Triacylglyceride (talk | contribs) |
Becritical (talk | contribs) →Variations new and old for lead paragraph: Reply to Gandydancer |
||
Line 351: | Line 351: | ||
:::::::::::OK, since the discussion seems to be stalled I will make a post in hope that it will help the discussion to move forward rather than go off on a topic that is not helpful. BeCritical, our opinions on the definition are quite different. I believe that if one puts all judgements about the morality of abortion aside, abortion, like hysterectomy (for instance), is a medical procedure and that is what our definition should use as the first sentence in the lede. Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion" - they define the legal considerations surrounding abortion. |
:::::::::::OK, since the discussion seems to be stalled I will make a post in hope that it will help the discussion to move forward rather than go off on a topic that is not helpful. BeCritical, our opinions on the definition are quite different. I believe that if one puts all judgements about the morality of abortion aside, abortion, like hysterectomy (for instance), is a medical procedure and that is what our definition should use as the first sentence in the lede. Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion" - they define the legal considerations surrounding abortion. |
||
:::::::::::We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted. So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::::We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted. So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::"An abortion can occur spontaneously" so is usually not a medical procedure. That's what I was saying in response to claims that abortion is a medical procedure. "Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion"" Maybe, but guess what? It's just unacceptable to use MEDRS as a way to falsify this article. You, Gandydancer, ''know'' that abortions are called abortions even if the fetus is viable, and you won't argue that no viable fetus has ever been aborted. So let's find some way to work together so that the definition in our article doesn't deny that fact. I'm certainly for abortion rights: this is not some way of POV pushing against abortion, it's an attempt to use the relevant sourcing properly. Because the medical textbooks did not ''mean'' to deny that it's called abortion when it's done on a viable fetus, they were just restricting the scope of their discussion. [[User_talk:Becritical|<span style="color:black;">'''B<sup>e</sup>'''—</span><span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—'''C'''<sub>ritical</sub></span>]] 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::All of this can be covered on the article's page--there's no suggestion of it being removed from the topic. It can't all be crammed into a single sentence or paragraph though. Wikipedia doesn't work like Twitter does. The info. being discussed ''is'' in the article. We are ''covering'' a topic but the article is ''about'' a medical procedure/event and it's senseless to talk about reactions to abortion before defining what an abortion is. It's a noun that refers to a certain pregnancy-related situation and that needs to be the thing defined initially. Without termination of a pregnancy being possible, there'd be no legal reaction to it, would there? [[User:JJL|JJL]] ([[User talk:JJL|talk]]) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::::All of this can be covered on the article's page--there's no suggestion of it being removed from the topic. It can't all be crammed into a single sentence or paragraph though. Wikipedia doesn't work like Twitter does. The info. being discussed ''is'' in the article. We are ''covering'' a topic but the article is ''about'' a medical procedure/event and it's senseless to talk about reactions to abortion before defining what an abortion is. It's a noun that refers to a certain pregnancy-related situation and that needs to be the thing defined initially. Without termination of a pregnancy being possible, there'd be no legal reaction to it, would there? [[User:JJL|JJL]] ([[User talk:JJL|talk]]) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I should add, these variations can/should be hybridized if that can create a suitable option. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
:I should add, these variations can/should be hybridized if that can create a suitable option. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:48, 5 January 2012
Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
Chronological archives |
Archives |
|
Topical subpages |
|
|
Notable precedents in discussion |
One more attempt
Since the lead's inline discussion tag is still there, I've came up with two versions to somehow address the related concerns above:
- "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo"
- "Abortion may be defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo", where "generally" may be inserted before "defined".
Both proposals seek to summarize and reconcile all definitions given in the note. The dropped "prior to viability" may be added in the form of "before it is considered viable". Thoughts? --Brandmeister t 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was planning on reopening this discussion too, but I decided to wait a bit. Can we hold off until Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion is closed before having this discussion? NW (Talk) 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- While definitions like these deftly side-step issues, it fails to specify what happens to the abortus and how this differs from other pregnancy endings. - RoyBoy 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- You guys seriously need some outside eyes. Tell me how expulsion is different from removal, and how a reader is supposed to interpret that sentence? Perhaps you could also explain why it includes an obvious untruth later contradicted in the article? Please don't write for someone who already knows the subject, and please at least make the article consistent. Be——Critical 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- So, what do you think of this version:
- Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.
- "Removal" and "expulsion" are the same thing, the same result. This also removes the contradiction. The Intact dilation and extraction article says "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a procedure done in late term abortion," and thus abortions do occur after viability, unless that article is wrong which I very much doubt. It's not Wikipedia's call to redefine terminology in both common and legal usage. You have to cite that abortion does not include IDX. This, according to the notes in the article, has not been done, because several of the sources merely say something like "usually before fetal viability," or they simply say nothing about viability, as "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo." The sources do not justify an absolute statement as in the current lead sentence. We should not be taking sides in this debate, as a matter of NPOV. "Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it." I would personally argue that given that the usage of IDX may not be an abortion, then partial birth abortion is the only term specifically used for late term abortion, and we are dealing with an anomaly in terminology and taking sides in a debate in the process. I would also argue that you would have to source that IDX is not an abortion procedure: the burden is on that side of the debate. Be——Critical 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The current version is extremely well-sourced by the top medical texts. The term partial birth abortion is more a political term than a medical one, isn't it? There may well be some inconsistency in how WP is describing things--as happens with many editors--but what you propose sounds dangerously close to OR to me: Parsing the phrases partial birth abortion/late term abortion and insisting that they follow some consistent logic, some hierarchy, that may not reflect how their usage has actually evolved. The lede is backed by extensive sources and I'm more inclined to bring less well-sourced material into line with it than the other way around. JJL (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Removal" and "expulsion" are the same thing, the same result. This also removes the contradiction. The Intact dilation and extraction article says "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a procedure done in late term abortion," and thus abortions do occur after viability, unless that article is wrong which I very much doubt. It's not Wikipedia's call to redefine terminology in both common and legal usage. You have to cite that abortion does not include IDX. This, according to the notes in the article, has not been done, because several of the sources merely say something like "usually before fetal viability," or they simply say nothing about viability, as "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo." The sources do not justify an absolute statement as in the current lead sentence. We should not be taking sides in this debate, as a matter of NPOV. "Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it." I would personally argue that given that the usage of IDX may not be an abortion, then partial birth abortion is the only term specifically used for late term abortion, and we are dealing with an anomaly in terminology and taking sides in a debate in the process. I would also argue that you would have to source that IDX is not an abortion procedure: the burden is on that side of the debate. Be——Critical 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm fine with that, if you can have a source which says that Late termination of pregnancy is not abortion, or that IDX is not abortion. We could bring all the articles into line with that, and decide that whereas prior to 20 weeks it is abortion, after that it's termination of pregnancy or having an IDX procedure on a living fetus, or some such. But you know that won't fly. What's really OR is what is there now, which is a statement that takes sides among the various sources. But here is a source that looks good to me, as it's JAMA calling IDX "abortion" Be——Critical 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that source isn't exactly the "JAMA calling...", but rather three authors who wrote a "special communication" published in JAMA thirteen years ago (Aug 1998), in the aftermath of Clinton's veto. The same issue carried Grimes' paper doi:10.1001/jama.280.8.747 (and, for a variety of controversies, a book review of Shapiro & Shapiro's The Powerful Placebo : From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician). Something more current and more authoritative would be desirable. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good source too. I don't see the problem here, we have sources calling it "late term abortion," and the sources in the article disagree. Thus, we do not take sides. Further, Wikipedia ought to have some common sense to it. It's blatantly obvious that late term abortions are "abortions." So change the text. Here's another source though Thus, late-term abortion, defined as abortion after twenty weeks, is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.1 percent of all abortions, and this is interesting. But the sources you've already gathered necessitate changing our text. Be——Critical 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have sources stating "late term" includes post-viability? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've already seen, we have sources saying IDX is abortion, and IDX includes post viability [1], viability is as young as 21 weeks and IDX is performed as late as 26 weeks [2]. That's just what I found in a few minutes, but it's pretty obvious. I suspect there is considerable secrecy here. We should ask some other editors who would know more. Also the sources already in the article pretty much sew up the case, just for example "[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen...[T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250." 28 weeks is well after viability. This is what I mean about taking sides with the sources. Several sources say 28 weeks, and viability of 90% is 26 weeks. Be——Critical 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- 'Viability' refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. This is well-defined but poorly measurable. The guidelines on numbers of weeks are attempts to estimate when viability will have occurred. There's no question in principle about the definition of the term but many issues in practice of ascertaining whether it has occurred without actually performing a procedure to remove the fetus. JJL (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think there are a broad range of acceptable lead sentences, and these include both what we have now as well as the very long and wordy one that we had a few months ago that gave both the definition from common parlance and the one from medical textbooks. We could also change the footnote to say something like "The definition of abortion, as with many words, varies from source to source. The following is a partial list of definitions as stated by obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) textbooks, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Some abortion procedures, such as intact dilation and extraction, may occur even after the fetus is viable." NW (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- 'Viability' refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. This is well-defined but poorly measurable. The guidelines on numbers of weeks are attempts to estimate when viability will have occurred. There's no question in principle about the definition of the term but many issues in practice of ascertaining whether it has occurred without actually performing a procedure to remove the fetus. JJL (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've already seen, we have sources saying IDX is abortion, and IDX includes post viability [1], viability is as young as 21 weeks and IDX is performed as late as 26 weeks [2]. That's just what I found in a few minutes, but it's pretty obvious. I suspect there is considerable secrecy here. We should ask some other editors who would know more. Also the sources already in the article pretty much sew up the case, just for example "[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen...[T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250." 28 weeks is well after viability. This is what I mean about taking sides with the sources. Several sources say 28 weeks, and viability of 90% is 26 weeks. Be——Critical 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have sources stating "late term" includes post-viability? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good source too. I don't see the problem here, we have sources calling it "late term abortion," and the sources in the article disagree. Thus, we do not take sides. Further, Wikipedia ought to have some common sense to it. It's blatantly obvious that late term abortions are "abortions." So change the text. Here's another source though Thus, late-term abortion, defined as abortion after twenty weeks, is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.1 percent of all abortions, and this is interesting. But the sources you've already gathered necessitate changing our text. Be——Critical 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that source isn't exactly the "JAMA calling...", but rather three authors who wrote a "special communication" published in JAMA thirteen years ago (Aug 1998), in the aftermath of Clinton's veto. The same issue carried Grimes' paper doi:10.1001/jama.280.8.747 (and, for a variety of controversies, a book review of Shapiro & Shapiro's The Powerful Placebo : From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician). Something more current and more authoritative would be desirable. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, would "usually prior to viability" be acceptable? Because that's both true and not taking sides per NPOV. Also it doesn't raise a question with the lay reader who knows viable fetuses are sometimes aborted. Be——Critical 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's there now is what the medical sources say--I understand your objection but it is precisely what's in the appropriate WP:MEDRS. Changing those sources to fit what seem like inconsistencies in our personal, lay opinion would be WP:SYNTH, wouldn't it? JJL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're factually wrong about the sources, see the above discussion. Be——Critical 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that wp:MEDRS has still not been read and understood. The NYTimes, Salon.com, and CTV are not reliable publishers for medical assertions. Nor are "original research", "commentary", "letters", "special communications" or other non-review contributions considered to be MEDRS, even if they are published in Lancet, JAMA, CMAJ, or NEJM. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If there are unreliable sources in the article, you should take them out. The argument is based on the sources already in the article, and all other links are only peripheral to the discussion. Be——Critical 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- We require MEDRS for assertions of medical facts, not for every fact in the article. Non-medical assertions can be backed up by generic wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you're saying the sources used to back up the current lead sentence are not MEDRS? If there are any non-MEDRS there, they should be removed. Be——Critical 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The lede sentence is fully supported, and reflects, WP:MEDRS, per a discussion taking place since about June of this year. (See the Talk archives.) Some have added other sources to the lengthy note on this in the article as an attempt to undercut the lede sentence. I think I don't fully understand your objection to the sources for the lede sentence. JJL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would request that you remove any sources you don't think meet MEDRS. But the sources there now contradict each other on the viability issue. They give a figure in weeks which is beyond the age of viability, yet say that "abortion" is only prior to viability. But the Wikipedia text takes sides in this contradiction. I think per NPOV we should not take sides. BTW, I do not know how some would react relative to any POV about the abortion debate(s), this comes purely from the seeming inaccuracy of the text, and I looked at the sources and saw they contradict. I also do not fully understand the objection to the JAMA source I found. (In case you think this is OR, the Churchill’s Medical Dictionary source says "usually before fetal viability."
- BTW, I'm sorry for not digging through the archives, but I suspect that this issue would have been resolved if people weren't POV pushing, not that I understand how this plays into POV, I'm just guessing. I'm guessing ArbCom has now made this a safer jungle..... I'm reading a bit of the RfC here, and I see people reacting to POV or not POV, but not reacting much to being reasonable or referring much to sources. Also, I note that some of the quotes of the sources are cherry picked, for example: The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. which is what's in the note, but it goes on to say "The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state. Some premature neonates of fewer than 24 weeks or 500 g are viable," and thus it is not nearly as cut and dried as the WP text. Be——Critical 06:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The lede sentence is fully supported, and reflects, WP:MEDRS, per a discussion taking place since about June of this year. (See the Talk archives.) Some have added other sources to the lengthy note on this in the article as an attempt to undercut the lede sentence. I think I don't fully understand your objection to the sources for the lede sentence. JJL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you're saying the sources used to back up the current lead sentence are not MEDRS? If there are any non-MEDRS there, they should be removed. Be——Critical 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- We require MEDRS for assertions of medical facts, not for every fact in the article. Non-medical assertions can be backed up by generic wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If there are unreliable sources in the article, you should take them out. The argument is based on the sources already in the article, and all other links are only peripheral to the discussion. Be——Critical 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that wp:MEDRS has still not been read and understood. The NYTimes, Salon.com, and CTV are not reliable publishers for medical assertions. Nor are "original research", "commentary", "letters", "special communications" or other non-review contributions considered to be MEDRS, even if they are published in Lancet, JAMA, CMAJ, or NEJM. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're factually wrong about the sources, see the above discussion. Be——Critical 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- "usually" was a point of discussion prior as Britannica used it and this was of importance to me. I definitely welcome your continued rigor on this topic. - RoyBoy 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I should ask others here whether they dispute that there have been abortions subsequent to viability? If not, then there is no original research involved in opting for caution in representing the ambiguous sources (for example, inserting the word "usually"). There may also be the option of a sentence explaining that IDX is commonly but not properly called abortion, and may take place subsequent to viability; if that can be sourced well. I very much like LeadSongDog's suggestion in that discussion "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth." We can either decide to discuss the contradictions, or to leave them out of the lead. We could also say that purposely terminating a pregnancy subsequent to viability is called X or that there is no term for it. Whatever the sources say, but we can't just leave it as it is. It's probably much wiser to avoid the issue. Be——Critical 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- BeCritical, from memory I believe that no one disputes the fact that a viable fetus is sometimes aborted. In fact our article states that 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, the undisputed earliest age of viability. However, looking at the definitions that we have to choose from for our references, how many times do you see the word "usually"? Thoughts? As for my thoughts, as I have said all along, while Wikipedia may aim to tell the Truth, Wikipedia does not always tell the truth. We have no choice, NONE, to decide that we may alter references to suit our fancy. This policy was wisely put in place to prevent a small group of perhaps well meaning but biased editors from providing politically biased articles for our readers. That said, all those lofty words, and yet I did agree to using the word "usually". If I remember correctly, there was only one hold-out on the word, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE: Reading the thread I see that I said that the CDC's earliest gestation week (21 wks) before viability is achieved is undisputed. Since I am well-aware that other sources give a later date, what I should have said is that no source uses a date prior to 21 wks gestation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well put. NPOV does say "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." That's what I'm arguing here. The majority of RS say "before viability," and some RS say something like "usually." There is also the problem of legal and some medical sources calling IDX abortion. All in all something like avoiding the issue or using the word "usually" seem justified. The CDC speaks of abortion occurring at "≥21 weeks" [3].
