Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological archives
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43
Topical subpages
Lead: 2006, 2007-10 Lead image To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, Use of "Death"

Pictures?

The pics that are on this page are very shallow. I suggest uploading something from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.26 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Before/Other than

This article page (including mirrors of it) is the only Google hit for "termination of pregnancy other than birth"--a total of 5 hits. On the other hand, there are over 40K results for "termination of pregnancy before birth" (e.g. [1], [2], [3] (Sec. 23.6); you have to weed out a number of mirrors of this site, including older versions of this article page, or pages that clearly adopted its language, to get truly independent instances, as there are a great many low-quality pages out there that seem to have just used the 2006 version of this article as a basis for their definition). Since one wording is attested only here and in one source in the note section, and the other is broadly attested, we should use the "before birth" version. JJL (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

JJL, if we search google for "JJL is correct about how to phrase the lead" then we get zero hits. Does that mean you are wrong about the lead? Of course not. Doing google searches is completely irrelevant here, because both versions ("before birth" and "other than birth") mean the same thing. It is simply clearer for some unsophisticated readers if we use "other than"....if such a reader sees "abortion happens before birth" then that reader's first (incorrect) impression might be that abortion happens and then birth happens. I'm sure you're not so unreasonable and paranoid that you would simply object and revert until hell freezes over so that this Wikipedia article will say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To suggest that readers may think as you suggest is completely unreasonable. As you know, I discussed the use of the word "viable" with a group of 12 to 15 year olds and the only thing they didn't understand was why adults were having so much trouble with it and why they were wikipedia editors. Do you really want me to ask them if they believe that abortion before birth might mean that "abortion happens and then birth happens" (what ever that means...). It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way and wants the article to say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say. Please read source 7th from the last which uses the term before birth. Let's go with our sources. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I already referred to the last source, which uses the "other than" language. If you want to assume that everyone already knows what abortion is, then there's no need for the lead sentence. Can we please argue about something more interesting? You haven't suggested that saying "other than" is less clear, or gives the lead any different meaning, so why not be agreeable? Because it's some sinister "back door" plot (as JJL has already alleged)?[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more correct--it's certainly much better sourced. The use of the word 'terminate' should allay your concerns about post-abortion births. JJL (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more correct, in your view? Is there any reason? Some might reasonably think that inducing labor (before birth) terminates pregnancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that people will think that that is what is meant here. In my view "before" is preferable because it is very well sourced in a variety of references, including technical medical sources and also ones meant for the lay public, while the "other than" phrasing is sourced only to the Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945. It's a clear, simple, well-sourced statement. We've had a discussion of this sort of issue already, and some editors made various objections. Going from memory here, one comment was that labor in which a medical error or other problem causes death in the birth canal could be construed as termination of the pregnancy resulting in something other than birth. I don't think we'll be able to defend against all possible misconceptions in a single sentence. It may be that those who want to understand the matter may have to read more of the article than the first sentence. JJL (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your notion that we have to follow a particular source or set of sources verbatim, without putting anything in our own words, is incorrect. You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why "other than" is inaccurate or means something contrary to what any source says. Feel free to link to whatever discussion you're referring to, if such a discussion exists. You've already stated your real motivation here: "To me 'other than' sounds like yet another attempt to sneak 'therefore, dead' in through the back door."[5] Which is absurd. There is no consensus for the current lead sentence, and there has been no consensus for the lead sentence since you edit-warred the stable 2006-2011 version out of existence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel we have to follow the sources verbatim. However, when the majority say it a certain way we should strongly consider doing so. Since your change has repeatedly been described as inconsequential, let's leave it the way the professionals do. There's no reason to veer from the way that the professionals put it except your exaggerated fear that some reader will think 'abortion' means 'birth'. On another matter, once again I've addressed your concern in detail and once again you've said that I haven't even given you the slightest hint as to my thinking. You're not reading my comments thoroughly enough. JJL (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No link to the "discussion of this sort of issue already" that you want me to think about? If we were to leave this lead to the professionals, then we would define the word "abortion" by starting with a definition consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary instead of your ultra-technical definition that assumes readers know what "viable" means but are ignorant of what "abortion" means.

I support reverting to the 2006-2011 version, which is the most recent consensus version. Then we could work from there. I'd be glad to support an alternative to the word "death" that some editors like yourself find so displeasing.[6] My intention is to re-insert the "disputed" tag at the end of the lead sentence, because this slow-motion edit-warring is tiresome, and the tag will be sufficient to indicate that there is still no consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. JJL (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What's OK?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You inserting a "disputed" tag to indicate that you feel we haven't achieved consensus. I have no objection to that. JJL (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking you were the one who was obsessed, actually. JJL (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Which was basically the finding of the previous ArbCom case - that he "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion". While Anythingyouwant has moderated his approach somewhat since then, I'd like to caution Anythingyouwant about becoming too contentious in this matter, especially as regards sarcasm and hostility towards other editors ("your ultra-technical definition" - "some editors like yourself".) As Gandydancer kindly reminds you, "It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way." I realize that now that there is another ArbCom case in which you are involved, concerning Abortion - the topic which led to you being placed under editing restrictions and nearly led to you being community banned - you might be feeling some stress. Try not to take that stress out on your fellow editors, ok? And JJL, I'm not seeing where calling another editor "obsessed" here on the article talk page, without some kind of hint on how to improve that editors' approach to disputes, can be helpful. You may have only meant to draw Anythingyouwant's attention to how his recent edits may appear to others, to try to get him to moderate his tone, but the overall effect is also, sadly, unfriendly and even sarcastic. Let's all try to do better, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As you know, KC, and as I've said to you before, this page is not for personal and/or user conduct issues. If you would like to move this comment to your user page, and leave a link to it here, please feel free.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall you offering your opinion regarding this, but even if I did, obviously I think this is an appropriate venue for this particular reminder. I hardly think your combative response to my reminder is moving in the right direction; you are shifting the focus from the civility on the talk page to your personal animosity towards me. I refuse to get drawn into an argument regarding this with you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence opposition

The lead section options section has indicated multiple options. I've tried to list them here in order of most supported, to least. Here we should discuss / list opposing reasons for each option in an attempt to remove some of the options. The emphasis, in my opinion, is on the functionality of the definition and adherence to Wikipedia policy and our goals.

At the last second, I've added "Oppose reasons", the intent is to put point form problems with the lead option; the points can be tweaked and expanded as necessary (hence not signed) please re-sign if modified. But a consensus is needed to strike out a reason, with a followup signed rationale for removal. (see below for my example attempt, anyone can unstrike and say why) An RFC can be listed for this. Hopefully by September we can at least agree on what we don't prefer. Oh and please comment on possible tweaks to remove your opposition to an option. - RoyBoy 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Termination before viable

“ Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before it is viable. ”

Oppose reasons

• While complete for medical text(s), it is too narrow a definition for a generalist encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include exceptions. Or simply: Wikipedia is not a dictionary / medical text.RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." Many medical and non-medical sources use a broader definition, and it's not NPOV to favor the narrower specialist terminology, or use it to limit the scope of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I am not going to mince my words here - this is weak factually, it would be intellectually dishonest [we know that third trimester abortions do take place and can be legally performed up to full term in some jurisdictions and that they are called abortions and are abortions regardless of the stage of development of the fetus, or it's ability to survive outside the womb]. Lacking in content [no mention of baby/embryo/fetus or mother/female], and bad semantically and gramatically. Would set a very poor example for an encyclopedic definition.DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Termination with medical clarification

“ Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, involving destruction of a fetus or embryo, although medically the term "abortion" does not usually apply if the fetus has become viable. ”

Oppose reasons

• "usually" is a weasel word we should avoid. Used in Britannica; and there are unknowns we cannot rigidly define. - RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

*This would include induced labor and birth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• FYI, I changed "loss" to "termination" and "destruction" to "removal or expulsion". - RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

*Removing "destruction" now makes the definition so broad that it could cover live birth. After "embryo" I would add "and its demise". The word "demise" is not merely a synonym for "death". Sometimes it means death, but it can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I came back to this definition with those very concerns. Demise cannot be used because it requires personhood (while death/destruction doesn't). I have put destruction back, and switched "a" to "the". Thanks for the feedback. Well, looking here demise does seem appropriate, but here it seems not appropriate. - RoyBoy 17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Your second link doesn't seem convincing, because if you click on "more" you'll see that Google Dictionary has met its, uh, demise. Google Dictionary is not a reliable source. I can support "destruction", though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Current version

“ Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may be defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth. ”

Oppose reasons

• Repetitive "defined" and "termination of pregnancy"RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• The goal of a lead is to broadly yet accurately define a topic, not relegate it to a secondary option.RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Additionally, a reader might easily think that inducing a premature labor qualifies as terminating pregnancy before birth, so it would be clearer to say "other than birth" instead of "before birth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Previous death consensus

“ Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. ”

Oppose reasons

• Death has a dual meaning, broadly it fits; but in common usage it implies an individual / person has died.RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• In a small minority of medical definitions.RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is not NPOV unless the "viable" definition is also provided somewhere in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The word "demise" would be better, it's a broader word than "death", not merely synonymous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• While I get it, death is correctly defined once at Wikipedia. It seems easier to understand than viable, so we preferred it in 2006. - RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Death is blunt, simple and straightforward, but it's not used when tonsils are removed. Tonsils are not really a distinct organism, whereas a fetus/embryo is regarded as a distinct organism, or at least a parasitic distinct organism. The word "death" has strong connotations, perhaps suggesting brain death, which is an organ that may not yet have formed in the embryo. The word "demise" is much better; it sometimes means death but can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is straightforward and clear as a formal definition, there is nothing counterfactual here in regard to what an abortion basically is. Some may regard a fetus/embryo as a parasitic organism, it is incorrect though as parasites are from a species different to the host species. In origin and manner the dependent intrauterine relationship of baby on its mother is not the same as parasite on a host. I don't see a NPOV issue or a need to give more than one definition as viability will be mentioned in the article, but is non-essential to a formal definition. DMSBel (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't regard it as parasatic. My point was merely that some people do regard it that way, and as far as I know there's no dispute about whether parasites end in death. Of course they do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• We had this discussion already a million times. Consensus by posting until other editors give up and go away is not strictly forbidden, but there is a time to just leave things as they are and walk away. NW (Talk) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Talk page discussion is rarely discouraged regarding how we can get a consensus that allows removal of a disputed tag. Only three or so editors have even commented about whether "termination before birth" might be misunderstood to include premature labor induction, for example. No one likes endless discussions, but that's often what happens when high-profile articles are substantially changed without any consensus whatsoever for the changes (as happened here). I can support changes and compromises here, but the thing is not settled yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Anythingyouwant. The removal of death was non-consensual, supported with bogus (anti-scientific) arguments and anyone who dissented was/is accused of being a right-wing religious nut-case. We should revert back to the 2006 death consensus.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's worse than that. The original section for comments was repeatedly changed--statements modified after people had voted for them--and it continues to happen here. There has been a long discussion to get to the current stable version and any discussion not starting with that is just another attempt to get the much-loved 2006 version back in. If a discussion of this form is to work it needs to include statements that are not modified during the discussion of them, just for starters. Waiting until a stable version was reached then trying to get it thrown out and the old, old version restored is just another delaying tactic in hopes of wearing out the editors on the other side. It isn't an honest attempt to reach consensus. JJL (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• A 48 hour straw poll qualifies as a honest attempt? If changes to unsigned proposals are noted, transparency remains, this is the Wiki-process. "stable version" is that another joke? Motive guessing again, I waited for the "Lead section options" to slow then proceeded to construct an actual consensus. The current lead is messy and (I think) undermines the whole point of a lead (to define something broadly once), if you want to keep it, fine. I'd like to verify this is what the community actually wants / expect; they'll likely want the "termination before viable" version... well I certainly hope not. - RoyBoy 04:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• But it wasn't structured very well, like the current lead. If the current version holds its own re WP:Lead, then there is no change required. Besides, if things were "left as they are", we would be forced to revisit every year. That possibility is preposterous to me, but if you're willing to sign up then awesome fantastic! BTW, NW do you find "demise" okay, or equally poor / misleading as "death"? - RoyBoy 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misleading is a bit strong; perhaps "imprecise" describes my feelings towards it a bit better. In any case, can we postpone this discussion until after the Arbitration case concludes? I plan to request some sort of binding mediation structure imposed by the Arbitration Committee and administered by an uninvolved editor/admin, which I think might help us. NW (Talk) 14:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. No worries, this section has long intentions; and it can float... opening an RfC to get more voices in this section could help. However, there is no rush. - RoyBoy 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban evasion

Let me reiterate something: Proper routes for appealing a ban include the issuing administrator's user talk page or WP:AN. Ban evasion is unacceptable.

I have semi-protected this page for 12 hours. Any administrator is free to overturn this action on their own judgment, but I request that they do so only if they figure out a way to otherwise deal with a user who is violating their topic ban. NW (Talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What persistence. I'm surprised he doesn't simply make an account at this point. JJL (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit strange. - RoyBoy 04:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd welcome an editor who's so dedicated to violating this site's policies, even with a named account. It seems sort of like the last thing this topic needs at present is another agenda-focused account with a disregard for this site's expectations. MastCell ^Talk 05:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant what you wish, considering your rather one-sided contributions. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)I have previously removed this ban-evading IP's comments from this talk page, and urged the IP to follow the rules.[7] However, I must say that the initial block of this IP was highly suspect in my view. I am trying to learn more about blocking policy, to understand better if this IP was treated fairly, or not.[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

Why has a fetus picture been put back into this article? I don't see this being talked over and agreed on in any of the newer discussions above. When it was discussed a couple of months ago it was agreed images like this one don't belong in this article because it isn't neutral and the medical ethics of using them are debatable.This picture is even worse in that regard because the fetus appears to be on carpet or some kind of textile object. Do medical textbooks typically include pictures of objects on the floor? Putting something on the floor is a very amateur way to take a picture of it. It's what you do when you're trying to sell something on ebay and don't have any other flat surface around. That seriously calls into question the professionalism behind this picture. Do we really want such a sensitive article like this to include such low quality images? Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The ethics of this one are a bit different than the other image, I think. The uploader has uploaded many medical images to Wikimedia Commons and presumably is a physician. I would think we should contact him and see if he can provide additional information about when and where he took the image and what consent he obtained from the mother. NW (Talk) 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand and respect that images like this one produce some overwhleming emotions from viewers: mothers, fathers, relatives of miscarriage patients, etc. Photos like these are not intended to hide the validation of life and loss behind the "medicalization" of the experience. Nevertheless science is uncensored. The fetus in question has 11 weeks estimated gestational age and laying on a pathologist's lab over a surgical mesh provided by the institution that attended the mother. I am sorry that medicine isn't apologetic about what "appears to be". Everyone involved in taking the picture and following the postmortem protocols are professionals and trained for that purpose. The photo was taken with the camera of a cytology tech. There are no identifiable features of this fetus that distinguish it as an individual nor are there any legal identity documents for this or any fetus delivered under 20 weeks of gestation. But there are very characteristic features of fetal development to be contrasted with this image for example, making the image (and others like it) of esteemed educational value, especially under CreativeCommons. The image is not placed here as prouncement of pro- or anti-abortion discourses, since the delivery was produced as a spontaneous end of a pregnancy. Rather it was taken and uploaded with a documentary approach, that's why I placed it within the context of a miscarriage. So, in this case, education legitimates the decision to add the image. Sorry I missed talking about it here, as I did minutes before with another image. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure if you saw a few weeks ago Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg, but I would appreciate it if you could take a look. I definitely agree with you that there is a great deal of useful educational value with this image, and also that it is unlikely that this image would be deleted. However, I do think that there are ethical issues that bar us from using the image in a mainspace article without prior consent (see, for example, the position of the American College of Medical Genetics, which is the only one in that essay to mention fetuses). NW (Talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the picture's origin. The background does look like some type of textile to me and that called into question whether it was taken under informal conditions (say by a woman who had a miscarriage at home) and whether whoever took it had the the expertise to accurately judge gestational age etc.

That said the issue of fetus pictures in this article has been discussed a lot and we don't really need to open that can of worms again. Roscelese brings up a very good point in his edit summary. This article isn't just about miscarriage but also induced abortion. Things that may be appropriate in the miscarriage article may not be ok here. And fetus pictures definitely don't belong in an article about abortion for reasons that have already been discussed. They're fine in the fetus article or the pregnancy article but the abortion article is a whole different ball game. Context is everything. If you look at encyclopedias comparable to Wikipedia very few of them are going to include a fetus picture in their entry on abortion. It'd be doing a disservice to the quality of Wikipedia to stray outside the standard set by other encyclopedias in this case. Friend of the Facts (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a good summation of my argument as well. I don't have an opinion on including this picture in the miscarriage article (and since I don't think I've ever edited it, my opinion may not be worth much anyway), but the context is quite different here, both because of the previous lack of consensus to include images of abortion in the article, and more generally because of the history of images of fetuses being used in propaganda. I believe Bobjgalindo added it in good faith; I just don't think it's the right thing to do in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) The issue of showing readers what is aborted in an abortion is one of several issues now pending before Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.[9] People may well be waiting to see what ArbCom has to say about it before contributing more ideas and arguments here at the article talk page.

There was an image of this sort in this article for over a year until it was edit-warred out of this aeticle this summer.  That edit-warring is summarized this evidence is at the evidence talk page here.  It seems pretty clear to me that this is an issue primarily of censorship; one of the leading edit-warriors explained pretty clearly that, "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck."[10]. Any image that might suggest otherwise has been removed from this article.  There may also be sincere arguments that such an image requires the parents to identify themselves and sign a legal document authorizing publication, but those arguments were not accepted during the deletion devate at Wikimedia Commons, and it makes no sense to me that an image would not violate privacy at Wikimedia Commons but would at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding some images here isn't something I feel strongly about one way or another. This one seems more related to Fetus while the others present seem to relate better to Abortion. The other images already present in this article seem more directly related to this specific topic. JJL (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference