Jump to content

Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

My two definition proposal (again)

Here is a newer variation on original two definition proposal (scroll up to see the older one):

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, 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 viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction proceedure.

I'm not sure on the wording, but the concept is clear. Start off with the medical definition that excludes stillbirth and late-term abortion. Talk about spontaneous vs. induced. Mention mammals, but focus in on humans. Present the popular term that excludes miscarriages and stillbirths.

What do you think of the concept and the specific wording? P.S. I haven't worked this in yet, but I really feel it is more accurate to at least somewhere mention that more than just the fetus/embryo is removed during abortions/miscarriages. patsw objected to using terms like products of conception and conceptus, but maybe that was just in a certain context. --Andrew c 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's perfect, but it's certainly a major improvement over what we have today. I support it. Alienus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I would change
The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...
To
In popular usage, the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...
Or alternatively
In colloquial usage,the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...
As to more than fetus/embryo being removed - the fetus or embryo that are the central focus of the procedure or sponatneous process - if there wasn't a fetus/embryo, nothing else would be there, and it is the primary intent of an induced abortion to remove either - the rest of the matter is necessary to prevent infection, etc, but not the purpose of the procedure (basically, the purpose of the procedure is to arrest the development of the embryo or fetus). I think mention of the other matter (placenta, etc.) should stay out of the definition (for clarity/length) and be inserted into the appropriate article sections on procedure, etc.DonaNobisPacem 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I could support it as well. And, like DonaNobisPacem, I don't think it's necessary to have "in reference to humans", though I wouldn't oppose it either. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick imput. I like your first suggested change, DonaNobisPacem. Saying colloquial seems to have more negative connotations to me than popular. Is it important to note that this is talking about abortion in humans, or does the previous sentence set the tone already? or does that not really matter?--Andrew c 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the usage of colloquial. In regards to the human part - I don't think it's really necessary. What I asked myself - if someone told me their dog got an abortion, what would I think: "If you didn't want puppies that bad, why didn't you get it speyed?" was what came to mind (ie, I think regardless of specific mammalian context, people think of the induced procedure when you use the word in common usage).DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I support Andrew's proposal at the top of this section. I would not object to DonaNobisPacem's modifications, and support the comments regarding placenta/umbilical/amniotic sac etc, but am not sure whether or not restricting the definition to popular usage (which seems to say medical/religious/legal/etc usage is different) is a good thing. AvB ÷ talk 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I use "popular usage" in the sense of everyday parlance. Medical terminology IS different, as we've seen in the debate (particularly in regards to the medical definition being before viablity of the fetus). But from what I've seen - I saw some proposed legislation/enacted legislation for various states online, and they specifically state "abortion will refer to induced abortions, including late term" (obviously paraphrased). In politics, a politician says "I support abortion rights" - he's not referring to a woman's right to have a miscarriage(!), we automatically know he is speaking about induced abortions. And if you go to vatican.va and type in abortion, I none of the entries refer to spontaneous abortion (in fact, if you type in "spontaneous abortion" on the English search, there are no returns). So popular usage - even in law and religion - usually refers to the induced procedure, at any perioud of gestation, in contrast to the medical definition, referring to induced or sponaneous abortion before viablilty.DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Reading my above comment - one could change "popular usage" to "common parlance" - that would be a more encyclopedic term anyways, I suppose. DonaNobisPacem 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That solves it, and unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So in light of the above - Andrew c, I hope you don't mind me doing this with your proposal - I believe we are now at:

:An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure.
Termination is a euphemism. It means end, and as has been mentioned several times, the end of pregnancy is birth or death. Death is the accurate word to describe abortion. patsw 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Under common parlance the word death is there.....is that good enough? It points out the medical community does not use the term (in general, with exceptions) but that in common parlance it often is used. DonaNobisPacem 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DonaNobisPacem. Additionally, I do not find 'termination' to be a euphemism. For one, with movies like The Terminator, and rodent 'extermination' and terminal sickness, I do not find the word softens the reality of said events. The term is used in the medical literature (and even the wikipedia entry has a disambiguation link to abortion, not birth). The first sentence is qualified with "medically defined", and I believe the definition is fairly close to a large number of the medical definitions other editors have cited. Your changes would be inaccurate because it would cover stillbirths, which are never medically defined as abortion.--Andrew c 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion. I've emboldened the second 'abortion', as was suggested originally, linked 'nonviable' to Viability and moved the mass media comment to the end:

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

I think having both instances boldened is important, as is linking viable. Moving the sentance was more to do with flow. Nice idea there. |→ Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)

Excellent proposal. - RoyBoy 800 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I can support this one. Good work Andrew c, and everyone. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Spaully, I agree - the flow is much better, as the common parlance flows right from the medical definition. Also agree with the two bolded terms. Good job! A question - do you think there is sufficient support here for the opening line to mention it on Talk:Abortion, to request additional input? Or should it simply be inserted, and it mentioned on the talk page we reached a reasonable solution here? DonaNobisPacem 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer comment by a few more regulars. A mention/carbon copy should be made on Talk:Abortion; but I think Andrew c should have that privilege. - RoyBoy 800 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. DonaNobisPacem 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A minor point, should "pregnancy" be Wikilinked, or not? I would say yes because it is a big topic and central to what is being aborted; OTOH it is a common concept, and I wouldn't want to overlink the lead. - RoyBoy 800 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is the sort of thing that can be dealt with after it goes live, but if it were me, I'd link pregnancy, death, and mammalian, as well as what's already there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for the comments and changes. I have posted a message on the main page directing more users here for comments. Hopefully, we will have something worth putting on the actual article soon! I am a little concerned by patsw's comment, but hopefully something can be worked out, or we can convince him of this compromise, consensus version.--Andrew c 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The principal action of an abortion is the death of the embryo or fetus. The expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the uterus of the mother, or the removal of the embryo or fetus by some process is the consequence of that death whether it was intended or not. This proposed definition reads "then Y, X" rather than "X then Y" in order to obscure the definition abortion. patsw 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the principal action is to remove the fetus? (if it were not removed, then the dead fetus could harm the woman) The medical definition does not contain death because (as I understand it, I haven't done the research myself) predominantly death is hardly referred to in medical texts; as they are concerned with the action(s) (mechanics) rather than the consequence(s) of the abortion procedure. The medical definition is first; because we adopt a scientific frame of reference when possible at Wikipedia.
The seperation of the definitions into medical and layman allows Wikipedia to maintain its NPOV on both fronts. Are you more concerned with the medical definition ignoring the consequence (death), or the medical definition coming first or both? - RoyBoy 800 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the case of a natural death in the uterus, the death is the action which makes the consequential act, removal, necessary, in the fetus is not expelled naturally.
  • In the case of an induced abortion, the removal of the fetus is not sought; the death of the fetus is intended. It is the presence of the dead fetus which necessitates removal.
In both cases, death precedes removal and expulsion. Death, as I and others have mentioned, is accurate and neutral. The rest of the terms used termination, removal, expulsion are either euphemisms or consequential actions. Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In the case of natural death; I cannot see death as an action but a rather a state, dying is an action. I see termination is the best term, because it suits the medical context and if death comes about naturally and terminate appears more accurate and places the X before the Y; as the body and/or fetus stops/terminates development of a nonviable organism which could not develop/live anyway. "Death" seems more suitable to viable fetuses. - RoyBoy 800 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonviable fetuses kick and suck their thumbs. And they die. Its odd that we can kill cancer cells by chemotherapy, but we can't say that we kill embryos or fetuses. This discussion is simply revealing the strong desire to use euphemisms for political reasons. Good 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Good, we want to write a good article that's fair to everyone. Accusing one another of political motivations won't get that done better. Now the word "death" occurs in the proposed version. Would you prefer to say death twice, if we provide two definitions? I think that would sound weird, to repeat it. Do you object to providing two different definitions?
Also, you say that "abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus," but medical sources seem to define abortion as the actual removal or expulsion, not the cessation of life that accompanies the removal or expulsion. Are those medical sources simply incomplete, or are they actually inaccurate, pinning the essence of abortion in the wrong place? I would think they get the benefit of the doubt, on how medical terms are defined. None of them defines abortion as the death itself, and some make it clear that it isn't the death, like source #10 from the list, where MedLinePlus says that most spontaneous abortions are caused by fetal death. That makes it apparent that the cause and effect - death and abortion - are two different things. Others say that abortion results in death - cause and effect again, other way 'round. Abortion isn't itself death; it's caused by or causes in death, and the proposed lead says that. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
G&E:Talk about euphamisms, the chemotherapy article says it refers to "drugs used to treat cancer." Jeez, they are hiding the fact that chemotherapy is used to KILL innocent living cancer cells. They only use the k-word ONCE in the whole article. It must be politically motivated. If we were following their advice, we should say "abortion refers to methods used to treat unwanted pregnancies", and not mention anything being killed or dying until way down the artilce. Look at these euphamisms "impairing mitosis (cell division)", "cause damage to cells", "cause cells to undergo apoptosis", "chemotherapy affects cell division". These are all pretty euphamisms used to cover up the fact that cancer cells are DYING.--Andrew c 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that's medically accurate. Non-induced abortion often occurs when the placenta becomes detached from the uterine wall, leading to the expulsion of the embryo while it is still alive. Of course, we're often dealing with very early self-abortion, so the embryo is not going to be noticable to the naked eye and the whole process will most likely be written off as a "heavy period" unless it's detected as a "chemical pregnancy". Alienus 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time proving either way that the embryo or foetus is alive once the placenta detaches. However I think it more likely it is not, seeing as early in pregnancy hormones released by the embryo maintain the uterine lining, and so it would only be expelled once these are no longer produced, having died. Of course some abortifacients cause the body to respond as though there is no pregnancy, probably expelling a live embryo.
To patsw, what your argument comes down to is whether induced abortion primarily aims to kill the embryo/foetus, or to remove it, and which of these occurs first. In terms of motive, the aim is to stop the pregnancy (normally). In terms of a procedure both of these are aims, although many medical definitions do not acknowledge death.
Overall it really doesn't matter, as the proposal includes both removal and death, and more importantly is showing general consensus, hopefully concluding this mammoth discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Given the facts today, the word "nonviable" is simply inaccurate for the medical definition. It should be removed. IDX is abortion and is used to kill viable babies. Why would we repeat an inaacurate definition? Good 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IDX is put within the context of viable induced abortion that result in the death of the entity. I'm unsure where you are going with this. - RoyBoy 800 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As I read the definition, it is actually stating that IDX is performed after viability - is the language not clear? DonaNobisPacem 05:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "nonviable" is simply not accurate. Abortions are done regardless of viability, as anyone familiar with partial-birth abortion (sometimes called IDX) or hysterotomy abortion knows. I just don't know why the article would lead off with a statement that is inaccurate and misleading. Abortions can be early or late term, but they are all abortions. And not every medical definition of abortion mentions non-viability as a requirement for an abortion. Lets simply remove the word for the sake of clarity. The article I think already mentions that most abortions are done prior to viability (and it should it it does not). But to lead offf with false information is good for what reason? Should our compromise as editors actually compromise accuracy? There is no POV involved. Abortion of a viuable fetus is still abortion, medically and legally (and colloquially). There are several medical definitions that do not include any mention of viability, and we also have proof that late term abortion on viable fetuses occur thousands of times each year - why are we pretending otherwise? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is why there are two definitions, the "medical" one and the "common paralance" one. No one has been able to combine the two because it gets too confusing and stillbirths end up being included (which are never considered abortion). Besides, abortions on viable fetus are rare (under 2%) in the US. I do not think it is extremely important to bend over backwards to cover every single case in the first sentence. Besides, IDX is wikilinked later on, and it specifically says "even viable ones".--Andrew c 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, remember this quote: "[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."--Andrew c 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out by Andrew c; late term abortions are rare, as such we aren't going to lead off or emphasize them. That would be misleading; as would to say "abortions are done"; you are neglecting the fact the majority of abortions aren't "done" by anyone, they happen naturally. As to the notion of nonviable fetuses sucking their thumbs etc.; I understand what you are saying; but what I was getting at with terminate and nonviable is entities that have no chance of even reaching that stage because it will miscarry way before that stage on development. I know nonviable can also refer to healthy developing fetuses; but I was focusing on the fact the majority of abortions occur naturally and early; and terminate is better suited to that context. Induced abortion; which is the focus of common and political language; is of course a different story and has been given its very own wording and definition in the lead. - RoyBoy 800 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. We are to believe that killing a fetus is not properly called an "abortion". I suppose we should use "feticide", though I am sure there will be an outcry if that is used. A "late term abortion" is an abortion. If the medical term is "late term abortion" then it is still an abortion. Please explain how it is otherwise. A massive heart attack is still a heart attack. Juvenile diabetes is diabetes. Brain cancer is cancer. A pink flower is a flower. A giant panda is a panda. An early riser is a riser. A spring chicken is a chicken. A ridiculous argument is an argument. A rare Lamborghini is a Lamborghini. You get the idea. Lets stick to english, and not bend over backwards to be politically correct and in so doing mislead people. I know this was suggested as an effort to compormise, but any compromise must also be accurate. I have adopted the compromise with the sole exception of one untruth (nonviable). ____G_o_o_d____ 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what is your issue? You don't believe the majority of medical sources that have been cited as defining abortion pre-20 weeks? or you disagree with putting the medical definition first? It is completely acknowledged that in COMMON usage, abortion can refer to viable fetus, and then we wikilink to IDX. How is that not clear? If we put "often" in front of "medically defined", would that solve the problem? If we remove 'nonviable', not only are we ignoring a large potion of the technical definition, it makes the whole second definition redundent, and leaves no reason to link to IDX or mention 'death'. --Andrew c 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still don't find any of the proposals ideal, I do prefer them over what we presently have. Here's my rewrite of Spaully's version, which seems to be the accepted version. Nothing changed outside of trying to make it more concise.

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.--Pro-Lick 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


G&E is perplexed

If "late term abortion" is the medical term for aborting a viable fetus, then I think the opening should also mention that medical term as well as the common language. On another note, I googled these phrases (and no others) to see what happened:

  • "aborted fetus" 151,000 hits
  • "aborted embryo" 1,060 hits
  • "aborted pregnancy" 891 hits