- BeCritical, from memory I believe that no one disputes the fact that a viable fetus is sometimes aborted. In fact our article states that 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, the undisputed earliest age of viability. However, looking at the definitions that we have to choose from for our references, how many times do you see the word "usually"? Thoughts? As for my thoughts, as I have said all along, while Wikipedia may aim to tell the Truth, Wikipedia does not always tell the truth. We have no choice, NONE, to decide that we may alter references to suit our fancy. This policy was wisely put in place to prevent a small group of perhaps well meaning but biased editors from providing politically biased articles for our readers. That said, all those lofty words, and yet I did agree to using the word "usually". If I remember correctly, there was only one hold-out on the word, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re the sources: there is a contradiction in the specific weeks given, for example CDC above saying "≥21 weeks", and these quotes: "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation" "definitions vary widely according to state laws" "loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy" "Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion" "Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom up to the 24th week of pregnancy[4]" "...especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced" (this last would include any age, and is one of the major textbooks). Be——Critical 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the time periods for viability do vary greatly from one source to another. That is why I choose to use the CDC >21 wks date. Re "usually", I believe that policy would say that all references are not equal. Since abortion is a medical procedure, I would assume that medical sources would be preferable to non-medical sources. If my memory is correct, none of the medical sources use the word "usually". It seems to me that one dictionary does, and three give a definition that does not speak of viability. Something like that...please check and see what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well "usually" can be sourced to CDC stats, but "before viability" might be problematic as you say if we think of it as SYNTH to put together CDC stats with the age of viability from other sources. Could we just not deal with it or do you think we should try to source it? What do you mean by "medical sources?" The heading in the note is Other medical dictionaries. Be——Critical 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the time periods for viability do vary greatly from one source to another. That is why I choose to use the CDC >21 wks date. Re "usually", I believe that policy would say that all references are not equal. Since abortion is a medical procedure, I would assume that medical sources would be preferable to non-medical sources. If my memory is correct, none of the medical sources use the word "usually". It seems to me that one dictionary does, and three give a definition that does not speak of viability. Something like that...please check and see what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. Let's start here: The note lists refs from MAJOR OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS and OTHER OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS----MAJOR MED DICTIONARIES and OTHER MED DICTIONARIES----MAJOR DICTIONARIES and OTHER DICTIONARIES----and ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I believe that our ref for our definition should come from a major textbook or medical dictionary, or an encyclopedia. Do you agree or disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- We could do that; but in such a case we should also agree to take out the other sources that aren't of sufficient value to base our definition firmly. If we're going to exclude the other sources, then we really ought to have an explanation of what ending a pregnancy later than viability is called. This is out of respect for the reader who will know the common definition (which is any procedure preformed prior to birth to get rid of a fetus and prevent live birth). We might also say medically defined. Be——Critical 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The note has grown fitfully and was used as a form of argument by various editors seeking to undercut whatever the current lede was. Cleaning it up is very sensible. Abortion is a medical procedure that, like most, is to a greater or lesser degree regulated--greater than usual in the case of abortion, of course. The definition in the lede now defines what abortion is, as a medical procedure according to the sources, and the article addresses the legal issues afterward. The definition in terms of viability is, regardless of whether one likes it or not, the definition; that's what it is. We never turned up a comparable body of sources that address the issue of how unambiguously post-viability procedures fit in--and some of what we did find alluded to the fact that many later abortions are of nonviable fetuses even though they're well past the point that for a normal development would have resulted in viability. Determining viability is hard in a case-by-case basis, as seen by the varying guidelines and laws; but none of that changes how the term is defined, just how decisions about it are made in practice. JJL (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- We could do that; but in such a case we should also agree to take out the other sources that aren't of sufficient value to base our definition firmly. If we're going to exclude the other sources, then we really ought to have an explanation of what ending a pregnancy later than viability is called. This is out of respect for the reader who will know the common definition (which is any procedure preformed prior to birth to get rid of a fetus and prevent live birth). We might also say medically defined. Be——Critical 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. Let's start here: The note lists refs from MAJOR OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS and OTHER OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS----MAJOR MED DICTIONARIES and OTHER MED DICTIONARIES----MAJOR DICTIONARIES and OTHER DICTIONARIES----and ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I believe that our ref for our definition should come from a major textbook or medical dictionary, or an encyclopedia. Do you agree or disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So then, are you saying that although abortion is a medical operation, it is much more than that and as such both medical sources and non-medical sources should be used for our definition? Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- There might be a case for legal definitions to be relevant? I think perhaps we just need to make clear what JJL says, that there isn't a term for post-viability intentional termination of pregnancy. That would clear up the whole issue. Can it be sourced? Be——Critical 05:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- That isn't quite what I said. The medical defn. is clear and involves viability. It's extremely well-sourced and near-universal among medical textbooks. Is there a source for the claim that the medical defn. is incorrect or incomplete? I understand your concerns but what you are suggesting seems like synthesis to me. As to the legal matters, they are relevant but secondary--the laws are about the procedure. The legal discussion of course must be included but not in the first sentence. Define what it is first and what people think about it next. JJL (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, but you have to explain that termination of a pregnancy on a post-viable fetus is commonly called abortion, but that's not the definition. You have to make the distinction out of respect for the reader. Of course, you probably can't source that it's not the definition. It's a gray area. And that fact should be explained. I think that can be sourced because it's mentioned relative to partial birth abortion. "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."[5]
- That isn't quite what I said. The medical defn. is clear and involves viability. It's extremely well-sourced and near-universal among medical textbooks. Is there a source for the claim that the medical defn. is incorrect or incomplete? I understand your concerns but what you are suggesting seems like synthesis to me. As to the legal matters, they are relevant but secondary--the laws are about the procedure. The legal discussion of course must be included but not in the first sentence. Define what it is first and what people think about it next. JJL (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term to non-viable fetuses. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.
Be——Critical 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- BeCritical, "Medically defined" has been suggested in the past (by me). If I remember correctly, I changed my mind because other medical/surgical procedures, appendectomy for instance, do not give a definition using the words "medically defined". As for the suggestion that post-viability induced abortions have no name in medical literature, they are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development. Gandydancer (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Medically defined" seems to me an appropriate summary/paraphrase, we don't have to use wording plucked verbatim from some source. If you can source that post-viability induced terminations are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development, then that is a resolution to this problem. But apparently no one can do that, so we have to go with some sort of split definition. Right? Be——Critical 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- A split defn. rather than a sourced one? JJL (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Both are sourced, the split one just takes into account the legal sources. This article covers more than the medical, and therefore should use sources beyond MEDRS. It has a huge section on Society and culture. Be——Critical 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the lede sentence, the lede paragraph, or the whole lede (before the TOC)? Currently the lede section does provide a broad overview of the issues. For the lede sentence, abortion itself is a medical procedure. As with other medical procedures, I think we must define what we're talking about before defining a societal and legal response to it. That is the consistent style across the site--the lede sentence established what the medical procedure is even when it's something controversial. For the lede paragraph, the current structure seems to be first a paragraph on abortion as medical event and medical procedure; then a paragraph on the public health aspects; and finally a paragraph on the history and broader cultural implications of the procedure. That seems to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") including the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence ("The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject."). The lede sentence examples given there are short, succinct, and clinical. To take an example from there, "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!. does not indicate why this song is notable, but the two-paragraph lede section goes on to describe it as "one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music" and ""Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners. In 2000, "Yesterday" was voted the #1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame." That's what we're doing here. Arguably the second paragraph of the Abortion article could be shorter and the third could expand on the social/religious/legal issues, including late term abortions, but it's fundamentally hitting all the major notes and maintains a global, rather than U.S.-centric, view of the subject,as required.. JJL (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Medicine does not have a monopoly on defining words. Law defines abortion differently from the medical texts: it specifically talks about post-viability abortions. This contradiction needs to be part of the first paragraph unless we expunge everything but medicine from this article. We have to specifically state that the medical definition is different from other definitions. We could do as you say... but only by eliminating the viability issue entirely, so that the lead sentence would be something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo." But that also has problems. Alternately, my suggested lead above is an alternative. There are lots of different ways we could do this, but what we can't do is cover social and legal aspects while leaving those aspects out of the definition. Be——Critical 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to be in the lede sentence. Covering the medical, legal, and social aspects in one sentence would be very unwieldy. Looking at the style per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence and similar articles on medical matters of social import, I think we're well in-line with Wikipedia conventions now: Define what it is, then cover how people feel about it and react to it. Other defns. merely attempt to codify social/legal procedures related to the medical issue. JJL (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, they don't have to both be in the lead sentence as you say: read my suggested text above. The reason for giving the legal definitions as part of what it is, is that while abortions occurring post-viability don't have a name in the medical literature, they do have a name in the legal literature. This is just a way to tell the reader "yes, the medical textbooks don't have a name for such procedures, but legally speaking they are still called abortion." This isn't how people feel about them, it's what to call it. What you're saying is that post-viability abortions aren't "abortions," and that's just misleading the reader. Be——Critical 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm open-minded on that, though "has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term" makes affirmative statements that need sourcing (How will you establish it has no name? by the trouble we've had finding one? What's the source?) and "medically defined" has always seemed awkward to me. But it's not unreasonable. If consensus ends up going that way then that's that. I don't see it generating much interest here though and I do prefer the current version. What you see as a major omission I see as a topic to be discussed later in the article. JJL (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's true so how about "Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability is also termed abortion in legal and common usage." I don't think the "common usage" part needs sourcing, as it's WP:BLUE, and the legal claim can be sourced with an example or two, plus the source already in the article. Be——Critical 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds more sourceable. Again, while I'm open-minded on this change I do prefer the current set-up--the three-paragraph lede covering first the biomedical defn., then the public health issues, and then the historical and soiolegal aspects--so I'm not in favor of a change. If consensus swings this way I could certainly work with it though. JJL (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't remember a great deal of discussion re using "medically" - to my memory I suggested it and quickly dropped it after a very short discussion. I would have no problem using it if it would help to bring closure. I also have no problem saying "usually before...", if it would help to bring an agreement. I need to resort to using the common sense and/or break the rules policy for that, but in this case it seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds more sourceable. Again, while I'm open-minded on this change I do prefer the current set-up--the three-paragraph lede covering first the biomedical defn., then the public health issues, and then the historical and soiolegal aspects--so I'm not in favor of a change. If consensus swings this way I could certainly work with it though. JJL (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's true so how about "Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability is also termed abortion in legal and common usage." I don't think the "common usage" part needs sourcing, as it's WP:BLUE, and the legal claim can be sourced with an example or two, plus the source already in the article. Be——Critical 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm open-minded on that, though "has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term" makes affirmative statements that need sourcing (How will you establish it has no name? by the trouble we've had finding one? What's the source?) and "medically defined" has always seemed awkward to me. But it's not unreasonable. If consensus ends up going that way then that's that. I don't see it generating much interest here though and I do prefer the current version. What you see as a major omission I see as a topic to be discussed later in the article. JJL (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, they don't have to both be in the lead sentence as you say: read my suggested text above. The reason for giving the legal definitions as part of what it is, is that while abortions occurring post-viability don't have a name in the medical literature, they do have a name in the legal literature. This is just a way to tell the reader "yes, the medical textbooks don't have a name for such procedures, but legally speaking they are still called abortion." This isn't how people feel about them, it's what to call it. What you're saying is that post-viability abortions aren't "abortions," and that's just misleading the reader. Be——Critical 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to be in the lede sentence. Covering the medical, legal, and social aspects in one sentence would be very unwieldy. Looking at the style per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence and similar articles on medical matters of social import, I think we're well in-line with Wikipedia conventions now: Define what it is, then cover how people feel about it and react to it. Other defns. merely attempt to codify social/legal procedures related to the medical issue. JJL (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Medicine does not have a monopoly on defining words. Law defines abortion differently from the medical texts: it specifically talks about post-viability abortions. This contradiction needs to be part of the first paragraph unless we expunge everything but medicine from this article. We have to specifically state that the medical definition is different from other definitions. We could do as you say... but only by eliminating the viability issue entirely, so that the lead sentence would be something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo." But that also has problems. Alternately, my suggested lead above is an alternative. There are lots of different ways we could do this, but what we can't do is cover social and legal aspects while leaving those aspects out of the definition. Be——Critical 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the lede sentence, the lede paragraph, or the whole lede (before the TOC)? Currently the lede section does provide a broad overview of the issues. For the lede sentence, abortion itself is a medical procedure. As with other medical procedures, I think we must define what we're talking about before defining a societal and legal response to it. That is the consistent style across the site--the lede sentence established what the medical procedure is even when it's something controversial. For the lede paragraph, the current structure seems to be first a paragraph on abortion as medical event and medical procedure; then a paragraph on the public health aspects; and finally a paragraph on the history and broader cultural implications of the procedure. That seems to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") including the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence ("The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject."). The lede sentence examples given there are short, succinct, and clinical. To take an example from there, "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!. does not indicate why this song is notable, but the two-paragraph lede section goes on to describe it as "one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music" and ""Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners. In 2000, "Yesterday" was voted the #1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame." That's what we're doing here. Arguably the second paragraph of the Abortion article could be shorter and the third could expand on the social/religious/legal issues, including late term abortions, but it's fundamentally hitting all the major notes and maintains a global, rather than U.S.-centric, view of the subject,as required.. JJL (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Both are sourced, the split one just takes into account the legal sources. This article covers more than the medical, and therefore should use sources beyond MEDRS. It has a huge section on Society and culture. Be——Critical 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- A split defn. rather than a sourced one? JJL (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Medically defined" seems to me an appropriate summary/paraphrase, we don't have to use wording plucked verbatim from some source. If you can source that post-viability induced terminations are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development, then that is a resolution to this problem. But apparently no one can do that, so we have to go with some sort of split definition. Right? Be——Critical 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to suggest a beginning paragraph which integrated the common and legal definitions? Be——Critical 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there some indication that a reasonably wp:WORLDWIDE legal definition exists? Even one that is widespread through the anglosphere? Is there any international law that pertains? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- No international law. "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."[laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html] That's a clear mention of post viability abortion, calling it "abortion." I'm sure you could find other sources from other countries, but I don't have time right now. Be——Critical 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, there's wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Reed Boland - Reprod Health Matters. 2010 Nov;18(36):67-89, pertinent text can be found here.
Box 1. Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion
1. The wording of many laws is not always clear and many laws are silent as to upper time limits and conditions for the performance of second trimester abortion.
2. Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman. Approximately 67% of countries allow second trimester abortions only for this reason, all of which, except Ireland, are developing countries.
3. Over half of countries allow second trimester abortion for health reasons, with varying definitions of what constitutes such reasons; more than a quarter of countries specifically also allow abortions for mental health reasons.
4. Over a third of countries allow second trimester abortions on grounds of fetal impairment, again with widely varying definitions.
5. Over a quarter of countries allow second trimester abortions if the pregnancy resulted from a sex offence.
6. Only 20% of countries allow second trimester abortions on broad socio-economic grounds, and only 5% allow them on request. These countries account for approximately half of the world's population, however, but mainly because they include China.
7. Developed countries are more likely than developing countries to permit second trimester abortions on a wide range of grounds.
8. Almost no countries set upper time limits for abortions performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, and few countries set time limits for abortions performed on health grounds. Half of countries that allow abortion for fetal impairment and pregnancy resulting from a sex offence set upper time limits, ranging from 16 to 32 weeks. Most countries allowing second trimester abortions for socio-economic reasons or on request do not set time limits for them during the second trimester.
9. Many countries place conditions relating to providers, facilities and procedures on the performance of abortions, only some of which are specific regarding second trimester abortions. Some of these are intended to create barriers to access, but others aim to protect women's health.
10. Although the general trend in recent years has been to liberalize abortion laws, including during part or all of the second trimester of pregnancy, there have also been successful and unsuccessful attempts by anti-abortion activists to lower upper time limits on second trimester abortions in some countries.
- RoyBoy 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources
- "allowed in post-viability abortions the physician to use a technique…" Management of post-mortem pregnancy, ISBN 9780754643043 p. 3
- "late-term abortion: post-viability abortion. Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a nonspecialized health center." Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine, ISBN 9780838515358
- "Section 10: Partial-birth and post-viability abortions" ISBN 9781590317259 p. 549
- "Restrictions on postviability abortions" Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care, ISBN 9781444358476
- "all late-term or post-viability abortions" Genetic Testing, ISBN 9780471649878 p. 204
- "explaining that post-viability abortions were rare", "a ban on all post-viability abortions" Protecting the Right to Choose, ISBN 9780452285682
- "care for the fetus in post-viability abortions", ISBN 9780313306440
There's more where these came from. Can we all agree now that induced "post-viability abortions" are actually abortions, and that they are actually called that, even by textbooks used in medical schools?
The problem you have with the lead is that you're trying to deal with two separate issues: there's abortion-as-pregnancy-loss and there's abortion-as-medical-procedure. The first is defined according to viability. The second is defined by your intent not to produce a live birth.
Example: If you surgically remove a fetus because it has Down syndrome at 26 weeks with the goal of having a dead fetus at the end of the procedure, you are performing an abortion procedure on a viable fetus. If that same 26-week fetus simply died, we'd classify it as a stillbirth, not as a miscarriage.
The only realistic solution is to separate the two separate things. So you need a first paragraph that says something like this:
Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end. When it occurs spontaneously before fetal viability, it is commonly called a miscarriage. An abortion procedure is a purposeful action taken to end a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth. Although abortion procedures may be performed at any point during the pregnancy before childbirth, they are most common in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion procedure is called an elective abortion and is commonly performed for non-medical reasons. An abortion procedure performed for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion.
If that next-to-last sentence surprises you, note that "elective" refers to Elective surgery. It is the preference of all good surgeons that all therapeutic abortions also be elective abortions, because the alternative to elective surgery is called emergency surgery.
And I hate to break it to you, but "expulsion" and "removal" are not strictly necessary components for an abortion. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage has already occurred before the expulsion. (Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a missed miscarriage, since that would literally mean "non-expulsion expulsion".) Spontaneous abortion is fundamentally defined by the embryo or fetus' death, not by its removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- That list of books is interesting, but it speaks only to the legal language used in US courts, not medical language. Searching gbooks on each of the entries for "post-viability", every found paragraph is a discussion of laws and court decisions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I oppose inclusion of the terms "prior to viablity" in the lead 'cause a significant number of abortions in the world occur when the fetus is viable (can survive outside the womb). Example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322601/China-forces-woman-abortion-EIGHT-months-breaching-child-policy.html
The following text written by Suzanne Carrière, director of CSSC Jeanne-Mance (CSSC Jeanne-Mance is, amongst other things, an abortion provider) explains on the 5th page how in 2010 the government of Quebec would send many women to the United States in order to have an abortion after the 24th week or 6th month of pregnancy.
She explains that only women with immigration problems, substance abuse problems, criminal records or whose fetus has difformities can abort in the province of Quebec.
