Talk:Feticide

message: This is rediculous. I have asked for a 3rd opinion and posted on the language reference desk and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I believe it is POV pushing to say that a common variant spelling used by professionals is simply a spelling mistake. --Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a national varieties of English usage issue. The words ending in -cide follow a strict pattern which is determined by the Latin or Greek work that they come from. Latin words ending in "us" like suus fungus foetus end in "-icide" (suicide, fungicide, foeticide). Greek words ending in "-os" like genos, ethnos etc. take "-ocide" (genocide ethnocide). Fetocide is just wrong and it is not in any dictionary. There is the further complication that it may have been changed deliberately to sound like "genocide" according with the anti-abortion POV that the phenomenon of abortion is a genocide/holocaust (the Silent Holocaust theory). If there is anyone who is trying to remove POV it is me. Zargulon 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary lists Foeticide as prefered, Feticide as an alternative. Neither -ocide version appears. I'm afraid that unless you can show a dictionary given the -ocide version, I have to agree with Zargulon. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how does saying a commonly used variant spelling is actually a spelling mistake help the encyclopedic content of the topic at hand? Including that information does not seem appropriate. We have cited references of medical professionals using that spelling. Is it our place to in a topic about feticide to call them wrong? I do not believe that is the purpose of this article, nor wikipedia. I believe it is good enough to cite reliable sources (scholarly journal articles) that use that spelling, and just say that it is sometimes spelled "fetocide". There is no need to add the comment that some wikipedians couldn't find it in their dictionaries. Ununoctium isn't in any of my dictionaries, nor the OED online. Should we make note of that in the article itself? Of course not, because we have citations from reliable sources of its use. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability. I believe the spelling fetocide is verifiable under out guidelines. It says no where that dictionaries get the last say on matters of verifiability.--Andrew c 16:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not on matters of verifiability but on matters of spelling.  Zargulon 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a common variant spelling used by professionals, as this clinical link illustrates. The OP is not asking to move the article to a new name, rather that the word 'fetocide' be acknowledged as an acceptable variant, rather than a spelling error. Anchoress 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.--Andrew c 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Citing individual instances of usage, even by professionals, neither illustrates that fetocide is "common" nor that it is not a misspelling. It is an uncommon misspelling, as illustrated clearly both by the morphological argument and by its complete absence from dictionaries. Zargulon 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it probably is a spelling error. It's an easy-to-misspell word, after all, and not a particularly common one. If it appears in any dictionary or textbook, by all means call it an alternative.Adam Cuerden talk 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But unless you can prove that it isn't a common variant, you can't say that either. How about a compromise? If you or Zargulon can find a legitimate reference stating that it is a mis-spelling, you can say that in the article. If Andrew finds a legitimate reference (not necessarily a dictionary) stating that it is a variant, he can say that it is. Otherwise it stays out of the article. How do you two feel about that? Anchoress 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good idea. Removing the mention of it seems better than calling it a mispelling. Even with it in, it doesn't really futher the understanding of the concept.--Andrew c 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't accept your premise Anchoress. I don't feel there is any legitimate reason not to say that fetocide is a misspelling. I feel the proof I have already given is more than adequate. The misspelt "comittee" gets over a million google hits.. it is absurd to demand that it say somewhere "comittee is a misspelling".. the fact that it does not occur in any dictionaries is sufficient proof. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I doubt 'comittee' shows up as the consistent spelling in very many medical journals published by Oxford University. You seem very obstinate about this, and I'm not sure why, but I really don't see that it is appropriate to call it a spelling mistake ('comittee' isn't listed as a mis-spelling in the committee article). I stand by my original suggestion, which is essentially that the word stays out entirely unless claims about it can be backed up. I really don't know how you can disagree with that. Anchoress 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand what you are trying to say, and I have nothing further to add.. my arguments seem to me as water-tight as ever whereas you seem not to have any and are therefore calling me names... Zargulon 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What names have I called you? What I'm saying is that a) there is no more logic to calling 'fetocide' a mis-spelling in this article than there is to calling 'comittee' a mis-spelling in the committee article; and b) my solution is actually very logical: the word and the description of it (either an error or a variant) stays out without a reference supporting the description. Anchoress 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You called me obstinate, an unhelpful epithet which I suppose you apply to anyone who won't submit to your will. On the other points, I won't repeat myself. Zargulon 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not call you obstinate. I said you seem obstinate about this issue. Your comment above, on the other hand, is both personal (unlike mine) and uncivil. I have no will in this matter, I'm only forwarding a suggestion that seems to me like a good and neutral compromise. I suggest you try to be less personal in your communication, and not to make judgements about other editors' motives and MOs without sufficient evidence and reason. You can reject my suggestions (which were made in good faith in order to be of service) without disparaging me. Anchoress 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You did use the word obstinate to describe me; please don't insult my intelligence further by condescending hair-splitting. Since you have no bias (according to you), I suggest you recuse yourself rather than continuing to create a pointless secondary conflict.. one is quite enough. Zargulon 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh>. Listen. A) It's not a matter of 'recusal', this isn't a hearing. B) I only came here because I am a helpful type person and an editor posted asking for help. C) I was actually already on my way out, but I felt that you had maligned me by accusing me of name-calling, and I felt a need to defend myself. D) I stand by my observation that you seem obstinate. E), I strongly suggest in future you take my advice not to be personal. Anchoress 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol agree to move. Weakly in favour of retaining -ocide, insist, if mentioned, it is described as a misspelling. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but isn't it a little premature to change the regional variant spelling used in the article. It's ok to list in the first sentene alternative spellings, but I think, especially in light of the ongoing discussion, that introducing a new alternative spelling into the article body was out of process.--Andrew c 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. I apologise for that. I'm studying biology in Edinburgh, so the "Feti-" spelling looks rather strange to me (though I know fetus is valid), and so I presumed that as fetus is far more common than foetus,  but foeticide more common than feticide, that it was one of those exmples of inconsistancy in spelling that you get. Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise, I saw this point on WP:MOS. Foeticide is by far the most common spelling, and has the benefit of being in accordance with the World Health Organization's preferred way of spelling things too. Unless this article is particularly directed towards a US audience (and I'll leave the authors to determine what their target audience is), it would be best to use foeticide, jguk 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetocide vs. Feticide

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose, the google test isn't a good enough reason to change an article's spelling. While fetocide may not be a regional variant, foetus vs. fetus clearly is and this new proposed move, I believe, goes against our regional variant policy.--Andrew c 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: How? Both regional variants are valid, but it may as well be under the more-used one. The regional variant policy merely says that both should be mentioned in the text. Having it at Feticide is no different. Adam Cuerden talk 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The law map is not displaying until the level of the abortion template.  I believe this is because the image call for the abortion template is above the image call for the map.  But this makes the law map display for me in the "see also" section, which makes no sense article-wise.  Is there any way to force the map image to display in the U.S. law section without removing the abortion template?  I had considered moving the image call for the abortion template into the U.S. law section just below the law map (this is a great fix in preview mode on my screen), but a)I'm not sure that would work for everybody's monitor setup, and b)it's nonstandard to have templates put in the middle of articles. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks okay on my screen.Ferrylodge 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it works for me in Internet Explorer.  But I usually use Firefox, which seems susceptible to this image placement problem. Lyrl    Talk     C   02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates and law map 

message: The lead paragraph says: “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20, usually after detection of a fetal abnormality.”  I think this needs to be modified, to something like “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality.”
Medical dictionaries do not limit the term "feticide" to post-20 weeks, so I don’t think we should impose that limit either.  Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "the destruction of the fetus."  American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus."  Online Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see this, we are trying to define a specific medical procedure (normally called "feticide") that involved injecting the fetus, placenta, or amniotic sac with a substance that causes the death of the fetus. This procedure is different than say a routine D&E on a 17 week fetus, or a routine EVA on a 11 week fetus. This isn't clearly presented in the article. Your changes are fine. However, how does this sound. "As a medical term, feticide generally refers to causing the death of a fetus. As a specific medical procedure, feticide involves injecting a substance that causes fetal death, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality." The first sentence covers the dictionary definitions, while the second covers the specific procedure often described in medical literature.-Andrew c 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the phrase "around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality."  It sounds like you detect an abnormality and then wait 20 weeks.  That's why I changed the word "after" to "upon."  And instead of "involves" I would prefer "may involve."  I'm sure I can find articles where the deed is done by means other than injection, and at stages other than post-20 weeks.Ferrylodge 17:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Medically, not all things that cause the death of the fetus are commonly referred to as feticide (though they meet the definition, the discussion here is about the "medical use" of the term).  A normal D&E abortion, for example, causes the death of the fetus, but is not called feticide in medical documents.  "Feticide" seems to be reserved for killing the fetus in utero, while it is still intact.  I thought the wording "as the first phase of a legal abortion" expressed this two-step definition of feticide + abortion procedure and distinguished it from one-step abortion procedures like vacuum aspiration and D&E.  I find the "includes" awkward in the current phrase.  Is feticide as a medical term ever used to refer to anything other than later term abortion?  Also, I have not seen references to feticide prior to 20 weeks, and would be interested in Ferrylodge could provide a source for updating the content of the article. Lyrl    Talk     C   03:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UK law (and RCOG guidelines) require a "lethal injection" before abortions starting at 24/22 weeks. However, feticide is not required for abortions before then, thus resulting in some live births followed quickly by neonatal death. This is slightly controversial in the UK, leading to a handful of popular media stories and at least 2 journal articles. From reading about that, I agree with Lyrl's conclusions: it doesn't seem like feticide is very common much earlier than 20 weeks, nor is the term feticide used to refer to typical abortion procedures that end up killing the fetus. -Andrew c 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Paragraph

message: This article presently says that feticide is sometimes used medically during "abortions after 20 weeks."  However, the abortion article says, "medically, it [i.e. abortion] is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable."  These two statements are inconsistent.  Which one is wrong?Ferrylodge 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fairly certain that in medical terms, it is still called abortion whenever it occurs and whether or not the fetus is viable. Zargulon 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, abortion in humans refers to pre-viable/pre-20 weeks. Open up your medical dictionary that you are so fond of to verify. However, in common language, abortion is not time limited. We are using the common, not the technical use of the term in this article. I believe this goes along with avoiding jargon. However, if we want to be technically accurate, we can state "In terminations of pregnancies after 20 weeks..."-Andrew c 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Take up your issues with other articles on those talk pages so editors who watch that page can contribute. Thanks.-Andrew c 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here was whether the use of the term "abortion" is appropriate in this article.  I'm now satisfied that it is appropriate, so that settles the matter as far as I am concerned.  Thanks for your comments about that, Zargulon.  I have no desire to get involved again with the main abortion article right now.  I have had more success banging my head against the wall than suggesting improvements in that article, where even correction of a blatant misspelling ("nociceptic") is repeatedly reverted and not tolerated.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After 20 Weeks

message: Feticide, it seems, has often been associated with satanic cults. There should perhaps be additional sources regarding the alleged practice among such cults. ADM (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like in popular culture and horror films and such? Because real Satanists do not sacrifice babies to the devil or any of that nonsense. I'd go on a limb and say there has never been a case of an individual doing such who is a member of one of the official Satanic bodies, nor any "cults" doing this. Seems like Satanic ritual abuse nonsense. -Andrew c [talk] 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All that's true. That's probably why ADM used the term "associated". Feticide has been associated with satanic cults, whether or not there was actually any evidence. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanic cults

message: Another issue that would probably deserved to be mentioned is fetus trafficking, the illegal sale and purchase of dead fetuses for commercial, scientific or other dedrading purposes. There is notably a law in the state of Maine which speficially prohibits this.  Such trafficking would presumably be related to the practice of fetal cannibalism, which has been called McFetus when it is done so publicly. . Certain contemporary moralists have also complained about the increasingly common practice of embryonic trafficking, which is done for similar commercial and scientific reasons.  ADM (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetus trafficking

message: California is shown in blue on the map (murder or homicide), but the text indicates that this depends on the age of the fetus. The map categories are not mutually exclusive, so it could be made clearer what principle (if any) has been used to resolve ambiguities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.112 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. map 

message: This entire article is about human feticide. I think there should be mention, even a section, on feticide in nature.
For example it is mentioned here Plains_zebra#Reproduction and here Rodent#Birth_and_parenting. I would assume it is reasonably common with many other species (infanticide certainly is) although I haven't researched it.
I think its an important point to make as well as very interesting, especially to see which species have been observed doing it the most.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Nature 

message: I don't have access to the article you added, but I do have access to the Induction of fetal demise before abortion paper, and both the quote you provided from the source and the full article I have access to suggests that your addition desperately needs to be qualified. Even the quote from your source notes that there's a sharp difference between failure rates for intrafetal and intraamniotic injections, and the Induction paper additionally notes extremely different failure rates depending on the dosage. It's also not clear to me which version (and which dosage) is preferred outside an experimental context; I think we may be misleadingly giving the impression of a far higher rate of failure than actually exists in practice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up... I had used a URL that is publicly available and have now brought this into the article.  I also added details from that article to show more information and context for the sentence. -SocraticOath (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement, although I would still be interested in finding out statistics in a non-experimental context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digoxin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feticide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415230601/http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus to http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus
*Added  tag to http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified