This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zahd (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 23 November 2008 (→Move-Protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:10, 23 November 2008 by Zahd (talk | contribs) (→Move-Protection)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | Abortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
|
 Archives |
|---|
| Chronological archives |
|
|
| Topical subpages |
|
|
|
| Notable precedents in discussion |
|
Wiki finding is contradicted
The Misplaced Pages article concludes that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion. It even uses evidence from American Psychological Association, as does the following. But the following contradicts the Wiki claim: Chair of APA Abortion Report Task Force Violates APA Ethics Rules http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html Life Site News The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the article more carefully. The Misplaced Pages article does not "conclude that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion." It reports that the American Psychological Association has reached such a conclusion. Which it has. Based on your posts here and elsewhere, it may be worth reviewing Misplaced Pages's policy on the neutral point of view, particularly its guidance on how this encyclopedia covers active debates. Additionally, since you suggest that the allegations of a partisan newsletter with questionable fact-checking and editorial oversight be used against a living person, please review the site's policies on biographical material, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing. MastCell 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, MastCell, YOU read Misplaced Pages's policy on the neutral point of view. I found 36 citations in Wiki's article that were from pro-choice sources but only two that were from pro-life sources. Yet, you say "partisan" newsletter. So you're saying what? That Wiki isn't partisan?
The 36 biased Wiki citations are: 4, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 61, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108, and 111.
Wiki doesn't waste any time in showing its bias. You do so in the first sentence: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Apparently, citation not needed. This alleged definition greatly diminishes what an induced abortion is. In an induced abortion, an abortion is not caused by a death or result in a death in the particular way you infer. A death is caused by an abortion, and the dead baby is removed or expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ooookay. Citation #12 is from the World Health Organization. #16 is from the New England Journal of Medicine. #20 from the medical journal Gynecology & Obstetrics. And so on. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox; there are plenty of other venues on the Internet for what you seem to want to accomplish. MastCell 06:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- "resulting in" points out death is caused by an induced abortion, whereas a spontaneous abortion is "caused by its death"; both are incorporated into one sentence. It is not laid out chronologically in simple step by step terms, it says precisely what you wish it to say, but with a compound sentence. Death is a strong non-biased word, and many would prefer not to use it. Make your case elsewhere. - RoyBoy 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember the rules of the internet, don't feed the trolls. Also, the abortion article is commonly cited as a good example of a well balanced article, which means it is relatively unbiased. The Anon however, seems to think it's okay if it's biased as long as it's slanted towards pro-life. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
external links
didn't find a section on the talk page. At any rate. the this section was getting too long. Using WP:SEH i took out the 2 points of view that were creeping in.
I also took out one issue guide because there already was one (presumably both were unbiased), and it cuts down on redundancy. Likewise for the gov website on the issue. Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed the list, removing all country specific resources. Those should be linked from Abortion Debate only, or in abortion in X sections. I'm going through the abortion statistics section later--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just trimming it a big more. WP:SEH says "Points of view starting to creep in, minority dissent from the authorities and other monographs" as a sign the list is getting to big. As you said it's for Abortion debate (which is another can of worms altogether)
- The laws of the world link should be in the abortion laws page (i think it already is)
- Public agenda is good, but it's not global in perspective (ie- roe vs. wade)
- Also, not too sure waht the pbs link is here for? what resource above and beyond does it have?
- Meanwhile the dmoz link was recommended UNTIL consensus here is reached. (so its a temp link)
- Also, importantly, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." (as you see planned parenthood already has a wiki site, maybe 'see also'?) Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Made some changes and have some thoughts
- Public Agenda removed: debate centered and U.S tilted.
- Dmoz I think should stay, we have those links everyone else
- PBS link was too old, it stays out.
- Planned parenthood should go back in. Its the major prochoice player in the debate, AND a major provider of abortions, but I don't have a good pro-life link to balance it out with. Suggestions?
- Guttmacher Institute link *has* to stay in. Its a PP connected institute, but it is the major respected source for abortion statistics. I kept its associated links since I havn't weeded them yet.
- --20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Made some changes and have some thoughts
- The thing is this is not supposed to have links to the different issues for support and abortion. Especially when there are links for it: pro-choice, pro-life and abortion debate already exist (kind of contradictory and pointless to have debate despite the individual pages). If Guttmacher is good for stats we should find the link on the website that has stats and link to that. For planned parenthood and the link, linking to organization is like WP:advertising. Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- As a quick note Lihaas, I formatted your comment. Anyway, abortion is meant to serve as a survey. It covers everything, but in brief. How brief is a matter of editorial opinion. And we're not advertising PP, but I can honestly say we're diminishing the article by not linking to them. Abortion in the modern day is tied to PP, they are everywhere. Misplaced Pages is here to provide information. As a matter of expediency however, we maintain the appearance neutrality by linking equally pro life and pro choice. The substance of neutrality is of course, the top priority in everything we do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is this is not supposed to have links to the different issues for support and abortion. Especially when there are links for it: pro-choice, pro-life and abortion debate already exist (kind of contradictory and pointless to have debate despite the individual pages). If Guttmacher is good for stats we should find the link on the website that has stats and link to that. For planned parenthood and the link, linking to organization is like WP:advertising. Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't it be a 'see also.' Then it goes with wikipedia's explanation. It's also not 'global' (im not 100% sure though) in nature. Maybe we should put a link to pro-life and pro-choice directly? Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the link to the Just Facts website listed as "prolife?" That external site takes pains to be objective, including explaining why it believes its choice of terms within the discussion are unbiased. It tries to indeed provide Just the Facts. I propose that link's description of "prolife" be removed and that instead it have no description at all. Rather, it will continue to appear under the heading that it "may" be written those with an agenda. I am not authorized to make edits though! WikiEditi (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
New section proposal
I just came back from an extended vacation, and I'm not sure who is active on this page now, so if you are, pipe up please, because I'm planning on changing the organization of the article.
I'd like to add an Abortion by country section, which will survey abortion prevalence and legality in various countries or regions, English speaking first, then moving our way down. Should be relavtively short, branching into larger articles.
Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be useful information. It will probably rapidly become large enough to warrant a spinoff article. MastCell 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently we in fact HAVE a list of abortions by country, but we might consider a small section inside the article itself, instead of the info box.--Tznkai (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Miscarriage
before the 20th week of gestational age is commonly known as a miscarriage.
Problem here: This refers only to HUMAN abortions, an abortion can be induced any animal that bears young.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Opening section change
I've cut down the opening section considerably. My reasoning is fairly simple. We need a short and concise definition of what abortion is. The remaining sentences reference all of the major abortion subtopics (history, legality, by country, morality). Also, as a matter of precision abortion can be, and is induced in domesticated animals all the time, but as a lone term refers to human abortions
Everything else was cut because its covered in the article itself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Without putting in the comments of whether abortion is moral or amoral the whole article is put in jeapardy. Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway.Anathasius (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- You fail to understand that the purpose of the opening paragraph is to give a short definition of what is contained in the article, not your personal views on what is in said article. Also, this talk page is not a discussion about abortion, it is about information that may or may not be added to the article. TheXenocide (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Miscarriage
Yeah, that's fair - but still, there should be some indication that a "spontaneous abortion" is a "miscarriage". The latter term is widely used and understood, whereas "spontaneous abortion" is not. There should be an explicit linkage between the two terms in the lead, to avoid confusion. How would you propose we phrase this? MastCell 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure. I was relying the wikilink in spontaneous and on the terminology section below to take care of it, but I do see your point. I'm looking at it now.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Infanticide in "See also" section
I seem to have a feeling of deja vu on this one. Hmm.. just so we're all clear (again), WP:SEEALSO states " may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." I told you, do a "ctrl+f" for abortion in the infanticide article. I did. I came across the word eight times. You people are ridiculous. My version will be restored, in accordance with the relevant style guideline. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a tic. If you read the intro of the Infanticide article, it states "murder of infants". Clearly, pre-birth is not considered an infant, but fetal. If anything Feticide. It's not even peripherally connected, except through religious writings. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- As a side note as well, you people does not AGF, nor is considered civil. And which relevant style guide (Please link here)? Last I checked, Style Guides do not cover NPOV, which adding this See Also would be POV. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Infanticide is linked in
miscarriage section, and that should be adequate, because it makes sense in that section. Also,sex selective reproduction--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Infanticide is linked in
Oh yeah, Paranormal Skeptic, I "assumed bad faith" in my edit summary, and by golly, someone comes along and reverts me anyway. So by your own logic, you were acting in bad faith. Infanticide is not linked anywhere from the abortion article (I checked before I made the addition). NPOV requires that all views be represented, so none of you have any reason to be complaining, unless of course, you're trying to skew the article towards your POV. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Article fully protected for 12 hours. Hash it out here, folks, and no hitting below the belt. Tan | 39 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you assumed bad faith automatically which is why I reverted it to being with. It was linked in several places already (You failed to look hard enough), and you came to this article attempting to push POV. NPOV doesn't require all views, but rather substantiated views. Find a WP:RS speaking about infanticide and abortion. This was clear POV pushing. And yes, 'you people failed WP:CIVIL. I was acting in bad faith to remove a POV push? I think not. Infanticide is ruled out from the see also, and I can't think of why it would be linked anywhere in this article, rather than in Abortion Debate. Infanticide, according to intro of the article is "murder of an infant". Pre-natal isn't infant but rather fetal or foetal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the guideline for "see also" (carefully) again, before you rule it out. Show me where "infanticide" is linked. Substantiation is WP:V, and that policy is not violated by my addition, which by the way is supported by the content of the article. It's not about POV, it's about linking to a related subject. It's POV if you remove it (which you are doing). --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with accusing the "other side" of pushing a POV is that it works equally well both ways. It's very common for editors who support a minority viewpoint to agitate to include their own POV on the top-level article of a controversial subject (e.g. September 11 attacks, CERN, AIDS, Water fluoridation, Abortion) when, according to WP:Summary style, the material in question would be better dealt with - indeed, may be already dealt with - in a lower-level, more specific article (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, AIDS denialism, Water fluoridation controversy, Abortion debate. Arguably, the reverse is true, with "pro-mainstream" editors citing WP:UNDUE to push details of controversies into "more obscure" articles. I don't know if this observation helps this particular discussion, but hopefully it puts things into perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Abortion and Infanticide are both top-level topics. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is already covered in Abortion Debate even though the term infantacide is not used ,nor should it, it's an incorrect application of the term:
INFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.
- That's the legal definition, here is the defintion from WP itself:
"Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant." Infantacide
- It has no place in this article, IMHO. However, would be good in Abortion Debate, since really what people are trying to say is that, without using the term. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paranormal, subjects do not have to be exactly identical to have links to each other in "see also". They just have to be related. Abortion and infanticide are related, even if there are specific differences between them. They are so related that the word prolicide can refer to either of them. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It has no place in this article, IMHO. However, would be good in Abortion Debate, since really what people are trying to say is that, without using the term. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't even see how they are anything but vaguely connected, both being a type of killing. I'd be more comfortable with the term Feticide in the See Also. Infantacide is always, except in the case of Judeo-Christian writing, as being the killing of an infant, not a pre-natal. Before adding Infantacide, I'd rather see a WP:RS referring to abortion as an instance of infantacide Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The hell? I leave for two hours and I come back and theres an edit war? Sheesh. Also, don't revert an edit just because it contains one thing you don't like, in fact, try not to revert at all, but if you must, revert only the part that is objectionable. It takes twenty more seconds.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion reset
I tried reading the arguments above, and my eyes almost immediately glazed over, but what we have here are three conflating issues. 1. Maintaining the neutral point of view. 2. Stylistic guidelines involving See Also and 3. Edit warring to get your way. Can we at least all agree that Edit warring is stupid?
Now, I suggest we try to agree on some principles about how big, and what the See Also section should contain. Please consult certain guidelines we have on the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, edit warring is stupid, which is why I asked the editor to come to the talk page to hash it out prior to myself requesting temp page protection. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- In a moment of clarity while smoking a cigar and drinking a cup of espresso, maybe adding Feticide to the See Also, rather than Infantacide. This would keep an NPOV, as well as covering Related Topics quite a bit better. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- As a technical matter, feticide is already wikilinked in the body of the article, meaning that it's unecessary (but not entirely forbidden, I suppose) to add it as a "See Also" (see WP:SEEALSO). MastCell 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that the See Also section is crufty enough as it is. The See also should to me, link to topics of interest. Reprodcutive health for example, Obstetrics/Gynacology are certainly related enough. Very short leaps. Remember, this is a top tier article, and addresses abortion as a social phenomena (incidence) as well as a medical one, and we address it from that top level survey perspective, not in the context of the ongoing abortion debate.
- Looking at it, the "See also" section does seem large already. Even though there is undeniable similarity between abortion and infanticide, I can understand trimming that section down to only links that include the word "abortion", plus the link to Fetal Rights. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fetal rights is a third tier article, possibly fourth (Abortion --->debate-->pro-life--->fetal rights) (Abortion -->ethical considerations-->fetal rights). I think removing all of the reproductive/fetal/whojawahtchit rights and replacing it with "see ethical/philosophical dimensions" would be more effective. Everyone has their pet abortion related ethics case after all.--Tznkai (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the section as it is. These links do not "naturally fit into the body of text", because the article sucks. It's not even a good article. The perfect article may not have a "see also" section at all, but this one is far from perfect and needs to be expanded, so that these links fit more naturally into the text. But until that happens, they should be kept, because they are related to the parent topic. Don't narrow the scope of the "see also" section. By its very nature, it is to be broad, while remaining relevant. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's the point. Infantacide is tangenitally related to abortion, feticide is closer(Still belongs in the debate article, but I can see it's placement here). And part of the process of narrowing the scope of the See Also section is expanding the other parts of the article. This article was almost rated a Good Article, but fell a bit short, so I can't see how you'd say it's piss poor article. With some citation cleanup, and better cohesion through the article, it can make it to featured status. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think a good way to think about the See alsos is that they are informational, not argumentative. If a see also is part of an argument about abortion, it doesn't belong. Murder is an invitation to argument reproductive rights is an invitation to an argument, contraception does not immediately display a POV, its merely relational.--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- What about Libertarian perspectives on abortion and eugenics? The former is related (As is a whole host of topic on abortion in wikipedia), but perhaps inline. The latter is...? Lihaas (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Libertarian perspectives" was removed, presumably, because it was the only such article, and that compromised NPOV. As for Tznkai's comment, the idea that a see also item should not be included because there's an argument about it is just silly. The point is that it's a related topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Libertarian perspectives is way to detailed to be linked from a top tier article, it belongs as an offshoot of a second teir article, say abortion debate, or philosophical, or abortion law, if it should be an indpeendant article at all. The abortion family of articles has a lot of cruft from the early days. And as for the invitation to argument test I suggested, its a way of testing how legitimately NPOV and related an article is. Let me flip this around for a moment: Pwnage8, since you're the minority voice here, why don't you tell us what we could do to change your mind, if anything.