Talk:Abortion/Archive 20

message: An RfC has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology regarding the following:
*an NPOV approach to the introductory line
*an NPOV approach to : Hypothesized Abortion Breast Cancer link, Mental Health (particularly negative effects), and the Pro-Life viewpoint
*the editing behaviour of Pro-Lick - mainly in regards to the user's refusal to reach consensus before altering article content on a particularly heated and controversial topic.
Let's see what happens....DonaNobisPacem 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be blunt: this article had gotten stuck in a rut due to the constant bickering from all sides.  We can't even come to a consensus about the very first sentence, much less anything else.  In the meantime, so much effort has been expended on fighting each other that the article has been allowed to rot and editors have left in disgust.  Pro's editing style may offend the over-cautious, but by being bold and being competent, he's fixed a lot of really awful sections.  Fundamentally, he's moved this article into being based on evidence, not on bipartisan compromise.  This is as it should be and I support it.  This article needed a reboot, and now it's gotten one. I will vigorously oppose any attempt to punish Pro's efforts and return this article to its previous, decayed state. Alienus 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though I question DonaNobisPacem's motivation, I appreciate the RFC.  I had already added RFCs in 2 different sections.  I definitely don't mind more and differnt people than our present group.  With any luck, they'll remind the parties involved that consensus is only an article content tool when used in determining what the majority of WP:RS sources think, as is also made clear on the consensus page and WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing WP:NPOV#Undue weight supports your position? Because I don't see that. The definitions and sources you have accumulated are all well and good; but the "viewpoint" the fetus dies from an abortion is held by the vast majority of people you actually understand what an abortion does. I've been busy recently but I do want to bring in more views on putting murder mention in the following paragraph allowing us to remove "death" or if both should be there. - RoyBoy 800 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight is policy.  The section topic is RFC.  If you'd like to pursue the use of murder, do so in a different section.  If you can show mentioning it is not undue weight, then I have no problem with it.--Pro-Lick 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting undue weight in the least, I'm doubting your ability to apply it neutrally. Frankly the Encarta mention of "death" in their definition undercuts about every single policy point you've made here regarding death. The only one that might stick is consensus of sources; but I would again reiterate many sources don't have the same summary style goals we do. - RoyBoy 800 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You see what Alienus just did Pro-Lick; said exactly what you are saying but in summary form; and not being confrontational. Just putting it out there for consideration instead of trying to force it on the article. - RoyBoy 800 08:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Opps forgot to answer Alienus. What is also generally true is the definitions "out there" are not encyclopedic. - RoyBoy 800 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, we're here to paraphrase or quote what's out there, not replace it with original research. Alienus 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took me a while to spot this nugget; where the heck did original research come from?! This isn't about OR! Its about acknowledging most sources do not have the stylistic (summary) demands encyclopedias do; and no source I know of has the same editorial demands to take in all points of view; something we are forced to adhere to because of Wikipedia's open and transparent process. Taking a "consensus of sources" does not cut it for responsible editors who understand the need to frame the collective knowledge and P'sOV into a coherant neutral whole. - RoyBoy 800 05:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: He/she/it hadn't edited this article since Monday. And, if you're such a stickler for adhering to Wiki-policy, perhaps you should investigate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -Severa ?? | !!! 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown by the edit logs, this is not the first time you've wondered off for several days after claiming you were tired of it all.  Sorry, but I don't buy unsourced pleas for sympathy that are blatant requests for POV support.  As for civil and NPA, take a look at the RfC they posted before you start suggesting I did anything that hasn't already been publicly accepted and unpunished.  I guess that tells you how much those policies mean.--Pro-Lick 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit logs show that your editing pattern is very disruptive and seems immature to many.  There is not much else to say.  Good 15:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - NPOV approach and Pro-Lick's editing behaviour 

message: :I'm going to be blunt: this article had gotten stuck in a rut due to the constant bickering from all sides.  We can't even come to a consensus about the very first sentence, much less anything else.  In the meantime, so much effort has been expended on fighting each other that the article has been allowed to rot and editors have left in disgust.  Pro's editing style may offend the over-cautious, but by being bold and being competent, he's fixed a lot of really awful sections.  Fundamentally, he's moved this article into being based on evidence, not on bipartisan compromise.  This is as it should be and I support it.  This article needed a reboot, and now it's gotten one. I will vigorously oppose any attempt to punish Pro's efforts and return this article to its previous, decayed state. Alienus 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I question DonaNobisPacem's motivation, I appreciate the RFC.  I had already added RFCs in 2 different sections.  I definitely don't mind more and differnt people than our present group.  With any luck, they'll remind the parties involved that consensus is only an article content tool when used in determining what the majority of WP:RS sources think, as is also made clear on the consensus page and WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing WP:NPOV#Undue weight supports your position? Because I don't see that. The definitions and sources you have accumulated are all well and good; but the "viewpoint" the fetus dies from an abortion is held by the vast majority of people you actually understand what an abortion does. I've been busy recently but I do want to bring in more views on putting murder mention in the following paragraph allowing us to remove "death" or if both should be there. - RoyBoy 800 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight is policy.  The section topic is RFC.  If you'd like to pursue the use of murder, do so in a different section.  If you can show mentioning it is not undue weight, then I have no problem with it.--Pro-Lick 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting undue weight in the least, I'm doubting your ability to apply it neutrally. Frankly the Encarta mention of "death" in their definition undercuts about every single policy point you've made here regarding death. The only one that might stick is consensus of sources; but I would again reiterate many sources don't have the same summary style goals we do. - RoyBoy 800 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You see what Alienus just did Pro-Lick; said exactly what you are saying but in summary form; and not being confrontational. Just putting it out there for consideration instead of trying to force it on the article. - RoyBoy 800 08:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Opps forgot to answer Alienus. What is also generally true is the definitions "out there" are not encyclopedic. - RoyBoy 800 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, we're here to paraphrase or quote what's out there, not replace it with original research. Alienus 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took me a while to spot this nugget; where the heck did original research come from?! This isn't about OR! Its about acknowledging most sources do not have the stylistic (summary) demands encyclopedias do; and no source I know of has the same editorial demands to take in all points of view; something we are forced to adhere to because of Wikipedia's open and transparent process. Taking a "consensus of sources" does not cut it for responsible editors who understand the need to frame the collective knowledge and P'sOV into a coherant neutral whole. - RoyBoy 800 05:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: He/she/it hadn't edited this article since Monday. And, if you're such a stickler for adhering to Wiki-policy, perhaps you should investigate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -Severa ?? | !!! 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown by the edit logs, this is not the first time you've wondered off for several days after claiming you were tired of it all.  Sorry, but I don't buy unsourced pleas for sympathy that are blatant requests for POV support.  As for civil and NPA, take a look at the RfC they posted before you start suggesting I did anything that hasn't already been publicly accepted and unpunished.  I guess that tells you how much those policies mean.--Pro-Lick 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit logs show that your editing pattern is very disruptive and seems immature to many.  There is not much else to say.  Good 15:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: It seems like progress on this article comes to a halt when debate fills up the talk page. One thing that other controversial and active pages have done is to create topical subpages (see Talk:Jesus). This way, all the debate can be in one place, and the basic talk page is left uncluttered for other 'priorities'. I would propose creating Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moving appropriate threads there. Does that sound like a good idea?--Andrew c 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the link is noticeable on the talk page, I think it's an excellent idea....DonaNobisPacem 05:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't bother me. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome this. AvB ÷ talk 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal - subpages 

message: I have created Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moved some of the older topics to that page. Since there seems to be some active discussion going on under "22 Is Abortion the death 'of a cell'", "28 Before able to survive", and "32 medical sources", I have left those sections in place for the time being. So I encourage everyone to start discussing this topic on the newly created subpage! If this system works, I may suggest subpages for other common topics, such as pregnancy definition, and ABC. --Andrew c 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and moved those sections, too, leaving links to their new locations in their old spaces. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, thank you for this, and for always having a level head when dealing with the heated debates that sometimes insue on this page. Kudos!--Andrew c 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always having a level head?  I wish I did that, but thanks for the vote of confidence.  We'll get that darn encyclopedia written, somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please start moving discussion to [[Talk:Abortion/First paragraph]]   

message: Stop the cruelty: --2006-03-28 16:57:25 Pro-Lick
:Natural abortions Pro-lick, and from now on sign your comments. Your pro-abortion stance and irrelevant topics to insult pro-life people is appalling but if you must you should be held accountable. Chooserr 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very relevant.  Someone had included a definition from a vet.  I'm providing perspective, even if your POV of it is "appalling".  I can't control your feelings.--Pro-Lick 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the vet definition was simply to show the neutrality of the word death and its use in the wider scientific community in referring to the fetus.  I agree with chooserr that your addition here is inappropriate -  trolling is not highly regarded amongst the Wikipedia community.DonaNobisPacem 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was getting at is that you were poking fun at pro-life people by your comment "Stop the cruelty". If it wasn't a natural miscarriage it would be semi-appropriate, but I don't see how you can justify such an inaccurate heading. Chooserr 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Unborn Puppies 

message: Let me state and stress that the current semi-protected state is totally in response to Pro-Lick's continued flood of sock puppets and block evasion.  It is not an issue of Vandalism, as the default S-protection tag stated.  I do not consider the actions of either side in the current debate to be vandalism, and apologize for any implication of such that may have come from my use of the standard tag.  I have edited the tag to be specific to the current situation.  And if Pro-Lick will stop his sock parade, I'll gladly lift the protection. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite Alienus' reasonable objection on TexasAndroid talk; this is not only prudent but full protection will likely be needed at some point. Semi-protection does not stop discussions and will not stop users with a minimal amount of contructive participation in Wikipedia. Something I think should be expected from those who wish to edit controversial articles. - RoyBoy 800 19:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-protection 

message: Right now it appears that in the lead sentence of this section 1972 data is used to justify the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. Is there any more recent research? There has to be.Good 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you read further down, there is a paragraph that compares mortality rates for 1999 in the US and UK rates in the early 90s. Also, the cited study was published in 1979. If you look at table 19 here, you can see that the mortality rates in the US have gone down since '72. But for more recent information there is this that says "The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion" which is referencing another study here.--Andrew c 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I exactly understand your reasoning, but go right ahead and update the source if that's what you want. I agree that more current sources will only improve the article.--Andrew c 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Health_effects Health Effects: 1972 is old data] 

message: More info to consider adding to the article. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology study (Gissler M et al., Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987–2000, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004, 190(2):422–427.) cited by the pro-abortion AGI has some interesting information in it about pregnacy and abortion mortality rates. A pro-life organization has also cited the study, noting that the researchers found that the mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than that associated with pregnancies carried to term. An abstract of the Finnish study - largely ignored by the pro-abortion media and medical community- is here at the online NCBI/NLM/NIH database. From the abstract: population-based, retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000, database included all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland. 
*36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - all pregnancies
*28.2 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - birth 
*51.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - spontaneous abortion
*83.1 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - induced abortion
Good 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were these deaths the direct consequence of abortion-related medical complications? No. The study's authors mined the Finnish database and compared data on women who had undergone abortion, birth, or miscarriage within a year of dying for other reasons — evidence of correlation, if anything, but certainly not causation. It would thus be highly inappropriate to refer to this as the "abortion mortality rate." -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The risk of death would only be applicable if the deaths counted were directly caused by induced abortion. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish study: induced abortion mortality rate higher than natural birth 

message: Should this article include this recent development?
*But the number of women who have died in the United States after taking Mifeprex has now reached six, according to reports received by the Food and Drug Administration; another has died in Canada..."The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion," said Dr. Damon Stutes, a provider in Reno, Nev., who refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion opponents on anything. "But the truth is the truth," he said.
Good 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more information on this at the mifepristone article. 6 deaths out of the estimate 580,000 uses of the drug in the US is still around 1 in 100,000. The deaths have all been related to an off-label use of the drug that involves a vaginal insertion of misoprostol. The CDC's investigation into 4 deaths concluded "that there is no established causal link between the deaths and the drugs". So, why is safe in quotation marks? --Andrew c 13:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth noting in the health effects section.  The tested deaths show the cause to be similar to that of food poisoning - impurities in the drug as opposed to the drug itself.  Probably worth noting that there's more pain involved with the drug, but it's also still safer than birth.  Just keep any additions in context and avoid turning it into your own private POV ad.--Pro-Lick 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NY Times: 7 deaths from "safe" abortion pills

