Talk:Feticide

Fetocide vs. Feticide

This is rediculous. I have asked for a 3rd opinion and posted on the language reference desk and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I believe it is POV pushing to say that a common variant spelling used by professionals is simply a spelling mistake. --Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a national varieties of English usage issue. The words ending in -cide follow a strict pattern which is determined by the Latin or Greek work that they come from. Latin words ending in "us" like suus fungus foetus end in "-icide" (suicide, fungicide, foeticide). Greek words ending in "-os" like genos, ethnos etc. take "-ocide" (genocide ethnocide). Fetocide is just wrong and it is not in any dictionary. There is the further complication that it may have been changed deliberately to sound like "genocide" according with the anti-abortion POV that the phenomenon of abortion is a genocide/holocaust (the Silent Holocaust theory). If there is anyone who is trying to remove POV it is me. Zargulon 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary lists Foeticide as prefered, Feticide as an alternative. Neither -ocide version appears. I'm afraid that unless you can show a dictionary given the -ocide version, I have to agree with Zargulon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But how does saying a commonly used variant spelling is actually a spelling mistake help the encyclopedic content of the topic at hand? Including that information does not seem appropriate. We have cited references of medical professionals using that spelling. Is it our place to in a topic about feticide to call them wrong? I do not believe that is the purpose of this article, nor wikipedia. I believe it is good enough to cite reliable sources (scholarly journal articles) that use that spelling, and just say that it is sometimes spelled "fetocide". There is no need to add the comment that some wikipedians couldn't find it in their dictionaries. Ununoctium isn't in any of my dictionaries, nor the OED online. Should we make note of that in the article itself? Of course not, because we have citations from reliable sources of its use. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability. I believe the spelling fetocide is verifiable under out guidelines. It says no where that dictionaries get the last say on matters of verifiability.--Andrew c 16:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not on matters of verifiability but on matters of spelling. Zargulon 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a common variant spelling used by professionals, as this clinical link illustrates. The OP is not asking to move the article to a new name, rather that the word 'fetocide' be acknowledged as an acceptable variant, rather than a spelling error. Anchoress 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--Andrew c 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing individual instances of usage, even by professionals, neither illustrates that fetocide is "common" nor that it is not a misspelling. It is an uncommon misspelling, as illustrated clearly both by the morphological argument and by its complete absence from dictionaries. Zargulon 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But it probably is a spelling error. It's an easy-to-misspell word, after all, and not a particularly common one. If it appears in any dictionary or textbook, by all means call it an alternative.Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But unless you can prove that it isn't a common variant, you can't say that either. How about a compromise? If you or Zargulon can find a legitimate reference stating that it is a mis-spelling, you can say that in the article. If Andrew finds a legitimate reference (not necessarily a dictionary) stating that it is a variant, he can say that it is. Otherwise it stays out of the article. How do you two feel about that? Anchoress 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Removing the mention of it seems better than calling it a mispelling. Even with it in, it doesn't really futher the understanding of the concept.--Andrew c 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your premise Anchoress. I don't feel there is any legitimate reason not to say that fetocide is a misspelling. I feel the proof I have already given is more than adequate. The misspelt "comittee" gets over a million google hits.. it is absurd to demand that it say somewhere "comittee is a misspelling".. the fact that it does not occur in any dictionaries is sufficient proof. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I doubt 'comittee' shows up as the consistent spelling in very many medical journals published by Oxford University. You seem very obstinate about this, and I'm not sure why, but I really don't see that it is appropriate to call it a spelling mistake ('comittee' isn't listed as a mis-spelling in the committee article). I stand by my original suggestion, which is essentially that the word stays out entirely unless claims about it can be backed up. I really don't know how you can disagree with that. Anchoress 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to say, and I have nothing further to add.. my arguments seem to me as water-tight as ever whereas you seem not to have any and are therefore calling me names... Zargulon 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What names have I called you? What I'm saying is that a) there is no more logic to calling 'fetocide' a mis-spelling in this article than there is to calling 'comittee' a mis-spelling in the committee article; and b) my solution is actually very logical: the word and the description of it (either an error or a variant) stays out without a reference supporting the description. Anchoress 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You called me obstinate, an unhelpful epithet which I suppose you apply to anyone who won't submit to your will. On the other points, I won't repeat myself. Zargulon 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you obstinate. I said you seem obstinate about this issue. Your comment above, on the other hand, is both personal (unlike mine) and uncivil. I have no will in this matter, I'm only forwarding a suggestion that seems to me like a good and neutral compromise. I suggest you try to be less personal in your communication, and not to make judgements about other editors' motives and MOs without sufficient evidence and reason. You can reject my suggestions (which were made in good faith in order to be of service) without disparaging me. Anchoress 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You did use the word obstinate to describe me; please don't insult my intelligence further by condescending hair-splitting. Since you have no bias (according to you), I suggest you recuse yourself rather than continuing to create a pointless secondary conflict.. one is quite enough. Zargulon 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<sigh>. Listen. A) It's not a matter of 'recusal', this isn't a hearing. B) I only came here because I am a helpful type person and an editor posted asking for help. C) I was actually already on my way out, but I felt that you had maligned me by accusing me of name-calling, and I felt a need to defend myself. D) I stand by my observation that you seem obstinate. E), I strongly suggest in future you take my advice not to be personal. Anchoress 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When Strong Opinions Collide: Coming soon to a Wikitheatre near you! So realistic you'll feel you're bound up in the action! Can a one-letter change affect your life? You'll be surprised! Shows daily at random articles over issues you'd never expect to feel strongly about. May result in a need to calm down, and/or climb the Reichstadt in a Spiderman costume to gain attention for your point. Rated P-13G: All parents must have the guidance of a sensible pre-teen to point out if you're behaving foolishly.

Google results:

• Foeticide: 187,000 - overwhelmingly the most popular spelling
• Feticide: 75,800 - Common alternative
• Fetocide: 10,300 - Rare, possibly a mistake
• Foetocide: 229. DEFINATELY not accepted.

Feotocide is completely wrong, Fetocide less than half a percent of the sample. Suggestion: Move article to Foeticide, mention Feticide, and don't bother mentioning Fetocide at all. Sound good? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is a little facetious, but... Andrew made a typo, "rediculous", in his first line. As I had been trying to think of a common title for a straw-poll comparison, I've used it:

• Ridiculous: 37,200,000
• Rediculous: 2,070,000

The proportions are roughly the same for this typo vs. the correct spelling as for fetocide vs. Foeticide. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol agree to move. Weakly in favour of retaining -ocide, insist, if mentioned, it is described as a misspelling. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I sidestepped the issue: I changes the citation used to a more neutral one with a more accepted spelling. If fetocide doesn't appear, we needn't mention it as a spelling or alternative. Huzzah! Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but isn't it a little premature to change the regional variant spelling used in the article. It's ok to list in the first sentene alternative spellings, but I think, especially in light of the ongoing discussion, that introducing a new alternative spelling into the article body was out of process.--Andrew c 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I apologise for that. I'm studying biology in Edinburgh, so the "Feti-" spelling looks rather strange to me (though I know fetus is valid), and so I presumed that as fetus is far more common than foetus, but foeticide more common than feticide, that it was one of those exmples of inconsistancy in spelling that you get. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I am jumping into this from the Talk:MOS, which asked for an outside opinion. I got the gist of your debate and stopped reading at that point. This is so as not to overly influence my comments with what ever passions are expressed in the body of the debate. Also note that while I am not an English language academic, I am a practitioner of practical logic (computer science) and a web designer (who cares about communicating with people). When it comes to spelling English words I have two fixed standards: (1) New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition and (2) Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). Both of these list "feticide" as meaning "noun. destruction or abortion of a fetus.". The Webster's also states, right in the feticide entry that "foeticide" is a an alternate spelling. The NOAD2 mentions "foetus: noun. variant spelling of fetus (chiefly in British nontechnical use)" and "foeticide" is a derivative. Based on these sources I have determined that "fetocide" is not a proper spelling. There maybe professionals that spell it "fetocide", but the Wikipedia readers will not understand what is meant by this spelling. If a quote from credible source spells it "fetocide", then leave it in that spelling. That is my outside opinion on this matter, and it will not change until sources on par with the two I use include "fetocide". --Charles Gaudette 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I saw this point on WP:MOS. Foeticide is by far the most common spelling, and has the benefit of being in accordance with the World Health Organization's preferred way of spelling things too. Unless this article is particularly directed towards a US audience (and I'll leave the authors to determine what their target audience is), it would be best to use foeticide, jguk 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Feticide → Foeticide — Far more common according to google, though both are valid. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose, the google test isn't a good enough reason to change an article's spelling. While fetocide may not be a regional variant, foetus vs. fetus clearly is and this new proposed move, I believe, goes against our regional variant policy.--Andrew c 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How? Both regional variants are valid, but it may as well be under the more-used one. The regional variant policy merely says that both should be mentioned in the text. Having it at Feticide is no different. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support, see below Zargulon 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Why fix what ain't broke? BTW, I believe that the regional variant policy says that if an article is started using one variant, editors should stick with that regional spelling unless there is a serious reason to change. So, I think Andrew is right. Interestingly, both spellings are used in the article, and footnote 2 uses the feticide spelling. -- Ssilvers 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: As the policy states, we don't move (or change spellings in the body) for no reason. Unless you want to argue that f[o]eticide is a uniquely British concept, we defer to the first major contributor, which would be Avb (talk). The relevant edit (Avb's last) is here. Tesseran 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, Foeticide is more common, so that probably is what the title should, but as long as there is a redirect and the spelling ambiguity is explained upfront, there's no incredible need to move it as of yet. -Porlob 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Where regional spelling varies, Wikipedia respects the spelling choice of the first major contributor, unless the subject is specific to a region. ("Political Favours in the United States" or "Royal Colors of England" would just look dumb, but this is not such a case.) Robert A.West (Talk) 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments: My only reservation is that (a/o)e->e does tend to divide along national lines: Americans prefer "fetus/hemoglobin/medieval" whereas British prefer "foetus/haemoglobin/mediaeval". Googling seems to indicate that foe- is more popular even in the U.S., but be ready for some irate American to demand that it be moved back. Zargulon

Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what is stated above, this new proposed spelling fails the pubmed test.

• feticide - 28208
• fetocide - 33
• foeticide - 23
• foetocide - 2

--Andrew c 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the pubmed test applies, since, as the article suggests, the word is in highly common usage both in general political discourse and in the legal community. I go with google and Adam. Zargulon 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much, though, either way. It's perfectly acceptable in either namespace, as long as both forms are listed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's a vote going to prove? Whether the Americans or the Brits are better at mobilising voters?

Decide what the target audience for this article is, and then choose whatever style is most appropriate for that audience!!!! Please! jguk 13:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy wasn't to choose what sort of English made the most sense for the article (unless it is a new article), but instead to accept regional variant spellings, and simply use the variant of the earliest contributor (this way, avoiding edit wars over spelling, and discussions such as this). Majority usage is not a good enough reasons to change for me, otherwise we'd loose Fertilisation and Aubergine. As a side note, is it possible that feticide and foeticide mean two different things? Clearly, at pubmed, feticide is the more common term by far. However, on the google, foeticide is. Maybe feticide refers more often to the medical usage, and foeticide to the legal usage (or the political debate over abortion)? --Andrew c 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation, that feticide is more common in medical circles, and foeticide elsewhere. It would be nice to say this in the article, but unfortunately it probably counts as original research. Zargulon 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

dictionary definitions

All I have to say is:

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

fe·ti·cide (ft-sd) n.

Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus. Also called embryoctony.

and

feticide

Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus.

Origin: L. Fetus + caedo, to kill

We are not accurately representing our sources when we specify "fetus" or not include "embryo". There is nothing wrong with being general to accommodate our sources. We even have a source that says "or causing an abortion." Our wording is similar to that, and doesn't exclude any of the 7 definitions. -Andrew c 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., six of the seven cited definitions do not mention anything about an embryo, and define feticide in terms of killing a fetus. The word “feticide” itself is obviously derived from the word “fetus” rather than from the word “embryo”. I think our article should at least mention that most definitions of the word “feticide” do not mention anything about an embryo. I'll give it another try, and we'll see what you think. Your quoted definition from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary is the exception rather than the rule.Ferrylodge 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I quoted 2 definitions. So it's 5 out of seven.-Andrew c 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is the problem. The article said that "feticide" is sometimes used synonymously with "abortion". You changed this to say (paraphrasing) "feticide sometimes refers to an abortion after the embryonic stage". None of the definitions say this. You changed the original wording that feticide and abortion CAN be synonymous to say that feticide sometimes refers to a specific type of abortion. I restored the original meaning, and we have been reverting each other left and right. The fact of the matter is, the majority of the definitions do not mention abortion. They say "death of a fetus". So here is my suggested compromise:

"The term feticide may generally refer to the death of a fetus, although it can sometimes be used synonymously with abortion."

What do you think?-Andrew c 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., if you look at the seven definitions provided by the footnote in the article, you will see that only one explicitly suggests feticide may be synonymous with abortion, and only two explicitly mention an embryo. Six of the definitions explicitly refer to an intentional act causing death or destruction, and the seventh (which explicitly mentions abortion) is a non-medical dictionary that was probably referring to induced abortion (i.e. spontaneous abortion is not within the primary non-medical definition of "abortion").

Your suggested compromise is not limited to intentional acts causing the death of a fetus. Your version includes spontaneous abortions. Therefore, I would suggest this: "The term feticide usually refers to causing the death of a fetus, although this term can sometimes be used not just regarding a fetus but an embryo as well, including an induced abortion of an embryo."Ferrylodge 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your wording is unnecessarily verbose and redundant. I also do not believe that "dictionary.reference.com" is an accurate source on how terms are "usually" used and would suggest using less specific language that doesn't take sides on which use is most dominate. Adding the word "causing" is helpful because of the wording used in the definitions (and I was surprised to find out that my version left that word out). Adding the word "induced" to my version may clear up some of your concerns, but I see no reason to mention embryo (not once, and definitely not twice). I believe your second half of the sentence could be summarized to "this term can sometimes be used to mean induced abortion" or something along those lines. -Andrew c 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this: "Although the term 'feticide' may refer to legal induced abortion, this term is often used only in relation to a 'fetus'." Clearly, four of the definitions at dictionary.com do not include causing death of an embryo. That's just a fact.Ferrylodge 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've modified it some. Your version implies that the term "feticide" means an abortion during the fetal stage. I believe my wording clearly represents the definitions, without adding extra meaning. Check out the article and tell me what you think.-Andrew c 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your version is fine. Feticide primarily deals with fetuses, after all.Ferrylodge 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Article split?

Does anyone thing that the article should be split? The legal term describes a crime, while the medical term describes a medical procedure. Having them on the same page may confuse readers or imply that a medical procedure is a crime. I would propose having feticide (legal) and feticide (medical) and keep this page as a disambig page, or just spin out the medical content to a new article, and put a otheruses template at the top of this article. -Andrew c 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think a split is needed. People are sophisticated enough to understand that "feticide" has both legal and medical aspects. Likewise, "abortion" has both legal and medical aspects, and we don't have an abortion (legal) article in addition to an abortion (medical) article. If anything, such a split would be more appropriate for abortion than for feticide, since the abortion article is already so much longer.Ferrylodge 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, sort of like how we have Abortion law and then how we Medical abortion ;)-Andrew c 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd been considering proposing a split of this article myself for some time. I think this article, in its current state, is trying to wear too many hats. I'd recommend moving information related to the "deliberate or incidental killing of a fetus due to a criminal human act" to Fetal homicide and information on "causing the death of a fetus as the first phase of a legal induced abortion" to Feticide (abortion). This page would be retained as a disambiguation point between these two articles, perhaps with the definition of the word featured at the top, as with Family (disambiguation). -Severa (!!!) 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the abortion article, there are sub-pages for Abortion law and Medical abortion, although surgical abortion is not included in medical abortion, so the analogy doesn't quite work. Anyway, if this feticide article gets long enough to justify subpages for feticide (legal) and feticide (medical) then I would have no objection to creating such sup-pages, and then having summaries at the top-level feticide article.

Right now, the abortion article is somewhat lopsided, emphasizing the medical over the legal aspects. In contrast, I think this feticide article is fairly even-handed about it.

Although Andrew c and Severa have somewhat different proposals here, they are similar in that they both seek to further distinguish and separate legal abortion from criminal feticide. As mentioned, I don't think that's advisable at this point, (1) because readers are sophisticated enough to distinguish one section of this article from another, (2) because we haven't eliminated the main abortion article in favor of separate medical and legal articles, and (3) because this article does not have any length problems yet. Two further reasons why I tend to be against splitting up this feticide article are as follows: (4) the subjects of abortion and criminal feticide are very much inter-related, with many states making abortion criminal after viability; and (5) trying to get rid of an article that jointly covers illegal-feticide and legal-feticide in favor of separate articles would at least have the POV effect of making the latter more palatable (kind of like making sure that Ned Lamont isn't photographed hugging Al Sharpton).Ferrylodge 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that feticide is the deliberate killing of a fetus, and that this article can cover the situations in which that is done. There is crossover between the abortion and assault aspects of it in cases such as this and this. If the article were long, the legal vs. illegal aspects would be a logical line along which to split the article. But at less than 4kB of text, I don't think anyone is accusing the article of being excessively long and in need of a split. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Neither Harmonic (mathematics) nor Harmonic (color) are very long, but both of them are separate articles, not sub-sections of Harmonic. I can see no logical basis for conflating two completely different topics, which happen to share a title, into a single article simply because the resultant spin-off articles would be on the short side. There's always room for development. I think it would be a lot easier to develop information on fetal homicide laws if the subject had its own specific article, Fetal homicide, because then editors would be free to concentrate on that topic alone, without first having to separate it from all the information related to abortion. I think it's a very awkward fit to have information related to fetal homicide laws and abortion contained in the same article — it begs for disambiguation. -Severa (!!!) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Harmonic (mathematics) and Harmonic (color) are "two competely different topics." In contrast, the legal and medical aspects of feticide are not completely different topics, nor are legal feticide and illegal feticide completely different topics. As stated in the first sentence of this article, "Feticide or foeticide is an act that causes the death of a fetus." That encompasses everything in the remainder of this article. Note that this article has existed since January 2006, and I'm unaware that anyone has until now felt that the title of the article is ambiguous.Ferrylodge04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I see that a split tag has just been put on this article. So far, there is no consensus for a split. I cannot understand why a split would be appropriate. The abortion article has not been split up into separate articles on its medical and legal aspects. As Lyrl points out, this article does not have length problems (as the abortion article does), so I cannot support this continuing proposal.Ferrylodge 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also oppose. Killing a fetus with a blow to a woman's stomach and killing it with an injection are just two different ways of accomplishing the same thing. Fetal homicide and medical later term abortion are two different aspects of the same topic, not two different topics that happen to share the same name.

Whether the woman consents or not is an important issue, but the links I posted earlier demonstrate the fetal homicide (i.e. killing the fetus by assaulting the woman) is sometimes done at the woman's request. Separating the assault vs. medical aspects would not divide the article along the lines of consent. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Abortion has been split into several sub-articles covering its various aspects, in particular Abortion law and all articles in Category:Abortion law to cover "legal aspects," and a host of articles, including the abortion method series and articles like Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, to cover "medical aspects." Thus, "The abortion article has not been split up into separate articles on its medical and legal aspects," is not an applicable counterargument to the split proposal, because, clearly, Abortion has been split up, and what is being proposed here by Andrew c and myself isn't the same as the manner in which Abortion was divided. Abortion is a top-tier hub which summarises the content of several sub-articles, as with Astronomy, and when sections in such top-tier articles get too long, they are often moved to their own individual articles. What is being proposed here is not division per Wikipedia:Summary style or WP:SIZE guidelines, but, rather, division per Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines. This article does not need to be split because it is too long — no one has suggested that — but it does need to be split because it's trying to wear two hats on the same head at once. We have coverage of fetal homicide laws and coverage of abortion crammed into the same space, and, although they're related, strictly in terms of the "act causing fetal death" definition of "feticide," I've always wondered why there has never been a seperate Fetal homicide article to cover such leglislation, because the topic is certainly broad enough to warrant it.

Another suggestion would be to move content relating to fetal homicide legislation to Fetal homicide and have a disambiguation page something like the following:

Feticide or foeticide is an act that causes the death of a fetus. This may refer to:

• Fetal homicide
• Abortion

-Severa (!!!) 03:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The example given by Wikipedia:Disambiguation is "Mercury." This can refer to a planet, an element, a record company, or a Greek god. There is no significant overlap. That is not like the present situation. Feticide is a deliberate act to cause death of a fetus, and that includes crimes as well as non-crimes, viable fetuses as well as non-viable fetuses, maternally approved as well as maternally disapproved. We're not talking about separate unrelated concepts here. I do not understand why this article would call for disambiguation while the abortion article would not.Ferrylodge 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"because the topic is certainly broad enough to warrant it." Absolutely. And when coverage of the topic expands, it will be an excellent candidate for a content fork. Just like has happened to the abortion article. I think Severa's explanation of what has happened to the abortion article is excellent, and explains exactly what Ferrylodge's comparison to the abortion article is intended to illustrate. But I see no explanation of how this article fits the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines. If anything, it meets the criteria for a set index article, but the sections are not yet long enough to implement that format. Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be consensus for a split. So, maybe it's time to remove the thingy at the top of the article.Ferrylodge 05:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates and law map

The law map is not displaying until the level of the abortion template. I believe this is because the image call for the abortion template is above the image call for the map. But this makes the law map display for me in the "see also" section, which makes no sense article-wise. Is there any way to force the map image to display in the U.S. law section without removing the abortion template? I had considered moving the image call for the abortion template into the U.S. law section just below the law map (this is a great fix in preview mode on my screen), but a)I'm not sure that would work for everybody's monitor setup, and b)it's nonstandard to have templates put in the middle of articles. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks okay on my screen.Ferrylodge 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it works for me in Internet Explorer. But I usually use Firefox, which seems susceptible to this image placement problem. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The lead paragraph says: “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20, usually after detection of a fetal abnormality.” I think this needs to be modified, to something like “As a medical term, feticide includes causing the death of a fetus, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality.”

Medical dictionaries do not limit the term "feticide" to post-20 weeks, so I don’t think we should impose that limit either. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "the destruction of the fetus." American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus." Online Medical Dictionary defines feticide as "Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

The way I see this, we are trying to define a specific medical procedure (normally called "feticide") that involved injecting the fetus, placenta, or amniotic sac with a substance that causes the death of the fetus. This procedure is different than say a routine D&E on a 17 week fetus, or a routine EVA on a 11 week fetus. This isn't clearly presented in the article. Your changes are fine. However, how does this sound. "As a medical term, feticide generally refers to causing the death of a fetus. As a specific medical procedure, feticide involves injecting a substance that causes fetal death, for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion from around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality." The first sentence covers the dictionary definitions, while the second covers the specific procedure often described in medical literature.-Andrew c 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "around gestational week 20 after detection of a fetal abnormality." It sounds like you detect an abnormality and then wait 20 weeks. That's why I changed the word "after" to "upon." And instead of "involves" I would prefer "may involve." I'm sure I can find articles where the deed is done by means other than injection, and at stages other than post-20 weeks.Ferrylodge 17:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Medically, not all things that cause the death of the fetus are commonly referred to as feticide (though they meet the definition, the discussion here is about the "medical use" of the term). A normal D&E abortion, for example, causes the death of the fetus, but is not called feticide in medical documents. "Feticide" seems to be reserved for killing the fetus in utero, while it is still intact. I thought the wording "as the first phase of a legal abortion" expressed this two-step definition of feticide + abortion procedure and distinguished it from one-step abortion procedures like vacuum aspiration and D&E. I find the "includes" awkward in the current phrase. Is feticide as a medical term ever used to refer to anything other than later term abortion? Also, I have not seen references to feticide prior to 20 weeks, and would be interested in Ferrylodge could provide a source for updating the content of the article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

