Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 2

message: From Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002:
"Tetraploidy, or a mean chromosome count of 92, occurs in 3% to 6% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. This condition is undoubtedly lethal, since it has never been seen in living individuals. It probably occurs when chromosome division is not followed by cytoplasmic division in the initial cell division of the zygote.  Rearrangements, primarily translocations and inversions, are noted in about 3% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. According to Creasy and associates, most but definitely not all of these are unbalanced translocations. Although most unbalanced translocations in conceptuses result in abortion, some individuals are born alive."--Pro-Lick 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then they die.....hence, "due to or resulting in the death of..."DonaNobisPacem 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you quoting?--Pro-Lick 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Abortion Death?

message: I believe an attempt needs to be made to catalogue medical definitions on abortion - not just a list, but a catalog by each separate definition.  The reason I make this suggestion - of the "reliable medical sources" that keep being quoted, listed in the archives, numbers 2,4,5,7,18,19, and 21 all use a definition virtually every editor on the page has disagreed with - some of the above define it before the 20th week, others before viability of the fetus.  Both exclude late term and partial birth abortions.  if we rely on these definitions, our article should then also define "late term abortion" separately, and perhaps link to a main article under that heading.  As for those that mention death - and I do not necessarily in the opening text of their definition, but in their definitions as a whole mention the word death associated with an aborted fetus (which is what the arguments have been over - the word "death" in relation to the fetus) - 9, 10, and 14 are the same article, so we really have 19 articles.  9 (or 10 or 14), 11,12,13,15, and 18 (if you read further than what is quoted, one part of the definition reads retention in the uterus of an abortus that has died) mention the word death in relation to a fetus/embryo.  So - out of 19 sources, seven do not agree with the majority of editors here due to late term abortions, but this could be remedied by mentioning late term abortion/stillbirth in a second sentence if we define abortion being before 20 weeks.  Out of the 19, 6 mention the word death in relation to the fetus/embryo - one is on dogs, and one uses death of an abortus, both of which support the argument of moral ambiguity in relation to the word.
So - to sum up - if we are determined to hash out a definition, we should list a number of sources, categorized by definition (using key words such as: before 20 weeks, expulsion, removal, death, etc).  I suggest the following format: DonaNobisPacem 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to distinguish between the mention of death in some appropriate place in the article and the definition of abortion in terms of death. Alienus 08:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of my reason in pointing out the seven sources that used 20 weeks was to show that even the medical sources are not consistent... DonaNobisPacem 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they are the experts, and that is their view.  What does policy say about judging the expert views?  As to the view, it is not the dominant view.  Nor is defining abortion as death a dominant view.  Are you arguing for selective use of policy based on your own POV?--Pro-Lick 09:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So basically, I was thinking - if you found a definition that was nearly identical to the medicinenet.com one in terminology, you could list it there, and then answer the applicable questions regarding death (as some of the definitions also have accompanying articles, I put "mentions death elsewhere," as Alienus has mentioned we might not want it in the definition, but elsewhere). Clear as mud? DonaNobisPacem 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because medical professionals realize that such confusion is inevitable when you introduce a political definition into a medical situation (as ACOG has).  The only reason there is such inconsistency is precisely because there has not been a universal acceptance of the ACOG redefinition.  It forces those supporting the ACOG agenda to obfuscate and try not to address the inconsistencies their new definition has created.  Applying the ACOG redefinition consistently causes all sorts of problems.  The same folks are still trying to foist the redefinition of conception into wide acceptance, but it simply flies in the face of reality (scientific and otherwise).  The new definitions also make the term gestation uncertain. I agree with DonaNobis that the wide variety of medical opinion should be fully documented. Good 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: DonaNobisPacem, to avoid having the same thing in 2 places and having it spread out over a lot of space, how about we keep the definitions, etc. in full at their present place in the archive, and list the numbers.  If someone has an WP:RS defnition they'd like to add the list, add it there.  Update the caterogy here.  I'm not insisting upon this.  Just seems like it would be more efficient.--Pro-Lick 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To get back into the debate here; I'd be happy to see "death" gone from the definition if the controversy and "murder" POV remains in the lead. But I would like to get more editors involved in the discussion to see if there is a rationale for "death" or "murder" or both or neither. But I doubt neither is an option. - RoyBoy 800 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is seriously arguing, or has argued, for "murder" to be in the lead? I must have missed it.  I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that murder merits much mention at all other than to succinctly describe the pro-life view in the appropriate section.  If anything, the erasure of "death" seems to be POV insertion (by active omision) in light of the neutral professional resources and biological realities known to the page editors.  Good 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, yeah that short form didn't sound good. GTBacchus excellent suggestion was to remove "death" from definition, but elaborate pro-lifer's see abortion as murder in the second paragraph which goes into the politics. But it is an omission... that's why I'm for death in the definition even though I don't want it there. Sound conflicted; welcome to RoyBoy's twisted mind. - RoyBoy 800 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has argued for murder, but we have the recurring vandals who replace every instance of "abortion" with murder. or make similar edits. Then we have the alternate "killing"  Neither is supported well by consensus, being universally considered by experienced editors to display extreme POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure."
As I mentioned earlier, we could then start a new article, "late term abortion," describing the particular procedures/controversies involved. DonaNobisPacem 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That page is somewhat broken. The talk page is a redir for Partial birth abortion talk, but the article is there as a stub. Someone messed up. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be redirecting to Partial-birth abortion then?  That's easy enough to fix. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if it should be, or if the talk page shouldn't be, if you follow. One or the other, for sure. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes so much more sense here!  I'll try some Merge tags and see what happens. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: rofl, yeah I goofed and posted in a very wrong place. Sorry about any confusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I noted above - this was not one of my better ideas.....simply because we could spend an eternity finding definitions to fit our POV's, and it doesn't accomplish much - my main point was to point out the diversity of the definitions, even among the medical community, to indicate that our job is to look at all of the definitions/info present and come up with our own NPOV introduction (which as I mentioned, does NOT need to parallel the medical definition, if we are sticking to facts and considering weight - in this regard, public opinion of what abortion is also contains considerable weight, hence I support Andrew c's suggestion of having medical/conventional understanding in the definition),  and not just regurgitate definitions from another encyclopedia or dictionary.DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical sources 

message: I'm not sure I follow the category thing.  Maybe if you provided some examples.
As to the time limit, that's easily enough corrected by simply leaving out any timeframe other than "before birth" or "before viability" and noting the limits are not the dominate view of the sources, following WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  That, and specifying length has never been a point of contention with me, and I don't recall it coming up in attempted redefinitions from those that fly in and out of the article.
As to your comments on the sources, I'll be content to leave that until I understand your above methodology.--Pro-Lick 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of my reason in pointing out the seven sources that used 20 weeks was to show that even the medical sources are not consistent... DonaNobisPacem 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they are the experts, and that is their view.  What does policy say about judging the expert views?  As to the view, it is not the dominant view.  Nor is defining abortion as death a dominant view.  Are you arguing for selective use of policy based on your own POV?--Pro-Lick 09:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So basically, I was thinking - if you found a definition that was nearly identical to the medicinenet.com one in terminology, you could list it there, and then answer the applicable questions regarding death (as some of the definitions also have accompanying articles, I put "mentions death elsewhere," as Alienus has mentioned we might not want it in the definition, but elsewhere). Clear as mud? DonaNobisPacem 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because medical professionals realize that such confusion is inevitable when you introduce a political definition into a medical situation (as ACOG has).  The only reason there is such inconsistency is precisely because there has not been a universal acceptance of the ACOG redefinition.  It forces those supporting the ACOG agenda to obfuscate and try not to address the inconsistencies their new definition has created.  Applying the ACOG redefinition consistently causes all sorts of problems.  The same folks are still trying to foist the redefinition of conception into wide acceptance, but it simply flies in the face of reality (scientific and otherwise).  The new definitions also make the term gestation uncertain. I agree with DonaNobis that the wide variety of medical opinion should be fully documented. Good 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: DonaNobisPacem, to avoid having the same thing in 2 places and having it spread out over a lot of space, how about we keep the definitions, etc. in full at their present place in the archive, and list the numbers.  If someone has an WP:RS defnition they'd like to add the list, add it there.  Update the caterogy here.  I'm not insisting upon this.  Just seems like it would be more efficient.--Pro-Lick 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To get back into the debate here; I'd be happy to see "death" gone from the definition if the controversy and "murder" POV remains in the lead. But I would like to get more editors involved in the discussion to see if there is a rationale for "death" or "murder" or both or neither. But I doubt neither is an option. - RoyBoy 800 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is seriously arguing, or has argued, for "murder" to be in the lead? I must have missed it.  I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that murder merits much mention at all other than to succinctly describe the pro-life view in the appropriate section.  If anything, the erasure of "death" seems to be POV insertion (by active omision) in light of the neutral professional resources and biological realities known to the page editors.  Good 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, yeah that short form didn't sound good. GTBacchus excellent suggestion was to remove "death" from definition, but elaborate pro-lifer's see abortion as murder in the second paragraph which goes into the politics. But it is an omission... that's why I'm for death in the definition even though I don't want it there. Sound conflicted; welcome to RoyBoy's twisted mind. - RoyBoy 800 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has argued for murder, but we have the recurring vandals who replace every instance of "abortion" with murder. or make similar edits. Then we have the alternate "killing"  Neither is supported well by consensus, being universally considered by experienced editors to display extreme POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure."