--Tznkai (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you want me to change my mind so that it'll be over with? Not gonna happen. You don't get your way just because the majority of the editors here are pro-abortion. That's not how it works. Infanticide, Feticide, and Eugenics all belong in the see also, because they cover abortion itself, not the debate surrounding it. I hope you're not suggesting we exclude them because they're supposedly 'second-tier' topics. That would be inappropriate, since they aren't. Examples of second tier topics would be "History of Infanticide", "Feticide law", and "Eugenics in the United States", so that argument doesn't hold. "Libertarian perspectives" is, however, a second-tier topic, so I don't care, and in fact, am glad that it was removed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thats a sticky widget, because Misplaced Pages operates on the discovery of consensus through discussion and compromise, not on an imagined battle with the pro-abortion cabal. I'm asking you to help do that, because I think I've laid out some fairly clear principles why we disagree with you about the inclusion of infanticide as a See Also topic, none of which have to do with a supposed Pro abortion point of view. In other words, time to put up either a more compelling argument, or to start compromising.--Tznkai (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the consensus forms among a biased group of editors, then that compromises NPOV. Policy is more important than consensus. The fact of the matter is, the articles which I have mentioned should be included. The "reasons" which you gave for not including them have been debunked in my previous comment. Your links to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TNC do not WP:AGF, by the way. If there is any "battle" it is because the editors of this page have made one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- In case it isn't already blatantly obvious, we disagree on whether or not linking infanticide is following policy. The assumption of faith is exactly that, the assumption that we're not biased, but we are in fact in earnest disagreement with each other. Your comments including "You don't get your way just because the majority of the editors here are pro-abortion" indicated you might be earnestly mistaken as to what was going on here. We have a list of policies the length of my arm, many of which speak very clearly about compromise, consensus, and speaking about edits versus editors. So, again, whats your offer for a compromise?--Tznkai (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the consensus forms among a biased group of editors, then that compromises NPOV. Policy is more important than consensus. The fact of the matter is, the articles which I have mentioned should be included. The "reasons" which you gave for not including them have been debunked in my previous comment. Your links to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TNC do not WP:AGF, by the way. If there is any "battle" it is because the editors of this page have made one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thats a sticky widget, because Misplaced Pages operates on the discovery of consensus through discussion and compromise, not on an imagined battle with the pro-abortion cabal. I'm asking you to help do that, because I think I've laid out some fairly clear principles why we disagree with you about the inclusion of infanticide as a See Also topic, none of which have to do with a supposed Pro abortion point of view. In other words, time to put up either a more compelling argument, or to start compromising.--Tznkai (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa now Pwnage8. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-NPOV and pro-Brilliant prose. I can almost thing, that since we have the sidebar pointing to different Articles within the Abortion scope, perhaps start writing this article to be a medical aspect, and leave the debates, etc in their respective articles. This would clean at least this article up (Can't be POV if it's a medical topic), and maybe get this article back to GA. And FWIW, I take no stance on abortion. I have not that physiological characteristics to make such a claim as to if it's right or wrong(AKA I'm not a woman, leave it to women to decide one way or another is my take :P A safe, stance me thinks ). And a point to you, the legal definition clearly removes infantacide from being related, other than being a minority opinion (Only the religious right of any religion sees it this way), Eugenics is tangentally related (Maybe a See Also for Abortion in the Eugenics article). Feticide, I've already ceded that I can see that being in the see also. And yes, if consensus rules that it's doesn't have it's place here, then yes that's how it works. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another thing, eugenics is already linked from the article text, why also in the See Also? I think the see also section should not include articles already linked in order to stick close to the MOS (ie overlinking). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The issue isn't who believes what, but that it's a related topic. Eugenics, is only linked once, in the "effect upon crime rate" section, in a sentence about criticism of that theory, which gives insufficient context. It's not mentioned that abortion has been used to practice eugenics in the past anywhere in the article. And you say that this could be a featured article with some citation cleanup? FAs are supposed to be thorough. To remove it from the see also, these points should be addressed. Other articles in the "see also" already linked: ethical aspects of abortion, medical tourism, pregnancy (five times), population control (though only in reference to China, again, not full context), religion and abortion, selective reduction, and teenage pregnancy. Other words which could be linked in the article: fertilization. These are the real overlinking problems. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) As I tried to point out above, this isn't a simple question of whether to follow or ignore policy. This discussion is about how to interpret different policies and guidelines, and weigh up what's best for the article, and as such this is exactly the sort of situation where we should work together to achieve a consensus. Personally I think the over-riding principle here is that 'incidental' content (categories, "see also" links, and infoboxes) should be non-controversial navigational aids, and should be used neither to make a point nor to emphasise a particular point of view. Regardless of the editor's intent when adding such a link, I think that the most likely interpretation or implication of the link being added is a presentation of the view that "abortion is infanticide", which is, needless to say, a controversial minority view. Therefore I feel that it is not appropriate for a link. If the relationship between abortion and infanticide is to be touched on at all, (and for those that haven't read it, Infanticide is very interesting as a socio-cultural phenomenon) then it should be done properly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if we don't like linking to infanticide, we can link to prolicide, which means either. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Abortion is NOT infanticide, that much is uncontroversial. Some people believe it is (and/or should be) philosophically, ethically, morally, or legally equivalent to infanticide, but abortion is not part of the class "infanticide." The factual relationship between abortion and infanticide is in the case of Sex Selective abortion/infanticide, because they're part of the social phenomena there.
