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"

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)

General comments

I have reinserted the above thread to keep it visible while the pending arbitration runs its course. - RoyBoy 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why this one particular section of yours? There are lots of discussions of the topic throughout the archives and we'll no doubt need to revisit the whole issue anyway. There were so many midway changes to this one that I don't see any reason to treat it specially. JJL (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I didn't pursue an RfC for this was active arbitration, the goal is to eliminate oppose reasons... if not addressed lead maintenance remains difficult and revisiting might be every few months, instead of years. I don't see how "midway changes" impacts its utility. Treat it for what it is, unresolved. The current lead is written by committee and doesn't mind redundancy and defining it "technically" first. I doubt I'm alone in taking issue with this. - RoyBoy 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not true of the current lead. It's already changed (and not in the way I would have preferred). JJL (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

Human Embryo (7th week of pregnancy, 5th week p.o.)

Wondering what people think about this image? It is from a reputable pathologist in the USA. Is of the appropriate gestational age. Is an excellent quality image. Would have had appropriate consent obtained. Is not in a gloved hand or on a strange background.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I wonder how this illustrates abortion as opposed to embryo or tubal pregnancy. The current images are more specific to the topic at hand and not related matters. JJL (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

JJL pretty much said what I was thinking. The images in the article right now might not be very exciting, but they do actually depict the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A termination of a pregnancy before delivery is an abortion. Thus this is an abortion and one done to save a women's life. IMO it is appropriate. But no strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If we can only have one image of what is aborted, then it should be from an induced abortion rather than spontaneous, because most people associate the word "abortion" with the induced variety. Although this image may well show an induced abortion, such an image should be at a typical gestation, whereas this image is much earlier than typical. There was an appropriate image in this article for over a year, removed without consensus, edit-warred ad nauseum, and now subject of an ongoing ArbCom proceeding. Let's wait and see what ArbCom says. Apparently, not only is consensus meaningless here, but we also cannot have an NPOV tag in the article inviting people to comment about this dispute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

James, are you sure that ectopic pregnancies are generally considered to be abortions as opposed their own separate category? Williams Obstetrics talks about them in separate (but sequential) chapters. NW (Talk) 18:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes if we use the definition of "intra uterine pregnancy" they would not be classified as abortions. However the WHO does classify them as abortions [1] And this article describes an ectopic not being treated due to a complete abortion ban [2] The Catholic church considers a number of treatments for ectopics to be "abortions" [3] The abortion rate is constant between 5-12 weeks.[4] Thus an image at 7 weeks would be fair. This is also a featured image BTW. I consider it to address the concerns raised and would thus support its inclusion in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Above are drawings at typical gestations when abortion is induced in England. At left is an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At right is a fetus 4 weeks later. The selected abortion method depends chiefly on the size.

The image suggested by Doc James is at "5 weeks p.o." which is way before average for induced abortion in developed countries, and the average is even later in developing countries. See the bar graph in the article. As such, the image is misleading, and raises concerns about POV-pushing, propaganda, and censorship. Every image that shows the abortus as something other than a non-human-looking clump of cells has been objected to by someone or other at this article, including the innocuous and information-packed image to the right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The fetus in the (upper) image is 7 weeks' gestation using standard obstetrical dating from last menstrual period, as the image information makes clear. That's well within the range of gestational age where most abortions are performed in the Western world; I can't speak to the developing world, but would be interested to see reliable statistics (in place of accusations). I'm on the fence about the upper image, mostly because I don't think it's representative of a typical "abortion" (no more than a hydatidiform mole would be typical of "abortion"). MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, the upper image does not show a fetus. It shows an embryo, perhaps not even halfway past the midpoint of the embryonic stage. This Wikipedia article says that in the U.S. only 18% of induced abortions occur by 7 weeks LMP (i.e. 5 weeks after fertilization). And if the upper image was "in" the seventh week LMP rather than "at" 7 weeks LMP, then it could be as early as 4.1 weeks after fertilization. The fetal stage does not begin until 8 weeks after fertilization, and that transition point is about average for abortion in the western world (the average in England is 7.5 weeks per this Wikipedia article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected; embryo is the correct term. If the average abortion is performed at 7.5 weeks gestational age (in England, to take your example), and this embryo is at 7 weeks' gestational age, then perhaps you could explain your objection again? Why do you feel that the embryo in this image isn't developed enough to be representative? MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as you mixed up embryo and fetus, you're mixing up gestational age (LMP) and age from fertilization. The average abortion in England is 9.5 weeks gestational age (LMP) which equals 7.5 weeks from fertilization. The upper image you say is in the 7th week LMP which is the 5th week from fertilization, i.e. between 4 and 5 weeks from fertilization. (The info page for the upper image says it's in "5th week p.o" which may mean it's even less developed than 4 weeks after fertilization.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When you said 7.5 weeks above, I assumed you were referring to standard obstetrical dating. It would probably help to stick to one set of terminology, preferably that commonly used in obstetrics (last menstrual period). As Doc James notes below, about 36% of induced abortions are performed at or before 7 weeks in the U.S. That seems to me to make the image reasonably "developed" to represent abortion, at least as practiced in the developed Western world. That said, I don't really favor the image because it's from an ectopic pregnancy, which is well outside the "typical" concept of abortion. MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes 18% before 7 weeks 18% at 7 weeks. That equals 36%.[5] Never saw this as an issue of propaganda, or censorship. These are harsh accusations when all I was looking for was an image from a reliable source which would have been ethically acquired to address previous concerns raised. Anyway will leave it with you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If the correct figure is 36% by 7 weeks LMP in the US, then still a substantial majority occurs later than that. Plus the info for the upper image says "5th week p.o." which suggests it may be even more unrepresentative. Keep in mind too that later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries. See Cheng L. “Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion : RHL commentary” (last revised: 1 November 2008). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization.[6]

I'm sorry if my concerns about censorship and propaganda seem harsh, but I don't think it's a coincidence that every non-clump-of-cells image suggested for this article has invariably run into accusations of pro-life propaganda, and no coincidence that this article still has no representative image of what's aborted in a typical abortion. AGF has limits, and I can't but believe that the continued absence of such an image is by design. The issues about ethical acquisition were covered during the deletion debate at Wikimedia Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In Sweden 77% occur 8 weeks and before. [7] And nearly 70% are accomplished with medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice to know, but this Wikipedia article is not about Sweden. If you'll look at the lower image (that you and MastCell have thus far declined to support or even acknowledge), both an abortus at 6 weeks LMP and at 10 weeks LMP are shown. Why is it asking so much to show an abortus that has developed beyond looking like a clump of cells? They're very typical, though earlier abortions are also common in places like Sweden. This Wikipedia article once had an embryo image and also a fetus image. You personally deleted the first, and froze out the second, and now we have to go over this issue yet again. There are obvious reasonable solutions here, but one of them is not to include only a clump-of-cells image that pleases pro-choice activists at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

9-Week Human Embryo from Ectopic Pregnancy (7th week p.o.)

We're really not just limited to these images. There is also File:9-Week Human Embryo from Ectopic Pregnancy.jpg (right, same photographer as the first image), for example, which I believe is right about at the midpoint of all induced abortions. NW (Talk) 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Appendectomy article doesn't show an appendix, but the Vermiform appendix does. The page on the operation shows an operation being performed plus two post-op images. This is the difference: Images at Abortion should focus on the abortion procedure, as they currently do, and images at Embryo or Fetus on the embryo and fetus. Brain surgery (which redirects to Neurosurgery) shows a picture of a person being operated on, but not a brain; Brain, however, does show a brain. In the Appendectomy and Brain surgery articles you can't even see an appendix of brain. In Heart surgery (redirects to Cardiac surgery) you can make out part of the Heart under the surgeon's hand but can't see the whole heart; compare Heart, which has several images of the heart. In articles on a procedure it's common to have images of the procedure. The embryo picture is a poor fit here. It's not a conspiracy--it's the custom. JJL (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

JJL, there are many counterexamples to your examples, such as tonsillectomy. In the case of this abortion article, there is a much stronger rationale for showing what's removed: the removed item is very different depending on when it is removed, the removal technique depends heavily on that difference, and the separate articles do not explain which stages of development correspond to most abortions. If this were a normal article that didn't attract agenda-driven editors, there would be no hesitation about including a simple image like the drawing above, or a pair of abortus images that bracket thr typical gestations for abortion. Since no one has objected to the drawing above, I plan to insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You just heard somebody object to embryo images, in the post immediately above yours. Or perhaps you didn't. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The drawing is not an "embryo picture". It shows a fetus. I think it's pretty clear that all but the most determined editors have been driven away from this article for the time being, and I'm joining them for awhile. It's just too frustrating. So have at it guys.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact Tonsillectomy is much the same--there are 4 images at the bottom that illustrate the procedure, from pre-op, the removed tonsils, immediately post-op, and later post-op. The image of the removed tonsils is in the context of the surgical procedure. The line drawing is somewhat on target but, as with your remarks above on Sweden, this seems to be focused on England which is insufficiently global. JJL (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The two photos are very good but they belong in the fetus and embyro articles not here. Like I've said before there are many things involved in an abortion -- the fetus, the placenta, the pregnant woman, her uterus, the doctor, the tools or drugs used. Showing any of these things in the Article wouldn't really let someone understand abortion better. They would just take up space. And the fact that people are only calling for this article to show fetuses -- not placentas or pregnant women or doctors -- says a lot about the main reason such pictures are wanted in the article. As for the cartoon ask yourself how many encyclopedias have pictures like that. Really this looks like throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks to me. Well that's not a very productive use of everyone's time. People really need to let this thing rest. The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about." Well, you can say that again. And the arguments for these various photos in the article do not seem to need to make one iota of sense - none at all - just keep making them over and over till (it sometimes feels like) the end of time. When I pointed out that a medical journal-type photo of a fetus would hardly show one that was hand-held, I was told it needed to be hand-held because it was so delicate, and furthermore, lots and lots of medical photos showed a hand in the picture. When asked for some examples of all these photos, one was produced along with several of procedures being done with an instrument in-hand. Then it was claimed that the hand was important to show the size of the fetus, as though the science community had not yet discovered the ruler. And on and on. But then to complain of frustration and accuse the editors that do not share their somewhat odd (to say the least) point of view as being agenda-driven and to suggest that they are driving away editors... Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference 31

Can anyone else locate the following reference? It's currently in the article as reference 31:

• Potts, Malcolm (2002). "History of Contraception". Gynecology and Obstetrics 6 (8).

Gynecology and Obstetrics appears to be a legitimate journal, but it does not match up to the reference at all. In 2002, they were on volumes 266 and 267, not 6. Potts has apparently written an article titled "History of Contraception" (co-written with his wife, I believe, per our article on him), but that was published in 2008, not 2002. Can anyone reconcile all of this? NW (Talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's most likely this. Not sure where the confusion over its provenance originates, but it seems to be from the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, if it works, it works.  Fixed. NW (Talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion and mental health

I just undid this edit. The reason I did so was because the text fails to meet Wikipedia:Summary style, which states that if a section is meant to be a summary of a subarticle (as this one is), the paragraph should be an adequate representation of the subarticle. It isn't. NW (Talk) 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit was also problematic in other regards. The quote was far larger than the content text, and much of it was irrelevant dental discussion. It was taken from an editor's frontspiece to the journal issue rather than the review article itself, which was:

• Priscilla K. Coleman (September 2011). "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009". British Journal of Psychiatry. 199: 180–186. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230.

It remains to be seen what response that article's analysis will get when it is published, but it will doubtless recieve careful scrutiny by the readers of that journal. In the meantime, wp:NODEADLINE, we can wait for them to comment in coming issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Would you care to comment at Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health#Coleman.27s_new_meta-analysis? NW (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Coleman work appears to build on Rachel MacNair's 2005 Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing. MacNair discusses many forms of killing including abortion (she was the president of Feminists for Life and the founder of the Susan B. Anthony List.) She talks about the emotional toll of performing abortions, a stressor for mental health problems. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Coleman has also been criticized by the APA for the low quality of her studies, and subsequent analyses of the same data used in one particular study have been unable to reproduce her results. We shouldn't be citing her as a source in a summary article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Coleman's approach to "quantitative synthesis and analysis" of the literature is quite curious. Of the 22 studies that met her inclusion criteria for analysis, 12 of them (at my quick count) were authored by Priscilla Coleman and/or her close collaborator David C. Reardon. So more than half of the papers fed into Coleman's "meta-analysis" are actually her own work, or that of her close collaborators. This is basically a meta-analysis of her own work, and suggests that the inclusion criteria for this analysis are questionable, to say the least. The analysis grossly overweights Coleman's publications, especially since they tend to be accorded very little weight by independent expert bodies. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have put the summary information of Coleman in the footnote. Geremia (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no please? If Coleman's work is inappropriate to be added as plain text, it is also inappropriate to add it as a footnote. Please revert until you gain consensus for such an addition. NW (Talk) 07:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit also added a contributory copyvio in the archiveurl.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The citation was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is a peer-reviewed reliable source. Stating that "No scientific research has demonstrated that abortion is a cause of poor mental health in the general population" is not only uncited, but is a false in light of the above study. I've readded mention of the statement to satisfy WP:NPOV. Apparently, others here feel the same way. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not realize that this article was under a 1RR restriction. I've reverted my edit, although I still feel that it should be considered by the community here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG implies that we should treat such claims that go against the current scientific consensus as requiring exceptional evidence. A study that primarily uses the author or her close collaborator's studies is probably not one of them (take a look at the relative risks of the various Coleman and Reardon papers and everyone else). Now, maybe the scientific community will disagree with me and say that this new paper is a game-changer. But that sounds unlikely. For the time being, we should not include the information, but should wait to see whether Coleman's paper is accepted by the scientific community at large. NW (Talk) 18:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is some feedback from The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists [8] Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur. JJL (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who "anonymous" is purporting to speak in behalf sf the RCOG, but on what does s/he base the claim that "this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications"? Coleman certainly does take into account pre-existing conditions. Thanks Geremia (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If one removed Coleman's own studies from her analysis, do you think there would still be a significant relationship between abortion and mental health outcomes? In my personal opinion, a responsible researcher should have addressed that question in the paper, and a responsible peer reviewer should have demanded that it be addressed. But that's just me. A critical reader could just as easily interpret this paper to show that researchers have consistently found no impact of abortion on mental health, but that Coleman and Reardon alone, for some reason, consistently manage to find a correlation.

It's interesting to view Coleman's paper in light of PMID 19014789, a 2008 systematic review from the Johns Hopkins group addressing the same question. The Hopkins meta-analysis actually took the step of assessing the methodologic strength of each included study, rather than simply pooling them all without regard for their quality. The results are instructive; when studies were assessed according to widely accepted measures of quality, Coleman's and Reardon's scored fairly low (in fact, the poorer the quality of the study, the more likely it was to report a correlation between abortion and mental health; make of that what you will). Of course, if you just pool all the papers without regard for their quality, as Coleman did, your mileage may vary. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MastCell - Though the matter of comparing methodologies in research is interesting and important, any answer given here by editors to your question (including your own thoughts above) could only fall foul of WP:OR. The [bjp.bp.110.077230] review acknowledges it doesn't draw definitive causal conclusions and previous studies preclude that also, but that indirect evidence for a causal connection is beginning to emerge. The review is more wide-ranging, circumspect and cautious than a quick glance at first reveals. But it might be better to wait until there are a few more detailed assessments published of Priscilla Coleman's meta-analysis.DMSBel (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand as it is the largest meta-study to date, it merits mentioning independent of reception, with the proviso that its conclusions are not expressed more definitively than the study itself presents them. Since it is published in a peer-reviewed journal the risk of pushing the wikipedia article toward irrelevance would be increased by not including appropriate reference to it. DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:DMSBel. My version of the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV, mentioned both views. You could reinstate that version if it is acceptable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV mandates that we present views in the context of, and in proportion to, their prevalence in scholarly reliable sources. Your version presents Coleman's paper as the baseline, and then mentions ("however") that every expert body to have reviewed the question disagrees with her implication. You have it backwards. We should present the views of reputable expert bodies (which, by the way, are essentially unanimous in concluding that abortion does not cause mental-health problems). We can mention that some researchers have reported different findings, but your text gives Coleman's paper a weight which it clearly does not possess. In doing so, your edit violates WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll not make the change myself, However [Anupam's] reference, could be trimmed somewhat and rather than stating "...suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion..." perhaps change it to "...suggests that there is a moderate or greater risk of developing mental health problems after abortion, while not concluding a definitive causal link between abortion and mental health." Earlier studies and this one may not be directly comparable, as Coleman's is a quantitive synthesis and analysis, whereas earlier studies were qualitative reviews. DMSBel (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewed is not a magic phrase that renders all other considerations moot. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." The study has redflag and weight issues that can only be alleviated with sources that show the study is supported by anyone other than the author. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Very much agree with interpreting policies and guidelines in harmony with each other. Indeed "peer-reviewed" is not a magic phrase. WP:NOR is applicable for wikipedia editors mainly, and would include attempts to interpret the analysis ourselves, or speculate on responses to it. Verifiability is met. NPOV again is in regard to our presentation of reliable source material. I see no problem in briefly mentioning Coleman's meta-analysis in such a manner as to be in harmony with wikipedia WP:NPOV, which means we do what wikipedia editors always must do, avoid (ie. not engage in) judgement on it. But I agree with artifex re WP:RS sources. A brief mention of the existence of Coleman's meta-analysis would still be in harmony with policy though, would it not? Our own[ie. wikipedia's] presentation has to avoid WP:OR, and remain NPOV here too. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:MastCell, you bring about a good point with your comment. I do not object to placing Coleman's paper after the position of the APA. I think that this will be a good compromise between the parties here. User:DMSBel, the reason I used the wording I did is because that is the wording used by Sukhwinder S. Shergill, who summarizes that issue of British Journal of Psychiatry; I will place that portion in quotes. User:ArtifexMayhem, the source that I am using is not the original paper; rather, it is written by Sukhwinder S. Shergill, who presented the "Highlights of this issue" of the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is a WP:RS. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Shergill via "Highlights of this issue" (aka the table of contents with a summary) is a seperate source that supports inclusion of the study makes no sense. What am I missing? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Poor question. Not important. - ArtifexMayhem

Does this version get us anywhere? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems like too much weight is being given to the contrary studies. I have trimmed it to this, though I wouldn't mind giving less weight to that specific study and including some of the ones from New Zealand, for example. Or redoing those sentences entirely. NW (Talk) 12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You trimmed it???? Was Anupam's edit not shorter than this? Here is my suggestion: leave the quote from Highlights of this Issue out for now and reference Coleman's meta-analysis in a NPOV manner.62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The glaringly obvious thing is that all individual studies positing direct linkage of mental health and abortion are regardless of findings subject to the same critique. If there is no direct evidence for causal linkage, that carries through to studies that claim to find benefits. If factors not directly connected to abortion are deemed to be significant in cases where deterioration in mental health is found the same is true of absense of those factors in cases where mental health doesn't significantly change. Indicating a degree of uncertainty still exists, and that the significance of abortion to mental health is not as yet understood conclusively. Coleman's meta-analysis understands that, and recommends caution, and further study. Any critique has to understand the purpose of the study, and any comparison needs to take into account if definitive conclusions are being put forward. Gross media simplification in summarising studies is often the worst error, and the greatest source of misinformation. DMSBel (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...I don't understand your point. More please. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded my comment above Artifex and tried to make my point clearer. DMSBel (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

huh? wha'd he say? my brain seems to have exploded... Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Whats more, just reading through the summary section in this article on mental health and it needs fixed badly. Just shows this article needs constant scrutiny. It states :"The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that first trimester abortion does not lead to increased mental health problems,[60]..." The APA Task force did not conclude this. It stated in much more nuanced language the following: this Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion concludes that the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy. the later report concludes: Policies based on the notion that later abortions (because of fetal anomaly) harm women's mental health are unwarranted. Because research suggests that most women who have later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly, future investigations should examine women’s psychological experiences around later abortions. The sort of summarising and SYNTH in this section is misrepresenting these reports conclusions as being more definitive than in the reports themselves. Simply presenting a contrary view on the APA report does not address the mispresentation of it, though for sake of maintaining balance a contrary view needs to be kept in. DMSBel (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The APA found that a single abortion was not a threat to women's mental health. Or, in the actual words of the APA, "Single Abortion (is) Not a Threat to Women's Mental Health". Can we try to present that clearly and comphensibly to the reader? We don't need to say that "NASA geospatial and telemetric data provide evidence that Earth's shape most closely approximates that of an oblate spheroid"; we can just say that the Earth is round. Right? MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Headlines are not summaries of a study. No one was suggesting that the language be technicized in the absurd manner you suggest. Only that we give reader a little more information than a headline. And that press release title just emphasises my point because it doesn't summarise, it reduces the report to a soundbite for the media to give to the man-in-the-street. Soundbites are prone to manipulation, thats why we don't use them.DMSBel (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You fail to understand that research published in the press goes through a process that essentially renders it digestable to the ordinary averagely educated member of the public. Such an approach is somewhat elitist, and a lot can be lost in the process. I am not prepared to enable that approach to dissemination of knowledge through Wikipedia especially in regard to research that can be politically manipulated.22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk)

What that means (before Gandydancers brain explodes again) is that we elucidate research summaries, not reduce them to the equivalent of a power-point presentation. DMSBel (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

DMS, it got so HOT that I had to put it on ice! Carry on... Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is little more to say, other than whats been said. I'll work on the section to try and sort it out as best I can.DMSBel (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The APA states that single abortions do not cause mental-health problems, in so many words. That's their position. If we don't communicate that position straightforwardly to the reader, then we're not doing our jobs. Do we really think we're better at summarizing the APA's position than the APA itself? Surely the APA is capable of summarizing their own position, and we don't need to "improve" on their summary. We can,of course, give the reader more information, but not at the cost of basic coherency and readability. I don't think we're dumbing things down - quite the contrary, we're making them intelligible, which the increasingly convoluted word salad version fails to do. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I told you the headline is not the reports summary.DMSBel (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What was worse, the section infered that later term abortion had no mental health risks either, when the report it cited said no such thing. The cited report concluded that because later abortions due to fetal anomalies are not common, policy should not be based on them.DMSBel (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article currently states:

Some studies have disagreed with above conclusions, stating that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. However, such studies have been criticized by other researchers and professional organizations for failing to fully account for pre-existing mental health complications, the severity or lack thereof of any such complications, or improper selection of control groups to account for confounding variables.[62][63][64]

I have some problems with this. More than likely it is my lack of understanding, but I'd like to clear it up. First, there is no ref for the first sentence. Is it referring to studies, meta-analysis reviews, or systematic reviews? According to the RCOG statement three systematic reviews have found no connection to mental problems and as far as I know, the Coleman review is the first review of any sort to find a connection, is that correct? So, what other reviews of studies show a connection? It seems to me that as the article now reads it is putting individual studies on the same level of importance as systematic and meta-analysis reviews. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't quite see how it puts these on the same level, can you articulate further, though I do find the sentence could be better referenced. DMSBel (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DMSBel. I'll answer below. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The refs for the first sentence are 62-64. We can duplicate them if you want, but there's no need, I think. The reason I worded it the way that I did is that I wanted to point out some common themes in individual studies (plus Coleman's meta-analysis) that claim increased mental health problems. NW (Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since others are not having a problem either, I trust your judgement. However, it seems strange that Coleman's meta-analysis is not referenced. What is your thinking there? I would prefer that it be met head-on.Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree I'll add reference to it shortly. DMSBel (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant headings

Two separate headings titled "Unsafe abortion" is unnecessary.130.132.111.254 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.130.132.111.254 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Can someone who has been following this bring me up to date on what exactly it's hoped that ArbCom will accomplish and especially what the scope of the case is? I've just been added to it and it seems to be all over the place. JJL (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, heard about it yesterday for the first. This might help: [[9]]. It's been going since 12th August as far as I can gather.

For myself unless I am required to respond to specific queries, I won't be otherwise getting involved. DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Need separate articles

I read through the entire article, and I feel that it's unclear whether the article intends to cover aspects of both accidental and induced abortion, or whether the article intends to include all contextual motivations and results of the various legalities of abortion. I feel it would do service to the topic of accidental abortion to remove it from the article and make separate articles. Miscarriage is enough to identify accidental, and the term abortion is tied culturally too much to induced. I believe there's a wiki guideline about naming an article according to popular use of the term that will give merit to separating the two as I described. (Feel free to reference it).

If everyone feels it's best to keep the topics together, then I have an entirely different set of concerns. As the topics are together, I would rather argue that the article reads too much as an article trying to discuss the varying political positions on abortion legality. As such, the article can never entirely appear NPOV to anyone. I think it would be helpful to reduce topics such as safety of induced procedure and such. The unsafeness of self-induced abortion appears more like an argument for abortion legality, not in actual wording, but in implicit nudging. With comments like "14 times safer than childbirth" while neglecting to note that this result is skewed by actual performed abortions as it continues to state that "The risk ... remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation." These two in contrast are deceptive because they imply that it is safer to abort than give birth because it doesn't point out the missing conclusion that post 21 weeks, it is less safe to induce abortion. Which means given a performed average over all weeks (let's say 100 per every week gestation), the result *could be* safer to bear than to abort at all. This is clearly NPOV disguised, whether intended or not. The article continues to make biased comparisons. Noting that it's safer to have legal abortions at all terms to account for the risk created by illegalizing abortions, then comments that risk would decrease if planned parenthood and other medical help were available giving the current laws. This is biased because it neglects the fact that the safest countries already offer abortion, making the risky self-induced abortions a matter of lack of education about options. "Groups such as the World Health Organization have advocated a public-health approach to addressing unsafe abortion, emphasizing the legalization of abortion, the training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services."

To make my point concise and clear. This article reads more like a white paper for legalizing abortion than it does as a paper simply discussing the concept of abortion covering both induced and accidental equally. -- Cflare (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I grasp your concern about the safety issue. Our wording follows very closely on that of the best available medical sources, which I think are appropriate for a discussion of the medical aspects of abortion. The comparisons to childbirth are not some editorial attempt to promote abortion, but a reflection of the way reliable scholarly sources handle the question. Could you elaborate on your concern? MastCell ^Talk 03:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cflare your points are well made but if you can elaborate further that would be of value. If I am understanding you then I agree the emphasis on safety may in fact give the impression the article is promoting its subject, just as any similiar emphasis on for instance the safety of a product (however well verified) could be seen as promotional if overstated. While the difference of course is that abortion is a procedure it is nonetheless one that could be promoted, so this article should be subject to the same scrutiny as any article on a product where there might be conflict of interest in regard to promotion of safety. I have thought this before you made your post, but had not articulated my concerns. I have considered proposing a split of the article to separate spontaneous (accidental) abortion out from it, and agree with you that abortion is in the public mind linked predominantly with induced abortion, and that miscarriage is the term best suited to disambiguating accidental or spontaneous abortion. It may be appropriate to follow that course if there is agreement, and limit this article to Induced abortion. In any case the issue of over-stating the safety of abortion does tend to make the article come across as a white paper or apologetic with a particular political goal, that of defending legalised abortion, which of course is outside of the scope of any encyclopedia not just wikipedia. I am wondering how an encyclopedia can best cover the subject. DMSBel (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're alleging that the article "overstates the safety of abortion". Is that correct? MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly goes out of its way to state it quite emphatically, and near the start, and to defend quite vigorously the research which states it on my reading of it.DMSBel (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The mortality rates of legal (and illegal) abortion are not partisan political claims, but rather verifiable medical facts sourced appropriately to high-quality scholarly references. We communicate these facts to the reader, sticking very closely to the context and comparisons used by reliable, scholarly sources. People who read this article looking for information deserve to get accurate information on the subject. If reliable sources describe the safety of (legal) abortion, should we as editors downplay that because we think it sounds too "positive"? Or should we just focus on accurately conveying the content of the best available sources? What specific changes to the current language would you suggest? MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to balance the sources better and not leave the article open to be criticised, I am not sure what specific changes to suggest at this moment and would like to give the matter more thought. We could reference the BJPsych published meta-analysis (by Coleman) though, together with a response to it, rather than just a response. The BJPsych article is in itself a response to earlier studies which are cited. DMSBel (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs a picture

This article needs to be illustrated with a picture, or several pictures, of babies murdered through abortion - so that readers can better understand the anti-abortion point of view. Note that I am not using wikipedia as a soapbox by making this comment, and I shall treat any removal of this post as censorship. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Very funny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I demand that this post be removed IMMEDIATELY. Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit amazing that with all the graphic procedures featured on Wikipedia the Abortion article is more or less blank on the matter. I suppose showing pictures of this particular procedure qualifies as propaganda. PeRshGo (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not blank at all. The article does have an image of an abortion being performed. It's a diagram rather than a photograph, which seems to leave some people unsatisfied. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not serious about removing the post - I guess it's hard to kid around with this article) Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am proudly pro-life and I believe that abortion is murder and always wrong. I want a picture of a baby murdered through abortion here not to push my point of view, but because the pro-life side often uses such pictures, and it would help to show one here to explain their perspective. Why is hard-core porn acceptable on Wikipedia but not a picture of a murdered baby in this article? Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Had to add the image request tag, since an image was requested. My own view is that we need to be careful here and not put in images just for shock value remembering this is an encyclopedia and the subject is a highly sensitive one. DMSBel (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss here first62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What policy-based argument for inclusion hasn't already been gone over ad nauseum in the archives of this talkpage? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a video in commons, I think it should be discussed first before adding though as it is not pleasant to watch.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The video is from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a pro-life pressure group which believes that "abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror." I'm not sure that's the sort of source envisioned in WP:RS, although I'm sure opinions will differ on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure it (abortion) is a clear cut evil, its the taking of innocent human life.DMSBel (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Readability

I'd like to present two versions of the American Psychological Association position on abortion and mental health for consideration:

Version 1: The American Psychological Association has concluded that the relative risks of mental health problems following a single, legal elective abortion performed during the first trimester are not greater than for those who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.

Version 2: The American Psychological Association has concluded, based on available scientific evidence, that a single abortion is not a threat to women's mental health, and that women are no more likely to have mental-health problems after a first-trimester abortion than after carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

The sources supporting these statements include [10] and [11]. I think the first version is rather difficult to read, and the second version more clearly summarizes the APA's position (and is more clearly in line with the APA's own summary of its findings). However, the second version was reverted by DMSBel (talk · contribs), apparently because he was concerned that it "overstates" the safety of abortion ([12]).

I don't think either statement is "stronger" than the other. I just think that the second version is a) more readable, and b) more in line with the APA's own presentation of its position. I'd like to get some additional thoughts on these two versions, or on any other proposed wording which might help communicate expert opinion clearly and directly to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There were a lot more changes to the section than that in your edit MastCell.DMSBel (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whats specifically is difficult for you to read in the first version, can you elaborate?DMSBel (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The first one is based on the actual report rather than the press-release - it uses "relative risks" and specifically refers to a single, first trimester, nontheraputic abortion (I used the term elective). I don't really have time to waste on a long discussion about this so, briefly if you could explain how that is not in line with the APAs presentation?DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to address this one sentence before moving on to the other changes. Given how quickly things bog down here, I think our only hope of progress is to focus on one thing at a time. To elaborate, I think these two versions express largely identical ideas, but the second does so in more readable and comprehensible fashion. There's nothing magical about the term "relative risk"; the second version clearly covers the concept of relative risk as well. As to your last question, we are fortunate in that we do't have to guess how the APA would summarize its position - they've already provided a summary, which I linked above. I'm not really understanding the resistance to using the APA's own summary of its position as the basis for our summary. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. Nothing "magical"!!! No of course not, so why not just leave it. You've said they are largely identical. This wastes a lot of time, could you not have just left as it was yesterday, if there is nothing "magical" about it. DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that we don't need to use the technical term "relative risk"; we can just as easily convey the same concept using more accessible language, as I think version 2 does. I said that the meaning of the two versions was virtually identical; I prefer the second version because I think it communicates that meaning more clearly. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your objection is that you prefer "not a threat" over "relative risk" do I understand you?DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The APA task force report concluded that the risks to mental health associated with abortion are no greater comparatively than those associated with an unplanned delivery. Have I misunderstood it?DMSBel (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I have some linguistic understanding and I am not sure the two versions do have exactly the same meaning. the first may be very slightly more technical, but I think (on reflection) it does say something a little different (from version 2) does it not?DMSBel (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To elucidate further the APA report version carries with it the suggestion that there would be little more risk involved to just have the baby. Right? DMSBel (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that version 2 flows better and is easier to follow. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you elucidate further than simple agreeance, is there a problem with the language used in the APA task force report's own conclusion? DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that version #2 is better for the reasons that MastCell has already stated. Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We may as well speak freely and frankly about why we prefer one version over another. All this "more readable, flows better", for the reasons already said is not the reasons at all. DMSBel (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it really so hard to speak freely about this?DMSBel (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on Wikipedians? The fetus is a baby, a baby is alive and a baby is a human being/person. Abortion kills an unborn baby. We are pussy footing round the whole issue, which is worse than just coming out and being honest about it - no roe v wade said this or said that. We all know, all of us here. We all have to face it. Lets be honest and then go from there.DMSBel (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What relevance do your personal beliefs about abortion have to the wording choice under discussion? Why can we not even discuss a basic matter - like a choice between two semantically equivalent wordings - without this sort of counterproductive soapboxing? MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What relevance does your personal belief that what I said is only my personal beliefs have to the discussion? You are soap-boxing a paricular philosophical and ideological view in your own comment. 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk)

You know it as well as I do. This is the problem with this article and a lot of others, irrationalism, absurdity and plain denial. Why should I convert my language and always be refering to a fetus, rather than unborn baby, or gravida rather than mother or pregnant female. Maybe a lot of folks will be mightily annoyed, I really don't care that much, I'd rather just use normal words that everyone understands, than all this wikipediaspeak. Lets just get back to talking plainly. DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Relative risks" is no more technical wording than "fetal viability".DMSBel (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable, the advocacy by DMSBel for that very personal viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So? The article is full of abortion advocacy. Its alleged safety, politically biased research from organisations like the APA (and self-declared pro-choice activists), Guttmacher Institute etc. DMSBel (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you not against that Binksternet? Sure just ignore my comments like you do the abortion advocacy in the article. Its only the talk page after all. DMSBel (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DSMBel, I certainly do respect your right to think of the fetus/unborn baby as a baby and I would guess that many or most of those that post feel the same way. I even feel the same way. But somehow you must get it in your head that some people do not feel that way and their beliefs must be respected as well. Since you seem to feel so passionate about the well-being of infants, I can think of a hundred different ways you could work to support the welfare of the already born, especially in the present political climate that sees being poor and uneducated as a personal choice rather than a result of political/economic circumstances. The last thing that many women need today is a child to care for when they are unable to take care of themselves or any children they may already have. Gandydancer (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what I am doing and what I support? You are expressing a very personal view now yourself. Thats up to you. At least we will start to see POVs more clearly. Yours is that a mother can kill her unborn baby if it is going to be a burden. Then you tell me to support those who don't. Scratch the surface as they say. Knowledge is not feeling. Every kid coming out of high school knows abortion kills a baby. Ask the group of teenagers you survey from time to time to see if editors on here are stupid. DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is this? Why are you refactoring the comment that has already been challenged as unacceptable, leaving it slightly different but much the same?

I had not intention of making it any different only making my comment clearer. I can refactor my own comment it was only you and mastcell who seem to find it unacceptable. DMSBel (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, and the talk page guidelines explicitly discourage it. But they don't seem to apply to this page. MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course they apply. DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding readability, I prefer MastCell's version. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you do.DMSBel (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer V2 for both readability and accuracy. The position of the APA seems pretty clear. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the APA has a position. Its just there is a difference and not a minor one between relative risk, absolute risk and no risk. What does the APA press-release mean by "no threat" when its report acknowledges a relative risk. Clearly "no threat" cannot mean "no risk" or they are contradicting their own conclusions. When things go to the press they usually are dumbed down. The press-release title carrys all the scholarly weight of a soundbite. Why not just say it is a press release, and then repeat their actual report conclusion of "...relative risks no greater than..." largely in the conclusions own words. This cannot be simplfied to such a degree, we are not writing an editorial. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The APA report does not "acknowledge a relative risk". Exactly the opposite is true: the report found no increase in relative risk with a single first-trimester abortion as opposed to carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. This evident confusion over the report's findings is, to my mind, a strong argument in favor of clear and direct language. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

...the relative risks... no greater than, no increase in relative risk. You highlight the no in exclusion to increase. Both these statements indicate a relative risk. Stop playing word games MastCell.DMSBel (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actual report:

...the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.

Is this an acknowledgement of "risks"?DMSBel (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm playing word games, although I can't completely follow your logic so I'm not totally sure what I'm being accused of. I think you are confused by the report's use of the term relative risk, and you're confusing me as well, which reinforces the need for us to use clear, direct language. And please stop editing your comments repeatedly after you post them, if not out of respect for the talk page guidelines then out of basic courtesy to other editors. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It is an acknowledgement that the risks to mental health are the same for both outcomes. i.e. No change. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what might be the misunderstanding here between us MastCell. What is your reading of "single" here? I am reading it as covering women who have one abortion. Are you reading it as an individual case of abortion, ie. in the case of one woman?DMSBel (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for re-editing my comments (its to make them clearer), and it seemed to me like word games, but maybe it is just misunderstanding. DMSBel (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So no change in risk, but not no risk?DMSBel (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Or "no difference" in risk?DMSBel (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Childbirth has no more risk then than abortion Artifex according to this report in your reading of it?DMSBel (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That is in the case of unplanned pregnancy I should add. A planned pregnancy might have less risks, being expected and wanted and prepared for.DMSBel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy has risks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that the risks to mental health are the same for both outcomes. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. As does abortion. Thats the conclusion. End of. DMSBel (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The inability to obtain a safe, legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy also carries risks that are incontrovertable. Editors here might, for instance, wish to improve the coverage at Magdelene asylums to familiarize themselves with some examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The latter half of your comment doesn't make sense - what point are you making?DMSBel (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Simply that that article needs some work, and editors here may find doing so to be a learning opportunity. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats dishonest and you know it, if it needed work you could have said so on the article talk page itself.DMSBel (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But keep going and we'll see what happens.DMSBel (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Neglected viewpoints. Fetal Personhood.

Nothing about the views on fetal personhood at all here, leaving the article very unbalanced.DMSBel (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not true; please re-read the article. The section on the abortion debate describes fetal personhood as central to the pro-life viewpoint (e.g. "the [pro-life] position argues that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, making abortion tantamount to murder.") MastCell ^Talk 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Participants on both sides in the debate acknowledge that a human fetus is a human being, as does basic biology. The right to live is inalienable for all humans. Recasting it to be merely a view held by one side is incorrect, and WP:OR User:DMSBel

I don't think you're correct, but more importantly I'm not willing to continually argue over your personal opinions and viewpoints. Please use this talkpage to discuss specific content issues and reliable sources. There are many other online venues in which you can voice your personal views about abortion, the beginning of human life, and pro-choice/pro-life belief systems. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats ok MastCell. What you think is OR anyway.DMSBel (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any, specific and sourced, suggestions on how we can improve coverage of the topic? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Given time I or other editors can find sources and suggest them here, are you in agreement viewpoints on Fetal Personhood need better coverage?DMSBel (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypotheses not yet covered

• Modern fears of race genocide driving the desire to outlaw abortion [13]
• Anglo-Saxon wish to retain dominance in 19th century America driving the anti-abortion movement [14]
• Restrictions on abortion funding discriminate against poor women and minorities [15]
• Female freedom in sexuality relative to abortion availability (When abortion was a crime, Leslie J. Reagan)

Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe on #1; I'm not sure how widespread of a view that is. I would say no on #2; the history section is too Euro-America centric as it is. Yes, probably, on #3, and maybe as well on #4. NW (Talk) 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The article would be better to focus on the common ground, that which is acknowledge by all sides, the above hypotheses would be highly likely to tie the article up in disputes (as there are contra views on all of them) until it pretty well becomes unreadable. Thanks for noting them, but given the tendency for the article to become bog down in disputes we might well find ourselves spending more time in mediation and dispute resolutions than editing the article, if all that was covered.62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no to #1 and #2. Yes to #3 and we have discussed the need earlier on the talk page, but have been bogged down in the definition discussion. A big yes to #4 as well, but it would need its own article. Here is a review: [16] Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should an neutral encyclopedia give an entire article to a feminist argument? Why a "big yes"? This is the problem here, every side has editors who want special articles, not just coverage in other articles, oh no, its own article. I'd simply drop all the pro-life/pro-choice/feminist-centric articles altogether from the site, including specific articles "arguments for", "arguments against" etc. I'd dump the lot of this verbiage in a land-fill. Sorry but generally and on the whole I defend the right of those whose opinions I detest to have and publish those opinions. But there is clearly soapboxing going on in these arguments for/against type articles. Maybe they started out as sections of other articles which is different, but I'd recommend topic banning anyone (for 3 months, indefinite banning stinks and is dystopian) who started (and that means actually started, not simply in response, or simply as a split) an article on arguments for something. Include in that some [support for] [opposition to] type articles. They are not encyclopedic subjects and are prone to disputes and attract partisan editors, namely those who want present just one side and those who just want to undermine it. If the book (by Leslie J. Reagan) meets notability (or however it is decided what books to cover) sure have an article summarising the book, if it is controversial which it probably is, that would need to be balanced by independent reviews and note any responses contra to it. But I see a basic problem even in the title, abortion wasn't criminal in every case everywhere in the US prior to 1973 and roe v wade. Even if it is flawed I guess it deserves coverage if it notable. Has this been discussed before? If the book is about legal issues, and is notable surely it is reviewed in a legal journal somewhere? Glancing at the review and the site it doesn't seem very impartial.DMSBel (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)