Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:35, 18 April 2006

Archives

1. Archive 1 - Opening line straw poll, euphemisms, proposal by GTBacchus, edit warring, viability
2. Archive 2 - Use of "Death", medical definition sources, Sympathetic vs. Accurate, 'Quoted definitions' proposal

My two definition proposal (again)

Here is a newer variation on original two definition proposal (scroll up to see the older one):

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction proceedure.

I'm not sure on the wording, but the concept is clear. Start off with the medical definition that excludes stillbirth and late-term abortion. Talk about spontaneous vs. induced. Mention mammals, but focus in on humans. Present the popular term that excludes miscarriages and stillbirths.

What do you think of the concept and the specific wording? P.S. I haven't worked this in yet, but I really feel it is more accurate to at least somewhere mention that more than just the fetus/embryo is removed during abortions/miscarriages. patsw objected to using terms like products of conception and conceptus, but maybe that was just in a certain context. --Andrew c 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's perfect, but it's certainly a major improvement over what we have today. I support it. Alienus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would change

The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

To

In popular usage, the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

Or alternatively

In colloquial usage,the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

As to more than fetus/embryo being removed - the fetus or embryo that are the central focus of the procedure or sponatneous process - if there wasn't a fetus/embryo, nothing else would be there, and it is the primary intent of an induced abortion to remove either - the rest of the matter is necessary to prevent infection, etc, but not the purpose of the procedure (basically, the purpose of the procedure is to arrest the development of the embryo or fetus). I think mention of the other matter (placenta, etc.) should stay out of the definition (for clarity/length) and be inserted into the appropriate article sections on procedure, etc.DonaNobisPacem 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could support it as well. And, like DonaNobisPacem, I don't think it's necessary to have "in reference to humans", though I wouldn't oppose it either. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick imput. I like your first suggested change, DonaNobisPacem. Saying colloquial seems to have more negative connotations to me than popular. Is it important to note that this is talking about abortion in humans, or does the previous sentence set the tone already? or does that not really matter?--Andrew c 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the usage of colloquial. In regards to the human part - I don't think it's really necessary. What I asked myself - if someone told me their dog got an abortion, what would I think: "If you didn't want puppies that bad, why didn't you get it speyed?" was what came to mind (ie, I think regardless of specific mammalian context, people think of the induced procedure when you use the word in common usage).DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Andrew's proposal at the top of this section. I would not object to DonaNobisPacem's modifications, and support the comments regarding placenta/umbilical/amniotic sac etc, but am not sure whether or not restricting the definition to popular usage (which seems to say medical/religious/legal/etc usage is different) is a good thing. AvB ÷ talk 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I use "popular usage" in the sense of everyday parlance. Medical terminology IS different, as we've seen in the debate (particularly in regards to the medical definition being before viablity of the fetus). But from what I've seen - I saw some proposed legislation/enacted legislation for various states online, and they specifically state "abortion will refer to induced abortions, including late term" (obviously paraphrased). In politics, a politician says "I support abortion rights" - he's not referring to a woman's right to have a miscarriage(!), we automatically know he is speaking about induced abortions. And if you go to vatican.va and type in abortion, I none of the entries refer to spontaneous abortion (in fact, if you type in "spontaneous abortion" on the English search, there are no returns). So popular usage - even in law and religion - usually refers to the induced procedure, at any perioud of gestation, in contrast to the medical definition, referring to induced or sponaneous abortion before viablilty.DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading my above comment - one could change "popular usage" to "common parlance" - that would be a more encyclopedic term anyways, I suppose. DonaNobisPacem 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That solves it, and unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So in light of the above - Andrew c, I hope you don't mind me doing this with your proposal - I believe we are now at:

:An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure.

Termination is a euphemism. It means end, and as has been mentioned several times, the end of pregnancy is birth or death. Death is the accurate word to describe abortion. patsw 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Under common parlance the word death is there.....is that good enough? It points out the medical community does not use the term (in general, with exceptions) but that in common parlance it often is used. DonaNobisPacem 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DonaNobisPacem. Additionally, I do not find 'termination' to be a euphemism. For one, with movies like The Terminator, and rodent 'extermination' and terminal sickness, I do not find the word softens the reality of said events. The term is used in the medical literature (and even the[REDACTED] entry has a disambiguation link to abortion, not birth). The first sentence is qualified with "medically defined", and I believe the definition is fairly close to a large number of the medical definitions other editors have cited. Your changes would be inaccurate because it would cover stillbirths, which are never medically defined as abortion.--Andrew c 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion. I've emboldened the second 'abortion', as was suggested originally, linked 'nonviable' to Viability and moved the mass media comment to the end:

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

I think having both instances boldened is important, as is linking viable. Moving the sentance was more to do with flow. Nice idea there. |→ Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)

Excellent proposal. - RoyBoy 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can support this one. Good work Andrew c, and everyone. -GTBacchus 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Spaully, I agree - the flow is much better, as the common parlance flows right from the medical definition. Also agree with the two bolded terms. Good job! A question - do you think there is sufficient support here for the opening line to mention it on Talk:Abortion, to request additional input? Or should it simply be inserted, and it mentioned on the talk page we reached a reasonable solution here? DonaNobisPacem 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer comment by a few more regulars. A mention/carbon copy should be made on Talk:Abortion; but I think Andrew c should have that privilege. - RoyBoy 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DonaNobisPacem 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A minor point, should "pregnancy" be Wikilinked, or not? I would say yes because it is a big topic and central to what is being aborted; OTOH it is a common concept, and I wouldn't want to overlink the lead. - RoyBoy 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the sort of thing that can be dealt with after it goes live, but if it were me, I'd link pregnancy, death, and mammalian, as well as what's already there. -GTBacchus 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments and changes. I have posted a message on the main page directing more users here for comments. Hopefully, we will have something worth putting on the actual article soon! I am a little concerned by patsw's comment, but hopefully something can be worked out, or we can convince him of this compromise, consensus version.--Andrew c 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The principal action of an abortion is the death of the embryo or fetus. The expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the uterus of the mother, or the removal of the embryo or fetus by some process is the consequence of that death whether it was intended or not. This proposed definition reads "then Y, X" rather than "X then Y" in order to obscure the definition abortion. patsw 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the principal action is to remove the fetus? (if it were not removed, then the dead fetus could harm the woman) The medical definition does not contain death because (as I understand it, I haven't done the research myself) predominantly death is hardly referred to in medical texts; as they are concerned with the action(s) (mechanics) rather than the consequence(s) of the abortion procedure. The medical definition is first; because we adopt a scientific frame of reference when possible at Misplaced Pages.

The seperation of the definitions into medical and layman allows Misplaced Pages to maintain its NPOV on both fronts. Are you more concerned with the medical definition ignoring the consequence (death), or the medical definition coming first or both? - RoyBoy 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the case of a natural death in the uterus, the death is the action which makes the consequential act, removal, necessary, in the fetus is not expelled naturally.
• In the case of an induced abortion, the removal of the fetus is not sought; the death of the fetus is intended. It is the presence of the dead fetus which necessitates removal.

In both cases, death precedes removal and expulsion. Death, as I and others have mentioned, is accurate and neutral. The rest of the terms used termination, removal, expulsion are either euphemisms or consequential actions. Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of natural death; I cannot see death as an action but a rather a state, dying is an action. I see termination is the best term, because it suits the medical context and if death comes about naturally and terminate appears more accurate and places the X before the Y; as the body and/or fetus stops/terminates development of a nonviable organism which could not develop/live anyway. "Death" seems more suitable to viable fetuses. - RoyBoy 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonviable fetuses kick and suck their thumbs. And they die. Its odd that we can kill cancer cells by chemotherapy, but we can't say that we kill embryos or fetuses. This discussion is simply revealing the strong desire to use euphemisms for political reasons. Good 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, we want to write a good article that's fair to everyone. Accusing one another of political motivations won't get that done better. Now the word "death" occurs in the proposed version. Would you prefer to say death twice, if we provide two definitions? I think that would sound weird, to repeat it. Do you object to providing two different definitions?

Also, you say that "abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus," but medical sources seem to define abortion as the actual removal or expulsion, not the cessation of life that accompanies the removal or expulsion. Are those medical sources simply incomplete, or are they actually inaccurate, pinning the essence of abortion in the wrong place? I would think they get the benefit of the doubt, on how medical terms are defined. None of them defines abortion as the death itself, and some make it clear that it isn't the death, like source #10 from the list, where MedLinePlus says that most spontaneous abortions are caused by fetal death. That makes it apparent that the cause and effect - death and abortion - are two different things. Others say that abortion results in death - cause and effect again, other way 'round. Abortion isn't itself death; it's caused by or causes in death, and the proposed lead says that. -GTBacchus 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:Talk about euphamisms, the chemotherapy article says it refers to "drugs used to treat cancer." Jeez, they are hiding the fact that chemotherapy is used to KILL innocent living cancer cells. They only use the k-word ONCE in the whole article. It must be politically motivated. If we were following their advice, we should say "abortion refers to methods used to treat unwanted pregnancies", and not mention anything being killed or dying until way down the artilce. Look at these euphamisms "impairing mitosis (cell division)", "cause damage to cells", "cause cells to undergo apoptosis", "chemotherapy affects cell division". These are all pretty euphamisms used to cover up the fact that cancer cells are DYING.--Andrew c 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that's medically accurate. Non-induced abortion often occurs when the placenta becomes detached from the uterine wall, leading to the expulsion of the embryo while it is still alive. Of course, we're often dealing with very early self-abortion, so the embryo is not going to be noticable to the naked eye and the whole process will most likely be written off as a "heavy period" unless it's detected as a "chemical pregnancy". Alienus 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time proving either way that the embryo or foetus is alive once the placenta detaches. However I think it more likely it is not, seeing as early in pregnancy hormones released by the embryo maintain the uterine lining, and so it would only be expelled once these are no longer produced, having died. Of course some abortifacients cause the body to respond as though there is no pregnancy, probably expelling a live embryo.

To patsw, what your argument comes down to is whether induced abortion primarily aims to kill the embryo/foetus, or to remove it, and which of these occurs first. In terms of motive, the aim is to stop the pregnancy (normally). In terms of a procedure both of these are aims, although many medical definitions do not acknowledge death.

Overall it really doesn't matter, as the proposal includes both removal and death, and more importantly is showing general consensus, hopefully concluding this mammoth discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Given the facts today, the word "nonviable" is simply inaccurate for the medical definition. It should be removed. IDX is abortion and is used to kill viable babies. Why would we repeat an inaacurate definition? Good 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IDX is put within the context of viable induced abortion that result in the death of the entity. I'm unsure where you are going with this. - RoyBoy 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I read the definition, it is actually stating that IDX is performed after viability - is the language not clear? DonaNobisPacem 05:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "nonviable" is simply not accurate. Abortions are done regardless of viability, as anyone familiar with partial-birth abortion (sometimes called IDX) or hysterotomy abortion knows. I just don't know why the article would lead off with a statement that is inaccurate and misleading. Abortions can be early or late term, but they are all abortions. And not every medical definition of abortion mentions non-viability as a requirement for an abortion. Lets simply remove the word for the sake of clarity. The article I think already mentions that most abortions are done prior to viability (and it should it it does not). But to lead offf with false information is good for what reason? Should our compromise as editors actually compromise accuracy? There is no POV involved. Abortion of a viuable fetus is still abortion, medically and legally (and colloquially). There are several medical definitions that do not include any mention of viability, and we also have proof that late term abortion on viable fetuses occur thousands of times each year - why are we pretending otherwise? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why there are two definitions, the "medical" one and the "common paralance" one. No one has been able to combine the two because it gets too confusing and stillbirths end up being included (which are never considered abortion). Besides, abortions on viable fetus are rare (under 2%) in the US. I do not think it is extremely important to bend over backwards to cover every single case in the first sentence. Besides, IDX is wikilinked later on, and it specifically says "even viable ones".--Andrew c 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, remember this quote: " are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public."--Andrew c 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out by Andrew c; late term abortions are rare, as such we aren't going to lead off or emphasize them. That would be misleading; as would to say "abortions are done"; you are neglecting the fact the majority of abortions aren't "done" by anyone, they happen naturally. As to the notion of nonviable fetuses sucking their thumbs etc.; I understand what you are saying; but what I was getting at with terminate and nonviable is entities that have no chance of even reaching that stage because it will miscarry way before that stage on development. I know nonviable can also refer to healthy developing fetuses; but I was focusing on the fact the majority of abortions occur naturally and early; and terminate is better suited to that context. Induced abortion; which is the focus of common and political language; is of course a different story and has been given its very own wording and definition in the lead. - RoyBoy 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. We are to believe that killing a fetus is not properly called an "abortion". I suppose we should use "feticide", though I am sure there will be an outcry if that is used. A "late term abortion" is an abortion. If the medical term is "late term abortion" then it is still an abortion. Please explain how it is otherwise. A massive heart attack is still a heart attack. Juvenile diabetes is diabetes. Brain cancer is cancer. A pink flower is a flower. A giant panda is a panda. An early riser is a riser. A spring chicken is a chicken. A ridiculous argument is an argument. A rare Lamborghini is a Lamborghini. You get the idea. Lets stick to english, and not bend over backwards to be politically correct and in so doing mislead people. I know this was suggested as an effort to compormise, but any compromise must also be accurate. I have adopted the compromise with the sole exception of one untruth (nonviable). ____G_o_o_d____ 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what is your issue? You don't believe the majority of medical sources that have been cited as defining abortion pre-20 weeks? or you disagree with putting the medical definition first? It is completely acknowledged that in COMMON usage, abortion can refer to viable fetus, and then we wikilink to IDX. How is that not clear? If we put "often" in front of "medically defined", would that solve the problem? If we remove 'nonviable', not only are we ignoring a large potion of the technical definition, it makes the whole second definition redundent, and leaves no reason to link to IDX or mention 'death'. --Andrew c 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still don't find any of the proposals ideal, I do prefer them over what we presently have. Here's my rewrite of Spaully's version, which seems to be the accepted version. Nothing changed outside of trying to make it more concise.

