Talk:Abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justin Eiler (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 12 March 2006 (→‎Abortion Overview Definition: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Todo priority

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

In Archives: unborn/human vs. embryo/fetus

Who does it

I added a line on who exactly performs abortions. Many just say "abortion doctors" which is a misnomer. I figure, hey, why not say something people may not already know or think about. Angrynight 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alternative pregnancy definition

however, emergency contraception is generally considered equivalent to abortion by those who maintain a definition of pregnancy which is alternative to that of the medical community.

I am unclear why this phrase was changed from it's original (more correct) wording.

It is untrue that those who think that "life begins at conception" have an "alternate definition of pregnancy".

They may have an alternate definition of the beginnings of human life, but implantation is irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkister (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 March 2006.

You said "It is untrue that those who think that "life begins at conception" have an "alternate definition of pregnancy"." Actually, that is the specific point: the definition you are discussing is the beginning of pregnancy, which the medical community defines as beginning at implantation. If one says that pregnancy begins at conception, then that is nothing less than an "alternative definition" of pregnancy. Justin Eiler 07:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is their true alternative definition, then women get pregnant and miscarry all the time, probably more often then they actually get pregnant (by the standard def.). I'll look for some numbers. See: [1]
Each month a woman's brain sends out hormones that cause changes in her uterus. At one point in the cycle, her body creates a potential home for the fertilized egg in the wall of her uterus. A woman can only become pregnant during the days when the uterus is ready. If the fertilized egg doesn't attach during this part of her menstrual cycle, it's all expelled from her body as part of her period.
Do people that support this definition actually treat each dispelled fertilized egg as a spontaneous abortion? (I'm not saying this alternative defenition is wrong -- I'm just curious about its ramifications.) -Quasipalm 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do they "treat each dispelled fertilized egg as a spontaneous abortion"? I'm not sure, what would that involve? Considering that dispelled fertilized eggs pass unnoticed (I assume), how does one "treat" it any particular way? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer for "people that support this definition" in general, but I can say that pro-life Catholics (including myself) would regard a fertilized egg, flushed down the toilet while the mother has no knowledge of it's existence, as a unique human being with a soul, created in the image and likeness of God. A rather sensational short story on this theme can be found here. AnnH ♫ 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this wording would be more NPOV. Perhaps it was just confusing. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (a tilde:~). Thanks. -Kyd 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is there some way that we can NPOV this while still maintaining accuracy? I'm not certain that I'm entirely satisfied with the original version. -Kyd 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One distinction to keep in mind is that most people who believe life begins at conception believe there is life irrelevant of the egg's implantation onto the uterus, or if that egg was fertilized in a test tube -- they'd say there was still "life". By saying these people have an alternate definition of "pregnancy", we may be confusing the issue. Jkister 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can certainly understand the distinction--I think all of us can agree that life begins at fertilization. The operative point here is that the article is specifically discussing the definition of pregnancy, not the beginning of life. Justin Eiler 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the operative point here is the definition of "abortion", and not "pregnancy" or "life". Those who oppose abortion do so not because it ends a pregnancy; they do so because they say it ends a life. Thus, anti-abortionists are likely to find the definition of "pregnancy" to be irrelevant; as if murder is excused just because the victim hasn't implanted him or herself in a uterine wall yet. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see the wisdom of that ... but that simply demonstrates that the pro-choice and pro-life contingents are not talking to each other--they're talking around each other. Maybe I'm being a bit too idealistic, but perhaps if we can at least get the two sides talking to each other on Wikipedia, we can come up with an article that both sides can agree with.
The way I see it, if abortion is the termination of pregnancy, then we have to work within that definition. If abortion is the termination of a life, that's really going to create problems for communication. Justin Eiler 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pro-choice and pro-life contingents talking past each other? Never. The problem is that the pro-life camp sees abortion in moral terms, and the pro-choice camp sees it in medical terms. In moral terms, who cares whether it's a pregnancy? The point there is that an unborn baby with a soul is getting killed. In medical terms, it makes sense to distinguish a pregnancy from an unimplanted zygote, or whatever it's called, because they're biologically different. Agreeing to the other side's definition entails conceding too much, apparently. We should probably state outright in the intro that the definition of abortion varies depending who you ask. It's either the termination of a pregnancy, in the clinical sense, or it's legalized infanticide, and nice distinctions be damned. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see where different definitions are coming in. The problem is--as Alienus notes--the shifting of the definitions then makes this much more an exercise in polemic than in knowledge. My preferred solution would be to stick to the denotations here at Wikipedia. While I oppose elective abortion, I've seen far too many rabid "pro-lifers" who would stoop to any rhetoric, bombast, or lie to "prove" their argument (and I have seen far too many pro-choicers do the same thing). Hopefully if we can stick to the facts and avoid the emotionally charged "trigger words," we can make a better article. Your thoughts? Justin Eiler 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your contention that "all of us can agree that life begins at fertilization" - whoa. I have it on good authority that life begins at 30. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GTBacchus, when 2015 comes around, you're changing Kyd's diapers. :D Justin Eiler 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should've check this three days ago — d'oh! Thanks for helping lighten the atmosphere in here. -Kyd 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[User Kyd has become a twinkle in someone's eye. Please try again in 2015].
As I've said before, an ovum can be fertilized in a petri dish, but that doesn't make the dish pregnant; so, logically, pregnancy should be defined as beginning at implantation in the uterus. However, I think some people's equation of EC to abortion has more to with the special significance they place in conception. It is less, I believe, to do with how the medical community or anyone else defines the beginning of pregnancy. Perhaps the issue would be better approached from that vantage. -Kyd 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception, are not considered to be abortion; however, emergency contraception is generally considered equivalent to abortion by those who reject the medical definition of pregnancy.

perhaps a more NPOV is: ...emergency contraception is generally considered equivalent to abortion by those who believe life had already begun at conception.

or, ...who believe life has begun before implantation. Jkister 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that both the sperm and egg cells are alive the whole time, so what does it mean to say life "begins" at conception? Logically, the intention is to suggest that fertilization marks the start of a new organism, but this issue is independent from pregnancy. I suspect the real point here is polemic, in that redefining pregnancy lets them call emergency contraception "abortion", making it sound much worse. Alienus 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about: ...emergency contraception is not an option for those who believe life begins at conception. AvB ÷ talk 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woops - you have your facts wrong! Pregnancy was redefined as beginning at implantation in the late 1960s by savvy proponents of birth control who realized that they had to do so or else contraception would be considered abortifacient, and therefore against the law in most places. It was a blatant political move. 84.146.214.89
Source, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to emphaize that pro-lifers' opposition to abortifacient contraception has absolutely nothing to do with any opinion as to when pregnancy begins. It is, as GTBacchus said, based on the belief that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. While I doubt if all doctors define pregnancy as starting at implantation, whether they do or not wouldn't change the way pro-lifers view the destruction of pre-implanted embryos, whether in a petri dish or in a fallopian tube. The point here is the belief that the embryo is a human being, not the belief that pregnancy does or doesn't begin at implantation. AnnH ♫ 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take the case of excess eggs in IVF. Frequently, some eggs are fertilized but are destroyed instead of being implanted. Since there's no implantation, hence no pregnancy, it cannot be called an abortion. Nonetheless, most pro-lifers oppose this aspect of IVF on the same basis that they oppose abortion; the claim that a fertilized egg must be accorded rights equivalent to that of a newborn. If multiple eggs do implant, doctors may sometimes perform a selective abortion to remove some of the embryos so that the others have an increased chance of making it to a healthy birth. Since this comes after implantation, it's entirely accurate to call it an abortion.
So whether it's officially a pregnancy doesn't affect their opposition, just whether they can call it an abortion. They might consider destroying excess fertilized eggs to be morally equivalent to abortion, but they'd simply be mistaken if they used the term "abortion" to refer to it. Alienus 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of a case where pro-life people defined the destruction of IVF eggs as "abortion". The point of this section is that they consider it to be morally equivalent, not because they think that the petri dish or the woman is pregnant, but because they believe that the tiny embryo is a unique human being with a right to life. That's the whole point of this section, isn't it? To point out that that it would be wrong to have the article imply that they oppose abortifacient methods of contraception because they believe that the woman is pregnant when the embryo is in the fallopian tube. Some may believe that; some may not. They actually don't care where the embryo is, and they don't care what terminology doctors use to describe the state of having an embryo in the fallopian tube on the way to the womb: they just say, "don't kill it". AnnH ♫ 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree that the point isn't that pro-lifers believe or disbelieve when pregnancy occurs but rather when life occurs. However, you keep calling emergency contraception an "abortifacient methodsof contraception." From the abortifacient wikipedia article:
Emergency contraception (the "morning after pill"), such as Plan B or the Yuzpe regimen, is also considered an abortifacient by those who hold that pregnancy begins at conception, as it may prevent in some cases the implantation of an already fertilized egg. The same concern is sometimes even extended to regular birth control pills. Both American law and the medical community however make a firm distinction between contraception and abortifacients, and do not accept that emergency contraception is a form of abortion, nor do they accept that abortifacients are proper forms of contraception.
So at least part of the problem is definitional. We can't represent emergency contraception as an abortifacient because it isn't. Some people may see it as morally equivalent to abortion as they see them both as taking a human life, and that information should be included. However, it is factually incorrect to call something an abortifacient when it isn't terminating a pregnancy, but rather preventing one from beginning.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of definition?