message: For editors to keep in mind. And perhaps for inclusion in this article:
Abortion Bias Seeps Into News Here ae some quotes from this LA Times article:
*A comprehensive Times study finds that the press often favors abortion rights in its coverage, even though journalists say they make every effort to be fair.  
* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.
* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.
* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.
* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.
* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.
* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.
* Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines. 
Good 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LA Times acknowledges abortion bias in the press

message: Hi, I am just trying to understand what part of the page is deserving of the world tag. It seems to be very factual based to me. For one it has more references than any other wikipedia page I have seen, which would suggest that it either has been neutralised or it is has both points of view in it. To me it seems to be neutralised from reading it. Ansell 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't that the article is POV or lacking sources, the problem is that it is mostly dealing with issues of Abortion in the west.  To fix this, we could add in more information about abortion in Africa, Asia, and South America.  (The problem is that information on abortion issues in Asia and Africa are much harder to come by.)  -Quasipalm 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  world tag 

message: *Surprise, they can't have abortions in this country.
*Surgeons remove two fetuses from infant. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pro-Lick (talk • contribs).
:Not sure what this has to do with the wikipedia article, but I'm pretty sure the first one is a hoax -- i doubt such large deformities would allow a newborn to survive in that condition without medical intervention.  -Quasipalm 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will notice that the baby only lived for 30 minutes after birth. To me this has a large amount to do with possible reasons for abortion. Why have the risk of the mother giving birth to a baby that will only survive 30 minutes, guaranteed in this case. Ansell 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of an obvious photoshop creation. Take a look at the date ;). Jefffire 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, I considered that, but the site is a legit news site.  Consider these birth defects before you start up the photoshop conspiracy network.--Pro-Lick 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The date of the article:  Posted on: 2006-03-29 09:19:53 (Server Time)--Pro-Lick 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly is wrong with that date? Ansell 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's potentialy true but I still suspect it's a mock up. The photo looks unrealistic and there is a long history of respected news corporations pulling the odd joke on their viewers. In any case it doesn't really add much to the debate. Jefffire 20:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your POV and expert comments on Anencephaly.  Be sure to check out the external link section.--Pro-Lick 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this one particular case is a mock up based on my experience with photoshop  creations. I'm not ruling out that it's real, just regestering my doubts. Jefffire 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News you can use

message: Given the disturbing photos the wikipedia Anencephaly article links to, why on earth do we not link to any images of abortion? The most common medical procedure in the Western world, and we have no photos available of abortion at the various stages of gestation and various methods?  What is the basis for keeping such informative links ooout of this article? Good 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For 1 thing, those photos are not on Wiki, they're on an External site.  I'm not objecting to what you're asking for.  I certainly don't object to providing photos of dead and handicapped women and girls after being forced to give birth.  A few c-section photos would be nice too.--Pro-Lick 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion Images/Links

message: There is some POV edit-warring going on in two related articles: Pro-life and Pro-choice.  Editors here might be interested in taking a look. Alienus 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edit-warring 

message: It is written in the article, "HELP KEEP THIS ARTICLE SHORT AND SIMPLE: DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO "BIASED" SECTION. ADD THEM TO WHICHEVER SUB-ARTICLE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE INSTEAD. ALSO, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT SITES CONTAINING SHOCK MATERIAL SHALL, IN NO CASE, BE ACCEPTED. THANKS!"
I should thus note now that I added a link to the "biased links" section.  The link I added was in regards to the Libertarian view on abortion.  I added it there as it didn't seem to fit directly into anything else, however if someone would like to move that link and integrate its content into the article in some manner, be my guest.
Allixpeeke 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a top-tier article, which attempts to summarize the whole of the abortion issue, and thus article size is a concern. The section, in the past, snowballed to ungainly length, as many editors felt certain links relevant enough to add. It'd be a lot better to add your external link to  a sub-article which is targeted more specifically to its subject, like Libertarian perspectives on abortion, Abortion debate, or Pro-life instead. -Severa ?? | !!! 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Allixpeeke 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition