Talk:Abortion/Archive 15

message: Its the holiday season everyone. People are doing Xmas shopping, some are Kwanzaaing. Some decide to sacrifice goats at the solitice. Whatever. Family and friends take precedence. Everyone *please* be polite and courteous and give extra time for people to voice their opinions and thoughts.--Tznkai 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiday Season reminder 

message: Lets start over. Someone dig up the newest polling data available and lets work on it. And/or someone can pull out some stuff from archives.
:That is the latest polling data for the U.S. We've updated it. -Kyd 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling Data

message: For simplicity and in an effort to restore some civility to these discussions, I've mass archived everything, then I am restoring summations of the outstanding discussions. Everything is in archive 14 if you want to grab it back.--Tznkai 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Archiving

message: Can the definition of pregnancy be explicitly stated? Currently the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology defines pregnancy to begin at implantation, and I think this is relevant to the discussion of abortion. Additionally, it may be more accurate to word "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation before the pregnancy occurs" as "Certain forms of birth control prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum." and follow that with the current medical definition of pregnancy. Wanfactor 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the beginning of pregnancy is defined as implantation, how is the sentence "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation before the pregnancy occurs" inaccurate?  I think the facts as you have presented them don't support a lack of accuracy, although I see the point you are making (I think).  If the wording is a little off, it could read "Certain forms of birth control are used to prevent implantation, which is the beginning of pregnancy according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecoloy."  Obviously I am not writer, but I hope the gist of what I am trying to say is coming across. -Parallel or Together? 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the medical profession defines pregnancy to begin at implantation, not everyone uses this definition. Many people assert that pregnancy begins at fertilization, and in fact many  sources would say that life/pregnancy begins at fertilization. The difference in definition of conception is important to the abortion debate since a substance that does prevents implantation is not considered abortifacient under the definition of the American College of Obstetricians, but can be considered an abortifacient if pregnancy begins at fertilization. Wanfactor 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article currently uses the medical definition and is consistent, I see no need for a change. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  It uses the current medical definition in North America. Where a medical definition of a word is different than commonly used definitions, a clarification as to the definition used increases the understandiblity of the article. Wanfactor 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it different from commonly understood definitions, and is the specific not made clear in the content? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of pregnancy 

message: It would probably be more helpful if the links were divided into "sympathetic to abortion" or "anti-abortion" (or whatever terminology), rather than claiming they're all just "biased".  I don't think there's any problem with having so-called "biased" links here, but there should be an even distribution of pro and anti sites, and they should be labelled as such.
Incidentally, the "just facts" site is labelled as biased - I wasn't sure if I could decide which way it's supposed to lean? Stevage 13:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It leans unsympatheic, to use your terminology. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to strongly object. 1. The usefulness of doing so is incredibly minimal and 2. leads to the kind of thinking applied above, which, while valliant, isn't a simple application of NPOV and 3. leads to disaster and escalation. This is not conjecture, this is history.--Tznkai 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: At one point, there were about 20 outside links to pro- and anti- sites. It got out of control, as people would be inserting external links on a daily basis, many of them inappopriate (inflammatory sites, shock sites, self-promotion). The pro-/anti- count is currently an even 3 to 3. Labelling "pro-life" and "pro-choice" was also problematic: one would frequently be changed to an epithet, "anti-choice" or "pro-murder," while the other was left alone. -Kyd 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So called "biased" links

message: I'm counting down the hours before I head up north, but the following section was removed from the ABC article:
:The book What Liberal Media? () by Eric Alterman examined media bias. Alterman makes a detailed case against conservative assertions that the media has a liberal bias, and that actually the opposite is true for some subjects. However, Alterman points out that on hot button social issues such as the death penalty and abortion most journalists are quite liberal, because as the sociologist Herbert Gans explained, journalists are naturally reformist given their choice of profession. In chapter seven (What Social Bias?) Alterman cites the comprehensive (Pulitzer nominated) study by David Shaw called "Abortion Bias Seeps into News," (Los Angeles Times, January 19-22, 1990) which showed that the media was slanted in favor of legal abortion. Alterman notes Shaw's findings were "accepted, and editors, reporters, and producers alike did their best to implement changes in their coverage."
I've always known it was an awkward fit, and had discussions in the past about it... it being removed by yet another editor just confirms it. However, I like the balancing nature of the paragraph; and I think its written fairly well... I'm wondering where it should go; here or debate or does it have no home? - RoyBoy 800 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it has a home in the abortion family or articles, no--Tznkai 06:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the place for it is the article on the abortion debate. Rick Norwood 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: upon further reflection, possibly Abortion in the United States as well--Tznkai 17:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it is important to keep a clear distinction between information about abortion and beliefs about the morality of abortion.  Beliefs, whether by newspapermen or the public, need to stay in the "debate" articles, or they will overwhelm the factual articles. Rick Norwood 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. I'll put'er in there. - RoyBoy 800 05:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Bias 

message: *Opening paragraph: A point of much contention — particularly from new editors, and ones unfamiliar with the goings-on of the talk page, as it is the first thing that they read. Can we rewrite or revise this text to avoid such spats?
*Spontaneous abortion: This hasn't been touched.
*Induced abortion: This hasn't been touched. It probably needs to be tweaked and updated with the latest data from AGI (and, perhaps, ancillary sources).
*Methods of inducing abortion: Text needs a rewrite and proper sources. This is a very technical section. We might need to enlist the help of someone slightly more "in the know." It might also be that we'll have to devise a new format beyond the current chemical/surgical/other in order to accommodate new information. Perhaps we could have new sub-subsections for specific procedures to make navigation easier (i.e. Surgical abortion: Dilation & curettage, Intact dilation & extraction, Saline abortion, etc)?
*Health effects: Partially-completed. See individual sections for more.
:*Physical health: Needs rewrite and sourcing. This section is too loose. The prose needs to be brought together, so that it is informative, accurate, understandable, but also has some semblance of "flow" — which, in my humble opinion, it currently lacks, as it seems more an assemblage of disparate paragraphs.
:*Unsafe abortion: This section — encompassing "back-alley" abortion, self-abortion, illegal abortion, etc., and its incidence and effects — needs to be written and sourced. Can I earmark this as the next on the agenda?
:*Suggested effects (breast cancer, fetal pain, mental health): Done.
* History of abortion: Done.
* Abortion debate: This, so far, has not been touched. The current version is pretty good.
:* Public opinion: Polling data from additional, preferably non-Western, countries is needed.
* Abortion law: Done.
* Sources: This needs to be updated. Some of the sources used here aren't even used in the article any more. It would be nice to do away with this sort of citation: "100% of abortions are performed on women ." Links listed, as such, in the article, should be properly cited under this section.
Want to add anything to this combination progress report and outline? Please do so after my post. -Kyd 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats for the overiew. Unsafe abortion has its own article, so we probably should improve that first. I'll be targeting that myself, and its going to need considerable oversight once write up the section (if you thought arguments over the intro was bad...) Health effects takes up to much time and energy for me, as we can see below, I'm loosing patience faster than I should. I think incidents at home tell me I should reduce my involvement there. We have a number of related topics to tuch upon, and some hard resarch to do. Induced abortion overview and methods though, should probably be our top priority, as this where the hard facts are. I'd like to roll the health risks into each methodlogy, and leave "health effects" to things that effect all abortions.--Tznkai 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress report (and suggestions)

message: I'm not sure, but I think we could make a pretty good article on abortion statistics, where we can collect them, and address the significant discrepancies in reporting that we face. It sounds like a fun, and challenging prospect. If anyone is willing to help, drop a note on my talk page--Tznkai 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of statistics?  --Quasipalm 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds like an interesting idea. However, like Quasi says, we'll need to outline what kind of statistics this'd involve. But, anyway, I wouldn't mind  -- but I'd like to finish with my work on this article first. Call me single-minded. :-) -Kyd 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article fork 

message: FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Republic "Action Alert"

message: The user Liz xox takes issue with the current version. Here is the revision she made: 
:"It is indisputable that some women will experience negative feelings as a result of elective abortion. However, whether this phenomenon is significant enough to warrant a general diagnosis, or even classification as an independent syndrome (see abortion debate), is a subject that is debated among members of the medical community.
:A study conducted by Finland’s National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, that was published in the European Journal of Public Health, found significantly higher suicide rates and death rates, among women who had an abortion, versus women who had given birth. Although the correlation existed other factors were determined to have possibly inhibited some of the results.
:“The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly shows, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.” 12"
:Spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, is known to present an increased risk of depression in women. "
The edit summary was as follows:
:"Actual text from Finland study quoted, vs. a summery that could possibly be biased. There were no links that were unbiased to support the conclusion that abortion reduces suicide."
The wholesale removal of information which suggests the potential for positive mental effects of elective abortion is, in combination with the addition of information which seems to pad the negative correlation, likely a violation of WP:NPOV. It's only fair to attempt to present both sides of the issue. If you have objections to the manner in which one side is presented, then, please, the manner to address that is by improving it. What sources are in question and why do you feel that they are biased? This sort of information will help other editors work out how potential problems might be addressed. -Kyd 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental health

message: *On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanzaa) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that explains how busy I've been on Kwanzaa lately. Its usually fairly dull there. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that a lot of the responders on that site have criticized the idea of POV vandalism. Some easily swayed members may try to attack articles, but hopefully they will be more than balanced by sensible Free Republic members making useful contributions to the Wikipedia. --DDerby-(talk) 08:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 136.215.251.179 seems to be the user Goodandevil's IP  . User Herostratus asked Goodandevil if he is Notwithstanding from the Free Republic forum on his talk page.  This is something I have also wondered, as the Free Republic member Notwithstanding, who initiated the editor recruitment on that forum, makes a characteristic mention of abortion and Kwanzaa, articles on which the Wikipedian Goodandevil has a history. Just a thought. -Kyd 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment:  I read the link and it was a message posted on Free Republic talk page by a private user.  It should not be likened to Free Republic and it was not endorsed by Free Republic (merely because it didn't choose to delete the users message) anymore than whatever we say here is endorsed by Wikipedia.  Just thought you should know, because it looks like you didn't read the page very closely.Gator (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and it didn;t say anything about vandalism or "far right wing POV vandalism"  that was your assumption and you revealed your own biases.  It was calling for conservtives to edit more on those articles.  I don't like the approach myself but to term it "far-right POV vandalism" is unfair and needs to be stated.Gator (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic user calls for war on Wikipedia 

message: I've flageed the Mental Health section under  as its factual accuracy is currently disputed.
I want this GONE in 48 hours if humanly possible, and I think the rest of you agree with me. We need hard facts, we need the balanced. As an overview of what we should be getting at we need
*To note the positive effects of removing unwanted pregnancy
*To note the negative effects of experiancing an induced abortion
*To provide the raw data
*To make the above readable.
For anyone who thinks I'm too heavy handed about this, I apologize, but we've managed to keep this article dispute flag free for a long time and I'm unhappy about breaking that record.--Tznkai 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we let those who take issue state their objections before we go a changing anything. After all, most of the regular editors don't take issue, so we shouldn't fix what isn't broken. I'm going through a lot of stuff in my life at the moment, and the time I do have to dedicate to Wikipedia, I don't want to have to be revisiting matters I thought were closed. -Kyd 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunate fact that nothing on Wikipedia is ever closed, but take some time off. I would like a list of reasons why one version is prefered over the other.--Tznkai 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna keep sect-fact up for a bit while we incorperate the new data, but I'm working a bit slower than usual. Anyone else can feel free to take as stab at it as well--Tznkai 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental Health SECTFACT dispute 

message: From Australia and New Zealand: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17718868-29277,00.html
Abortion increases stress: study
"HAVING an abortion as a young woman raises the risk of developing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, a new study shows...The findings also tip the balance of scientific evidence towards the conclusion that abortion increases psychological distress rather than alleviating it, he said." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.210.72 (talk • contribs)  22:17, 2 January 2006. 
: on it--Tznkai 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critics in Australia have already noted that the study did not look at the women's lives or medical history prior to recieving an abortion, news story here--nixie 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research.  I think this shows that the study is questionable, so it should not be mentioned without a disclaimer so broad as to make its supporters wish it hadn't been mentioned in the first place. Alienus 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking it over, it looks like an non conclusive study that suggests that abortion can be stressful (duh!) we'll factor it in since its recent news, but it looks like its still a cluster of facts with no real direction right now.--Tznkai 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes that's it.--nixie 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Mental Health Study Results 

message: There has, for some time, been an informal rule, established in the practice of multiple users, prohibiting the inclusion of "shock images" in the article or links to external sites which contain such material (whether pro-choice or pro-life). Let's resolve this once and for and and seek to establish a hard consensus on the matter. Also, feel free to comment on what level of enforcement you believe would be appropriate, if any, such as whether any standards should apply only to this top-tier article or to all subjects throughout the abortion spectrum. Consider, too, the issue of context: could a "shock image," itself, be inappropriate, while an image of an activist holding a sign containing a shock image might not? -Kyd 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image and link standards straw poll

message: #Support. Shock links and images contribute nothing to the subject of abortion and are little more than an open-door invitation to POV. This is an encylopedia, not a pamphlet. -Kyd 08:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support the creation of image and link standards 

message: #Oppose Breaks be bold. It may make this article easier to work with, but regular editors need to learn the rules of thumb, and smackng down new editors can be a bad thing. Ronabop 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose the creation of image and link standards