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.--Pro-Lick 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E is perplexed

If "late term abortion" is the medical term for aborting a viable fetus, then I think the opening should also mention that medical term as well as the common language. On another note, I googled these phrases (and no others) to see what happened:

• "aborted fetus" 151,000 hits
• "aborted embryo" 1,060 hits
• "aborted pregnancy" 891 hits

• "aborted the fetus" 527 hits
• "aborted the pregnancy" 517 hits

• "aborting the fetus" 746 hits
• "aborting the pregnancy" 564 hits

• "abort the fetus" 32,900 hits
• "abort the pregnancy" 19,400 hits

• "the fetus was aborted" 283 hits
• "the pregnancy was aborted" 167 hits

• "the fetus is aborted" 412 hits
• "the pregnancy is aborted" 244 hits

In every case the results demonstrate that the most common usage refers to the fetus being aborted (not the pregnancy). And considering that fetus is generally the preferred term of abortion supporters (and eschewed by pro-lifers), it would seem that it is even the common usage among abortion asupporters. So, it seems that most people understand abortion as pertaining to the fetus, and secondarily to pregnancy. After all, at the center of every pregnancy is a unique new little human. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I fail to see the problem. The common usage definition focuses not only on the fetus, but on the DEATH of the fetus as the defining aspect. --Andrew c 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do have a question; can the medical term "late term abortion" include the abortion of a potentially viable fetus; or is Good incorrect? My understanding is "late term abortion" refers to an abortion done between 12-20 weeks. Late but still prior to viability. It may have come from this exchange on his talk page, in that case DonaNobisPacem could help clarify. - RoyBoy 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter; as Late-term abortion is defined in a different article. - RoyBoy 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the exchange on G&E's talk page - I mentioned there most medical sources defined late term abortion after 18-20 weeks (when they also define viability to start) - that matches up with the Misplaced Pages definition you linked to above... I'm getting confused now - what is the confusion about? DonaNobisPacem 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, about whether defining abortion in a way that leaves out "Late-term abortion" is misleading. I would say no, as they have their own articles. And we can put Late-term abortion in See also section of Abortion to make sure. And as Andrew c points out, commonly Abortion has a broader definition that includes viable healthy fetuses. - RoyBoy 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Late term abortion" only gets 29 hits on pubmed. I wouldn't call it a "medical term".--Andrew c 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Late-term abortion gets 76 hits. *shrug* RoyBoy 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is why I am confused or perplexed by the inclusion of the word "nonviable" for the definition of the broad term "abortion". I am not convinced, and I have not seen any evidence, that technicaly abortion can only be done to a nonviable fetus. Perhaps at one time the idea was that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable fetus. But we now know that is not true. Again, is it a medical fact that the killing and removal of a late term viable fetus is not actually an abortion? ____G_o_o_d____ 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The first definition is the medical definition; not a "broad" definition. That comes after with clarification of common usage of the term. While I acknowledge "Late-term abortion" is a wrinkle in a perfect definition; the proceedure is rare and is set apart from Abortion as Late-term abortion has its own article. - RoyBoy 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy: Maybe we should wikilink to LTA instead of IDX? or include both?--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is preferable; and clarifies there is a dinstinction. But I'm concerned now about "induce early pregnancy" listed under the procedure. That means late-term abortion doesn't necessarily involve "death" of the fetus. That could force us to stick with IDX. - RoyBoy 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:The confusion stems from editors wanting to include the broad, technical, medical term for abortion (that includes miscarriages) in an article that is basically about the "induced abortion procedure (not miscarriages)". We start with the technical definition of abortion, explain it, then move into the common usage and how it relates to human society. Your confusion is trying to make the technical definition fit your conception of what an abortion should be defined as. I believe the way it is written explains this issue clearly, but maybe I'm just used to this wording (and the concepts behind it).--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I just don't think an accurate technical definition should exclude abortion of a viable fetus. Regardless of whatever reference we find says, we all know for a fact that a woman carrying a viable fetus can have an "abortion". Technically, a late term abortion is still an abortion - its just a specific kind, as a chemical abortion is a specific kind of abortion. No one has really given any good explanation as to why non-viability would be included, especially since I have already posted two medical definitions that do not reference viability. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, Roy. If we are defining abortion, then it should be the broad definition. And the broad definition should not exclude late term abortions, as the inclusion of the word "nonviable" would do. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, late term abortions are not abortions (see previous citations). It is not a problem to possibly exclude them from the "medical" definition (besides, they are under 2%. Focusing on them seems to give them undue weight). However, it is explained CLEARLY further down that the common usage of the word abortion DOES cover LTA. If you read the whole paragraph together, I believe everything is explained, and all instances of what a doctor and what someone on the street would call an "abortion" are presented. If we were to remove the "nonviable" aspect, it would make no sense at all to refer to "even viable ones". We'd have to take that part out, and the wikilink to the IDX or LTA articles. --Andrew c 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we change IDX to Late-term abortion? Now that I think about it; it seems odd to have technical terminology in a "common parlance" definition. LOL, did you just suggest that above? - RoyBoy 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and you found that suggestion ;) I think what is meant by "early induction of labor" is that a chemical is injected to kill the fetus, and then the woman gives "birth" to the dead fetus. However, that is complete speculation on my part. Maybe google could tell us more?--Andrew c 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out this. At first glance, it's about causing the birth of a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own. Alienus 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah "'Induced labor leads to the fetus dying on its own, often in the arms of its parents,' says Calvin, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists." There is also and --Andrew c 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not entirely clear is whether the fetus is nonviable due to age or illness. The examples all mention fetuses that, if carried to term, would be dead in a matter of days anyhow. I don't know that anyone is simply inducing the birth of a fetus that, if carried to term, would survive. In any case, I suppose that this could be considered a form of abortion, at least by Catholics and others who put religious ethics above science. As such, it deserves mention in the LTA article, although not without framing to keep it honest. Alienus 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm entirely satisfied LTA is preferable to IDX; I don't see any further significant hiccups to implementation of the new lead. Andrew c, I think I can speak for the current consensus that you can add it when you are ready. It was a long time in coming... wonderful job everyone. Another win for Misplaced Pages!!! Huzzah! - RoyBoy 23:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah? I'll go get my leather mug.

More seriously, I do want to say that there is justice in the world; we just have to make it ourselves. Alienus 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Including non-viability as a prerequisite for every abortion is clearly archaic. Perhaps the thought used to be that no doctor would kill a viable fetus. With the advent of partial-birth abortion and hysterotomy abortion, that is no longer the case. Most late term abortions are performed on healthy fetuses after 19 or 20 weeks, the point at which viability is now placed. And thousands of late term abortions are done each year in the US (they are not rare, they are atypical; annually in the USA there are 500 times more late term abortions of viable fetuses than lawful executions). These two medical definitions do not included viability:

• MedicineNet.com medical dictionary: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
• Websters medical dictionary: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

____G_o_o_d____ 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's critique of the proposal

First of all, I want to thank AnnH for her constructive criticism and suggestions. RE: death in the first sentence. There are a number of users who do not want to mention death at all. I understand that one way of looking at the difference between an abortion and an live birth is the d-word, but it is also the same as the difference between a Vastus lateralis muscle on a living cow vs. it on your plate in the from of a Tri-tip steak. Some people feel the most important and defining aspect of an abortion is that a fetus dies, and other people feel the most important aspect of beef is that a cow dies. However, these are just POVs. I believe a compromise between the two parties is to include the d-word, but keep it out of the first sentence. Besides there is huge precedent in the quoted medical definitions to focus on the procedure or action of an abortion, not one of the side effects. RE: viablity. The common usage of the word abortion almost always refers to a the procedure that a woman pays a doctor for to end her pregnancy. I do not use the word "abortion" to mean miscarriage, and I don't know anyone who does. That said, the technical definition includes both spontaneous and induced abortions (but doesn't include stillbirths or so-called late term abortions). If we are going to mention miscarriages in the opening, we need to explain this difference. The current proposal is one way of handling it. Some users have not been happy with this presentation (but there haven't been any counter suggestions. Maybe these users do not find the current first sentence problematic, but I for one find major issues in it not mentioning the removal or expulsion of the products of conception, and how it possibly covers stillbirths, which are never considers abortions. It reads as if the act of a fetus dying in the womb equals and abortion, which is not the case.) I personally like the current proposal. It is a compromise that covers all situations that would be considered an abortion in a medical text book and in a news paper. It starts off technical, explains that some, then moves out, and focuses on induced human abortions, which is basically the theme of the rest of the article. However, maybe a different solution that AnnH, patsw, and G&E would prefer is mentioning the popular usage first, and then referencing the technical terminology? I seriously want to keep pushing for my original proposal, but I am going to type up a very rough cut of this common first, technical second version.

Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

The problem is that we have an article about the abortion procedure in humans, but if there is going to be a wiki article on "abortion" generally, we need to reference the technical term that covers miscarriages, and we need to mention non-human abortions. One solution would be to move this article to abortion (human) or abortion procedure in humans, but then 99% of users searching for "abortion" would want to find these topics, not the technical or non-human form. So covering these topics in the first paragraph seems like the only solution. I personally feel that the current wording isn't that great, and this is why I have been pushing for these reworks.--Andrew c 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Euphemism alert: "actively ending a pregnancy" above means killing the unborn life.

A pregnancy can be actively ended as well by delivering a living child. In fact, if you are alive and reading this, your mother's pregnancy was actively ended by your birth. patsw 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still like definitive proof that nonviability is required for the medical definition of abortion to be accurate. Since when is there a consensus here at[REDACTED] or otherwise that aborting a viable fetus is not an abortion? (Of course some would call it homicide, but I am talking about doctors who support abortion - do such doctors really consider that a late term abortion is not an abortion?) I repeat: perhaps prior to the advent of partial birth abortion the definition assumed no doctor would stoop to such lows as to abort a viable fetus, thus the word nonviable at one time was accurate. Too, spontaneous abortion is alwasy a nonviable fetus since at some point the fetus dies naturally with no intentional inducement. I am ok with the proposed new paragraph with the exception of the viability reference in the first line - and my objection has nothing to do with POV - it is about accuracy. I am not convinced that the viability reference is medically accurate. Abortion is abortion. Any time prior to the exit from the womb, the baby can be aborted. I would like to know why some of you think the viability reference - knowing it is not accurate and that it excludes some induced abortions - is so necessary. Do you really think that doctors don't consider late term abortions to be abortions? "Late term" is an adjective that modifies abortion. Its not really that hard to understand. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all "late term abortion" is not a medical term. Search it on pubmed if you like. Next, technically speaking champagne only refers to sparkling white wine made in the Champagne region of France. Despite that, it is not only common for California sparkling wine makers to label their product as "champagne", it is also common for the general public to use the non-technical, general word "champagne" to refer to ALL sparkling white wines. Similarly, technically speaking, an "abortion" that takes place after 20 weeks is not an abortion, despite everyone calling it that. The argument you are using to remove "nonviable" can similarly be used to suggest removing the references to the Champagne region in the Champagne (beverage) article. About your 2 definitions: the majority of the cited definitions refer to 20 weeks or viablity. Just because you found 2 that do not mention this does not change the majority. I could use the same argument that I found 2 definitions that do not include "death" therefore we should not say death. I'll agree to remove "nonviable" if you agree to remove "death". How's that? :Þ--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a medical source that specifically states that a late term abortion (whihc, by the way, was what someone else insisted was the proper term for them) is not an abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What, all the already cited medical definitions that reference 20 weeks or viability are not good enough? I did a search of the Oxford Reference Online (which searches over 140 different dictionaries and reference works published by Oxford University Press) earlier today and it was full of quotes like "before it is able to survive independently, esp. in the first 28 weeks of a human pregnancy." And from the Oxford Companion to Medicine "The loss of an immature embryo or fetus before viability is an abortion." And from A Dictionary of Nursing and the Concise Medical Dictionary "the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus at a stage of pregnancy when it is incapable of independent survival (i.e. at any time between conception and the 24th week of pregnancy)."--Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

patsw: My wording wasn't an actual proposal, just a "rough cut" of an alternative (common definition first, technical definition second). If you are unhappy with any of these ideas, perhaps you could share a proposal of your own, or are you happy with the current wording (which I personally find problematic, as I pointed out a couple topics up).--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What case has been made against the appearance of death in the definition of abortion on the basis of accuracy? If would want to describe the intentional killing of a fetus as something other than abortion, that is obviously inaccurate.

If you want to add that a naturally occurring fetal death after 20 weeks is commonly called a miscarriage or stillbirth while the intentional killing of the fetus after 20 weeks is called abortion. That would be accurate, but such language, I suggest, would be considered POV, not by me, by the advocates of unrestricted access to abortion at any time before natural birth.

Of course, the reason why this confusion got started in the first place was the mistaken belief that the intentional killing of human embryos and fetuses would happen before 20 weeks. If that were the case, a question of what defining abortion after 20 weeks would be moot. patsw 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never argued that it is not accurate to say a fetus/embryo dies at some point during an abortion procedure. I have argued that certain ways of presenting this "fact" can be seen as POV. No one would argue that the consumption of meat doesn't result in the death of an animal. However, would it be giving undue weight to the vegetarian position to mention this fact in the opening sentence of meat? What's worse, is there are some pro-choicers who do not consider the fetal tissue destroyed during an abortion any more significant than the death of your tonsils during a tonsillectomy. I do not believe the first sentence is the proper place to raise this issue and then worry about awkward qualification phrases to keep NPOV in mind (such as when someone inserted "death of a cell"). Furthermore, an abundance of medical sources do not mention death. Therefore, when we are giving a 'medical' definition, it isn't that odd to keep a similar wording. To top things off, we then present the 'common' usage of the word that clearly mentions death, and references not only late term abortions (<2%) but we also mention abortions on viable fetuses (~.08%). If anything, that is giving undue weight to such a minor occurrence in the first paragraph. But I thought it was a good compromise to make it clear the different usages of the word abortion, and what each definition covers. I think the confusion is that the first medical definition covers "abortion"(1). While the second common usage covers "the induced abortion procedure"(2). You can have an induced abortion procedure (2) any point during a pregnancy, but technically, the ~.08% of abortion procedures (2) on viable fetuses are not "abortion"(1). Just like stillbirths are not abortion (1). Really, to look at this more objectively, go to some medical journals that deal with livestock and see how they use these terms there. --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see people keep asking for sources, and I thought this had been previously covered here Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS and here #medical sources. I think Andrew c is providing a fair and balanced definition and first paragraph. Death is not excluded, nor is one definition said to the correct one. I'm definitely not seeing any reasons why the existing 1st paragraph is preferable to the revised version.--Pro-Lick 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would propose now that we change the opening paragraph to the new version because, even if it is not perfect, it is at least more accurate and clear than the current version. Maybe having it in the article will allow more editors to review it and imput their suggestions. I want to thank everyone who gave suggestions and worked to improve my initial proposal! --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Alienus 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too, and I did somwhere give you the thumbs up a while back. I'll implement the version we had arrived on when I left. Any omissions, problems let me know. - RoyBoy 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Question, should "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure." be changed to "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures." Given there is more than one late-term procedure; I'm guessing it should be plural. - RoyBoy 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that all late-term abortion procedures are controversial. Alienus 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't. So there. Actually, 2 issues. 1st is that it would be true to say all abortion procedures are controversial, so it's essentially a meaningless qualification. 2nd, those that are performed to save a woman's life are relatively as controversial as standard abortions.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True; but I read into that LTA are especially controversial. Would adding "especially" be clarifying? Or overdoing it? - RoyBoy 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual procedures used to perform life-saving LTA's are used to perform any kind of LTA, so I'm not sure what you mean. For that matter, I don't think that most LTA's are actually life-saving. I thought they're mostly from women who, for a variety of reasons, didn't get an abortion earlier. Alienus 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there is more than one type of LTA procedure; therefore there are multiple procedures, meaning proceedure should be pluralized and the sentence tweaked to reflect that. - RoyBoy 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. "Especially" does not. Maybe if controversial gets used excessively, it will be needed.--Pro-Lick 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"controversial but rare"

I propose dropping "controversial but rare."

• A mention of a "controversy" should explain what's controverted and who's doing the controverting. A freestanding "controversy" is meaningless.

• "Rare" is a vague and relative word (relative to what)? It is a word lifted from debates where one is advocating the right to obtain a late term abortion, or arguing against laws that would restrict such abortions. The Late term abortion article itself doesn't call these abortions rare. patsw 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. LTA's are both more controversial than early abortions and much rarer. Alienus 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortions performed when the fetus is viable are estimated to be around 0.08%. Abortion performed after 20 weeks is estimated to be around 1.4%. p. 12 The LTA article is only about a week old and needs work. I personally felt it was important to mention how common abortions with viable fetuses are. Maybe the opening paragraph isn't the best place, and maybe the word "rare" is vague, but I'm not sure dropping the adjectives without replacing them with some other sort of modifier would help clarify things. --Andrew c 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just changed:

• such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure.

to:

• in controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures.

I think it was necessary in order to get the pluralization right. - RoyBoy 06:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The mention of a freestanding controversy is meaningless. Is the controversy that after viability, the choice made is to deliver a dead corpse rather than a living human baby? patsw 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a false choice; so not exactly. - RoyBoy 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there are thousancds of these abortions each year, "atypical" is the word we should use - not "rare". Rare would be something that almost never occurs. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted the .08% quote. Can you cite a source that claims there are thousands of abortions with viable fetuses each year? If something happens under 1%, I would consider it rare. So clearly abortions on viable fetuses are rare (by my standards). What standards are you using?--Andrew c 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what matters here is not percentages, but what medical professionals precisely call procedures on potentially viable fetuses. Do they say "abortion", or something longer than abortion? - RoyBoy 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A rare event in the United States is not .08% and I dispute that number is that low. If a low number is used, it's 18,000, the actual number is likely 25,000 because of the distortions in the data collection process (i.e. undercounting such abortions by improperly recording the gestational age of the fetus). Any cause of death above 1,000 deaths should not be called "rare". patsw 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV, but I'll stick with Einstein and everything is relative. In addition, this an exhibition of why I object to the use of "death". Patsw equivocates on it as if these deaths are somehow equivalent to the deaths of people.--Pro-Lick 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree on what the word "rare" means. .08% is still very low. Why do you dispute AGI's estimate? I agree that there method is a little rough. They make an estimate total number of abortions (because the CDC only covers what is reported, and there are around 13 IIRC reporting areas that do not report). And then use the CDC's proportions for gestational age and apply them to their new total estimate. Do you have any data that contradicts AGI's findings? Are you saying that there is a disproportionately large number of abortions past 24 weeks that are unreported? Do you have proof? Next, you are completely wrong with the 18,000 number. AGI estimated that there were 1.29 million abortions that took place in 2002 (roughly 450,000 more than were reported to the CDC in that year). The CDC's report, which is based on hard numbers, said that 1.4% of abortions took place after 20 weeks. So you take the CDC's hard number, and apply it to AGI's estimate and you get 18,000. The place where you are wrong is that saying past 20 weeks is equal to viability. AGI estimates that there were only .08% of all abortions that actually took place after 24 weeks. That is an estimate 1032 abortions (probably after viability) out of 1.29 million. Why do you saythat 25 times as many abortions took place after viability than estimated?--Andrew c 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical and common definitions

Homestarmy (viability is debatable): I'm under the impression Andrew c was diligent in trying to be as accurate as possible to the actual medical definition of "abortion"; which is about an abortion before 20 weeks or agreed biological viability. (exceptions don't change how they define it)

GoodandEvil (viable fetuses can be aborted): If Andrew c is correct; then doctors don't consider viable fetuses simply an abortion; they consider it a "late-term" abortion. That clearly indicates it is not a standard abortion as they define it. If it were, they would just call it an abortion. No matter how many times this argument is repeated, it merely gets repeated, rather than say... becomes persuasive.

Musical Linguist (prioritizing medical vs. layman): More interesting; and rests on a premise I have pondered during the redefinition discussion. What is the conclusive (if any?) criteria for prioritizing definitions; layman or technical; common or medical; for an encyclopedia or if Misplaced Pages policy/philosophy differs. Although I find Musical Linguist's rationale flawed and biased (yes language changes, but that should have no impact on our prioritization, as we aren't a pop-culture magazine that changes with the times; we update with the times :"D); anyway I am personally at a loss as to what should come first. I'd really like some illumination on this one; but I suspect that which came first would win out if common sense was the only consideration. Ohhhhh, me likey etymology.

Comments on these subjects are welcome in this section; other comments can go elsewhere.
- RoyBoy 03:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this concise summary of points! I tend to talk too much, and I have been a little defensive over this. I apologize to anyone if my frustation has been showing. As for the issue at hand (which should come first). I'll be completely honest here. The primary reason I chose the medical definition first was as a compromise between the death and anti-death folk. Instead of removing the word "death" completely, I moved it out of the first sentence. If we decide to move the common definition to the beginning, I would highly suggest a major rework that, while perhaps still mentioning death, focuses less on the death of the fetus as being the single, defining aspect of what constitutes an abortion. However, I do not feel we should be putting too much energy into inventing our own definitions of terms (like I said above, seems like OR). We should only be reporting what our sources say. Aside from these POV/compromise issues, what is more encyclopedic? Having the technical definition first, or the common? Maybe we could combine the two "while medical dictionaries define abortion as , the word commonly refers to the induced abortion procedure that can take place at any time during a pregnacy." Obviously, I'd like to keep the new proposed version we have, but I am trying to work with everyone here. So please, what does everyone else think?--Andrew c 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been trying hard to find pubmed articles on "late-term abortions". That term really doesn't get used, but then again not many articles cover this subject. Most say something along the lines of "third trimester termination of pregnancy".--Andrew c 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments illustrate the factual point I have been repeating: abortion is a broad medical term, and it includes even late-term abortions. Medical experts consider everyu successful abortion after 20 weeks to be an "abortion" - they often add the modifier "late-term". Arguably, the abortion definition used to mention non-viability because no doctor was willing to kill a viable fetus. But some definitions have not kept current or else do not want to acknowledge the gruesome (and previously unthinkable) reality of abortions that kill viable fetuses. Few doctors want to admit that a professional peer would kill viable babies for money. It makes the profession look bad. And those who do such "procedures" don't want everyone to know exactly what goes on - its a vile thing to admit to. No matter how you slice it, a dead fetus is wicked gross - especially a viable dead fetus that you just killed. But back to the issue: it is ludicrous to claim that an abortion after 20 weeks is no longer an abortion, but is rightly referred to as (even Andrew C can see that there is scant evidenec that "late term abortion" is the preferred medical term). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By mentioning that I cannot find the term "late term abortion" (or even "abortion" for that matter) in reference to viable pregnacies being terminated, I am illustrating your point?? How does that work. You just claimed that "medical experts" use the term abortion after 20 weeks. I agree, to a lesser extent, that medical professionals are allowed to use common usages of words. However, prove to me that this is the technical term used in the medical literature. Search pubmed if you want (I've already been there). The fact of the matter is a VAST majority of our definitions define abortion as before viability. Even if this goes against your personal POV, and you feel it is inaccurate, there is NO justifiable reason to exclude this technical definition. In fact, because some editors feel that it needs to be "fixed", my proposal included TWO definitions to cover BOTH POV. I'm just trying to be NPOV, which is to show all relevent POV in accordance to their weight. You are arguing to not include a relevent POV because you feel it doesn't cover what you personally consider an "abortion" to be. How is this not POV pushing? (an aside) Your constant use of emotional, partisan language does not help your argument. I try to read through all that to find your actual point, but it is hard to ignore.--Andrew c 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Opening paragraph

Moved from main talk page to preserve continuity in discussion. G+E please do not move it back

Current opening:

• An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

Proposed opening (see also the discussion above and especially Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph where the proposal was hammered out and reached consensus):

• An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

It is time to weigh in before making the change. Poll closes on 13 April.____G_o_o_d____ 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This poll is now closed. There was no consensus to adopt the new language. 8 favored it, and 8 were not in favor. I ask someone who knows how to archive this entire poll section.____G_o_o_d____ 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Adopt new opening: Andrew c
2. Adopt new opening: Alienus
3. Adopt new opening: RoyBoy # (I'd like contro/rare sentence tweaked, mainly on grounds that its awkward, use perhaps "at any stage of pregnancy with rare late-term abortion procedures." Then put controversy in the last sentence like: "human abortion is controversial so it receives the most focus..." - RoyBoy 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Adopt new opening: Pro-Lick
5. Adopt new opening: GTBacchus
6. Adopt new opening: AvB (as stated here)
7. Adopt new opening: --Isolani 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

running total wanting to adopt new language as proposed: 8 (see below)

1. Reject Adopt new opening (only if the inaccurate word "nonviable" is removed, since viable fetuses are aborted): ____G_o_o_d____
2. Reject Adopt new opening (except with Goodandevil's proposal): --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) < This is my current vote. --WikiCats 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Reject new opening, "nonviable" is inaccurate, the obfuscation of the biological fact of death is POV. (self-professed) Str1977 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Reject new opening, wandered into this discussion, some extremely premature babies are more viable than people might think. Give the modern day medical profession some credit eh? Homestarmy 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose the new definition and support the old. Numerically those who prefer the euphemism termination over the accurate word death, dominated the discussion in Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and declared consensus. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   Reject The proposed opening paragraph is not an improvement over the prior one. The proposed opening paragraph replaces accurate language with euphemisms. The reality is that abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus and the proposed opening paragraph avoids this. patsw 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

   I think this is your second vote on this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --> merged 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Reject the new opening, after a lot of reflection. I had already given it a reluctant support (though not as a vote between this and the old one), as being better than some other versions that had been suggested. But if it is a choice between this, and the more accurate previous version, then I would oppose changing it. Regarding the medical definition, assuming that it is true that it's not medically defined as abortion if it's carried out late in the pregnancy, Misplaced Pages is not a medical encyclopaedia, and it is a fact that people use the word abortion to refer to the killing of the fetus throughout all nine months. Language is not something fixed. It changes, according to how the people use it. I have often heard phrases like "abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy" coming from the lips of well-educated people. I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph (again, assuming that it's accurate), but I think to start with that obscures an accurate, though unpleasant fact that the fetus dies, and gives the impression that only non-viable fetuses (or embryos) are aborted. The previous version was better and clearer. AnnH ? 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Reject Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. User:KillerChihuahua 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Reject A fetus is not removed to preserve it's life. It is removed to kill the embryo. The whole point is to kill the baby in the womb. Dominick 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Swing vote: My rejection is based upon the reference to "controversial, but rare, late term procedures." There are other controversies in the debate, and picking this one out of the rest smacks of spoonfeeding, or selective presentation. I'd suggest sidestepping the issue entirely, as in, "In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure , regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed." Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the new version, although I still find the current/old version acceptable. -Severa | !!! 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a support vote now? AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think we've worked out all the kinks that we possibly can. -Severa | !!! 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

running total rejecting new language as proposed: 8

Comments

Not only are polls evil, but Evil has been trying to sway the poll by writing messages to known anti-abortion editors. As far as I'm concerned, anyhow he contacted gets zero votes. This poll is officially a joke and I will not participate in it, nor will I accept its results as binding upon me. Alienus 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Alienus, it is not for you to decide who gets a vote and who doesn't. If there is anything in Misplaced Pages policy to say that an editor in good standing, who has edited extensively in a particular article, has not left that article but has been busy in the last few days with other articles is to have her vote declared null and void because another editor alerted her about the vote (which she was already aware of anyway), you can be assured that I will abide by that policy. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When you make a major change to the opening that was discussed on a seperate talk page that many editors have likely not seen, you will likely find that many editors have no idea what is being proposd, so it is not really accurate to claim "consensus". If the version is a consensus version it will become clear. Alerting editors who have edited this article in the past is no crime. Trying to spring a new opening (that was created on a hidden subpage) on everyone during an article freeze is problematic. Asking editors to weigh in is not. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. While much discussion occurred on the side page, the poll is here on the main page, so any further advertising is unnecessary. Moreover, you limited your advertising to known allies, which shows that you were trying to sway the results, not merely inform all interested parties. You are deeply partisan and this vote is a sham. Alienus 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So, soliciting the opinion of other editors is a sham? I thought it was soliciting input. Everyone is free to solicit input of other wiki editors. Your fear of such input is due to what?____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for input, but what you're trying to do is recruit sympathetic editors to vote in support of your holy cause. Let's not pretend that there is anything honorable about this. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing honourable in recruiting editors who are sympathetic to one's cause, but there's nothing dishonourable in it either, as long as they're not meatpuppets who joined Misplaced Pages for the purpose of making an extra three reverts per day for your cause. And if Alienus thinks it's dishonourable to recruit editors who are likely to support him, it rather puzzling that he does it himself — see this and this. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting the opinion of other editors who have not worked on the paragraph is a sham if targeted to bolster a specific POV. To solicit input without introducing bias, editors should use the relevant procedures (surveys, RfCs). The general idea (and I'm sure AnnH, as an admin, will agree) is that the number of editors with specific personal POVs should ideally reflect the ratios found in the general population. When in doubt, consult the policies. Meanwhile I'm copying the following verbatim from the Misplaced Pages:Consensus guideline. AvB ÷ talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

Also see Misplaced Pages:Single purpose account for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue.

• m:Polls are evil - Didn't we discuss this thoroughly enough that this isn't necessary? Obviously, I support adopting the new version. I think it's probably rude to insert other editors' assumed votes, Good. -GTBacchus 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The 4 editors I listed above unequivocally voiced there support to adopt it. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is should be interesting; and it was more than 4... but then again I've never been good at counting. - RoyBoy 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a terrible practice to insert someone's vote. People already voiced their opinion on the talk subpage. Here are some people G&E missed: "PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "I could support it as well... AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)" "unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion... Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)". We implimented Spaully's changes. Like I said above, AnnH was reluctant, but seemed to support this as a compromise. G&E even supports it minus the one word "nonviable". The only person who has been critical is patsw, however I haven't really figured out what the problem (maybe something to do with the d-word. he seems to want to define abortion by a fetus dying, and nothing else).

So why do I think we need the word "nonviable"? Because there is a huge practice of defining abortion this way in medical literature. Since this definition is clearly qualified as a medical definition, I do not see why this is a problem. If we remove "nonviable" we are removing this definition. And maybe we need to argue out again why we need to include a medical/technical definition, as opposed to having the whole article deal with the induced abortion procedure in humans. (you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used technically in journals that deal with livestock. should we ignore this definition completely just? I say no)--Andrew c 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Medically speaking, an abortion of a viable fetus is still considered an abortion (unless it is called manslaughter - but I think most here would reject that label for this article as too POV) and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.____G_o_o_d____ 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, if we are fighting a battle of lesser evils, clearly the new proposal is better than the old version. Therefore, even if it isn't perfect and we still need to improve it, at least it is better than what we had. Can we at least agree to put in the new version to replace the old for the time being? Does anyone seriously think that the new version is WORSE?--Andrew c 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of lesser Evils, he just tried to revert back to the death-laden definition, which would have been a step backwards. I wonder if he has any excuse at all. Alienus 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the "new opening paragraph" that's subject to this vote? Please specify by posting on top of the poll.

Having asked that, any version containing "nonviable" is of course factually inaccurate (and hence no consensus can put it here), while any version that tries to cover up the biological fact of death is POV.

(self-professed) Str1977 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not factually inaccurate to say a medical definition defines it that way when, well the vast majority of medical definitions define it that way. It is POV, but since it is qualified as to who says this, I don't think it is a problem. On top of that, there is a second common definition, that specifically says it occurson viable fetuses, and links to late-term abortion. Note, there are only an estimate .08% of all abortions with viable fetuses. If anything, mentioning viablitiy and linking to LTA is giving this issue undue weight in the first paragraph. Finally, the second common definition clearly says death. Both of your issues are addressed in the proposal. While it is POV to specifically focus on the death of the fetus, it is also POV to focus on the medical definition. Since we do both, it seems to me to be a ballanced compromise. So what is your specific concern? Do you feel that including the medical definition is problematic? do you not like seeing it first and would rather have the more common definition in the opening sentence? or do you have an argument why we should ignore the technical, medical POV in an article covering a term sometimes used in a technical, medical context?--Andrew c 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I think the consensus definition, if anything, goes too far in placating the pro-lifers. LTA's are such a rarity that any mention of them near the top is undue. In any case, it is my estimate that these people will not settle for anything less than a grossly misleading definition on top that emphasizes death. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is a vote where Good and Evil has determined that outcome of the poll. --WikiCats 11:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He sure is trying to, regardless of propriety. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Viable fetuses are aborted:

• "This act covers every D&E that I did. Everything that I do to cause an abortion is an overt act. . . The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery. very frequently." - Dr. LeRoy Carhart, giving testimony under oath in Carhart v. Ashcroft, 2004

____G_o_o_d____ 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So what, doctors aren't allowed to use a common usage of a word while testifying to a non-medical audience (for that matter, nothing prohibits them from using a common usage of a word in the medical literature either)? And your quote doesn't say ANYTHING about viability. The heart starts beating around 5 weeks, so just about every induced abortion takes place on a fetus with a heartbeat. These fetuses are also "alive". So what part of your quote deals with viability?--Andrew c 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Good and Evil. I vote for the paragraph. --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's common sense that some fetuses would be still alive. --WikiCats 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense from a medical perspective. Viability does not mean a heartbeat, it means some reasonable chance of survival. A fetus has a heartbeat from relatively early on, but is not viable until much later. This lack of medical understanding combined with your overwhelmingly strong feelings about abortion make your opinions on this matter rather worthless. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. KillerChihuahua 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, until we remove death from the first sentence, I'm going to reinsert that {{POV}} tag. Alienus 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Two items:

• Ali, re your post on my talk page - I was not edit warring. I was restoring an earlier version that had been agreed upon (if I am not mistaken by all editors except for you and Pro-Lick). The new version has not achieved consensus, at least not yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But right now the vote is not finished, so there's no basis of changing the article accordingly. But what to I speak to you, since you think the vote a sham anyway. I, for my part, think the new defintion untenable, which leads me to:
• the issue of "non-viable": it doesn't matter how many abortions are performed on viable or non-viable fetuses. Even if there ís only one viable fetus aborted (and believe me, there are more than one) or even if there was (by coincidence or legal provision) no viable fetus aborted at all world wide (I know, it's utopic), the non-viablity would still not part of the definition of abortion, as man is quite able of aborting a viable fetus. Or is there a different definition which gives another name to such an abortion. If so, please enlighten us.
• Re your last post, Ali: so you are determined to tag the article POV unless it conforms to your POV and forgets about the biological facts of abortion.

(self-professed) Str1977 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposal isn't claiming that the induced abortion procedure doesn't occur on viable fetuses. It is claiming that there is a medical definition that has a cut of point for 'abortion' at around 20 weeks in humans. This defniition includes miscarriages, which the 'induced abortion precedure' does not. There are two different definitions used in two different contexts, and I believe the proposal spells that out. It isn't a matter of claiming induced abortions don't occur with viable fetuses. It's a matter of accurately presenting a technical term. Just because you think of one thing when you hear the word 'abortion' doesn't mean we have to exclude another way the term is more generally defined by a vast majority of technical/medical sources. Under this logic, I should be arguing to remove the references to miscarriages because I never think of miscarriages when someone says the word "abortion". Maybe we need to make it even clearer that there are two different definitions being presented? or are you going to make a case that we ignore one of them completely?--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I belief it is self-apparent, if it is absolutely crucial to spell out that abortions can occur or be performed at any stage of pregnancy, I believe this could be accomplished in manner which does not require the creation of seperate sentence, as in, "This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means, at any stage of pregnancy. " My chief objection, however, is to the unnecessary and troublesome mention of "controversial, but rare, late-term abortion procedures." There are other controversies in the debate; why mention this one above all else? This is the only I'd insist upon being changed, or removed, because, as is, it smacks of spoonfeeding. Otherwise, good work! -Severa | !!! 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting suggestion. I agree with the reasoning (and I, among others, were having issues with that "controversial but rare/LTA" part. ) However, the placement of your proposed clause "at any stage of pregnacy" would need to be moved to the sentence about the common usage, or we defeat the purpose of differntiating between two different definitions. Maybe including two definitions is making matters worse (althought the near concensus we had on the talk subpage speaks otherwise), but I felt that to cover all cases of what a newspaper and what a medical journal would consider "abortion" we needed to do something to make sure miscarriages were included, but stillbirths were not.--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the people not quite happy with the rare/LTA thing, but I think that giving both the medical and lay definitions is very clearly the right approach. The fact that it offends only the most extreme of anti-choice zealots shows that it's accurate and neutral.

To raise one point that Pro-lick has been known to make, requirements such as verifiability and neutrality are not subject to vote or consensus. At this point, the text that was reverted to by Str1977 is entirely unacceptable on the basis of those two requirements, so there is no way it can be kept. The reason we're working on getting your text accepted officially is to prevent the almost inevitable edit war that Str1977 and his cohort will launch at the drop of a hat. The secondary reason is to get constructive criticism to improve the text before we permanently insert it.

In short, I am disgusted by Str1977's attempt to edit-war this issue instead of discussing it, and I'm disgusted by Evil's attempt to stack the vote. The process has failed, which leaves us only to do the right thing. Alienus 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, if Late term abortion is only opposed by "The most extreme of anti-choice zealots" what are the less extreme pro-lifers opposing and how is whatever that is more controversial than LTA? Homestarmy 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if you misunderstood what I said, so I'll clarify. The most extreme of anti-choice zealots oppose Andrew's version of the intro. All anti-choicers oppose abortion rights, by definition. Alienus 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But I dunno if im really one of the most extreme pro-lifers out there, I mean, I don't really dedicate a huge amount of time to it, I haven't picketed any abortion clinics...(Maybe cus I don't know of any near where I live heh) Homestarmy 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a big world. There's even room for armchair extremists. Alienus 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, do you oppose all abortions?--Pro-Lick 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the medical definition of abortion can have some very odd twists and turns, and although I haven't actually read this entire talk page, that actually seems to be the issue here if im reading it right. What sense of the word "abortion" do you mean? Homestarmy 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Use of the word termination is medically inaccurate for this Misplaced Pages article.

Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. An induced abortion which results in a live birth is called a failed abortion precisely because the intent was to render fetus dead and the fetus did not die.