In 1965, the American College of Ob/Gyns redefined pregnancy due to concerns of those doctors who were promoting IUDs and the pill. It was a political move - they realized the law and public opinion would not sanction ending life that already began, so they simply redefined the beginning of pregnancy. Here is a thoroughly footnoted resource that details the history (which, of course, the abortion supporters never discuss since they want to accuse those who prefer the former definition as making that definition up) signed by hundreds of physicians who support its factual contents. [2] 84.146.229.32

These statements (exceprted from the link above) support the idea that this re-definition in the 1960s was a manipulation for political, rather than scientific, reasons:

  • With biology such a stubborn thing, pill promoters turned to semantics for a solution. Swedish researcher Bent Boving, at a 1959 Planned Parenthood/Population Council symposium, noted that: "Whether eventual control of implantation can be reserved the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend upon something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." {Source for Boving quote: Bent Boving, "Implantation Mechanisms," in Mechanisms Concerned with Conception, ed. C. G. Hartman (New York: Pergamon Press, 1963), 386. Boving acknowledged (p. 321): "... the greatest pregnancy wastage, in fact, by far the highest death rate of the entire human life span, is during the week before and including the beginning of implantation, and the next greatest is in the week immediately following."}
  • The advice was not isolated. At the 1964 Population Council symposium, Dr. Samuel Wishik pointed out that acceptance or rejection of birth control would depend on whether it caused an early abortion. Dr. Tietze, of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council suggested, as a public relations ploy, "not to disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance." Tietze added that theologians and jurists have always taken the prevailing biological and medical consensus of their times as factual, and that "if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen." {Source for quotes: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964, New York City, ed. Sheldon Segal, et al.., International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 86, page 212.}

84.146.229.32

"Declaration of Life by Pro-Life Physicians " from the American Life League? POV is a major concern here - that's why we try not to quote NARAL as a source. -Kyd 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this passage back to its former wording - the current version implies an opposition between a particular ethical estimation and a medical definition, meant as a snear at one valid view, and hence POV. Str1977 (smile back) 08:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Str1977. -Kyd 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, if the medical definition of pregnancy has been changed, historically, for reasons relating to abortion, Wikipedia ought to document that. The American Life League isn't a reliable source, fine, but what about the Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964? That's the actual source of that material (the second quotation above, anyway). Do we just need to get that source verified, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd absolutely insist on verifying the sources before even cosnidering such a change--I've seen far too many cases of quote-mining (on both sides of the debate) to be at all sanguine about accepting a secondary source on this issue. Justin Eiler 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Justin Eiler on this, and also has anyone considered that past terms is more appropriate in the History of Abortion article? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the Second International Conference on Intra-Uterine Contraception was a little shindig thrown in 1965 by the Population Council. Its Proceedings are available in about 30 libraries cataloged in WorldCat, and I've got a copy on the way to me now. When it arrives, I'll check it out, and if it supports the claim that there was an actual intentional drive to define pregancy in a way that would make legal abortion possible, then I'm going to add that fact, either here or at History of abortion law. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a premature question, but do you happen to know how detailed theProceedings are? (and thank you for fixing my typo.) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let ya know when they arrive. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to distinguish between two issues. First, was the definition of pregnancy in fact changed? Second, what was the reason for that change? Assuming for the sake of argument that the definition was explicitly changed as opposed to simply being clarified over time, there are still much more likely explanations that don't involve medical conspiracies.
Consider in vitro fertilization (IVF), where the oocytes are fertilized in a petri dish, watched for a few days until they're at the eight-cell stage or at the blasocyst stage, and then the best candidates are transferred into the uterus to (hopefully) implant. Given this fine-grained level of control over the process, it's understandable that doctors might have to make more distinctions than they used to. Whereas "conception" might have applied to anything between fertilization and implantation, it's now used to refer specifically to implantation.
This makes sense on a number of levels. For example, we don't need to speak of the petri dish as being pregnant. And pregnancy tests in fact check for implantation, not fertilization. Alienus 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not very complicated. Pregnancy and gestation begin at the same time. Quite obviously, testubes can't be pregnant or gestate. When unnatural means are involved, the embryo can be created or moved outside of the womb. Once the embryo is placed in a womb, pregnancy and gestation begin. But the reality is that it is a documented fact that pregnancy was redefined and it was done with no medical basis. In fact, doctors date the beginning of pregnancy as the last day of a woman's last period. I am not sure why this is news to people. Apparently many of you really have never spent much time studying these matters. 84.146.242.45

No, that's the date they use to calculate the due date. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua is right. As a matter of practical fact, when pregnancy occurs in vivo, it's not something we can easily detect, so it's not something we can ask the woman about. We can, however, detect the end of a menstrual period, so it's a convenient bit of information we can use to calcuate the delivery date. This is a matter of simple pragmatism, with no bearing on when pregnancy starts. With IVF, we know the exact moment of fertilization (and can record it on video if we like), so there's no need to estimate based on menstruation.

