Talk:Abortion/Archive 8

message: ====WHO about UNSAFE ABORTIONS====
"Unsafe abortion is entirely preventable. Yet, it remains a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in much of the developing world. Over the past decade, the World Health Organization has developed a systematic approach to estimating the regional and global incidence of unsafe abortion and the mortality associated with it. Estimates based on figures for the year 2000 indicate that 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year, that is, approximately one in ten pregnancies end in an unsafe abortion, giving a ratio of one unsafe abortion to about seven live births. Almost all unsafe abortions take place in developing countries.
Women who resort to unskilled or untrained abortion providers put their health and life at risk. Worldwide an estimated 68 000 women die as a consequence of unsafe abortion. In developing countries the risk of death is estimated at 1 in 270 unsafe abortion procedures. Where contraception is inaccessible or of poor quality, many women will seek to terminate unintended pregnancies, despite restrictive laws and lack of adequate abortion services. Prevention of unplanned pregnancies must therefore be the highest priority, followed by improving the quality of abortion services and of post-abortion care." WHO see:
* http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/unsafe_abortion_estimates_04/index.html
This is an important issue. rewrite, add, stop quoting over much, and stick in its own section--Tznkai 15:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsafe abortion 

message: "Unsafe abortion is entirely preventable. Yet, it remains a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in much of the developing world. Over the past decade, the World Health Organization has developed a systematic approach to estimating the regional and global incidence of unsafe abortion and the mortality associated with it. Estimates based on figures for the year 2000 indicate that 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year, that is, approximately one in ten pregnancies end in an unsafe abortion, giving a ratio of one unsafe abortion to about seven live births. Almost all unsafe abortions take place in developing countries.
Women who resort to unskilled or untrained abortion providers put their health and life at risk. Worldwide an estimated 68 000 women die as a consequence of unsafe abortion. In developing countries the risk of death is estimated at 1 in 270 unsafe abortion procedures. Where contraception is inaccessible or of poor quality, many women will seek to terminate unintended pregnancies, despite restrictive laws and lack of adequate abortion services. Prevention of unplanned pregnancies must therefore be the highest priority, followed by improving the quality of abortion services and of post-abortion care." WHO see:
* http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/unsafe_abortion_estimates_04/index.html
This is an important issue. rewrite, add, stop quoting over much, and stick in its own section--Tznkai 15:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WHO about UNSAFE ABORTIONS

message: "The opinions towards abortion is mixed. While most people are morally uncomfortable with induced abortion, the debate is primarily on the legailty of abortion. Advocates for making or keeping induced abortion illegal are usually termed Pro-Life. Advocates for making or keeping abortion legal are usually termed Pro-Choice."
I agree with most of your edits, but could you provide some justification for the statement above.  Otherwise it is not objective. Thanks, Spaully 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, replacing with focus on legality.--Tznkai 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tznkai

message: Why not to move all of the discution about pro-life pro-choice in a seaparate page named:
Abortion (ethics) since the ethical discution can be a distinct thing.CristianChirita 18:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 214, I will note that I have not presented my personal view on prochoice or prolife. I have no intention to in this forum since htis is not a chatroom. I am committed to creating a good, neutral, factual article, where both sides are represented fairly, as if they have reasonable beliefs, and rational disagreement. If you cannot accept that, I do not think you are capable of editing an article here that agrees with the NPOV policy.--Tznkai 14:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics

message: *Bullets or prose:
Why have previously well written sections of this article such as 'Chemical abortion', 'Surgical abortion' and 'Other means of abortion' been reduced to (what I see as) a ugly list of bullets? I'll restore some of the original wording of these sections, and at the same time try to keep the postive edits that has been made in these sections recently. -- Stereotek 05:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on reverting the methods of abortion, after all it seems to me this article is primarily about this, not discussions on stances on abortion. --Spaully 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The prose is probably best for the methods of abortion, but further down where bullets replaced section titles I think is a huge improvement.--Tznkai 19:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Methods of abortion

message: This section was poorly written, and the reference "Dr. Caroline Moreau of the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" is insufficient. If it's a published article in that journal, what year, what volume and what page? Nevermind, found it. - RoyBoy 800 22:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished retooling the section. Now it agrees with what the study actually found and does not overstate the connection. - RoyBoy 800 01:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been waiting for the history of abortion page to improve before I wrote a lead paragraph here, but it seems now is a good a time as any. I'll take care of that when the article is unprotected. - RoyBoy 800 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature birth 

message: If we can find the original source online, we can just link readers there, and cut the information from the article.--Tznkai 06:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate solution

message: Question: Should we double report any statistics?
Yes
No
*No reason to. Using statistics in that way is simply going to show POV. The facts are there, and our readers aren't stupid.--Tznkai 14:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was left by 214.13.4.151. And anyone else feel this vote was disengenous at best?--Tznkai 05:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Wikipedia is not a democracy: we don't make decisions by voting, we do so by discussion with the intention of finding a consensus (m:Polls are evil).  I've removed the rubric at the top of this long discussion suggesting an either/or vote, because it seems to be an attempt to destroy the possibility of consensus by forcing a polarization of views.  I also interpret this as undesirable behavior under WP:POINT, a guideline that has been repeatedly affirmed by recent arbitration committee decisions.  By all means let us have a discussion on the use of terms (or still better, edit the article with the intention of introducing the most suitable terms) but we should not run a divisive poll. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is locked Tony, pending us actually getting our act together. While I do agree that this particular vote was rather... divisive, the other one above was meant to establish consensus. If you feel that it is uneeded, by all means remove it. As for this discussion, its quickly going nowhere, I'm afraid.--Tznkai 14:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On misuse of polls

message: Adding a link to 'zygote' would seem sensible. I'd forgotten what one was.
Zy-gote. A pair of syllables found at the beginning of life and the end of encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra link 

message: In response to Nadsat on /Archive 7
I reiterate that in the context of Wikipedia there isn't a requirement we follow medical terminology; nor does something need to be medically viable in order for it to die. On the issue of "death" there is no rational grounds to remove/change it. If it troubles you, I suggest you read fewer medical texts and more literary and philosophical texts. (not to change your opinion on abortion, we are on the same side, but to appreciate the differences in language aren't as stark as you perceive; just because death/died aren't in medical texts does not make it incorrect) The issue I'd like to continue to explore is whether non-viable should be included in the lead. I have copied this paragraph to the main discussion page, please follow up there. - RoyBoy 800 16:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree, which ones are viable? Is that in reference to partial birth abortion? If so, is there a verifiable overlap of when these procedures occur, and the survivability of the fetus? (ie. weeks of gestation) - RoyBoy 800 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think viability is more of an issue in abortion law, where manslaughter charges and the like get involved. Abortion both as a technical term and referring to the social construct and crisis refers to the whole gamut from day 0 to 300. (or however long)--Tznkai 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What was your point?--Tznkai 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it answered my question, ~22 weeks. As I'm sure abortions have been performed past that time, I'd maintain and agree non-viable shouldn't be in the lead. - RoyBoy 800 20:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viability 

message: A request was filed for mediation. Is there consensus for this? -SV|t 1 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
:I am not certain. If 214 agrees to the solution presented, we will not need it, otherwise, I suspect we will.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)</s
::Would mediation help in protecting the article from future disputes, if so I'm for it. - RoyBoy 800 1 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
:Yes.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
:'Mediation does'nt help "in protecting the article from future disputes," rather it helps to untangle any issues that may exist now, and clarifies them in terms of how to represent material in the article. I have'nt read any of the issues, yet, but experience has shown that disputants who can agree to mediation can also agree in terms of how to convey information in the article. One, do parties agree to mediation?  Two, do parties aceept me as mediator? -SV|t 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
::I have no opposition. Specificly 214 and I need to hash some things out it seems, as well as over all help with the terminiology debate.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
:::Acceptance of mediation by both you and 214 has to be initialled at WP:RFM. I would be happy to assist.-SV|t 8 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
;OFF TOPIC
Ive noticed theres a large gap with regard to info on pregnancy here on Wikipedia. For example the stages of pregnancy are not well defined (as a chronology). (Maybe a template:pregnancy would be a good idea for consolodating this area?). Another example, which is highly relevant to this topic, is the discrepancy (aside from the terminologies) between the notion of "conception date"(ing) and the far-dominant "menstrual date"(ing) or "menstrual age." As abortion and the abortion controversy fall under the category of pregnancy, its important to state the facts, and explain how the sides in the abortion debate represent or account for the accepted and factual knowns about the state and stages of pregnancy. -SV|t 08:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I would like to change the interwiki link to :da:Abort to one to :da:Provokeret abort. However, I could not do so because the page is protected. If the page gets unprotected or if a sysop comes across this, could this please be changed? Thanks in advance. - Andre Engels 10:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change