All other women from Quebec that choose to have abortion after the 24th week or 6th month of pregnancy for ANY reason whatsoever will receive money from the government in Quebec in order to have the abortion performed in the United States of America.
http://partenariat-familles.inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca/DocsPDF/TexteSCarriere.pdf
The lead implies that abortion is generally performed before the fetus is viable, which is simply inaccurate. Israell (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the point. There are many other sources (not stemming from pro-life websites) like the ones I mentionned earlier that explain how common abortion when the fetus is viable is. Therefore, the lead shall not include the terms "prior to viability". Israell (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Which ones actually define their terms? The medical sources do--they give an explicit defn. for 'abortion'. We have to be careful not to synthesize one. JJL (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whatamidoing's lead is certainly an improvement over what is there, and I'm sure it is much more accurate. Does anyone actually contest that abortions occur after viability? I'm convinced that medical sources purposely refuse to discuss abortion post-viability, for example this, and that this is a purposeful omission for political reasons. However, I know that other equally RS sources such as legal ones speak of abortion post-viability. It would not be synthesis to have a lead speaking of:
- miscarriage
- therapeutic abortion
- elective abortion
- legal mentions of abortion not being restricted to pre-viablility.
- All these are things we can source, and taken together form a lead which doesn't leave the reader knowing that something is fishy. Be——Critical 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sooo, what are the objections to the newly proposed lead? Be——Critical 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well...Wikipedia>Abortion>"Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." Certainly a departure from what any of our sources use, isn't it? How can you justify that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to get something started here. Don't look at me too hard. I'm just trying to get any lead that doesn't violate common sense. I don't want to ignore any of the valid sourcing like the legal sourcing as we're doing now. But I'm not expert enough on the sourcing in this area to really do the job right. I just came here and saw it doesn't work. I'd more like to get others who know the available sourcing to make it work than try to make it work myself. I think that's a valid function. Be——Critical 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well...Wikipedia>Abortion>"Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." Certainly a departure from what any of our sources use, isn't it? How can you justify that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- BeCritical, I can't speak for the other editors that have been working for a definition, but it would not surprise me if they had similar feelings...as for myself, I think we are really lucky to have such a good editor to join in the conversation at this point. Your inexperience with this issue and your fresh point of view may be just what we need right now to help us all to try and find a lede definition. I hope that you continue to work with the others to find a solution to this most difficult problem. Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Gandydancer, I hope I can help. Be——Critical 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- BeCritical, I can't speak for the other editors that have been working for a definition, but it would not surprise me if they had similar feelings...as for myself, I think we are really lucky to have such a good editor to join in the conversation at this point. Your inexperience with this issue and your fresh point of view may be just what we need right now to help us all to try and find a lede definition. I hope that you continue to work with the others to find a solution to this most difficult problem. Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand that claim, how does the lead "violate common sense"? With all the sourcing(especially those meeting MEDRS), how can one make that claim? It seems to me that common sense dictates that the sourcing and logic support the lead. "Viability" is a medical term. Once a fetus becomes truly viable, options to terminate are limited. Only in cases possible death for the patient, or coupled with extreme patient distress(health, fertility, etc.) and fetal likelihood of stillborn, are cases performed even near potential viability. So yes, along with the many here and in the archives of past discussions, I object. Based on my post here and other reasons provided in past discussions. Dave Dial (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dave, it seems as if you answer your own question: it violates common sense because everybody knows that abortions happen after a fetus could be viable (whatever the wording). Just because that is limited doesn't mean it's not abortion. We need to acknowledge that fact, and we also don't need to limit our sourcing to medical. Per NPOV, we bring all RS to bear on our subject. The subject of abortion is far more than a medical issue, and the definition of the term has an apparently slightly different meaning in different RS. Since it might help, you should know I do not have any religious or ethical objection to abortion, and would be the first to counter any POV pushing from the antiabortion side of this issue. Yet I also, for example, wouldn't have a problem with mentioning "death of the fetus." I wouldn't push for it, but I would think it is accurate and NPOV unless otherwise convinced. I suspect, though I don't know, that the objection to "death" was because of its emotional appeal re the fetus. Be——Critical 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saying "everybody knows" something when the medical textbooks used to train physicians run counter to it is a tough sell. Abortion is a medical procedure. Like many such, there are social dimensions to its application in particular cases. If you look at the style used in WP for articles on controversial medical matters you'll find they define the procedure or medical issue first--after all, how can one understand the legal aspects before knowing what it is? JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Abortion is a medical procedure and only happens prior to viability, except if you accept what the medical textbooks say and what the law texts say. It only happens before viability if you ignore the legal texts and what everyone knows about partial birth abortions. The medical textbooks say abortion may or may not be a medical procedure, and the law texts say it can happen after viability, and medical students know that the textbooks are talking about what they're legally allowed to do. So from your perspective, people are going to look at the law texts and say there can never be a problem, because there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion. What are those texts even talking about? No abortion can happen after viability, it's impossible. Be——Critical 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your point, as far as I can make it out, still relies on the unsourced claim that there are things "everybody knows" that need to be put in the article in defiance of WP:V. You're now inferring what medical students know but don't say and positing an actual conspiracy among medical professionals. Conspiracy claims must be sourced. JJL (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, no I don't have anything to prove re adhering to sources, not with my record on sourcing policy. But I don't have any reason not to have common sense on talk pages. That's where you start, then you see what you can source. But never pretend that you don't have common sense or actually can't see the obvious, rather agree with whomever you're arguing with that yes, that's common sense, but nevertheless WP policy is as it is. If you really take a close look at my edit history you'll see that in practice a few times. Be——Critical 01:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's an interesting suggestion that I "really take a close look at [your] edit history" and take into account your "record on sourcing policy" in lieu of expecting you to comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule to troll Talk:Abortion. JJL (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, no I don't have anything to prove re adhering to sources, not with my record on sourcing policy. But I don't have any reason not to have common sense on talk pages. That's where you start, then you see what you can source. But never pretend that you don't have common sense or actually can't see the obvious, rather agree with whomever you're arguing with that yes, that's common sense, but nevertheless WP policy is as it is. If you really take a close look at my edit history you'll see that in practice a few times. Be——Critical 01:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your point, as far as I can make it out, still relies on the unsourced claim that there are things "everybody knows" that need to be put in the article in defiance of WP:V. You're now inferring what medical students know but don't say and positing an actual conspiracy among medical professionals. Conspiracy claims must be sourced. JJL (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Abortion is a medical procedure and only happens prior to viability, except if you accept what the medical textbooks say and what the law texts say. It only happens before viability if you ignore the legal texts and what everyone knows about partial birth abortions. The medical textbooks say abortion may or may not be a medical procedure, and the law texts say it can happen after viability, and medical students know that the textbooks are talking about what they're legally allowed to do. So from your perspective, people are going to look at the law texts and say there can never be a problem, because there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion. What are those texts even talking about? No abortion can happen after viability, it's impossible. Be——Critical 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of the word "death" in the definition, it might be a good idea to read the Wikipedia definition of "Life" at our article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- A fetus is unequivocally alive per definition. I doubt there's any controversy there, it's just that the word is used in a special way in the abortion debate. But Wikipedia doesn't have to bend its own text to try and create or avoid political issues. I doubt "death" is necessary, I just used it as an example above. Be——Critical 19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saying "everybody knows" something when the medical textbooks used to train physicians run counter to it is a tough sell. Abortion is a medical procedure. Like many such, there are social dimensions to its application in particular cases. If you look at the style used in WP for articles on controversial medical matters you'll find they define the procedure or medical issue first--after all, how can one understand the legal aspects before knowing what it is? JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dave, it seems as if you answer your own question: it violates common sense because everybody knows that abortions happen after a fetus could be viable (whatever the wording). Just because that is limited doesn't mean it's not abortion. We need to acknowledge that fact, and we also don't need to limit our sourcing to medical. Per NPOV, we bring all RS to bear on our subject. The subject of abortion is far more than a medical issue, and the definition of the term has an apparently slightly different meaning in different RS. Since it might help, you should know I do not have any religious or ethical objection to abortion, and would be the first to counter any POV pushing from the antiabortion side of this issue. Yet I also, for example, wouldn't have a problem with mentioning "death of the fetus." I wouldn't push for it, but I would think it is accurate and NPOV unless otherwise convinced. I suspect, though I don't know, that the objection to "death" was because of its emotional appeal re the fetus. Be——Critical 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's a lot of controversy about that--see the archives from this past summer. Saying that a "fetus is unequivocally alive per definition" sans sources, or that the defn. of abortion is "obviously" wrong, is precisely the kind of reasoning rules like WP:V, WP:RS, etc., are here to prevent. JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not really controversy in any real sense, regardless of any Wikipedia maneuvering. What you say is what I've been arguing over at V. I'd agree with you in all this if the medical textbooks were the only relevant sources. Be——Critical 08:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure that "A fetus is unequivocally alive per definition"? Wikipedia says that there is no unequivocal definition of life. But if you are sure that there is, would life begin at the moment the male sperm cell and the female egg cell united (if I termed that correctly), or would it begin at implantation? Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's a lot of controversy about that--see the archives from this past summer. Saying that a "fetus is unequivocally alive per definition" sans sources, or that the defn. of abortion is "obviously" wrong, is precisely the kind of reasoning rules like WP:V, WP:RS, etc., are here to prevent. JJL (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I recall, the debate is at the level of viruses or prions, whether they can be called alive or not. A fetus meets most of these criteria, and would more if it were allowed to live: I mean adaptation and reproduction. Be——Critical 20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are points to be made on both sides of this. Sources were adduced on both sides this past summer. It isn't a simple matter...and your continued insistence that every issue is black-and-white according to how you see things isn't helpful. You have a clear POV on several matters that have been, and continue to be, highly contentious not just here but in the overall discussion of the issue of abortion. Until you can a.) see the possibility of another side or at least a grey area, and b.) begin backing your assertions as to what is and is not "obviously" true with sources, I don't see the point of this. If you're waiting for me to produce the sources, I have--check the archives starting from around June. But until you're bringing sources rather than just convictions and opinions, this isn't likely to be a fruitful discussion. JJL (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. What a waste of time! This dynamic is part of the reason long time contributors are falling away from Wikipedia. It's wonderfully hypocritical you can spot POV in pro-lifers but can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to the debate of life; which appeared amply settled, again. - RoyBoy 02:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I recall, the debate is at the level of viruses or prions, whether they can be called alive or not. A fetus meets most of these criteria, and would more if it were allowed to live: I mean adaptation and reproduction. Be——Critical 20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I look at the list of criteria for life and I see something completely different. Concerning the pre-viable fetus, which is what we are speaking of, I find that most of the homeostatic functions are done by the mother's placenta. I find that some, such as a requirement that the issue be multi-cellular, could as well apply to a cancerous tumor. And I find that potential possibilities are just that - potential possibilities. And, you did not reply to my question about when...when does Life actually begin? Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, as others have here (and of course elsewhere)--it's far from clear that the fetus, and esp. the developing embryo at the earliest stages, meets the defn. of 'life'. It's a heap paradox--there's no clear, simple line at which it crosses the barrier. JJL (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well this is just getting philosophical- it doesn't matter whether life or death wording is in the article. I would say that life would begin with conception, but that's not to place any value in particular on "life." Some people can't put the value of life on a sliding scale even while eating a chicken sandwich. I guess they justify this by talk of souls, even while.... nevermind... Be——Critical 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where one draws the precise line is of zero importance Gandydancer. Just as fascinating possibilities about what could be life in the context of astrobiology has no bearing on if a fetus is "alive". As to homeostasis, when someone is hooked up to life support -- for most of their vital functions -- does that mean they are no longer alive? - RoyBoy 02:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Did the person that pulled the life support plug kill them?...As for the fetus, is it alive as a distinct human being at the moment of fertilization?, at implantation?, at viability?, at quickening?, at birth? Roe v. Wade said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." With very rare exceptions, our sources do not use the word death. So, I hope we do not need to again go through the discussion of using the word "death" in the definition in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- We don't, that was just an example. Be——Critical 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, killed, not difficult. Same with removing a bandage and bleeding out -- died from the wound(s), killed from medical aid removal. As eloquent as Roe v. Wade is, it is clear homeostatic control is immaterial to defining "life". Right?
- As to death discussion, did we actually have one if some still think they can redefine life to exclude a pre-viable fetus? If we cannot evoke / forge a better option that is accurate / true -- reinserting death is a last option as it may take more time than I think its worth and I wouldn't want to push away newer editors. (*shrug* damned if you do; wrong if you don't) The current "viable" definition is better in several respects and accurate with medical literature; but not true with medical practice. So close but not is absolutely infuriating, but I hold truth above placating pro-choice expectations. I unrealistically expect others to do the same. - RoyBoy 01:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, had to sleep on it to recall Roe v. Wade use of "difficult question of when life begins" is speaking to personhood. A tough nut to crack indeed, but thankfully it does not impact using death as an option. There have been mentions of deaths "common use" for the passing of a person, but I've asked several editors to clarify if that overrides / supplants deaths primary definition. I appreciate OrangeMarlin's original objection, the implication of personhood that pro-lifers cling to and infer into death. My point back was, its an organism, it can die; and pro-lifers can infer what they wish. Death is accurate insofar as what it actually means, ending of biological processes -- be it a collective of cells (a sponge, a blastocyst), an amoeba, a rat, or a person. - RoyBoy 16:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be nice to see it in action (; Be——Critical 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have a specific memory of asking someone (don't know who) to clarify what they meant by saying death has multiple definitions / meanings, I replied to the effect it has one (by Wikipedia), I had the last reply in the section ... cannot find it now, annoying.
- Here's the diff, I could put in the effort and create a third variation; but since 2006 was a group effort I'll leave it to the fresher Becritical to try. Situating / supplementing the definition from legalese is intriguing. The only thing I've acquired from abortion talk 2011 is that the 2006 lead could potentially be improved; though I remain highly skeptical given the current lead is a verifiable downgrade, and expanding the definition with multiple perspectives can easily get mealy mouthed and/or needlessly technical. - RoyBoy 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a great improvement to me. You might not want to specify when viability occurs. I would say "commonly and legally." Be——Critical 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently that's debatable, and was semi-democratically usurped in 2011 ("death" specifically), they called it a consensus ... I didn't, then edit wars etc. Anyway, if it were me working on a new version I'd finesse out the redundancies of WhatamIdoin's version (or use it as inspiration), forget the word "commonly" exists and perhaps put death somewhere unoffensive, lolz ... unsure exactly why that's funny, many possibilities. Oh and "termination" is a long unnecessary word, we like it of course as its neutral and medical... but kinda sucks at the same time, ya'know? - RoyBoy 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Obviously, I disagree; we have discussed why many a time. This had been in the article for a few months while the ArbCom case was going on; it is built largely using the Dictionary of World Philosophy reference quoted in the notes section. It's mealy mouthed, but I think a variation off it has the potential to
make everyone unhappyact as a compromise. I don't remember if we discussed any fundamental objections to it; did we? NW (Talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)- That isn't bad either. All I really hate is that the current one contradicts what everyone knows. Be——Critical 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Obviously, I disagree; we have discussed why many a time. This had been in the article for a few months while the ArbCom case was going on; it is built largely using the Dictionary of World Philosophy reference quoted in the notes section. It's mealy mouthed, but I think a variation off it has the potential to
I have this from a banned user on my talk page. I don't agree with every part of the suggested text, but I think it has quite a lot of merit, and is certainly worth posting here for consideration. We might consider using parts of it. I don't know why the user was banned, but I'm not concerned with that as long as the suggestion seems good.
"Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body. [Rationale: This is the only definition that accurately applies to every single possible instance of abortion - gestation ceases - the pregnancy does not necessarily end as in the case of a miscarriage of or induced abortion of a twin in which one twin remains intact, and absorption covers early abortions that are absorbed by the uterus rather than expelled.] An abortion that is intentionally induced is often called simply an abortion; [Rationale: Many induced abortions are chemically induced and are not "procedures", so the word "procedure" is not universally accurate.] an abortion that occurs spontaneously before fetal viability is often called a miscarriage; an abortion that occurs spontaneously after fetal viability is often called still-birth. Although intentional abortions may be induced at any point during a pregnancy before childbirth, for humans they are most common in the non-viable first trimester of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion is called an elective abortion and is commonly induced for non-medical reasons. An abortion induced for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion. While in most circumstances the pregnancy ends when the abortion is complete, the pregnancy does not end when less than all embryos/fetuses of a multiple pregnancy are aborted. [Rationale: this helps the reader understand that medically, the halt of gestation, death and removal/absorption are the three items in EVERY abortion, and that "termination of pregnancy" is not always part of abortion.] "
Be——Critical 03:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bringing posts from banned users here on their behalf undercuts some of the purpose of banning them. I don't intend to have a discussion with a banned user via you as their intermediary. JJL (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- You of course don't have to do anything here. But if I feel the information is worthy, I'll post it in my own name and my own judgment per WP:BAN. Just consider any such posts as being mine alone. Be——Critical 08:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Variations new and old for lead paragraph
For the DWPhil def, should go with this diff. Stepping through the history, I removed "live" as birth is always alive; then there was back and forth on if the medical diff is universal or "often / typical". Fundamentally I disagree with contorting the abortion definition to use the opposite "live / birth" language of its goal; doesn't seem honest philosophically speaking. Verifiability better than what we have now though, so I'll implement it.
Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth; medically, abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human rather than non-human pregnancy.
The new suggestion is comprehensive and accurate, but wordy:
Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body. An abortion that is intentionally induced is often called simply an abortion; an abortion that occurs spontaneously before fetal viability is often called a miscarriage; an abortion that occurs spontaneously after fetal viability is often called still-birth. Although intentional abortions may be induced at any point during a pregnancy before childbirth, for humans they are most common in the non-viable first trimester of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion is called an elective abortion and is commonly induced for non-medical reasons. An abortion induced for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion. While in most circumstances the pregnancy ends when the abortion is complete, the pregnancy does not end when less than all embryos/fetuses of a multiple pregnancy are aborted.
