Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 3

message: For analyses by media experts, researchers, and commentary by persons interviewed by Bazelon, see Symposium: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome The contribution "Heartless Bastards" is particularly interesting.  As several note, it is especially revealing that while briefed by many on Fergusson's study, by far the best controlled study looking at the matter, Bazelon omitted all mention of Fergusson's study, much less his pro-choice position, because she clearly wanted to make it appear that only anti-abortion radicals believed that abortion could cause negative mental health effects.--Strider12 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read WP:V and WP:RS before proposing that this source be included in the article in any way, shape, or form. MastCell Talk 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "The Afterparty of Death," "Poetry of Life?" The site is also a partner of townhall.com. No way this passes WP:V or WP:RS. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not given "undue weight". It's actually given far less prominence than it ought to receive. MastCell Talk 02:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bazelon's Errors, Biases, and Distortions 

message: In MastCell's discussion at Post-Abortion Trauma -- An expanded purging of inconvenient evidence she states: "In fact, there are no conclusive data on the cause of post-partum depression..."
She here is correctly pointing out that the CAUSAL connections between depression after childbirth and depression after abortion are very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.  Should we therefore deny that they exist?  No.  Higher rates of depression have been reliably observed after both deliveries and abortion, and record based studies have shown that both hospitalization and outpatient treatment for depression is actually more common in 180 days after abortion than after childbirth.
In any event, if MastCell advocates that lack of conclusive proof of a causal connection is a basis for generally denying the existence of mental health effects associated with abortion, why is she not also editing the article on post-partum depression to deny that depression post-partum is associated with pregnancy outcome?  Why do different standards apply to abortion?  Why do experts and research findings that disagree with the deniers like Stotland and Russo need to be blanked from this article in order to promote the view of a minority? --Strider12 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person has been editing one article based on principles that could apply to other articles, that does not require them to actually go and edit those articles or else admit fault in their argument. People edit the articles they choose to edit and are not required to edit similar articles just because others feel it would prove their loyalty to their reasoning. I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense so let's not even start. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:02, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there are major differences between post-partum depression and "post-abortion syndrome". To start with, one is a real diagnosis, found in the DSM-IV and recognized by the psychiatric community, while the other is not. That's a starting point for anyone concerned with WP:WEIGHT rather than asserting their own opinion. Another difference is that research on post-partum depression has proceeded organically from the medical community in a relatively non-judgemental and depoliticized environment (Tom Cruise notwithstanding). In contrast, "post-abortion syndrome" is essentially a political creation of a subset of the pro-life movement, with the expressed intent of generating fear, uncertainty and doubt and opening another "front" in the abortion wars. And that's David Reardon's own description of it (e.g. "In some cases, it is unnecessary to convince people of abortion's dangers. It is sufficient simply to raise enough doubts about abortion that they will refuse actively to oppose the proposed anti-abortion initiative.") But I digress. MastCell Talk 19:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causal Connections & Post-Partum Syndrome and Post-Abortion Syndrome 

message: I am quite new to editing wikipedia and I'm concerned by a lot of what I'm reading in this debate.  I just tend to follow pages I think I know something about and know a think or two about abortion as I teach about US politics and learned a fair bit about the issue from that. I linked to the Post abortion syndrome page as I had never actually heard about it before, and immediately thought the article was written to try to disprove the alleged condition's existence.  When I noticed this on-going debate, I decided to read some of the references in the article to see if they were being fairly reported.  I came across an article about a study in Finland that in the article seemed to suggest that more woman who gave birth committed suicide than woman who had abortions (it suggested this by quoting raw statistics.) I suspected that this was misleading on the basis I realised that more pregnancies lead to birth than lead to abortion, so I decided to check the reference carefully.  True enough, it appeared that a misleading inference had been given by quoting raw statistics than if the rate per 100,000 figures had been used, so I tried to improve the article by changing the statistics used, and then changing the quoted part of the conclusion to the actual summary of the conclusion.  I thought that was fair, and yet my changes were quickly reverted - not in themselves changes but just outright reverted!  
Is there really concensus on nall the contents of the article or have other with alternative points to add just been driven away?
I'll continue to watch this debate with interest.  Cheers  Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think there's consensus on the article as a whole, and it could certainly use dramatic improvement. I hope you stick around and contribute; unfortunately, getting one's introduction to editing on a highly contentious article can be an off-putting experience. MastCell Talk 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen the particular reference you're referring to but if it has been used as you describe it would constitute original research and needs to be removed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:41, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sides have misquoted things out of context; however, changing statistics without mentioning it on the talk page looks like vandalism or POV pushing, which is probably why it was reverted. Try fixing it again now that we have a heads-up. Kuronue | Talk 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this quite worrying 

message: What is the purpose of this section? If it's meant to list the proposed symptoms of post-abortion syndrome, then it needs to be retitled and reworded. If it's just a list of things that may happen to women psychologically following an abortion, then it needs to be removed. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:10, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feelings experienced after miscarriage or abortion" 

message: I think this is a really good idea - in fact, I was considering doing it when User:Equazcion beat me to it. The article had turned into an unstructured and not-particularly-readable mess of quotes taken from various primary sources to stress one point or another. I think starting over from the intro (which is actually pretty good) is a good idea. The first step might be to compile a list of reliable secondary sources on the topic, beyond what we have so far, as these should form the basis of the article. Using secondary sources to guide coverage, rather than relying on individual editors' selected excerpts from the primary literature, might help us avoid some of the problems we've been encountering. MastCell Talk 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was actually not my intent in cutting down the article. I don't see any reason it needs to be expanded. All we need is a summary of the proposed syndrome and the stances of the various official medical/psychiatric organizations. I don't see the need for anything else. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:03, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I misunderstood. Well, perhaps you're right. In any case, it looks better now than it did before. MastCell Talk 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbing the article 

message: I have made a few small changes that I though improved the article, and was off to chance the NOW link from the 'non-aligned' category to the 'pro-choice' category' when I realised that that may be a controversial move - so I'll raise the point here.  NOW is clearly a pro-choice organisation that is actively involved in fighting against restictions on the right to an abortion.  Can anyone think of an argument that would support it remaining as non-aligned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiehelper2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOW Is definitely, unabashedly a pro-choice organization.  No controversy there. But you are confusing the National Organization for Women with "Now," a PBS television news program with David Brancaccio .  It's the latter that's used as a reference under "non-aligned" groups.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! My mistake! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when I first looked at the website I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't believe that NOW was listed as a non-aligned website. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whether the NOW PBS program's report was biased is another question, as it clearly takes the same position on PAS as advocated by Planned Parenthood and NOW--namely that it is all a political contrivance.--Strider12 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, that happens to be the position "advocated" by the vast majority of the scientific, medical, and psychological communities as well. Presumably, PBS also takes the same position as Planned Parenthood on the question of whether the world is round or flat, but that's not evidence of pro-choice bias. MastCell Talk 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is NOW really non-aligned? 

message: I must say that while this current version is short on offering readers much substantative information, if for example they are looking for sources to get started on a research paper, it is at least far less biased than the previous long form.--21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia article on a medical condition. Those don't normally include a list and details of each study that was conducted to determine the condition's existence or lack thereof. The purpose that list served, and the only reason the article became that way, was because the two sides kept feeling the need to present evidence to support their argument. We're not here to help students with research papers, although there are plenty of references and external sources here to get them going. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:48, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: That is one of the goals, but another of the goals is to decide which material is actually of substance, and "encyclopedic". A thorough article needs only to contain a description of the proposed condition and the official conclusions on its existence, not the series of studies by which those conclusions were arrived at. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:54, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, this isn't so much an article on a medical condition as an article on a purported diagnosis unrecognized by the medical/psychiatric community and propagated via predominantly political advocacy. In that context, it is perhaps relevant to talk in a bit more detail about the evidence for existence of this "syndrome" than it would be for, say, lupus. On the other hand, it may make more sense to broaden the article scope to abortion and mental health - while this opens Pandora's box for those inclined to disregard WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN, it at least would align the article title with the research that has been done. MastCell Talk 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. This topic is different form other medical conditions in that regard. However I suggest everyone that's been involved up until now refrain from taking it upon themselves to expand the article. If it warrants expanding, let's leave it up to others. For obvious reasons. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:03, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to let it be for awhile in terms of expansion. When the APA's new position statement comes out, it will probably need to be updated, but I have no idea what it will say or exactly when it will be published. MastCell Talk 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that subject is a bit different than other medical topics, however, this doesn't mean that expansion need go over the science of it (again, leading to the same problems) but should perhaps focus on new developments (per MastCell). I think the shorter version seems to have been a crowd-pleasing compromise - good work. Phyesalis (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is shorter better? 

message: The article states: "Primarily a term used by pro-life advocates,[2][3][4]" but none of the sources report, much less provide evidence, that this term is mostly used by pro=life advocates.  It appears that this is just a point in the intro where one or more editors have chosen to put three pro-choice articles as citations.  In other words, I can find no quotes in the articles supporting the statement that PAS is "primarily a term used by pro-life advocates."  They do all echo the charge that pro-life advocates have been particularly involved in raising public awareness of this proposed diagnosis in order to advance their political objective.  But not that they are the ones who "primarily use the term."    Should be rephrased, or just cut.--Strider12 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I can see no reason for this bit in the article. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if any source explicitly states this, but do they need to? This doesn't seem like a controversial point. The term is primarily used by pro-life advocates -- none of the pro-choice or neutral media use the term except to describe the claims of pro-life sources. I don't see anyone else using the term. Is this point really debatable? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the point is not really debatable, why does the point require three references? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There are three sources because it prevents the debatable point from becoming deleted. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the point is self evidently true, which I assume it is, then there is no need for references to be cited.  I think it is the use of the references that is causing the debate rather than the substance of the point.  Maybe everyone would be happy to have the point made without supporting references? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first off, the lead section usually doesn't need to be cited. And "But it's true!" argument won't prevent anything in any articles from being deleted. It's not about what is true, but about verifiability. To back a controversial point, they must be backed by reliable sources, which they are. For more information, read WP:V. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  True but there's a bit of SYN in that argument. If we're drawing a new conclusion based on the sum total of what we see in the cited references, but the conclusion itself is never actually stated in one of those references, that's certainly SYN. The counterpoint to that, though... is that the lead of any article is going to be a summary of source content, so SYN-y statements are often present. For instance if an article about planes has lots of different sections for different types of planes, and each section says "this type of plane is expensive", it's fine to sum that up in the lead as "planes are generally expensive". I think the statement can stay the way it is, its only saving graces being that it's in the lead and that it's not a debated point. If this point were specifically controversial then I would say it should go. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:54, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I mostly object to the smuggling in of biased references.  Also, it is certainly sufficient to simply state that the proposed diagnosis is controversial and is not in the DSM -- which implictly means it is not recognized by the APA, but I don't even mind underscoring that it is not recognized by the APA with the expanded sentence.   To preface that it is not an accepted diagnosis with it is "Primarily used by pro-lifers" is padding that is intended to be dismissive.  Do we bother to say that "only creationists believe in creationism" or "Evolution is a term mostly used by proponents of evolution," etc.  Clearly, the proponents of PAS (which are not all prolifers, actually it is pro-choice advocates who have proposed the label PASS...see the pro-choice support group www.afterabortion.com) are the ones who use the term and opponents of the proposed diagnosis only use it to discuss their disagreemnt.  That will be true of any disputed theory or label.  Including this dismissive "mostly used by pro-lifers" plus the latter sections regarding the charge that it is used by pro-lifers political purposes is redundant loading.  I see no problem with "Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that attempts to popularize the term "post-abortion syndrome" are a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes."  Combined with, "it's not recognized in the DSM", that is sufficient to explain the controversy. --Strider12 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is partially intended to be dismissive, but for good reason. If we leave it out, the lead would send the message that although PAS isn't officially recognized, it's still a commonly used term among everyone and generally is UNofficially recognized -- neither of which are so. The fact is (whether there is a source or not, but we do agree nevertheless) that PAS is a term used primarily by pro-lifers. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:10, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources don't supported statement 

message: I just reverted an attempt to change the term 'pro-life' to 'anti-abortion' - I really believe it is better if we can agree to use the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' than end up with the terms 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion'.  As I see it, almost all of us are pro-abortion in some circumstances anti-abortion in others - though people disagree greatly about where the balance should be.  However, the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' do make clearer the key distinction between the two groups - whether the woman's choice should trump the interests of the fetus or whether the life of the fetus trumps the woman's right to choose.  Also, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are the terms used by the two camps to describe themselves.  Do others agree? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - this is one issue where there is actually something approaching a guideline, though I can't find the link right now. We generally use self-applied descriptors for these two camps, in the interest of balance - they should be "pro-choice" and "pro-life", rather than "anti"-anything. MastCell Talk 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, this is the accepted terminology and there's no reason to deviate from that. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:58, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: The Asians are reading the Asian language wikis, I think. For the English one, we should probably stick with the terminology most commonly used in the English-speaking world, which are pro-life/pro-choice, unless I'm mistaken there too. Regardless, if there is a question of which terms to use, that's not something to try and change here, 'cause there's a whole abortion debate with lots of other articles that are much more central to the issue, and they, to my knowledge, use life/choice. Perhaps bring this up centrally at the abortion article or wikiproject, if it's a real issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:40, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Equazcion, this is not the place for that debate. I'd be interested in it over at Abortion, though. Phyesalis (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a name?