Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Abortion/First paragraph: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Alienus (talk | contribs)
7,662 edits
Goodandevil (talk | contribs)
1,270 edits
Line 804: Line 804:


This is an excellent point. [[User:Alienus|Alienus]] 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent point. [[User:Alienus|Alienus]] 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is an obfuscation. The death of the concpetus is why abortion is controversial. The death is doubted by no one. The moral value of that life is where the controversy lies. The word "death" (or die or dead) is morally neutral. It just makes the purveyors and supporters of such death feel guilty. And the article should not tiptoe in order to make such people feel good. [[User:Goodandevil|Good]] 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:19, 29 March 2006

Straw poll, opening line

I'm going to be bold here and construct a rough straw poll of available options. Please feel free to add further proposals.

Please sign your name with (#* ~~~~) under a position you support or oppose (with no spaces), preferably adding a brief comment. You may wish to sign your name to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Background: The first debate on having "death" in the lead sentence was tied to the extensive unborn/human vs. embryo/fetus debate. It was decided human was an ambiguous term and allowed one to infer personhood (human being); whereas embryo/fetus were more accurate and neutral. When it came to putting "death" into the lead there were many proposals; but it was argued death also was accurate and neutral. This is how the current version was agreed upon by both sides of the abortion debate and those in the middle. - RoyBoy 800 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original:

  • Pregnancy is defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. Others differ, however, placing this initiation at fertilisation (also called conception).

Proposals:

  1. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.
    Support

Caroline

  1. Oppose
  2. An abortion is the cessation of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.
    Support
    Oppose
  3. An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
    Support
    Oppose
  4. An abortion is the termination of an embryo of fetus' gestation in a womb, so as not to result in a live birth.
    Support
    • "White" and "chalk." It really is just a complicated way of saying "death," but I can't oppose it on editorial or or idealogical grounds. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
  5. An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.
    Support
    Oppose
  6. An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
    Support
    Oppose
  7. An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
    Support
    Oppose
  8. Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).
    Support
    Oppose
  9. "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus." Or, in other words, maintaining the current version.
    Support
    Oppose

#*"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the biological death of an embryo or a fetus."

  1. Support
    • Qualifying "death" puts to rest concerns over the POV inferences of the word without precluding the possibility or commenting on the validity of such alternate interpretations. -Kyd 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    Puzzled

Sorry. This was posted accidently with the above (#9). Didn't intend for my own Preview dabbling to end up as real suggestion (damn copy and paste). -Kyd 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

RoyBoy, thanks for setting this up. What do you think of formatting the poll so that people can place support or oppose comments below each option, rather than each comment being a support, as it's set up now? Something like:

  1. [Suggested opening sentence]
    Support
    • I support this option
    Oppose
    • I oppose this option

Does that sound like a good idea? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest support by the supported opening sentence - otherwise, one has to then write oppose under every one opposed, etc. Although, I suppose it is possible someone might oppose all, or support more than one.....hmmmm......yeah, your suggestion is good.DonaNobisPacem 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried some reformatting - if someone doesn't like it, please feel free to change it back, just be sure not to lose anyone's comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for now, I didn't implement it as there are so many options; but hopefully this straw poll with help us narrow it down to a few quickly, and/or combine the wording of a few together to get an uber opening sentence. - RoyBoy 800 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make sense to sign votes, to insure one vote/option/editor?DonaNobisPacem 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I look like an idiot - and sometimes I am ; ) - thanks to whoever edited my votes.DonaNobisPacem 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodandevil, if I understand your question correctly above, you're asking whether we should mention that the word "abortion" not only refers to the actual ending of gestation of the fetus, but also to the aborted fetus itself. The thing is, I don't know whether that's correct. I think that the result of an abortion is called an "aborted fetus", not an "abortion". I'm sure that if I'm wrong about that, someone will point out which reliable source uses "abortion" to refer to the dead fetus, at which point, I'd agree with you; and let's include it then. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one reliable source [1] that lists one meaning as "an aborted organism". Good 21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's often used in that sense in medical parlance. In the same way, abortion clinics sometimes refer to an aborted fetus (with or without amniotic sac and/or placenta) as the pregnancy or the pregnancy tissue.

I would prefer to set up separate POV descriptions of abortion, based on the majority/minority views in the general population as per WP:NPOV. Preliminary list of POVs in (descending) order of popularity: (1) Held by those who want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as euphemistically as possible (e.g. in order to make it less difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. descriptions authored by abortion clinics (2) Held by those who do not want abortion to be a legal option and describe abortion as repulsively as possible (e.g. in order to make it difficult to undergo or perform) - cf. pro-life descriptions. (3) Medical/legal. An easy starting point would be to convert the current article to reflect the #1 POV it already approaches, and add the #2 and #3 views separately. AvB ÷ talk 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be contributing any further input on this matter. I hope the other users are able to resolve the issue; until then, I'll uphold the stable version (i.e. "death"). -Kyd 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the poll

Support Medical, Reliable, Reputable sources as per official Wiki policy.

Consensus, whether you call it straw poll or something else, is not how an encylopedia is written. You can use the majority of reliable, reputable sources, per official policy. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy."--Pro-Lick 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Some people would see this straw poll as an opportunity to explain why you feel various options are or are not accurate, NPOV, etc. Refusing to participate in a dialogue is a great way to claim later on that your input was ignored, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already read it and quote it on my user discussion page. E.g.:
  • "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."
  • "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
And who says that simple vote-counting is what's going to happen here? How many Wikipedia straw polls have you seen begin and end? Oh yeah, none. A straw poll is a good way of feeling out the various arguments. Nobody who knows this place is suggesting a simple vote-count. We're trying to find out what the pros and cons of various options are.
You're right that consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Unfortunately, when there's disagreement as to what constitutes NPOV, there's no acid test for determining whose interpretation of NPOV is correct. So, we try to explain our views to each other, and we figure that if we can get a consensus to agree that we've found a good NPOV, then we're better off than we would be without that agreement. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my fervent wish that consensus be declared void at least in clear-cut cases of original research (i.e. total absence of reputable sources), and preferably everywhere else. But it won't be happening anywhere soon. Wikipedia is built on the assumption that consensus will in the end result in NPOV language in the articles. NPOV is based on popularity/acceptance of views. The general idea is that consensus is a good way to gauge this. You would have to make Jimbo change his mind in order to remove the consensus aspect. FWIW, I fully agree that WP:NOR forbids editors to create a starting line pretending to be The Truth that is not even stated and undisputed as the majority view by the majority of notable reputable verifiable sources... AvB ÷ talk 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how this particular poll is violating NPOV in the first place. Up above on the talk page, we have several references that do not use, and several that do use, the word death in association with the fetus. Many that do not go on to explain that the fetus/embryo dies prior to or after an abortion. All sources are medical/reliable; so it remains to find a consensus as to whether or not we are going to take the route with or without the word death - yes, POV's come into play in the arguments themselves (on both sides of the issue, might I add), but if both are being used in the medical community, we have to make a choice, and consensus is the best route.DonaNobisPacem 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what is original research in this instance. - RoyBoy 800 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, RoyBoy - and what are considered "reliable sources." WALTR 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research includes your opinions, arguments, and straw polls. As noted every time you make a post "Content ... must be verifiable." Your opinions and straw polls do not meet the requirements. Consider reading the link AvB provided. It is official policy. As for the |reliable sources, click. Same page, posted before the attempt to violate policy with a vote of a small group of people that have no claim to expertise on the subject. Or, if they do, should have no problem adding it as a source above. If you have an issue with a specific source, post it below as a comment. That section is not for opinions. In other words, you will need a reputable, reliable, and, very likely, medical source. Of course, if you have such a source, you are free to add it to the list. As a final note, the list presently has a consensus of non-death definitions.--Pro-Lick 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tweak that to say, "the list I decided to compile in a bold WP:Good faith but ultimately misguided attempt to change the article, based on my interpretation of a few specific WikiPolicies". As to "death" in the lead, I've noted on your talk page, Encarta is a reliable source more appropriate for Wikipedia, as we aren't writing a medical textbook but rather an encyclopedia. This forces us to take a broader look at the issues surrounding the procedure and write them in summary style; unlike medical sources that focus on the procedure itself rather than its issues/results/debate. We have a much smaller academic buffer here; it is a luxury we simply don't have.
To profess we need a reliable (or a consensus) of sources for stating that "death" is part of the abortion process isn't required by WikiPolicy... because "death" (or, no life, unable to survive, etc.) falls under "state the obvious" for articles. Now one can certainly disagree on how the obvious facts are presented and worded; but it would be a waste of time and demonstrate significant gap(s) in understanding of WikiPolicy to assert it was "original research".
Thinking you can somehow divine WikiPolicy better than numerous experienced editors and admins is curious. Then again that does crop up from time to time, especially on controversial articles. Your input/ideas are welcome (after all we are likely going to change the lead soon as a result of your edits, and Andrew c bringing up an old debate). However, your "my interpretation of this and that policy makes me right" attitude is not welcome here. Everyone has similar editorial input here; but that is a double edged sword as while people will listen to you, if they disagree for reasonable reasons... your edits won't make the cut. Such is life at the Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm beginning to see where there's a misunderstanding here. In writing a Wikipedia article, we make different kinds of decisions. One broad categorization, that might be helpful to consider here, is that of content decisions versus stylistic decisions. As far as content goes, the main policies to keep in mind are Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No amount of consensus can override these policies. No amount of consensus can justify the suppression of one reliable source, or the use of spurious, unreliable sources. Furthermore, we don't even seek consensus (or majority, or supermajority) among reliable sources. We report what they say, and if they disagree, we report that. That's all on the content side.
When it comes to stylistic decisions, we have to make decisions about how to phrase, couch, and present the facts that are composed of the reliable sources we've found. Phrasing can be very powerful, and one phrasing can imply a POV where another phrasing can sound more neutral. Decisions about how to word something aren't the sort of things that we can cite and back up with sources, and that's where consensus enters the picture. Deciding that one way of putting a definition is more accurate and neutrally phrased than another is not original research; it's an editorial decision. When it comes to controversial editorial decisions, we try to build consensus regarding the best way of putting something. A straw poll is a perfectly valid way of gathering information about what arguments people have for and against certain editorial decisions. A straw poll isn't a simple vote count, it's an attempt to find out what people's issues are with various options. Barging into Wikipedia for a week and announcing that all straw polls constitute original research... you're just wrong about how Wikipedia works. Don't tak my word for it, go work on a hundred other pages, and see how things go around here.
Here's yet another good thing to know about Wikipedia, Pro-Lick. Our policies and guidelines here are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive. What actually determines how Wikipedia works is not what it says on a page somewhere. It's the common practice established by a functioning culture of regular Wikipedians. One who would contribute to Wikipedia would do well to become familiar with this culture and its ways before trying to single-handedly change how this site works. That's if one wants get any work done, as opposed to just generating static. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware what your opinion on what is more appropriate. The consensus of the reliable, reputable sources as per WP:V overrule your POV, however. Or to put it your way, your POV is misguided and does not make the cut. Sources do. Sources support no use of death. And so do the 5 pillars of Wiki, as pointed out above.--Pro-Lick 18:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean; your selected sources. God forbide you had a POV on this matter, wait a second, you DO! You happen to think finding sources without death makes your position correct. Well since you found the sources; maybe, just maybe, you went looking for those sources because it was you POV death should not be there. Don't hide behind your sources; and please stop making use of my irony meter. RoyBoy 800 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list above can be added to. Why haven't you? It can be checked, and can be commented on below it. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. I.e., you can add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of your opinion is that your hiding behind unsourced POV.--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 5 pillar reminder: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."--Pro-Lick 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wherever possible," yes. It's not possible to find a verifiable, authoritative source that says that the definition of abortion has to include or exclude the word "death". All we know is that some sources use that word, and others don't. (There are other words that some use and some don't, like "gestation", "embryo" and "expulsion".) Most that exclude the word "death" from the first sentence include it a little bit later. That's a stylistic decision, not a content decision, that an editor at each source has to make. That includes us.
Now, Pro-Lick, the following are serious questions: What part of "if reliable sources disagree, then we report that they disagree" don't you understand? Also, what part of "You don't know more about how Wikipedia works than those who've been at it for years" don't you understand? What part of "Wikipedia policies are descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive," don't you understand? Do you fail to understand the difference between content and style? I really would like to see your answers to these questions.
Even more than that, I have a suggestion. Go find an administrator who has nothing to do with this page. Find one who strikes you as fair and impartial. Ask them whether your take on Wikipedia policies is the correct one. (See also what they think of your habit of removing others' comments on your talk page, in particular, comments informing that that removing others' comments is considered disrespectful.) When you've determined that community understanding of our policies is that you're right and we're wrong, then come back here, with the community behind you, and let us know. When that happens, we'll all say, "you were right all along, Pro-Lick. You wandered into Wikipedia, and immediately understood it better than the rest of us. Please teach us more." Until then, I'm amused at your hubris. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More opinion. What part of the vast majority of reputable, reliable sources agree that death is not part of the definition for abortion is not understood? See WP:V.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one - I don't understand why, when a source doesn't use a particular word in a definition, you take that as an assertion by the source that the word in question "is not part of the definition". I don't understand why you aren't distinguishing the idea being conveyed from the particular string of words used to convey it, when the former is very clear, and the latter clearly variable. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a deep breath Pro-Lick, we aren't slow. We've understood your position; and have taken great pains to explain how and why you are utterly wrong; and are naive regarding WikiPolicy. Requiring a consensus of sources is a ludricrous proposition for controversial subjects. The logic is simple, simce it is controversial; one could find a variety of reliable and unreliable; authoritative and nonauthoritative sources to back up differing positions and perspectives. It is a huge investment of time and energy and ends up accomplishing nothing. That is why we prefer civil discussion to argue for one position or another. Based on the discussion the article evolves. Your position regarding the lead is flawed and naive; drop it. - RoyBoy 800 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more opinion, combined with name calling. Very impressive. The list above can be added to, can be checked, and can be commented on. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can post other sources that indicate it is not reputable or reliable. You add WP:RS sources to the list. Until then, their consensus view of you opinion on the use of death is that it is "flawed and naive".--Pro-Lick 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

  • Number of times consensus is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times poll is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times vote is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times descriptive is used in the 5 pillars: 0
  • Number of times any of the above words are used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in how many times verifiable and sources are used.--Pro-Lick 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to get into policy quotes - from Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words:

Notable: A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject. Even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable. Often it is valuable to see how people thought, or competing views of the time.

Hmmmm......even minority, controversial and discredited views are often notable....and valuable.....hmmmm. I hate to sound condescending, for I admit that is what I am doing: but this citation and bickering over policy is doing nothing but increasing the file size of this page. Discuss the article: if you want to discuss and work on policy, go to a policy discussion. The majority of editors here have been around a while, and are familiar with many policies - that's why they don't quote them all of the time. Ok - done venting. DonaNobisPacem 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of times Pro-Lick has convincingly argued a point using WikiPolicy: 0
  • Number of times WikiPolicy refers to following WikiPolicy to the letter and ignoring experienced Wikipedians and other considerations (style, balance, policies like consensus): 0
  • Number of times new users feel after reading some WikiPolicy they can WikiLawyer their POV into an article: big number
  • Number of times WikiPolicy says one can cherry pick sources then gloss over others (sources and people) in pursuit of an agenda: 0

I'll let somebody else fill in your Wiki-blind spots. (edit conflict) Ahhh, thanks DonaNobisPacem. :"D I recall a quote of some sort, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. RoyBoy 800 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exacctly. All DonaNobisPacem's stats are unverifiable opinions posted in the form of stats.--Pro-Lick 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small question - which stats are you referring to? If you are talking about the ones about yourself/Wikilawyering/cherry picking etc. above, you can view the edit history - I didn't add them. My venting stopped with my signature above. DonaNobisPacem 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your POV, however, on the wikilawyering and cherry picking. I can make up an identical list about you and tell you to go look at your edit history. In the end, it amounts to namecalling and does nothing to forward the cause. FYI, cherry picked from WP:POL, which is policy (and links to the 5 pillars): "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy...."

Pregnancy beginning discussion

This is getting so long it's interupting the flow of the Straw poll. I'm moving it here so that it can continue without obstructing to discussion or being obstructed. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyd, do you have a source for this NOT being a medical definition? I have posted several sources to the contrary. Of course I am not claiming it is THE medical definition - but A medical definition. I don't mean to muddy up your comment, but this seems like the best place to ask the question. Good]

It's a definition. Not a medical one. [2] -Kyd 11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link appears to be broken. Does that link give a medical definition that is different than the medical definition that I have sourced several times here (if so no news, as we all know that one medical definition is implantation)? Quite frankly some doctors and medical references do not accept that pregnancy begins at implantation and instead maintain that fertilization is the start of pregnancy. Once the gestation period of the fertilized embryo begins inside a woman (which happens immediately upon fertilization), they view there to be a pregnancy until that gestation ends. AGI and many others have a different medical opinion. But the alternate definition is based on science/biology/medicine and it is the medical opinion of those who hold it (I have repeatedly posted links to the sources). AGI has good info sometimes, but when it comes to controversial issues regarding abortion, it is inherently biased as it is part of "Big Abortion" (the abortion industry and the abortion lobby). There are in all likelihood more Ob/Gyns whose professional medical opinion is that pregnancy begins at fertilization than who adopt the ABC link. Not sure what is so disturbing about noting in the article that the alternate definition is based on medicine (instead of whimsy or religion, etc.), as we do with the ABC link. Good 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is in PDF, if that helps: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.pdf. It quotes the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists, "A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete." I wouldn't consider them biased. Never said that doctors couldn't hold the opinion, but, pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization doesn't seem to be the standard medical definition of pregnancy, even if some members of the medical community hold that opinion. Saying it was a medical definition because some doctors believe this would be undue weight in my opinion. -Kyd 12:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kyd. I commented about this above, but didn't seem to get a response. The IVF page says that only 20-30% of IVFs result in pregnancy, where your definition would say 100% result in pregnancy. Also, the definition you copied a while back say "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body", and I believe the operative word here is developing. A blastocyst can only develop so far if it doesn't implant. I think its good to note that some people believe life (or pregnancy) begin at fertilization, however this use of the word is simply not accurate medically. --Andrew c 14:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some medical/biological/scienific experts use a different medical/biological/scientific definition for pregnancy. This has been sourced. If you have a problem with the sources (posted repeatedly on this talk page), please state what they are and please be specific. "But those are not medical definitions" is a PoV and not all agree with it (certainly not the medical professionals who are using the alternate medical defiitions!). Again, I am not advocating that the article give equivalence to alternate medical definitions. I simply want them described as "alternate medical definitions" or words to that effect. There is no basis to simply call them "definitions". Good 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting left margin)

I would say that these POVs regarding the start of pregnancy (including the medical POV) are just that - points of view whose popularity/acceptance (but not their truth) needs to be gauged. I would prefer to see the distribution of the main POVs in the general population sourced. As an example pertaining to the point under discussion, it would be interesting (and necessary) to find out the size of the minority that view s as murder the use of IUDs preventing implantation of the newly developing embryo in non-Islamic countries. Reputable sources reporting this should be easy to find. If they are not, we can't say it. AvB ÷ talk 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a number of quotations showing it is a view held by the Catholic Church - of course, intent is taken into account - if one does not know that the IUD could prevent implantation of the embryo, then it is still considered murder, but the user of the IUD is not morally culpable (guilty) of the action. Those quotations are probably archived by now.....I believe it also involved similar statements on IUD's from Physicians for Life, and some other well known Pro-Life medical associations......DonaNobisPacem 17:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some (of mine and others) from Archive 15 (I've only put a small sample - go to the archive for complete quotes):
  • From religioustolerance.org "Pro-life agencies and many -- primarily conservative -- faith groups [as well as] Canadian Physicians for Life [are] opposed..." [3]
  • Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient."
  • Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo."
  • On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that "Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility."
  • the following is a vatican statement equating use of the morning-after pill to prevent implantation as morally equivalent to abortion [4].
And some pro-life medical associations that hold the same view:
  • American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists [5]
  • From Association of Pro Life Physicians [6]
I know that doesn't give the size of the demographic, but it gives the general demographic (Christian, pro-life) - interestingly enough, that is not an insignificant number of people...DonaNobisPacem 18:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something interesting to consider with regard to actual development (Wikipedia article, not external and I have not verified the article, though it is not disputed or under NPOV like certain other articles).--Pro-Lick 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does that have to do with anything?DonaNobisPacem 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the development of the embryo. Something to consider in deciding when pregnancy begins (presumably, an embryo can start developing a sex once pregnancy is officially underway).--Pro-Lick 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be surprising that certain characteristics are not determined until after implantation - how would that effect whether or not the woman could be considered pregnant?DonaNobisPacem 18:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A common, real-world aspect of being pregnant is discussing whether it's a boy or girl. One can not hold that discussion until when?--Pro-Lick 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting into the realm of original research anyways, but.....a real world aspect of being pregnant is also saying "What do you think our baby will look like?" That takes quite a while longer to answer!
Anyways, it appears the clitoris article is a bit misleading (or presenting non-conventional POV anwyays) - see [7] at discover.com. The clitoris article is talking about the genital development, NOT the sex of the baby - perhaps they refer to a potential influencer of males with female sex organs (although the discover article indicates that is due to missing genetic information, not hormonal influence).DonaNobisPacem 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "missing genetic information" sums it up well enough.--Pro-Lick 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moving indent left) OK, I'm not sure you got what I was trying to say - the Discover.com article says sex is determined at conception - XX or XY. The article goes on to say that males with female genitalia result b/c of missing genetic information - that information doesn't miraculously appear at implantation, it's still missing then - I think the clitoris article is merely trying to say that implantation triggers the development of the sex organs. It does not determine what those organs will be.

Anyways, as I said above, it doesn't really effect the question of the definition, so if you wish to continue the discussion we can take it to one of our talk pages.DonaNobisPacem 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Google search on baby sex determined when. Plenty more expert opinions to consider. The consensus seems to be that it's a bit more complex. Not complete disagreement, more like oversimplification for the sake of child-safe TV.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same search I had performed - most of the hits talk about determining the sex of the child (determining, as in finding out by ultrasound or other methods) as opposed to when it is set. And yes, it is possible to have XO (XY, with Y chromosone missing SRY part, that results in a female) or XXY (which results in a male) - but these are STILL determined at conception. For the first number of sites that discuss when a child's gender is determined (set):
  • From medline: The genetic sex of a child is determined at conception. The mother's egg cell (ovum) contains an X chromosome, while the father's sperm cell contains either an X or a Y chromosome. These X and Y chromosomes determine the child's genetic sex.[8]
  • From Nova Online:As with all other eggs in a woman's body, the cell contains one female-determining X chromosome. A sperm cell, however, may contain either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. If the fertilizing sperm cell contains an X chromosome, the egg will develop into a female. If it contains a Y chromosome, it will develop into a male. Note: It is possible, however, that a fertilized egg cell containing a Y chromosome will develop into a female or an intersexual (person of ambiguous gender). For example, if the Y chromosome is missing the SRY gene, which is located near the end of the short arm of the chromosome, the egg will develop into a female.[9] - note it is still determined at conception
  • The discover.com quote above (determined at conception)
  • From Kidshealth.org .....your baby's sex is determined at the moment of fertilization...[10]
  • A Washington Post article that discusses the sorting of X and Y chromosone sperm for gender-selective IVF - wouldn't make sense if the sex were determined at implantation, would it? [11]
  • From St Francis Hospital The sex or gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. A woman's egg contains half of the fetus' genetic material and when fertilized the male sperm contributes the remaining half. The father determines the sex of the child which is carried by the sperm. The 2 sex chromosomes in a male's sperm are X and Y and the 2 chromosomes in a females egg are X and X. If fertilization occurs between a Y & X, the result will be a boy. If fertilization occurs between an X & X, the result will be a girl.[12]
  • From Maternity Mall: At the moment of conception, your baby's gender is determined thanks to the sex chromosomes in the father's sperm.[13]
  • From a Daily Southtown article on gender-selective IVF : A baby's sex is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes the egg. A male sperm contains the Y chromosome, while a female sperm contains the X chromosome. A female sperm cell is 2.8 percent heavier than a male sperm cell. [14]
  • From Babycentre.com The gender of the resulting embryo depends on which type of sperm burrows into the egg first — sperm with a Y chromosome will make a boy baby, and sperm with an X chromosome will make a girl. [15]
So that's the first three pages.....let's face it, the gender is determined at conception. The only thing that is more complex is the possibility of XO and XXY chromosone pairing (or tripling?) - it doesn't change the fact it's determined at conception.DonaNobisPacem 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comicstrip Poll

Can't forget to get get the consensus of what comicstrip artists think. Add your submission below:

  1. Slowpoke
  2. Oliphant
  3. Wasserman
  4. Auth
  5. Toles
  6. This Modern World
  7. Something Positive
  8. Wolverton
  9. Wilkinson
  10. Telnaes
  11. Wuerker

Results and tweaks

Here are the versions that acquired broad support; I've copied editorial notes and have tried to carry out the tweaks requested. Please support only your preferred option (and specify original or tweaked); but suggestions on other options that might make you switch your vote and support them instead are encouraged. - RoyBoy 800 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original: An abortion is the termination of an embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
Tweaked: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb, resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, thereby terminating the pregnancy.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.
Support and Further Discussion
Original: An abortion is the expulsion of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
Tweaked: An abortion is the expulsion or removal of a fetus, due to or resulting in the death of the fetus, resulting in the termination of pregnancy.
Support and Further Discussion
  • Conditional support if "removal" is added. I could support this, although I'd reword it to avoid two occurrences of "resulting in". Perhaps the second one could be "and causing". Also. I'd prefer "removal or expulsion" to simply "expulsion", as that would provide more clarity for the case of induced abortion, as opposed to miscarriage. AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate[reply]
  • I'd support this one, with "removal" I suppose, if it loses the phrase "resulting in the termination of pregnancy", which is not true of all abortions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original: An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.
Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth.
Re-Tweaked: An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth.
Support and Further Discusison
  • This one has potential - I think it didn't get a fair shake on the first round because of its unfortunate wording. I would further tweak it to "An abortion is the ending of the gestation of a fetus or embryo before birth." As I keep mentioning, a pregnancy may continue despite an abortion. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be confused as support for polls, but in case the others want to know which one to vote against because I support it, I would support the original, tweaked, or GT's retweaked version.--Pro-Lick 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This definition looks very euphemistic since it seems to deliberately omit a significant and "unpleasant" detail; namely the death of the embryo/fetus. After all, that's why abortions are so controversial in the first place! Omitting this very significant part of the definition thus doesn't seem right. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the sentiment of Wade; I would like to note this is one of the best alternatives I've seen. It is simple, inclusive and to the point. On one side I do firmly believe the consequence should be noted to clarify the controversy of the procedure; on the other I appreciate Pro-Lick's objection that "death" could personify the fetus. Ultimately the problem is, that is in the eye of the beholder, and is insufficient to find "death" wrong or POV. The question I find myself now asking myself with this version; does/should the controversy be hinted at in the definition... or should we just define it in simple terms? Hmmmm... I think a dictionary can so simple terms, we as an encyclopedia cannot? - RoyBoy 800 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this nicely dodges the issue of death by defining abortion as a non-birth ending of a gestation, and that refers any issue to how "birth" is defined, in its own article. The fact that the relation of abortion to death is what makes it so very controversial is important, but not technically part of its definition. I would be happy to see that somewhere in the lead, if not in the defining sentence. Extending a thought that's already there: In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. The controversy stems from the fact that many consider a fetus to be a full human being, in the moral sense, and therefore consider abortion to be murder. Something like that? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy tweak

I assume this is a seperate proposal, so here is its own section. I have not implemented a tweaked version, others more familiar with the subject are encouraged to jump in. - RoyBoy 800 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original: Pregnancy is often defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo. An alternative medical definiton places the beginning of pregnancy at fertilization (also called conception).
Tweaked:


Examine the power of the euphemism "terminate"

This word became a common euphemism for "abort" after 1972 when abortion which had been a crime throughout the United States became legal in all 50 states. It now is being served up here and elsewhere as the definition of abortion itself. It becomes a circular definition without a reference to life and death: Abortion is termination, and termination is abortion.

Terminate simply means end. The termination, end, cessation, halt, stop, etc. of human pregnancy is either a birth or a death of a human child at some stage between conception and fetal maturity. If every human fetus expelled from a human womb was an abortion, the human race would cease to exist.

Has the pregancy of women who have given birth to living children, completed but not terminated? patsw 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would we say that a "birth" is a termination of a pregnancy resulting in a living baby? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, that would be correct.....if that helps.....DonaNobisPacem 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should result in living baby? smth. dead babies are born. Or it's not birth than? --tasc 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was trying to feel out the limits of the word "termination", not to provide an authoritative definition of "birth". One must speak carefully, mustn't one? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions Without Euphemism

Terminate is not a euphemism. The poor babies get terminated. Want no euphemisms, define it one of these ways:

  • An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with beating the baby to death.
  • An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with a death camp for babies.
  • Abortion is killing a developing baby inside a pregnant woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyBomber (talk • contribs)

Uh, terms like "death camp for babies" seem a little POV. How about something like "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with killing of the preborn child"? Hmm, "killing," although technically accurate, might also be too emotional. And yet I despise euphemisms. How about "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with causing the death of the preborn child"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my edit on definition

I felt the defintion was incomplete, leaving it as an "ending of the pregnancy." Thats true but so is a birth. In both cases the pregnancy ends. The difference is that one ends as an expulsion of an embryo/fetus, and the other in a birth of a baby. Only the latter is able to survive on its own. That is why I expanded the definiton to point to the former instead of the latter. I'm not sure why this is controversial, as it's pretty straight forward. Giovanni33 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the definition that you posted in inaccurate. If a viable fetus is taken from the womb, and killed in the process, what do you call it? Your definition excludes "partial-birth abortions" from being called abortions. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not the case that an abortion necessarily ends a pregnancy. If a woman is carrying triplets, and two are aborted, but she's still pregnant, was that not an abortion? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's back to the negative definition: abortion is not a birth. It's something else. Something that dare not be mentioned. patsw 05:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fetus able to servive on it own? I still call it an abortion. It's accurate because I use the words "associated with." It would be very rare to have a fetus aborted which could survive on its own. An abortion is almost always of non-viable fetuses (or embryos). And, an abortion does end the pregnancy in respect to the fetus being aborted. A pregnancy only exists in conjuction with a growing embryo or fetus. To remove that removes the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is still there that is only because in an unusual situation there it was only an abortion of one of multiple embryos/fetuses, which is still consistent with the logic of the defintion. Sometimes a definition has rare exceptions, which your senarios include, but these can mentioned in the next sentence, such as where some but not all fetuses are aborted. Giovanni33 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced those situations are so rare. I've seen some sources to the effect that partial-birth abortions have occured in the thousands per year in individual clinics. Maybe that's false, I don't know, but partial-birth abortions are certainly very visible, as part of the controversy, and it would seem strange to define abortion in a way that excludes them at first. As for multiple fetuses, they're the norm in plenty of species, and I certainly don't know what kind of ratio of implanted eggs to eventual kittens, for example, is usual. Do you?
Maybe it seems that I'm harping on bizarre special cases, but I think we should at least try to come up with an entirely correct definition, before settling for a most-cases definition and a list of exceptions. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your comments, its fair to remove the "before it can survive on its own," to make room for the very rare cases where it is possible, but also because it's not essential to the definition of abortion. So, I did that.
About partial birth being rare, I decided to look it up the facts [16] "There were 1.3 million abortions performed nationwide in 2000, according to the institute. About 88 percent were during the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 1 percent were performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy, when a fetus is considered having a chance of living outside the womb." And from the same site, "Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health." Giovanni33 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking past what you've related here (the source is utterly biased, but I don't care), I would point out that 1% of 1.3 million is 13,000, which is... only 35 per day, on average. You could consider that rare or not so rare, I guess. I mean, it's a tiny fraction of the total; it's 4 World Trade Centers over the year - what kind of rhetoric are you spinning, right? I don't really care whether they're rare or common though, like I said, our goal is to be 100% correct and clear.
My only issue with what's up there now is that we're claiming an abortion is the end of a pregnancy instead of a gestation. I don't buy that there are multiple pregnancies going on when multiple fetuses are in a single womb. That's not how we actually use that word, is it? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "gestation" is so much more technical of a word that it would confuse readers, and maybe that's worth using the slightly less accurate "pregnancy" and leaving common sense to sort out the obvious details in the case of a multiple pregnancy(ies?). That doesn't sound so horrible.
The D-word... is another issue... I don't consider it either forbidden or mandatory, but I think the most concise and accurate definition would acknowledge that the essential difference between abortion and birth - the entire reason we distinguish them - the reason the word "abortion" exists as distinct from "delivery" - is that one results in a dead fetus, the other in a live infant. The problem is whether using the word "death", or one of its forms, brings in unacceptable baggage. That's not an easy question. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all of the above in mind...

Ok, I'm suggesting the following rewrite:

An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth associated with the expulsion of an embryo or a fetus from the uterus before it can survive on its own.
This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.
There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world.

I suggest changing the above (and whatever other variations we've been seeing) to:

An abortion is the ending of a gestation of an embryo or fetus in a womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.
Humans have used various methods to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human, morally speaking, and therefore consider abortion murder, whereas proponents of safe and legal abortion consider access to abortion to be a basic human right for women.

The definition is accurate, I think, and I think it's good to go ahead and introduce the controversy in the introduction a little bit more fully. It also has the nice feature that those who want to edit war about particular words can just alternate the phrase "caused by or sesulting in the death of the embryo or fetus" with the phrase "before birth" in the first sentence without really changing the meaning!

Whaddya think? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept that version, GTBacchus, or a similar version beginning with:
An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.
I do object to any attempts to try to hide the fact that this thing inside a woman — whether it's a blob or a piece of tissue or a human child — dies. What this thing actually is is a POV; what happens to it is a medical fact. And since a dog can die, a cell can die, and bacteria can die, it's not implying that it's a human child to use that word. I also object to any attempt to hide the fact that abortions take place past the stage where the fetus could survive. Yes, it's an uncomfortable fact, but Wikipedia is not meant to hide uncomfortable facts. AnnH ♫ 09:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd have "Opponents of abortion consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human", without the "morally speaking". I can't see what that adds, or even what it means. I consider Str1977 and GTBacchus and Giovanni33 all to be fully human. I would consider killing any of them to be "murder, morally speaking" (though even in that case, the "morally speaking" is unnecessary), but I would never say that I consider them to be "fully human, morally speaking". AnnH ♫ 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't consider a zygote to be fully human, developmentally speaking, and I don't think that's controversial. On the other hand, you're right that it's a awkward locution. Maybe something like "...consider the fetus to be a human with moral rights"? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, but acceptable, in my view. If I consider you to be a human being, then I consider you to have moral rights. By the way, I know Americans say "have gotten" instead of "have got", but I presume the "humans have usen" is a typo?!AnnH ♫ 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... "use, used, have usen". Maybe it'll catch on. I see your point about "human" being equivalent with "fully human, with moral rights, and a soul"... for you. We can't assume all our readers believe that. It's entirely possible to consider an embryo "pretty much" human, but not deem it to have moral rights until a certain stage of development. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note in support of AnnH's rv and edit summary: "Death" was result of consensus, had been there for months. Still being discussed. No consensus to change it. In fact it had been there (possibly with interruptions) for at least five years and three months. It's right at the top of the article back in December 2001 (unfortunately there are no earlier archived pages). It read:
Abortion, in its most commonly used sense, refers to the intentional early termination of pregnancy, resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus.
AvB ÷ talk 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The death of the conceptus always accompanies an abortion. The death is not really what is controversial at all - that is a very simple medical/biological fact. Our feelings associated with this death is where the controversy lies. Those feelings are why spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is largely seen as a sad and unfortunate occurrence, and why induced abortion causes so much fuss. Its the moral significance we attach to the death that is controversial - not the death itself. This opening definition ought not skirt the basic and noncontroversial reality (the biological death of the conceptus) that underlies why miscarriage brings sadness and induced abortion causes controversy. But this opening definition should not discuss any such feelings, as the opening definition that has been in place for a long time has properly avoided doing! Good 12:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)
Regarding "moral rights", perhaps it would be an idea to refer to personhood and/or add "see also abortion debate"?AvB ÷ talk 10:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I didn't realize that article existed. Yikes. The lead should link to abortion debate, somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, you linked the article before I did, exactly as I was considering. :-) -Kyd 23:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence edit warring

The first sentence has been stable and consensed upon in the past. I understand that people disagree with parts of it, and we have tried to discuss them. However, we never reached consensus. If editors keep changing the stable sentence without approval, it will sure keep being reverted. I feel that this applies to a number of other parts of the article as well. If you are a user, and you keep inserting your own version, without discussion or approval on the talk page, you are boardering on the edge of a POV warrior. I urge everyone to come to the talk page before making controversial and drastic changes to stable content in order to avoid edit warring. --Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To get things going, I feel pro-lick's version misses what, in my opinion, is the most important part of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy (or part of a pregnancy in the rare instance of aborting twins). I am not happy with the 'death' part of the old version, as mentioned above, but I am willing to let it go because I simply cannot think of any other wording that isn't a euphamism, and as a compromise to my fellow editors who feel it is important to include that fact.--Andrew c 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the trouble with being ginger about language is that the single only reason that "abortion" is a different concept and a different word from "delivery" is that it involves death. Without that minor detail, there's no difference between an abortion and a delivery. If you're trying to perform an abortion, and the fetus somehow survives, then whoops, it was a delivery. If you're trying to perform a delivery, but the fetus somehow dies before you get it out, then whoops, it was an abortion. In order to soft-pedal that, we need a better reason than I've seen. Our top priority here is to be an encyclopedia, not to help spin language for one side or the other of any conflict. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before able to survive

As the intro now stands:

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a mammalian uterus before birth, terminating a pregnancy before the developing organism has a chance to survive in an external environment.

This is not true in the case of partial birth or late term induced abortions.....DonaNobisPacem 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true, but I think for a different reason. It should end "before the developing organism is capable of surviving in an external environment." Yes, with later term abortions if you put it in intensive care, it might survive. The odds are bad, and the risk of significant defects high.--Pro-Lick 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? There are plenty of premature babies who survive, and yes, they may have "defects" (ie, health problems), but they still survive. And with partial birth abortion, we're talking about a child that is full term. So the baby is able to survive - and it's POV to say it cannot (considering that in a partial birth abortion, it is often necessary to do it before dilation occurs, to prevent the baby crowning and being legally declared a person).DonaNobisPacem 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? The stats are on my side. And I don't know anyone that calls mental retardation or missing a limb health problems (except those that like euphemisms). And you seem to have a different definition of partial birth than what is common. Of course, maybe when its not just doublespeak and actual medical terminology, it will become precise and accurate instead of a euphemismistic weasel term.--Pro-Lick 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about two different things. I was saying that, at the time of a late term, a fetus may survive if born (and will most probably at the time of a partial birth abortion). If it happened naturally, it would be called premature birth - and premature babies do not necessarily suffer from mental retardation or missing limbs (in most cases I am aware of, it is susceptibility to infection, both viral and bacterial, due to under-developed immune systems, that causes the main problems, as well as a still-developing breathing instinct). If the fetus at that time were aborted and survived, then yes, we are talking about serious issues - missing limbs, saline burns, mental retardation, and the like. But the definition as it was worded implied that at the time of abortion, the fetus could not survive outside of the womb, not that after the abortion it could not survive outside of the womb. So that is what I was taking issue with. And please note: I tried to modify and work with the definition I found on the page when I got there, not revert it to my personal POV or choice.....DonaNobisPacem 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Premature birth--Pro-Lick 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Abortion the death "of a cell"

Abortion is not the death "of a "cell". In the biological sense, it is the death of a living organism in an early stage of development while inside the body of another living organism of its own species, i.e. the mother, with a genetic identity distinct from the mother.

There was no consensus to reduce death to the death of a cell.

In the brief moments when we (i.e. all humans, not just pro-life Wikipedians) are single cells, we are organisms, we are human, we contain the 46 chromosomes that determine what genetic type of human we are, nothing will be added to us other than food and oxygen, and that life will continue in the womb, and potentially outside of the womb until death ends that life. The only difference between you and me and thousands of humans who were aborted today is location, age, and our biological development. Biological "humanity" is not determined by the number of cells the comprise the organism. patsw 19:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether the cells of a fetus (or embryo or whatever) are alive. Of course they are. The issue is whether they constitute a human being in the moral, not biological, sense. Pro's edit made it clear that, when speaking medically of death in this context, the biological sense is the one intended. Alienus 19:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patsw. That edit is completely POV, draws attention to itself, and was inserted without consensus. I don't know why we keep having all these discussions here if Pro-Lick can keep inserting his own stuff into the article without any attempt at discussion and gaining agreement. AnnH ♫ 19:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article about what Wiki is not, what does it say about gaining agreement? How about the 5 pillars? WP:NOR? WP:V? Maybe I'm quote mining, but the consensus of those articles on Wiki official policy is that you're requesting we conduct original research. Besides, wasn't it 1 of your (as in you and those who agree with the use of death) main arguments that death is used in the biological sense? Quotes provided upon request.--Pro-Lick 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Lick, you ask where it says anything in WP:5P about gaining agreement. Ignoring the fact that WP:5P isn't a policy or guideline, but sort of an essay, I'd like to answer that part. It's under pillar 4, where it says "Be civil," and links to Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy. I don't know what kind of civility works by ignoring reasoned discussion and engaging in tug-of-wars rather than pursuing consensus. Civility is the oil that makes the machinery of a Wiki work smoothly. Lacking any structure other than a consensus model, a civil participant will try their best to work within that model. Without civility, Wikipedia would fall apart, and descend into a huge flame-war, useless to anyone. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in our discussion remaining civil. This is about article content, and therefore, "Article standards". Civility is a "Working with others" standard. For a handy guide on what is relevant to article content what is relevant to interaction content, see the floating box on the right-hand side of the civility page. Also useful to note is that voting, polling, and democracy are not mentioned within that policy.--Pro-Lick 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting, polling and democracy (or as I mentioned committee) is about working with others constructively. If you cannot make that connect, perhaps you should not be here. - RoyBoy 800 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting? I thought Wikipedia:Voting is evil! Alienus 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, nice try, but... "As stated above, polling isn't in itself evil. Polls can be useful for a quick gauge of opinion." Of course they're not evil; but they can be evil if used as the only mechanism in the editorial process. - RoyBoy 800 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, article content. Working constructively is subject to POV, and, again, not an article content standard. Would you like to know my POV on how constructively I think you work with others?--Pro-Lick 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO. Not particularly. Since you obviously are very opinionated and don't work well with others; why would I want to hear from you on that subject? - RoyBoy 800 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My interest in procedural matters is limited; I prefer to focus on content. It looks to me like Pro's addition is simply factual. It's not his fault that it bothers those who oppose reproductive rights. The truth is neutral; people are biased. Alienus 19:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank GTB for adding punctuation.--Pro-Lick 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I thank Pro-Lick for bringing this issue to light in a clearer manner than before. In particular, this edit raises the question: If we say, without qualification, that in an abortion a fetus "dies", does that imply that the fetus is a human and that its death is equivalent to murder? Is the word "death" inherently moral language, and impossible to use in this situation without evoking moral baggage that should be kept out of the definition? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points in response to the above:
  • 'Death' is a biological term an not a moral one.
  • Abortion is the death of an organism and not a cell. So describing abortion as the death of a cell was contrary to fact.
  • The introductory sentence to the article should provide a clear definition that abortion is the death of a organism (i.e. an unborn mammal called a embryo or fetus at different stages of development)
  • Discussion of the morality and legality of human abortion by human agency can be discussed elsewhere. This was a POV change made without consensus to the introduction sentence.
  • Good faith among the editors is only maintained when there is adherence to the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. Once we ignore them because of a focus on content or on advocacy of abortion rights, it becomes a platform for advocacy and no longer an encyclopedia. patsw 20:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Patsw, hi. I would respond to your second point that... despite our section header here, the edit in the article did not claim that an abortion was "the death of a cell". It was just clarifying the sense in which the word "death" was being used - "death of a cell" was an example of a similar usage. The question is whether that clarification is at all necessary. I don't really think it is, which is to say, I agree with your first and third points, but I'd like to get the arguments for why "death" isn't a morally neutral term on the table, where we can look at them. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "such as the death of a virus"? Viri are organisms.--Pro-Lick 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zygote "The one-cell stage of the fertilized ovum after pronuclear membrane breakdown but before first cleavage occurs." - Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002.
(I see from an edit conflict that those arguments have already arrived...GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think GT has done a good job explicating the core of Pro's argument. "Death", used without further qualification, inherently has moral overtones. That's why so many medical definitions, in an attempt to be accurate but neutral, use other words and phrases.

One the one hand, these could be characterized as euphemisms. On the other, the problem with "death" is not that it is "offensive, harsh or blunt", but that it is inaccurate; it implies more than is intended, more than is uncontroversially true.

To speak of abortion in terms of unqualified "death" is therefore inherently POV, and should be avoided. I recommend either qualifying the term or, preferably, working around it. I even have some specific suggestions for phrasing.

Before I offer them, let me give a parallel example: "mother". A pregnant woman is the "biological mother" of the embryo or fetus. So, when qualified by "biological", he term is at least accurate, but when used on its own, it is both inaccurate and emotionally manipulative. In fact, even when qualified, it's still too emotional to be neutral, so the article avoids it. Once again, this fails to qualify as euphemism because the motivation is entirely different.

Let's agree that "death" is inappropriate, and consider the alternatives, shall we? Alienus 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as it stands now sticks out like a sore thumb. I find it confusing, because I think I've just read a perfectly normal, clinical definition, and all of a sudden there's a sentence pointing out the obvious - that a biological word is being used in its biological sense, duh - making me wonder what other sense "death" might have been intended in. Now I've been tricked into thinking about murder, where I wasn't before. So, I would say the edit fails to prevent the issue from becoming morally charged immediatly, and in an awkward manner.
Alienus, you've claimed that the word "death" "implies more than is intended, more than is uncontroversially true." I disagree. There are those who would like to hinge their arguments on some kind of "death=murder" equivocation, but for us to avoid the word "death" because of the possibility of mis-representation is to entirely grant that equivocation, which is unacceptable. Death is not equivalent to murder, and you're essentially agreeing that it is, or at least that a reasonable reader would take it to be so unless they're specifically told not to. As I see it, that's heavy-handed at best, self-defeating at worst. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. Put yourself in the shoes of someone coming here from a search engine that hasn't been discussing abortion in the context of medicine or biology. We can rewrite it to make it less obtrusive. E.g., remove "The word" and "here".--Pro-Lick 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider Pat and Ann's reactions examples of my point. What happens when an anti-abortionist comes here? Hey, look, Wikipedia agrees with us, it's murder.--Pro-Lick 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel responsible for other people reading irresponsibly. If someone takes neutral language to mean something biased, then they're going to have difficulty with communication. Our article on death isn't all wrapped in gauze and balanced on egg-shells for the benefit of the misguided. Wikipedia saying that abortion is death is not Wikipedia saying abortion is murder, and anyone who says it is the same is lying, or else confusing simple facts with moral judgements. Our job here is to accurate, not spin-proof. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Murder uses death in its definition too. If you actually want to be accurate, why not use language that the consensus of Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS uses?--Pro-Lick 23:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Euthanasia uses the word "death" in its definition, does that imply that it's murder? As for those sources - I have three problems with your assertion of their consensus: 1. There's no single definition that a majority of them agree upon; thus, no consensus, except to disagree. 2. Many of them are plainly inaccurate, and define abortion in a way that means that we were all aborted, or in a way that means that abortions after week 20 aren't abortions, but something else. Both of those are blatant errors that we would do well not to mimic. 3. None of those sources makes an assertion to the effect that "death is not part of any proper definiton of abortion"; they simply choose other words. To leap from there to saying that they all agree that "death" is wrong is very tenuous. If the minority of them mention the "placenta", are we also forbidden to use that word? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever heard of fetus Euthanasia? As for the rest, there is consensus on the issue at hand - NOT to use death.--Pro-Lick 23:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I heard of Fetus Euthanasia? Yeah, I heard their album sucks. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, I don't think I quite understand the force of your question, but I'm not sure you understood why I brought up Euthanasia in the first place, which, could have been due to my not properly understanding what you were getting at when you said that "death" is used to define murder. That many steps astern of mutual comprehension, I'm not sure what to do... Regarding your so-called consensus of sources, I'm not buying it, and you're not responding to my reasons, so... I dunno. The consensus among sources is to be inaccurate, in some way or another, often precisely by neglecting to mention that we're excluding live deliveries here. I won't agree to replicate blatant inaccuracies. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, ha, their album. 1 question: How is accuracy determined on Wiki?--Pro-Lick 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1 answer: In many, many different ways. We try our best to write a good encyclopedia, using the tools we have, and a whole culture has arisen in search of the answer to your question. We try to cite ourselves as often as we can, we try to apply common sense, we try to be as neutral as we can. When there are disputes as to what's accurate, we try to bring them to a wider and wider audience, until some kind of consensus emerges for what to do, and then we live with that, until it comes up again later, and maybe changes. There are some weaknesses to that system, but it's what we do here. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify. What is policy? What does policy state? Consensus, as noted elsewhere, is a "working with others" policy, not an article content policy. We are discussing the accuracy of article content. Does policy state accuracy is determined by taking a vote?--Pro-Lick 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... You seem to really want to have firm rules here, to fall back on. We don't have those. Pillar number 5: No firm rules. That's uncomfortable, perhaps, until you're used to it. The answer you want is "policy states that we make sure that facts are verifiable, and we cite reliable sources as often as possible." Now listen though - the way in which those rules are to be applied is left intentionally vague. We figure that part out. Arguments like this one are where we try to feel out what the finer points of policy ought to be in our situation, because it's not the same from one situation to the next. Here, we're dealing with a sourcing issue, and it's not just simple, it's got some nuances. There's no acid-test we can fall back on, because this precise situation has never come up before. The closest thing we could find would be back in the archives where someone decided to use the word "death" months and months ago - have you gone back and read that?
    Oh, but "taking a vote" is absolutely not how it happens, nor is anyone suggesting that it should, that I'm aware of. I'll participate in poll after poll without suggesting that we determine article content by taking a vote - yikes! We certainly don't determine what an accurate definition is by taking a virtual "vote" among medical websites and other reputable online sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy. WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." In other words, synthesize what is there. This agrees with WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Pro-Lick 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdenting a bit)Synthesis is not a head-count. It involves critical understanding, and an arrival at an overview that treats each source fairly. It's not blindly following some word-count tabulation that you decide "proves" that a certain phrase is forbidden by a consensus of sources. We get to think, why not direct your argument to our minds and explain just why "death" is an imprecise, ambiguous word? I still haven't seen that argument presented very well. I'm just seeing a bad habit among medical books, that we would do well to avoid. Your assertion that "death" is "imprecise and ambiguous" is original to you, as far as I can tell. Let's hear more about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, have you considered that perhaps there's something odd about you disagreeing with the consensus among sources? You're saying that, even though they all bend over backwards to avoid the D-word, you personally judge that to be inaccurate and therefore you will not honor their (usually professional) viewpoints. Maybe you need to step back and see this less personally. Alienus 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider myself reminded not to get my personal feelings involved. Thanks.
I don't think there's much problem saying that a definition is inaccurate when it directly implies that every live birth is an abortion. I guess that's a personal judgement, but then it's also a personal judgement that any definition that directly implies that 2+2=5 is also wrong.
A consensus among sources to bend over backwards to avoid a certain word is not really a content issue, in my opinion, but a style issue. They're writing in a euphemistic style that I think is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Encarta agrees. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 1 source you cite, Encarta, defines without using death in their dictionary. The vast consensus of [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS|medical, reputable, reliable] sources disagree with your POV. They prefer precise terminology as opposed to the imprecise and ambiguous death. Rather than tip-toe around social moral issues with euphemisms like death, they refer to it as it is.--Pro-Lick 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now death is a euphemism? That's the opposite of what you've said earlier, that death is an overly negative word that carries too many bad connotations. Which is it? A euphemism, or a scare tactic? You can't have both. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, when the sources fail your POV, change the subject. As to euphemism, please read the article in full. The link I provided goes directly to the doublespeak section. It should further our culture's understanding of the euphemism of death.--Pro-Lick 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just tried rewording the opening sentence with "biological death" instead of "death", hoping we could then be happy without the second sentence. Natalinasmpf removed the word "biological", with the edit summary "death is death. Unless you mean "spiritual death", which I think the wildest association would not apply here". Ummmm... the wildest association? You mean, like the main central argument on the pro-life side? That's a wild association? You're making me see what Alienus and Pro-Lick mean, Nat. If death were just death, and nobody thought it had any spiritual connotations built-in, then would abortion be a big controversy? I think not.

Meanwhile, I think the link to the article death is helpful - notice how clinically that article treats death. Why did you remove that link, too, Natalinasmpf? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT, in matters of communication, perception is 100% of the issue. It doesn't really matter what message you intended to send, only how it is understood. You and I may look at "death" and shrug, figuring it's obviously the biological sense of the word, but it's clear from Natalinasmpf's little hatchet job that some people squint until "death" looks like "murder". If using a more neutral phrase makes that squinting impossible, then we've succeeded at communicating more clearly. Alienus 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not refer to Natalinasmpf's good-faith edit as a hatchet-job. Everybody tries to make the article better, according to thier idea of good, and everybody learns a lot. Why does it have to be about "bad guys"? I agree that every attempt so far to communicate that "death" means biological death, not spiritual death has just come across as creepy. I think Natalin proved my point that the effort of putting up a hedge just highlights what's behind it. You'd call less attention to it without the hedge. It's like a bad comb-over. It's better to just confront head-on that yeah, we're talking about death here, and then address the moral question quickly and directly. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death is a morally neutral word

It's been repeated without evidence or even elaboration here that death is inherently POV or morally loaded. It's the end of life. Where death is discussed in other encyclopedias and in the Wikipedia, it is not inherently POV or morally loaded. Why is it so characterized here? patsw 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, what's the problem?--Pro-Lick 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Natalisnasmpf removed "biological" proves my point. Alienus 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I 2nd that. When does the poll start?
The fact that Natalisnasmpf removed "biological" proves that a stilted wording gives everyone the wrong idea. I know it was my wording, and as soon as I think of something better, you'll hear it here first. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no way to speak of "death" without either being awkward or misleading means that the word itself has to go. Alienus 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not convinced that just calling it "death" is misleading. People are going to see their own prejudices wherever they look, we can't help that. I think it should be fine to just call it "death" in sentence 1, and directly address the moral question before the table of contents. If we use the word clinically, and don't act embarassed by hedging and stammering around it, then readers won't freak out, they'll continue to sentence number 4 or whatever, and find that Wikipedia is very carefully not taking a side on any moral question. Can we agree on something like that? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not convinced that just calling it "death" is not an embarassed hedging and stammering. Nor am I convinced that it will lead readers to continue. Nor am I convinced that it cause readers to find Wikipedia is carefully worded. I agree that your POV is not medical, reputable, or reliable.--Pro-Lick 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence there, I definitely don't understand. How is calling it "death" hedging? "Hedging" means putting qualifications up, like "in the biological sense" - that's a "hedge". Where's the hedge, if we just call it "death"? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hedge because you're not referring to it in the staright-forward way that the medical, reputable, and reliable sources do. Instead, you're hiding behind imprecise, ambiguous moral language.--Pro-Lick 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Death" is neither imprecise, ambiguous, "moral language" nor even non-medical. Many of those sources don't refer to it in a straight-forward way at all, but, as Alienus noted above, "bend over backward" to talk around the point. And what exactly is one "hiding" when one refers to the death of a fetus with the word "death"? What's hidden there? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on your POV? They "bend over backward" because it is such an imprecise and ambiguous word. They choose language that is more precise, less ambiguous.--Pro-Lick 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My POV? Ok Pro, you've found me out. That money I gave to NARAL, I was kidding. My friend, who works in the abortion clinic, I hate her. My other friend, who got an abortion, confided in me, and had me keep it for her in a jar for months while she didn't have a place to stay, she'd be disappointed to know I was somehow lying, about supporting her morally. I guess the ruse is up. Just because I'm willling to call abortion "death", I must be an anti-abortionist in disguise. Sheesh. I assure you, you've shown no inkling of a clue that my POV could even exist.
Now you're asserting why those sources refrain from using the word "death". You say it's because the word "death" is too ambiguous and imprecise. That sounds like original research to me. Do you have a cite, that medical sources consider "death" an imprecise term? Or just some thin circumstantial evidence based on their not using it in one particular definition, in many, but not all cases? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All your personal claims are original research. They are not verifiable. As to why, I just showed you how using one's POV I can interepret the results differently from you. In the end, neither of us should be trying to judge the sources, as you have been doing. We should take the sources, synthesize their expertise, and define accordingly.--Pro-Lick 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're certainly right that my personal experience is original research. If you'll check, you'll note that I haven't suggested that any article content be based on my personal experience. Original research is ok, in the context of two people having a conversation, and one explaining to another that the other doesn't know squat about the one's POV, and might refrain from making assumptions that are false.
On topic, the idea that "synthesis" is a process that somehow doesn't involve "judgement" is very silly. Alienus is closer to the right track below, laying sources wide open and inviting one and all to judge the heck out of them, as we're supposed to do. That's good work. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Pro-Lick's addition before dinner, and made a comment here, saying that I agreed with Patsw. Out of respect for GTBacchus's plea last night, I did not revert, but will state for the record that I felt very strongly that it should be reverted, and I was very pleased to see that someone else had reverted by the time I finished dinner.

GTBacchus, I appreciate your effort to change to "biological death", presumably to help avert an edit war, but if you search this talk page for the word "Puzzled", you'll find that that was suggested by accident, and rejected. (The "puzzled" votes can, I think, be taken as oppose votes; certainly mine can.)

I have argued all along that "death" in no way implies that that fetus is a human being with human rights. A dog can die; a cell can die; bacteria can die. In order to keep the article neutral, I would oppose any language that implies that it's only a piece of tissue, but I would also scrupulously refrain from inserting words like "baby" into the article.

"Death" itself is a neutral word. I had a kidney infection recently, and I took antibiotics, which killed the bacteria. I don't feel uncomfortable in saying that. If people are uncomfortable in saying that the fetus dies, we shouldn't blame the word "death"; we should rather examine what they think the fetus actually is. That is what changes the neutrality of "death" and "killed". If it's a baby, it's murder; if it's just a piece of tissue, it's not murder. So, for neutrality, we mustn't use words that imply either that it is a human being or that it isn't.

I think that the more recent attempt:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus (in the same sense that a virus dies).

is probably the most severely POV non vandalistic edit that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. As I said, to achieve neutrality, we're trying to avoid implying that the fetus is or isn't a human being. Some people think that the fetus is just a clump of cells, but on the other hand, some people think that the fetus is human with the same rights as an adult. That edit was every bit as inappropriate as

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus (in the same sense that an adult human being dies).

would have been.

Regarding Natalinasmpf's edit summary, death is death. Unless you mean "spiritual death", which I think the wildest association would not apply here, I think some of the editors on this page may be misunderstanding "spiritual death". It doesn't mean that the death is "morally" murder. Spiritual death refers to the state of a soul that is in mortal sin. So, someone who commits a mortal sin, according to Catholic teaching (and the teaching of some other Christian churches, too, although I can't speak for them), is spiritually dead, even though he may be eating, sleeping, thinking, working, walking around, etc. People in mortal sin are biologically alive, but spiritually dead. That doesn't apply to unborn children, as they are incapable of committing sin. And they are certainly not responsible for the "death" which is associated with the abortion. So, as Natalinasmpf said, the "wildest association would not apply here".

I don't see that there can be any other kind of death than biological death and spiritual death. "Moral" does not apply to death. An act can be morally good, bad, or neutral. I can be morally culpable or blameless for some action. But I can't be morally dead or alive, fat or thin, pale or dark, etc.

AnnH ♫ 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann. I hadn't seen the "puzzled" and struck-out use of "biological death" above. I knew that edit was going to be reverted, and just thought I'd sneak a wording improvement into it before it disappeared beneath the waves. It's sort of a sport - one time out of a hundred, by some grace it works, and the revert never comes. This time, not so much.
Regarding Natalinasmpf's edit summary - I think I may have misunderstood. Natalinasmpf, I apologize if I mistook your meaning. I guess I was ignorant of the conept of spiritual death in the sense of mortal sin - I never got very far in catechism before I switched to a secular school. I figured that "spiritual death" referred to a difference between the death experienced by a human being and that experienced by a carrot. That's clearly the point of the word "biological", right?, to distinguish a death that doesn't carry moral weight from one that does? How would you make such a distinction? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's just hang my POV out on a limb here. If you go to my user page, you can check out my little userboxes, and my user name should give some indications as to my POV to. So.....I have a cat. I do not think my cat is a sentient, moral being. But when my cat kicks the bucket (which it surely shall if it keeps on insisting on running across a busy street) I will say my cat died. It has no moral weight; it is a "biological death," as GT called it. Because that's what the death of an organic organism is - biological. Likewise, when I kick the bucket, people in my faith community will say "Hey, that guy's dead" - but it refers only to a biological death, because we believe the soul lives on. The fact that they call it death has nothing to do with morality - the fact they hold a funeral, and pray for my sould, etc. is what does. If someone is talking about mortal sin, or separation from God, sometimes referred to as "spiritual death," it is called "spiritual death" to distinguish from the accepted meaning of the word. Death is simply the end of existence for something - a star (astronomers refer to the death of a star), a cell, a human, a cat, an amoeba, a car ("my car died today"), whatever - when it ceases to exist as a functioning being, unit, object, we can apply the term death to it. And to further my point - because I say my car died, does not imply I think someone murdered it. My objection to the term "biological death," and in fact the removal of the word death, has nothing to do with morality - if it did, I would be inserting in words like "human" and "soul" and "rights" and "a fetus is a human with a soul and rights" every five minutes, because THAT's what the morality issues are over. My objection to "biological death" is because - what the heck else is there for it? It's POVing on the pro-choice side, because it's trying to remove any conception of humanity of the fetus - something the article should not do, because we cannot claim a right or wrong POV when it comes to arguing subjects such as souls, rights etc. Although legal definitions enter into that realm out of the necessity of making laws, but it is not factually based. It is an arbitrary decision of policy makers, not medical, biological, or whatever. My objection to the removal of the word death is for the same reason - I feel it's POVing, simply because it is a non-admission of the facts. Remember, we don't have to stick to the medical definition, if we're still sticking to the facts. All we are saying is the fetus dies. The reader can read the article, and all the associated ones (abortion debate, etc.) and decide for themselves what that death means.DonaNobisPacem 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read over my post a few times (I shouldn't be writing at 1:00AM) and want to clarify my main point - the insertion of the word biological is unnecessary, because the death is obviously biological (what else is it?) - it's like saying the fetus is biologically alive. It's alive, or dead - the biological part is automatically in context. If you then insert the word biological, ie "biologically dead," I believe it is POV because you are trying to lay a stress on the biological nature of the fetus, not its death - it becomes a commentary on the morality of the issue, as opposed to a statement of simple fact.DonaNobisPacem 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the death page. There is a section that reads:

Prebirth deaths in the US
These entries are controversial, as they are based on the premise that personhood begins at conception rather than birth or a particular prenatal development (See abortion debate; there are various opinions as to whether or not a fetus is an independent organism or fully human, for this reason abortion and miscarriage are not normally considered when compiling death statistics).

As you can see, there is controversy over whether fetuses actually 'die' in the sense that is described in the 'death' article. Read over the "Physiological changes" section of the artcile, and do they apply to all aborted fetuses/embryos? I think it is controversial and not entirely accurate to use the wikipedian definition of 'death' in regards to abortion. Furthermore, I will once again state my issue with using 'death'. There are a number of every day actions that 'result in death'. Eating, masturbating, hiking through grass, and suprisingly, none of them mention that these actions result in death. While its clearly true that doing these things results in something, biologically speaking, dying, if we were to point this out in the first sentence definition, it would be drawing attention to a specific POV. Look at the meat article. There is no reference to 'death' there. What do you think the reaction would be if a group of vegetarians come by and wanted to make sure the "death" was included in the first sentence??--Andrew c 18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes - but many carnivores, in the case of some cultures/wierd foods humans included, eat flesh while it is still living... ;)DonaNobisPacem 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the cells of the meat at least die in your stomach juices. Furthermore, it could be said that meat results in the death of an animal, and that statement be inclusive for almost every situation except when you amputate a leg (or something) and the animal lives. These are all biological facts that if mentioned seems to highlight a specific POV (vegetarian). I'm just saying, even if these are facts, acknowledging them so early in the article seems to be giving them undue weight.-Andrew c 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Andrew c - I was just joking with that comment...hence the wink ;) I did get your point....DonaNobisPacem 07:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the fetus is always the intended result of an induced abortion.(I can even give you a quote from an abortionist on that point.) Death of the fetus either causes or is caused by every spontaneous abortion. Death is part of abortion, no matter how you slice it. Many meals are eaten, many hikes are taken, many masturbations reach climax - and no one associates a vast majority of them with human death. It is not a fringe notion that abortion involves death. In fact, the view is widely held (often by a majority, as in the USA), even where abortion is legal. Good 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The expert sources do not agree with your POV.--Pro-Lick 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expected the discussion to continue along the lines of "death is a morally loaded word and not neutral because... " and making an appeal to some common ground meaning of (a) death (b) morality and (c) neutral. This is how an editing discussion leading to a consenus usually starts. And if it cannot be articulated, then it can be considered conceded and we proceed with a consensus that death is not a morally loaded word, and it is neutral and, it simply means the end of life. patsw 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for us to argue, vote, or agree/disagree upon. The sources are clear. Use the words they use, don't use the words they dont' use.--Pro-Lick 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My sources uniformly state death is the end of life without reference to morality or a point of view. It is the plain and common meaning. Are there sources say otherwise? patsw 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you list sources? As to mine, mine are on the actual topic of the article: Abortion.--Pro-Lick 23:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Lick says above, regarding sources: "Use the words they use, don't use the words they dont' use." That interpretation of Wikipedia policy is absolutely incorrect and unsupported. We get our facts from sources, not the precise wording of those facts. You're barking up the wrong tree, Pro. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G&E:no one associates a vast majority of them with human death You are getting into the personhood debate, which is mentioned on the death page (and I quoted it above, did you miss that part?). If the crux of your argument is that we should mention 'death' because all abortions result in HUMAN death, then you are pushing a POV. I think everyone agrees that SOMETHING dies during abortion (just like sperm die when you masturbate, animals and plants die for food (or their cells die in your stomach), and you crush bugs and grass and other forms of life when you go hiking). However, mentioning this fact in the first sentence gives it undue weight. If the word 'death' is used, I would like to qualify the word, or explain the debate. However doing so does not seem appropriate for the first sentence. As a compromise, could we perhaps move it lower in the paragraph?--Andrew c 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure Pro-Lick disagrees with me, so the question of my sources in conflict with Pro-Lick's is premature. The topic is death as it is descriptive of the consequence of abortion. Supporting my claim are definitions from the Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Death is the end of life without reference to morality or a point of view. It is the plain and common meaning. patsw 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, out of the 20 sources, and excluding Wikipedia because that's us, and subtracting Wiktionary and adding it to the sources that support no use of death, we have by your count 2 sources for death, 18 sources against it.--Pro-Lick 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, there are actually 4 WP:RS sources that use death, 16 that do not. Patsw seems to be off on some other tangent for which no sources have been provided. Also of interest here is that, according to Wiktionary, death ranks #303 based on usage in Project Gutenberg texts. So it seems fair to conclude it carries lots of baggage with it.--Pro-Lick 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a discussion to start that begins "death is a morally loaded word because...". This tangent of numerically counting up sources is ludicrous. We're editing a collaborative encyclopedia and I want to know if anyone editing here believes that death is a morally loaded word. Specifically, what is the baggage of death? Why doesn't this word death mean what it means? patsw 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patsw, that argument does exist. It goes something like this:
"Death" is not, in itself a loaded word. When we say our car or computer dies, nobody gets distraught or thinks of homicide. In the case of abortion though, it's very much part of the issue that a lot of people already are distraught and thinking about homicide. When talking about such a controversial issue, we can't pretend our language will be understood clinically by the average reader. The emotional content of words is magnified and redirected as propaganda by rhetoricians on whichever side, which means we have to be especially careful not to provide fuel for spin doctors, to avoid unintentionally participating in the controversy, when we should just be documenting it.
The fact that most medical sources avoid the word "death" is not a source for our not using it, because sources don't work in the negative that way - I can find a very large number of sources that don't say some particular thing I dislike. That fact - that medical sources tiptoe around the word - is evidence that many publications that are serious about intellectual standards have chosen to tiptoe around that word. We would do well to consider their reasons for doing that, and whether those same reasons apply here, in another publication that's serious about intellectual standards.
I think that's an accurate presentation of the argument I'm understanding against the word "death". I'm sure if I'm misrepresenting it or in any way failing to do it justice, someone will chime in. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My focus is not speculation on what motives editors of medical sources have. Some sources refer to death in their definition or abortion and some don't. Nor will I speculate how the reader will be distraught or thinking about homicide seeing the word death in an article describing death. The Wikipedia is not censored. If the medical editors stated why they avoid death that would be helpful to know. patsw 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Abortion Death?

From Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th Ed., 2002: "Tetraploidy, or a mean chromosome count of 92, occurs in 3% to 6% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. This condition is undoubtedly lethal, since it has never been seen in living individuals. It probably occurs when chromosome division is not followed by cytoplasmic division in the initial cell division of the zygote. Rearrangements, primarily translocations and inversions, are noted in about 3% of all chromosomally abnormal abortuses. According to Creasy and associates, most but definitely not all of these are unbalanced translocations. Although most unbalanced translocations in conceptuses result in abortion, some individuals are born alive."--Pro-Lick 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then they die.....hence, "due to or resulting in the death of..."DonaNobisPacem 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you quoting?--Pro-Lick 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see...

I would like to see a source making an actual claim about the use of the word "death" in defining abortion, or anything close to that. Simply omitting a word is different from making an argument for its omission - I'd like to see that argument, but I'm not sure where one would find it. Something about prejudicial use of language in politically sensitive writing... any ideas, anyone? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that some medical researchers and doctors insert death into some of their writing about abortion to avoid harassment by anti-abortionists?--Pro-Lick 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... no. I'm not suggesting that. I'm not even sure I follow what you're saying. I'm suggesting that there might exist some sources that directly address the question of how to write good definitions that involve push-button words. I think there's an argument that you and Alienus are making that I'll bet someone's made before and published. It would be cool to find that. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a small revelation just now, reading this:

[D&X procedures] 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.

The problem we have been having is that we have been trying to make one, all inclusive definition of the word abortion. We have been trying to include miscarriage, induced abortions, D&X, but not cesarean live births, still births, or premature births. The problem is, in a broad medical sense, miscarriages and pre-viable induced abortions are all conisdered 'abortion', while the common use of the word does not include miscarriage, but also includes D&X and other procedures that result in a dead fetus. Perhaps we are being too broad and we need two definitions? Start off talking medically and inclusive of all mammials, and then focus in on humans and the 'popular' definition? Proposal:

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure.

--Andrew c 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! I wouldn't use that precise wording, but I really like the idea of distinguishing a medical definition from a common-language definition. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medical sources

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

So - to sum up - if we are determined to hash out a definition, we should list a number of sources, categorized by definition (using key words such as: before 20 weeks, expulsion, removal, death, etc). I suggest the following format: DonaNobisPacem 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to distinguish between the mention of death in some appropriate place in the article and the definition of abortion in terms of death. Alienus 08:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category 1

  • count: 3
  • mentions death in definition: yes.
  • mentions death elsewhere: no.
  • Definitions: 11, 12, 13

Category 2

  • count: 14
  • mentions death in definition: no.
  • mentions death elsewhere: no.
  • Definitions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Category 3

  • count: 4
  • mentions death in definition: no (2).
  • mentions death elsewhere: yes (2).
  • Definitions: 1, 9, 10, 14

Category 4

  • count: 0
  • mentions death in definition: yes (0).
  • mentions death elsewhere: yes (0).
  • Definitions:


Comments

I'm not sure I follow the category thing. Maybe if you provided some examples.

As to the time limit, that's easily enough corrected by simply leaving out any timeframe other than "before birth" or "before viability" and noting the limits are not the dominate view of the sources, following WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That, and specifying length has never been a point of contention with me, and I don't recall it coming up in attempted redefinitions from those that fly in and out of the article.

As to your comments on the sources, I'll be content to leave that until I understand your above methodology.--Pro-Lick 08:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my reason in pointing out the seven sources that used 20 weeks was to show that even the medical sources are not consistent... DonaNobisPacem 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they are the experts, and that is their view. What does policy say about judging the expert views? As to the view, it is not the dominant view. Nor is defining abortion as death a dominant view. Are you arguing for selective use of policy based on your own POV?--Pro-Lick 09:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, I was thinking - if you found a definition that was nearly identical to the medicinenet.com one in terminology, you could list it there, and then answer the applicable questions regarding death (as some of the definitions also have accompanying articles, I put "mentions death elsewhere," as Alienus has mentioned we might not want it in the definition, but elsewhere). Clear as mud? DonaNobisPacem 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because medical professionals realize that such confusion is inevitable when you introduce a political definition into a medical situation (as ACOG has). The only reason there is such inconsistency is precisely because there has not been a universal acceptance of the ACOG redefinition. It forces those supporting the ACOG agenda to obfuscate and try not to address the inconsistencies their new definition has created. Applying the ACOG redefinition consistently causes all sorts of problems. The same folks are still trying to foist the redefinition of conception into wide acceptance, but it simply flies in the face of reality (scientific and otherwise). The new definitions also make the term gestation uncertain. I agree with DonaNobis that the wide variety of medical opinion should be fully documented. Good 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DonaNobisPacem, to avoid having the same thing in 2 places and having it spread out over a lot of space, how about we keep the definitions, etc. in full at their present place in the archive, and list the numbers. If someone has an WP:RS defnition they'd like to add the list, add it there. Update the caterogy here. I'm not insisting upon this. Just seems like it would be more efficient.--Pro-Lick 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To get back into the debate here; I'd be happy to see "death" gone from the definition if the controversy and "murder" POV remains in the lead. But I would like to get more editors involved in the discussion to see if there is a rationale for "death" or "murder" or both or neither. But I doubt neither is an option. - RoyBoy 800 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is seriously arguing, or has argued, for "murder" to be in the lead? I must have missed it. I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that murder merits much mention at all other than to succinctly describe the pro-life view in the appropriate section. If anything, the erasure of "death" seems to be POV insertion (by active omision) in light of the neutral professional resources and biological realities known to the page editors. Good 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yeah that short form didn't sound good. GTBacchus excellent suggestion was to remove "death" from definition, but elaborate pro-lifer's see abortion as murder in the second paragraph which goes into the politics. But it is an omission... that's why I'm for death in the definition even though I don't want it there. Sound conflicted; welcome to RoyBoy's twisted mind. - RoyBoy 800 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued for murder, but we have the recurring vandals who replace every instance of "abortion" with murder. or make similar edits.[17] Then we have the alternate "killing" [18] Neither is supported well by consensus, being universally considered by experienced editors to display extreme POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this - the idea of categorization of definitions is probably not my best - I agree with G&E that it is important to be aware of the diversity of definitions/opinions, even within the medical community (and in my thinking as of late, it is not necessary for us to stick rigorously to the medical community's definition - although they are the experts, they are by no means the majority, so it is important to also define what common perception of abortion is, as Andrewc mentioned above), and that was my intent - however, we could list definitions up the ying-yang and still not get anywhere. Even the first three I found couldn't necessarily be lumped together. That said - in my searching and reading, I have found what Andrewc mentions above - that abortion is before 20 weeks - anything after being defined as "late term abortion" (such as a D&X procedure) if induced, and stillbirth if spontaneous. So I agree in principle with his definition above, in that it separates medical terminology and public perception - I'll quote it again here for conenience:

"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or fetus being expelled from the womb before it is viable. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through biochemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even on viable fetuses, such as the controversial but rare Intact dilation and extraction proceedure."

As I mentioned earlier, we could then start a new article, "late term abortion," describing the particular procedures/controversies involved. DonaNobisPacem 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Late-term abortion. Been around for 2 years or so, but could use some expanding...--Andrew c 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page is somewhat broken. The talk page is a redir for Partial birth abortion talk, but the article is there as a stub. Someone messed up. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules?

This is new to me. Does a consensus on this page act as a consensus for the first paragraph or does it get re-argued on the Talk:Abortion anyway? patsw 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if we ever agree on anything here, we should mention it on the general talk page, and ask anyone who has missed the consensus process to weigh in here. I think in no circumstances should we drag first paragraph discussion out on the general page (because it takes up too much space, and seems to bring other forms of progress on the article to a halt). But this is just my opinion, and if everyone would rather hash it out somewhere that isn't this subpage, who am I to stop them.--Andrew c 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus

Explanations of this here, please. patsw 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing my point. I acknowledge that something that is biologically alive dies as a result of an abortion. However, is this significant enough to be part of the definition? My counter examples were (male) masturbation and meat. Everyone knows that sperm are biologically alive, and masturbation results in the death of millions of sperm. Is this undisputed FACT in the first sentence of the masturbation article? What about meat? Eating meat always results in the death of animal tissue (in your stomach, if not on the grill or before) or oftentimes the death of a whole living organism. Is this undisputed fact in the first sentence of the meat article? If we were to go and argue that the death of animals be mentioned in the first sentence of meat, would we not be pushing a vegetarian POV? I believe if we mention death, even though it is a fact, TOO early in the article, it is giving undue weight to the pro-life POV. I am not against mentioning it, just not in the first sentence. I made a proposal above to present two different definitions: the medical one (general and covering all mammials) and the popular one (refering to induced abortions in humans only). I included 'Death' in the second definition.--Andrew c 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. Alienus 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is an obfuscation. The death of the concpetus is why abortion is controversial. The death is doubted by no one. The moral value of that life is where the controversy lies. The word "death" (or die or dead) is morally neutral. It just makes the purveyors and supporters of such death feel guilty. And the article should not tiptoe in order to make such people feel good. Good 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F45973324