As it happens, we can detect when implantation occurs, whether by IVF or the usual way, because it quickly leads to hormonal changes as the woman's body reacts to it. That is in fact how pregnancy tests work. What's interesting is that, with the popularity of rather sensitive pregnancy tests, women are now frequently detecting "chemical pregnancies", which are pregnancies that self-abort very early on. Previously, these would have gone undetected, except perhaps as "heavy periods", but now women are increasingly aware of just how common such brief, failed pregnancies are.

A related issue is that days pass between fertilization and implantation, and not all eggs that get fertilized ever implant. Again, women are more aware of this now because IVF forces us to recognize the distinction between the two events. After all, every failed attempt to get in-vitro fertilized eggs to implant is hugely expensive. Alienus 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, pregnancy does not occur when the embryo is placed in the uterus. If it occurs, which isn't nearly as often as many women would prefer, it does so within a few days, just as with a regular pregnancy. Just having an embryo in your uterus doesn't make you pregnant; it has to implant! Alienus 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research demonstrating that large percentages of Ob/Gyns reject the ACOG redefinition

Source:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/30000120/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Informed consent and the redefining of conception: A decision illconceived?

  • Joseph A. Spinnato, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville *School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky
  • email: Joseph A. Spinnato (JASPINO1@ulkyvm.louisville.edu)
  • Keywords: conception; pregnancy onset; informed consent
  • Abstract: The purposes of this study are to assess the use of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) definitions of conception (a synonym for implantation) and the beginning of pregnancy (at implantation) in the clinical practice of its members and to explore the implications of differing definitions of conception and pregnancy onset for the process of informed consent. A survey was mailed to 112 members of the Louisville Ob/Gyn Society asking what definition of conception they used in their clinical practice and when they judged pregnancy began. A second mailing was sent to nonresponding members. Using logistic regression analysis, the responses to these questions were evaluated with respect to practice type, number of years in practice, and the ACOG membership. Responses were received from 86% (96 of 112) of the members. A total of 73% (70 of 96) (95% CI 69-77%) of the members indicated that conception was a synonym for fertilization, and 24% (23 of 96) (95% CI 21-28%) indicated that conception was a synonym for implantation (P < .001). Of the members, 50% (48 of 96) indicated that pregnancy began at fertilization, and 48% (46 of 96) indicated that pregnancy began with implantation (NS). Regression analysis failed to demonstrate a significant relationship to type of practice, years in practice, or the ACOG membership for these responses. Neither ACOG definition has been consistently adopted by its members whose definitions are more consistent with lay and embryologist definitions. Potentially, the process of informed consent is jeopardized by these ambiguities. The ACOG is urged to reconsider its definitions. J. Matern. - Fetal Med. 7:264-268, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

In the actual article, the author notes that the ACOG created these new definitions in 1965 and 1972. My edits are therefore undeniably factual, sourced from a peer reviewed medical journal, and this is not original research. My sense is that some of you will not try to move the goalposts. It is inevitable. I made an edit, gave sources, they were not good enough, so I provided undeniable proof of my factual information. So now you will have to move the goalposts or accept the facts. Your reaction will be interesting. 84.146.242.45

But I thought your point was about a redefinition of pregnancy, not the definition of conception (which, according to most of the medical dictionaries I have ever seen, is a synonym of fertilization and not implantation -- though some dictionaries say it can be used either way).   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has coined a term (abortion breast cancer hypothesis) that no one else uses. The article should use the terms that are most common and accurate. Many people talk about abortion and breast cancer. If you google the term abortion breast cancer hypothesis, you get 30 hits. If you google Abortion breast cancer link you get 27,000 hits. The way to fix this is to use the phrase "abortion breast cancer link hypothesis". It makes the point that the link is hypothetical, while avoiding a term that no one actually uses, and that was coined at wikipedia. 136.215.251.179

Who, besides killerchihwahua, favors using an otherwise nonexistent term in this article? 136.215.251.179 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we stick to the title used by the actual Wikipedia article. Renaming a "Main article" link is just going to create confusion for users where we are trying to remove it. If you have an issue with the title, take it to abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. I'm sure that they were the ones who settled for this title and I'm sure that they had a reason. -Kyd 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is that a wikipedia article must slavishly accept, as a standard term, one that exists only in another wikipedia article? I don't know how you would defend that idea. Patently bogus terminology invented by wikipedia editors who have obviously no clue about the common terms used when discussing the subject matter should be accepted by editors of other articles? My version not only linked to the correct article (that uses the bogus term), but also incorporated the actual term used by most people when discussing the topic, AND did not excise the notion that the whole concept is a hypothesis. Such is the kind of thing that you other editors who hate most of my posts so much should laud as a great attempt at compromise that respects the work of other editors AND eliminates an anomoly that ought not appear in a high quality article. I am not holding my breath. 136.215.251.179