- If we included equivalent terms to eugenics to abortion, we're going to have to go with See also with articles about Crime rates, Women's rights, Feminism, prenatal screening, and a whole host of crap. We have three columns of see also. The typical article has maybe three. If we really want to link everything somewhat related to Abortion under the sun, someone can go and make guidance template. Lets stop arguing about this minutae, strip the See also of the cruft, and work to improve the article.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I just put prolicide up for deletion.--Tznkai (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to get you started about "minutae" and "cruft" and deleting article stubs; the conclusion I'm leaning toward is the same as yours, remember. Like you said, abortion is not absolutely equivalent to infanticide; just incredibly related when topics like sex selection, eugenics, population control, and genocide come up. But the See Also section of Infanticide itself doesn't even have links to Eugenics or even Murder, so why should those links be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronGrackle (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if we don't like linking to infanticide, we can link to prolicide, which means either. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another thing, eugenics is already linked from the article text, why also in the See Also? I think the see also section should not include articles already linked in order to stick close to the MOS (ie overlinking). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you want me to change my mind so that it'll be over with? Not gonna happen. You don't get your way just because the majority of the editors here are pro-abortion. That's not how it works. Infanticide, Feticide, and Eugenics all belong in the see also, because they cover abortion itself, not the debate surrounding it. I hope you're not suggesting we exclude them because they're supposedly 'second-tier' topics. That would be inappropriate, since they aren't. Examples of second tier topics would be "History of Infanticide", "Feticide law", and "Eugenics in the United States", so that argument doesn't hold. "Libertarian perspectives" is, however, a second-tier topic, so I don't care, and in fact, am glad that it was removed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Libertarian perspectives is way to detailed to be linked from a top tier article, it belongs as an offshoot of a second teir article, say abortion debate, or philosophical, or abortion law, if it should be an indpeendant article at all. The abortion family of articles has a lot of cruft from the early days. And as for the invitation to argument test I suggested, its a way of testing how legitimately NPOV and related an article is. Let me flip this around for a moment: Pwnage8, since you're the minority voice here, why don't you tell us what we could do to change your mind, if anything.--Tznkai (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Libertarian perspectives" was removed, presumably, because it was the only such article, and that compromised NPOV. As for Tznkai's comment, the idea that a see also item should not be included because there's an argument about it is just silly. The point is that it's a related topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not meaning per se to throw dirt or what not, but Pwnage8, you really need to step back and take a breath, smoke, grab a cup of coffee or something. As a stated Pro-Lifer (per your user page), maybe after a breather you'd be able to come back and work to Consensus rather than coming here to make a point. You have some interesting views that can weigh in here nicely, but consensus is key. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To Paranormal Skeptic and Tznkai: It doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I do everything according to policy. Infanticide is a related topic (what the "see also" is for), so it doesn't matter what people say or think about it. The fact is, right now the article isn't very good, and that's why we have such a large see also section. This article needs to be worked on to incorporate those links better. I'm not trying to "link everything somewhat related to abortion under the sun", because it really depends on what kind of article it is. We can't link to every single "abortion by country" article, because that would be insane, and we already have an article for that, so there should only be one link. This, however, is a primary topic that is related to abortion, whatever your POV may be on that. Feminism and women's rights is already thoroughly covered in the article, and effect on crime has its own section. Dunno about parental screening. That could be a topic that can go there. What harm does one stinking link do? --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- You see, at this point, you are not doing everything according to policy, such as WP:POINT... The harm that "one stinking link" does, is it alludes to Abortion being murder, without affording the supporting argument (As being in the body would do with refs, counter-stance, etc). In other words, it's a tacit statement of Abortion being murder, which falls into WP:SOAP. So, yes, work here to better the article. Rather than sling things into See Also, write the section. Expand the other sections, etc to inlcude the concepts. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about "parental screening", in response to Tznkai. Don't put words in my mouth. WP:POINT does not apply to this situation, because I'm not trying to prove a point by being disruptive. Having a discussion is not being disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
Since Paranormal Skeptic's argument apparently revolved around accusing me of disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and has been proven wrong, this discussion has waned. I propose, based on the above findings, that the following "see also" links be removed:
- ethical aspects of abortion
- fertilization
- medical tourism
- pregnancy
- religion and abortion
- selective reduction
- teenage pregnancy
If no one objects, I'll just go ahead with the (what should be uncontroversial) removal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd leave pregnancy. It is inlined but is topical enough I think.--Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't we trying to cut down on the see also links? That is the most linked term in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- We are, its just a term I would have left in myself. Go for it, see if it sticks, I won't dispute it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't we trying to cut down on the see also links? That is the most linked term in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Reorganization and improvements
I think the "Abortion Debate" section needs to be reorganized (and then rewritten) We don't seem to have any sensible criteria for which arguments used in the debate we choose. In fact, we seemed to have completely skipped the major ones: (potential) humanity and reproductive rights/liberties. I think having some measure of the theorized and actual social, physiological, and psychological effects of abortion and various kinds of abortion (unsafe/"back alley", sex selective, possibly the crime rate thing, ABC theory if anything ever happened with that could go. Mental health section needs to be improved.
Abortion is ultimately a medical undertaking, for good or for ill, and right now the coverage of that portion of Abortion, the process and immediate effects to the individual(s) involved is poorly handled in lieu of a scattershot of abortion related controversy. Probably time to get moving on that.--Tznkai (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to figure out how to efficiently catagorize all the information we need to put on this page. I'm thinking we need basically Abortion defined, the Abortion controversy(ies) social effects/incidents, and abortion worldwide. The social effects can be stuck under the world wide heading as we cover abortion by Region? By country? I'll try to put a mock up in my user space before starting the edits just so we have an idea of what I'm (planning on) doing, but the current organization does not work at all.--Tznkai (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Possible form a subdivision: Since abortion's actual effects are in controversy, we might use "known" and "disputed" as seperator for various effects of abortion sections.--Tznkai (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Possible sectioning
- Intro - Defines it (der)
- Medical discussion
- Social Controversy
- Legal Controversy
- Possible sectioning
- I think the controversy sections should be very limited (1-3 para) with the Also See linking to the relevant articles. But, JM2C Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the ABC section to the first paragraph, is that sufficient? - RoyBoy 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seems a bit sparse to me, i'd like to get about 3, 4 lines or so.--Tznkai (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Already thought of that myself, I've re-added the 2nd paragraph. I would request during this overhaul process the intro here remain the same as the Lead. - RoyBoy 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Abortion Is Murder
Template:Hcd Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway.Anathasius (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uhmm... I think you need to read WP:TRUTH. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- There can be such a thing as "human forming"; defining a "human being" as stridently as you do is worrying. Another fact is the pregnant women is a human being. - RoyBoy 06:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- As much as I agree with the original poster, is there a way we can just delete this whole thread, since it won't end up improving the article? Because I know that this talk page is not a forum, but if I have to hear more baseless banter about "human forming" or "choice" or "grey area", or any of the other foundationless dreck that the Pro-Choice argument is based on... I'm sure enough talk pages have been filled up already. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- While it won't effect the article, it is preferable to keep it in the talk page so that others who would post similar things can see it is already here. I have employed the technique used on other talk pages of putting it in a hidden box.