UK law (and RCOG guidelines) require a "lethal injection" before abortions starting at 24/22 weeks. However, feticide is not required for abortions before then, thus resulting in some live births followed quickly by neonatal death. This is slightly controversial in the UK, leading to a handful of popular media stories and at least 2 journal articles. From reading about that, I agree with Lyrl's conclusions: it doesn't seem like feticide is very common much earlier than 20 weeks, nor is the term feticide used to refer to typical abortion procedures that end up killing the fetus. -Andrew c 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google search in the "Scholar" database for the terms "feticide" and "first trimester" gives a bunch of results. For example: Berkowitz, Richard et al. "First-Trimester Transabdominal Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction: A Report of Two Hundred Completed Cases", American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Volume 169, page 17 (July 1993): "All of the procedures were performed in the first trimester by the transabdominal injection of potassium chloride into the thoraces of those fetuses that underwent feticide." Hope that helps.Ferrylodge 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After 20 Weeks

This article presently says that feticide is sometimes used medically during "abortions after 20 weeks." However, the abortion article says, "medically, it [i.e. abortion] is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable." These two statements are inconsistent. Which one is wrong?Ferrylodge 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that in medical terms, it is still called abortion whenever it occurs and whether or not the fetus is viable. Zargulon 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, abortion in humans refers to pre-viable/pre-20 weeks. Open up your medical dictionary that you are so fond of to verify. However, in common language, abortion is not time limited. We are using the common, not the technical use of the term in this article. I believe this goes along with avoiding jargon. However, if we want to be technically accurate, we can state "In terminations of pregnancies after 20 weeks..."-Andrew c 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical dictionaries vary on this point. Some medical dictionaries define abortion as, "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." (See here and here and here). This does not restrict when the event occurs. Likewise, numerous medical articles use the term "abortion" after 20 weeks. See here and here and here and here.

So, I am comfortable with the terminology presently used in this article. However, the abortion article seems overly restrictive in this regard.Ferrylodge 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Take up your issues with other articles on those talk pages so editors who watch that page can contribute. Thanks.-Andrew c 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue here was whether the use of the term "abortion" is appropriate in this article. I'm now satisfied that it is appropriate, so that settles the matter as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your comments about that, Zargulon. I have no desire to get involved again with the main abortion article right now. I have had more success banging my head against the wall than suggesting improvements in that article, where even correction of a blatant misspelling ("nociceptic") is repeatedly reverted and not tolerated. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Satanic cults

Feticide, it seems, has often been associated with satanic cults. There should perhaps be additional sources regarding the alleged practice among such cults. ADM (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like in popular culture and horror films and such? Because real Satanists do not sacrifice babies to the devil or any of that nonsense. I'd go on a limb and say there has never been a case of an individual doing such who is a member of one of the official Satanic bodies, nor any "cults" doing this. Seems like Satanic ritual abuse nonsense. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All that's true. That's probably why ADM used the term "associated". Feticide has been associated with satanic cults, whether or not there was actually any evidence. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetus trafficking

Another issue that would probably deserved to be mentioned is fetus trafficking, the illegal sale and purchase of dead fetuses for commercial, scientific or other dedrading purposes. There is notably a law in the state of Maine which speficially prohibits this. [1] Such trafficking would presumably be related to the practice of fetal cannibalism, which has been called McFetus when it is done so publicly. [2]. Certain contemporary moralists have also complained about the increasingly common practice of embryonic trafficking, which is done for similar commercial and scientific reasons. [3] ADM (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. map

California is shown in blue on the map (murder or homicide), but the text indicates that this depends on the age of the fetus. The map categories are not mutually exclusive, so it could be made clearer what principle (if any) has been used to resolve ambiguities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.112 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Child destruction

I have delted a passage as I do not believe it to be true: See Talk:Child destruction#Killing of a viable fetus before birth.

Homicide laws

"Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions caused the miscarriage or accuse the women of taking such actions."

This language is a bit weird. When describing child abuse laws, do we say that "child abuse laws are often used to prosecute against mothers who suffer the loss of their children, in cases where prosecutors argue that their actions constituted abuse or accuse the women of taking such actions" ? Or do we say simply "child abuse laws are used to prosecute parents accused of causing the death of their children" ?

By using the former language, we would be siding with the parents, insinuating that they are innocent and poor victims ("they already suffered the loss of their children, now they suffer at the hands of the police"). The latter language is more neutral.

So to be neutral, clear and objective, we should say "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally causing miscarriages or stillbirths. " Jorge Peixoto (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple of problems there. Firstly, newspaper articles on child abuse laws don't generally explain that such laws are being misused. (Don't forget that these fetal homicide laws ostensibly aren't intended to target pregnant women.) Secondly, your proposed language is just inaccurate, as the article specifically points out that the pregnant woman's intent is not at issue in all of the cases (whether the pregnant women actually intended to cause a miscarriage is not even at issue - not all the laws being applied have to do with intentional endangerment). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally or recklessly causing miscarriages or stillbirths. "

My problem with the present language is that we are siding with the women, with no evidence for it. The Guardian article is simply "he said she said". The prosecutors are accusing, the women claim innocence. Duh. Many people under charges claim innocence. We ought to wait the judicial process before taking sides. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That phrasing is fine, as it is factually accurate, unlike the suggestion above, and does not assume guilt, unlike your previous edit. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand which phrasing are you referring to. Did you agree with "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally or recklessly causing miscarriages or stillbirths. " ? For my proposed phrasing is objective and doesn't take sides. Doesn't presume guilt or innocence. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly:

• "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally or recklessly causing miscarriages or stillbirths." - Accurate, no presumption of guilt
• "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women accused of intentionally causing miscarriages or stillbirths." - Inaccurate as not all the laws applied deal with intentional endangerment
• "Fetal homicide laws are increasingly often used to prosecute pregnant women whose actions cause miscarriages or stillbirths." - Presumes guilt and thus is non-neutral as well as potentially inaccurate

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. can you add this agreed phrasing to the article? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In Nature

This entire article is about human feticide. I think there should be mention, even a section, on feticide in nature. For example it is mentioned here Plains_zebra#Reproduction and here Rodent#Birth_and_parenting. I would assume it is reasonably common with many other species (infanticide certainly is) although I haven't researched it. I think its an important point to make as well as very interesting, especially to see which species have been observed doing it the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Digoxin

@SocraticOath: I don't have access to the article you added, but I do have access to the Induction of fetal demise before abortion paper, and both the quote you provided from the source and the full article I have access to suggests that your addition desperately needs to be qualified. Even the quote from your source notes that there's a sharp difference between failure rates for intrafetal and intraamniotic injections, and the Induction paper additionally notes extremely different failure rates depending on the dosage. It's also not clear to me which version (and which dosage) is preferred outside an experimental context; I think we may be misleadingly giving the impression of a far higher rate of failure than actually exists in practice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up... I had used a URL that is publicly available and have now brought this into the article. I also added details from that article to show more information and context for the sentence. -SocraticOath (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, although I would still be interested in finding out statistics in a non-experimental context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feticide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415230601/http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus to http://www.wncn.com/story/28664509/first-woman-in-us-sentenced-for-killing-a-fetus
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)