I have no idea which term is more common outside of Wikipedia, but I agree with 136.. that the term most common should be used, and if another WP article uses another title, this article should be renamed. It should however be discussed at that article. Str1977 (smile back) 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you feel this way about the other article, move it. Presumably there is an established consensus and reasoning behind the name at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis so change that first so editors who have written about the subject can give their opinions. If there isn't a consensus then no-one will challenge the name change. Editors are allowed to make changes to more than one article. |→ Spaully°τ 17:06, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
This is not the place for second-guessing the editorial decisions of the people who wrote and titled abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. If you think it's an issue, please take it up with them. I'm sure more consideration was given to NPOV than to the prevalence of any one specific term (see "female genital mutilation" versus "female circumcision" debate). -Kyd 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search of each term provides objective evidence that the term the article now uses gets 30 hits, whereas the term that I suggest we use gets 27,000 hits. It is a fool's errand to argue that the term that this article now uses is a good choice. To rely on a wikipedia article is a violation of WP:NOR since the term is only used at wikipedia. 136.215.251.179

Then why on Earth aren't you there, now, arguing that they change the title of that article? There's a clear right way to take care of this; it involves changing the article's title itself, and then all the links to it are easy to chase down and fix. s/horse/cart -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I named it ABC debate, but then Tony Sidaway moved it to ABC hypothesis... as the link remains controversial and unaccepted by the medical community, to rename the article to ABC link might be presumptious. The popularity of the terms does not necessarily denote which is the most appropriate to use, merely which is most widely known/used. That term is used primarily by those who believe there is a link. The goal of the article is to explore the issue, not to assert a link. As such I think the name should remain as it is, with Link titles redirecting if necessary. I think it strikes a balance of accurately showing the status of the ABC issue, and not taking on pro-life verbiage. That could be a violation of WP:NPOV; as to the article title violating WP:NOR, meh, hypothesis is the status of the ABC link. It's an accurate reflection of reality. If there is consensus it should be changed I'd be happy to change it. - RoyBoy 800 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic abortion

The language describing birth defects unnecessarily and misleadingly narrows the types of birth defects or maladies for which therpeutic abortions are recommended. Morbidiity and fatality are sometimes associated with defects for which abortion is recommended as a "therapy" (odd - most therapies seek to improve the health of the person with the defect, but abortion simply kills the person and the defect at the same time). We need to change the language in the article. [3] 136.215.251.179

No 136, the passage defining "therapeutic abortions" was wrong to include "defects" of the fetus in the first place. Abortions for that reason are called "eugenic" or "embryopathic" -"therapy" means treating or healing a malady - aborting a "defect" fetus can hardly be described as healing this defect. Otherwise a gun shot is an 100% effective way of curing, say, malaria. Str1977 (smile back) 17:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the error - I could not conceive of a true therapy (doesn't it literally mean that which heals?) that kills the one suffering from the malady. 136.215.251.179

The source upon which the therapeutic abortion indications are based, "Therapeutic Abortion" by Natalie E. Roche, M.D., includes fetal abnormalities under the "broadest definition" of therapeutic abortion. The article is also specific as to which types of fetal abnormalities would be indicated in this case:
"A pregnancy in which the fetus has defects that are either incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity can be an indication for therapeutic abortion."
I recommend that we revert to the broader, more inclusive definition of therapeutic abortion (ex: "An abortion performed for health indications") and avoid example indications if a specific one is going to pose an issue. -Kyd 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed. I particularly object to the use of the word "eugenics" in this context. Highly POV. Alienus 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how "eugenic" is POV, but if you don't like you can use "embryopathic" - anyway, my main point was that such an abortion should not be classified as "therapeutic", even if some try to include this. Str1977 (smile back) 11:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends upon which definitions one believes meet therapeutic qualifications. This varies from person to person, of course, so, in a sense, there's no "right answer" here. Explicity defining abortion in the case of fetal abnormalities as therapeutic, or excluding it as such, would both be POV. A little neutral prefacing could help resolve the issue:
"Therapeutic abortion: An abortion performed to preserve health. Although there is dispute over precisely what qualifies as a therapeutic abortion, under the broadest definition, the following indications might be considered:..."
-Kyd 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Str1977. In no way can we call it "therapeutic" to abort a fetus because of defects. I can see how "eugenic" could be seen as POV, because the word has certain negative connotations. But I cannot see at all how not calling it "therapeutic" could be POV. Not calling it "therapeutic" is simply a question of avoiding inaccuracy. AnnH ♫ 12:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Defects in the fetus do not threaten the mother's health. Therapy by definition HEALS. It is not therapy when we shoot a horse who breaks a leg. Likewise, it is not therapy when we abort the life of a deformed or diseased fetus. It is a quick and final solution to a problem, but therapy it is not. Under both the hippocratic oath and the post-war Geneva Physican's Oath [4] (adopted in 1948 and re-affirmed in 1968) such acts are not therapeutic. 136.215.251.179
Defects in the fetus might threaten mother's health. Noone aborts life of fetus, 'cause they don't have one. --tasc 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your POV. Billions of people and plenty of medical professionals and scientists (especially fetologists) disagree with you. There is a whole branch of medicine that deals with treating the fetal patient with countless therapies (non of which kills the little gal).136.215.251.179
Therapy is of valid use as attempted remediation of a health problem. --tasc 16:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are congenital disorders which could threaten the woman's health, namely ones which would make vaginal delivery impossible, such as severe hydrocephaly or conjoined twinning. Many birth defects cannot be treated, much less cured, such as anencephaly. Even so, pregnancy itself involves health risks, so I suppose the question here is will those risks be balanced in the birth of a child with little to no chance of survival as they would in the birth of a healthy one? If the answer one gives is no, then abortion in the case of some congenital disorders could be considered therapeutic. -Kyd 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording of both Therapeutic abortion and the emegency conraception section are now excellent; they both provide accurate information on each. Gynecologists do call abortions to morbid pregnancies "Therapeutic", as when my fifth child had a marker for Trisomy 18, our doctor recommended one. This had nothing to do the mother's health, but was considered "therapeutic" by the medical team. OT: we decided not to go with the abortion, and our child is perfect.Jkister 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killerchihuawua misuses term "Vandalism"