- As to foundation-less, I do prefer pro-choice, as at least it is better defined what we don't know; pro-life seem to know with little rationale about things they cannot. More importantly they know things religions have shifted positions on. So plenty of Popes can see some measure of grey, the fact many followers choose not to is their prerogative, not God's will. - RoyBoy 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
|}
I have changed the template used as my intent was not to stop the discussion giving me the last word. That would be unfair, I merely wanted to limit it as this discussion has been done repeatedly here. If further comments are required specifically to me you may post them on my talk page. If the comments are of a more general, specific and preferably short nature... please post them within the hidden box above. Thank you. - RoyBoy 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Methods and percentages
Mauriziosaavedra (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't agree with some of the things posted in this article. The way abortion methods are performed is not stated clearly, and the percentages for the reasons of abortion are incorrect.
The suction method is used within the first three months of the child's development.In this method, a tube connected to a suction device is inserted into the mother's womb. The force created by the device tears the child's body apart and draws the pieces into the tube and into a container for disposal.
The dilation and curettage(D&C)method, is also used in the first three months of development. This method involves using a loop-shaped knife called a curette to scrape the womb, severing the child's attachment to the mother. The baby's body is often cut into small pieces, and the head may be crushed to fit through the opening of the womb.
During the period between 13 and 20 weeks(3 and 5 months)of development, the most common method of abortion is the dilation and evacuation(D&E) method. In this method, a pair of forceps is inserted into the mother's womb, where they are used to dismember the child and drag the parts out of the womb through the birth canal. The tiny parts are often reassembled to ensure that none of the child's remains are left in the womb.
After 20 weeks the D&E is no longer practical, so abortionists sometimes use salt poisoning(saline abortion) to kill the child during this period. Using a long needle, they inject a salt solution(or sometimes urea)into the amniotic sac. This concentrated salt solution is swallowed and inhaled by the child, causing hemorraging, shock, and often painful burning of the skin. The baby thrashes about as it slowly dies, usually within an hour and a half. The dead baby is then delivered through the birth canalwithin 2-3 days.
Although most abortions are performed during the first three months of pregnacy, 15,000-20,000 per year are performed during the final three months of development, when the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. When the child is so far advanced, hysterotomy abortions are usually peformed. In this procedure, which is similar to the Caesarean section, the baby is surgically removed from the womb but is laid aside to die from neglect. Alternatively, the exposed baby is killed while still in the womb and then removed after he is dead.
Some mid- and late-term abortions are also peformed using the intact dilation and and extraction(D&X) method, or partial-birth abortion.The baby is delivered alive through the birth canal just as in a normal live birth, except that he is delivered feet first. When all of his body except his head is outside his mother, the baby is then killed by puncturing the base of the skull and using a suction device to remove his brain, collapsing the skull so that the head can fit more conveniently through the opening of the birth canal. An unborn baby is still a human, and very much alive. By the time the child has been developing in the mother's womb for only 8 weeks, all he organs are formed and the external features are established. By the end of 12 weeks, EVERY detail of basic stucture is developed. Life is precious and we need to protect it.
- This information is excellent, and would make a great addition to this article, can you provide reliable secondary sources to support the statements? Words like some and most are considered weasel words, and really should be avoided in order to maintain a neutral point of view and not be added in order to prove the point that abortion is evil. So, really if you can find some sourcing to match the statements, I think we should be able to work them into the article. Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the advice to curtail the spin. The article tries to lay out the issues with as little bias as possible. The content above really reads like it's coming from a pro-life pamphlet on abortion.198.23.5.10 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- That wouldn't matter if the same information could be found in reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the advice to curtail the spin. The article tries to lay out the issues with as little bias as possible. The content above really reads like it's coming from a pro-life pamphlet on abortion.198.23.5.10 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Abortion by country
Apparently the list article was deleted, so we're going to have to fix the infoboxes and think about how to rework that.--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldnt find anything that tells when is the "last chance" to abort (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.32.178 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The cost of choice. According to the US AG Dept., IRS, and the US Census Bureau, if Abortion ended, in one year we would creat 13 million jobs and add over 600 Billion to GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf5000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting statistic. If you can cite a reliable source, then it may be included in the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Caption of Soviet Poster Mistranslated
Currently translated as : "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."
The Russian actually says "Miscarriages induced by either folk healers or midwives not only maim the mowman, they also often lead to death."
Russian has the word "аборт" for "abortion," but here "miscarriage" is used euphemistically, and this should be maintained in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
mother
It says "One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy showed a rate of pregnancy in exposed ovulatory cycles of 59.6%; with 61.9% of conceptuses lost prior to 12 weeks of which 91.7% occuried subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother."
If a woman's pregnancy aborts itself, how is she a mother? Maybe she's a mother already by coincidence, but maybe she's not. We should just say call her a woman, not a mother.
I'd fix it myself but this article is locked tight. You should fix it for me. Spotfixer (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see no problem with the current phrasing. It is common practice to refer to a pregnant woman as a mother. She is mother to the fetus. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote from pro-life:
- "Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby," "unborn child," or "pre-born child", while some pro-choice or pro-birth-control advocates insist on scientific terminology (distinguishing between a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus, and objecting to "fetus" as a blanket term)."
It's a framing issue. Calling a childless but pregnant woman a "mother" is rounding up, just like calling a fetus a "baby" or abortion "murder". If I understand correctly, anything but medical terminology would amount to breaking NPOV. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- So what's the alternative? "Pregnant woman"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the paper referred to in the "offending" sentence itself uses the term "mother" - as does a lot of the medical literature. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- In casual conversation, especially with the pregnant women themselves, doctors do indeed use the word "mother" to refer to pregnant women. On this article specifically, however, I agree that the term probably carries unavoidable POV issues. In his article "Mothers and babies, pregnant women and fetuses", in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, volume 106 (1999), Lachlan de Crespigny et al, recommend as best practice:
"It is unfortunate that physicians frequently use the terms mother and baby in referring to the pregnant woman and fetus in medical literature and scientific meetings. Such language suggests that the author or speaker is unaware of the important ethical dimensions of the terms....Mother, however, should be used only when grammatically correct, to describe a woman who has borne a child. Mother is therefore not interchangeable with the term pregnant woman."
- It seems to me it is reasonable to follow this practice, perhaps with an explanatory note referring to the article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Crespigny has a strange understanding of "grammatically correct"--the dictionary definitions for "mother" use the word "parent", which is not tied to a woman who has borne a child. Thankfully, we can change the article to "pregnant woman" without implying that Crespigny's view is either scientific fact or grammatical standard. If we decide that's best. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Pregnant woman" or just "woman" is fine by me. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me it is reasonable to follow this practice, perhaps with an explanatory note referring to the article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"Woman" should be enough, since the context says she's pregnant. Spotfixer (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Abortion, Economy, Underpopulation
In section 7.2, we should add a new section about how abortion can be a leading factor for underpopulation and economic recessions. The words "economy" and "underpopulation" are not found in the article as of 2008-11-09. What are you guys' thoughts? There are various resources on this, e.g.: Movement for a Better America and the film Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family--Geremia (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I followed the first link and it led to a really partisan site that didn't seem to point to any neutral or objective sources. Do you have any reliable sources that support this? Spotfixer (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in demography nor with demographic literature and journals, but this book seems to be a good reference, especially its notes section.--Geremia (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the subject of the book is that closely related to abortion, rather than, say, fertility or contraception. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- This book covers abortion as it relates to overpopulation much more.--Geremia (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in demography nor with demographic literature and journals, but this book seems to be a good reference, especially its notes section.--Geremia (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The book is self-published by the president of a pro-natal activist group. On pop.org, it says:
- "Founded in 1989, Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries."
I think that makes it entirely clear that this "book" is not a reliable source. Spotfixer (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Problems with terms
The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the pro-choice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the fetus. -Zahd (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm I suspect the choice lobby would have some equally trenchant things to say about your side. Can I suggest that you try to edit in such a way that your views aren't quite so obvious? ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Im not sure what you mean. I think using the language "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak and violates WP:WEASEL. The relevant concept is the status of the fetus, not the mother. The article is not about aborting mothers, after all, but rather aborting fetuses. -Zahd (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I'd like to move/copy this discussion to the abortion talk page. Let me know. -Zahd (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Zahd, no objection to you moving this discussion there, but I would caution you that your view that mothers rights are not relevant to the subject is liable to be perceived as strongly anti-choice. If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion. But as far as I'm aware the science isn't that advanced yet. Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- "I would caution you that your view that mothers rights are not relevant to the subject is liable to be perceived as strongly anti-choice."