  • "aborted the fetus" 527 hits
  • "aborted the pregnancy" 517 hits


  • "aborting the fetus" 746 hits
  • "aborting the pregnancy" 564 hits


  • "abort the fetus" 32,900 hits
  • "abort the pregnancy" 19,400 hits


  • "the fetus was aborted" 283 hits
  • "the pregnancy was aborted" 167 hits


  • "the fetus is aborted" 412 hits
  • "the pregnancy is aborted" 244 hits

In every case the results demonstrate that the most common usage refers to the fetus being aborted (not the pregnancy). And considering that fetus is generally the preferred term of abortion supporters (and eschewed by pro-lifers), it would seem that it is even the common usage among abortion asupporters. So, it seems that most people understand abortion as pertaining to the fetus, and secondarily to pregnancy. After all, at the center of every pregnancy is a unique new little human. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I fail to see the problem. The common usage definition focuses not only on the fetus, but on the DEATH of the fetus as the defining aspect. --Andrew c 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but I do have a question; can the medical term "late term abortion" include the abortion of a potentially viable fetus; or is Good incorrect? My understanding is "late term abortion" refers to an abortion done between 12-20 weeks. Late but still prior to viability. It may have come from this exchange on his talk page, in that case DonaNobisPacem could help clarify. - RoyBoy 800 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't matter; as Late-term abortion is defined in a different article. - RoyBoy 800 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you meant by the exchange on G&E's talk page - I mentioned there most medical sources defined late term abortion after 18-20 weeks (when they also define viability to start) - that matches up with the Wikipedia definition you linked to above... I'm getting confused now - what is the confusion about? DonaNobisPacem 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, about whether defining abortion in a way that leaves out "Late-term abortion" is misleading. I would say no, as they have their own articles. And we can put Late-term abortion in See also section of Abortion to make sure. And as Andrew c points out, commonly Abortion has a broader definition that includes viable healthy fetuses. - RoyBoy 800 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"Late term abortion" only gets 29 hits on pubmed. I wouldn't call it a "medical term".--Andrew c 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Late-term abortion gets 76 hits. *shrug* RoyBoy 800 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is why I am confused or perplexed by the inclusion of the word "nonviable" for the definition of the broad term "abortion". I am not convinced, and I have not seen any evidence, that technicaly abortion can only be done to a nonviable fetus. Perhaps at one time the idea was that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable fetus. But we now know that is not true. Again, is it a medical fact that the killing and removal of a late term viable fetus is not actually an abortion? ____G_o_o_d____ 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The first definition is the medical definition; not a "broad" definition. That comes after with clarification of common usage of the term. While I acknowledge "Late-term abortion" is a wrinkle in a perfect definition; the proceedure is rare and is set apart from Abortion as Late-term abortion has its own article. - RoyBoy 800 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Roy: Maybe we should wikilink to LTA instead of IDX? or include both?--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is preferable; and clarifies there is a dinstinction. But I'm concerned now about "induce early pregnancy" listed under the procedure. That means late-term abortion doesn't necessarily involve "death" of the fetus. That could force us to stick with IDX. - RoyBoy 800 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
G&E:The confusion stems from editors wanting to include the broad, technical, medical term for abortion (that includes miscarriages) in an article that is basically about the "induced abortion procedure (not miscarriages)". We start with the technical definition of abortion, explain it, then move into the common usage and how it relates to human society. Your confusion is trying to make the technical definition fit your conception of what an abortion should be defined as. I believe the way it is written explains this issue clearly, but maybe I'm just used to this wording (and the concepts behind it).--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree - I just don't think an accurate technical definition should exclude abortion of a viable fetus. Regardless of whatever reference we find says, we all know for a fact that a woman carrying a viable fetus can have an "abortion". Technically, a late term abortion is still an abortion - its just a specific kind, as a chemical abortion is a specific kind of abortion. No one has really given any good explanation as to why non-viability would be included, especially since I have already posted two medical definitions that do not reference viability. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[copied from main talk]That is my point, Roy. If we are defining abortion, then it should be the broad definition. And the broad definition should not exclude late term abortions, as the inclusion of the word "nonviable" would do. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, late term abortions are not abortions (see previous citations). It is not a problem to possibly exclude them from the "medical" definition (besides, they are under 2%. Focusing on them seems to give them undue weight). However, it is explained CLEARLY further down that the common usage of the word abortion DOES cover LTA. If you read the whole paragraph together, I believe everything is explained, and all instances of what a doctor and what someone on the street would call an "abortion" are presented. If we were to remove the "nonviable" aspect, it would make no sense at all to refer to "even viable ones". We'd have to take that part out, and the wikilink to the IDX or LTA articles. --Andrew c 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What if we change IDX to Late-term abortion? Now that I think about it; it seems odd to have technical terminology in a "common parlance" definition. LOL, did you just suggest that above? - RoyBoy 800 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and you found that suggestion ;) I think what is meant by "early induction of labor" is that a chemical is injected to kill the fetus, and then the woman gives "birth" to the dead fetus. However, that is complete speculation on my part. Maybe google could tell us more?--Andrew c 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out this. At first glance, it's about causing the birth of a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own. Alienus 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah "'Induced labor leads to the fetus dying on its own, often in the arms of its parents,' says Calvin, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists." There is also [1] and [2]--Andrew c 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's not entirely clear is whether the fetus is nonviable due to age or illness. The examples all mention fetuses that, if carried to term, would be dead in a matter of days anyhow. I don't know that anyone is simply inducing the birth of a fetus that, if carried to term, would survive. In any case, I suppose that this could be considered a form of abortion, at least by Catholics and others who put religious ethics above science. As such, it deserves mention in the LTA article, although not without framing to keep it honest. Alienus 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm entirely satisfied LTA is preferable to IDX; I don't see any further significant hiccups to implementation of the new lead. Andrew c, I think I can speak for the current consensus that you can add it when you are ready. It was a long time in coming... wonderful job everyone. Another win for Wikipedia!!! Huzzah! - RoyBoy 800 23:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah? I'll go get my leather mug.

More seriously, I do want to say that there is justice in the world; we just have to make it ourselves. Alienus 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Including non-viability as a prerequisite for every abortion is clearly archaic. Perhaps the thought used to be that no doctor would kill a viable fetus. With the advent of partial-birth abortion and hysterotomy abortion, that is no longer the case. Most late term abortions are performed on healthy fetuses after 19 or 20 weeks, the point at which viability is now placed. And thousands of late term abortions are done each year in the US (they are not rare, they are atypical; annually in the USA there are 500 times more late term abortions of viable fetuses than lawful executions). These two medical definitions do not included viability:

  • MedicineNet.com medical dictionary: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
  • Websters medical dictionary: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

____G_o_o_d____ 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's critique of the proposal

First of all, I want to thank AnnH for her constructive criticism and suggestions. RE: death in the first sentence. There are a number of users who do not want to mention death at all. I understand that one way of looking at the difference between an abortion and an live birth is the d-word, but it is also the same as the difference between a Vastus lateralis muscle on a living cow vs. it on your plate in the from of a Tri-tip steak. Some people feel the most important and defining aspect of an abortion is that a fetus dies, and other people feel the most important aspect of beef is that a cow dies. However, these are just POVs. I believe a compromise between the two parties is to include the d-word, but keep it out of the first sentence. Besides there is huge precedent in the quoted medical definitions to focus on the procedure or action of an abortion, not one of the side effects. RE: viablity. The common usage of the word abortion almost always refers to a the procedure that a woman pays a doctor for to end her pregnancy. I do not use the word "abortion" to mean miscarriage, and I don't know anyone who does. That said, the technical definition includes both spontaneous and induced abortions (but doesn't include stillbirths or so-called late term abortions). If we are going to mention miscarriages in the opening, we need to explain this difference. The current proposal is one way of handling it. Some users have not been happy with this presentation (but there haven't been any counter suggestions. Maybe these users do not find the current first sentence problematic, but I for one find major issues in it not mentioning the removal or expulsion of the products of conception, and how it possibly covers stillbirths, which are never considers abortions. It reads as if the act of a fetus dying in the womb equals and abortion, which is not the case.) I personally like the current proposal. It is a compromise that covers all situations that would be considered an abortion in a medical text book and in a news paper. It starts off technical, explains that some, then moves out, and focuses on induced human abortions, which is basically the theme of the rest of the article. However, maybe a different solution that AnnH, patsw, and G&E would prefer is mentioning the popular usage first, and then referencing the technical terminology? I seriously want to keep pushing for my original proposal, but I am going to type up a very rough cut of this common first, technical second version.

Abortion commonly refers to a medical procedure in humans that actively ends a pregnancy, resulting in the products of conception (fetus/embryo, the placenta, and fetal membranes) prematurely dying. It can be performed any time after 5 weeks up through the third trimester, but is most commonly performed between 7 and 12 weeks (80% according to blah blah); abortions are rarely performed after viability (see LTA). There a number of different methods used in the abortion procedure such as medical, chemical, and other means. Any mammal can undergo an abortion, but the media focuses on abortion in humans. Medically speaking, the term abortion refers to any termination of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks. This includes spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages, but never refers to stillbirths.

