Talk:Abortion/Archive 10

message: Ok, the article is unlocked and there are anumber of things to work on:
#The Pro-choice and Pro-life sections need to be renamed with an introductory blurb explaning the use of advocacy terms.
#A paragraph on terminology needs to be written/expanded. Possibly embed into intro paragraph.
#I'd like to get a breif list on prefered terminology going. Positive statements only please, I will be applying WP:NPA and WP:RPA judiciously and I invite everyone else to do the same. I will open up a new section on that.
Please add to this for other pressing matters.--Tznkai 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: As part of my looking into the topic, including terminology issues, Ive found some work must be done accross various abortion related articles. To organize this, we need to make an Template:Abortion sidebar, and deal with issues in their own context, for example pregnancy, fetal personhood, etc. Perhaps even abortion can be split into abortion - what it is, and abortion debate. We'll see. Sorry for neglecting recent developments here -been working on other cases, other articles. -St|eve 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation update

message: I'm out of reversions, a bit frustrated so this seems to be the best course of action.
Based off of my last good edit as a refrence point 
Line 1:See above. if someone finds me a neutral accurate and useful term for cell death other than the word death, enlightenme.
Line 6:Reasons for induced abortions: Unsourced claim. I happen to know personally people stupid enough to use it as birth control, I'm sure I can find documented instances of it, and so can the rest of us. That is something that happens, sad but true. Removing it fails accuracy and neutrality. 
:oh yeah. people who abort where there is no birth contro are not doing it because of birth control failure!--Tznkai 16:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would argue that readers ARE stupid.  Most laymen don't understand that correlation does not imply causation (a lot of scientists forget this too) I don't think that mentioning that these studies do not establish a causal link is unreasonable.  Perhaps we should remove any studies which do not establish a causal link? Lepidoptera 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have special issue with this study: "According to one study of 1,884 women conducted by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion are 65% more likely to be diagnosed with clinical depression around eight years later."  The information doesn't seem to have a source, and it sounds like a poor imitation of the third study listed.  Is its inclusion nessecary? Lepidoptera 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Dispute 

message: There are several forms of birth control that some consider the moral equivalent to abortion because they destroy an embryo prior to implantation. Prior to 1976, a 'contraceptive' was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of sperm and ovum (fertilization). In 1976 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists changed the definition so that a contraceptive was redefined as anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst embryo, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Those who believe that life starts at conception believe that forms of birth control which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo in the uterus end a human life. The most controversial of these forms of pregnancy prevention is currently the Morning-after pill, which is legal in a number of countries and has recently been legalized in the United States and in Canada.
This is very good, but I think Its a little detailed for this article. --Tznkai 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, this history bit is intresting, but i think it'd do better in the main article. It could problably use a little expansion though. What do you think the best summarizations of the views of each side is?--Tznkai 14:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: The first study states the same material as the third study with less detail, and it has no source.  It's unnessecary. Lepidoptera 14:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahkay. I don't think I have an objection then. Anyone else?--Tznkai 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion in the Mental Health area

message: Will be applying the inuse template as soon as I get home to a stable internet connection. Doing a major reorginzation starting around 2:30 EST. See embbedded comments. Voice objections and comments now or hold your peace until I'm done please.--Tznkai 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally getting around to it. Doing a major restructoring of the articles based on the embedded comments. Comments here are greatly appreciated, or if I seeem to be ignoreing you, toss em to wards my user talk page so I get the little "you have mail message".--Tznkai 01:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuse #2 

message: I'm rather fond of it, but there is one minor nit picky thing... PID only statistically renders 10-12% of women who suffer from the disorder infertile, not 10-12% of women in general. :) user:lucavix
:Where is the preterm piece? - RoyBoy 800 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, nevermind. - RoyBoy 800 00:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new and improved Preterm Birth piece.