As I mentioned earlier, we could then start a new article, "late term abortion," describing the particular procedures/controversies involved. DonaNobisPacem 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That page is somewhat broken. The talk page is a redir for Partial birth abortion talk, but the article is there as a stub. Someone messed up. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be redirecting to Partial-birth abortion then?  That's easy enough to fix. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if it should be, or if the talk page shouldn't be, if you follow. One or the other, for sure. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes so much more sense here!  I'll try some Merge tags and see what happens. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: rofl, yeah I goofed and posted in a very wrong place. Sorry about any confusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I noted above - this was not one of my better ideas.....simply because we could spend an eternity finding definitions to fit our POV's, and it doesn't accomplish much - my main point was to point out the diversity of the definitions, even among the medical community, to indicate that our job is to look at all of the definitions/info present and come up with our own NPOV introduction (which as I mentioned, does NOT need to parallel the medical definition, if we are sticking to facts and considering weight - in this regard, public opinion of what abortion is also contains considerable weight, hence I support Andrew c's suggestion of having medical/conventional understanding in the definition),  and not just regurgitate definitions from another encyclopedia or dictionary.DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I don't see that this is the best way to categorize the definitions we're looking at.  We're lumping rather different defintions together, and separating very similar ones, based solely on whether they use a particular word.  Our job is to write the best possible opening paragraph, so why don't we look at various defitions categorized according to what they do say, not what they don't say?  Then we can talk about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches without having to be fixated on one word.
I would suggest the broadest categorization should be based on how abortion is actually defined by each source - because they don't all agree, and as some editors have noted, there's more than one "correct" definition flying around here.  Some are based on time, some on viability, some on intention, some on effect. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted above - this was not one of my better ideas.....simply because we could spend an eternity finding definitions to fit our POV's, and it doesn't accomplish much - my main point was to point out the diversity of the definitions, even among the medical community, to indicate that our job is to look at all of the definitions/info present and come up with our own NPOV introduction (which as I mentioned, does NOT need to parallel the medical definition, if we are sticking to facts and considering weight - in this regard, public opinion of what abortion is also contains considerable weight, hence I support Andrew c's suggestion of having medical/conventional understanding in the definition),  and not just regurgitate definitions from another encyclopedia or dictionary.DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd categories

message: This is new to me.  Does a consensus on this page act as a consensus for the first paragraph or does it get re-argued on the Talk:Abortion anyway? patsw 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if we ever agree on anything here, we should mention it on the general talk page, and ask anyone who has missed the consensus process to weigh in here. I think in no circumstances should we drag first paragraph discussion out on the general page (because it takes up too much space, and seems to bring other forms of progress on the article to a halt). But this is just my opinion, and if everyone would rather hash it out somewhere that isn't this subpage, who am I to stop them.--Andrew c 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules?  I think the purpose of this page is to just relieve the strain on the main page.  If we achieve anything resembling consensus here, that'll be progress.  I dunno about rules. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the rules? 

message: It may surprise some editors here, but I have revised my opinion of the inclusion of the word "death" after checking how other encyclopedias handle the subject. I still feel that excluding "death" is skewed towards the pro-choice POV but I've reweighed the entire Gestalt as it exists in the general population and now feel that a slight preference for the majority POV is fully warranted under NPOV. <gasp!> It's the "most neutral" solution - we have already reached a definition that is so sharp that the only thing preventing consensus is an agreement on a slight bias towards pro-life (include "death") or a slight bias towards pro-choice (exclude "death"). All other things being equal, we can do only one thing, and bias it towards the majority POV. 
I have also revisited my view on the inclusion of the word "death" in regard to its being a loaded word. I now think its inclusion may introduce more bias than its exclusion. The former says that there is death, the latter does not say there isn't. (As before, I think it is wrong to exclude or evade such words as a matter of principle; each case should be judged separately.) 