The problem is that we have an article about the abortion procedure in humans, but if there is going to be a wiki article on "abortion" generally, we need to reference the technical term that covers miscarriages, and we need to mention non-human abortions. One solution would be to move this article to abortion (human) or abortion procedure in humans, but then 99% of users searching for "abortion" would want to find these topics, not the technical or non-human form. So covering these topics in the first paragraph seems like the only solution. I personally feel that the current wording isn't that great, and this is why I have been pushing for these reworks.--Andrew c 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Euphemism alert: "actively ending a pregnancy" above means killing the unborn life.
A pregnancy can be actively ended as well by delivering a living child. In fact, if you are alive and reading this, your mother's pregnancy was actively ended by your birth. patsw 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I would still like definitive proof that nonviability is required for the medical definition of abortion to be accurate. Since when is there a consensus here at wikipedia or otherwise that aborting a viable fetus is not an abortion? (Of course some would call it homicide, but I am talking about doctors who support abortion - do such doctors really consider that a late term abortion is not an abortion?) I repeat: perhaps prior to the advent of partial birth abortion the definition assumed no doctor would stoop to such lows as to abort a viable fetus, thus the word nonviable at one time was accurate. Too, spontaneous abortion is alwasy a nonviable fetus since at some point the fetus dies naturally with no intentional inducement. I am ok with the proposed new paragraph with the exception of the viability reference in the first line - and my objection has nothing to do with POV - it is about accuracy. I am not convinced that the viability reference is medically accurate. Abortion is abortion. Any time prior to the exit from the womb, the baby can be aborted. I would like to know why some of you think the viability reference - knowing it is not accurate and that it excludes some induced abortions - is so necessary. Do you really think that doctors don't consider late term abortions to be abortions? "Late term" is an adjective that modifies abortion. Its not really that hard to understand. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all "late term abortion" is not a medical term. Search it on pubmed if you like. Next, technically speaking champagne only refers to sparkling white wine made in the Champagne region of France. Despite that, it is not only common for California sparkling wine makers to label their product as "champagne", it is also common for the general public to use the non-technical, general word "champagne" to refer to ALL sparkling white wines. Similarly, technically speaking, an "abortion" that takes place after 20 weeks is not an abortion, despite everyone calling it that. The argument you are using to remove "nonviable" can similarly be used to suggest removing the references to the Champagne region in the Champagne (beverage) article. About your 2 definitions: the majority of the cited definitions refer to 20 weeks or viablity. Just because you found 2 that do not mention this does not change the majority. I could use the same argument that I found 2 definitions that do not include "death" therefore we should not say death. I'll agree to remove "nonviable" if you agree to remove "death". How's that? :Þ--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a medical source that specifically states that a late term abortion (whihc, by the way, was what someone else insisted was the proper term for them) is not an abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What, all the already cited medical definitions that reference 20 weeks or viability are not good enough? I did a search of the Oxford Reference Online (which searches over 140 different dictionaries and reference works published by Oxford University Press) earlier today and it was full of quotes like "before it is able to survive independently, esp. in the first 28 weeks of a human pregnancy." And from the Oxford Companion to Medicine "The loss of an immature embryo or fetus before viability is an abortion." And from A Dictionary of Nursing and the Concise Medical Dictionary "the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus at a stage of pregnancy when it is incapable of independent survival (i.e. at any time between conception and the 24th week of pregnancy)."--Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
patsw: My wording wasn't an actual proposal, just a "rough cut" of an alternative (common definition first, technical definition second). If you are unhappy with any of these ideas, perhaps you could share a proposal of your own, or are you happy with the current wording (which I personally find problematic, as I pointed out a couple topics up).--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What case has been made against the appearance of death in the definition of abortion on the basis of accuracy? If would want to describe the intentional killing of a fetus as something other than abortion, that is obviously inaccurate.
If you want to add that a naturally occurring fetal death after 20 weeks is commonly called a miscarriage or stillbirth while the intentional killing of the fetus after 20 weeks is called abortion. That would be accurate, but such language, I suggest, would be considered POV, not by me, by the advocates of unrestricted access to abortion at any time before natural birth.
Of course, the reason why this confusion got started in the first place was the mistaken belief that the intentional killing of human embryos and fetuses would happen before 20 weeks. If that were the case, a question of what defining abortion after 20 weeks would be moot. patsw 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never argued that it is not accurate to say a fetus/embryo dies at some point during an abortion procedure. I have argued that certain ways of presenting this "fact" can be seen as POV. No one would argue that the consumption of meat doesn't result in the death of an animal. However, would it be giving undue weight to the vegetarian position to mention this fact in the opening sentence of meat? What's worse, is there are some pro-choicers who do not consider the fetal tissue destroyed during an abortion any more significant than the death of your tonsils during a tonsillectomy. I do not believe the first sentence is the proper place to raise this issue and then worry about awkward qualification phrases to keep NPOV in mind (such as when someone inserted "death of a cell"). Furthermore, an abundance of medical sources do not mention death. Therefore, when we are giving a 'medical' definition, it isn't that odd to keep a similar wording. To top things off, we then present the 'common' usage of the word that clearly mentions death, and references not only late term abortions (<2%) but we also mention abortions on viable fetuses (~.08%). If anything, that is giving undue weight to such a minor occurrence in the first paragraph. But I thought it was a good compromise to make it clear the different usages of the word abortion, and what each definition covers. I think the confusion is that the first medical definition covers "abortion"(1). While the second common usage covers "the induced abortion procedure"(2). You can have an induced abortion procedure (2) any point during a pregnancy, but technically, the ~.08% of abortion procedures (2) on viable fetuses are not "abortion"(1). Just like stillbirths are not abortion (1). Really, to look at this more objectively, go to some medical journals that deal with livestock and see how they use these terms there. --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see people keep asking for sources, and I thought this had been previously covered here Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C_.26_Reputable_Sources_WP:RS and here #medical sources. I think Andrew c is providing a fair and balanced definition and first paragraph. Death is not excluded, nor is one definition said to the correct one. I'm definitely not seeing any reasons why the existing 1st paragraph is preferable to the revised version.--Pro-Lick 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would propose now that we change the opening paragraph to the new version because, even if it is not perfect, it is at least more accurate and clear than the current version. Maybe having it in the article will allow more editors to review it and imput their suggestions. I want to thank everyone who gave suggestions and worked to improve my initial proposal! --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Alienus 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too, and I did somwhere give you the thumbs up a while back. I'll implement the version we had arrived on when I left. Any omissions, problems let me know. - RoyBoy 800 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Question, should "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure." be changed to "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures." Given there is more than one late-term procedure; I'm guessing it should be plural. - RoyBoy 800 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that all late-term abortion procedures are controversial. Alienus 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't. So there. Actually, 2 issues. 1st is that it would be true to say all abortion procedures are controversial, so it's essentially a meaningless qualification. 2nd, those that are performed to save a woman's life are relatively as controversial as standard abortions.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
True; but I read into that LTA are especially controversial. Would adding "especially" be clarifying? Or overdoing it? - RoyBoy 800 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The actual procedures used to perform life-saving LTA's are used to perform any kind of LTA, so I'm not sure what you mean. For that matter, I don't think that most LTA's are actually life-saving. I thought they're mostly from women who, for a variety of reasons, didn't get an abortion earlier. Alienus 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is there is more than one type of LTA procedure; therefore there are multiple procedures, meaning proceedure should be pluralized and the sentence tweaked to reflect that. - RoyBoy 800 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. "Especially" does not. Maybe if controversial gets used excessively, it will be needed.--Pro-Lick 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)



"controversial but rare"

I propose dropping "controversial but rare."

  • A mention of a "controversy" should explain what's controverted and who's doing the controverting. A freestanding "controversy" is meaningless.
  • "Rare" is a vague and relative word (relative to what)? It is a word lifted from debates where one is advocating the right to obtain a late term abortion, or arguing against laws that would restrict such abortions. The Late term abortion article itself doesn't call these abortions rare. patsw 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree. LTA's are both more controversial than early abortions and much rarer. Alienus 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Abortions performed when the fetus is viable are estimated to be around 0.08%. Abortion performed after 20 weeks is estimated to be around 1.4%. p. 12 The LTA article is only about a week old and needs work. I personally felt it was important to mention how common abortions with viable fetuses are. Maybe the opening paragraph isn't the best place, and maybe the word "rare" is vague, but I'm not sure dropping the adjectives without replacing them with some other sort of modifier would help clarify things. --Andrew c 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just changed:

to:

I think it was necessary in order to get the pluralization right. - RoyBoy 800 06:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The mention of a freestanding controversy is meaningless. Is the controversy that after viability, the choice made is to deliver a dead corpse rather than a living human baby? patsw 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a false choice; so not exactly. - RoyBoy 800 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there are thousancds of these abortions each year, "atypical" is the word we should use - not "rare". Rare would be something that almost never occurs. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted the .08% quote. Can you cite a source that claims there are thousands of abortions with viable fetuses each year? If something happens under 1%, I would consider it rare. So clearly abortions on viable fetuses are rare (by my standards). What standards are you using?--Andrew c 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what matters here is not percentages, but what medical professionals precisely call procedures on potentially viable fetuses. Do they say "abortion", or something longer than abortion? - RoyBoy 800 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A rare event in the United States is not .08% and I dispute that number is that low. If a low number is used, it's 18,000, the actual number is likely 25,000 because of the distortions in the data collection process (i.e. undercounting such abortions by improperly recording the gestational age of the fetus). Any cause of death above 1,000 deaths should not be called "rare". patsw 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your POV, but I'll stick with Einstein and everything is relative. In addition, this an exhibition of why I object to the use of "death". Patsw equivocates on it as if these deaths are somehow equivalent to the deaths of people.--Pro-Lick 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so we disagree on what the word "rare" means. .08% is still very low. Why do you dispute AGI's estimate? I agree that there method is a little rough. They make an estimate total number of abortions (because the CDC only covers what is reported, and there are around 13 IIRC reporting areas that do not report). And then use the CDC's proportions for gestational age and apply them to their new total estimate. Do you have any data that contradicts AGI's findings? Are you saying that there is a disproportionately large number of abortions past 24 weeks that are unreported? Do you have proof? Next, you are completely wrong with the 18,000 number. AGI estimated that there were 1.29 million abortions that took place in 2002 (roughly 450,000 more than were reported to the CDC in that year). The CDC's report, which is based on hard numbers, said that 1.4% of abortions took place after 20 weeks. So you take the CDC's hard number, and apply it to AGI's estimate and you get 18,000. The place where you are wrong is that saying past 20 weeks is equal to viability. AGI estimates that there were only .08% of all abortions that actually took place after 24 weeks. That is an estimate 1032 abortions (probably after viability) out of 1.29 million. Why do you saythat 25 times as many abortions took place after viability than estimated?--Andrew c 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical and common definitions

Homestarmy (viability is debatable): I'm under the impression Andrew c was diligent in trying to be as accurate as possible to the actual medical definition of "abortion"; which is about an abortion before 20 weeks or agreed biological viability. (exceptions don't change how they define it)

GoodandEvil (viable fetuses can be aborted): If Andrew c is correct; then doctors don't consider viable fetuses simply an abortion; they consider it a "late-term" abortion. That clearly indicates it is not a standard abortion as they define it. If it were, they would just call it an abortion. No matter how many times this argument is repeated, it merely gets repeated, rather than say... becomes persuasive.

Musical Linguist (prioritizing medical vs. layman): More interesting; and rests on a premise I have pondered during the redefinition discussion. What is the conclusive (if any?) criteria for prioritizing definitions; layman or technical; common or medical; for an encyclopedia or if Wikipedia policy/philosophy differs. Although I find Musical Linguist's rationale flawed and biased (yes language changes, but that should have no impact on our prioritization, as we aren't a pop-culture magazine that changes with the times; we update with the times :"D); anyway I am personally at a loss as to what should come first. I'd really like some illumination on this one; but I suspect that which came first would win out if common sense was the only consideration. Ohhhhh, me likey etymology.

Comments on these subjects are welcome in this section; other comments can go elsewhere.
- RoyBoy 800 03:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this concise summary of points! I tend to talk too much, and I have been a little defensive over this. I apologize to anyone if my frustation has been showing. As for the issue at hand (which should come first). I'll be completely honest here. The primary reason I chose the medical definition first was as a compromise between the death and anti-death folk. Instead of removing the word "death" completely, I moved it out of the first sentence. If we decide to move the common definition to the beginning, I would highly suggest a major rework that, while perhaps still mentioning death, focuses less on the death of the fetus as being the single, defining aspect of what constitutes an abortion. However, I do not feel we should be putting too much energy into inventing our own definitions of terms (like I said above, seems like OR). We should only be reporting what our sources say. Aside from these POV/compromise issues, what is more encyclopedic? Having the technical definition first, or the common? Maybe we could combine the two "while medical dictionaries define abortion as [...], the word commonly refers to the induced abortion procedure that can take place at any time during a pregnacy." Obviously, I'd like to keep the new proposed version we have, but I am trying to work with everyone here. So please, what does everyone else think?--Andrew c 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I've been trying hard to find pubmed articles on "late-term abortions". That term really doesn't get used, but then again not many articles cover this subject. Most say something along the lines of "third trimester termination of pregnancy".--Andrew c 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments illustrate the factual point I have been repeating: abortion is a broad medical term, and it includes even late-term abortions. Medical experts consider everyu successful abortion after 20 weeks to be an "abortion" - they often add the modifier "late-term". Arguably, the abortion definition used to mention non-viability because no doctor was willing to kill a viable fetus. But some definitions have not kept current or else do not want to acknowledge the gruesome (and previously unthinkable) reality of abortions that kill viable fetuses. Few doctors want to admit that a professional peer would kill viable babies for money. It makes the profession look bad. And those who do such "procedures" don't want everyone to know exactly what goes on - its a vile thing to admit to. No matter how you slice it, a dead fetus is wicked gross - especially a viable dead fetus that you just killed. But back to the issue: it is ludicrous to claim that an abortion after 20 weeks is no longer an abortion, but is rightly referred to as [insert some unknown medical term here] (even Andrew C can see that there is scant evidenec that "late term abortion" is the preferred medical term). ____G_o_o_d____ 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
By mentioning that I cannot find the term "late term abortion" (or even "abortion" for that matter) in reference to viable pregnacies being terminated, I am illustrating your point?? How does that work. You just claimed that "medical experts" use the term abortion after 20 weeks. I agree, to a lesser extent, that medical professionals are allowed to use common usages of words. However, prove to me that this is the technical term used in the medical literature. Search pubmed if you want (I've already been there). The fact of the matter is a VAST majority of our definitions define abortion as before viability. Even if this goes against your personal POV, and you feel it is inaccurate, there is NO justifiable reason to exclude this technical definition. In fact, because some editors feel that it needs to be "fixed", my proposal included TWO definitions to cover BOTH POV. I'm just trying to be NPOV, which is to show all relevent POV in accordance to their weight. You are arguing to not include a relevent POV because you feel it doesn't cover what you personally consider an "abortion" to be. How is this not POV pushing? (an aside) Your constant use of emotional, partisan language does not help your argument. I try to read through all that to find your actual point, but it is hard to ignore.--Andrew c 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Opening paragraph

Moved from main talk page to preserve continuity in discussion. G+E please do not move it back

Current opening:

Proposed opening (see also the discussion above and especially Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph where the proposal was hammered out and reached consensus):

  • An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

It is time to weigh in before making the change. Poll closes on 13 April.____G_o_o_d____ 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This poll is now closed. There was no consensus to adopt the new language. 8 favored it, and 8 were not in favor. I ask someone who knows how to archive this entire poll section.____G_o_o_d____ 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Adopt new opening: Andrew c
  2. Adopt new opening: Alienus
  3. Adopt new opening: RoyBoy # (I'd like contro/rare sentence tweaked, mainly on grounds that its awkward, use perhaps "at any stage of pregnancy with rare late-term abortion procedures." Then put controversy in the last sentence like: "human abortion is controversial so it receives the most focus..." - RoyBoy 800 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Adopt new opening: Pro-Lick
  5. Adopt new opening: GTBacchus
  6. Adopt new opening: AvB (as stated here)
  7. Adopt new opening: --Isolani 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

running total wanting to adopt new language as proposed: 8 (see below)

  1. Reject Adopt new opening (only if the inaccurate word "nonviable" is removed, since viable fetuses are aborted): ____G_o_o_d____
  2. Reject Adopt new opening (except with Goodandevil's proposal): --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) < This is my current vote. --WikiCats 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Reject new opening, "nonviable" is inaccurate, the obfuscation of the biological fact of death is POV. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Reject new opening, wandered into this discussion, some extremely premature babies are more viable than people might think. Give the modern day medical profession some credit eh? Homestarmy 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose the new definition and support the old. Numerically those who prefer the euphemism termination over the accurate word death, dominated the discussion in Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and declared consensus. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Reject The proposed opening paragraph is not an improvement over the prior one. The proposed opening paragraph replaces accurate language with euphemisms. The reality is that abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus and the proposed opening paragraph avoids this. patsw 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think this is your second vote on this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --> merged 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Reject the new opening, after a lot of reflection. I had already given it a reluctant support (though not as a vote between this and the old one), as being better than some other versions that had been suggested. But if it is a choice between this, and the more accurate previous version, then I would oppose changing it. Regarding the medical definition, assuming that it is true that it's not medically defined as abortion if it's carried out late in the pregnancy, Wikipedia is not a medical encyclopaedia, and it is a fact that people use the word abortion to refer to the killing of the fetus throughout all nine months. Language is not something fixed. It changes, according to how the people use it. I have often heard phrases like "abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy" coming from the lips of well-educated people. I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph (again, assuming that it's accurate), but I think to start with that obscures an accurate, though unpleasant fact that the fetus dies, and gives the impression that only non-viable fetuses (or embryos) are aborted. The previous version was better and clearer. AnnH ? 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Reject Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. User:KillerChihuahua 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ KillerChihuahua has approved of my posting his/her vote here. ____G_o_o_d____]
  8. Reject A fetus is not removed to preserve it's life. It is removed to kill the embryo. The whole point is to kill the baby in the womb. Dominick (TALK) 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Swing vote: My rejection is based upon the reference to "controversial, but rare, late term procedures." There are other controversies in the debate, and picking this one out of the rest smacks of spoonfeeding, or selective presentation. I'd suggest sidestepping the issue entirely, as in, "In common parlance, abortion usually refers to any induced procedure [which results in the death of an embryo or fetus], regardless of the gestational stage at which it is performed." Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the new version, although I still find the current/old version acceptable. -Severa | !!! 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this a support vote now? AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I think we've worked out all the kinks that we possibly can. -Severa | !!! 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

running total rejecting new language as proposed: 8



Comments

Not only are polls evil, but Evil has been trying to sway the poll by writing messages to known anti-abortion editors. As far as I'm concerned, anyhow he contacted gets zero votes. This poll is officially a joke and I will not participate in it, nor will I accept its results as binding upon me. Alienus 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Alienus, it is not for you to decide who gets a vote and who doesn't. If there is anything in Wikipedia policy to say that an editor in good standing, who has edited extensively in a particular article, has not left that article but has been busy in the last few days with other articles is to have her vote declared null and void because another editor alerted her about the vote (which she was already aware of anyway), you can be assured that I will abide by that policy. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
When you make a major change to the opening that was discussed on a seperate talk page that many editors have likely not seen, you will likely find that many editors have no idea what is being proposd, so it is not really accurate to claim "consensus". If the version is a consensus version it will become clear. Alerting editors who have edited this article in the past is no crime. Trying to spring a new opening (that was created on a hidden subpage) on everyone during an article freeze is problematic. Asking editors to weigh in is not. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. While much discussion occurred on the side page, the poll is here on the main page, so any further advertising is unnecessary. Moreover, you limited your advertising to known allies, which shows that you were trying to sway the results, not merely inform all interested parties. You are deeply partisan and this vote is a sham. Alienus 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So, soliciting the opinion of other editors is a sham? I thought it was soliciting input. Everyone is free to solicit input of other wiki editors. Your fear of such input is due to what?____G_o_o_d____ 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for input, but what you're trying to do is recruit sympathetic editors to vote in support of your holy cause. Let's not pretend that there is anything honorable about this. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing honourable in recruiting editors who are sympathetic to one's cause, but there's nothing dishonourable in it either, as long as they're not meatpuppets who joined Wikipedia for the purpose of making an extra three reverts per day for your cause. And if Alienus thinks it's dishonourable to recruit editors who are likely to support him, it rather puzzling that he does it himself — see this and this. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Soliciting the opinion of other editors who have not worked on the paragraph is a sham if targeted to bolster a specific POV. To solicit input without introducing bias, editors should use the relevant procedures (surveys, RfCs). The general idea (and I'm sure AnnH, as an admin, will agree) is that the number of editors with specific personal POVs should ideally reflect the ratios found in the general population. When in doubt, consult the policies. Meanwhile I'm copying the following verbatim from the Wikipedia:Consensus guideline. AvB ÷ talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.
The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.
Also see Wikipedia:Single purpose account for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue.
The 4 editors I listed above unequivocally voiced there support to adopt it. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is should be interesting; and it was more than 4... but then again I've never been good at counting. - RoyBoy 800 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a terrible practice to insert someone's vote. People already voiced their opinion on the talk subpage. Here are some people G&E missed: "PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "I could support it as well... AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)" "unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion... Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)". We implimented Spaully's changes. Like I said above, AnnH was reluctant, but seemed to support this as a compromise. G&E even supports it minus the one word "nonviable". The only person who has been critical is patsw, however I haven't really figured out what the problem (maybe something to do with the d-word. he seems to want to define abortion by a fetus dying, and nothing else).
So why do I think we need the word "nonviable"? Because there is a huge practice of defining abortion this way in medical literature. Since this definition is clearly qualified as a medical definition, I do not see why this is a problem. If we remove "nonviable" we are removing this definition. And maybe we need to argue out again why we need to include a medical/technical definition, as opposed to having the whole article deal with the induced abortion procedure in humans. (you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used technically in journals that deal with livestock. should we ignore this definition completely just? I say no)--Andrew c 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Medically speaking, an abortion of a viable fetus is still considered an abortion (unless it is called manslaughter - but I think most here would reject that label for this article as too POV) and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.____G_o_o_d____ 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, if we are fighting a battle of lesser evils, clearly the new proposal is better than the old version. Therefore, even if it isn't perfect and we still need to improve it, at least it is better than what we had. Can we at least agree to put in the new version to replace the old for the time being? Does anyone seriously think that the new version is WORSE?--Andrew c 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of lesser Evils, he just tried to revert back to the death-laden definition, which would have been a step backwards. I wonder if he has any excuse at all. Alienus 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the "new opening paragraph" that's subject to this vote? Please specify by posting on top of the poll.
Having asked that, any version containing "nonviable" is of course factually inaccurate (and hence no consensus can put it here), while any version that tries to cover up the biological fact of death is POV.
(self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not factually inaccurate to say a medical definition defines it that way when, well the vast majority of medical definitions define it that way. It is POV, but since it is qualified as to who says this, I don't think it is a problem. On top of that, there is a second common definition, that specifically says it occurson viable fetuses, and links to late-term abortion. Note, there are only an estimate .08% of all abortions with viable fetuses. If anything, mentioning viablitiy and linking to LTA is giving this issue undue weight in the first paragraph. Finally, the second common definition clearly says death. Both of your issues are addressed in the proposal. While it is POV to specifically focus on the death of the fetus, it is also POV to focus on the medical definition. Since we do both, it seems to me to be a ballanced compromise. So what is your specific concern? Do you feel that including the medical definition is problematic? do you not like seeing it first and would rather have the more common definition in the opening sentence? or do you have an argument why we should ignore the technical, medical POV in an article covering a term sometimes used in a technical, medical context?--Andrew c 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, I think the consensus definition, if anything, goes too far in placating the pro-lifers. LTA's are such a rarity that any mention of them near the top is undue. In any case, it is my estimate that these people will not settle for anything less than a grossly misleading definition on top that emphasizes death. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is a vote where Good and Evil has determined that outcome of the poll. --WikiCats 11:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He sure is trying to, regardless of propriety. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Viable fetuses are aborted:

  • "This [PBA Ban] act covers every D&E that I did. Everything that I do to cause an abortion is an overt act. . . The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery. [There is a heartbeat] very frequently." - Dr. LeRoy Carhart, giving testimony under oath in Carhart v. Ashcroft, 2004

____G_o_o_d____ 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So what, doctors aren't allowed to use a common usage of a word while testifying to a non-medical audience (for that matter, nothing prohibits them from using a common usage of a word in the medical literature either)? And your quote doesn't say ANYTHING about viability. The heart starts beating around 5 weeks, so just about every induced abortion takes place on a fetus with a heartbeat. These fetuses are also "alive". So what part of your quote deals with viability?--Andrew c 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Good and Evil. I vote for the paragraph. --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's common sense that some fetuses would be still alive. --WikiCats 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense from a medical perspective. Viability does not mean a heartbeat, it means some reasonable chance of survival. A fetus has a heartbeat from relatively early on, but is not viable until much later. This lack of medical understanding combined with your overwhelmingly strong feelings about abortion make your opinions on this matter rather worthless. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the viability vs. nonnviable w/heartbeat debate, I feel the original consensus does not require improving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, until we remove death from the first sentence, I'm going to reinsert that {{POV}} tag. Alienus 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Two items:

  • Ali, re your post on my talk page - I was not edit warring. I was restoring an earlier version that had been agreed upon (if I am not mistaken by all editors except for you and Pro-Lick). The new version has not achieved consensus, at least not yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But right now the vote is not finished, so there's no basis of changing the article accordingly. But what to I speak to you, since you think the vote a sham anyway. I, for my part, think the new defintion untenable, which leads me to:
  • the issue of "non-viable": it doesn't matter how many abortions are performed on viable or non-viable fetuses. Even if there ís only one viable fetus aborted (and believe me, there are more than one) or even if there was (by coincidence or legal provision) no viable fetus aborted at all world wide (I know, it's utopic), the non-viablity would still not part of the definition of abortion, as man is quite able of aborting a viable fetus. Or is there a different definition which gives another name to such an abortion. If so, please enlighten us.
  • Re your last post, Ali: so you are determined to tag the article POV unless it conforms to your POV and forgets about the biological facts of abortion.

(self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposal isn't claiming that the induced abortion procedure doesn't occur on viable fetuses. It is claiming that there is a medical definition that has a cut of point for 'abortion' at around 20 weeks in humans. This defniition includes miscarriages, which the 'induced abortion precedure' does not. There are two different definitions used in two different contexts, and I believe the proposal spells that out. It isn't a matter of claiming induced abortions don't occur with viable fetuses. It's a matter of accurately presenting a technical term. Just because you think of one thing when you hear the word 'abortion' doesn't mean we have to exclude another way the term is more generally defined by a vast majority of technical/medical sources. Under this logic, I should be arguing to remove the references to miscarriages because I never think of miscarriages when someone says the word "abortion". Maybe we need to make it even clearer that there are two different definitions being presented? or are you going to make a case that we ignore one of them completely?--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I belief it is self-apparent, if it is absolutely crucial to spell out that abortions can occur or be performed at any stage of pregnancy, I believe this could be accomplished in manner which does not require the creation of seperate sentence, as in, "This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means, at any stage of pregnancy. " My chief objection, however, is to the unnecessary and troublesome mention of "controversial, but rare, late-term abortion procedures." There are other controversies in the debate; why mention this one above all else? This is the only I'd insist upon being changed, or removed, because, as is, it smacks of spoonfeeding. Otherwise, good work! -Severa | !!! 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting suggestion. I agree with the reasoning (and I, among others, were having issues with that "controversial but rare/LTA" part. ) However, the placement of your proposed clause "at any stage of pregnacy" would need to be moved to the sentence about the common usage, or we defeat the purpose of differntiating between two different definitions. Maybe including two definitions is making matters worse (althought the near concensus we had on the talk subpage speaks otherwise), but I felt that to cover all cases of what a newspaper and what a medical journal would consider "abortion" we needed to do something to make sure miscarriages were included, but stillbirths were not.--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm one of the people not quite happy with the rare/LTA thing, but I think that giving both the medical and lay definitions is very clearly the right approach. The fact that it offends only the most extreme of anti-choice zealots shows that it's accurate and neutral.
To raise one point that Pro-lick has been known to make, requirements such as verifiability and neutrality are not subject to vote or consensus. At this point, the text that was reverted to by Str1977 is entirely unacceptable on the basis of those two requirements, so there is no way it can be kept. The reason we're working on getting your text accepted officially is to prevent the almost inevitable edit war that Str1977 and his cohort will launch at the drop of a hat. The secondary reason is to get constructive criticism to improve the text before we permanently insert it.
In short, I am disgusted by Str1977's attempt to edit-war this issue instead of discussing it, and I'm disgusted by Evil's attempt to stack the vote. The process has failed, which leaves us only to do the right thing. Alienus 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick question, if Late term abortion is only opposed by "The most extreme of anti-choice zealots" what are the less extreme pro-lifers opposing and how is whatever that is more controversial than LTA? Homestarmy 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if you misunderstood what I said, so I'll clarify. The most extreme of anti-choice zealots oppose Andrew's version of the intro. All anti-choicers oppose abortion rights, by definition. Alienus 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But I dunno if im really one of the most extreme pro-lifers out there, I mean, I don't really dedicate a huge amount of time to it, I haven't picketed any abortion clinics...(Maybe cus I don't know of any near where I live heh) Homestarmy 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a big world. There's even room for armchair extremists. Alienus 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, do you oppose all abortions?--Pro-Lick 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it the medical definition of abortion can have some very odd twists and turns, and although I haven't actually read this entire talk page, that actually seems to be the issue here if im reading it right. What sense of the word "abortion" do you mean? Homestarmy 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Use of the word termination is medically inaccurate for this Wikipedia article.

Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. An induced abortion which results in a live birth is called a failed abortion precisely because the intent was to render fetus dead and the fetus did not die.

The word termination only entered the medical vocabulary as the medical community became politicized by the abortion legalization debate. Death is an apolitical and NPOV reference to what abortion is. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself, Patsw. If the word "death" was phased out by the medical community for political reasons, then it manifestly isn't "apolitical", but is quite blatantly "politicized". -GTBacchus(talk) 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, sometimes people start with a conclusion and work their way backwards, keeping whatever fits and discarding anything that inconveniently fails to. When viewed forwards, the logic doesn't really hang together very well, because of the contradictions implicit in the conspicious omissions. Alienus 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If your question, GTBacchus, is if it became more useful to the pro-abortion advocates to use termination in preference to death as the abortion debate started, the answer is yes. Dictionary authors who had used death as the descriptive word in defining abortion in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were not yet engaged in the art of euphemism and political advocacy. Death is the medically accurate word. patsw 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the people who oppose the new proposal not know about the talk subpage discussion? Or were they boycotting it because they felt nothing was wrong with the current version? Seriously, is there anyone that is 100% happy with the current version? It clearly is vague and not that accurate. It doesn't reference the possibility of there being more than one meaning to the word. It doesn't explain who uses these different meanings. And it seems to say not only stillbirths are abortions, but the act of a fetus dying in a womb, regardless if it later removed, amounts to abortion. Something needs to be done about the first paragraph. We tried to work this out on the talk page. So how come the people opposed to the new version didn't help to make it better through the process we tried to establish? I apologize if I sound upset, but I tried to work hard to be accurate, and cover all points of view, while compromising with extreme choicers and extreme lifers. What now? Do we go back to the talk subpage and work out the kinks with the 2 new people who oppose this version? What suggestions would the oppose people give to improve the first paragragh?--Andrew c 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste it all to the 1st paragraph subpage if you think it fits there. Here, it seems redundant and potentially confusing for anybody that might like to contribute.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the nonviable word. It is 100% accurate to say that there are medical definitions that define abortion this way. Just because your personal POV disagrees with them, or doesn't want to mention them, does not change the wording of the majority of medical/techincal definitions. It is going to have to take a really good argument to ignore or rewrite these cited medical definitions. The issue is that there are hardly any definitions used by medical professionals that are favorable to a pro-life wording. They use so-called "euphamisms" or are otherwise somehow inaccurate. We can try to make our own super-accurate definition. But it may be OR (and we've tried this in the past and it didn't seem to work to cover every single imaginable case), and it clearly is ignoring the medical community. My compromise was to present two definitions, but it seems like even mentioning a different definition that doesn't fit the idea people have in their heads of what abortion should be (basically an induced abortion procedure) upsets people.--Andrew c 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And you even wikilink the word, so any variation in the meaning in viability can be taken care of in that article. It is both flexible and accurate.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(I've removed this statement. AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

It would be a sham if friends of Goodandevil with no prior history on Wikipedia joined for the puropse of voting for what he voted for, and reverted to his version. It could also be considered improper if Goodandevil contacted all the people in the Pro-Life Wikipedian category, if that category still exists, and if lots of them descended on this article to vote, having had no prior history here. If people like DonaNobisPacem, Str1977, and myself, who are known to have a longstanding involvement in this article, are alerted to the vote, which they either had already seen would have seen, I see nothing wrong with that. As of yesterday (the server is running a day behind) Str1977 had 295 contributions to abortion and abortion talk combined (not counting subpages). DonaNobisPacem had 163. I had 128. You had 60. "Evil" is a very strong word, and borders on a personal attack. Most people reserve that word for things like murder, rape, etc. Couldn't you just say you think it is wrong? Alerting a few likeminded people who are already established editors and who might be considered likely to revert to your version or vote for what you want is certainly not a blockable offence, unless you think that Alienus should be blocked for this? AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I see I made a general statement without the proper qualifiers. I have removed my statement since you have such problems with it and posted a politically correct version above (below Good's statement to which it responds). AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The first I knew of Goodandevil alerting others to the vote was when I clicked on "last change" on the new messages bar, and saw a not untypical sneer from Alienus suggesting that three editors who did have a prior history on this page (two of whom had an extensive history) should get one vote between them.[3] Some time later I saw your post, which did not have the addition that you subsequently made (after I had replied to it), in which you called his action "evil". (Note inserted later: I see you have now removed it. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) I think you could have chosen a better word. The "polls are evil" phrase is an established one here on Wikipedia, and is not likely to be taken personally. I think people here might take it personally, though, if I described their comments or their behaviour as evil (which I would not do). I would describe canvassing for votes as "not the done thing"; I would not describe it as evil, particularly when referring to someone who is currently blocked and is able to read all this without posting. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good is blocked? Anyway, I've already refactored the "evil" comment. But please stop the repetitive "guilt by association" ploy by mentioning other editors. I am not a part of anyone's cabal and suggesting I am is an ad hominem attack, unlike calling policy violations evil. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that comment. I don't know on what grounds you can think that I am suggesting that you are part of anyone's cabal. Let me make it clear that I do not and did not think that. I felt that Alienus's post to me was rude. I felt that your choice of the word "evil" about Goodandevil's action was too strong. I do not in any sense associate you with Alienus. My introduction to this debate was in seeing a general outcry against a few perfectly visible requests (he could have used e-mail), which in the case of Alienus extended to those who had received the request. It's hardly worth squabbling about. I appreciate also that you were unaware that Goodandevil was blocked. Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I would not feel comfortable in allowing lots of brand new users to vote. That's an invitation to sockpuppetry, but perhaps you meant users who are new to the article rather than to Wikipedia? AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I sensed a "guilty by association" shade to the repeated mention of people whose edits (with the exception of Good's) are not relevant to the subject at hand. I do not wish to comment on the examples you brought in regarding Alien's edits, and I do not wish to be portrayed as saying DonaNobisPacem, Str1977 and you were recruited by Good. Using e-mail, by the way, is also "a bad thing" according to the relevant WP guideline. I must say I had missed Good's 4RR block. Kicking people while they're down disgusts me big time regardless of the who or why. "Brand new users" to me means new WP editors, not editors in good standing who just happen to be uninvolved in an article. The latter (and probably even the former if there's no puppetry involved) as long as they don't just vote, but join in, listen and give others their perspective, are most welcome. That's not only my personal feeling, it's also basic policy. (Actually a lot of basic policy rings true from where I stand). Bottom line, I think we should trust one another. Actually I trust you more than you may think. Example: you could have edited out the word "evil" straight away. We don't think all that differently and what looks like common sense to you will probably look like common sense to me as well. But I'm straying off topic so if we need to wrap this up I propose we do so using our talk pages. Your call. :-) AvB ÷ talk 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, to Alienus — if Goodandevil has modified his signature to say simply "Good", could you please stop addressing him and referring to him as "Evil". It strikes me as rather rude, to say the least. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather presumptuous of him to ask us all to address him as "Good", when he is clearly not. At best, he's "Mixed", but he chose a name that ends with "Evil", so that's what I had to work with. At this rate, he might as well drop an "o" and demand that we call him "God" for all I care, but I won't do it.
If he'd just picked something neutral, idiosyncratic or generic, then this would not be an issue at all. Frankly, it's not my fault that he had such a lack of foresight and I consider your demands to be overreaching your authority as an admin. People call me all sorts of things all the time, but unless it's conspicuously unrelated to me or my nick, or is blatantly insulting, I just answer. There's such a thing as not being thin-skinned and presumptuous. Alienus 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I won't take offense at being called by either the 1st part or the last part of my username.--Pro-Lick 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Homestarmy vote:

By rejecting their definition? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, by recognizing that modern day medical procedures are so advanced that babies that are insanely premature and would ordinarily be considered "non-viable" can actually be saved, thought this generally requires large amounts of expense of course and doesn't occur too often for that reason. Plus, miracles happen.... Homestarmy 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to patsw vote:

"Numerical domination" is just another term for majority vote. Your line of reasoning: (1) Declare the consensus process based on numbers, not on quality of argument (2) Denounce the consensus because it was based on numbers (3) Declare numbers decisive again in this poll. Obviously you can't have it both ways. And just as obviously, calling in editors who have not worked on the paragraph is skewing the numbers (but not, so far, the quality of the arguments). Their votes (but not their arguments) have to be disregarded. Also note that the result of that consensus proposal was posted here and did not receive much opposition from editors who did not participate on the subpage as you seem to suggest. In fact it received support. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to AnnH vote:

How can you honestly say that the previous version is "more accurate"? Just to make sure we are talking about the same version, I will quote it: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This definition does not mention removal or expulsion. What this is saying is that if an embryo stops growing and dies (or dies then stops growing), and abortion has occured. This covers stillbirths which are never considered abortion. This says that if an fetus dies then the woman miscarries, the first part is an abortion, but the second part (the miscarriage) is not an abortion. It uses a very awkward phrase that gets low google hits "termination of the gestation". Pregnancies are terminated, not gestations. "resulting in or form" sounds poor gramatically to me (I would say "resulting in or caused by"). On top of this definition being wordy and awkward and clearly inaccurate, it presents a specific POV without qualification and without rebuttle in the first sentence (and what is that POV? that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion).The fact of the matter is that there are two definitions for the word abortion and NO ONE has been able to make one definition that covers all instances. We need two definitions. I personally think that attempting to make our own definition is OR. We should be reporting what sources say, not deciding how we think terms should be defined. Also keep in mind, NPOV should not be confused with non-point of view. We obviously cannot write a neutral article, so we should present the majority POVs and avoid giving undue weight. Additionally, saying "wikipedia is not a medical encyclopedia" is not a valid reason to exclude a POV that you disagree with. Go here. Read the article, look at the three template boxes. How can you advocate not including the medical POV when we have articles and infoboxes like these? And finally, if you can accept including two definitions, what did you think of my 'rough cut' above that put the common definition first?--Andrew c 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Andrew. Yes, I'd prefer it to mention expulsion or removal, and previous versions that I supported did so. However, gestation refers to the period of time spent in the womb, so if the gestation is ended, then the fetus would no longer be in the womb. If it were possible for an embryo to disintegrate and be absorbed into the mother's body after death, rather than being expelled, I would consider that a miscarriage, hence an abortion, although I think the article should (and does) focus on induced abortions.
Yes, if an embryo, after implantation, stopped growing and died, an abortion, meaning in this case a spontaneous abortion would have taken place. Does the old version cover stillbirths? If a fullterm baby is born dead, I'm not sure that the death cause the expulsion or that the expulsion caused the death. If I'm mistaken, can't we put something like "excluding stillbirths" in it?
Regarding the case of a fetus dying (abortion?) and the woman then miscarrying (not abortion?) you make a good point, and I'm very happy to have removal or expulsion added to the version I prefer.
I agree with you about "resulting in or from". "Resulting in or caused by" would be better.
You say that my preference presents a POV "that the death of the fetus is THE defining aspect of an abortion". I don't think that's a POV; I think it's a fact. If the fetus doesn't die, then either what happened was not an abortion at all, or it was a failed abortion. Removal and expulsion without death is not an abortion. I'm happy to add "removal and expulsion" if you argue that death without removal or expulsion isn't abortion either. I feel that the "termination of gestation" implicitly included the meaning of removal or expulsion, but did not implicitly include the meaning of death. Anyway, let's make it explicit.
I never wanted to exclude the medical definition. I specifically said, I would have no objection to putting the medical definition later in the same paragraph, and I'll state more clearly now that I think in fact we should put it later in the same paragraph, assuming, of course that it's true that the medical definition applies only to early abortions.
What do I think of your "rough cut"? I'd be delighted to comment if I could find it. This page and other pages have been moved around so many times that I'm a bit lost, and I'm rather busy today, so don't expect lots of posts.
Here's my suggestion, which takes account of some (not all) of the points made by me, SlimVirgin, Pat (e.g. removing "rare"), and others. I prefer to start the second paragraph with the passive voice, to avoid the awkward "people have" (or "humans have").
An abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, in the strict medical definition, refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance, abortion refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.
Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.
AnnH ♫ 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Copied below for comments on this proposal

G+E, I see you posted about hiding the poll before restoring it here. I should let you know I moved it for several reasons - 1. It's only about the 1st paragraph, 2. Consensus has already been established among editors who follow this article enough to have a fully informed opinion.

As such I will not vote on this poll but will continue to try to improve the paragraph. |→ Spaully°τ 13:06, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

I have no idea why this got moved back to the front page. Why didn't G&E ask the people he contacted to discuss reaching consensus on the talk subpage, as opposed to voting on something that they haven't edited? A reject vote isn't helping us reach a consensus on the first paragraph. Working together on the talk subpage was doing that. Anyway, please move discussion back to the talk subpage.--Andrew c 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_3&oldid=1136491274"