For information, WhatamIdoing's option:
Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end. When it occurs spontaneously before fetal viability, it is commonly called a miscarriage. An abortion procedure is a purposeful action taken to end a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth. Although abortion procedures may be performed at any point during the pregnancy before childbirth, they are most common in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion procedure is called an elective abortion and is commonly performed for non-medical reasons. An abortion procedure performed for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion.
- RoyBoy 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the first one. It's long enough to accomplish what we need without being so long as to lose the reader's attention. NW (Talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- They are certainly all better, we are definitely making progress (: I do lean toward the more complete definitions though. The third option is kind of a compromise between the newly inserted improvement RoyBoy made and the wordy and accurate (RoyBoy says) second version (I will say that as someone pretty much new to this subject I found it informative/useful). However (and I leave it to people who know more do decide), it seems like we should go with a comprehensive version over an incomplete one. So if the definition can't be called fairly comprehensive, don't you think we should opt for a longer one? Be——Critical 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- BeCritical, where do you see this (#2) definition:
- Abortion is the end of gestation for an embryo/fetus involving its death and its absorption into or removal from the gravida's body.
- As an improvement over this long-standing definition?
- Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.Gandydancer (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a clear source for "Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth" for the first one? The second is stylistically untenable--it's virtually unreadable. The third opens with "Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end." This doesn't define 'abortion' and isn't in line with Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence. The first one is the only one that is workable but seems like mostly just a more wordy version of the consensus version there now. I'd sooner leave the current version and let people quibble about what they deem corner cases in the body of the article. No one is pretending that any subject can be treated completely and in depth in a single sentence or a single paragraph; but the current version is impeccably sourced, reasonably succinct, and clearly stated:
Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.
- This gives us a stylistically-compliant (per Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence), WP:MEDRS--accurate, highly WP:V opening. It defines the term, accurately and in line with how professionals who do it use the term. That seems like a success to me. JJL (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not compliant with Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph (ie. too specific), and might be a poor choice for the nonspecialist preference of LEAD#First_sentence; as the sentence strongly implies viable abortions are not possible. Did you read the content on "Key findings from 191 countries with laws regulating second trimester abortion" above JJL? - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly is my strong choice as well. I am willing, as I said above, to insert the word "usually prior to..." for those that are concerned that a very small number of abortions are post-viability procedures. Again, I strongly believe that when push comes to shove, rocks and hard places, and all, we must look to our sources rather than whatever our personal beliefs may be. Gandydancer (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's an acceptable solution, "usually prior to...". Gandydancer, I don't all parts of the second lead as an improvement, especially the first sentence. But the paragraph as a whole has some very good points. I agree with you about the sourcing, but I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources. That's all. Be——Critical 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a definition concocted out of political concerns at all - I see it as a medically factual definition. While some claim that hundreds if not thousands of abortions are being done on post-viable fetuses, I'd like to know where they are getting their statistics from. Our article states that 1.4% (8365) of abortions are done past 21 wks gestation and that's it - there are no further stats. Just because a handful of infants survived, and those few have a high chance of being developmental disabilities, does not mean that 21 wks is actually the age of viability. The medical community uses 24 wks as the low end, and again disabilities can be expected. We also have no stats on the number of post-viable babies with gross developmental deformities that are aborted or the number done because the mother's life is threatened. Furthermore, even the stats that we do have are questionable due to different reporting methods used from state to state.
- It should be kept in mind as well that, though legal, some states have only one or two providers and many providers will not do an abortion even after 16 wks of gestation. I'd like to know who on earth, or at least who in the U.S., is providing all these post-viable abortions? I can accept that they are sometimes done for no other reason than that a woman does not want an infant - but I can only guess at the frequency it is done. Which is all anyone can do, and I would guess that it is extremely rare.
- And finally, I have no concerns that the definition used by almost every major medical source is not medically accurate. My concern is that the ever-increasing political influence of the Catholic and Evangelical communities write our definition, which includes using the phrase "death of the fetus". Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Viability does not become a fixed point on the gestation timeline based on what might be written into a law. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Viability is perfectly well-defined biologically. Unfortunately we lack the technological tools to determine when it has occurred. That's where the guidelines and laws come in--not on what viability is, but on what proxies may be used to get around our inability to test for it within the 20-ish week zone where it's likely to occur. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The stats on post-viable fetuses are also immaterial! Legally can you get a 2nd-trimester abortion, "Almost all countries allow second trimester abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman." What would your preferred sources call it Gandydancer? Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally? - RoyBoy 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Viability does not become a fixed point on the gestation timeline based on what might be written into a law. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- My post was in response to BeCritical's statement "I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources". This statement and some of his previous statements seem to suggest to me that he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency other than in instances such as rape, physically/mentally compromised fetus, very young child, a threat to the mother's health/life, and incest (which is actually more common than some people think). I am arguing against the "fact" that the health care system is doing post-viable abortions without regard for the law, and if someone suggests that I am incorrect, I'd like to see them back that statement up with some sources. Perhaps you or others consider this "immaterial", but I believe we need to work with facts, not someone's version of "but it's only reasonable!". You asked, "Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally?" - I really have no idea since I have not researched legal terminology at all. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, "he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency..." No I don't think that at all. I just don't think that the article should make out like whatever those are, when they occur, they're something other than abortion. They are abortion, that's what they're called and the article shouldn't contradict that because an anomaly in the way medical textbook sources (though not all medical sources) define the term. Be——Critical 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- My post was in response to BeCritical's statement "I think it's sad that Wikipedia is stuck with a lamed article because of the political concerns of the best sources". This statement and some of his previous statements seem to suggest to me that he believes that post-viable abortions are done with some frequency other than in instances such as rape, physically/mentally compromised fetus, very young child, a threat to the mother's health/life, and incest (which is actually more common than some people think). I am arguing against the "fact" that the health care system is doing post-viable abortions without regard for the law, and if someone suggests that I am incorrect, I'd like to see them back that statement up with some sources. Perhaps you or others consider this "immaterial", but I believe we need to work with facts, not someone's version of "but it's only reasonable!". You asked, "Moreover, if push came to shove, what would it be called legally?" - I really have no idea since I have not researched legal terminology at all. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, hopefully to come to agreement on what you are saying and move forward, does this correctly state what you believe: Almost all medical sources incorrectly define abortion as the removal of a nonviable fetus because of political concerns. And by "political concerns", I assume you mean legal concerns, is that correct?Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Um, well you're asking me what I believe which isn't strictly relevant. But I just have this big question: why would medical texts define away abortions performed (however rarely) on viable fetuses? Because they don't want to deal with the politics (letters, threats, what publishers want to put out)? Because that's all the law allows? Because they're afraid of getting shot? I have no idea, except it has to be something weird. I just can't conceive that there is a procedure which is sometimes performed, but has no name. I think it's blatantly obvious that they're called abortions, so I'm just wondering why medical textbooks refuse to name them by limiting the term to pre-viability. Any ideas? And I think that we should use other texts like legal ones to augment the medical sources, since those other sources are within the scope of this article. That make sense? So yes to your question. I don't want to break or bend WP sourcing policy, I just want to do the best we can with all our sources. Be——Critical 21:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, hopefully to come to agreement on what you are saying and move forward, does this correctly state what you believe: Almost all medical sources incorrectly define abortion as the removal of a nonviable fetus because of political concerns. And by "political concerns", I assume you mean legal concerns, is that correct?Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reality is a factor as well. 10 or 1,000 MEDRS does not remove 2nd trimester abortion from the topic we are trying to summarize accurately. I reiterate, we aren't defining a procedure, we are defining a topic. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, since the discussion seems to be stalled I will make a post in hope that it will help the discussion to move forward rather than go off on a topic that is not helpful. BeCritical, our opinions on the definition are quite different. I believe that if one puts all judgements about the morality of abortion aside, abortion, like hysterectomy (for instance), is a medical procedure and that is what our definition should use as the first sentence in the lede. Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion" - they define the legal considerations surrounding abortion.
- We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted. So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- "An abortion can occur spontaneously" so is usually not a medical procedure. That's what I was saying in response to claims that abortion is a medical procedure. "Legal considerations should of course be included, but they do not define "abortion"" Maybe, but guess what? It's just unacceptable to use MEDRS as a way to falsify this article. You, Gandydancer, know that abortions are called abortions even if the fetus is viable, and you won't argue that no viable fetus has ever been aborted. So let's find some way to work together so that the definition in our article doesn't deny that fact. I'm certainly for abortion rights: this is not some way of POV pushing against abortion, it's an attempt to use the relevant sourcing properly. Because the medical textbooks did not mean to deny that it's called abortion when it's done on a viable fetus, they were just restricting the scope of their discussion. Be——Critical 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- We also differ in our ideas about exactly when a fetus may be considered "viable" and that's not surprising at all since there is currently no agreement. Roe v. Wade states that the fetus should be able to lead a "meaningful life" to be considered viable - which is pretty vague. A Down Syndrome fetus is a good example because they are so high-functioning that it would be pretty hard to argue (to me) that some of them don't lead a meaningful life, and yet over 90% are aborted. So Roe v. Wade, wisely, was very clear in their decision that the judgement be left to the individual and their individual physician. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- All of this can be covered on the article's page--there's no suggestion of it being removed from the topic. It can't all be crammed into a single sentence or paragraph though. Wikipedia doesn't work like Twitter does. The info. being discussed is in the article. We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event and it's senseless to talk about reactions to abortion before defining what an abortion is. It's a noun that refers to a certain pregnancy-related situation and that needs to be the thing defined initially. Without termination of a pregnancy being possible, there'd be no legal reaction to it, would there? JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I should add, these variations can/should be hybridized if that can create a suitable option. - RoyBoy 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- We have a suitable option--the current consensus version. Of course we can consider changing it, but a suitable option is already in the article. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's about abortion, which is usually not a medical procedure. And the legal reactions are, by the current definition, often to something other than abortion, which they are nevertheless calling abortion, but shouldn't be because that's not what abortion is by definition. Makes no sense at all. Be——Critical 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- What? You've really lost me here... Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)\
- Sry, was responding to JJL "We are covering a topic but the article is about a medical procedure/event." I responded to you here. The post here is saying that legal texts talk about post-viability "abortions," which don't exist according to medical texts. And that abortion is usually miscarriage. Be——Critical 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- What? You've really lost me here... Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)\
- It's about abortion, which is usually not a medical procedure. And the legal reactions are, by the current definition, often to something other than abortion, which they are nevertheless calling abortion, but shouldn't be because that's not what abortion is by definition. Makes no sense at all. Be——Critical 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly texts other than medical are relevant, because as you say, it's an entire topic, not just a medical procedure. But the medical definition can stand alone and other definitions/sources could be added. Whatever the case, we aren't at liberty to ignore RS. That doesn't mean we contradict or synthesize, just that we include all the RS viewpoints. Deciding to ignore RS so that we make this purely a medical article isn't appropriate. Be——Critical 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring WP:RS is of course not acceptable. What sources did you have in mind ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not a sourcing expert here, but I at least know there are legal texts, both the legal language as in Roe V Wade and texts discussing it. There are innumerable RS news sources "Brigham provided abortions to five patients ranging from 18 to 33 weeks pregnant..." "facing murder charges in Maryland relating to abortions performed on late-term fetuses that were viable." We need to give the medical definition, then go on to state that "In legal and common usage, the term abortion is not limited to non-viable fetuses." Be——Critical 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring WP:RS is of course not acceptable. What sources did you have in mind ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- We have a suitable option--the current consensus version. Of course we can consider changing it, but a suitable option is already in the article. JJL (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Illustration
As you can read here the illustration of vacuum aspiration is not correct.--WerWil (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The vaginal canal should be dilated to a much more significant degree (two inches would be reasonable), and the speculum should extend further down the canal. A tenaculum is typically used to grasp and pull forward the cervix -- this deflexes the uterus. While we're at it, showing an ultrasound probe on the abdomen wouldn't hurt!
- Also, most US MVAs/EVAs use rigid uncurved cannulae, in my experience.
- I'll look into producing a new image (no promises!), but feel free to suggest a replacement! The current image is not terrible, though, for giving a rough idea of how things work. Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"Pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion"
This article uses the term "pro-life".
I don't think that's a neutral term. I think it violates WP:WTW.
Some groups are anti-abortion. They like to call themselves pro-life, but that's not a precise term.
I could accept "pro-life" to describe someone who opposes capital punishment and war. But I don't think someone who kills an abortion doctor is "pro-life". Nor is someone who makes a medical decision that risks the life of a mother "pro-life".
They may believe in a lot of things. But the only thing they definitely believe in is being against abortion.
I'd like to know why they should be called "pro-life". --Nbauman (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Completely correct. "Pro-life" is a marketing term. Not appropriate here. I can't see too many instance in the article, but you won't have any objection from me if you removed what instances there are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that Becritical went ahead and by and large expunged "pro-life" from the article. While in my personal life I refer to them as "anti-choice," I have some hesitations about this stance in the article. Starting points for concern include:
- • the juxtaposition of "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" makes the article seem unbalanced.
- • this has probably been covered already in the extensive archives.
- • those in favor of limiting access to abortion could easily turn that around and say, "when a fetus is killed, where is its choice?" However unreasonable one finds that argument, Wikipedia isn't about assuming your view is more reasonable than theirs.
- • "anti-abortion" still isn't great. Many people are against abortion in that they advocate contraception, but still in favor of abortion access when abortion fails. I personally agree it's more accurate than "pro-life," but it's not perfect.
- Going to go dig through the archives. PS: Becritical, please label your edits. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- To me, this seems like a worthless triviality. No naming system is going to satisfy everyone, so we might as well just stick one that is common, easily understandable, and not likely to result in future edit wars. Can we postpone discussion on this until the rest of the article is at GA quality or better? If we don't, I think it's just going to distract us from more important issues (like the fact that the Incidence section needs major cleanup). NW (Talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pro-choice versus anti-abortion is NPOV. That's because pro-life is as noted above not a description of what they're for, as with pro-choice, but a marketing slogan. Pro-choice is actually what pro-choice people are for. But pro-life isn't descriptive of what they stand for in the same sense as anti-abortion. So let's say people aren't familiar with the political slogans, then we should use anti-abortion instead of pro-life. We can't use pro-abortion because that's not used at all and is inaccurate. Look: search for pro-life, get more right wing news sources [6], search for anti-abortion, get more left wing, and more reliable sources [7]. My guess is that more RS use anti-abortion than pro-life. Be——Critical 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I searched the archives for "pro-life" and got 59 pages of rambling discussions. If you want to refer to the archives, please tell me what the archives say to support your position and where I can find it.
- Pro-choice versus anti-abortion is NPOV. That's because pro-life is as noted above not a description of what they're for, as with pro-choice, but a marketing slogan. Pro-choice is actually what pro-choice people are for. But pro-life isn't descriptive of what they stand for in the same sense as anti-abortion. So let's say people aren't familiar with the political slogans, then we should use anti-abortion instead of pro-life. We can't use pro-abortion because that's not used at all and is inaccurate. Look: search for pro-life, get more right wing news sources [6], search for anti-abortion, get more left wing, and more reliable sources [7]. My guess is that more RS use anti-abortion than pro-life. Be——Critical 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- To me, this seems like a worthless triviality. No naming system is going to satisfy everyone, so we might as well just stick one that is common, easily understandable, and not likely to result in future edit wars. Can we postpone discussion on this until the rest of the article is at GA quality or better? If we don't, I think it's just going to distract us from more important issues (like the fact that the Incidence section needs major cleanup). NW (Talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- If, NW, you think it's a worthless triviality, then why did you change it? If it's trivial, do it our way.
- I think it violates WP:LABEL. It's literally false. In this article, "pro-life" is not a term used to describe people who are pro-life in general, supporting animal life, or plant life, or opposing war, or supporting funding for pre-natal health care. They don't consider sperm life.
- It's only used by people who are opposed to abortion alone. The only life they support is human life before birth.
- It's irrefutable that "pro-life" is a term used to describe themselves by people who believe in one side of the controversy.
- On the other hand, "anti-abortion" is a neutral and acceptable term. Even the opponents of abortion refer to themselves as "anti-abortion."
- If we can choose between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life", which is more neutral?
- If we have a term that everybody agrees on, or a term that people disagree on, which one should we use?
- I think it isn't exactly balanced to use both "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". I see from our article on the former that "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[24]" If we want to switch the article completely to AP style, I wouldn't have any objection to that. NW (Talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, if we aren't using "pro life", we shouldn't be using "pro choice". I would support your suggestion, although I don't have a problem with using any sourced descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good solution, agree to switch entirely to AP style as NW says. Be——Critical 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, if we aren't using "pro life", we shouldn't be using "pro choice". I would support your suggestion, although I don't have a problem with using any sourced descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it isn't exactly balanced to use both "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". I see from our article on the former that "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[24]" If we want to switch the article completely to AP style, I wouldn't have any objection to that. NW (Talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wasn't ArbCom going to bring some clarity to this? JJL (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Surely not, it's a content decision. Be——Critical 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Right, ArbCom didn't, and will not, rule on content issues. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Systematic_discussion_and_voting_on_article_names which is to set the names for the relevant articles. We don't need to use those but it would provide some guidance. However, AP style is a sensible choice to my mind and I'm inclined to go with that. JJL (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Right, ArbCom didn't, and will not, rule on content issues. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just chipping in my support if it's the AP style advice. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Surely not, it's a content decision. Be——Critical 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).