The word termination only entered the medical vocabulary as the medical community became politicized by the abortion legalization debate. Death is an apolitical and NPOV reference to what abortion is. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself, Patsw. If the word "death" was phased out by the medical community for political reasons, then it manifestly isn't "apolitical", but is quite blatantly "politicized". -GTBacchus 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, sometimes people start with a conclusion and work their way backwards, keeping whatever fits and discarding anything that inconveniently fails to. When viewed forwards, the logic doesn't really hang together very well, because of the contradictions implicit in the conspicious omissions. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If your question, GTBacchus, is if it became more useful to the pro-abortion advocates to use termination in preference to death as the abortion debate started, the answer is yes. Dictionary authors who had used death as the descriptive word in defining abortion in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were not yet engaged in the art of euphemism and political advocacy. Death is the medically accurate word. patsw 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the people who oppose the new proposal not know about the talk subpage discussion? Or were they boycotting it because they felt nothing was wrong with the current version? Seriously, is there anyone that is 100% happy with the current version? It clearly is vague and not that accurate. It doesn't reference the possibility of there being more than one meaning to the word. It doesn't explain who uses these different meanings. And it seems to say not only stillbirths are abortions, but the act of a fetus dying in a womb, regardless if it later removed, amounts to abortion. Something needs to be done about the first paragraph. We tried to work this out on the talk page. So how come the people opposed to the new version didn't help to make it better through the process we tried to establish? I apologize if I sound upset, but I tried to work hard to be accurate, and cover all points of view, while compromising with extreme choicers and extreme lifers. What now? Do we go back to the talk subpage and work out the kinks with the 2 new people who oppose this version? What suggestions would the oppose people give to improve the first paragragh?--Andrew c 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste it all to the 1st paragraph subpage if you think it fits there. Here, it seems redundant and potentially confusing for anybody that might like to contribute.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the nonviable word. It is 100% accurate to say that there are medical definitions that define abortion this way. Just because your personal POV disagrees with them, or doesn't want to mention them, does not change the wording of the majority of medical/techincal definitions. It is going to have to take a really good argument to ignore or rewrite these cited medical definitions. The issue is that there are hardly any definitions used by medical professionals that are favorable to a pro-life wording. They use so-called "euphamisms" or are otherwise somehow inaccurate. We can try to make our own super-accurate definition. But it may be OR (and we've tried this in the past and it didn't seem to work to cover every single imaginable case), and it clearly is ignoring the medical community. My compromise was to present two definitions, but it seems like even mentioning a different definition that doesn't fit the idea people have in their heads of what abortion should be (basically an induced abortion procedure) upsets people.--Andrew c 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And you even wikilink the word, so any variation in the meaning in viability can be taken care of in that article. It is both flexible and accurate.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(I've removed this statement. AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

It would be a sham if friends of Goodandevil with no prior history on Misplaced Pages joined for the puropse of voting for what he voted for, and reverted to his version. It could also be considered improper if Goodandevil contacted all the people in the Pro-Life Wikipedian category, if that category still exists, and if lots of them descended on this article to vote, having had no prior history here. If people like DonaNobisPacem, Str1977, and myself, who are known to have a longstanding involvement in this article, are alerted to the vote, which they either had already seen would have seen, I see nothing wrong with that. As of yesterday (the server is running a day behind) Str1977 had 295 contributions to abortion and abortion talk combined (not counting subpages). DonaNobisPacem had 163. I had 128. You had 60. "Evil" is a very strong word, and borders on a personal attack. Most people reserve that word for things like murder, rape, etc. Couldn't you just say you think it is wrong? Alerting a few likeminded people who are already established editors and who might be considered likely to revert to your version or vote for what you want is certainly not a blockable offence, unless you think that Alienus should be blocked for this? AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see I made a general statement without the proper qualifiers. I have removed my statement since you have such problems with it and posted a politically correct version above (below Good's statement to which it responds). AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The first I knew of Goodandevil alerting others to the vote was when I clicked on "last change" on the new messages bar, and saw a not untypical sneer from Alienus suggesting that three editors who did have a prior history on this page (two of whom had an extensive history) should get one vote between them. Some time later I saw your post, which did not have the addition that you subsequently made (after I had replied to it), in which you called his action "evil". (Note inserted later: I see you have now removed it. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) I think you could have chosen a better word. The "polls are evil" phrase is an established one here on Misplaced Pages, and is not likely to be taken personally. I think people here might take it personally, though, if I described their comments or their behaviour as evil (which I would not do). I would describe canvassing for votes as "not the done thing"; I would not describe it as evil, particularly when referring to someone who is currently blocked and is able to read all this without posting. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good is blocked? Anyway, I've already refactored the "evil" comment. But please stop the repetitive "guilt by association" ploy by mentioning other editors. I am not a part of anyone's cabal and suggesting I am is an ad hominem attack, unlike calling policy violations evil. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that comment. I don't know on what grounds you can think that I am suggesting that you are part of anyone's cabal. Let me make it clear that I do not and did not think that. I felt that Alienus's post to me was rude. I felt that your choice of the word "evil" about Goodandevil's action was too strong. I do not in any sense associate you with Alienus. My introduction to this debate was in seeing a general outcry against a few perfectly visible requests (he could have used e-mail), which in the case of Alienus extended to those who had received the request. It's hardly worth squabbling about. I appreciate also that you were unaware that Goodandevil was blocked. Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I would not feel comfortable in allowing lots of brand new users to vote. That's an invitation to sockpuppetry, but perhaps you meant users who are new to the article rather than to Misplaced Pages? AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I sensed a "guilty by association" shade to the repeated mention of people whose edits (with the exception of Good's) are not relevant to the subject at hand. I do not wish to comment on the examples you brought in regarding Alien's edits, and I do not wish to be portrayed as saying DonaNobisPacem, Str1977 and you were recruited by Good. Using e-mail, by the way, is also "a bad thing" according to the relevant WP guideline. I must say I had missed Good's 4RR block. Kicking people while they're down disgusts me big time regardless of the who or why. "Brand new users" to me means new WP editors, not editors in good standing who just happen to be uninvolved in an article. The latter (and probably even the former if there's no puppetry involved) as long as they don't just vote, but join in, listen and give others their perspective, are most welcome. That's not only my personal feeling, it's also basic policy. (Actually a lot of basic policy rings true from where I stand). Bottom line, I think we should trust one another. Actually I trust you more than you may think. Example: you could have edited out the word "evil" straight away. We don't think all that differently and what looks like common sense to you will probably look like common sense to me as well. But I'm straying off topic so if we need to wrap this up I propose we do so using our talk pages. Your call. :-) AvB ÷ talk 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, to Alienus — if Goodandevil has modified his signature to say simply "Good", could you please stop addressing him and referring to him as "Evil". It strikes me as rather rude, to say the least. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather presumptuous of him to ask us all to address him as "Good", when he is clearly not. At best, he's "Mixed", but he chose a name that ends with "Evil", so that's what I had to work with. At this rate, he might as well drop an "o" and demand that we call him "God" for all I care, but I won't do it.

If he'd just picked something neutral, idiosyncratic or generic, then this would not be an issue at all. Frankly, it's not my fault that he had such a lack of foresight and I consider your demands to be overreaching your authority as an admin. People call me all sorts of things all the time, but unless it's conspicuously unrelated to me or my nick, or is blatantly insulting, I just answer. There's such a thing as not being thin-skinned and presumptuous. Alienus 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I won't take offense at being called by either the 1st part or the last part of my username.--Pro-Lick 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Homestarmy vote:

By rejecting their definition? -GTBacchus 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, by recognizing that modern day medical procedures are so advanced that babies that are insanely premature and would ordinarily be considered "non-viable" can actually be saved, thought this generally requires large amounts of expense of course and doesn't occur too often for that reason. Plus, miracles happen.... Homestarmy 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to patsw vote:

"Numerical domination" is just another term for majority vote. Your line of reasoning: (1) Declare the consensus process based on numbers, not on quality of argument (2) Denounce the consensus because it was based on numbers (3) Declare numbers decisive again in this poll. Obviously you can't have it both ways. And just as obviously, calling in editors who have not worked on the paragraph is skewing the numbers (but not, so far, the quality of the arguments). Their votes (but not their arguments) have to be disregarded. Also note that the result of that consensus proposal was posted here and did not receive much opposition from editors who did not participate on the subpage as you seem to suggest. In fact it received support. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to AnnH vote:

How can you honestly say that the previous version is "more accurate"? Just to make sure we are talking about the same version, I will quote it: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This definition does not mention removal or expulsion. What this is saying is that if an embryo stops growing and dies (or dies then stops growing), and abortion has occured. This covers stillbirths which are never considered abortion. This says that if an fetus dies then the woman miscarries, the first part is an abortion, but the second part (the miscarriage) is not an abortion. It uses a very awkward phrase that gets low google hits "termination of the gestation". Pregnancies are terminated, not gestations. "resulting in or form" sounds poor gramatically to me (I would say "resulting in or caused by"). On top of this definition being wordy and awkward and clearly inaccurate, it presents a specific POV without qualification and without rebuttle in the first sentence (and what is that POV? that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion).The fact of the matter is that there are two definitions for the word abortion and NO ONE has been able to make one definition that covers all instances. We need two definitions. I personally think that attempting to make our own definition is OR. We should be reporting what sources say, not deciding how we think terms should be defined. Also keep in mind, NPOV should not be confused with non-point of view. We obviously cannot write a neutral article, so we should present the majority POVs and avoid giving undue weight. Additionally, saying "wikipedia is not a medical encyclopedia" is not a valid reason to exclude a POV that you disagree with. Go here. Read the article, look at the three template boxes. How can you advocate not including the medical POV when we have articles and infoboxes like these? And finally, if you can accept including two definitions, what did you think of my 'rough cut' above that put the common definition first?--Andrew c 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Andrew. Yes, I'd prefer it to mention expulsion or removal, and previous versions that I supported did so. However, gestation refers to the period of time spent in the womb, so if the gestation is ended, then the fetus would no longer be in the womb. If it were possible for an embryo to disintegrate and be absorbed into the mother's body after death, rather than being expelled, I would consider that a miscarriage, hence an abortion, although I think the article should (and does) focus on induced abortions.

Yes, if an embryo, after implantation, stopped growing and died, an abortion, meaning in this case a spontaneous abortion would have taken place. Does the old version cover stillbirths? If a fullterm baby is born dead, I'm not sure that the death cause the expulsion or that the expulsion caused the death. If I'm mistaken, can't we put something like "excluding stillbirths" in it?

Regarding the case of a fetus dying (abortion?) and the woman then miscarrying (not abortion?) you make a good point, and I'm very happy to have removal or expulsion added to the version I prefer.

I agree with you about "resulting in or from". "Resulting in or caused by" would be better.

You say that my preference presents a POV "that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion". I don't think that's a POV; I think it's a fact. If the fetus doesn't die, then either what happened was not an abortion at all, or it was a failed abortion. Removal and expulsion without death is not an abortion. I'm happy to add "removal and expulsion" if you argue that death without removal or expulsion isn't abortion either. I feel that the "termination of gestation" implicitly included the meaning of removal or expulsion, but did not implicitly include the meaning of death. Anyway, let's make it explicit.

I never wanted to exclude the medical definition. I specifically said, I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph, and I'll state more clearly now that I think in fact we should put it later in the same paragraph, assuming, of course that it's true that the medical definition applies only to early abortions.

What do I think of your "rough cut"? I'd be delighted to comment if I could find it. This page and other pages have been moved around so many times that I'm a bit lost, and I'm rather busy today, so don't expect lots of posts.

Here's my suggestion, which takes account of some (not all) of the points made by me, SlimVirgin, Pat (e.g. removing "rare"), and others. I prefer to start the second paragraph with the passive voice, to avoid the awkward "people have" (or "humans have").

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

AnnH ♫ 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied below for comments on this proposal

G+E, I see you posted about hiding the poll before restoring it here. I should let you know I moved it for several reasons - 1. It's only about the 1st paragraph, 2. Consensus has already been established among editors who follow this article enough to have a fully informed opinion.

As such I will not vote on this poll but will continue to try to improve the paragraph. |→ Spaully°τ 13:06, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

I have no idea why this got moved back to the front page. Why didn't G&E ask the people he contacted to discuss reaching consensus on the talk subpage, as opposed to voting on something that they haven't edited? A reject vote isn't helping us reach a consensus on the first paragraph. Working together on the talk subpage was doing that. Anyway, please move discussion back to the talk subpage.--Andrew c 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's new proposal

Copied from section above

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

Comments

Been through my proposed changes and there aren't many, the result is below, and most of the differences are in wording as opposed to content:

An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, referred to as a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the medical definition of the word refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortions.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. Since the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion has been the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

(Simplified miscarriage explanation, linked viable, removed 'strict', removed emphasis on 'any', removed 'procedures', changed to 'since the 20th C'). I think the simplification is an improvement, and is better than the current version. |→ Spaully°τ 14:22, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Like it. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I no longer mind if death is mentioned in the first sentance or not, but if it is removed as the medical definitions might suggest, viability or some sense of this must replace it. This is only to ensure a reasonable difference from birth. |→ Spaully°τ 16:57, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

The problem with replacing it with viability is that abortions are carried out on babies that would have lived if they had been delivered at that time instead of aborted. It is simply not true that abortions are always carried out before viability. AnnH ♫ 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Medically speaking, abortion is defied before viability. Commonly speaking, abortion is a procedure that a woman pays a doctor to end her pregnacy. TWO DIFFERENT definitions. The later very rarely covers "viable" fetuses, but it is still covered (according to rough AGI estimates, .08% of ALL abortions are performed past 24 weeks. And just because the gestational age is >24 weeks, doesn't mean the fetus is viable or isn't terminally deformed or what have you.) YES it would be wrong to say that the abortion procedure never occurs after 24 weeks, but no one has ever once suggested saying that.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be included with something like "most commonly on non-viable fetuses". I know it's not strictly correct, as I have argued for a while, but also realise a need for compromise. As long as death is mentioned in one of the two defining sentances I'm satisfied. I think the concept of viability needs to be included somewhere. |→ Spaully°τ 17:35, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Once again we are trying to make up our own definition to cover certain instances. Please google these two words "abortion definition". Read through the pages. Open up a dictionary if you want. Now go here (hit ~14 on the google search). This is a pro-life site explaining its POV why the most common definition of abortion is wrong and should be replaced with Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy murdering a baby. I know that no editors on this page are advocating going that far, but they are using the exact same arguments to "fix" the majority definition. This is a POV. There is no reason for us to change sources to fit our POV. This is OR and POV pushing. Seriously, our job is to report on our sources, NOT create the perfect, neutral definition through original research. We have two out of ~25 sources that use "death" and those are Encarta and M&W's Medical Dictionary. Because the word abortion can mean a number of things and can refer to non-humans, we need to make it clear that this article is not about abortion, per se, but instead the induced abortion procedure in humans. This version doesn't address this issue. Next, the definition of abortion that you are trying to present never includes miscarriages. It is the MEDICAL definition that is used to refer to miscarriages, so that part should not come before the medical definition. Also, there is no reason to mention the "in common parlance" part because abortion has already been defined as this in the opening sentence. Here is my idea. We find a series of definitions that we feel are most accurate in describing the induced aboriton procedure in humans. We summarize these definitions into the first sentence and cite them. We then present the medical definition and mention how it refers to miscarraiges an non-humans. We finally mention that the focus of this article is on the first, non-technical definition. I'll start us off: In 1981, the CDC defined an induced abortion as "a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and to produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age." The word "intrauterine" is used because molar and ectopic pregnancies are not included.--Andrew c 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, hope nothing was lost)

I don't think we're necessarily supposed to go for the average from 25 sources. If 23 of them don't mention death, we should only follow that if we think that death is inaccurate. Does the fetus not die? Is there not some essential difference between an abortion and a live birth? Was the fetus not alive before the abortion? Is it not dead now? Is it possible that other sources are suppressing "death" out of some political motivation? After all, if Misplaced Pages finds that 23 out of 25 sources dealing with the case of Michael Jackson's sex abuse trial seem to be sympathetic to him, or hostile to him, that wouldn't mean that we should follow their example. Our job is to present facts, uncensored and without comment. Nobody has convincingly argued yet that the fetus doesn't die. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Death is misleading, hence it does not belong. But you know this already, because we've been saying it over and over again for some time. Alienus 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If our job was to present facts, then you wouldn't mind if we changed the phrase "the removal of an embryo or fetus" to "the removal of the products of conception". Heck, we can even list them if we want (fetus/embryo, fetal membranes, and placenta) for users who are unfamiliar with the term "products of conception". It is 100% factual that MORE than just the fetus is aborted. So why are you trying to HIDE this fact? Because your personal POV tells you that those other things are irrelevent. Just as the significance of the fetal death is also part of your POV. You personally think all ~23 definitions are inaccurate. There is NO reason, other than your POV, to ignore our sources. No matter if we like it or not, we need to report on our sources. THAT is what NPOV is, not doing OR to decide what is and is not 'accurate'. My solution was to present two different POV to cover our basis. Like I said, weeks ago, eating meat obviously results in the death of an animal (an undisputed FACT), but if we put this out in the first sentence of the meat article, we are pushing the vegetarian POV. We are going out of our way to avoid our sources to push your POV, and that is unacceptable. Finally, if we make up our own definition of abortion, how is that WP:V? --Andrew c 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the significance of the death of the fetus can be my personal POV. Is the purpose of the abortion to remove the fetus or to remove the placenta? If it were medically possible and safe either to remove the fetus and leave the placenta, or to remove the placenta and leave the fetus, which one would you choose if you were a woman wanting an abortion? And some things are more essential to the meaning of a word than other things. I can tell you that as a linguist. If you look up "tiger", you'll find it's a carnivorous animal. If you look up "mug", most dictionaries will say that it's a drinking vessel with a handle. If you look up "spinster", you'll see that it's an unmarried woman. Now look at these three sentences:

• My pet tiger is a vegetarian
• My coffee mug has no handle
• My brother's wife is a spinster

you'll find that the third sentence is the one that is the most impossible. The first might be very far fetched. Does anyone believe I have a pet tiger? Does anyone believe he's a vegetarian? But it could conceivably be a very unusual kind of tiger. The second violates many dictionary definitions, but most people would accept it. The third is simply a logical impossibility. An "abortion" that doesn't destroy the fetus is far more of a logical impossibility (and far more contrary to the intention of the abortion) than an "abortion" that doesn't destroy other "products of conception". AnnH ♫ 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up hypothetical situations. It is a fact that if you go to get an abortion procedure, more than the fetus is removed. If the placenta or fetus or whatever is left in the uterus, it is an incomplete abortion and can cause serious medical problems. The doctor who is vacuuming out the uterus makes no difference between what he is sucking out. Everything goes. And when checking the POC to see if it is complete, the doctor doesn't go "oh, there is the fetus, my work here is done", s/he has to make sure that ALL POC are removed. If we do not make this simple fact clear, we are presenting an inaccurate definition that would consider an incomplete abortion synonymous with an induced abortion. Next: the d-word. No one is disputing the fact that living cells die as a result of an abortion. However, the use of the word "death" without qualification is vague. If we qualify it as saying that it is refering to cellular death, it favors the pro-choice view. If we qualify it as saying it is refering to human death, it favors the pro-life view. And it is unacceptable to leave it unqualified. There is debate over what exactly is dying, and how morally significant its death is. I feel that these controversial issues do NOT belong in the first sentence. My compromise was to present two POVs and have death STILL included in one, but just not in the first sentence. This was a compromise because some users (like our sources) did not want to mention death at all. And it isn't that I am against the d-word outright. It is the focus on the fetal death that I consider POV pushing. If 2 of our sources mentioning 'death' is good enough to mention 'death', then 4 of our sources mentioning that MORE than just the fetus is removed during an abortion procedure is also good enough, no? And I apologize, your dictionary analogy was lost on me. Are you saying it is ok to have definitions that do not cover every situation? or are you saying dictionaries are poor sources, and it is our duty to use OR to define our own terms, disregarding NPOV in favor of non-POV.--Andrew c 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to soften anything. Essential facts ought not be softened. Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do) . But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc. Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted). Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously when you say things like "abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted)". Please, tone down your rhetoric. --Andrew c 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled that by boiling down the abortion rights mantra to its practical essence ("abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus if the child is not wanted") is anything but extreme candor. And its so very germane to this discussion. Killing the future resource sponge (the fetus) is the goal. No woman should be tied to a child or any associated responsibility just because someone deposited sperm into her. She has the right to a dead fetus. Even if we could remove the embryo and it could survive and thrive and grow into an adult, that would not be enough. Its truly all about kelling the fetus - its about absolute power. Empowering a woman. Men can walk away from the consequences of sex - so can women. In any event, you are invtied to comment on the substance of my discussion. The idea I espressed was that ridding the woman of the placenta is ancillary to killing and removing the embryo/fetus. The embryo/fetus does not develop BECAUSE the palcenta develops. Its the other way around. The entie pregnanchy is due to the development of the lviing embryo/fetus. The death of the fetus is the primary goal of induced abortion. Removing it and the associated baggage is a follow up to the essential main event. Rhetoric or not, I am sure you are quite capable of doing so. And I am interested to hear your views. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is what might be called evidence that my description reflects reality - however troubling that reality might seem - and is not simply rhetoric. The quote threw me for a loop, too, when I first read it. But the guy's candor expressed such a sad truth. As Mother Teresa has said much better than my parapharase: how sad that abortion pits the mother against her child as if they were enemies. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann's intro seems pretty good :/. Homestarmy 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's rough cut 1 from above

Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

Comments

Andrew's rough cut 2

An abortion in common parlance refers to an induced procedure that serves to terminate a pregnancy with the intentions of casuing the death of the products of conception (an embryo or fetus, fetal membranes, and the placenta). This can occur through chemical, surgical, or other means. Technically, the word abortion is defined by a majority of medical sources as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This definition not only refers to spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, but also applies to all mammalian pregnancies. However, for the purposes of this article, the term abortion will be used interchangeably with the induced abortion procedure in humans.

Comments

I think we are close to consensus on the current definitions, so I think both of these try to make too many changes. Also I don't understand your insistance on the 'products of conception' unless you are trying to make a point about truth, if true watch out for WP:POINT. |→ Spaully°τ 17:44, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Well, I think focusing on the death of the fetus as the defining aspect of an abortion is just a POV (and without qualifying who holds this POV and to what degree, we are ignoring NPOV). Death is a confusing word, and my attempt at compromise was to soften the significance of the fetal death, by pointing out a clear fact that is included in a minority of cited definitions. The purpose for including POC is to weaken the impact of the d-word. My justification is using similar arguments that AnnH and others have used for including 'death' (that it is accurate and factual). And if my justification is weak, then I think that makes the point that the inclusion of death is also weak. So I guess partially, I am guilty of WP:POINT. I apologize for that. I think I need to take a break. I still can't get over the fact that 2 users voted to reject the new proposal based on their objection to 1 single word: "nonviable". It is 100% factually accurate to state that this is how the term abortion is medically defined. If we remove "nonviable", we are no longer talking about the medical definition. It frustrates me that they would ignore our sources because they personally disagree with them (failing to acknowledge the existence of multiple meanings for the word "abortion"). --Andrew c 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you at least acknowledge that I was open to the new langauge, except for one word. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are told to assume good faith, but sometimes that assumption is plainly false. Alienus 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Alienus.

For Andrew - I understand your position, I thought we had consensus before and was surprised that this discussion dragged on. |→ Spaully°τ 18:50, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Initially I started the poll because I wanted to make sure the new version actually had support - and that it was not being debated in the shadows (on a talk subpage that few people visited or contributed to) and slipped in during an article freeze (which is what RoyBoy did). And surprise, surprise, there is no consensus to adopt the new language. I always expressed support for the new version - except for the word "nonviable". I was trying to compromise in good faith - but all I got for my effort was grief and snide snarls from those who falsely claimed consensus for the new version. Perhaps next time my good faith efforts will be respected rather than pissed on. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately all we got from the poll was people who had not commented on the process and so did not understand the difficulty in establishing consensus rejecting the new version because they had not had to come to a compromise. I don't claim or feel you started it in bad faith.

G+E you can't just put your 'good' hat on and start taking the moral high ground, you have been mosty helpful in this process and people appreciate that, but you still have a strong POV that occasionally goes too far and have often not abided by WP policies and guidelines in your edits. You must see that we were either at or very near an acceptable compromise, and since the poll that seems to have been broken; hopefully through that we will come to a stronger and more widely acceptable opening paragraph.

If everyone will calm down a little, through whatever process, perhaps we can work to a final product soon, and hopefully never have to tackle this section again! |→ Spaully°τ 21:07, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

When the debate is largely hidden, it is hard to credibly claim any consensus and hard to credibly crticise the basis for how or why people voted in a poll. As with the rest here, I am not perfect. But that does not prevent or even dissuade me from commenting on the errors of others. In this case, the faux consensus was transparent, and I called its bluff. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there was only consensus among those trying to make it. I think that would make a good argument for not splitting talk pages. The problem is that the poll you created was presented to people who had not seen the huge talk page to beat out the proposal, and so they did not understand the difficulty in forming the introduction. Given the talk page has been split, a link on the main page to move people to it is the best way to get attention and emphasise the difficulty in forming the proposal.

It was not a false consensus, only one based on a minority of interested individuals. One which you just said you were involved in. |→ Spaully°τ 21:33, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought for sure that there were claims of consensus to the point where the actual article should be changed. And in fact that Royboy inserted the change (based on this claimof consensus) during an article freeze. But I also thought that a major change on the lead paragraph of a controversial article would require actual consensus of all editors, not just those who were working on a proposed change on a talk subpage. But thats just me. Its moot now. We can drop it. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I remember things going. All progress on the article was being halted because the main talk page was being consumed with the d-word debate. I proposed creating a talk subpage just for that, as other top teir articles have (see Jesus) and with the help of an admin (IIRC GT) we moved content there and added links to the subpage. We debated some more and I eventually proposed using two definitions, and explained my justifiation for the concept. The concept was well recieved and over 5 editors helped to reword and restructure the paragraph. Additionally, we had support of around 3 more editors. We all decided to mention this on the main page for the users who were not helping with consensus. On April 4th, I placed a notice on the main subpage giving the proposed paragraph and sending users to the talk subpage. We got additional support for this version, and only had 2 users opposed to it (G&E and patsw. Ann had reluctantly agreed back then). After all this, most users decided that there was consensus. A large number of users had their hand in creating and editing the final version. We went to the main talk page and advertised it. This wasn't a secret decision, and it wasn't a small group. I specifically said that if it wasn't perfect, at least it was better than the inaccurate old version, so we could at least replace it and then keep working on it if users felt it still needed improvement. Unfortunately, around the same time, there was an edit war going on having to do with the mizuko image. So the page was protected. And an admin (possibly) abused his power by editing the page during protection. But keep in mind that all the stuff on the talk page seemed to have consensus, and the protection had nothing to do with the first paragraph. This is why after all the work we did, and the advertising on the main page, it is frustrating that G&E went and asked specifically editors with known pro-life POV to vote on this wording, without looking at our process and reasons behind our decisions, and without helping our consensus. So it was shot down, by editors that aren't even here helping us make it better. Yeah, sob story, I know. I just wish we could temporarily replace the current version with my proposal until an even better version is consensed upon.--Andrew c 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You thought you had achieved a consensus, but it was a consensus only of those who thought the opening was broken and needed fixing, along with a few who felt compelled to participate to keep tabs on what was actually somewhat of a POV editing party. Many editors who were happy with the long-time consensus language (and who had likely seen it all before, as far as proposed changes) did not participate. So there never was a consensus. There was a well-intentioned hope for one, but it morphed into a faux claim of an actual consensus. And then Royboy (who had been following the talk subpage and advocating for the change) abused his admin priveleges by sneaking in the new faux consensus language during the page freeze, which I could not stomach. That is when I very publicly invited others to express their views. ____G_o_o_d____ 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a POV editing party, but then again, I do not know everyone's POV (I just know one of the people you specifically invited to your poll helped make the consensus version). I can understand people not wanting to participate because they didn't think it was broken, but I specifically took this issue into the main talk space on April 4th, and opened it up to EVERYBODY. Why didn't they voice their opinion there? Why did it take you personally inviting specific individuals before anyone would show interest in this issue? But seriously, having a large number of editors boycott this talk page, and ignore our concerns with the current version is not consensus. I have no idea how we are going to fix the opening if they naysayers aren't going to come here and discuss it. Like I've said before, there seems to be more editors here making sure the page DOESN'T change than interested in improving it. How many editors who voted in this poll have done a single item on kyd's priorities list? All I know is that the current version is OBVIOUSLY inaccurate, and questionably POV, and most likely OR.--Andrew c 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hint: anyone wishing to help out with my priorities list is encouraged to post at Talk:Abortion/To-do items. :-) -Severa | !!! 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These are comments on Andrew's rough cut 2: terminate is a euphemism. Products of conception is euphemism. No abortion is performed in order to obtain the death of a placenta. The reference to fetal membranes is bizarre — why not mention the loss of the amniotic fluid which takes place in many abortions?

Induced abortions take place for two reasons: where the life of the mother is at risk (i.e. ectopic pregnancy, uterine cancer, etc.) and the intention is to save the mothers life (and if it were possible to preserve the life of the unborn child, it would be attempted) or when the death of the unborn child is directly sought.

Common parlance can be better written as commonly.

This can occur... Why is induced abortion refered to in the passive voice — do they really just occur?

A spontaeous abortion is not the termination of a pregnancy but the death of a fetus or embryo. The end of the pregancy is the consequence of that death. patsw 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is never performed on an unborn child, just as I never respond on talk pages to undead corpses.

Termination is not a euphamism, it is a term used commonly by doctors referring to and describing an abortion; and it is a word used to mean to end something.

As for 'spontaneous abortion', either you take pregnancy to mean the presence of a live fetus in the uterus, in which case the death is the end of the pregnancy; or you feel the life of the fetus is not the important factor in pregnancy and so would feel the importance of any abortion is to remove the fetus. No?

However I agree that common parlance is overly complicated. I think the passive voice is best used to diminish the imporance of the actor compared to the act, which is the thing being discussed in this article.

|→ Spaully°τ 18:37, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

Terminate is not a euphemism. See my response that last time you said that. POC is also not a euphemism. That's like saying "teeth" is a euphemism for "incisors, molars, and canines". If you know of another word that means the exact same thing that isn't a euphemism, I'd be more than willing to use it. But as it stands, the only two terms I know of that refer to the products of conception are, well "products of conception" and "conceptus". An abortion is not the same as killing a fetus. The induced abortion procedure involves removing ALL products of conception. If just the fetus was removed, and nothing else, serious complications in the patient would occur, and the abortion would not be complete. I believe it is not only accurate, but significant to mention what exactly is removed, not omitting anything or focusing on just the fetus/embryo.

"Commonly" sounds fine to me. "This can occur" is also in Ann's version and the current version. I was just repeating already existing content.

Then we get into the philosophical arguments. Why is the death of animals not mentioned in the meat article? Why is the death of the tonsils not listed in the first sentence definition of Tonsillectomy (or anywhere in the article)? Needless to say, there is a POV that an abortion is no different than removing an organ (cellular death). But there is another POV that the death of the fetus is more significant than the death of the tonsils or the death of the placenta and fetal membranes (personhood death). I am not trying to hide either POV, but we cannot allow POV to slip in and appear as neutral language. Because there is debate over the significance of the "death", I do not believe this debate should be brought out in the first sentence (like when pro-lick tried to qualify death with the death of a cell, killing a virus stuff). --Andrew c 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Patsw has made some great points - and the replies don't really adequately address those points. Instead the tired old crap about "unborn child is POV" is posted - when everyone knows that patsw is NOT advocating use of that word. It is beyond silly to argue that induced abortion is NOT aimed PRIMARILY at killin th fetus and removing it and its support system. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Women can have tissue removed from their bodies for a variety of reasons. When they are pregnant, the goal is to produce a dead fetus - to abort its further development. The subsequent and ancillary goal is to then remove the now-dead fetus and its support system. In fact, often a fetus will survive and trained medical professionals will facilitate its death (homicide by absence of due care), a practice that is winked at since the prevailing and feminist view is that the mom is entitled to a dead fetus. If the placenta lives no one would care - in fact its life might have some medical use (as corneas do, or blood cells do, or as stem cells do) . But if the fetus were to live, it by law is afforded full human rights as any child has. Not to mention the responsibilities and burdens that the parents of this child would have. Thus, the death of the fetus is ESSENTIAL to an abortion, whereas the death of any other products of conception is simply NOT essential. No one gives a damn if other products of conception live or die - just that they be removed from the woman to avoid infection, etc. Abortion rights has now come to mean that a pregnant woman has a right to a dead fetus (if the child is not wanted). Given the consistent testimony of the doctors who perform thousands of partial birth abortions that almost all of them are elective with no health issues involved, why else would a woman endure an extremely invasive partial birth abortion (arguably worse than a normal live delivery) after 8 or 9 months of pregnancy? It is simple: she wants a dead baby. Since most of the babies and moms who abort this way are healthy, it is safe to say that mom has decided that the existence of the new child would be painful or harmful in some way. So she hires the hitman - its legal before the little guy or gal pops out of the womb. Why else would partial birth abortion even exist? The whole notion is to rid (by killing) the mom and society of the whining-crying-poopy-unwanted child. Which is what all abortion is essentially about: a dead fetus/baby. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When people who are not pro-life proponents read comments including 'unborn child' or repeated 'dead baby' comments, it immdiately compromises the point you are trying to make. Even though patsw is not advocating it's use, using it in his arguments is still incorrect and undermines what he is saying.

Furthermore I replied to most of his points, agreeing with some and not others. I do not agree that most of the points are great, indeed his comment on spontaneous abortion shows some confusion or double standard on the definition of pregnancy. If you advocate that killing the foetus is the important factor, then presumably you must agree that the presence of a live foetus in the uterus is essential for pregnancy. In which case, a spontaneous abortion is the termination of pregnancy.

Onto the motivation behind abortion, you seem to be suggesting that not wanting a live baby is the same as wanting a dead foetus. That is clearly incorrect, and I don't see too many women leaving abortion clinics closely grasping a dead foetus in formaldehyde.

So I ask, please stop using biased and incorrect language to make your point, you may feel it enhances the power of your argument but all it does is undermine your credibility. |→ Spaully°τ 10:30, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. This subpage isn't a dark, hidden corner to post ideological tagents. Let's try remember to stick to the topic at hand. -Severa | !!! 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please

I know it's particularly difficult with a very controversial subject on which many of us have such strong views, but could everyone please try to restrict comments to those that are directly related to how we can best improve the article for the future, and not what we should or shouldn't have done in the past. When pages get very badly cluttered, it's hard for those who were involved to stay involved unless they can give it undivided attention. That's why it took me so long to vote. I didn't want to vote until i had examined the talk pages properly — and with so much jumping around from one talk page to another, and so many posts that said more than they needed to, it just got too time consuming, while I was doing other things on Misplaced Pages and in real life.

I know it's hard, particularly for the person who hasn't had the last word, but whichever person it is, could you consider walking away now? Not from the article, but from the discussion of who did what. Saying whatever you want to say won't won't make this talk page better; it will make it worse. AnnH ♫ 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.--Andrew c 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One more time, drive for improvements

Before completely ditching the work on my proposal, I was looking through the reject votes to see what we could do to change it. I believe we can easily implement Severa suggested change. G&E and WikiCats object to one single word in the whole thing, and that is "nonviable". However, as I have previously mentioned, if we remove nonviable, we are no longer talking about how abortion is "medically defined". We simply cannot remove the word because we don't like it. It accurately describes how abortion is defined in a vast majority of medical definitions. If I added citations after that sentence, would that convince G&E and WikiCats that we are simply reporting our sources? Str1977, while the first definition refers to the medical POV, the second definition refers to the common POV, and death is clearly included in the latter. I do not see how this is obfuscation. Remember, if we are citing sources on what the medical definitions say, it would be inaccurate to add "death" because the medical definitions do not define abortion in that manner. Homestarmy: no one is saying abortions do not occur on viable fetuses, in fact there were 2 clauses in that paragraph specifically refering to these very rare cases. As Severa has pointed out, this is giving undue weight. I'm not sure how we can reach a compromise with patsw and Dominick. I'm open to suggestions! AnnH, I tried to address your concerns above. I do not see any problem with refering to the medical POV. I do not believe mentioning death in the second common definition is trying to hide an unpleasent fact. Finally, I would propose also implementing SlimVirgin's suggestions in regards to the mass media sentence. So taking this all into consideration, here is another version of the proposal. Can people suggest how they would change it for the better (especially those who voted reject)? Thanks for bearing with us thus far.

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation.This can occur spontaneously in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses on induced abortion of human pregnancies.

what exactly does "common parlance" mean here? I've never seen the word "parlance" before..... Homestarmy 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Idiom#Parlance. I can't think of a more suitable synonym, so perhaps we could link parlance to Idiom#Parlance, although that's not too clear either.

Andrew, as before I prefer it to the current version. I also think that 1 or 2 references would be helpful after the medical definitions section, however any more would begin to look messy. If people thought more were needed we could probably use 1 footnote number to link to several sources. I hope we can come to agreement on this. |→ Spaully°τ 00:18, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

You can do a word search on this talk page to find the thought process that brought about "common parlance". It was DonaNobisPacem's suggestion after "popular usage" and "colloquial" were suggested. Also, look at the first paragraph of miscarriage.--Andrew c 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already done this (below), although I might suggest a more spaced version, see . |→ Spaully°τ 00:27, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

1. Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition: 1989. A Dictionary of Nursing. Fourth Edition. Market House Books: 2003. Concise Medical Dictionary. Sixth Edition. Market House Books: 2002 M. Sara Rosenthal. The Gynecological Sourcebook. "Unwanted Pregnancy". Via WebMD. Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide. "Chapter 15 - The Female Reproductive System; Pregnancy and Birth". p. 398. Brunner & Suddarth’s Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing. 10th edition, "Chapter 46 Assessment and Management of Female Physiologic Processes". p. 1398-1399. "Webster Dictionary, 1913". "Abortion". Stedman's Medical Dictionary. 26th Edition, 1996. Dorlands Medical Dictionary. Encyclopedia of Medicine - eNotes.com. Comprehensive Gynecology. 4th Ed., 2002.
2. Abortion definition sources:
   *Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition: 1989.
   *A Dictionary of Nursing. Fourth Edition. Market House Books: 2003.
   *Concise Medical Dictionary. Sixth Edition. Market House Books: 2002
   *M. Sara Rosenthal. The Gynecological Sourcebook. "Unwanted Pregnancy". Via WebMD.
   *Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide. "Chapter 15 - The Female Reproductive System; Pregnancy and Birth". p. 398.
   *Brunner & Suddarth’s Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing. 10th edition, "Chapter 46 Assessment and Management of Female Physiologic Processes". p. 1398-1399.
   *"Webster Dictionary, 1913". "Abortion".
   *Stedman's Medical Dictionary. 26th Edition, 1996. Dorlands Medical Dictionary.
   *Encyclopedia of Medicine - eNotes.com.
   *Comprehensive Gynecology. 4th Ed., 2002.

If the medical definition of abortion was somehow changed to include "non-viable fetus's", then what is the medical term for induced abortions on viable fetuses? Does that just count as PBA, even if it's a forced premature birth? Homestarmy 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion technically means the definition in the proposal. It contrasts with a similar but different term "the induced abortion procedure" which is what people commonly considers "abortion" to be. Late term abortion and partial birth abortion are both not technical, medical terms. Searching through pubmed, you find phrases like "third trimester termination of pregnancy". Also, you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used in journals that deal with animals and livestock.--Andrew c 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Third trimester termination of pregnency? why did abortion get changed to mean "non-viable" anyway, how is that more technically correct? :/ Homestarmy 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I honestly do not know the whole history. So I couldn't tell you if abortion was changed to mean "non-viable". All I know is that most medical sources have a clause that says something about before viable, before able to sustain life, or before a certain week of gestation (~20). I think it has to do with the difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth. These are interesting questions/concerns and I wish we had a medical expert we could e-mail to shed light on the reasonings behind this.--Andrew c 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that "non-viable" can't really be confirmed very well, some children who are born perfectly healthy and have every indication that they will live long lives will just suddenly die for odd reasons shortly after birth, whereas some extremely premature babies whom most would agree have little chance of survival do, well, survive. Childbirth can be quite a strange, often somewhat miraculous thing, of which trying to polarize babies between "viable" and "non-viable" seems, at least to my understanding, somewhat futile. Therefore, I question the motivations behind the medical definition of abortion as somehow only applying to "non-viable fetus's". Homestarmy 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here and look at the poll, but I see it closes on April 13, and yet the new intro (which has been rejected) is already on the page. :-) SlimVirgin 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy: Please read through the cited definitions (and refer to this and this for the ones not linked). How would your phrase the medical definition if we were to exclude the word "nonviable". Some definitions deal with this by adding on a clause such as "before the sixth month" or "before it is capable of sustaining life" or "before the twentieth week" or "before the fetus is viable" but I felt that this approach was too wordy for something that could be solved with a single adjective.--Andrew c 14:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too wordy to me to put in "before the sixth month" somehow, why not simply

"An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus which is less than 6th months after conception being expelled or removed from the uterus. Homestarmy 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the new clause is intended to motify the word "fetus", but splitting the subject from the verb like that sounds wordy to me. I also would prefer 20th week to 6th month because the former is found in more sources, while the latter is only found in the OED. So how about:

"An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus before the 20th week of gestation".--Andrew c 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 16:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that definition fully supported by sources? Specifically, medical sources? KillerChihuahua 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I added cited references for that sentence in this version. However, would it make you more comfortable if we added "by a majority of sources" or something similar to qualify "medically defined"?--Andrew c 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) I believe that this version resolves most of the issues which have been raised. I, at least, would be happy to adopt it. The sources certainly help solidify it. -Severa | !!! 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok assuming that these changes we have been discussing go into the proposal, do any of the folk who voted reject (besides Severa, who has already made her feelings clear) feel this version is good enough to replace the old version until an even better version arises?--Andrew c 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the 20 week gestation part was going in to replace "non-viable"? Homestarmy 19:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel the concept of viability is more correct and versatile than 20th week. For example for the UK abortions before the 24th week would be more appropriate.

Given that the 20th week is chosen because of the limit of viability (and it seems most if not all of the other sources), would it not be more correct to have the broader term? |→ Spaully°τ 20:49, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

Well the "non-viable" part seems to be the main problem, for the reasons I tried to put forth and Str's and I think a few other people put forth some responses about that as well. Homestarmy 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression 'non-viable' was resisted because it did not include late term abortions, and so was not seen as correct. Any definition that provides a time limit for abortion in medical terms therefore falls into the same argument, presumably not satisfying those agaist the use of viability.

At the same time as I have said the use of a defined time is true to fewer sources than 'non-viable', and so is less justifiable. Unless I have missed a major complaint against the use of viability that a specifed time overcomes, it seems no better. |→ Spaully°τ 22:39, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

Eh, I personally wouldn't mind a time limit specified in it :/. But since the only term for "viable" abortions is convoluted and pretty ridiculous, and since I for one can't think of a single justifiable reason for the medical community to decide that abortions somehow only happen on "non-viable" babies, I am quite suspicious of the motivation to change the definition of abortion to non-viable when it leaves out "viable" abortions. (Or third trimester extraction whateverisms) I also still don't see how viable is really being defined, if its being defined as "capable of surviving without the mother", then that applies to extremely retarted people who require the care of others (Often their parents, perhaps specifically their mother) to survive, so the definition seems lacking here. Homestarmy 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

A humble suggestion from someone who has not been involved in the debate:

An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right. SlimVirgin 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• So the products of conception are being expelled, but only the fetus or embryo dies?

• Yes, what else is there that could die? Or did I misunderstand the question? SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some people have criticized using the word "woman" because it humanizes/personalizes the issue, and favors the POV of the "woman" over the "fetus".

• Hmmm ... they are descriptive terms. We can't call women by some other term so as not to favor them over the fetus, just as we couldn't call the fetus "fetal matter" (or whatever) for the same reason. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I think the parallel medical term used by ob/gyn's would be gravida. Ob/gyn's also use the terms baby/mother quite often; but the technical terms are fetus/gravida. Using woman is certainly POV in that regard, but its an issue I prefer to leave for some time in the future after more important matters are fixed. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Adding "by trauma" seems odd, and may be giving undue weight. Besides, a pregnant woman in a car accident could have trauma that causes a miscarriage, even though it isn't deliberate.

• Yes, but this says "deliberately by trauma or by surgical or chemical means ..." That sentence doesn't mean that all trauma is deliberate. Some is, of course. Some women do induce abortions themselves. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "morally" seems unnecessary. If someone thinks a fetus is a human, and a fetus is killed, then it follows they think it is not only "morally equivalent" to murder, but they think that it IS the exact same thing as murder.

• Murder is a legal term. What opponents are saying is that it ought to be regarded as murder, not that it actually is so regarded, except in a moral sense. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Murder is a legal term, but it is also a colloquial one (as well as a moral and philosophical one). And a murder can occur with no conviction or trial. The whole point is they want the law to outlaw these killings because they consider it to actually be murder. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The last 3 issues could easily be solved by removing these things, but I am not sure how to change the first issue. Not many people seem to agree with me that the significance of the fetus dying is a POV that needs to be qualified somehow. I just feel your wording makes this issue worse by mentioning all the products of conception, but then focusing in on only one of them dying, when in fact all of them die. The last two sentences are a little odd, but I can't quite place my finger on why. Maybe they are a little wordy? --Andrew c 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see what you mean now with your first point. The point of an induced abortion is not to kill the placenta. It is to kill the fetus. While we shouldn't stress that unnecessarily, nor should we be obtuse. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they need to be balanced by mentioning that women who have an abortion performed do not generally believe the fetus is their child?

You'd need a source for that, and I can't imagine where you'd find one. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that some women do not feel it is murder, but it is also fair to say that some women do think it is a justifiable homicide (IOW, they know it is a human person, but consider the killing justified because (insert a reason). It would be tricky to address this matter without making aborting women and abortionists seem callous or whacked. (And there are citations available for these beliefs). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet the view that it is not a person is their #1 or #2 defense. A Misplaced Pages article can state that pro-choicers overwhelmingly believe that induced abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person/baby/child. It cannot state what I believe to be the case from personal observation: that most women who have an abortion generally believe this specific pro-choice argument. But it would be fair to say that most of them are pro-choice and that of all pro-choicers these women are the closest to the problem. I think they are probably the strongest believers in pro-choice arguments. Each time I look at this from a different angle I become more convinced that only a small proportion would go ahead with what is already a difficult decision for most if they believed this involves the killing of their own child. AvB ÷ talk 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They do not see themselves as murderers. Very few women are capable of killing their own children. Mentioning views of personhood and even calling it murder on behalf of one POV surely requires the inclusion of this most important aspect of the opposite POV. AvB ÷ talk 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're into original research here, AvB. No one has any idea how most women who have abortions feel or what they believe. What my intro discussed was what opponents and proponents tend to argue. SlimVirgin 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned a pro-choice defense missing from the intro while the corresponding pro-life accusation was included. I think it was unrelated to your proposal, since previous versions already contained this aspect. Andrew's question made me focus on those lines; considering them from the pro-choice POV I saw a problem I had not seen before. I thought mentioning it here might be useful to Andrew.

Are you saying that pro-choicers only use one of their two main defenses (i.e. always the legal defense, but never the moral one)? AvB ÷ talk 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've checked this out and it is true this defense is not used very often. A notable example would be this speech by Sarah Smith where her mother says "Please know I did not know what I was doing and I pray someday you are able to forgive me". But even if it were OR, my point would remain valid: I argued what I believe (a no-brainer really) on the talk page, but in the article it would still translate as a widely sourced defense along the lines of: "Pro-choicers do not view it as murder because they do not believe a fetus is a person/baby/child". I still think the introduction sells pro-choicers short, painting them without emotions, cold, callous, citing the legal defense but not the moral one.

FWIW, mainstream Christians (i.e. most of them) generally believe that people undergoing or performing abortions are entitled to this defense. In fact it is used as an important argument in defense of abortion by mainstream protestant Christians/theologians who also qualify as mainstream pro-choicers. And even extreme pro-lifers (though by no means all of them) are known to pray "Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing" . AvB ÷ talk 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The largest mainstream Christian denomination actually assumes the woman who has the abortion is in need of repentance (which is freely given if asked for in confession). In paragraph 99 of the authoritative encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul addresses women who have had an abortion (note section in bold):

• "I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. 'If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.' With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."

____G_o_o_d____ 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "mainstream protestant Christians/theologians". AvB ÷ talk 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks encyclopedic, but the two definitions thing had a certain appeal to me. Kind of clarified there were not only two worlds/perspectives on the issue and the language, but professional and common understanding of the very word "abortion". I guess I have a bias for etymology. It does keep the lead short by moving "late term abortion" and viability issues to elsewhere; as they are certainly debatable subjects.

Perhaps I'm thinking subconciously the fact medical professionals define abortion to be of a non-viable fetus, and how that differentiates itself from common usage; it becomes a key bioethical point of the debate and that could be lead worthy; as it is they who perform abortions... their POV could be necessary to mention. Then again, since this is relevant to the "debate", maybe that meme should go on the Abortion debate lead. Meh, just my stream of consciouness... I'm hungry. - RoyBoy 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone previously uninvolved would do this so thanks. And I definitely prefer your explanations in the 2nd paragraph of the debate stance. However I still prefer Andrew's version of the first paragraph specifically in the split between the medical and colloquial definitions and for the fact that it introduces induced abortion in more detail. |→ Spaully°τ 23:54, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

Slim, I like what you have suggested. I need to digest it. THanks for your efforts here. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds promising; I'd certainly love to have Slim's there at least as a solid emergency backup consensus version. The tossing of associated has been a long time in coming. - RoyBoy 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of the fetus

I discovered the term "intra-uterine fetal death" (or IUFD). Apparently a medical term for the cessation of life in a fetus is "death". ____G_o_o_d____ 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

ackoz 09:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) SEZ> That's true. I "discovered" the IUFD when I was studying for my gynecology exam. Do you know that if you kill a chicken it's called death too? Or are you just too astonished by the fact that even a human fetus can die (as you have been taught that every fetal death is a murder, you MUST be surprised). Study first write later.

I have not seen you posting here before. Perhaps you are not familiar that some editors think it is not "medical" to describe fetal demise as "death". That is the only reason I have posted this. Quite frankly, I always knew it was medically accurate - my discovery is of the term IUFD. You may not realize it, but not many of us have ever studied gynecology! Finally, why the snottiness? I am trying to ensure we have an accurate article that editors are proud of. Providing sources helps that along. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal (intended as a temporary solution pending the 1st para discussion)

An abortion is the premature termination of a human or mammalian pregnancy resulting in or due to the death of an embryo or fetus. Abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage) or be effected through chemical, surgical, or other means.

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

Comments on all the Blabber

Someone left a message for me to post here about the opening part the article. I do not have hours to sift through all the back and forth. Arguments and votes are completely contrary to the point of any encyclopedia with the only exception being when there is no clear consensus among the experts. From what I can see, none of you have bothered to reference the experts and list them here, which should be the only discussion going on. All the arguments are rather pointless unless all of you happen to be known experts, in which case I apologize for this comment and my changes.--NColemam 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"None of you have bothered to reference the experts," eh? A closer reading would reveal that you're incorrect, and that the precise reason for all the "blabber" is that there is, as you say, no clear consensus among the experts. Anyway, thanks for your input.

Oh, as for arguments and votes having no place in writing an encyclopedia, that's also incorrect. Considering that there are roughly an infinite number of ways to state the same fact, many of which are subtly (or blatantly) prejudicial in one way or another, there's actually lots of room for discussing how we ought to phrase controversial statements. If you think the exact phrasing of the definition of abortion isn't controversial, or if you think there's a single, agreed-upon way that "the experts" define it, well, you're in for a surprise. -GTBacchus 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Some poor guy (or gal) calls it like it is, and gets blabbed in return. Evidence for his claim. A closer look at what? You could have posted a hyperlink to the evidence that there is no clear consensus. If that were true, certainly you would be able to cite it. Instead, blab blab blab. O.P.Nuhss