Talk:Abortion/Archive 18

message: I added a line on who exactly performs abortions. Many just say "abortion doctors" which is a misnomer. I figure, hey, why not say something people may not already know or think about. Angrynight 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If that's the part that goes "abortions are performed by", well done.--Halliburton Shill 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who does it 

message: I believe we've reached an impasse with Goodandevil (and the various anon IP addresses that he uses). Would now be an appropriate time to consider the steps in WP:DR? Justin Eiler 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a move. Goodandevil has been highly disruptive, rewriting content against consensus and making personal attacks and snide remarks. Perhaps dispute resolution would assist this user in learning how to discuss differing views, respect other editors, and write in an NPOV manner. I am willing to give it a try, as direct appeals have had little effect. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need a third supporter, you have one. Alienus 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely. -Kyd 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And again User:84.146.213.216--Pro-Lick 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And again User:84.146.248.62--Pro-Lick 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Goodandevil]]

message: http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/02/abortion-in-south-dakota-pro-lifers.html 
I came across this blog by chance (the same doc wrote something about a disease I have). Dropping it off here just in case other editors think it's useful in some way. AvB ÷ talk 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I found it interesting enough to read it twice. Including the sting in the tail. AvB ÷ talk 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog by UK doc. Interesting? Useful?

message: Is there a source for this change?  Do third world nations have ob/gyns?  Are the 20 million illegal abortions done each year done by ob/gyns? Do general practitioners actually do most abortions? Or is it actually a nurse? Please cite the source for the claim that it is generally ob/gyns who do abortions.  I think the article is not speaking globally. In any event, there is no source for such a claim.  "Abortionist" is in fact a catch-all term that encompasses anyone who does an abortion.  It is also used by mainstream media that support abortion, so it cannot be said to be a term used only by anti-abortionists:
*For One Doctor, There Was No Other Choice; Despite Threats, Abortionist Won't Back Down headline about an MD in the Wash Post, 298 Oct 2000 
*Portugal Gives Abortionist An 8 1/2-Year Prison Term headline about a nurse in NYT Jan 19, 2002 
*FBI CHARGES FUGITIVE IN N.Y. SLAYING OF ABORTIONIST  headline about an MD in Chicago Tribune,, May 7, 1999 
*FBI SEEKS 2 MORE IN ABORTIONIST 'S SLAYING headline about MD in Chicago Tribune Nov 22 1998 
*FORMER FOES; AT GOD'S INSTRUCTION, ACTIVIST BEFRIENDS ABORTIONIST AND CONVERTS HIM headline about MD in Chicago Tribune March 8, 1998  
*An Abortionist 's Credo essay by Elizabeth Karlin, MD, in NYT, March 19, 1995 
* Abortionist Hires Bodyguards headline about an MD in Wash Post March 31, 1994 
*INSANITY RULED OUT IN KILLING OF ABORTIONIST  headline about MD in LA Times Feb 22, 1994 
*The Doctor's Secret, flamboyant abortionist Brian Finkel was known as a gun-toting blowhard who courted the limelight, in the meantime he was sexually abusing his patients headline about an MD in People magazine Jan 26, 2004 
* Abortionist 's wife on killing charge headline about an MD in The Australian June 21, 2002 
*Protecting abortionists  headline in The Economist Jan 23, 1999  136.215.251.179
:"Abortionist" is an imprecise term, applying not only to those who perform abortions, but also to those who procure them,  and is therefore too imprecise to use for this article. Justin Eiler 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Source (other than the not always reliable wiktionary), please? (Hint: do a little research  to discover that wiktionary has it worng.) Abortionist is not at all imprecise in the way you imply.  It is the most general term that exists that desribes a person who performs an abortion.  It is accurate. It is in general use.  Even abortionists use the term to describe themselves (Ref: Dr. Elizabeth Karlin, "An Abortionist's Credo," New York Times Magazine, 3/19/95 ).  However, it is a fact that people with a certain bias do not like its use. So why should that bias dictate that it not be used? 84.146.221.240 
"Abortionists" in the context of the debate has a negative connotation. It is similar to "Darwinists". While some advocates of evolution may use the term themselves, generally speaking, it is viewed negatively as a way to differentiate evolutionary biologists from 'real' scientists'. Similarly, abortionists is normally used as a slur against doctors, by the pro-life camp. That said, the current wording was only added as recent as March 1st. Before, the whole sentence about OB/GYN was missing. Maybe it could be clarified that in the 1st world countries where abortion is legal, OB/GYNs generally are the ones who perform the procedure--Andrew c 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for these assertions about connotation? Certainly it may be the POV of some people that there are negative connotations, but the NYT, Washington Post, Economist and Chicago Tribune all use it in a neutral manner in headlines - and abortion doctors also use it to describe themselves (e.g. Dr. Karlin - see above) (e.g. Dr. William Harrison as reported by the LA Times )  (e.g. Dr. Carhart who stated in a speech to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, "I am LeRoy H. Carhart, and I am an abortionist", as reported by the Omaha World-Herald, 1/2001) 84.146.221.240 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the basis to claim in the article that abortion is generally done by ob/gyns? 

message: Not opinions.  Not comments.  For NPOV WP:NPOV and verifiable WP:V sources.  The initial list is from definitions provided earlier on this page.  Add any other sources you may have to list below.  I'm trying to make a single, referencable compilation that can be easily referenced and used for making the definition compliant with Wiki official policy:--Pro-Lick 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources [[WP:RS]] 

message: Please discuss.
:From around week 20-23 a separate injection to stop the fetal heart can be the first phase of the surgical abortion procedure.
Some citations: 
# Vause S, Sands J, Johnston TA, Russell S, Rimmer S. (2002).  Could some fetocides be avoided by more prompt referral after diagnosis of fetal abnormality? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 May;22(3):243-5. Retrieved 2006-03-17.
# Dommergues M, Cahen F, Garel M, Mahieu-Caputo D, Dumez Y. (2003).  Feticide during second- and third-trimester termination of pregnancy: opinions of health care professionals. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2003 Mar-Apr;18(2):91-7. Retrieved 2006-03-17.
# Bhide A, Sairam S, Hollis B, Thilaganathan B. (2002).  Comparison of feticide carried out by cordocentesis versus cardiac puncture. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;20(3):230-2. Retrieved 2006-03-17.
# Senat MV, Fischer C, Bernard JP, Ville Y. (2003).  The use of lidocaine for fetocide in late termination of pregnancy. BJOG. 2003 Mar;110(3):296-300. Retrieved 2006-03-17.
# Senat MV, Fischer C, Ville Y. (2002).  Funipuncture for fetocide in late termination of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn. 2002 May;22(5):354-6. Retrieved 2006-03-17.
AvB ÷ talk 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From around week 20-23 an injection to stop the fetal heart can be the first phase of the surgical abortion procedure. AvB ÷ talk 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone a problem with the following edit?

message: Please refrain from the removal of posted comments.  Editors do not appreciate their input being removed without their consent, no matter how trivial they may seem - and it is generally frowned upon in the wikipedia community.  If one wishes to have a section free of comments (which I had not realized on my removed posting) and someone posts there, simply move the comments to a new section.  Thanks. DonaNobisPacem 03:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of talk page comments 

message: I hate to start a new thread here, but it's probably worth repeating this - I noticed it at the bottom of a section, it took a bit to find......KYD wrote earlier:
This matter is covered in the thread "Termination of pregnancy sentance" in Archive 12. The introductory sentence is attempting to summarize all abortions in one line: spontaneous or induced, early or late term, and human or other species. If we are were to modify the sentence, I would go with "expulsion," as this sentence must also describe miscarriage. The word "removal" implies deliberate action and thus is only an accurate description of induced abortion. Death itself has many senses: astronomers often describe stars in the red giant stage as "dying." I don't see anything too bad in the use of "death," in a biological context, to describe abortion — the POV lays mostly in how it's read.
I believe KYD is right when he says the POV lies in how it is read - a pro-life individual sees it as the death of a person (as opposed to human) with rights, a pro-choice individual would probably see it as the death of a developing cell mass (as many did in the previous consensus).  Other pro-choice individuals might see it as a pro-life attempt to bring humanism (as some obviously do above).  But the POV lies not in the word, but in its interpretation.  It won't be any different with any other word (termination, expulsion, etc.) and the other terms also have problems in not addressing all forms of abortion (expulsion is spontaneous, as opposed to induced - one cannot "expulse" a fetus - so it relates mainly to miscarriage).  So it seems to me that death is the most suitable, both for encompassing the necessary definitions of abortion, and after some thought, I think in terms of being a neutral word (as KYD says, death is a pretty loosely used term throughout the sciences).  Thoughts in this regard?--2006-03-18 00:48:29 DonaNobisPacem
::You're quoting a POV (it gives no sources) on POV to support your POV on POV.  Generally speaking, if this claim is true, why bother having NPOV as a policy?  Specifically, death is used in "death sentence" and "death penalty" to name just 2 words that don't make "death" an NPOV term.  Do you have any sources that use it in a positive way?--Pro-Lick 07:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Death is death. Cells die all the time. Please see the definition of life. The cells undergo mitosis. They grow, and respond to their environment. Now, if they were removed from the mother's body, these cells will have no supplies, and will therefore die. Death of the cells is a fact. There is nothing wrong with the term "death", and it carries little stigma whatsoever (would you prefer the term ethnic cleansing or foetalcide? There are things like programmed cell death and apoptosis, and all this "death" is seen as natural. After all, during a period, the cells on the uteral lining effectively "die". I could also say, "sentenced to life in prison", where "life" is used negatively, but that doesn't make the word itself POV, does it? Besides, the term "death penalty" IS an NPOV term. Now, if you were to call it unjust, that would be a POV. Please learn your biology. After all, death is needed so the other cells can grow, and is a natural part of evolution and life (well until we can edit our own genome so genetic updating through death becomes biologically unnecessary). In apoptosis, cells in the developing foetus die, in order to make way for spaces in the finger, and they effectively are programmed to commit suicide. Leaves in the fall commit apoptosis and die. None of the uses of this term for "death" is negative. After all, the leaves are of no use in the winter, and will only cause loss of precious water. Similarly, the cells between the fingers are un-needed, and need to die in order to make way for fingers to function. In the same way, people may abort a baby because they think that raising a child is an unnecessary obligation. Whether this is moral or not is a POV, but stating the cause for their actions is not. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV is in how it's read 

message: The statement "this article will focus only on human abortion" is unsatisfactory, and a clear case of systemic bias. This page should be about any abortion, with an emphasis on human abortions yes, but it should at least link to animal subjects as subpages. Now, we of course have little material about it, but it exists out there, so I'd like to remove that sentence, because when we DO write such material (in some years or so), we want to make it easy to integrate. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it make more sense to leave in the disclaimer until that content is present? -Quasipalm 07:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it discourages insertion of that material in the first place. I will just say there is focus on human abortion, but I invite people to put it up. I'm sticking  for now because this article is systemically biased to Western culture. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  human only systemic bias 

message: Warning for all editwarring folks who have not used up their 3RR quota or are preparing for their second round. Their is no new consensus so the article needs to be in its previous state. Discuss at will, then put it to a vote, start an RfC, whatever, but do not editwar. AvB ÷ talk 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted this edit war to AN/I. Please stop the edit war or it will be stopped for you. And don't forget WP:3RR. AvB ÷ talk 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted an RfC a day or 2 ago.--Pro-Lick 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you announce it? AvB ÷ talk 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning regarding current edit war re article intro

message: If you go to the NIH website  and use their online medical dictionary you get this result :
*PREGNANT: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body : GESTATING : GRAVID (Source: Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary)
Although I asked for input, I have not seen any basis posted for totally excluding mention of this MEDICAL definiton in the article. This definition is sourced from a neutral manistream medical publication. The current wikpedia abortion article reads as though such a view is both unscientific and marginal. In fact, this alternate definition of pregnancy is both scientific and widely held, even among medical professionals, according to peer reviewed research. . This definition makes it clear that there is no pregnancy unless the embryo (regardless of stage of development or implantation) is living and developing inside a woman's body.
I propose the following wording.  Please suggest alternatives. Bottom line: the fact that there is a different mainstream medical definition in existence needs to be in the article. Its not simply a different view. Its a different medical view:
*Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception). 
84.146.227.229
:For the advocates of the definition of pregancy commencing several days to a week after conception when implanation into the  uterine wall occurs, a question: Do you have a word that simply describes a woman carrying within her body a living, dividing, but not yet attached human embryo at an early stage of development? patsw 05:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer is "no", but no one will admit it. Good 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy Definition must be changed to avoid POV

message: My situation wherein I could not login at all times has ended. I will therefore revert to using my account at all times.  Many of you seemed obsessed with my not signing in - an obsession that may now be put to rest.  There was never any conspiracy, sock-puppetry or attempt to hide - and all guesses about the location and owner of my IP were inaccurate.  I post this here becuase this is the article I love (how lucky you all are). Goodandevil
:Welcome back, G&E. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loving and trolling are not mutually exclusive.--Pro-Lick 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:No personal attacks is a Wikipedia policy we should all not forget to remember. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  People can change (or at least adapt), Pro-Lick. Keep that in mind. -Kyd 12:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to echo GTBacchus's "welcome back". And despite the whole philosophy of Wikipedia – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit – I think that anonymous users do get their edits reverted more often. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GoodandEvil returns as himself