Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

message: I changed "causing its death" to "causing its termination" because "death" implies that the foetus is alive, which is not NPOV.
User:The Lizard Wizard
:I changed it back, because at least the death article is pertinent, while the termination article really isn't.  Your objection has been raised before, and I agree that we don't have the most neutrally worded opening paragraph imaginable, but the solution is going to involve a lot more than just changing that one word. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, we had this argument last week.  Please, it doesn't take a read of the Talk archives to see these things.  --BCSWowbagger 18:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're saying that when I am scratching my nose, I am killing my skin cells? I don't get the difference between death and discontinuation of cell division. Death seems to describe a cell that has stopped functioning after it has already mature. Old people die the same way as an embryo does. The difference is that the mitotic cell division gradually slows down to the point where they stop their mitotic cell divisions and are unable to function as a life unit. I am anti-abortion so don't get my views confused, but I tend to look at everything scientifically, no matter how controversial it may be . plz do remember that wikipedian articles must have a neutral point view. --• Storkian • 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see and read all of: .LCP 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: The opening sentence makes an assumption, namely that the aborted child is alive. But that is a point that is at the core of many discussions on the subject. So that sentence takes sides. And an encyclopedia needs to be neutral. Shouldn't it read something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy, through natural or artificial causes"? DirkvdM 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thousands of words have gone through the tubes discussing just this issue.  I think the opening could still be improved to be made more neutral, but it hasn't been a priority to address it for some time.  See Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, which has about 5 pages of its own archives, for a taste of the debate so far. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if your "fetus = parasite" statement were correct, that wouldn't prove that the fetus doesn't die and is never living. Parasites, in fact, are alive, and do die. Go to the cagegory for parasites, and click on some of the articles. You'll find that ticks DIE at the end of a two-year LIFE CYCLE; that tapeworms LIVE in the digestive tract of vertebrates; and that head lice can be KILLED by a 1% permethrin or pyrethrin.  AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether something is a human person or another type of living tissue (whether that tissue be a parasite, an animal, a human fetus, or some other thing just short of a human person) it can still die. I don't think it advances a POV to say that the fetus can do the same. It would advance a POV if there were reference to a person or baby dying.--Chaser T 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not nice and neutral. To conceal that the fetus dies is inherently choosing sides. The fact that it dies shouldn't be shocking unless someone thinks it's a human. If I read an article about Hitler, I'm shocked, and I feel uncomfortable, because I happen to believe that it's abhorrent to kill Jews. If I read an article about treatment of head lice, I'm not shocked, and I don't feel in the least bit uncomfortable, because I happen to think there's nothing wrong with killing lice. So the word "death" only causes discomfort because of questions in the mind as to what it is that dies. That's why it would be extremely POV to put "baby" (which is what I believe) or "parasite" (which is what Comradeash apparantly believes) in the article. There's nothing wrong with death, unless the thing dying has a right to life, which the article does not assert. And, in addition, we've been through the argument many times that "termination of pregnancy" does not distinguish abortion from a live birth. AnnH ♫ 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But a live birth is also a termination of pregnancy, so that term doesn't work. -- Cat Whisperer 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to add another topic under Notable precedents in discussion in the archives nav box. *sigh* When a cell dies, it is death. When an organ dies, it is death. When a fetus dies, it is death, regardless of whether you consider the fetus to be a vital human endowed with a soul, a forming mass of tissue, or something else. Death is death. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a single cell or organ alive? That is open to discussion. If I lose an arm, does the arm die? Not in normal English. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cat: that is a semantic argument (a word game, if you will). Termination of pregnancy is a technical term. Do a google search of the term. What is the first hit that uses the term to not be synonymous with abortion? #60, an employee manual having to do with maternity leave. The next hit is #113. I do not find the argument against this term compelling.--Andrew c 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if that is a problem it is a matter of choosing between problems and picking the lesser one. Taking sides is a strict nono in Wikipedia. DirkvdM 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At talk:abortion#Definition of abortion I have approached this in a broader sense, looking at various sources for a definition of abortion. Almost all definitions use a variation of 'premature termination of pregnancy' or 'termination of pregnancy before something, something '. Not one definition uses the word 'death' and only the Dutch dictionary uses the word 'life', but then in the sense that the foetus could not live outside the uterus. This avoids the issue of whether the foetus is alive. So the definition of abortion is not controversial at all. It's just the English Wikipedia as it is now that is the odd one out. DirkvdM 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: The end of the lead was changed to this from "in many parts of the world". Personally I find "places" weaker and less specific. World by its nature is more of a worldwide view that Wikipedia wants us to adopt in articles. Thoughts? - RoyBoy 800 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was changed by Resonanteye as part of an effort to trim down article size through copyediting (see the thread, "Word count and grammar"). His edit is a good step toward that goal, but I see now, "in many places" is a lot more ambiguous than "in many parts of the world." Technically, "places" could refer to Mars, Io, or the Andromeda Galaxy — not exactly places where abortion is hotly debated among humans (at least, not yet). I suppose "in many parts of the world" puts the debate in a more appropriate context, so I've restored it. -Severa  (!!!) 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I hadn't considered the galactic dynamic! There must be a bad joke in there somewhere. - RoyBoy 800 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, too much Carl Sagan for me. Blame Pale Blue Dot for raising my consciousness  to "earth chauvinism" or anthropocentrism or whatever you call it. -Severa  (!!!) 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in many places 

message: I was re-reading this section to pass the time, and I realized that Severa had made an interesting suggestion, which I had pretty much glanced over since I was focused on Dirk.
:"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy, consisting of the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death."
I think that is a great suggestion; this might be because of my recent reading of the Encarta lead. Now I do still think "termination" is a touch technical for the defining sentence, but (just thinking out loud) perhaps a more general impediment is wanting to avoid repeating the words "pregnancy" and "termination" in the lead. I suppose the biggest "problem" with it is that it wouldn't accomplish what it set out to do... to take the sting out "death". If it actually helped do that, then it should be used in my opinion. - RoyBoy 800 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret "termination" in an entirely non-technical sense, i.e., not as a synonym of "death," but of "stopping" or "ending." In that context, then, the opening of the sentence would read "an abortion is the premature ending of pregnancy." If you don't read it as a synonym of "death," perhaps it does take the sting out out of the word. -Severa  (!!!) 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severa suggestion 

message: The lead states, "This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means." In short, a comma is not used before a dependant clause. Therefore, the sentence should read, "This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means." Any objections to this change?LCP 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.,-Andrew c [talk] 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I remove the incorrect comma? 

message: My suggestion for the lead:
:Most generally, an abortion is the cessation of a process prior to its full completion.  As pregnancy is the process of development of a embryo into a viable fetus, a pregnancy abortion is thus the termination of a pregnancy prior to the fetus achieving viability.  Abortion is often confused with death of an embryo or fetus; see Birth Control Versus Abortion below.  An induced pregnancy abortion is a pregnancy abortion which has been deliberately caused through medical, surgical or other means.  A spontaneous pregnancy abortion (often called a miscarriage) is a pregnancy abortion which is not deliberately caused.  While in common parlance the term "abortion" is generally used to refer specifically to induced pregnancy abortion, in medical contexts it can refer to either both induced pregnancy abortion and spontaneous pregnancy abortion or just spontaneous pregnancy abortion.  For the remainder of this article, "abortion" will be used for both definitions, with its meaning determined by context.  Throughout history, abortion has been induced by various methods, and the moral and legal aspects of abortion are subject to intense debate in many parts of the world.
Note that I added a comma to the last sentence.  With this lead, the sentence "In common parlance, the term "abortion" is synonymous with induced abortion. However, in medical texts, the word 'abortion' might exclusively refer to, or may also refer to, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)." under "Definitions" probably should be deleted, as it would be redundant.  I would also add another section entitled "Birth Control Versus Abortion".  It would say this:
:Hormonal birth control works by interfering with the menstrual cycle, preventing conception.  However, many groups, such as the Catholic Church, charge that even with hormonal birth control, it is possible for fertilization to occur, and that the resulting embryo may then be expelled.  This claim is used to justify labelling hormonal birth control an abortificant rather than contraception.  As an abortion terminates a pregancy befor viability, it by definition results in the death of the embryo or fetus.  Because of this, the term "abortion" is often used interchangeably with such a death.  However, it is the pregancy, not the embryo or fetus, that is aborted.  As pregnancy is considered to commence when the embryo implants in the uterine wall, not at conception, an embryo can be expelled without fulfilling the definition of "abortion".  Therefore, even if hormonal birth control allows fertilization, "abortificant" is not a correct term.
Something that bother me a bit: if we define abortion as the cessation of a pregnancy prior to viability, isn't that problematic in the face of continuing medical progress?  It's quite conceivable that a hundred years from now, doctors will be able to remove an just-implanted embryo from a uterus and raise it to term in an artificial womb.  Would abortions then cease to exist, as there would no longer be such a thing as a "nonviable fetus"?  Also, doesn't this definition make "late-term abortion" an oxymoron?Heqwm (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another suggestion for the lead