisPacem 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is how I read what you wrote: Medically, it's a zygote, embryo, or fetus pre-birth. If a doctor is talking to a pregnant woman that is already calling it a baby, the doctor also refers to it as a baby.--Pro-Lick 16:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Roger! One clinical term for the baby in utero is "baby"! The Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby's First Year is a perfect example of the medical term "baby" in use by medical professionals in a clinical setting. Virtually every subheading for sections that describe fetal development use the word "baby". Its not a secret, though some labor long and hard to paint it as one. Also: a zygote is an early embryo, biologically speaking. Good 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A book written for "prospective parents". Actually, that just confirms that it is used psychologically. Also, if you read the review, it uses "developing fetus". Also, compare "the 9 months before and 12 months after" to the title. Baby's 1st year is, therefore, post 9 months.--Pro-Lick 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The book's text (which I looked at today) clinically describes fetal development in detail, and uses the word baby over and over again throughout these descriptions. Good 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a handbook for prospecitve parents. "Baby" is not a medical term for the developing embryo or fetus. In other words, its irrelevent to this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to Abortion?

Out of curiosity, has embryo freezing ever been discussed as a possible alternative to abortion? According to certain entries in Wikipedia, a human embryo can survive being frozen via cryonics and being thawed out later. Also see embryo space colonization and in vitro fertilisation; in fact, it looks like embryo freezing is commonplace in cases of in vitro fertilisation already - see In vitro fertilization#Embryo cryopreservation. So, to rephrase the question: rather than abortion, has anyone considered removal of the embryo, placement in cryonic suspension, and storage in a (Earth-based) facility as a possible compromise? --Brasswatchman 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In all likelihood, a technical infeasibility, much as the "semen-preservers" of Sagan and Druyan's "Abortion: Is it Possible to be both 'Pro-life' and 'Pro-Choice'." -Kyd 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV history and the Abortion article

Any 2001 editors around? While studying ancient NPOV history I found this. It's from Larry Sanger's 2001 Neutral point of view draft:

It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.

On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange rhetorical barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed--and what was added--was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal viability of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it rather easier to organize and understand the competing arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were each then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other "success stories" of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

AvB ÷ talk 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow.....thanks for pulling that up, Avb....that's certainly a starting point for any dispute. DonaNobisPacem 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I once went back four or five years in the edit logs. We've come a long way, baby. -Kyd 07:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy definition

Can we agree on this small paragraph on the talk page in order to avoid edit warring?

Here is one version [1]:

Pregnancy is defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as beginning at implantation, a definition which is standardly applied in medicine and law. ^[21] Others, including some medical professionals, ^[22] differ in placing the start of pregancy at fertilisation.

Here is another [2]:

Pregnancy is often defined by doctors as beginning at implantation. Another definition used by doctors places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilisation.

And another [3]:

Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Some medical professionals consider pregnancy to begin at fertilisation (also called conception).

And another from a few months back, [4]:

Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. A pregnancy that terminates early, but where the fetus survives to become a live infant, is termed a premature birth. A pregnancy that ends with an infant dead upon birth, due to causes including spontaneous abortion or complications during delivery, is termed a stillbirth. Medically, the use of contraception (including emergency contraception) is not considered to be abortion; however, there are those who believe pregnancy should be measured from conception and consider emergency contraception to be a form of abortion.

So what does everybody want in that paragraph? G&E didn't like [1] because of the American bias. However, I believe using references is on the right track. Some users want to make it clear that one definition is widespread, and the other is a minority position, and other users want to present the definitions as equal 'alternative' definitions. According to NPOV, we should include all positions, but convey who believes what and in what propotion. Therefore, [2], the current version, and [3] are misleading and weasely. Can we work this out and agree to something? Any new proposals or compromises?--Andrew c 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have some references to WHO or other such organizations' definition of pregnancy, etc.? That might make [1] more agreeable. Overall, though, that seems the most authoritative and least POV. --Battlemonk 19:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Medical science considers that pregnancy has begun when the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus is complete." source
• "pregnancy, defined as implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus." source --Andrew c 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is documented that the definition of pregnancy was manipulated for political reasons - to advance contraceptives and IUDs by making them legal. And the only peer reviewed research that has attempted to discover what doctors actually consider to be the start of pregnancy revealed that half of the ob/gyns reject the ACOG definition. And it is documented that of those states that dfine pregnancy, most define it as beginning at fertilization. And it is documented that AGI admits that defining pergnancy as beginning at fertilization is widespread. Have you not read any of what's been posted? I will say that one positive development is that at least there is no longer any dispute (due to the copious references listed) that the definitions are both medical ones! Good 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we work on consensus in regards to this paragraph? You have brought up the political manipulation/definition theory before. One kind editor actually got the source you cited and hand copied the text here for everyone to read. It doesn't seem like many people accepted what you were saying the source said. Do you have another source to back up your position? Next, you are critical of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reference because it is too American, but then you cite "the only peer reviewed research that has attempted to discover what doctors actually consider to be the start of pregnancy ", which only deals with one state, if that. Next, can you document the state's legal definitions? Next, I think the issue here is that different definitions are used in different contexts. We need to convey who and when these definitions are used, as opposed to saying they are equal and interchangable. For example, when someone says that 20-30% of IVF attempts result in pregnancy, they are not using your 'alternative' definition (because 100% of IVF attempts result in 'alternative' pregnancy). Finally, can we work together to create a paragraph that we call agree on? What specifically is your problem with [1] and how can it improved?--Andrew c 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm readding [1], as it has support from me, Battlemonk, and Andrew C, and Amerocentrism is a minor, easily-resolved quibble compared to [2], which implies that pregnancy-begins-at-fertilisation is a medical definition of equal stature as pregnancy-begins-at-implantation, in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOVUW. -Kyd 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at sources, and couldn't find where [23] defines pregnancy as beginning at fertilization. I understand that the concept is implied, but is that good enough? This source seems more appropriate for the paragraph about BC. Also, saying "Others, including some medical professionals," sounds weasely. If we are using the cited source as proof, could we not qualify the "medical professionals" with "pro-life" instead of "some"? They do it themselves.--Andrew c 01:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The ALL source was offered by G&E in a former thread. The weasely "others, including medical professionals" is a stopgap solution which preferable to the even more weasley [2]. The alternative, removing the information on dissent entirely, isn't in keeping with an inclusive spirit --although, perhaps, this topic would be more appropriate at pregnancy. I'm currently looking for additional sources other than ACOG. -Kyd 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Found two additional sources, one British and one Canadian, which both implicitly support the from-implantation definition. A SOGC policy on emergency contraception: "EC methods are not abortifacients since they work prior to implantation." Also, from coverage in the BMJ of a move to block over-the-counter sale of morning-after pills in Britain:

After taking evidence from several medical experts in the field, the judge argued: "Up until the attachment stage, the embryo is not attached in any way to the woman herself."

He added: "Current medical definitions given in medical dictionaries support the view that pregnancy begins once the blastocyst has implanted in the endometrium and, more par- ticularly, that miscarriage is the termination of such a post-implantation pregnancy."

-Kyd 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even AGI [24] acknowledges that there is controversy as to when pregnancy begins medically (AGI considers the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization to be "widespread") and legally (AGI notes that "state definitions of pregnancy vary widely...18 states have enacted provisions premised on the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization...Six states have provisions defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation...some states seem to use the terms conception, fertilization and implantation interchangeably"). (This is also posted above) Good 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph under "Mental health"

Why are people edit warring? It takes two sides to edit war, and everyone involved should know better. The only winner in an edit war is the one who leaves the article in the version they oppose and comes to the talk page instead of reverting.