- Dear Zahd, no objection to you moving this discussion there, but I would caution you that your view that mothers rights are not relevant to the subject is liable to be perceived as strongly anti-choice. If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion. But as far as I'm aware the science isn't that advanced yet. Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I'd like to move/copy this discussion to the abortion talk page. Let me know. -Zahd (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Im not sure what you mean. I think using the language "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak and violates WP:WEASEL. The relevant concept is the status of the fetus, not the mother. The article is not about aborting mothers, after all, but rather aborting fetuses. -Zahd (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't mind so much how I'm perceived, and being called anti-choice is not really as offensive as you might think. My point is not that "mother's rights" are not relevant at all. In fact I fully support "mother's rights." Motherhood is in fact a beautiful thing and in no way offends me. You see of course that by calling "choice" an aspect of "mother's rights" you've found only an oxymoron. I would suggest that "choice" itself is also a similar oxymoron, being largely a euphemism for death. "If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion." I don't see what this has to do with anything. At no time did I mention IVF, and in no way does it help matters to use IVF as the basis for a thought experiment. "Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article." I know what the arguments are, namely that in the absence of fetus rights woman's rights should prevail. My point is simply that its a violation of WP:WEASEL to call killing a fetus "ending a pregnancy." Period. -Zahd (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Zahd, I didn't say that your views were offensive, merely that you seem to be editing from one particular point of view, that would be fine if you were blogging or writing letters to a newspaper; but this is an encyclopaedia and we aim to produce neutrally phrased articles. Can I suggest that for a change you do some editing in an area that you don't have strong views on? - I could certainly do with a fresh set of eyes at List of demons. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The terminology is pulled out of medical dictionaries in an effort to be neutral.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Medical dictionaries can be just as biased. The point is simple, calling an abortion "ending a pregnancy" violates WP:WEASEL, period. -Zahd (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Zahd, I've read wp:weasel again and still can't see what in it is violated by saying that an abortion ends a pregnancy. As for your comment that from your perspective "Medical dictionaries can be just as biased", well if there's a specific source that you think is problematic the place to go is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But I do think you are having difficulty editing neutrally in this area, can I suggest that you edit a topic where you don't have such strong views? ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly you have strong pro-choice views, and I am not suggesting to you that you edit something else. -Zahd (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not sure what happened here as I've been busy elsewhere on wiki, but Zahd, you came here, made your position, and encountered opposition. Then you edited the article, I'm in the proccess of going over the edits, and you're reverting me. I'm just sayin, maybe thats because there isn't consensus for your view point, and we should discuss it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- May verus is: Definitions are a matter of is, or is not. Abortions are performed for a number of reasons good and bad, this much is obviously true, but if an abortion is done to save the mother's life or perserve her health, its defined as a theraputic abortion. Now, we can argue endlessly if that makes any sense, but that is how its defined.--Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone, please be conscious of edit warring. I recommend WP:BRD. It is fine to make bold edits, but if you get reverted in good faith, please don't re-insert the disputed new content, but instead start discussing the proposals on the talk page. Also, all content on wikipedia MUST be verifiable, and we do that through citations to reliable sources. Looks like none of the new content has sources. Adding unsourced content is not helpful in the long run. And please remember that we are a community and we are all here to work together to build a better 💕. Thanks!-Andrew c 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant all of my reverts to be a consecutive series, I tend to work maddeningly slow that way. As far as sourcing, the whole article is virtually unchanged from late 2006, so lots of citations needed. I've been meaning to work on this article, but you know how that goes.--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Religious views almost unanimously tend to support pro-life, on the claim that a human fetus is a being with a soul. Pro-choice views tend to reject the relevance of the religious view, and claim that the fetus is not human until an arbitrary point in time (See fetal viability, fetal movement, and fetal pain).": There are a lot of problems with this edit. One, it puts questionable weight on the idea of religious groups all holding their is a soul: which, even if it is true, isn't particularly useful or neutral. Religions have incredibly different views on what a soul is, ask a Catholic and ask a Theravada Buddhist and you will get very different views on what a soul is. Pro-choice groups can also have strong wells of support, for example mainline Christians tend to be deeply torn about religion, but generally go with the "safe, rare and legal" position. The statement also sounds suspiciously like a judgement on the Pro choice opinion - ignoring the unanimity of religion. Thats even before we get into the use of the words "claim" and "arbitrary." Arbitrary is very much incorrect: fetal viability was Justice Blackwell's doomed attempt to blend law and medical science. It was a lot of things, but it wasn't arbitrary. Blackwell tried to find out when an average fetus, if birthed at a specific point in would likely be able to survive. (Of course, he didn't count on technology changing, but thats a seperate issue. Finally, appending fetal movement and fetal pain onto that sentence makes it a Point of View statement defintiively, by directly attempting to bolster the pro-life opinion by weighting the pro-choice with judgements. The only part of this edit that is ultimately sound is that the crux of the pro-life movement is the insistence that the fetus is a human being. You can find a lot of citations that support evangelical Christians coming to the pro-life movement because of their belief in the soul, but as you try to move outwards from that religious viewpoint, the citations start becoming very thin: because no one in the U.S actually cares what Buddhists think of abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Zahd, I've read wp:weasel again and still can't see what in it is violated by saying that an abortion ends a pregnancy. As for your comment that from your perspective "Medical dictionaries can be just as biased", well if there's a specific source that you think is problematic the place to go is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But I do think you are having difficulty editing neutrally in this area, can I suggest that you edit a topic where you don't have such strong views? ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Move-Protection
Shouldn't this page be move-protected? What if someone tries to move it to something like "baby-killing"?Jonathan321 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is move protected, I just checked. Looks like it has been for quite a while too.-Andrew c 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Good, but why doesn't it have a green lock on it? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure entirely what the protocol is for using those icons. I have a feeling that we don't want to fill the top of the page with little lock icons. Since the page is semi-protected, which is more serious than move protection, it is of my personal opinion that we just use one icon (and the semi-protected one seems more important that move protected). If there is an actual guideline page that describes when to use these, or if the consensus here is that we have multiple lock icons, then surely we can added it. What do you think?-Andrew c 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Source?
Tznkai, you said "In addition, mainline christian groups are often pro choice, which is nowhere near unanimous." Do you have a source for that? Its interesting that Christians would be pro-Choice, and I know there's some truth in it. "Often" is probably not inexact, unfortunately. -Zahd (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- The 20th week of gestational age is equivalent to the 18th week after fertilization. The embryonic stage lasts approximately until the end of the 8th week after fertilization, at which point the fetal stage begins.
- -MedlinePlus Encyclopedia: Miscarriage. Retrieved 2008-01-30. "A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Abortion articles
- Unknown-importance Abortion articles
- WikiProject Abortion articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- High-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists