Explanation was reverted but should be adopted Earlier today I changed the wording in the Definitions section as follows my changes in red Methods of birth control that prevent implantation such as emergency contraception are not considered to be abortion however emergency contraception is generally considered a moral equivalent to abortion and is often called abortion by those who believe that human life begins at conception because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived My changes were NPOV changes because they gave explanation to what was unexplained The subtle non neutral POV of leaving dissenting opinion unexplained and therefore presumably ignorant existed in the original wording The changed wording is describing why those who believe that human life begins at conception believe that emergency contraception usually a misnomer because done after conception etymology contra conception is generally considered equivalent to abortion when the article just said it wasn t abortion The reason it is the moral equivalent because implantation creates no per se fundamental change in the moral status of the one conceived This is an accurate explanation meant to promote NPOV I won t go into a revert war but this absolutely should be included Wikipedia NPOV policy and its official explanation state that articles should be written from a neutral point of view representing views fairly the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe rather than what is so We should instead write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible Contrary to the one who reverted my change claiming POV I propose that my newer language in this instance goes further in upholding NPOV policy than does the original language and it should be adopted Gu s egn E