Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 1

message: This page appears to be biased against the concept of abortion trauma syndrome.  Virtually nothing in support of the view is given.  Furthermore, within "Category" it is listed under "Quackery", which is highly inflammatory and implies that those who believe in abortion trauma syndrome are practicing false medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.147.240.6 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 August 2005
: I agree with the opinion by 160.147.240.6. Not only is this article POV, entirely against the syndrome, but it also fails to even define the subject adequately--it consists entirely of criticism and attempt to discredit. What exactly is being opposed is not described in any detail. The article should first define the syndrome, then criticism can follow, as well as support, without bias.
: Darrowby 12:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is it doesn't formally exist. So, it isn't formally defined.  It doesn't meet the Bradford Hill criteria for causality (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment and analogy). Any case, I made an effort to make it more informative; many proponents of the condition use the term abortion trauma syndrome which, as Stotland observes, is a reference to PTSD. Nephron 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be deleted as it is obviously fake and an attack on women's pro-choice rights. Delete... Delete... Delete... Delete... It's just anti-choice proppaganda. (?) There's realy no proof that it's true or even has any reason to be posted here.
Ilikefood 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article?

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: If PAS can be legitimately categorized as pseudoscience, why was a Surgeon General's report inconclusive? Pseudoscience is stuff like astrology and ESP and whatnot. Do you think they'd be inconclusive a metareview of studies would come up inconclusive on those? The fact is they just don't know whetehr PAS is real or not. That doesn't make it pseudoscience. --Hyphen5 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits into this category as there is no scientific evidence that it exists and is only used as anti-abortion propoganda. This is not an illness observed by the medical profession which lacks a diagnosis or explanation - it is a political term. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Then why was the Surgeon General's metareview inconclusive? If we accept your premise, he should have totally repudiated PAS. Your hypothesis makes no sense. Come on now. --Hyphen5 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it make sense to define a syndrome when there is no proof it exists or is even reported as such? Things like post traumatic stress and shell shock were observed by medical staff even if they were not understood for quite a long time. The only motivation for this disorder is political - without the emotive need to make a point if it existed at all it would be seen as a form of depression. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No proof of it exists, but evidence of it does exist, otherwise the surgeon general's metareview wouldn't have been inconclusive. Until there is a conclusive debunking, our encyclopedia article about it cannot label it pseudoscience. --Hyphen5 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough with the NPOV - if I'm in a minority that doesn't like to see political debates dressed up as science (even when there is none) then I won't revert your change. My only motivation is to be accurate and not to try to make point using unproven syndromes. I'm pro choice even though it would never be an option for me personally but I have friends who have felt nothing but relief after abortions which were the right decision for them. I'll wait to see what other comments are made. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly a political, religious issue. The lack of evidence clearly allows this to be categorized as pseudoscience. "Evidence" can be presented for anything. However, this evidence must be correlated with what it is meant to prove otherwise the evidence can be dismissed as mere coincidence, speculation or fabrication.  Joelito 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: == In regard to Post-abortion syndrome ==
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.   Hyphen5 14:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackery relates to purported health benefits but pseudoscience does seem to fit as it is phrased as a scientific debate without the science to back it up. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your addition of the "Quackery" and "Pseudoscience" categories is vandalism, and I will continue to revert it and to cite you for adding them. Even if this article were merely about a vacuous political term, it still wouldn't fit under "quackery". The fact that the article quotes the SURGEON GENERAL taking PAS seriously -- albeit inconclusively -- means that this does not fit under "Pseudoscience" either. Again, Alienus, this is an encyclopedia, and you can't use it to push your opinions. --Hyphen5 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my research, it's the surgeon general's. Read the article. --Hyphen5 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Alienus' talk page. 

message: I would consider I had won this debate if someone could come up with a notable reference that Post-abortion traumatic stress syndrome is quackery and pseudoscience. We might even write a section on it. Please try hard. --WikiCats 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. Something needs to be done about this article. --Hyphen5 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on the AMA website  returned absolutely no hits at all. Proponents of the syndrome will always find a factual article to be NPOV in their opinion as there is no science to back it up so it will be given no credibility. If it's not science (the AMA doesn't acknowledge it as such) and it's pretending to be science that makes it pseudoscience QED. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that those supporting the pseudoscience category are relying on a negative form of proof - lacking any evidence that it's science, let's call it pseudoscience.  I don't think that flies.  That last step in Sophia's "proof" above is a small piece of original research.  The assertion that PAS is pseudoscience needs positive verification, it seems to me.  That means some scientist actually calling it "pseudoscience" or something equivalent in print.  Simply calling it "unverifiable" may be a euphemism for "hogwash" (since we all know that it's impossible to prove a negative - a study can't show that something doesn't exist, merely that we've failed to detect it with that study), but we aren't the ones to draw that conclusion.  All IMHO, of course. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GTB, I see your providing both sides of the case.  I'm going to provide a case for calling is pseuoscience.  I think it should be called quackery too, because it gets so heavily promoted as an actual illness, potentially allowing those lacking integrity to take money to "fix" it.  Consider the following:  A pregnancy consulting clinic tells someone they have HIV-C even though the tests some back negative for HIV.  They say it's HIV-Contro, the controversial type of HIV.  Which isn't HIV, but they call it HIV-C, because it makes it sound like a doctor actually recognizes it, even though no doctor actually does.  So, should we add HIV-C to Wikipedia along with every other controversial, hypothetical illness that has been tested and proven to have no verifiable effect (i.e., inconlusive results)?--Pro-Lick 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a solid point; regarding it being promoted and people trying to fix it. As I understand negative feelings a woman has are often real; and it is a matter of shifting the cause of that to her abortion. The thing is its possible, even likely a part of those negative emotions do have to do with the abortion. I'd agree its quakery if how they go about treating her is a significant departure from treatment for those negative emotions. I'm trying to think out loud if shifting the blame is enough to call it quakery; or if their treatment has to be wrong too. I mean after treating any possible issues that surround the abortion; do they also try to; or end up fixing other longstanding issues. - RoyBoy 800 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackery and Pseudoscience (cont.)

message: The opposing side of the debate has quoted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing with this decision "Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact."  (Passed 6-2) 
As a compromise for the sake of consensus this side proposes that Category:Pseudoscience be included in the article along with Category:Anxiety disorders as a fair solution for everyone. --WikiCats 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be ok with that. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it's not an anxiety disorder.  It's not a disaorder.  It's not an illness.  It's one thing not to reflect established fact, another to go completely contrary to it.--Pro-Lick 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I agree with Pro-Lick I think having both categories will help users find the info and will warn them that this is not accepted science. It may also stabilise what is becoming an edit war. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If somebody wants to add the anxiety disorder category to it, I won't undo it.--Pro-Lick 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: This may be a contoversial subject but people will have heard of it and may want to check out the facts. As long as it's factual and NPOV then it should be kept - I don't think it qualifies as a speedy delete. --Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not a speedy.  If the article is POV, that's a reason to fix it, not to delete it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he misread my post - I'm happy with no flags.--Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy delete

message: I've reverted to my last version because someone had added citation templates that create more work, and more importantly someone had changed the intro to reflect their own POV. The source said this is "frequently obversed"; someone changed that to observed in a "small" number of women. Don't change or elaborate on what the sources say, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad the flags are gone. Although I accept the changes I made to the first sentence weren't good I was trying to limit the authority given to that statement. From the abstract quoted all that seems to be confirmed is that 10 women had PTSD like symptoms and some had miscelaneous other problems. There was no mention of their mental health history prior to the abortion so without further corroboration it's a bit sweeping to effectively define this as a known, observed syndrome. I know this is qualified later on but this first sentence reads as if the issue is decided and we know that isn't so. Also I may have missed something obvious but I can't get any info when I follow up abstract 2  Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing what sources say

message: Some studies have shown that the rapid drop in estrogen levels that occurs when a woman is no longer pregnant can cause depression; this applies to the drop after both abortion and live birth. Thus, so-called "post-abortion syndrome" is no different from the "postpartum depression" in this regard. Does anyone have more information about this? I was surprised not to see mention of it in the article. I'm looking for some sources, because I can't remember exactly where I heard this (though it does seem like common sense to a certain extent) but I thought maybe some of you would have some leads. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PAS vs Postpartum depression

message: I would like to propose re-adding the sentence "Shortly thereafter, the APA removed its favorable summary of research on abortion that had previously been posted on their web siteAmerican Psychological Association. (2005)"APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women", retrieved January 15, 2006., but which is still available through web.archive.org.". Antonrojo recently deleted this sentence, because he/she thought it seemed to imply that the motivation behind the website info would have been political rather than scientific. However, I think it is relevant to this issue to note that the APA has removed its favorable position paper to be updated after Fergusson's study was published. Simply stating it doesn't imply whether the motivation was scientific or political. If Antonrojo thinks the sentence somehow implies a political motivation, we could change the wording, but I still believe the information should be included. What do you think? Mkaksone 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: APA briefing paper

message: Are the links listed under "Post-abortion support sites & organizations" in the "External links" section in keeping with WP:EL? If not, would we have to remove all of the links, or only those which constituted "social networking sites" or "discussion forums?" -Severa  (!!!) 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of them, for being POV. Most had an anti-abortion stance in general and some were also faith-based at the same time. Other sites (Like Project Voice) were neutral, but they seemed more like social networking sites and/or had more stories than information about PAS. I'm not sure if hotline sites should stay either. mirageinred 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support sites and forums

message: I believe that along with cleanup, this article needs to be moved to "Mental health effects of abortion," to better cover all facets of the issue. This change in nomenclature will automatically open a fair and neutral opportunity. This would cover the alleged negative and positive effects, allow alternate explanations like estrogen level drops to get a fair shake, and discuss research, rather than setting up the conflict as one of presumptions, assumptions, and politics. Abortion likely has some effect, and the field of issues ought to be addressed. 
An alternative method might also be to fork the article into one about the academic discussion of mental health effects generally, and one that discusses the syndrome, its history, support, and criticisms against it. The general one would be more inclusive, as i described above, and the second would be more exclusive.
I get a sense that this issue will become more prominent in the near future, and Wikipedia should be able to provide a decent resource about this highly contentious issue. The structure of the articles on climate change and global warming are similar to my proposal, where one is broadly general and the other covers the specific political and contentious issues. The real life issues of those article have a similar division, despite being in the same genus of subjects. I think it should be similar. 
Respectfully, Donbas 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: On the subject of why Post-Abortion Syndrome cannot be proved: It is a philosophical fact that nothing can be proven true; it can only be proven false. The same is true in this matter.Capt Anonymous 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: Are there any ways to shorten this? The manual of style recommends that it be two to three paragraphs long. mirageinred 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting paragraph