Talk:Abortion/Archive 27

message: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It isn't a place to debate what you think of a topic or to share your own personal perspective. Our goal here is to help improve an encyclopedia article. Let's try to keep discussions on track. Thanks! -Severa  (!!!) 10:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know where you can find a site that discusses abortion, as it is is for my RS homework. Phalanxia 08:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic posts

message: User:Severa approached me re developing an infobox for abortion. Following brief discussion on what this might entail on my talk page, I have now added a draft version to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion. Discussion on the proposal should be helpd at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion.
Obvious point is that this applies only to induced abortions (i.e. deliberate terminations) rather than spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) (e.g. complete miscarriage, incomplete miscariage, threatened miscariage David Ruben  Talk  03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox proposal

message: Maybe I'm just having trouble interpreting citation #2 on the incidence of abortion, but it seems that what is presented in the incidence section and what is actually found in the source are very different.  Figures on the Wikipedia article are in incidence per 100 pregnancies, whereas figures in the source are in incidence per 1000 pregnancies, while the numerators of each ratio are not appropriately corrected (divided by 10).  This makes it appear that over 62.6% of pregnancies in Russia are terminated.  This number is absurd.  62.6 out of 1000 obviously seems more likely, and appears to be what the source says.
--Mister Magotchi 10:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to "The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide?" If so, the data in the article is taken from Table 2, "Measures of legal abortion, by completeness of data, country and data year." The table in question has two columns, "Rate," which presents "Abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44," and "Ratio," which presents "Abortions per 100 known pregnancies" (see the footnotes). The data used in the article is from the "Ratio" column, so, yes, it is indeed presenting the incidence per 100 known pregnancies. Russia's abortion ratio is quite high in comparison to other countries, but, this has to do with the history of the country — contraception has not been widely known about, available, or accepted, and so abortion has become the primary method of birth control (see "The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality:Russia"). Here is a more recent BBC News article about the situation in Russia. -Severa  (!!!) 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidence

message: The line "These risks include: a perforated uterus,[22][23] perforated bowel[24] or bladder,[citation needed] septic shock,[25] sterility,[26] and death.[27]" doesn't sound right to me. Death is rather different, a result rather than medical problem. In particular, it's not a "complication". I suggest the following "These risks include: a perforated uterus,[22][23] perforated bowel[24] or bladder,[citation needed] septic shock,[25] sterility,[26]. These complications can be fatal.[27]" However, I am not sure if it is these complications listed that can cause death, or if something else is meant here. Thehalfone 09:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your questioning of the wording and meaning behind that statement.  Death isn't a complication of abortion, rather a potential result of the complications which can present themselves.  Septic shock carries a relatively high rate of fatality, and can be caused by several of the other complications listed (perforated bowel, etc) which potentially lead to sepsis.  I think listing death is both realistic and nessecary, and wouldn't lend itself towards either side of the "argument", since the paragraph does state that early term abortion itself carries a low risk of complications.  However, a more coherent presentation like yours above would improve the fluidity and meaning of the statements.Vakkffom 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risks 

message: anyways i didnt put any conclusions in the article about the drastic drop in abortion during the Clinton reign or try and explain it on the abortion in america article which indeed is where i placed it, i merely showed this highly important correlation and stated the fact that the abortion rate drastically declined by 1/3 even, during the Clintons holding the executive office, people can make their own determinations about why that was, they are just shown the facts that they did decline during the Clintons and not during the Reagan-Bush era...the Clintons clearly advanced a pro-choice agenda that included an anti-abortion stance and were highly successful with it in reducing abortions, no one has even come close, the actor Reagan and then Bush proclaimed some sort of anti-abortion stance or "pro life" stance, yet we see in reality what happened was they had no effect on the abortion rate, we were deceived and its highly doubtful whether they truly had in mind reducing abortions even, it was surely all lies: as if they had wanted to reduce abortion rate, they clearly could have being in the extremely powerful position of presidents!!! 83.78.144.13 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  people can make their own determinations when presented with facts 

message: and as stated before my initial theory as why the Clintons were so successful in reducing abortions starts with (the Clintons were "pro-choice", they were not "pro-abortion"...they promoted a sensible moderate rational humane agenda, & where people could make their own choices, they provided the mood of sanity, the education, and also economic situation for the country where people made more responsible choices, were optomistic, and had the means and mental wherewithall to choose to have their children...and the Clintons drastically reduced the abortion rate, trickle down theory ends up with a flood of abortions at the bottom as the middle and lower classes havent been looked out for and the cash has all been sequestered to the top)...thats my initial thoughts yet i have not tried to add that to the article page as perhaps I am the only person to have recognized this fact of the drastic reduction in abortion during the Clintons, perhaps my explanation is indeed OR, & no one has advanced this on the internet yet as to why the Clintons were so successful in reducing abortions... so I didnt add any explanation, merely showed the facts...of course pirates and global warming have nothing to do with eachother, that is common sense, it is also common sense to note that the leader of a country has a drastic effect on that country!, yet I am open for debate on exactly what it was about the Clinton policies that were able to reduce abortions by 1/3, perhaps you are right sex education for young people and condom distribution had a good impact too, yet as you see you jumped the gun stating that this was the only reasoning as to why they were so successful, my reasoning was quite different, surely both of our explanations had some part to play in the Clintons drastically reducing abortion rates 83.78.144.13 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I am neither American nor Republican, and I would just like to say, as politely as possible, that Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your theories. If you can find a verifiable source that claims incidence of abortion in the US was affected by the Clinton administration's policies, then go ahead and add it to the article, but if all your source shows is a decline in abortions from year A to year B, then that is all you can say. Changing what the source says amounts to misquoting the source. Hope this clears things up. SheffieldSteel 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To add the perspective of someone pro-life and non-American: what has this statistical correlation (cause it is no more than this) to do in the overall WP article on abortion? Quite apart from the fact that it is, as the previous post points to, it is always POV to put figures next to anything else than years. Whether the Clintons (why actually the plural, she was politically involved only two years) deserve credit, intended this, could have done more, I will not comment on. Str1977 (smile back) 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion rates did in fact ''drastically'' decline during the Clintons 

message: I've added Abortion in South Africa -- please wikify if you want, or check for errors.  Thanks. -- leuce 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this is a pretty well-rounded article so far! I'll probably get around to wikifying it later this week. I would recommend citing your sources, though, because, as it stands, some of the information is uncited (see WP:CITE for help). Also, after this, you might want to consider adding the public opinion data to Societal attitudes towards abortion, because I haven't had any success finding opinion polls from South Africa, and the addition of one would contribute greatly to increasing the global perspective of the article. Thanks! -Severa  (!!!) 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All information is cited (see source code) -- I just don't quite know how to cite it in wikistyle. -- leuce 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry. I was unaware of that fact — I didn't check the article's code. Thanks again. :-) -Severa  (!!!) 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa added 

message: User:Mr-phil recently contributed a "Historical Changes to Definition" section to this article. Does the section represent OR or could some of the information perhaps be adapted for use in the article? What are your thoughts? -Severa  (!!!) 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking.  As I explained to Mr-phil, if his material is historical, then he should try to put it in the history subsection, or better yet in the article about abortion history.  Until he does so, there's really not much to discuss, and I would not support including it in this article in any event.Ferrylodge 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical definitions

message: Guys, the fetus fulfills all of the "characteristics of life" that are defined by biology. Therefore it IS life. It may not fulfill as soon as it is concieved, but once it has hit about 3 weeks it is definately life. Discuss.--Rich —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richco07 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are not for general topical discussions. They are for discussing specific article content and proposed changes. Please review the Wikipedia:talk page guidelines, and always sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. -Andrew c 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fetus as life