Talk:Abortion/Archive 19

message: This features "self abuse", not the Tansy pills it is forced to note with a comment underneath.  Another example of trying to portray abortion negatively.  It has a place in a section on the ad history of abortion, not here.  That, or make it clearly visible and focused on the Tansy pills portion of the ad.--Pro-Lick 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a terrible photo, that doesn't actually illustrate what it purports to.  The most prominent words in the image have nothing to do with abortion, and it's therefore misleading and prejudicial. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you know that clicking an image can enlarge it? -Kyd 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Don't you know that no amount of enlarging that particular image makes the relevant text legible? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dr. Caton's Tansy Pills! The most reliable remedy for ladies. Always safe, effectual, and the only guaranteed women's salvation. Price $1. Second advice free. R. F. Caton, Boston, Mass." -Kyd 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have a better monitor, or a better browser, or better eyes than I do.  I can read on the image page that the ad says what you claim it says, according to the uploader.  When I save the image to my hard drive and enlarge it with my picture viewer, the resolution is far too poor to make out those words.  I maintain that it's a terrible image, with the relevant part practically invisible, and the irrelevant words "Self-Abuse" appearing large and clear and misleading readers.  I was misled, the first time I saw it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Kyd, some of us can use a magnifying glass or a image resizer, too.  It still doesn't change how the image appears on the main page or the ads that get featured instead of the ad that is supposedly being featured.--Pro-Lick 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. I don't mean to be snappy. I'm merely trying to juggle a thousand things at once (most of it being research for History of abortion. -Kyd 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  I was too harsh, I think, calling it a "terrible image".  It's actually a really cool image that we're lucky to have in the article.  "The only guaranteed women's salvation" - I guess any definition of abortion we end up using will be less POV than that! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to read. Making out the words consists largely of staring at it hawkishly and filling in the blanks. I found it after two days of restless Googling. I imagine the original discoverer scanned it from microfiche (which probably accounts for the poor resolution). I'm currently transcribing the rest of the ads -- which, so far, are putting to bed all notions of prudish, buttoned-to-the-collar Victorians in my mind. -Kyd 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've transcribed about as much of the ad as I can. Thinly-veiled ads for aphrodisiacs, male enhancement pills, and an abortifacient. Read if you feel like being tittilated, disgusted, and/or mildly amused. -Kyd 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very impressive and thnak you.--Pro-Lick 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Abortion photo bias 

message: The Progress Report rots above 20 "death" discussions. The to-do list collects dust because all of our manpower is dedicated to circular debates and POV-coddling. Any effort toward productive work (see "Complusory abortion") is quickly snuffed by the "death" talk. What can I say, I've been editing here almost a year, and I still don't know anything about priorities. I'll tie up a few loose ends, but, then, I'm done here. -Kyd
:I agree with your sentiment, and apologize for briefly getting caught up in debate as opposed to progress. I personally appreciate all of your hard work and time you have put into this article. Abortion is a very touchy issue for many people, and I feel there are always going to be POV warriors trying to make things their way, instead of encyclopedic. But you can't make people stop being passionate about this issue. I've tried to avoid the debates for the past couple days, and now am waiting for the steam to blow off before contributing again. I hope you decide not to leave us, because seriously, your work and input does NOT go unnoticed. Thank you for all you have done over the past year.-Andrew c 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I just came back from a vacation and was evidently biting off way more than I could chew to compensate for my Wiki-absence. I've cleaned up the mess that my exploding Wiki-stress thermometer made (sorry if anyone got splattered with Wiki-mercury). The gripe about skewed priorities, however, stands. But, I guess the only thing to do is duck out of the debate and get down to business. -Kyd 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If death isn't a priority, why argue against the sources?  Let the sources speak and leave it at that.  It would give us all more time to work with you on the priorities (rather than view them as a distraction).--Pro-Lick 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities 

message: Please explain the basis for holding that the professional opinions of these doctors/organizations/resources as to the definition of pregnancy do not qualify as "medical" opinions:
:::* Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 2004 (provided by Merck Pharmeceuticals online) 
:::* The GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA of MEDICINE, SECOND EDITION, 2002 
:::* National Institutes for Health (Meriam Webster Medical Dictionary)  and  
:::* MedicineNet.com 
:::* The Center for Cancer Education, University Of Newcastle upon Tyne  
:::* Dr. Joseph A. Spinnato, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky and 50% of the Ob/Gyns of Louisville, KY  
:::* American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
:::* From Association of Pro Life Physicians 
:::* 227 doctors listed here who have signed on to this medical analysis 
Our friend Kyd and perhaps others have claimed that defining pregnancy as beginning at fertilization is somehow NOT a medical definition.  In light of these many listed references that agree with the fertilization definition, such a stance seems to no longer be defensible.  Good 16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However it turns out, I support your pursuit of reputable, reliable, medical sources to determine the beginning.--Pro-Lick 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with G&E - he does have medical sources, that have nothing to do with pro-life organisations, identifying pregnancy as starting at conception.  Even the pro-life associations - being associations of doctors, their alternate definition can correctly be identified as medical.  It is obviously indicated that it is not the primary definition, but an alternative - I think it's ok as it has been reworded.DonaNobisPacem 09:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned that this article uses the medical community's (i.e. the first) defition of pregnancy throughout... otherwise some information (such as the "10-15% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage") could be confusing or misleading.    ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical, or not?

message: 1. What is the term for this period? 
2. Is a woman gestating during this period?
Good 16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  None of the 227 American Life League doctors can provide an answer?--Pro-Lick 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been able to find a specific term - there may not be one. The WP article on Fertilization states: "The time from actual fertilisation (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored" (under Fertilisation in mammals/Human fertilization) and Human fertilization has a good bit more, but it ends prior to implantation, as one might expect. Implantation is a redirect to Pregnancy. I have of course looked outside WP, but this seemed a good place to start, as other articles here might have references. Gestation is "the carrying of an embryo or fetus inside a female viviparous animal." Not sure how much help that is. Where were you thinking this term would be useful? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, forgot to answer q2. Gestation is another one of those terms - although apparently (and I have not made an exhaustive study) gestation is generally considered to begin with fertilization not implantation. Some sources give it as a Term to Avoid, as it is also used to describe post-implantation develelopment of the embryo. And I know that wasn't much help. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For the embryo, it is preimplantation development, such as cleavage. I do not believe there is a term for this period in reference to the woman because there is no physical changes until implantation.--Andrew c 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The woman isn't doing anything during this period. It isn't until after implantation and the blastocyst starts releasing hCG do changes start occuring in the woman. Like I said, IVF fails 20-30% of the time. Putting an embryo inside of a woman does not automatically make her pregnant. A handful of pro-life doctors having opinions otherwise doesn't make these women any more pregnant.--Andrew c 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the first 6 sources listed in the section above, none of which are pro-life doctors or advocacy groups? You must have, or your comments make no sense - unless they are disingenuous. And I don't think you are disingenuous. By the way, every blastocyst and every zygote is also at the same time, biologically speaking, an embryo. Good 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical term for period between fertilization and implantation

message: ::While Brind is of course not respected in most medical circles; I'm curious as to how him being mentioned or not in a specific textbook makes him "respected" or "not respected". Is this supposed to be a joke; is this your idea of "research"? Does this mean every doctor not mentioned is therefore not worth listening to? And why would a hypothesis be mentioned in a medical textbook, who's editorial focus is likely on established concepts. Am I to assume from all of this you are student? Because that would put all of this hassle, bravado and "taking on the world" into context. Reminds me of the another objection raised from a textbook. - RoyBoy 800 08:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Not everything of importance is accessible on Google" - RoyBoy 800 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue" - Nephron  T|C 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibid--Pro-Lick 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And? What does that have to do with your above point(s) sucking? Which was, Brind is not in this textbook (or any textbook RoyBoy's aware of), therefore I (Pro-Lick) can characterize him (Brind) as I see fit. BTW, great link on the Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States. Best article I've come across on the ABC subject; and that's my impression from just skimming it tonight. - RoyBoy 800 09:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nerts - I lost a source.  I had found a report online a few days ago that might be useful to this section - it mentioned the US NCI criticized the 1999 Denmark study's methodology (so I would assume this study did not play a major role in the 2003 decision?).  If anyone finds a similar reference, it would be important context in the article to say something like "In 2003, the US NCI (despite criticism of the 1999 Denmark study) blah blah blah...."  As it stands, the article seems to indicate the Denmark study was one of the influences upon the 2003 decision......another study that will be interesting to see the results of - if you type in abortion breast cancer on the NCI search, you will see a grant request for a study in China using their medical records, by Dr Lu (I think that was his name).....I checked out his web site, and reviewed some of his other studies - interesting stuff.  Be interesting to see what his conclusions are.DonaNobisPacem 09:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."  "Strength of Evidence Ratings Key" - highest ranking.--Pro-Lick 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do understand the political context that workshop was convened under? You also understand, one study, just as with one organization; does not (exclusively) hold the keys to scientific Truth. I mean if they listed preterm delivery under "Epidemiologic Gaps"; could it be possible they overlooked something else? - RoyBoy 800 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research?  Or sources?--Pro-Lick 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you insist on editing the ABC article; I'd like to think you read the entire thing carefully before editing it. Then you would already know what I'm talking about. The ABC article is one of the most heavily sourced articles on Wikipedia... why would original research be involved?  - RoyBoy 800 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "CONTROVERSIAL": The sentence prior to the ABC section notes that the topics in the section are controversial. Repeating this is both redundant and appears to be an attempt to insert POV by underscoring the point. 
"UNPROVEN": The word hypothesis itself already places the reader on notice that the idea has not been proved. 
Good 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since hypotheses are unproven, it shouldn't be a problem to state it's unproven.  Controversial actually can imply something true that is not generally accepted.  Of course, if you prefer, we can leave the 1st sentence and I can add sentences like this:  “In scientific terms, ABC is as disproved as a hypothesis can be.  No medical manuals or textbooks mention it or Brind, major cancer ogranizations don’t includes abortion as a risk factor, and all follow-up studies have shown there is no link, much less a causal relation.”--Pro-Lick 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be true; the disproved bit. - RoyBoy 800 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your POV already.  Sources?--Pro-Lick 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have research on "disproved" as none of the (scientific) sources assert its been disproved (partisan pro-choice op-ed pieces do though). I'll go to bed now, safe in the knowledge I don't need sources to torpedo your transparent POV's. I'll reiterate it, so it sinks in. Disproved is a pro-choice opinion; it is not reflected in the research; nor is it an accurate interpretation of the NCI findings and their scope. - RoyBoy 800 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC Link

message: I think an abortion myths section would be a useful and informative addition to the page.  To start:
*Post-abortion syndrome
*Increased breast cancer risk
*Abortion is safer than child-birth
*Abortion is only done in dire circumstances
*Knowledge and access to birth control will reduce abortion 
*Partial-birth abortions are almost never performed
*Abortion is not a form of birth control
*Baby is not a medical term used to describe the fetus
*Unborn is a medical term
*Baby is a medical term for the fetus
*Baby is a medical term for the embryo
*Birth control does not lower abortion rates
*Illegalizing abortion prevents abortion
*Illegalizing abortion reduces unsafe abortions
*Child-birth is safer than abortion
*Abortion is only induced prior to viability
*Pregnancy makes you a mother
*Abortions are only done when the fetus looks like a "mass of tissue"
*Things that look like babies are babies
*Legalizing abortion increases abortions
*Most Americans consider abortion to be murder
----
::Myths above this line, comments...
:It's POV to start by calling them myths. Nothing wrong with showing POV on the talk page, of course, as long as it's recognized as POV; but it could be very problematic if you tried to get them called "myths" in the article. AnnH ♫ 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you would prefer we call them abortion lies?  Abortion misinformation?  Abortion misperceptions?  Abortion propaganda?--Pro-Lick 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "misconceptions" or "falsehoods," provided its accurate. Myth, even used in this context still suggest a half truth, but esp. one that is part of an ideology. The principal usage is best for any religion. that is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. Giovanni33 09:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "myth" is something proven to be non-factual - in the case of Post-abortion syndrome and increased breast cancer risk, these are postulated effects, under dispute in the medical community - but with no conclusive evidence they are false.  That would make them disputed (as it is clearly indicated in the article) as opposed to myth.DonaNobisPacem 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dispute of one very biased (anti-abortion pre test) doctor that has a financial interest, including a magazine titled something like abortion and brest cancer, is not worth calling disputed.  Likewise, the syndrome has no independently verified cases.--Pro-Lick 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Financial interest? What is your problem Pro-Lick? If you focus on crap like that; what is to stop me from saying, the "abortion industry" has a financial interest in obfuscating ABC research. At best it only has a grain of truth, such conspiracy theories are lazy thinking. (For example, did it occur to you any monies gained could be to offset money put into the website etc. Last time I check Planned Parenthood didn't run on good intentions; everyone needs money to put back into the things they are passionate about.) Please research some more of the science involved, instead of focusing on the politics, because if you focus on one aspect of a issue; that is all you will find. - RoyBoy 800 07:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For 1 thing, specific evidence and a vague "abortion industry" indicating that you lack specific cases.  As to conspiracy theories, one would have to be pretty lazy with google not to notice that the 1 disputer has claimed a conspiracy to "cover up" his unverifiable research.  And the National Cancer Institute is on the conspiracy too.  As to the science, that's already available.  Just needs reading.--Pro-Lick 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Brind doesn't chalk it up to a conspiracy per say; but rather resistance to open consideration of the idea; as it does indeed have political pro-life taint. By the way, he was at the NCI workshop, you were not. I'm unsure what aspect you are referring to as unverifiable; but I would point out his meta-analysis on the subject was deemed to have "no methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded."  As to the science, I know damn well its available since I've read the original studies and the follow up letters and discussions in journals; and have used that material to write the ABC hypothesis article. I'd suggest you do the same prior to labelling things as "myths" based on a mediocre Google search. Not everything of importance is accessible on Google Pro-Lick. - RoyBoy 800 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reference.  I highly recommend everyone interested read that page.  You'll find the part about breast cancer under the heading Long term effects of abortion (which are rare or unproven) including.  It also addresses some other, using Giovanni33's term, misconceptions.--Pro-Lick 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is how I read what you wrote:  Medically, it's a zygote, embryo, or fetus pre-birth.  If a doctor is talking to a pregnant woman that is already calling it a baby, the doctor also refers to it as a baby.--Pro-Lick 16:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger! One clinical term for the baby in utero is "baby"! The Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby's First Year is a perfect example of the medical term "baby" in use by medical professionals in a clinical setting.  Virtually every subheading for sections that describe fetal development use the word "baby".  Its not a secret, though some labor long and hard to paint it as one. Also: a zygote is an early embryo, biologically speaking. Good 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A book written for "prospective parents".  Actually, that just confirms that it is  used psychologically.  Also, if you read the review, it uses "developing fetus".  Also, compare "the 9 months before and 12 months after" to the title.  Baby's 1st year is, therefore, post 9 months.--Pro-Lick 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book's text (which I looked at today) clinically describes fetal development in detail, and uses the word baby over and over again throughout these descriptions.  Good 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a handbook for prospecitve parents. "Baby" is not a medical term for the developing embryo or fetus. In other words, its irrelevent to this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion Myths 

message: Out of curiosity, has embryo freezing ever been discussed as a possible alternative to abortion? According to certain entries in Wikipedia, a human embryo can survive being frozen via cryonics and being thawed out later. Also see embryo space colonization and in vitro fertilisation; in fact, it looks like embryo freezing is commonplace in cases of in vitro fertilisation already - see In vitro fertilization#Embryo cryopreservation. So, to rephrase the question: rather than abortion, has anyone considered removal of the embryo, placement in cryonic suspension, and storage in a (Earth-based) facility as a possible compromise? --Brasswatchman 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all likelihood, a technical infeasibility, much as the "semen-preservers" of Sagan and Druyan's "Abortion: Is it Possible to be both 'Pro-life' and 'Pro-Choice'." -Kyd 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative to Abortion? 

message: Any 2001 editors around? While studying ancient NPOV history I found this. It's from Larry Sanger's 2001 Neutral point of view draft:
:It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.
:On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange rhetorical barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed--and what was added--was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal viability of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it rather easier to organize and understand the competing arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were each then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
:There are numerous other "success stories" of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.
AvB ÷ talk 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.....thanks for pulling that up, Avb....that's certainly a starting point for any dispute. DonaNobisPacem 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I once went back four or five years in the edit logs. We've come a long way, baby. -Kyd 07:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV history and the Abortion article

message: :Rinse, repeat, look in the mirror.--Pro-Lick 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities II 

message: Any one here want to police the PAS article?
It seems to be a lost dog of an article without much scrutiny where the pro and anti side take turns POVing it.  
Pro-lick, who seems to be familiar around here (for all the wrong reasons), is making it a mess (by trying make it a debate about the psychological consequences).  I've noted he was blocked once already (according to his talk).  Also, he seemed to be hostile to comments I left him on his talk--- he removed them, which also seems to be a pattern. 
Any case, I'm not sure about what to do about PAS... and I'm not keen on policing it.  On the one hand I think it would be good if it were merged into abortion-- 'cause it would get greater scrutiny.  On the other hand, I think the article... is nice the way it is (in that it doesn't get lost in the larger debate).  That said, it seems everyone wants to make the PAS article into a debate about the psychological consequences (if any)-- which I think it isn't.  I see it as simply the larger medical community's current take on things.
As I stated before-- the objectives of the article (as I see them) are:
# define the term,
# present the view of the mainstream medical establishment on the issue and
# place it in the context of the larger debate about abortion.
Like most things in abortion-- this article has seen a good deal of debate-- there was a request to delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abortion_trauma_syndrome... which ended in a re-name and a battle about one particular external link Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Nephron  T|C 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed it on my watchlist. -Kyd 09:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Post-abortion syndrome]] (PAS)  

message: I think it would be a good thing to start compiling information on various societies social views...as the article indicates, it may not be not really representative of a world view.  For religions, it's probably easiest to state religion, prohibition or not, and the cases for prohibition (do they allow to save woman's life, in cases of rape/incest, etc.)  As for laws in individual countries, abortion law pretty much covers it.  It would be interesting to find out if there are any significantly different legal/medical definitions in use around the world.
Religions:
*Roman Catholicism - prohibits induced abortion in all cases
*Buddhism - explicitly prohibits abortion in its "canonical" writings, according to 
- Posted by DonaNobisPacem.
Condemnation for abortion from all quarters:
*Judaism: 
*Islam: 
*Hinduism:
*Buddhism: 
*Sikhism:
*Catholicism:
*Anglicanism: )
*Atheism:  
Good 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like abortion law, there is a main article on Religion and abortion. Just to let you know.--Andrew c 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World view 

message: Here we can see how the BBCs online reference pages, with a global secular outlook, tackle the notion of abortion and contraceptives and when pregnancy begins. They do a good job.  I think it can help editors re-think what a neutral view on these issue looks like. Here is another BBC link with similar discussion. The BBC also uses the term unborn child in its abortion reference pages.  I hope folks will not argue that the BBC editorial stance is anything but secular and global. I post this simply to make it clear that such terms are in common use in context's similar to wikipedia articles.  The global and secular BBC also uses the term feticide in its reference pages. The secular and global BBC's reference pages also note that there is "no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to when life really begins." The BBC sexual health reference section notes that IUDs and certain contracpetive pills function by "stopping an egg settling in the womb." Even the plain old pill "stops an egg from settling in the womb." 
To recap, these are several BBC reference pages; the BBC has a global and secular editorial stance, and these references demonstrate what neutral coverage of these topics looks like:
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/medic_method2.shtml contraceptives as  abortifacients 
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/legal_when2.shtml early abortion is birth control
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/medic_select1.shtml "unborn child" in encyclopedic article 
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/relig_female.shtml "feticide" as neutral term
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/embry_viable1.shtml disagreement in medicine
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_emergcontr.shtml "emergency" pill can prevent implantation 
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_combpill.shtml the pill prevents implantation
Good 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignore me everytime I say this: Putting a fetilized egg into a woman is NOT good enough to make her pregnant. IVF fails 70-80% of the time. Pregnancy only begins IF the blastocyst IMPLANTS. Furthermore, you can fertilize eggs outside of a mothers womb and it does not make the 'test tube' pregnant. There are no biological changes in the mother until implantation. You cannot test for pregnancies until after implantation. Next, you have only cited ONE source (that I know of, forgive me if I missed any) in regards to your hypothesis that the definition of pregnancy changed for political reasons (meaning the definition is otherwise completely arbitrary, contrary to the stuff I said above). GT went and got the referenced source and copied and pasted it here and it doesn't seem to prove your argument. While I respect your right to have your position, I feel your hypothesis needs to be left out because it is not WP:V. Work on getting sources and we can talk about this then. (note: I agree we should mention both definition in the article, and who specifically uses them. What I am arguing against is including your claim the definition was redifined in 1965 for political reasons. Furthermore, why should this article be the place to duke this out, when your information isn't even on the main pregnancy article)--Andrew c 23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How the BBC reference pages address these issues

message: According to the FDA, "EC pills ... act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA Notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 861, Feb. 25, 1997). 
Good 14:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA: EC prevents implantation

message: The Physicians' Desk Reference states: “ECPs (Emergency Contraceptive Pills) act primarily by inhibiting ovulation. They may act by altering tubal transport of the sperm and/or ova and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation).” Physicians' desk reference. 54th ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics. 2000:1335 Good 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: "They may act by...". When this section was still in the article, I had changed the wording to say "may". I provided sources and medical papers that said "several more recent studies have not supported these findings, and the endometrial changes that have been observed may not be sufficient to prevent implantation.. My original problem was that the orignal wording which said "Methods of birth control that prevent implantation, such as emergency contraception". So why are you posting these sources? Do you still have a problem with my proposed changes or what exactly is the issue?--Andrew c 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physician's Desk Reference: EC prevents implantation

message: The portion of the article dealing with breast cancer is duplicated.  I am going to render the two together in an attempt to make these two sections into one in as unbiased a fasion as possible.
So please excuse me while I go butcher the text and put together some sort of abortion of the original material.  :)   Paul Robinson 23:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your right to abort.--Pro-Lick 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unrelated to Rfc1394's work cleaning up the duplicate section, there is an ongoing issue: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)."--Pro-Lick 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On a side note, editors of this article might want to check out the disagreement on Partial-birth abortion. Alienus 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Cancer 

message: The original:
: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 post-abortion syndrome), is a subject that is debated among members of the medical community.
Pro-lick's version:
"Negative mental impact as a result of elective abortion is considered unproven.  This phenomenon has been generally referred to as post-abortion syndrome."
The original version "covers all bases," and, thus, I believe it should be kept. Some women will regret abortion, or be pained by it, as many come to regret decisions such as dropping out of high school or having an extramarital affair. It's callous and dismissive to label such emotions as "unproven," even unintentionally, and even if such campaigns as Silent No More are little more than alarmist efforts intended to ban abortion through the self-interested manipulation of human suffering. The real bone of contention herein is whether abortion is in general deleterious to mental health and whether this effect warrants classification as an independent syndrome. I'm reverting the opening paragraph in this interest. -Severa ?? | !!! 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously some women are going to be unhappy about having an abortion.  In fact, even those relieved by the termination of an unwanted pregnancy may well be unhappy that they got pregnant in the first place and had to have an abortion. This isn't the issue.  The issue is whether there's some sort of PTSD-like syndrome associated with abortion.  It has been claimed by anti-choice advocates to exist, but there's no credible evidence and we have to make that clear.  Perhaps we can split the difference between these two paragraphs. Alienus 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The original version reads like a Fox News report (cf, WP:WEASEL.  My version is simply accurate, not to mention far more concise.  If the debate is so hot, why don't any major psychological organizations recognize it?  Some women will regret child birth or be pained by it.  It's just utter and complete weaseling.--Pro-Lick 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental health changes

message: Priorities I and To-Do were my attempts to motivate other editors to productive ends. Priorities II was a humorous if not misguided attempt to reassert this desire. Priorities III will acknowledge my acceptance of whatever priorities the other editors of this article set for themselves. If that means arguing about the opening sentence, etc., until the end of time, so be it. I don't have what it takes to strike a balance between both sides (including my own). I'm not Tznkai; I am not a mediator, and, apparently, I'm not a very good organizer either. Good luck. Goodbye. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you need to work on WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Priorities III