Here's the paragraph in question:

Research studies find emotional responses are largely positive. Emotional problems from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth. (Adler, Nancy E. (1989) Statement on Behalf of the American Psychological Association Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Operations, U. S. House of Representatives: 130-140.)

Now what's wrong with it? Why should it be deleted entirely, instead of worked in? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It was shoehorned into the beginning on the "Mental health" sub-section thus interupting its logical flow. It might be an example of quote-mining, it might be taken of of context, so we should verify that the source supports the conclusion first. And, besides, this addition is redundant with information already in the article (and, thus, could be seen as "padding"):

Other studies have suggested a link between the elective termination of an unwanted pregnancy and an improvement in reported mental well-being. [32] Elective abortion may reduce the occurrence of depression in cases of unwanted pregnancy, as compared to cases in which the pregnancy has been carried to completion, but it is also sometimes reported as an additional stressor (ibid.).

I don't disagree with adding new information to the Mental health section as Pro-Lick and DonaNobisPacem have suggested. But, if we're going to do so, let's do it carefully, thoroughly, and not so helter-skelter. -Kyd 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick's edit is lifted almost verbatim from "The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion" by Planned Parenthood. The citation on the PP site is the same as offered in Pro-Lick's edit. N.E. Adler is also credited with some of the studies cited in the APA Briefing Paper which is currently used as a source under "Mental health:"

• Adler, N.E. (1992). Unwanted pregnancy and abortion: Definitional and research issues. Journal of Social Issues, 48(3), 19-35.
• Adler, N.E., David, H.P., Major, B.N., Roth, S.H., Russo, N.F., & Wyatt, G.E. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: A review. American Psychologist, 47, 1194-1204. PubMed.
• Adler, N.E., Ozer, E.J., & Tschann, J. (2003). Abortion among adolescents. American Psychologist, 58 (3), 211-217. PubMed.

-Kyd 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if you read the APA briefing paper you'll find that they conclude:

Abortion is a safe medical procedure that carries relatively few physical or psychological risks and that yields positive outcomes when the alternative is unwanted pregnancy (Adler, Ozer, & Tschann, 2003).

The obvious question is why is this not reflected in the section? Instead, it's written up like there's serious doubt about the consequences and most of the weight is on relatively insignificant studies.--Pro-Lick 06:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is! From the current Mental health section: "Other studies have suggested a link between the elective termination of an unwanted pregnancy and an improvement in reported mental well-being. Elective abortion may reduce the occurrence of depression in cases of unwanted pregnancy..." There is doubt, and, for good or ill, NPOV dictates showing the other side without giving it undue weight. Do you have any recommendations for additional studies and how they might be incorporated? -Kyd 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical Textbook Samples

Book: Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2nd edition (May 2002): 2 screenings. 1 for hypertension. 1 for depression. Let me know where it mentions abortion in any way.

Screening for hypertension

A. Hypertension is defined as a systolic BP of 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater, or requirement for antihypertensive medication. The objective of identifying and treating high BP is to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and associated morbidity and mortality. Hypertension is present in an estimated 43 million Americans and is more common in African Americans and older adults. Hypertension is a leading risk factor for coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, ruptured aortic aneurysm, renal disease, and retinopathy. These complications of hypertension are among the most common and serious diseases in the United States, and successful efforts to lower BP could thus have substantial impact on population morbidity and mortality. See Table 1-15.

TABLE 1-15. CLASSIFICATION OF BLOOD PRESSURE FOR ADULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP

B. Periodic screening for hypertension is recommended for all persons 21 years of age or older. The optimal interval for BP screening has not been determined and is left to clinical discretion. Current expert opinion is that adults who are believed to be normotensive should receive BP measurements at least once every 2 years if their last diastolic and systolic BP readings were below 85 and 140 mm Hg, respectively, and annually if the last diastolic BP reading was 85–89 mm Hg. Hypertension should not be diagnosed on the basis of a single measurement. Elevated readings should be confirmed on more than one reading at each of three separate visits. In adults, current BP criteria for the diagnosis of hypertension are an average diastolic pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater or an average systolic pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or both. Once hypertension is confirmed, patients should receive appropriate counseling regarding physical activity, weight reduction, dietary sodium intake, and alcohol consumption. Evidence should also be sought for other cardiovascular risk factors, such as elevated serum cholesterol level and smoking, and appropriate intervention should be offered when indicated. The

decision to begin drug therapy may include consideration of the level of BP elevation, age, and the presence of other cardiovascular disease risk factors (e.g., tobacco use, hypercholesterolemia), concomitant disease (e.g., diabetes, obesity, peripheral vascular disease), or target-organ damage (e.g., left ventricular hypertrophy, elevated creatinine level). Antihypertensive drugs should be prescribed in accordance with recent guidelines and with attention to current techniques for improving compliance. Please refer to a medical text for complete instructions for evaluating and managing hypertension.

Screening for depression.

Major depressive episodes affect 20 million American adults yearly. The lifetime risk for women of developing a major depressive disorder is 10–25%; depression is two to three times more common in women than in men. However, nearly 80% of cases of depression are undiagnosed. Factors that may predispose women to depression include perinatal loss, infertility, or miscarriage; physical or sexual abuse; socioeconomic deprivation; lack of support, isolation, and feelings of helplessness; family history of mood disorders; loss of a parent during childhood (before age 10); history of substance abuse; and menopause.

A. The following are the criteria for diagnosing a major depressive episode. At least five of the following nine symptoms must be present for at least 2 weeks

to fulfill the definition of major depressive episode, and at least one of the symptoms must be either depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure. The symptoms must represent a change from the patient's previous level of functioning.

1. Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day

2. Markedly decreased interest or pleasure in activities

3. Significant appetite or weight change

4. Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day

5. Observable psychomotor retardation or agitation nearly every day

6. Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day

7. Feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt nearly every day

8. Diminished ability to think, concentrate, or make decisions

9. Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide

B. Diagnostic categories

1. Major depressive episode. One episode; symptoms may develop over days to weeks and may be either experienced by the patient or observed by others.

2. Major depressive disorder. One or more major depressive episodes.

3. Dysthymic disorder. Chronically depressed mood on most days for 2 or more years, plus at least two of the symptoms from the list defining a major depressive episode.

4. Depressive disorder not otherwise specified. This category includes such diagnoses as premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

C. There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the routine use of standardized questionnaires to screen for depression in asymptomatic primary care patients. Clinicians should maintain an especially high index of suspicion for depressive symptoms in those persons at increased risk for depression (see earlier). There are many screening tools available to help identify patients who are most likely to be depressed; these tools are designed to rate the severity of depression. Screening is recommended when depression is suspected. Commonly used patient self-report screens that are symptom-oriented include the General Health Questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Symptom Checklist, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Zung Depression Scale. If scores are above a predetermined cutoff, patients should have a more comprehensive evaluation for depression.

D. Treatment. Treatable causes of depression should be identified first; for example, depression may be related to menstruation, pregnancy, the perinatal period, or the perimenopausal period. There can also be a relationship between depression and medications such as birth control pills or agents used in hormone replacement therapy (particularly the progesterone component).

1. Psychosocial treatment. Commonly used therapies include psychotherapy to correct interpersonal conflicts and to help women develop interpersonal skills; cognitive-behavioral therapy to correct negative thinking and associated behavior; and couples therapy to reduce marital conflicts. For patients with mild to moderate depression, psychosocial therapies may be used alone, or they may be used in conjunction with antidepressant medication.

2. Pharmacologic treatment. A large percentage of women experience significant improvement or even complete remission with medication. Factors to consider for treatment with medications include severe symptoms, recurrent episodes (two or more prior episodes), chronicity, presence of psychotic features such as hallucinations or delusions, presence of melancholic symptoms, family history, prior response to medication, incomplete response to psychotherapy alone, and patient preference.--Pro-Lick (talk • contribs) 05:13, 25 March 2006.

Book: Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002

• Number of times post abortion syndrom is mentioned: 0
• Number of times any mental issues are associated with induced abortion: 0

Suggested Pregnancy Definition

This version is an attempt to avoid mischaracterizations, overstatements and POV:

• Pregnancy can be defined as beginning at implantation. ^{[25] [26] [27]} This definition has gained wide, though not universal, acceptance in the medical community. Some medical professionals place the start of pregnancy at fertilisation. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] When pregnancy begins remains a controversial issue. [35]

• Some methods of birth control, such as IUDs and hormonal contraception, may prevent implantation. Those who define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization consider the prevention of implantation to be the equivalent of abortion.

Good 06:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd's suggested version

• Pregnancy is standardly defined in medicine and law as beginning at implantation. Others, including some medical professionals, differ in placing the start of pregnancy at fertilisation.

• Medically, the use of contraception is not considered to be abortion. However, some methods of birth control, such as IUDs and hormonal contraception, may prevent implantation. Those who believe that human life begins at conception consider the prevention of implantation to be equivalent to abortion.

Problems with Kyd's version:

• It refuses to acknowledge there is another purely medical definition
• It discusses law under a section that states that it is a discussion of medical terms
• It mischaracterizes the status of legal definitions (law is all over the place as to when a pregnancy begins)
• It disregards a study that suggests that %50% of US ob/gyns don't accept the ACOG defintion
• It ignores even the radical pro-abort & pro-contraception AGI's admission that there is widespread acceptance of the idea that pregnancy begins at fertilization
• It unnecessarily couches the IUD and contraceptive paragraph in a POV fashion.

Good 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the second paragraph; I merely moved the pregnancy definition discussion to a more appropriate place. Don't ask someone to resolve so-called "Amerocentrism" involved in quoting the ACOG and then criticize the result. You have conveniently failed to address the fact that your version violates WP:NPOVUW and WP:WEASEL. And you just violated 3RR. Don't expect to use the phrase "radical pro-abort" and be taken seriously. -Kyd 06:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, are you STILL pretending that there are not two medical definitions for pregnancy, despite the copious evidence to the contrary which you have not refuted nor even commented upon despite being invted to do so? Good 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll trust the ACOG's definition as neutral long before I'll trust that of American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Association of Pro Life Physicians, or the American Life League. As for the rest, "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body," is far too ambiguous to support from-fertilisation as a medical definition (see WP:NPOVUW). -Kyd 07:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Medical Sources for pregnancy beginning at fertilization:

• Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 2004 (provided by Merck Pharmeceuticals online) [36] ("the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an ovum and spermatozoon"
• The GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA of MEDICINE, SECOND EDITION, 2002 [37] ("Pregnancy is a state in which a woman carries a fertilized egg inside her body")
• National Institutes for Health (Meriam Webster Medical Dictionary) [38] and [39] ("containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body" and "the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both")
• MedicineNet.com [40] ("The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body")
• The Center for Cancer Education, University Of Newcastle upon Tyne [41] ("the condition of having a developing embryo or foetus in the body, after union of an ovum and spermatozoon. ")
• Dr. Joseph A. Spinnato, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky and 50% of the Ob/Gyns of Louisville, KY, in peer reviewed research published by the Journal of Maternal Fetal Medicine. 1998 Nov-Dec;7(6):264-8. [42] ("Neither ACOG definition has been consistently adopted by its members, whose definitions are more consistent with lay and embryologist definitions")
• American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [43]
• From Association of Pro Life Physicians [44]
• 227 doctors listed here who have signed on to this medical analysis

Kyd, you would have more credibility if you would simply admit that there is not unanymity withint the medical profession on this issue. Repeating your mantra does not make it true. Yes, the abortion and birth control lobby succeeded in gaining wide acceptance for their politically motivated 1960's redefinitions. But that success was not universal - and the traditional definition is still widely accepted. Good 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair and necessary to NPOV to explain both definitions, however to avoid misrepresentation and weasel words, we need to explain WHO exactly is advocating these definitions. I think your last 4 links make is clear who represents the 'alternative' view. I also believe the citations Kyd and others have found in regards to the 'widespread' definition make it clear who represents the 'widespread' definition. Your version deletes this information and instead says "medical community vs. some medical professionals" which is misleading and weasely. (also, the MedicineNet.com definition only works for your argument if you use a specific definition of 'embryo'. I have pointed out to you in your own definitions where 'embryo' can refer to the product of a blastocyst that ISN'T the placenta. I believe MedicineNet is refering to this, because "This condition can be indicated by positive results on an over-the-counter urine test, and confirmed through a blood test, ultrasound, detection of fetal heartbeat, or an X-ray." only applies after implantation.) On to your criticisms of Kyd's version. Legal status of the definition: our sources say it is a legal definition, and this is applicable international, however to balance out this POV, we can always add a clause to the 'alternative' definition about certain states feeling otherwise. I asked if you could cite me some of these states, or maybe provide a link to this information. Next, I think it is significantly POV to be pushing your 50% statistic that only considered the view of 96 doctors in one southern city. You are also cherry picking the AGI info. Yes they say "widespread" but they also say every other point included in Kyd's version that you object to. Next, how is the BC section POV? It is clear that nearly all sources that are not pro-life do not consider BC to be abortion. Do we need to clarify this issue more to make it clear who thinks what?--Andrew c 14:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article SHOULD explain both definitions - especially the history that pregnancy used to begin at conception, and this concept was changed in the 1960s by birth control advocates (and there has been even more recent manipulation by trying to change the definition of conception to also be at implantation rather than the moment of fertilization). Paper over this reality hides the most important factor that explains why there is even a dispute as to the meaning of pregnancy. There once was a universal definition, and for political reasons, a new definition was invented; many still reject the new politically motivated re-definition precisely because it was developed not for scientific reasons, but political ones. Hiding this from the article is silly. I am all for total transparency. By the way, do you find it significant at all that Dr. Spinnato (not known as an acitivst, and actually highly regarded by his peers as an OB/Gyn and professor) discovered that in his own local community half of his peers did rejected the politcal ACOG redefinitions? How can one simply discount his research? Interestingly, despoite his findings and his status in the profession, the ACOG ignored his research (why do you think that is?) Good

I responded more below, but I'll try to respond more here. First of all, you have a lot of bold claims. Just because you say them with confidence does not meant hey are WP:V. Next, I find it strange that you remove kyd's version for this reason: "- removed American-centric explanation." and then keep citing a study that only looked at 96 individuals in one southern US city. Finally, can we focus more on the specific wording proposals for this section?--Andrew c 00:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Priorities II

Please note that persitent attempts to expunge POV from the existing text distracts other users from improving the article in new ways. Thanks. -Kyd 02:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rinse, repeat, look in the mirror.--Pro-Lick 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS)

Any one here want to police the PAS article?

It seems to be a lost dog of an article without much scrutiny where the pro and anti side take turns POVing it.

Pro-lick, who seems to be familiar around here (for all the wrong reasons), is making it a mess (by trying make it a debate about the psychological consequences). I've noted he was blocked once already (according to his talk). Also, he seemed to be hostile to comments I left him on his talk[45]--- he removed them, which also seems to be a pattern.

Any case, I'm not sure about what to do about PAS... and I'm not keen on policing it. On the one hand I think it would be good if it were merged into abortion-- 'cause it would get greater scrutiny. On the other hand, I think the article... is nice the way it is (in that it doesn't get lost in the larger debate). That said, it seems everyone wants to make the PAS article into a debate about the psychological consequences (if any)-- which I think it isn't. I see it as simply the larger medical community's current take on things. As I stated before-- the objectives of the article (as I see them) are:

1. define the term,
2. present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue and
3. place it in the context of the larger debate about abortion.

Like most things in abortion-- this article has seen a good deal of debate-- there was a request to delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abortion_trauma_syndrome... which ended in a re-name and a battle about one particular external link Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Nephron  T|C 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've placed it on my watchlist. -Kyd 09:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Abortion the death "of a cell"

Moved to: Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

World view

I think it would be a good thing to start compiling information on various societies social views...as the article indicates, it may not be not really representative of a world view. For religions, it's probably easiest to state religion, prohibition or not, and the cases for prohibition (do they allow to save woman's life, in cases of rape/incest, etc.) As for laws in individual countries, abortion law pretty much covers it. It would be interesting to find out if there are any significantly different legal/medical definitions in use around the world.

Religions:

• Roman Catholicism - prohibits induced abortion in all cases
• Buddhism - explicitly prohibits abortion in its "canonical" writings, according to [46]

- Posted by DonaNobisPacem.

Condemnation for abortion from all quarters:

• Judaism: [47][48]
• Islam: [49]
• Hinduism:[50]
• Buddhism: [51]
• Sikhism:[52]
• Catholicism:[53]
• Anglicanism: [54])
• Atheism: [55] [56]

Good 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Like abortion law, there is a main article on Religion and abortion. Just to let you know.--Andrew c 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How the BBC reference pages address these issues

Here we can see how the BBCs online reference pages, with a global secular outlook, tackle the notion of abortion and contraceptives and when pregnancy begins. They do a good job. I think it can help editors re-think what a neutral view on these issue looks like. Here is another BBC link with similar discussion. The BBC also uses the term unborn child in its abortion reference pages. I hope folks will not argue that the BBC editorial stance is anything but secular and global. I post this simply to make it clear that such terms are in common use in context's similar to wikipedia articles. The global and secular BBC also uses the term feticide in its reference pages. The secular and global BBC's reference pages also note that there is "no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to when life really begins." The BBC sexual health reference section notes that IUDs and certain contracpetive pills function by "stopping an egg settling in the womb." Even the plain old pill "stops an egg from settling in the womb."

To recap, these are several BBC reference pages; the BBC has a global and secular editorial stance, and these references demonstrate what neutral coverage of these topics looks like:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/medic_method2.shtml contraceptives as abortifacients
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/legal_when2.shtml early abortion is birth control
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/medic_select1.shtml "unborn child" in encyclopedic article
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/relig_female.shtml "feticide" as neutral term
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/embry_viable1.shtml disagreement in medicine
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_emergcontr.shtml "emergency" pill can prevent implantation
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_combpill.shtml the pill prevents implantation

Good 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Evil. Do you have any RECENT studies concerning the possibility of hormonal contraception preventing implantation? It's long been speculated that it might do so, but I don't know of any clinical support for the claim that it does. While the BBC is generally reputable, it is not as relevant as primary sources. Alienus 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I simply point out that the BBC addresses these issues and does so using many of the terms that some editors here continue to claim are pro-life terms. The BBC is not pro-life. There is less reason to change the medical definition of pregnancy to implantation than to conclude that pills don't prevent implantation. So lets not start that game. No one has explained any medical reason WHY pregnancy got a new definition in 1965, just that it happened. Good 20:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You ignore me everytime I say this: Putting a fetilized egg into a woman is NOT good enough to make her pregnant. IVF fails 70-80% of the time. Pregnancy only begins IF the blastocyst IMPLANTS. Furthermore, you can fertilize eggs outside of a mothers womb and it does not make the 'test tube' pregnant. There are no biological changes in the mother until implantation. You cannot test for pregnancies until after implantation. Next, you have only cited ONE source (that I know of, forgive me if I missed any) in regards to your hypothesis that the definition of pregnancy changed for political reasons (meaning the definition is otherwise completely arbitrary, contrary to the stuff I said above). GT went and got the referenced source and copied and pasted it here and it doesn't seem to prove your argument. While I respect your right to have your position, I feel your hypothesis needs to be left out because it is not WP:V. Work on getting sources and we can talk about this then. (note: I agree we should mention both definition in the article, and who specifically uses them. What I am arguing against is including your claim the definition was redifined in 1965 for political reasons. Furthermore, why should this article be the place to duke this out, when your information isn't even on the main pregnancy article)--Andrew c 23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FDA: EC prevents implantation

According to the FDA, "EC pills ... act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA Notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 861, Feb. 25, 1997). Good 14:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Physician's Desk Reference: EC prevents implantation

The Physicians' Desk Reference states: “ECPs (Emergency Contraceptive Pills) act primarily by inhibiting ovulation. They may act by altering tubal transport of the sperm and/or ova and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation).” Physicians' desk reference. 54th ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics. 2000:1335 Good 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: "They may act by...". When this section was still in the article, I had changed the wording to say "may". I provided sources and medical papers that said "several more recent studies have not supported these findings, and the endometrial changes that have been observed may not be sufficient to prevent implantation.. My original problem was that the orignal wording which said "Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception". So why are you posting these sources? Do you still have a problem with my proposed changes or what exactly is the issue?--Andrew c 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Breast Cancer

The portion of the article dealing with breast cancer is duplicated. I am going to render the two together in an attempt to make these two sections into one in as unbiased a fasion as possible.

So please excuse me while I go butcher the text and put together some sort of abortion of the original material.  :) Paul Robinson 23:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I support your right to abort.--Pro-Lick 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to Rfc1394's work cleaning up the duplicate section, there is an ongoing issue: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)."--Pro-Lick 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A meal is the ingestion of a living organism, causing or following the death of the living organism. Meat is murder! Alienus 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, editors of this article might want to check out the disagreement on Partial-birth abortion. Alienus 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mental health changes

The original:

Some women will experience negative feelings as a result of elective abortion. However, whether this phenomenon is significant enough to warrant a general diagnosis, or even classification as an independent syndrome (see post-abortion syndrome), is a subject that is debated among members of the medical community.

Pro-lick's version:

"Negative mental impact as a result of elective abortion is considered unproven. This phenomenon has been generally referred to as post-abortion syndrome."

The original version "covers all bases," and, thus, I believe it should be kept. Some women will regret abortion, or be pained by it, as many come to regret decisions such as dropping out of high school or having an extramarital affair. It's callous and dismissive to label such emotions as "unproven," even unintentionally, and even if such campaigns as Silent No More are little more than alarmist efforts intended to ban abortion through the self-interested manipulation of human suffering. The real bone of contention herein is whether abortion is in general deleterious to mental health and whether this effect warrants classification as an independent syndrome. I'm reverting the opening paragraph in this interest. -Severa ?? | !!! 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some women are going to be unhappy about having an abortion. In fact, even those relieved by the termination of an unwanted pregnancy may well be unhappy that they got pregnant in the first place and had to have an abortion. This isn't the issue. The issue is whether there's some sort of PTSD-like syndrome associated with abortion. It has been claimed by anti-choice advocates to exist, but there's no credible evidence and we have to make that clear. Perhaps we can split the difference between these two paragraphs. Alienus 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The original version reads like a Fox News report (cf, WP:WEASEL. My version is simply accurate, not to mention far more concise. If the debate is so hot, why don't any major psychological organizations recognize it? Some women will regret child birth or be pained by it. It's just utter and complete weaseling.--Pro-Lick 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Priorities III

Priorities I and To-Do were my attempts to motivate other editors to productive ends. Priorities II was a humorous if not misguided attempt to reassert this desire. Priorities III will acknowledge my acceptance of whatever priorities the other editors of this article set for themselves. If that means arguing about the opening sentence, etc., until the end of time, so be it. I don't have what it takes to strike a balance between both sides (including my own). I'm not Tznkai; I am not a mediator, and, apparently, I'm not a very good organizer either. Good luck. Goodbye. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And you need to work on WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)