Please stop mis-using terms while personally attacking. Ad hominem attack is a cheap way of accomplishing your mission - which apparently is to keep your POV in this article. 136.215.251.179

Dear 136.215.251.179, please register an account (if you don't already have one), and log on and try to work for consensus on the talk page like everyone else. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ann - Goodandevil is already registered, he/she just doesn't log in. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I am being bold, as we are encouraged to do. While my edits are factual, they grind against the prevailing POV of many editors, which is one that wants ceratin unpleasant facts hidden. Oh well. I am not going away. Complaining that my style sucks is fine. But the article is about a neutral presentation of FACTs. Not about my style. When I make edits, address my content - not my style. Thats what really matters. Thanks. 136.215.251.179
Concerning your content, I agree with some of your edits, and disagree with some. We have to present this topic in as neutral a way as possible, which is why it's good to have discussion on the talk page from people of both sides. By the way, if you are Goodandevil, why not simply log on? AnnH ♫ 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goodandevil was apparently unable to accept cookies while stationed in Germany. It appears he/she is back in Texas now, so it'd be nice if he/she would log in. A while back I created a template to ease the process of scanning his previous edits. (User:Quasipalm/Goodandevil) It's his/her right to edit anonymously, but it's also our right to follow his/her edits. -Quasipalm 18:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planned changes in the Definition section (Please weigh in):

Here is the proposed language - sources for the medical definitions are based in fact, not POV. The sources are all either commonly used references, peer reviewed scholarly research, or documented non-POV factual information that appears within a POV website:

Under the most recent medical definition, pregnancy begins at the time of implantation of the embryo. Prior to 1965, physicians defined pregnancy as beginning at conception. Both definitions have adherents. [5] [6] [7] The following medical terms are used to define an abortion:
Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage): An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes.
Induced abortion: An abortion deliberately caused. Induced abortions are further subcategorized into therapeutic abortions and elective abortions:
Elective abortion: An abortion initiated by personal choice. [8]
Therapeutic abortion: An elective abortion recommended by the health care provider to protect the mother's physical or mental health. [9] By contrast, a "non-therapeutic" abortion is an elective abortion initiated for reasons other than the mother's health (universally the most common category).

136.215.251.179

The information you have included in your suggested definitions is already included in a better form in the article. It mentions that one definition of pregnancy is that it begins at conception (meaning fertilization - see my response in a previous section). Therapeutic and elective abortion are already defined perfectly well and in a NPOV manner. And, though it may be the case that elective abortions (for which you have coined the neologism "non-therapeutic abortion") are more prevelant than therapeutic abortions, this is hardly part of the "definition" of abortion.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thereapeutic abortions are a subset of elective. The article needs to make that clear. Where in the article is it made clear that some people came up wioth a new definition for pregnancy in 1965 and that many - even members of the medical community - reject that new definition? 136.215.251.179

If I were to argue that case, I'd argue that most (all?) induced abortions are elective. I'm not sure that calling all "therapeutic" abortions "elective" is an entire representation of the truth. Jkister 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create a section asking people to "weigh in" (meaning you want to gather consensus) and then continue to change it to your proposed version over the constant reverts of those who disagree. Let us discuss it first, and see if there is consensus. Given previous attempts that you have made, I don't think there will be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try. To address your points above: therapeutic abortions are not a subset of elective abortions. That is a significant (i.e. 180 degree) change from the previous definition, which spelled out that an elective abortion is any abortion that is not a therapeutic abortion. And the article does mention that other people have a different definition of pregnancy... an issue which is still being discussed on this talk page it seems.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NIH (National Institutes for Health) is the source for the definitions of therapeutic and elective. NIH clearly explains that therapeutic is a subset of elective. Women CHOOSE to follow their doctors advice - they ELECT to do so. Did you go to the source to confirm it? What is your source for saying that therapeutic is NOT a subset of elective? 136.215.251.179

My personal view is that common sense would have this article list elective abortion (giving the NIH definition) and therapeutic abortion (giving the NIH definition). Therapeutic abortions are, in fact, elective because medical decisions are personal choices (as one ardent abortion supporter pointed out in talk for this article earlier). In any event, NIH is an excellent source - and googling makes it clear that countless other mainstream respected medical websites use the NIH definitions. 136.215.251.179

Please provide neutral sources for alternative definitions. You can pretend that I have provided no such sources all day long, but you will have to offer sources for the definitions you wish to use in the alternative. 136.215.251.179

Your source does not state therapeutic abortions are a subset of elective abortions. Rather it clarifies the difference in motive behind the two types of abortion, adhering to the original definitions on this page. Maybe this eMedicine article will help: [10]. That makes it pretty clear. |→ Spaully°τ 17:56, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
136.215.251.179, aka Goodandevil, will not be able to reply for 36 hours due to a 3RR block. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is inaccurate. Therapeutic abortions are exactly as described on the Abortion page. I understand that you dislike the word "therapeutic" being used for "kill the baby", but the medical community has adopted it.Jkister 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goodandevil

I believe we've reached an impasse with Goodandevil (and the various anon IP addresses that he uses). Would now be an appropriate time to consider the steps in WP:DR? Justin Eiler 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a move. Goodandevil has been highly disruptive, rewriting content against consensus and making personal attacks and snide remarks. Perhaps dispute resolution would assist this user in learning how to discuss differing views, respect other editors, and write in an NPOV manner. I am willing to give it a try, as direct appeals have had little effect. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a third supporter, you have one. Alienus 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. -Kyd 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Goodandevil (aka User 136), I've started a page where you and I can talk this situation over. Would you please consider coming to that page and discussing the situation before we continue editing? Thanks. Justin Eiler 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report (and suggestions) II

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

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

Kyd, you're amazing. I agree with Historical perspectives, under Abortion debate. Otherwise, all I can do is applaud and admire. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured this sort of outline was a little too long for the to-do list. :) -Kyd 07:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscarriages

Can we have more accurate numbers as to what amount of pregancay are miscarriages. There is a huge difference between 10 and 50 %. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.31.232.210 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 March 2006.

This is not an inherently simple issue. A larger percentage -- I believe it's the majority -- of fertilized eggs either never implant or quickly self-abort. These are not typically recognized as miscarriages, because the woman never considers herself pregnant and the symptoms are difficult to distinguish from a heavy period. Alienus 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the medical community doesn't consider these micarriages -- nor is it common in the population to consider a fertilized egg discharged during menstruation to be considered an abortion. I think if we can get stats for the traditional/medical view of abortion rates, we should use those numbers. -Quasipalm 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Alienus 21:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to locate and explain both numbers, logically. Since many people opposed to abortion believe life begins at conception, those babies lost because they never implanted are still relevant. They were already conceived, so both the pro-lifers would care about that number, as it represents lost lives, and the pro-choicers would care because it illustrates an apparent dichotomy. --Kaz 20:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It will probably be very difficult to get numbers of fertilized eggs that do not develop into babies however. And it will no doubt lead to an "abortion rate" ("abortions"/babies) much much higher than 100%. -Quasipalm 21:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, only with some funny math. I think the ratio you're looking for would be abortions/fertilizations, which would still be under 100%, where things like "rates" belong.
The numbers I would like to see are: Of all fertilized eggs, what proportion fail to implant naturally, what proportion are prevented from implanting by emergency contraception, and what proportion actually implant? Those 3 numbers should add up to 1. Then, of the implantations that occur, what proportion spontaneously abort later on, what proportion are aborted electively, and what proportion are carried to term? Again, those three numbers should add up to 1. Does anyone know where to find this kind of info? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the EC article, no one has been able to scientifically prove that EC actually prevents implantation, so until that connection is actually proven, there is no way we can get a % for that. As for the "proportion [that] fail[s] to implant naturally" vs. the "proportion [that] actually implant[s]", this quote from the EC article may help, if it is accurate "embryos naturally fail to implant 40 to 60 percent of the time". --Andrew c 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see, of all fertilized eggs, what percentage fail to implant, self-abort before detection, self-abort as a recognized miscarriage, are aborted by various methods (broken down). As far as I can tell, EC prevents 0% of implantations. Alienus 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must misunderstand EC then. I thought preventing implantation is precisely what it does (at least certain kinds of EC). The article Emergency contraception certainly says so. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency contraceptives and intra-uterine devices do prevent implantation.
Regarding the figures - those would be ideal but I don't see how it would be possible to measure that kind of thing in normal circumstances. There are statistics regarding IVF - around 11-13% implantation per embryo, but those are not physiological conditions.
Similarly it is difficult to get information of spontaneous abortions as many will occur before there has been sufficient growth for the woman to notice.
In short those statistics would be ideal, but I don't think they exist. |→ Spaully°τ 22:33, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

EC's prevent fertilization, usually preventing ovulation in the first place. It's not entirely clear whether they prevent implantation, and it's become fairly clear that they don't induce abortion. It's easy to measure the overall effectiveness of EC, but harder to break it down into the specific mechanism involved. As for undetected self-abortions, these can actually be detected with a pregnancy test, leading to the term "chemical pregnancy". Alienus 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong about chemical emergency contraceptives, as you say they usually delay ovulation or inhibit fertilisation. It seems the evidence on preventing implantation is mixed. It seems the WP article needs some clarification. IUDs do however prevent implantation of the embryo, making them a method of abortion to some.
On the point of chemical pregnancies - I've not seen any studies developing probabilities of such events occurring, and you would be hard-pressed to develop a good study design to make it work. |→ Spaully°τ 00:25, 12 March 2006 (GMT)


Yes, IUD's are a different matter from purely hormonal methods. As for a study, the trick is that these early self-abortions are detectable if the woman gets frequent pregnancy tests, so I suppose a study could at least find the lower limit on the number of self-abortions.

What I've read makes it clear that most fertilized eggs don't ever become (noticed) pregnancies, either due to failure to implant or from self-aborting soon after implantation, but I'm not sure about the exact numbers, either, and I can see that figuring them out might not be easy. On a side note, one way I've seen this situation expressed is that, by the standards of treating all fertilized eggs as infants, every woman who has a live birth should hold a funeral. Alienus 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better word than "Biased"?

I understand that editors are so biased on this issue that, unlike most other issue articles, they feel the need to explicitly put all position-advocating website references under a separate section with a caveat. This is an issue about life and liberty like no other. That's fine...

But we could at least be sensible enough to pick a less biased header for the section than "These sites may be biased". Something like "These sites may advocate a specific side of the abortion debate", or "These sites may have specific agendas, in regard to abortion".

Let's be realistic here, all sites, and humans, are biased. That's a silly truism. We need a header which doesn't scream our own bias at the reader.--Kaz 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Kaz. I removed the paragraph you added (quoted below) citing ButNowYouKnow.com as a source. While I completely and totally agree with the inclusion (and with the author of BNYK's opinion on the issue), I also have to acknowledge that BNYK is more opinion and editorial than a substantive historical source. Such a substantive statement as you made in the paragraph really needs to be discussed on the talk page before including it in an article that is this contentious.
Because of all of these factors, the abortion debate has been one of the most polarizing of socio-political issues, on par with the abolitionism/slavery and temperance/alcohol debates in the 19th century, in fact the push for the ban of all three were conducted by many of the very same people [11] at that time. One side often sees itself as defending the lives of murdered babies, the other of fighting for the liberty and rights of women. While there are many rational arguments made by each side, this polarization has also resulted in both sides being regularly accused using hyperbole and outright falsehood. [12]
Justin Eiler 18:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it seemed to me that, because the paragraph attacked neither sides, just noted the emotional nature and strength of the issue, the addition wasn't controversial at all. It didn't even say they were using hyperbole and falsehood, though surely we would all agree that both sides have, occasionally.
The empact and importance of the issue to its adherents gets little explicit examination in the article, though it's pivotal to the issue's debate. Surely a single, NPoV mention is a reasonable start. --Kaz 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:VAIN before using your own editorial pieces as sources in the future. -Kyd 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Kyd brings up a good point, he really doesn't explain--the "original research" problem is the claim that abortion, temperence, and abolitionism movements were "conducted by many of the very same people"--that claim really needs some substantive documentation. The presence of accusations of hyperbole and falsehood is a good mention (IMO), but I'd love to see a bit more documentation of it as well. Justin Eiler 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion Overview Definition

Presently: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." The main problem I have with this is "death". That's the way anti-abortion ("pro-life") activists describe it (though they tend to prefer kill or murder). We don't call it the death of an egg when a woman has her period or the death of sperm when a man uses a condom (or a mouth or hand). Like the egg and sperm, the embryo/fetus is completely dependent on its host for "life". It's not a case where you can keep the embryo/fetus and dispose of the woman. A term like "disconnection", "removal", or "release" would be more accurate.--Halliburton Shill 04:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I have to disagree--"death" is an accurate term, and though anti-abortionists also use the term, a correct definition requires looking at the facts, not at who else uses the terminology. Justin Eiler 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=43389011"