Talk:Abortion/Archive 28

message: A new study, by the authors of the mental health & abortion study . Unfortunately, no information on where the paper is being published tho Nil Einne 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of abortion in educational achievement 

message: Where is there any mentioning of the fact that 13 of 14 studies have found links of breast cancer to abortion?  This area of the article needs revamping and a non-biased viewpoint.  There have been numerous studies that confirm a link that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and biological reasons that support it.  To only state one side of the issue hampers this site's claim as an encyclopedia.Kaneti 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the ABC section is very strong the way it is. It is sourced, and neutral. It presents both sides without giving undue weight to minority views. It seems like the majority view is that there is no ABC link. No major cancer organization recognizes abortion as a risk factor, and a large number of recent studies have found no link (we cite those studies in the article). However, we do mention the rat studies that found a link, and we do mention the interview based studies that found a link as well. We present both sides, neutrally. Can you explain to me how the section is biased? or more importantly, where it breaks out NPOV policy? How would you change the ABC section to be more accurate and neutral?-Andrew c 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear User:Kaneti: You mention 13 out of 14 studies. Could you provide sources to these studies, discuss whether they are in peer-reviewed journals, and mention the scope conditions. Are there any meta-analyses? Such things would make your argument more persuasive. Best, Bellagio99 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What this user is referring to is 13 out of 14 American studies. All of them to my knowledge are peer reviewed. However, this aspect is mentioned in the following line: "that the majority of interview-based studies have indicated a link, and that some are statistically significant.[41]" To answer your question, yes there are a meta-analysis, which are in the parent article. - RoyBoy 800 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Cancer Link area is one-sided 

message: This is real good news, but somebody should expand on how the procedure is done. I've created partial birth abortion section which is important, i gave the dates and details.
The law and partial birth abortion, may go together, do not delete, but create sub-section insead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Foremanfan (talk • contribs).
I'm afraid the title "Partial Birth Abortion" might be politically charged; it's a term invented by politicos outside the medical community. I suggest either the medical term "Intact Dilation and Extraction" or the broader and more accessible "Late-Term Abortion," which can describe other types of procedures done in the third trimester. --Swieland 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial Birth Abortion

message: Regarding the sentence, "this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year" in the "Incidence" section," I think that this long-standing version of that sentence is preferable. Suggesting that IDX is the "least common" method of abortion in the U.S.  is too conclusive — after all, the previous sentence is clear that the 2,200 IDX procedures per year figure is an estimate — while prefacing this statement with "considered to be" is editorializing. Let's cut down on unnecessary verbiage by simply quoting the statistic, and leaving it at that. -Severa  (!!!) 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No biggie. I find, though, that when you're dealing with a contentious issue, it's best to aim for prose that will be stable and resistent to frequent changes. If an editor desires to see a change to a long-standing, time-tested version of the text, it's probably better to defer to the older version, especially if the newer version is likely to be disputed. Discuss and approve it on Talk first; work out any possible kinks, so that the new version will be as stable as possible. I have found that sections which are prone to frequent changes tend to decrease in accuracy, neutrality, etc. over time. That's why I believe we should fireproof against such situations in the first place. Stating conclusively that X is Y, or framing the suggestion that X is Y with FUD-y adjectives like "alleged" or "supposed" is just an invitation for someone who disagrees to change it, which will then be changed back by someone who disagrees with them, and so forth. -Severa  (!!!) 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidence of IDX

message: The neutrality of this article is annoying ...could it be a little less constrained? When talking about the MVA procedure it's simply stated (something like) "..emptying the contents of the unterus..." It's actually absurd, now, i know this has to be neutral as this is an encyclopedia entry however is painfully so. 
Anyway, thats not the only example but its the only one i could think of off the top...
How's about we say fetus where fetus is do...
Wickedxjade 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No such thing as "too neutral". As it is an extremely controversial topic, the neutrality is required, because slanting it (even slightly) one way or the other could start an edit war. To be honest, I'm surprised that we even still have the phrase "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.", so it's still not 100% neutral, although the goal is perfect neutrality. Spazure 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality (maybe too neutral?)

message: This is a top-tier article the primary goal of which is to summarise related sub-articles. As such, space is limited, and we have to be selective about the information that is included or summarised in this article. The information on the incidence of abortion by race in the United States is too specific to a particular nation, and would be better included in a relevant sub-article, such as Abortion in the United States. Also, what about the incidence of abortion in the U.S. based upon the woman's age, marital status, income, religion, party affiliation, level of education, or area of residence (urban/suburban/rural)? These breakdowns would also be noteworthy, but, due to size and summarisation concerns, belong in the article Abortion in the United States. -Severa  (!!!) 22:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Severa. I have taken your suggestion and created a heading in Abortion in the United StatesL.C. Porrello 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. incidence by race

message: In IDX article Talk, Andrew c points out that there is nothing wrong with medical language. It is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the yanking of a chomper from the pie hole."
Along the same lines, it is better to say, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than, "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from 'the natural opening through which food passes into the body of an animal and which in vertebrates is typically bounded externally by the lips and internally by the pharynx and encloses the tongue, gums, and teeth.'"
Granted that and what we normally call creatures to which/whom women give birth, I wonder if only "baby" or "infant" isn't better than "neonate" + "baby" or "infant". I do not see what the addition of "neonate" does for the text.L.C. Porrello 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "neonate" v. "infant" or "baby"

message: Why is there no discussion of China's forced abortion policies ANYWHERE on Wikipedia?
Have you gone crypto-Google on the public?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.42 (talk • contribs).
:Well we have One-child policy and we have Selective_abortion_and_infanticide#China. Hope this helps. You are welcome to jump right in and start editing if you feel there is a way you can improve wikipedia yourself.-Andrew c 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: I heard that tax money is spent on abortion facilities, psychological sessions, etc., but I don't know what is being spent. (percentage of our taxes, etc.) Can anyone tell me, especially since I need to know this by tomorrow.75.15.206.129 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful to know which country you're from, as government funding of abortion services varies from country to country, and indeed from state to state or province to province. See Abortion in Canada#Access throughout Canada for information relevant to Canada, or "State Policies in Brief" and Planned Parenthood#Facilities and funding for information relevant to the United States. Hope this helps. -Severa  (!!!) 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion and Taxes  

message: I need a consensus regarding whether complications such as “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death” are “potentially serious” or actually serious. When ThAtSo reintroduced "potentially" into the text, he or she stated, “Only potentially, because these errors would happen under a doctor's care so they can be immediately remedied.” I am not sure, however, how one can immediately remedy “a perforated uterus, perforated bowel or bladder, septic shock, sterility, and death.” I assert that all of these events are serious. I do not understand how “death”, for example, is only “potentially serious.” Input would be appreciated.LCP 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word should be "potential". I seem to recall it being so in the article, some time back. There was also some debate about "death" being on the list, since it does not happen spontaneously, but only as a result of serious complications, and with the potential for any complications becoming more serious (and perhaps ending in death) being greater when not under a doctor's care. With this in mind, I am changing the start of that paragraph to what should be a non-controversial form. SheffieldSteel 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit. I don't think ThAtSo was thinking about the difference between the potential for serious complications vs. "potentially serious complications." Thanks!LCP 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the inclusion of the word "potentially" in the original version ("Abortion methods, like most surgical procedures, carry a small risk of potentially serious complications") was intended to convey that there is only a potential of these complications happening — not that the seriousness of any of them is only potential. However, this "potentially" was redundant, as its point was already gotten across with the words "a small risk." I think SheffieldSteel's edit helps to remove any confusion the former sentence might've caused. -Severa  (!!!) 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially serious complications

message: I made some proposed changes on another talk page, but I don't think it'll get noticed unless I drop a line here. Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph
Please read over what I've said and leave your responses. Toastysoul 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Discussion

message: Add the following link, because of information freedom.
The Page is in German language available.
But the pictures should tell all people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.181.90.190 (talk • contribs).
:First of all, per WP:EL, foreign language links should generally be avoided. Second of all, please check the archives. Linking to pages with shock images has been controversial, and there has be a general consensus to not link to them. In addition to the controversial nature of shock images, there are also concerns of #2. So I personally would not support adding that link.-Andrew c [talk] 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Link: http://www.babycaust.de