I'm now willing to support something like a simple "An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it has attained viability"
AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that an abortion is not necessarily "the expulsion . . . . before it has attained viability." Abortions are sometimes caried out in cases where it would be fully possible to deliver a living child. In fact, in the case of Gianna Jessen, her mother did give birth to a living child, and the fact that Gianna now has disabilities is because she was scalded for hours by the saline abortion, not because came out (or was taken out) from the womb before she had "attained viability". Or take the case of Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose mother went in for an abortion at 32 weeks. She was sent home, having been told that the abortion was incomplete, and that she would have to come back the next day. That night, Ana Rosa was born — missing one arm, but otherwise healthy. I don't suppose anyone would argue that she "had not attained viability" ten hours before that. I don't think the Wikipedia article should make judgments about the morality of abortion; that would definitely be a violation of NPOV but we certainly shouldn't be trying to gloss over a very important, but unpleasant, fact of what abortion involves. AnnH ♫ 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Aborting a foetus that could be viable is not infanticide, as it is still a foetus.  A foetus that is aborted late for a disability such as cystic fibrosis or in rare cases a cleft lip , is viable but has still been aborted.  An abortion necessarily involves the death of the foetus either as cause or consequence, as such exclusion of the word is incorrect. |→ Spaully°τ 14:46, 30 March 2006 (GMT)
This argument is not different from AnnH's reasoning. What Annh and you are saying is important. It highlights a glaring problem with the most accepted definition: it does not apply to the third trimester. However, what you say is not a reason to change or not use the most common definition that also has the preference of editors representing the pro-choice POV.
What you are saying touches on a terrible and often forgotten dilemma, which should be discussed in the article. According to Roe v. Wade, and related legal processes & legislation in other countries, viability is precisely what differentiates a fetus from... a child? How do we call the phase between the start of viability and birth? 
As to the future of the Abortion article, I can only say that editors should do their utmost to be splitters and not lumpers. It is true, for some people there is no difference between a conceptus and 33-week fetus (one extreme arguing that killing the fetus is not morally wrong and the other that killing a single-cell conceptus is murder). Most people, however, will recognize more nuances. Example: the atheist doctor in the UK who wrote in his well-read "NHS blog?" that he draws the line for himself at the start of the second trimester and like many others does not feel comfortable seeing a dead or dying fetus that looks human, that moves, and by the end of the second trimester visually responds to pain - people who take that feeling as their cue that it's not OK. We can and should describe what it means to the various groups. Let's not focus too much on the extremes. There's so much more in between. Can we read in the article how many people actually support abortion beyond week 20? Is talking about "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" really the most important thing? Let's not be led by our indignation or anger. Treat this like the best-of-breed Wikipedians. This article can be a good NPOV example. And I think that's the best we can give to the world. <Stepping off soapbox now>
Here's a definition from Britannica's 2006 DVD: Abortion the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation). An abortion may occur spontaneously, in which case it is also called a miscarriage, or it may be brought on purposefully, in which case it is often called an induced abortion.
AvB ÷ talk 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add what I added above. According to religioustolerance.org: "[D&X] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public." And from the D&X article: "Intact D&X procedures are rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions in the USA. This calculates to between 2500 and 3000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000 (out of 1.3 million abortions annually)." Focusing on this issue is a technicality. It is giving it undue weight. As I said above, I do not belive we can come up with one single definition to cover every single instance considered by the public and by medical science to be abortion. I suggested having two different definitions.--Andrew c 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Britannica definition is wrong.  We don't need to copy their errors.  The objective is the most accurate defintion, not the most accurate definition that a priori avoids using the word death. patsw 17:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Would it be accurate to summarize your change of heart and point thusly? Abortion should be written sympathetically to its subject. Just as other encyclopedic sources have chosen to do. Frankly I hate splitting talk pages; the only reason it was necessary in the first place was Pro-Lick's prolific and protracted prose. - RoyBoy 800 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi RoyBoy, that would be quite alright with me. (By the way, it's a change of mind, the heart is still very much the way it was.) AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, I have no idea what that slavery quip is about, so I'll skip over that. Would you be opposed to using the word 'conceptus' in the definition? "resulting in or caused by the death of the conceptus". It is more accurate, because more than just the fetus/embryo die during abortion, and as I pointed out above, there are placental conditions that cause miscarriages. Is conceptus the best word for this situation? "Products of conception" is another term that means the same thing. The main issue I have with the current version is that it seems to give undue weight to the death of the fetus. I personally would want to avoid that issue in the first sentence and bring it up further along in the paragraph. However, as a compromise, I have been considering other ways to improve the current version, and perhaps this may be the one?--Andrew c 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conceptus and products of conception are euphemisms. They are words crafted to promote a POV. patsw 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what is the proper term then? If we are going to refer to more than just the fetus/embryo, how is the best way to do it? I initially suggested listing placenta along with the things that "result in the death of", but changed my mind for a single catch-all term. Any suggestions?--Andrew c 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One editor changed his mind

message: #"Two local teens face murder charges after they allegedly chased a man who mooned them and bludgeoned him to death."--Pro-Lick 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias of Death - News Samples