Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological 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
Topical subpages
First paragraph Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" First paragraph|in intro

Guttmacher "facts" are factually wrong

The lede section of the article contains figures referenced to the Guttmacher Institute. The number of abortions in 2004, as counted by the Guttmacher, was 42,000,000. That is, in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade. This number is false on its face, and its not really clear why that organization would publish numbers like that. Perhaps in its quest to promote abortion, it thinks that using inflated numbers somehow supports its position.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the United States, we know that on average there are 850,000 abortions a year. That is 8.5 million a decade. That's one in 176 U.S. women per year. China is understood to be the worst offender, in spite of the low official numbers it releases, with perhaps twice the U.S. number, though we don't really know. There is a figure that says China destroys perhaps a million female children a year through sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

Even if China had 1.5 million abortions a year, the U.S. and China together would still only have 2.35 million abortions a year between them. Adding the second largest contributor, India, with 1.1 million abortions a year, makes the total for the big three only 3.45 million abortions a year. Assuming the rest of the world equals the big three in terms of abortions, and we have a number of 7 million a year. A far cry from Guttmacher's claimed 42+ million in 2004.

The Guttmacher Institute is a poor source of information, and in no way can it be considered a "reliable" source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is problematic because you are arguing against published scientists. Simply going to the Guttmacher Institute link shows that they also cite their sources. The source for the 42 million figure is "Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends", an article published in The Lancet (one of the most renown peer reviewed medical journals). If The Lancet isn't WP:RS, then by golly, we are in big trouble ;) The article doesn't seem to break down abortion by country, but it does by continent and region. They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe. If you have a chance, read through the Lancet article [1] or [2]. If we have any sources that respond or contradict this article, then we can present them as well, but unfortunately, we can't cite the suspicions of individual editors. We must always have sources (and in this case, the source clearly is reliable). We might want to consider directly citing the Lancet article instead of citing the Guttmacher webpage. But then we have to consider primary vs. secondary sourcing.... anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If guttmacher isn't a reliable source we are well and truly screwed - there isn't another research organization on the planet that is cited to their extent by advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate, with Guttmacher, I'm nor sure who is left.--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd (talk · contribs) suggests that China performs 1 to 1.5 million abortions per year, citing without elaboration a "figure" he's seen somewhere. The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China). That's a big discrepancy, and probably the root of the "problem" here. I'm going to go with the Lancet on this one. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andy wrote: "They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe." Asia had 29 million abortions? In one year? Anyone can see how ridiculous that number is. Further, this number was contradicted by MastCell, who does a little math (read:original but necessary common sense research):"The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China)" which means ~29 million Asia != ~8 million in China. India doesn't make up the difference. I think its time we pulled the Guttmacher figures, along with the Lancet figures it claims to be based on and ask them by mail to substantiate or else update their numbers, providing us with some statement about how they arrive at those figures. If that means some people have to reconsider what they call a "reliable source" so be it. I suggest removing the Guttmacher/Lancet references from the lede, as they are obviously false. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that; it's a poor editing practice to remove a completely reliably sourced, verifiable item because it conflicts with your untested assumptions. More power to you if you'd like to challenge the figures. Until Lancet issues a retraction or correction, though, the material is appropriately included here. MastCell ^Talk 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, if you can find a more reliable source with more accurate figures, go ahead - but you are not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We can and should at least comment in the article that those figures are problematic. It's the least we can do to prune Wikipedia of vandalism, even that kind which comes at us through "reliable" medical journals. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a great idea, as long as we can cite a reliable source stating the study's figures are problematic. If we don't have a source, then I'm not sure this discussion can continue. Wikipedia follows sources. If we personally disagree with a source, we are supposed to put our personal feelings aside, and not publish original research. Again, we must follow sources. That is one of the core tenets of wikipedia. So, is there a reliable source that disputes the Lancet article's figures? If not, can we move along?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Concur with MastCell. Zahd's evaluation of the sources seems based on Zahd's own estimations of abortion figures which in turn all seem to be based on the assumption that China has fewer than twice as many abortions per annum as the USA. Simply considering relative populations of these countries, that seems a very low estimate, and the influence of the religious right in the USA and the Chinese government's policies will surely raise this ratio significantly. There are also many countries in Asia other than China and India, and many countries worldwide where abortions are performed which Zahd does not account for.

The bottom line is that the Guttmacher and Lancet figures are close to the top of the scale as far as our reliable source guidelines are concerned, whereas Zahd's own figures, and any arguments based on them, are unpublished original research and per policy must not influence article content. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not an editor here convinced by your arguments I think.--Tznkai (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about that. I think everyone here knows those figures are destroyed, and that I've made a clear case for their destruction. Naturally we all want to attribute this to a source, and perhaps I'll just have to write an article somewhere to deal with it. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way - the apparent consensus of editors is that you are proposing changes that are specifically against Wikipedia policy, including the policy on reliable sources, policy on verifiability versus obvious truth, and our policy on novel research. These policies are in place to ensure that Wikipedia articles conform to a neutral point of view, that is an attempt to accurately represent the facts seen in the world, not our own interpretation or positions on those facts. We work hard to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a battleground for political or cultural battles. Please stop--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's hardcore. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guttmacher is a terrible source of information. It is the research branch of Planned Parenthood, and as such is highly subject to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.43.88 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

".. in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade." your logic is flawed here. you assume the female population is static, and that abortion is a one time only occurrence per entity. the female fertile population is dynamic however. let me try to explain this. lets say women are able to between their 15th and 35th. that is a timespan of 20 years. after a period of 10 years, half of the old population will be replaced with new entities. this means it is not possible to just take the number of abortions per year and multiply it and apply it to the population because not all entities present at that time have been part of it, and some entities that have been part of the population are no longer included in the set. Kasparkaspar (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancet or Guttmacher?

Research shows that the researchers who wrote the Lancet publication are almost all affiliated, and indeed even employed with the Guttmacher Institute.[3][4][5][6][7] This makes referring to the study a "Lancet" study incorrect, as it is in fact a Guttmacher study, and no doubt carries with it implicit assumptions associated with that "Institute." There is a conflict of interest in citing that source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've sufficiently demonstrated that the study is not in any way a scientific one. Furthermore the source is an entirely POV source, as it deals with the POV concept of "unsafe abortion rates" and states the information in the study "is crucial for identifying policy and programmatic needs aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion and to increase access to safe abortion." I.e. its referring to abortion as a means to correct an unintended pregnancy and it states clearly that increasing "access to safe abortion" is it's goal. Not a reliable source, and not an unbiased source. We would be better off quoting Conservapedia, or Uncyclopedia. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, consensus is against the changes you've proposed. Considering your history, and your unusual interpretation of terms such as "POV" and "conflict of interest" (which have very specific meanings to Wikipedians), I advise against making changes, to this or any other abortion-related article, without first getting support from other editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken or do I detect a certain bias in your views, and this is reflective in your comments above? Surely what your'e doing is defending a biased, unscientific source. -Zahd (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To my earlier advice regarding the policies of consensus, verifiability and no original research I must now add that our policy entitled "no personal attacks" applies to your post above - comment on content, not the contributor. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The Lancet is a reliable scientific source.--Tznkai (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Often, if bad studies do get published, science, by nature, has a corrective force. There will be counter studies and responses and letters and all sorts of things. If this article is really so bad that somehow it got by the peer reviewers and editors of one of the most prestigious and reliable medical journals, then surely we can simply point to the countless publishes, scientific responses to this bad study, right? So where are they? I encourage you to read WP:RS (and read it again if you have already read it before) and seriously consider, in terms of wikipedia policy, if there is any way that this source is anything but "reliable".-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think by inflating a number which appears to be under 7 million a year into a number of 42 million a year, the source is at the very least "demonstrably wrong" if not "entirely inaccurate." I will leave it to the experts to decide whether these have bearing on a source's "reliability." Note of course that both of you are failing to deal with the bias issue, to which I contend the Guttmacher Institute is a biased "source", and the study (quoted in red above) makes no pretense otherwise. Lancet's decision to publish the Guttmacher "study" is likely attributable to the Sokal effect. You would certainly object to using Priests for Life as a source; why the hypocrisy in defending Guttmacher? -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mate, what you're failing to address is the simple point that we only have your word for it that the number is under 7 million a year. You have no citations, no standard by which we can test your points, no methodology we can examine. The Lancet study can be examined, it has methodology we can evaluate, it is accountable to the wider scientific community, to its peers, and to public inquiry. If reputable scientific minds have both approved the Lancet study, and then presented no challenging evidence (which, to my knowledge, they have not as yet), then Wikipedia has a duty to take reputable studies into account when discussing the issue. Compare the following two statements: "The scientific publication "The Lancet" stated in a study found in (x issue) that the number of abortions performed worldwide over (x period) was 42 million." and, "Zahd, an editor on Wikipedia, states on the Wikipedia talk page for Abortion, that the number of abortions performed worldwide in a year must be under 7 million." This is not a slight on you personally, Zahd. But reputable sources are a must. How are we to know that your truth is backed by anything? On Wikipedia, any point which is likely to be challenged, or which has been challenged, must be attributed to a reliable source. YOU have challenged this point, ergo a reliable source is needed. The Lancet study is reliable. Your word is not. Presenting contrary studies is the only way to alter concensus or get your viewpoint included. Ex-Wikipedian Lurker, AKA: 24.222.254.156 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But you said "the Lancet study is reliable," which is simply not true. You can say it all you want to though. I really don't mind. Again, you've not addressed the bias issue. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're obligated to point out where someone's accused The Lancet of bias. Remember to use a reliable source which makes a valid assessment of The Lancet as NOT being neutral or peer reviewed. The Lancet's study is based on proven, transparent methodology. You can't question the numbers unless you can point to someone having questioned it who is in another reliable source. Otherwise your remarks are rooted in original research and thus invalid for admission to wikipedia. The Lancet study is definitionally a reliable source as per WP:RS. If you doubt this, there are noticeboards where you can challenge or test reliability in the assessment of the community. But since the concensus on this page is in favor of the Lancet article, it goes in. That's the nature of concensus. This is a collaborative project, standards for admissibility have been admitted. I have addressed the bias issue: I state that the article is not biased and the source is reliable. As my evidence, I submit the nature and tradition of peer reviewed articles and publications, the criticism and peer pressure of the community, and, point plank, the traceable methodology sourced from the study itself. If you have contrary evidence stated in a reliable source, cool! We can change the article to mention the study and then state that the study has been questioned by "x source". But YOU cannot be x source. Again, no grudge, but accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a rather poor discussion method. I know what I am talking about, I have seen no sources from you. I've seen claims, but no sources. Provide sources, and your opinion will have an impact on the article. Without sources, all you're doing is drawing out a discussion which will never swing around to your point of view as long as it remains sans sources. 24.222.254.156 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Not all biased groups are created equal, priest for life are not a research organization for example, nor are they widely respected by independent observers and both sides of the fight as a repuable source of information, and the burden on you is to prove that the Lancet study is not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, i think you're misunderstanding what is meant by reliable. read WP:RS and then come back. the lancet and other peer-review journals clearly meets the requirements. when you have a source with a publishing process that is similarly reliable that supports your claims, then we should start talking about whether the report published by the lancet is erroneous or not. until then, we're all wasting our time.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, reliable sources... [8]-Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:RS. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have two bits of data that contradict one another it is worth checking that we have correctly sourced and understood both, I did something similar recently on Malawi, and there it emerged that radically different percentages for tobacco exports related to different years. In this case I suspect that Zahd simply missed 11 million in his calculations . If the US with circa 5% of the world's population has 850,000 abortions a year, then if the other 95% of humanity was like the US with similar demographics, availability of contraception, abortion law and attitude to abortion one would expect 17 million abortions per annum worldwide - rather more than double Zahd's 7m but still less than half the Lancet figure. Of course the rest of the world is not quite like the US - in many countries contraception is less freely available than in the US so one would expect "backstreet abortions" to be more frequent, and Zahd says in China there are also a million female embryos aborted simply because of their gender, (though he seems not to have calculated this as an additional million) so we shouldn't be surprised if global abortion rates per million people are more than double the US rate. In all I find Zahd's bit of original research, once the obvious errors are corrected, a useful reality check on the Lancet figure of 42 million abortions per annum. Of course Zahd or anyone else is free to write to the Lancet as an individual and query if what they wrote was a typo, but I for one do not consider that the US abortion data and the Lancet's worldwide figure are so different as to be incompatible. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, you are not a reliable source. I promise you, its nothing personal.--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second-guessing a notable and highly reliable source is pretty much the definition of original research. Spotfixer (talk)03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am hostile to lies, fabrications, erroneous concepts, and bogus statistics. -Zahd (talk" 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough, soapboxing and personal attacks removed. Zahd: go get a reliable source and prove your contention.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"We can infer that China, with three times the U.S. population, might have three times the number of U.S. abortions." source

No, we cannot infer that at all since China has a One-child policy enacted making abortion mandatory and readily available. The U.S. does not, indeed some segments of the U.S. have large families and even larger segments oppose abortion so much they have significantly reduced the number of abortion clinics in their respective states.

Explain why those well known realities are not included in your analysis. As I want you to somehow clarify how you are not trolling, and how you should not be barred from this issue entirely until you can improve your arguments and/or behavior. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Demon "doctors" performing abortions.

With all due respect to Tznkai, I just don't see how an imaginary being pounding on a woman's belly is a suitable example of an abortion. Where I come from, demons aren't licensed to practice medicine. In fact, not only don't they exist, but whatever acts they commit in fiction do not quality as medical procedures, which is what this article is supposed to be about. For that matter, there is the issue of bias, in that the entity depicted as performing an abortion is, quite literally, being demonized. In a country where gynecologists have been murdered by 'pro-life' fanatics, this strikes a sour note.

For these reasons, I think we need to remove this picture, perhaps replacing it with something appropriate, like a picture of one of the herbs or poisons once used to induce abortion. What do you think? Spotfixer (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Using a picture of a demon is mischaracterising of the professional and benevolent nature of the abortionist and his or her profession. We should instead use a picture of an angel with a labcoat and a stethoscope around their neck. The instruments signify their respectability, and the angel wings illustrate their Holy purpose. Instead of crudely pounding on the woman's belly and killing an unborn child, they would be using the power of the Holy Spirt to carefully and surgically remove from her body any excess tissue she might want to be rid of. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, out of line.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, its not out of line, it's exact. Through sarcasm I made you understand quite clearly that the image in question is appropriate and perhaps even an accurate likeness. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Spotfixer: One of the pressing known issues with abortion is its, to be gruesome, back alley nature at times. Abortion is, to put it mildly, unpopular in many places and carries significant stigma, add issues such as poverty, minorities, and youth, you get a lot of abortions performed outside of medical conditions. While in some people's ideal world (safe, rare and legal) abortion is only performed by medical professionals for medical reasons, we know thats not how it works - the other methods section tries to reflect this fact without being judgmental. As to the rest, I think you're reading into it a bit too much - although the picture is probably better suited to the history section.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the point. The point Spot is making is that it's demonizing a profession full of charity, nobility, and grace, and not to mention human mutilation. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the drawing showed a midwife or other semi-medical professional banging on some desperate woman's belly with a hammer, I'd say keep it. The problem is that it's an actual demon. I'm not even sure whether this is intended to depict an intentional termination or is a metaphor for a natural miscarriage (based on the "demon theory of disease and disaster"). In short, it doesn't depict anything like a real abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the history of abortion page, the bas-relief is the earliest known visual representation of abortion: the place where we see abortion broaching the public consciousness. (Hopefully that didn't sound too post-modern) Anyway, keep it, history of abortion section, we'll have to move the existing image there somewhere else. IMO anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Abortion was not always the sterile and noble practice that some consider it to be today. In fact the image might be the last remnant of anything kind of contrary or negative concept of abortion in the article. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, I guess "death" doesn't do it for you anymore. Should we just remove it? - RoyBoy 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the image. There is entirely too much censorship going on at this article. According to the FAQ, no image is allowed at this article showing what is aborted, either after it is aborted, or even before it is aborted. I continue to view that as a preposterous outcome at Wikipedia, particularly since Wikipedia now features a sexually suggestive image of a ten-year-old girl with full frontal nudity.[9] This is supposed to be an informative article, not a sanitized propaganda piece. It really is an embarassment.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

((editsemiprotected))

((editsemiprotected))Under 7.3 Mexico City Policy the first sentence is a double negative that is incorrect. "The Mexico City policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" forbids any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries" and should read: The Mexico City Policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" requires any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. (Mabic (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

looks like this has been done.--Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Editors interested in this article may want to look at Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Human right or Particular human right?

I noticed a little back and forth in this page's history as to whether Abortion merits the template Human rights or template Particular human rights and I figured I'd bring it to the talk page. I figure the template Particular human rights is more appropriate as abortion is specifically mentioned there and the designation of abortion as a human right is controversial. What do you folks think? - Schrandit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no objection I'll move it back to Particular human rights template. - Schrandit (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa. I'm coming late to the party, but could you explain all of that please?--Tznkai (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As of this dif by a rather controversial editor the template Particular human rights was replaced with the template Human rights. Whether or not abortion is a human right is a highly controversial subject, as such I figure the first template is better suited to it. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of that template, and this article doesn't address properly whether or not abortion is a right... so I'll abstain on this.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, an entirely uncontroversial editor made an uncontroversial change. The human rights template already lists reproductive rights, the primary example of which is... abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reproductive rights is a much broader topic than abortion and there are reproductive rights that are currently nearly universally accepted (such as freedom from coerced sterilization), which is why it is appropriate for reproductive rights to appear on the Human rights template. However, using the Human rights template on this article is POV. In addition to that, both reproductive rights and abortion appear on the Particular human rights template, making that template more relevant regardless of the POV concerns with the other. -Neitherday (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The designation of abortion as a human right is highly contentious, see Reproductive rights#Abortion. The template Particular human rights is far more appropriate. - Schrandit (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've explained that reproductive rights is already listed as a human right in that template and abortion is already listed as a reproductive right, so your WP:OR is irrelevant. You would need an actual argument, not hand-waving about controversy. Spotfixer (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Along with also including reproductive rights, abortion is specifically included on the particular human rights template. Plus, adding the particular human rights template to this article is NPOV.

As reproductive rights is also on the particular human rights template, I don't see any advantage to the human rights template in this article. What advantage do you see in adding the human rights template over the particular human rights template? -Neitherday (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm going to break the nesting here, because it's getting too narrow.)

It's not the level of detail, it's the title. Template:Particular human rights covers the same trio of broad categories as Template:Human rights, but in addition to enumerating these rights, it replaces the short, simple "Human rights" title with the weaselly "Concepts that may be considered as human rights".

Frankly, I find the weaselly-titled template deeply offensive, as it implies that a fundamental rights like freedom from discrimination is merely something that "may be considered" to be a human right. Obviously, there is some disagreement among people regarding what ought to be considered a human right, but this is best handled in the context of each specific article, not with weasel words for the entire bunch.

The WP:BOLD thing to do would be to simultaneously remove the weaselling and roll this article back to the specific template. Since I've only been blocked twice in the last week, I've still got plenty of courage to be bold, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your solution. Looking at Template talk:Particular human rights, it seems more in line with the original intent of the template. Thank you for making the change. -Neitherday (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{particular human rights}} was the result of splitting the human rights template (which had become quite large). Since the template includes abortion, abortion should continue to transclude the template. (Or use the human rights template with the argument that makes it include the particular template.)

The title of the template was carried over from the section title in the human rights template. (The title seemed too long to use as the template name, so I came up with the shorter, though not altogether satisfactory name). (For response on the template title, see template talk page).

Please consider discussing matters like template title on talk page of the template, or at least providing an indicator there of discussion going on elsewhere. (So editors of the template know where to find all the discussion.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Since the title of the template was changed back to the offensive one, I just removed it from this article entirely. Spotfixer (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Need eyes

We could use some more eyes on an abortion-related article, Hyde Amendment. Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History of abortion

History of abortion could use some attention. Spotfixer (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Newer "Abortion Surveillance" Report

There is a newer Abortion Surveillance report than the 2003 one this article currently uses.

Unsafe abortion

Currently, the lead of the "Unsafe abortion" sub-topic is "Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies sometimes resort to unsafe methods, particularly where and when access to legal abortion is being barred" - this seems like common sense, but I think it requires a source to keep it from appearing NPOV (in the sense that it might be considered advocation of the legalization of abortion). The same deficiency exists on the main page for this topic, BTW. Kerri Lynne (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. How's this one http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml ? Hadrian89 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the citation, but it's hardly our fault if basic logic leads to apparent support of one side or another. Spotfixer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a controversial topic like this there's no harm in erring on the side of caution. Hadrian89 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go to the medical literature, there are the following:

• PMID 18249585 ("The determinants of unsafe abortion include restrictive abortion legislation, lack of female empowerment, poor social support, inadequate contraceptive services and poor health-service infrastructure.", emphasis mine).
• PMID 17933648 ("Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively.")
• PMID 17126724 ("Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by law and countries where, although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible... Unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.")

Among many other such sources... MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Human life

My points ARE about improving the article, yet people who feel strongly pro-choice keep editing it out. Ironically, they do that though I'm pro-choice myself. It seems some people just don't want to face an unpleasant inconvenient fact.

Please TRY to be intellectually honest.

Nor is this edit warring. I keep ASKING for solutions to improving the article. Just deleting my comments, might make some people here feel happy, but it doesn' solve the problem with the article.

Try to actually offer solutions to the problem with the article.

A major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such.

I don't have all the answers.

But the article does not deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. The idea that it begins at birth is magical thinking from a time when we didn't have the scientific knowledge to know better. It is also, at times, a legal fiction.

Whether the unborn child is human _IS_ part of the debate that goes on, whether you agree that it is human or not, and leaving that out IS a problem with the article. It _IS_ a significant ommission. DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this is about, but I'm sorry that you feel agitated over whatever this is. It does not appear that you have ever edited this article, and you haven't been on Wikipedia in over a month. Perhaps you should simply start fresh, either a) making a bold change to the article to try to improve it and/or b) starting a new topic here discussing specific issues you have with the article, and then making a proposal on how you would specifically change and improve the article. Without specific things to discuss, I cannot help you any further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on the "beginning of life" might be worth while - somewhere. It can discuss conflicting ideas such as "viability" (Roe V. Wade), ensoulment, and quickening in brief and human being/human life/personhood. Any other terms I'm missing?--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest addition isn't sourced and is too conversational. Try to avoid editorial comments like "it is indisputable that..." Its important we don't draw any conclusions when we write or provide in depth analysis (determining that modern science has changed the humanity question is analysis)--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

I'm sure this has been argued several times, but it is possible that we could include pictures of aborted fetuses or abortion activities in general?

I'm sure many might see this as POV pushing, but the article is about abortions - why dance around it. A picture(s) could prove to be very valuable, as I believe most people truly don't understand the typical phases of an abortion.

Or, if we aren't going to include pictures, why not an illustration?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was working on File:Vacuum-aspiration-temp.gif, but the main advocate for "images of abortion" didn't seem to really care about something like that, but instead just wanted gory/offensive images for the sake of being gory/offensive, so exhausted of arguing and trying to do something productive, I simply gave up and never finished the diagram.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, User:Andrew c. It's clear and professional. Have you thought of creating an image representing the other methods? -- Ec5618 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, and avoids any appearance or substance of POV pushing.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The one complaint I had back then was that the transparency of the sac was obscuring the embryo underneath on some people's monitors. If I was to finish this, I said I would make the embryo more visible. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'll see if I can't pull the original file up and work some more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not going to argue with Andrew c here about this, so I'll just refer to him in the third person. On average, an abortion occurs about two months after fertilization. At that point, the fetus has every major organ, including head, eyes, legs, arms, et cetera. The image that Andrew c is preparing is wonderful, but it shows none of those organs. It shows a blob. So, please do include the image that Andrew c is preparing, but don't imagine that it gives the reader the slightest idea of what it is that is being aborted. I wish that realistic images of what is aborted were not gory/offensive, just like I wish that realistic pictures of lots of horrible things were not offensive. I wish that pictures of piles of skulls in the Cambodian killing fields were not offensive.[10] I wish that sexually suggestive images of nude ten-year-old girls were not offensive.[11] It is not my fault that they are offensive.

Additionally, there is nothing offensive about an image of an average abortus before it is aborted. Andrew c once suggested this mocking image. It would be a far cry better than what we have now, and also better than what Andrew c now proposes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured article topics such as this are often painted POV pushing when in fact it's political correct pushing. =D If we can host extremely graphic pictures, I don't see why we can't include relevant abortion-related photos. Maybe some people just don't understand the realities of abortion. Understand, I'm not trying to convey an opinion, but rather provide a crucial quality that could VASTLY improve the integrity and educational value of the article.

White-washing for sake of "neutrality" doesn't make sense. I just don't want this to get shelved like every other controversial idea...Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't get your hopes up. It's been shelved many times before. Wikipedia is packed full of offensive images, but this article has always been an exception. See Hemmorhoid, breast reconstruction, breast cancer, prosthetics, feces, decapitated heads, to name a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. OK. Lets try this again. If we use graphic images, we're taking a position - either by substance, or by appearance. If all of the images available are horrifying, then we have trouble - but that doesn't mean we have to use the images, nor that we are being politically correct by doing so.

The fundamental issue is that this article must inform without convincing. If I show graphic images when discussing abortion, I both appear to be, and probably am, trying to convince you of a position. Not only is this against policy, it immediately turns off the reader. These articles are written as a service - not as a platform for advocacy, nor as a place to fight wars over political correctness or the lack thereof, and before anyone makes the argument that we host graphic images of, I dunno, mass killings, and therefor we should be able to show it here - think about whether that sounds like a neutral argument.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is indisputably factual and accurate information that is used by one side in a political dispute, then excluding it from Wikipedia merely because it is used by one side is wrong and biased. Additionally, there is nothing horrifying about an image of an abortus before it is aborted. Incidentally, Wikipedia is not censored.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It still devolves down to advocacy - either in substance or in appearance.--Tznkai (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing does the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, this article is "abortion" not "aborted fetuses". Second of all, do we have a freely licensed image to consider. We can say "let's put some gory pictures of dead babies all over this page" until our faces turn red. But if we don't have something that is FREE, then we have no use arguing over this. Please, in the future, discuss SPECIFIC IMAGES. Due to our strict image use policy, arguing hypotheticals is simply wasting time. I hope this brings focus to these discussions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the FAQ for this article, no images of what is aborted are allowed at this article, either before or after the abortion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to obtain quality free images as long as that policy stays. Why would I want to waste my time if there's not just a prejudice but a prohibition against whatever I obtain?

The average stage of development of an abortus is between 6 and 8 weeks of development, with a large percentage of abortions occurring before that range, and a large percentage occurring after that range.

• 
  Embryo at 4 weeks after fertilization, younger than average for an abortion
• 
  Fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization, older than average for an abortion

Are there still objections to inclusion of these images in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just read the FAQ. What a load of crap. "OH NOES!, IT'S SHOCKING!! WE MIGHT...UHH...OFFEND SOMEONE!! CEEENSSOOORRRR!!!"

I couldn't care less whether you are for or against, but this article is about ABORTIONS. We are obligated to include illustrated or real-life pictures to ensure balance and not make this yet another controversial articled reduced to PC in the name of neutrality. If we can include pictures of mass graves, dead bodies, concentration camps, bloody Gaza children, all of which are often interpreted as "shocking" (the exact excuse give in the fact) and therefor advocating a POV, then this article should receive the same treatment. Section 5 contains a picture of a stoned tablet depicting a demon inducing an abortion. Why is that allowed but everything else isn't?

This is the FIRST hit for abortion on google, meaning wikipedia will be the first place people will go when they search. I cannot begin to emphasize how important this is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I object to the inclusion, and also to the tone. Please remain civil, polite, and respectful - I have been doing that for you, I would appreciate it if you did the same. It remains my position that any photograph expected to create a knee-jerk reaction should not be used as it damages the encyclopedic nature of the article. I maintain that position about abortion procedures, just as I would maintain that position if someone wanted to put up pictures depicting a rape. We're not here for that.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, would you please clarify what you're objecting to? Are you objecting to the two drawings pasted above?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to those images, yes - not because they are graphic (they are not) but because they are tenuously related. I could find the average age of a woman/girl/what have you having an abortion performed and post a picture, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Unfortunately, this article lost its best graphics team a while back.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This article already discusses the incidence of abortion by gestational age, and additionally already contains some discussion about the age of women who get abortions (e.g. "This risk of spontaneous abortion is greater in those ... over age 35"). Might I kindly suggest to you that it would be unwise to include an image of a 35-year-old woman here because everyone knows what a 35-year-old woman looks like? In contrast, many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. Do you see no relevance or importance in showing readers what is being aborted? And were you objecting to my tone? If you are really saying that we should include this image portraying what is aborted as a blob, but should deliberately omit images which show otherwise, then I must conclude that something has gone seriously awry here at this article, yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A wikilink to Embryo or fetus usually handles that sort of thing nicely. I believe gestation stages are also in the pregnancy article.--Tznkai (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I asked above, Tznkai, were you objecting to my tone or not? If so, maybe my tone is something that I should be working on.

Regarding your idea of wikilinking various different articles, those articles say nothing about what stage of development the average abortion occurs at, and of course therefore do not illustrate those facts. Moreover, this is a summary article, and therefore including some information from other articles is not only acceptable but necessary. I see that you are all well on your way to including the blob image, and excluding any realistic image of what is aborted, so I don't expect that what I say will make any difference. However, I sincerely believe that that is the path of censorship, and the path of misleading readers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ferry, it's no use. Wikipedia is not a democracy. : ) Anything that is remotely controversial and is prone to bandwagon is almost always reduced to POV-pushing. It always has, it always will. I know a few admins but even in the event that a picture is agreed upon, it will start a revert nightmare. We might as well trash the article all together if something so simple can't be implemented. Oh yeah, and sorry about my tone. I know the real-world can be quite "shocking." LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last time there was anything remotely funny about abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Wikifan12345 for bringing up the subject of images again. And I certainly don't think his slight jest was anywhere near as inappropriate as other humor I've seen at this talk page. And, please, let's not forget what it is about abortion that makes it not remotely funny: the reality of what is aborted (i.e. the reality that thus far has not been shown at this article).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this bothers way too much. I think if we are going to start with the picture process, the FAQ needs to be discussed. According to the author of the FAQ, pictures that detail an in-tact fetus, aborted fetus, illustrations of a fetus or an abortion, are either shock images or POV pushing. I don't get the reasoning behind this. How does a picture of an aborted fetus, or perhaps an illustration of the abortion process (or frick, the tools used), constitute a violation of NPOV?

It's just so arbitrary compared to other controversial articles that seem to have no issue including arrays of disgusting pictorials. So, if we solve the FAQ sheet, and come to a reasonable compromise over a picture, then this could get done.

It's sad to see an article with so much popularity and potential to be in a lockless prison. This can be solved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic of certain types of images have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include those images then. That is all. Consensus can change. However, due to the VERY IMPORTANT issue of licensing, I suggest we work with specific images, instead of going around in circles about the types of images we may or may not allow. If you have a specific, freely licensed image in mind that you think would make this article even more encyclopedic, then please make your proposal, and hopefully the editors can discuss it on it's individual merits, not on some general vague notion regarding certain types of images. I really think this discuss needs focus, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perthaps this will bring some focus, Andrew c: do you support or not support the flat prohibition on images in the FAQ. Simple question. Here's another: do you support or oppose inclusion of the images I presented above. Simple question.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous two pictures of embryos aren't sufficiently relevant. If a reader wants to see the images, they are easily accessible, a single click away.--Tznkai (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the two images was not an embryo, and is not available in the article on embryo. If a reader does manage to track down images of embryos and fetuses at Wikipedia, how is the reader then to determine which images are close to depicting what is aborted in an average abortion? I don't intend to mince words here. You are behaving like a censor and a propagandist. Feel free to criticize my tone all you want, but it's the truth. You allow images in this article of women, but not a single image showing what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. Instead, you favor inclusion of a blob image, that will be misleading to readers. I strongly disagree with your approach to this article, and wish you would reconsider. The exclusionary mehtality at this article is unlike any other at Wikipedia, AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)