Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 4

message: I've just noticed that our link in the side bar reads "Mental Health Issues" - that seems to support my rather recommended proposal of moving the (now tiny stub of an) article to "Mental Health Issues regarding Abortion" or something similar and leaving Post-Abortion Syndrome as one section in a larger article. Thoughts? Kuronue | Talk 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that, no problem. Phyesalis (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So would I. There doesn't seem to be that much to say about PAS specifically, while there's much more to say about mental after-effects of abortion in general. I think this should satisfy Strider too, as she's been trying to lean this article that way. My only concern is a move like that might land us back where we were with the revert-warring... but fear of that shouldn't stop us from making the move to a better title. We'll worry about wars later, if/when it happens. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:22, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: If you mean the links from other articles to Post-abortion syndrome, they're automatically redirected to the new article name (try clicking that link). Equazcion •✗/C • 02:40, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no. I meant to say that since the title of this article is no longer post-abortion syndrome, I wasn't sure if it should continue to be linked to the German and the Portuguese Wikpedia. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just want to note that back in September (see here) I proposed renaming the article to Abortion and mental health and expanding the article to not focus only on PAS. I'm glad to see that path now finally pursued, and I still think my proposed name is better ;P-Andrew c [talk] 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think that can be another possible name for the article. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, I remember the suggestion being brought up many times, and happily weighed in my support every time, only to see it get utterly ignored in favor of the next big "POV" crisis. I debated Abortion and Mental Health as a title for a while but then decided it seemed somehow less.. direct. Mental health effects of abortion tells how it's linked; Abortion and mental health seems to indicate, to me, things like how many "crazy" people have abortions. Kuronue | Talk 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, "abortion and mental health" implies that the article deals in what causes people to make the decision to have an abortion. As for your previous suggested moves, I wasn't around for those, but you should've just taken the initiative, like user:Saranghae honey did :) Good ideas can be enacted without much discussion, long as they really are good ideas. The worst that can happen is someone reverts you, but you still wouldn't have broken any rules. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:46, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Holy cow! Then change it. As for the title: There are sources that say there are definitely never any psychological effects of abortion? This is just an article that discusses mental health as it relates to abortion, and I don't think anyone disputes the notion that abortion is related to mental health, in some way. I don't think the current title implies that there are definitely always effects, or whether those effects are bad, good, or neutral. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:32, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you elaborate on how the first paragraph is incorrect? миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, and I mean this literally, that is a ridiculous premise.  You simply can't list all the "possible" effects of abortion and mental health.  Your list would be a mile long - every feeling that any woman ever had after receiving an abortion would merit a description.  Before we make radical changes to this article, we have to think seriously about what is possible and what is responsible.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In other words, the PAS article was in response to a very real controversy.  Making this article about "Abortion and Mental Health" is opening a can of worms we aren't ready to deal with.  Also, we still need to have a PAS article (not only a paragraph), just as there is an "abortion and breast cancer" article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The possible effects are backed by numerous studies. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. We're not listing everything anyone has ever claimed. We're just listing possibilities shown from studies. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Which studies? There are 4895247589 studies, and 24895828357 doctors with opinions on those studies.  We simply can't be a mental health resource here.  But we can respond to controversies and controversial topics about abortion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the words of the creationists, Wikipedia also is not a place solely to "teach the controversy." I like the current draft as it is. It lists the possible positive and negative effects and the confounding factors that can influence mental health after abortion. It seems neutral to me. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why do we need an article on PAS? We had one and it was a stub. Abortion and mental health isn't a can of worms; PAS was the can of worms, and we've closed it by cutting it down. This article is about presenting the discussion rather than proving one side over the other. It's a much lighter subject. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The very title of post-abortion syndrome invited disruptive edit warring that did little to improve the article. What happened after users argued about which studies should be included? They were chopped down into a stub. By changing the title, I believe we were able to keep the content without the edit wars. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not about what's true. It's what can be verified. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Medication literature lists possible side-effects that often include death and impotence, yet people don't consider that irresponsible; they know it's just a list of possibilities and they still end up taking the medication. However I do agree that the list isn't really necessary, and a summary prose is fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:57, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I ran out of my 3RR so I won't stop you. However, I want to note that User:Equazcion, User:Kuronue, User:Andrew c and I had an agreement about moving the article to cover a lighter subject. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar 

message: Let's get something straight. This article is no longer about presenting various negative effects and then proving or disproving a causal relationship between those effects and abortion. The article has changed. It's now about simply presenting all the possible effects of abortion on mental health. The controversy over PAS is now just a small part in a little subsection. Nothing needs to have been proved. Controversy is no longer the focus here. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, and I mean this literally, that is a ridiculous premise.  You simply can't list all the "possible" effects of abortion and mental health.  Your list would be a mile long - every feeling that any woman ever had after receiving an abortion would merit a description.  Before we make radical changes to this article, we have to think seriously about what is possible and what is responsible.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, the PAS article was in response to a very real controversy.  Making this article about "Abortion and Mental Health" is opening a can of worms we aren't ready to deal with.  Also, we still need to have a PAS article (not only a paragraph), just as there is an "abortion and breast cancer" article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The possible effects are backed by numerous studies. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. We're not listing everything anyone has ever claimed. We're just listing possibilities shown from studies. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Which studies? There are 4895247589 studies, and 24895828357 doctors with opinions on those studies.  We simply can't be a mental health resource here.  But we can respond to controversies and controversial topics about abortion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the words of the creationists, Wikipedia also is not a place solely to "teach the controversy." I like the current draft as it is. It lists the possible positive and negative effects and the confounding factors that can influence mental health after abortion. It seems neutral to me. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why do we need an article on PAS? We had one and it was a stub. Abortion and mental health isn't a can of worms; PAS was the can of worms, and we've closed it by cutting it down. This article is about presenting the discussion rather than proving one side over the other. It's a much lighter subject. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The very title of post-abortion syndrome invited disruptive edit warring that did little to improve the article. What happened after users argued about which studies should be included? They were chopped down into a stub. By changing the title, I believe we were able to keep the content without the edit wars. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not about what's true. It's what can be verified. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Medication literature lists possible side-effects that often include death and impotence, yet people don't consider that irresponsible; they know it's just a list of possibilities and they still end up taking the medication. However I do agree that the list isn't really necessary, and a summary prose is fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:57, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I ran out of my 3RR so I won't stop you. However, I want to note that User:Equazcion, User:Kuronue, User:Andrew c and I had an agreement about moving the article to cover a lighter subject. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time out 

message: The title need to be changed to "Mental Health and Abortion." The current title is unacceptable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why? миражinred  (speak, my child...) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This has already been discussed. And the sources "don't say otherwise." Whether you go to Planned Parenthood or David Reardon's website, it will say that abortion has some psychological effects such as depression and anxiety just to a different extent. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (5 ec's, and the argument you are making is a pro-choice one -- you've reworded the lead in a slanted way.) This isn't an issue of whether or not the title needs to be changed but on what this article should be about. If it's to present the possible mental health effects of abortion, the current title is fine. IronAngel evidently would like the article to be about something else entirely. If anyone else feels this way, please speak up. Also, this lead paragraph doesn't sound nearly as neutral is the previous version, and I think you're the only one who had a problem with it. For the current purpose of the article, barring another title change, the other lead was better so I'm reverting that. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:07, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: You can't discredit me because you think I am pro-life. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hey, hey... let's try to focus on content and not any editor's POV. Everybody has a POV, and as long as we adhere to policy, that shouldn't be a problem. To be fair, Alice started this sub-section to discuss the title. I think it merits discussion. I also have to agree that the general position is that abortion has no implicit effect on mental health. While there are certainly a wide range of understandable emotional responses to abortion, these do not necessarily constitute an effect on mental health. I support the change to "Abortion and Mental Health" because the current title does expressly imply that abortion has an effect. Using "and" seems much more preferable as it has almost no POV. I believe Andrew has also expressed support for this title. Phyesalis (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this is just ignorance on my part, but what exactly is the difference between an "emotional response" and a "mental effect"? That seems like a very thin line to me, if any line exists at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:21, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's title isn't "Mental effects of abortion" but "Mental health effects" - for example, your pet dies, you feel sad, feeling sad isn't a mental health effect because sad isn't a state of good or bad health, it's an emotional response. Now if you became chronically depressed, then it would have effected your mental health and might require some kind of mental health attention (therapy or medication). It's kind of like the difference between weather and climate. Phyesalis (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I'm for "abortion and mental health" then. Although it doesn't sound perfect to me, I don't have anything better in mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:55, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "abortion and mental health" as well. MastCell Talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The title needs to be changed

message: I'm don't think not assuming anyone participating in this discussion at this time is pro-life.  What I'm suggesting is that you are making Reardon's case for him, instead of looking at the metadata and evidence from reliable sources such as the APA and the American Surgeon General.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to stop using your perceptions of people's political views as an excuse to act against consensus and edit war, Alice. You need to continue discussing here. You, and you alone, are causing us to fall into the old pattern. You need to stop, right now. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:01, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: The old pattern is the edit warring. You're acting as Strider did, only for the other side now. Your paragraph focuses on stating the positive and neutral effects first, and then that the negative effects haven't been proven to actually be effects. Have the positive and neutral ones been proven to be causally related? Why not just say all effects aren't proven, and that we're just stating the possibilities? If you want to provide sources, you may, it can only help. That doesn't mean the entire lead needs to be changed. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:43, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, have the positive and neutral effects been proven to be causally related? Your lead separates the two types of effects as if one has been proven more than the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:57, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: We're disagreeing over the lead now, apparently. I've changed it once again, basically blanking it and simply stating that nothing has thus far been proved. I hope that can suffice. Alice, if you feel there's something inaccurate about this new version, please state here what the inaccuracies are and we'll all try to correct them. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:21, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Also did the move to "abortion and mental health" as there didn't seem to be any objection to that anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: We were previously stubbing this down to just PAS and suddenly it is back to a clumsy cut-and-paste of discredited materials from previous versions with virtually no recognition of the fact that MOST experts agree that there are negative mental health effects associated with and arising from abortion.  Even sadness is a mental health effect.  THe controversy is over if, when and how often the mental health effects are so serious that they should be called a mental illness.  See Wilmouth's summary:
:In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion. Instead the disagreement concerns the following: (1) The prevalence of women who have these experiences . . . , (2) The severity of these negative reactions . . . , (3) The definition of what severity of negative reactions constitutes a public health or mental health problem . . . , [and] (4) The classification of severe reactions . . . "Wilmoth G. Abortion, Public Health Policy, and Informed Consent Legislation. J Social Issues, 48(3):1-17 (1992).
The whole intro is now propaganda, and misleading, and simply wrong. It is simply not true that "the American Psychological Association (APA) and Surgeon General of the United States have claimed that abortion does not cause changes in mental health."  Koop said there was insufficient data from which to draw conclusions....fare different than does "not cause changes in mental health."  Even the APA does not make such an absurd claim.  The 1990 Adler article instead acknowledges that abortion has very significant emotional effects but concludes that for the MAJORITY of women it is tolerated well, which implicitliy reflects the admission that for a minority of women it is not tolerated well.
I think the intro should simply outline that this is an issue of controversy, then give a history of major events in the controversy, followed by a summary of major symptoms associated with abortion and the related studies.  This structure will make it easy for editors to add new material in an appropriate place.--Strider12 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure for History of Debate & Evidence 

message: The lede was a poor repetition of the material given in the first few sections.  It actually repeated certain sections word-for-word, which greatly impedes the readability of the article.  I integrated the content which was not duplicated into the article, and replaced the lede with a single, neutral sentence.  The article is short enough that the sections can speak for themselves.  If we want to rebuild the lede I suggest we do it at Talk rather than having all those changes "go live". 
Also, I removed a good deal of content that was unsourced, both from the promote-PAS and debunk-PAS sides.  In an article on a topic as heated as abortion, we really need to be certain we follow WP:V to the letter.  Photouploaded (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the first paragraph is not the way to proceed.  We do need to have a lead paragraph.  Let's work on taking out any repetition, but keep the gist of the paragraph. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the article looks better having a heading to cover the 'opposite' opinion, but taking account of what you say, I've put 'alleged' in the heading. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration of lede content, removal of uncited content

message: I just want to point out that in this edit summary, I did not intend to state that no negative effects can possibly exist, ever, at all.  I have not interviewed every single person who has ever had an abortion; I cannot say.  My intention was to illustrate that this so-called syndrome, since it is not recognized by any major medical body as legitimate, should not be categorized in such a way that the article indicates that this "syndrome" is considered a "negative effect".  With the lack of evidence for this "syndrome", it is best to leave the discussion of the concept under its own self-titled header.  Photouploaded (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article looks better having a heading to cover the 'opposite' opinion, but taking account of what you say, I've put 'alleged' in the heading. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: Much of the edit warring over this article revolves around disagreements over editing policy and the argument about what sources should be allowed and how WEIGHT is to be determined.  I would ask editors to discuss, refine, and agree to a policy that properly interprets Wikipedia policy.
1.  I agree the scope of the article on abortion and mental health (and/or "post-abortion syndrome) is regarding both the controversy of this issue and the evidence for or against the idea that abortion has negative mental health consequences.
2.  I agree that WEIGHT is composed of two elements: facts and expert opinion.  From this it follows that facts should never be deleted because the conflict with the opinions of some experts.  Secondly, the opinions of a few experts should not be treated as the "Gospel of WEIGHT" for the purpose of excluding the opinion of experts who disagree.
3.   I agree with Wikipedia policy that:
:In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
4:  I agree that peer reviewed studies are "reliable secondary sources" in that they provide a synthesis and analyses of "primary sources" (including raw data and eyewitness accounts), and as the methods and analyses have been reviewed determined to be reliable by academic peers they should be accepted as reliable sources by Wikipedia editors.
5.  For the reasons explained above, I agree that all peer reviewed material shall always be treated as verifiable material and that while entries relating to peer reviewed studies may be edited for accuracy, they should not be deleted since they represent the facts which shall help to demonstrate the where the WEIGHT of evidence lies.
6.  I agree that in general, for the sake of brevity and to avoid giving undue weight to any single source, it would be best for each source should be used and described only once.
7.  I agree that any general conclusions, whether by an expert, team of experts, or from a media source, such as "Abortion trauma is a myth" shall always be attributed in the text (not just the footnote) to the party making the generalization.
8.  I agree with Wikipedia policy that the authors of peer reviewed studies on abortion and mental health should be recognized as established experts in the field and that statements made by these experts may be quoted or accurately summarized in the article if approriately attributed to the expert in the text. 
9. I agree with the commonly held view of Wikipedia editors that articles in the popular press should not be relied upon as sources of fact in preference to the peer reviewed studies themselves.  Referance to articles in the popular press, however, should be allowed if properly identified as such in the text (not just the footnotes) in order to document the controversies surrounding this issue.
10. I agree that when I see an entry by another editor which seems to "cherry pick" only facts that seem to promote a POV that is not fully supported by the source, the solution is not to delete the contribution but rather to add additional material or clarifications from the source so as to accurately represent the source in a more balanced NPOV fashion.
I believe it would be very helpful if we could arrive at some objective standards for ensuring that the verifiable material and the contributions of editors will no longer be just constantly deleted. If you wish to discuss and help to edit this proposed policy, please do so at a page I have setup for that purpose: Proposed Editing Policy AgreementStrider12 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors have already agreed upon community standards for editing set forth in our policies and guidelines.  It is unreasonable to expect editors to agree to a Ten Commandments of Editing This Particular Article.  Photouploaded (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is people aren't following PG policy and are deleting verifiable material. Regarding PAS section, we previously agreed to keep it short. That it describes the abortion-trauma allegation and is not recognized in DSM and is considered a political ploy.  All the other material should go elsewhere...and most of it already is elsewhere.  Redundant.--Strider12 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problem is that no amount of outside input can convince you that your understanding of policy is flawed. There is no policy against removing even verifiable material if it is irrelevant, misleadingly presented, or abused to further an original synthesis or provide undue weight. WP:V says as much in its opening: "Jointly, these policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." We don't need new policies for this page; we need for you to follow the existing ones. MastCell Talk 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Photouploaded, MastCell and anyone else, we're not going to create Wiki-specific rules and regulations for this article.  Basically, Strider wants to get rid of undue weight provisions to make all reliable, unreliable and totally bogus references equal.  Not going to happen.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I want to put a stop to ABUSES of the undue weight argument which are being used to delete reliable and verifiable sources, which by definition includes peer reviewed journal articles.  Using a couple advocacy journalist's articles which claim what "most experts" say, citing just one or two experts as thier sources, is a pitful excuse to dismiss and discount scores of peer reviewed medical articles.  If I try to add a source that is NOT from a peer reviewed article, then you may challenge that it is unreliable.  But reliable sources, peer reviewed works, should not be blanked because they disagree with the assertions of Stotland's commentary, Bazelon's advocacy piece, or the general conclusions of an EIGHTEEN year old review article by APA members.  It's that simple.--Strider12 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Editing Policy to Avoid Edit Warring 

message: I'm going to be posting some sources so we can get some issues ironed out:
*Guttmacher --Phyesalis (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add it as an external link to the list of pro-choice sources? It is a good summary of the deniers position by a major player in the debate...but it is one-sided, as one would expect from AGI since it has a clear abortion advocacy position, and should be identified as such. --Strider12 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Pysesalis, why are you making the intro paragraph so short?  What is the purpose of that? It doesn't tell the reader much, and it's not good wiki form.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Phyesalis shorten it too?  I was the one who summarized it.  I did so because the intro paragraph was not a summary, but a repetition of material already included in the article.  The Stotland quote was repeated word-for-word.  I think it is worse Wiki form for readers to find themselves saying "wait, I read this paragraph already."  Are there any changes you would like to see? Photouploaded (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro paragraph is too short

message: The Koop section, this version, is a hodge podge of inferences again. Koop's letter did not use the word "miniscule."  That word was used later at a hearing when he said the "public health effect" is probably "miniscule."  Since he had already concluded that the studies were too poor to draw any conclusion about the public health effects of abortion, this was obviously just his gut feel, not a statement of fact, since he otherwise consistently said there were not enough facts on which to draw general conclusions.
Once again, even this section is being distorted for POV pushing.  Here is a NPOV version that reflects the breadth of what Koop did, reported, and has asserted as his opinions:
:In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop's staff subsequently began a review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion.  After reviewing the staff report, Koop wrote a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 stating that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women."A copy of the Koop letter to President Reagan ishere.  To address the inadequate research in the field, Koop recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade." He also noted that while the psychological effects of abortion had not been adequately studied "...doctors had long ago concluded that the physical results of abortion are not major health factors and required little additional study." 
:In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."New York Times: Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, when Koop was pressed to address the question of whether his view of the inadequate studies he had reviewed indicated that abortion posed a public mental health threat, Koop stated that in his opinion it was "miniscule from a public-health perspective."cite needed
Feel free to find a different source for a copy of his letter, but the cited source is accurate. While others may want to add additional details, any deletion of the facts above is just more POV pushing.--Strider12 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Miniscule from a public health perspective" should be sourced to the New York Times Magazine article, where it's quoted. Also, Koop's comments should be preferentially sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g. this article from New Scientist, which covers Koop's letter in sufficient detail) rather than to a copy of his letter hosted at priestsforlife.org. MastCell Talk 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think readers should be given a link to read his actual letter, not just snippets.  Unless another site can be found, I see no reason to not use the copy at priests for life as it does not include and propoganda from priests for life.  I did find a copy of Koops testimony.  Here is another source describing some of the background story regarding the Koop's staffs work and his letter, but I don't know where the details come from so am no recommending it as a source for the article.  More of an FYI in the event someone want's to research.  Some of this must be in a biography on Koop out there.--Strider12 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koop 

message: *Mastcell - Archive 2  
* Mastcell - Arhive 3
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to note that these correlations have been described, because, well, they have. At the same time, it should be absolutely clear to the reader that most authorities view them as explicable by pre-existing risk factors common to both the outcomes in question and unwanted pregnancy. And that this correlation (which is reported by some but not all authors) is not believed to represent causation, but to represent overlapping risk factors. The above paragraph could certainly be better written, but the studies and correlations do deserve mention. MastCell Talk 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That approach worries me - I think it is better to include sourced material with appropriate comment, than delete as you are suggesting. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that the sources are preliminary studies, or at least not yet part of the whole of scientific literature.  Hence the problem of Original Research, etc. For example, one study cited which was  done in Portugal where abortion is illegal is hardly representative a global perspective of the scientific literature about guilt after an abortion. Also, the Swedish study actually says the opposite of what is implied in the sentence in our article.  The large majority of women do have sex relatively soon after an abortion, and the purpose of the study was not to determine if women suffer from sexual disfunction after abortion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MastCell and Alice make a number of good points. Fishie, there's material that is appropriate and relevant and material that is not - somewhere on my laptop I have a study which asserts that pro-life people are by and large more religious and less educated and affluent than pro-choicers, and that these characteristics heavily influence their approaches and responses to abortion  - should I include this peer-review study? Probably not. Just because it's out there, doesn't mean it belongs here. Perhaps you could offer some insight into why you think the material isn't OR? Hope this helps. -Phyesalis (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarangae honey, do you have an opinion in all this? I just noticed the back and forth over the last few days and thought maybe we could all talk it out here? --Phyesalis (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that the article would 1. keep the sentence that IronAngelAlice wants to delete. 2. and per MastCell's suggestion, add in a sentence that pre-existing factors can influence the severity of these effects. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, Phyesalis, the demographics study about pro-choicers and lifers sound really interesting and cool, but I'm not sure how that study can be incorporated into the article. It may be more appropriate to add them into pro-life and pro-choice articles itself. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Peer reviewers decide what they think is appropriate for publication in a specific journal. Their mandate, goals, value judgements, and operating policies are very different from ours as Wikipedia editors. To say that something peer-reviewed inherently belongs on Wikipedia and cannot be questioned or removed if used in violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR is simply ludicrous. But feel free to keep forum-shopping. MastCell Talk 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we reworded it to say "No causal link between abortion and negative mental health effects has been established. The small percentage of negative emotional responses following an abortion are primarily the result of pre-existing mental health conditions as well as the status of the woman's relationship, economic status or conservative views on abortion. These factors may be exacerbated by an abortion resulting in feelings of guilt, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, depression, and anniversary reactions." This contextualizes it and emphasizes the pre-existing conditions. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds too reasonable. :) No, I think it sounds fine. I might change "The small percentage of negative emotional responses following an abortion are primarily the result..." to "The statistical association reported by some researchers between abortion and negative psychological responses is primarily the result...", but that's me. MastCell Talk 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I'd be fine with that alteration. Alice, you were the one to first object to the wording, what do you think? --Phyesalis (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if I'm allowed to flip-flop, maybe the original wording is better. I could go with either one. MastCell Talk 03:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative effects of abortion

message: For discussion:
:Interviews with of 854 women one year after they had abortions at a hospital in Sweden, found that approximately 60 percent of the women had experienced some level of emotional distress from their abortions and in 30% of the cases the reactions were classified as "severe."Söderberg, H., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 79:173-178. 
:The research also compared pre-operative data on the women who agreed to participate in the one year followup and data on women who refused to participate, who represented approximately one-third of all women who had abortions at the hospital.  Based on socio-demographic factors, reproductive history and reasons given for the abortion, the researchers concluded that women who are most likely to experience negative post-abortion reactions are also least likely to participate in post-abortion research, stating that "for many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss.  An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'." Söderberg, H., Andersson, C., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998).   Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 77:67-70.
:A record-based study of Finnish women found that in the year following a pregnancy outcome the rate of suicide following abortion was 34.7 per 100,000 compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for women who gave birth, 18.1 per 100,000 for women who had miscarriages, and 11.4 per 100,000 for women who had not been pregnant in the prior year. Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study. BMJ 1996;313:1431-4)
Organizing studies around the time frame in which they were conducted following the abortion may provide a useful structure for the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you misrepresent the studies.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies Relating to Reactions at One Year Post-Abortion