Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

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)

Original:

• An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.
  • To sum up my stance, although "death" is negative and emotive, it is accurate, and I think strikes the right tone for the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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

   • -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Caroline

1. Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Need some mention of death. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
2. An abortion is the cessation of a pregnancy by expelling an embryo or a fetus from the uterus.

   Support

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • "Termination" and "cessation" = "black" and "sable." -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
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

   • I prefer this version, as it moves us to a broader and more dictionary-accurate definition of "abortion", which includes miscarriage, and would avoid good faith editors like Andrew c wanting to change it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • I like this one, as it applies very generally, including to abortions in which one fetus is aborted, but another or others remain, so the pregnancy is not terminated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • This is medically accurate and easily understood by the layman. By focusing on gestation and mentioning death, it covers all situations - even the most tricky. Specifically: it covers aborting one twin's gestation but not the other's, and it covers an induced abortion in which a nonviable healthy fetus is removed from the womb (thereby terminating gestation) followed by its death soon thereafter. And it dos NOT cover a failed abortion since death would be required. Likewise it does not inaccurately rely on viability and is not so broad as to include some forms of birth. But one question: should the articl mention that the dead conceptus itself can also properly be referred to as an abortion? - Good
     • Could you reword and clarify the question in the discussion section, thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) This is neutrally stated, without making a moral judgment regarding the cause of the fetal death.
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Conditional support: If "embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb" is changed to "the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb." Possesive apostrophes don't sit well with my inner grammarian. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support Kyd's change. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
   • Wade A. Tisthammer 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Particularly with Kyd's change, the wording would be acceptable to me.

   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)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) not live plainly means death
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
5. An abortion ceases pregnancy before birth.

   Support

   • Intelligent compromise. Accurate, inclusive, and to the point. Sidesteps "death" entirely. -Kyd 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Don't like "cease" with "pregnancy". My experience of "cease" is that it's not used with a direct object, unless you classify an "ing" form of a verb (doing, going, etc.) as a direct object. Even worse, "before", carries a slight implication that the other thing still happens after. So you "cease" the pregnancy, and then you have childbirth? No! AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) New wordplay variation on terminate; ungrammatical as well
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
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

   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • 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)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • As per Musical Linguist. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Too many resulting ins... resulting in my oppose, resulting in less support, resulting in this not being in the article, resulting in a different sentence (I hope.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Too convoluted. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
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.
   • I just reworded my previous submission (one up) to clear up some issues addressed under "A solution......" and adding the embryo line (as is in every other definition).DonaNobisPacem 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support

   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes, although I'd still like "expulsion or removal". AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
   • Support, with the same caveat as Ann Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Insert "removal." :) -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support this version also, is 'expulsion' not more accurate than removal? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
   • Support. --WikiCats 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support Seems to be the better choice. Celcius 05:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   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

   • These tweaks to the current version make it clear that there are divergent views of the MEDICAL definition even among medical professionals. This would maintain prominence to the definition that activists successfully introduced in the 1960s (see talk), but would also make it clear that it is not a universal medical definition. The current version is not clear on this point. - Good
   • DonaNobisPacem 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Even in the medical community the "start of pregnancy" is disputed between conception and implantation
   • Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose

   • Unnecessary use of parentheses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Modern medicine defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation. The inclusive, non-specific "others" in the current wording does not preclude doctors from holding the pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization opinion -- but this view is not an "alternative" medical definition and must not be presented as such. -Kyd 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.
   • |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
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

   • -Kyd 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Concise and accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • Support this version also. |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

   Oppose

   • The only issue I have with this one is that it falls down in the case of one of mulitple fetuses being aborted, while the pregnacy continues for others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

#*"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)

   Oppose

   • This addition is bizarre, so I oppose. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • There are types of death? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

   Puzzled

   • I don't understand this one. What is a "biological death" supposed to mean? What other kind of death could there be? AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
   • patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Qualification of death with "biological" is bizarre.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Would it not make sense to sign votes, to insure one vote/option/editor?DonaNobisPacem 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I look like an idiot - and sometimes I am ; ) - thanks to whoever edited my votes.DonaNobisPacem 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Agreed, RoyBoy - and what are considered "reliable sources." WALTR 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A 5 pillar reminder: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."--Pro-Lick 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• Medical, Reliable, Reputable sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Yes, exacctly. All DonaNobisPacem's stats are unverifiable opinions posted in the form of stats.--Pro-Lick 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

What the heck does that have to do with anything?DonaNobisPacem 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think "missing genetic information" sums it up well enough.--Pro-Lick 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Conditional support: If "embryo or fetus' gestation in a womb" is changed to "the gestation of an embryo or fetus in the womb." Possesive apostrophes don't sit well with my inner grammarian. -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport tweaked version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support tweaked version. Good call, there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

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

• Yes, although I'd still like "expulsion or removal". AnnH ♫ 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
• Support, with the same caveat as Ann Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Insert "removal." :) -Kyd 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support this version also, is 'expulsion' not more accurate than removal? |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support as per AnnH: 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. - OK?
  • My bad, putting "or" in tweaked. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be ok with this one if it loses the phrase "thereby terminating the pregnancy", which is not true of all abortions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Original: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus.

Support and Further Discussion

• The only issue I have with this one is that it falls down in the case of one of mulitple fetuses being aborted, while the pregnacy continues for others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't like the word "associated". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... I still don't like what I said before, and I also agree with RoyBoy about "associated with" being a silly phrase to use there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

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)
• patsw 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Needs to include removal to be accurate
• 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)

---

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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Man this is a tough call; very good suggestion. I only wish Pro-Lick had made such a suggestion. Would have saved a heap of time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Unnecessary use of parentheses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Modern medicine defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation. The inclusive, non-specific "others" in the current wording does not preclude doctors from holding the pregnancy-begins-at-fertilization opinion -- but this view is not an "alternative" medical definition and must not be presented as such. -Kyd 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.
• |→ Spaully°τ 14:59, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
• AvB ÷ talk 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC) per Kyd.

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)

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)

Technically speaking, that would be correct.....if that helps.....DonaNobisPacem 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Darn, you linked the article before I did, exactly as I was considering. :-) -Kyd 23:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Premature birth--Pro-Lick 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Voting? I thought Wikipedia:Voting is evil! Alienus 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

  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)

How about, "such as the death of a virus"? Viri are organisms.--Pro-Lick 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Ha, ha, their album. 1 question: How is accuracy determined on Wiki?--Pro-Lick 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If that's the case, what's the problem?--Pro-Lick 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Natalisnasmpf removed "biological" proves my point. Alienus 23:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

DonaNobis, that's probably the best argument I've seen for the inclusion of the word "death". It's difficult, because we've got people saying that using the word "death" implies a moral judgement, because of the rhetoric that's already out there. You're saying that refraining from using "death" implies a moral judgement, because it's so conspicuous by its absence that it's actually an active dehumanization. It would be POV to either de-humanize the fetus or to over-humanize it. That's the razor we're trying to balance on, or so it looks from here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I was arguing - thanks for summarizing it so nicely. And you are right - that is the razor we are trying to balance on. DonaNobisPacem 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The expert sources do not agree with your POV.--Pro-Lick 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • Update: 21 sources, 4 use, 17 do not. Same link.--Pro-Lick 07:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But then they die.....hence, "due to or resulting in the death of..."DonaNobisPacem 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you quoting?--Pro-Lick 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Should it be redirecting to Partial-birth abortion then? That's easy enough to fix. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be, or if the talk page shouldn't be, if you follow. One or the other, for sure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes so much more sense here! I'll try some Merge tags and see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Odd categories

I don't see that this is the best way to categorize the definitions we're looking at. We're lumping rather different defintions together, and separating very similar ones, based solely on whether they use a particular word. Our job is to write the best possible opening paragraph, so why don't we look at various defitions categorized according to what they do say, not what they don't say? Then we can talk about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches without having to be fixated on one word.

I would suggest the broadest categorization should be based on how abortion is actually defined by each source - because they don't all agree, and as some editors have noted, there's more than one "correct" definition flying around here. Some are based on time, some on viability, some on intention, some on effect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Rules? I think the purpose of this page is to just relieve the strain on the main page. If we achieve anything resembling consensus here, that'll be progress. I dunno about rules. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus

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

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)

This is an excellent point. 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. Good 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, in the context of abortion, the word "death" isn't treated as morally neutral, it's associated strongly with all kinds of moral judgements in the rhetoric of the pro-life activists. The claim, as I understand it, is that the word "death" is inherently politicized in the present context, and cannot be used to sound clinical and neutral. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The act of induced abortion is what deliberately causes the controversisal death. The word "death" is not what is controversial.

Because abortion includes miscarriage, using the word death is actually extrememly appropriate given that many (if not most) people consider a miscarriage to be a sad and premature death of a future child. Desrcibing the fetal demise as "death" is neutral and easily understood by all.

Determining that such a death is murder is NOT neutral. Determining that such a death is not murder is NOT neutral. Using euphemisms (such as "termination") is NOT neutral.

A person presented with the biological fact of death can reach a conclusion that abortion kills a person, or that abortion kills a non-person. It is wrong to hide the fetal death from the reader, as doing so removes factual information pertinent to every abortion. If a person presented with the wikipedia definition is misled to believe that there is no death involved, then that person does not have a true picture of what abortion is. Death is the critical fact - if the fetus is born alive, there is no abortion - if the fetus comes out dead (most often dismembered or decapitated) there was an abortion. The end of the pregnancy is a by-product of the fetal death.

Miscarriage abortion: fetus dies, body expels dead fetus, pregnancy ends.

Induced abortion: viable or non-viable fetus is killed, dead fetus is removed, pregnancy ends.

Birth: fetus remains alive, living fetus is expelled or removed, pregnancy ends.

Good 10:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. AnnH ♫ 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And the word "kills" is completely neutral? I fail to see how that is any more neutral than a euphemism. Also, how is stating that "abortion is murder" neutral at all? ColdSalad 11:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...if the fetus comes out dead (most often dismembered or decapitated) there was an abortion...

Not necessarily. I find death to be relatively neutral as well, but don't argue for NPOV out of one side of your mouth while spewing propaganda out of the other.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We are once again deviating from the point. The only issue we are here to decide is whether we should define abortion in terms of "death". We don't have to; lots of definitions don't. And if we don't, we can and probably should mention "death" elsewhere in the article. The issue is about usage and emphasis, not fact. Namely, should we pick a definition that emphasizes death or one that is neutral and clinical? This is not a rhetorical questions, unfortunately. I strongly support a neutral and clinical definition, but there has been a very obvious correlation between those who want to emphasize death and those who want abortion to be illegal. This very correlation indicates that the usage of "death" in the definition would be POV, hence in opposition to WP:NPOV, an absolute requirement that trumps consensus. Alienus 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to emphasize it. We're just trying to place it in the definition, because it's an essential part of the definition. If the fetus doesn't die, it isn't an abortion. Emphasizing it would be putting death at the beginning (an abortion causes the death of an embryo or fetus, terminating its gestation in a womb), or using bold or italics. So, no, it's not emphasized. It's in the definition, because it's an essential part of the definition. If the fetus doesn't die, then we have either a live birth, or a failed abortion (which is also a live birth). We're not emphasizing a fact; we're stating a fact. The POV lies in trying to suppress this fact. And as for the correlation between those who want to use "death" and those who want abortion to be illegal, well, for one thing, the very existence of GTBacchus disproves your theory, and for another, isn't there a correlation between those who want to remove "death" and those who want abortion to be legal? You're actually arguing against yourself. As far as I can see, there is nobody opposing the word "death" who is not in favour of legalized abortion, but there is at least one person supporting that word who is in favour of it. That said, we shouldn't really be speculating on other editors' POVs unless they choose to make them public. AnnH ♫ 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it in the first sentence definition is putting emphasis on it. For example, I have suggested a number of articles that result in the death of something, and for some strange reason this isn't mentioned in the first sentence definition. What would it be like if we made this edit to the masturbation page: "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs, most often to the point of orgasm, resulting in the death of millions of sperm (for male masturbation)." or the meat page: "Meat, in its broadest modern definition, is all animal tissue intended to be used as food, which results in the death of animal tissue". It is your POV that "death" is an essential part of the abortion definition. There have been many cited medical sources that disagree with your POV. Let me make it clear I am not against including your definition at all. However, I feel that it puts emphasis on the controversy, POVs, and debate part of the issue. Please note my proposed changes above where I suggest introducing two different definitions, one which includes the 'd' word. --Andrew c 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The alternative to emphasizing "death" isn't de-emphasizing it, it's being neutral. Saying "but this is not considered as death in any morally significant way" would be the equal but opposite bias, actively de-emphasizing "death". We have many examples that show that there is no need for "death" in an accurate, neutral definition. Moreover, the sources that lack that word are neutral medical definitions, not pro-choice or pro-life activism sites. In short, you're wrong on all counts. Alienus 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely in favor of safe and legal abortions. But the desire to avoid the use of the term "death" when describing the eventual outcome is, quite simply, newspeak, and is unacceptable. Nandesuka 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as it was kind of you to share your conclusion, now is the time to support conclusions, and you have not done so. Alienus 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought of something. The current definition says "resulting in or from the death of the embryo or fetus". Why shouldn't it say "resulting in or caused by the death of the embryo, fetus, or placenta". I think by adding placenta, [1] we can cover placental abruption and other afflictions to the placenta that cause miscarriages, [2] we can cover the fact that induced abortion procedures remove products (plural) of conception, not just the fetus/embryo, and [3] by including something in the list that clearly does not have personhood, I believe it lessens the connotations of 'death' that some of us have objected to. --Andrew c 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps, my exact wording doesn't work because it lists fetus and embryo in a manner that makes them sound like different thing. But you get my idea. If we like my suggestion, we'll need to come up with a better phrasing.--Andrew c 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Personhood is a philosophical, moral, and legal term and can't be expressed in a summary form in the first paragraph. Placental death is altogether insignificant and only obtains significance with respect to the fetus and mother: organic failure of the placental prior to viability will cause a miscarriage; after viability, and with appropriate medical care, it will be a premature birth. patsw 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you denying that "abortion results in the death of the placenta"? Or are you saying that the death of the placenta that results from abortions is not as significant as the death of the fetus/embryo? Isn't the latter a value judgment or POV? By excluding one biological fact (placental death) and emphasizing another (fetal death), you are pushing a POV. That POV should be presented in the article, just not inherent in the definition.--Andrew c 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Argument: "Placenta death" or "the placenta dies" has no place in the lead: this term has not been shown to be used in any notable/widely used description of abortion found in reputable sources (WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS). Since the term cannot be used as per policy, one cannot argue that its exclusion is POV-pushing. It's NPOV-pushing.

Background: The fact that the term does not appear in abortion descriptions in literature (other than as a medical reason to abort) is hardly surprising: once a placenta is developing/has developed, it will always die at the end of a pregnancy. Its death or destruction does not define "abortion". It is a defining factor for the more general "end of pregnancy". Its exclusion is required, its inclusion could be POV-pushing. AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree here. 3 of the 21 definitions specifically reference placenta. In addition, 11 mentions "[canine] Abortions occur most commonly because placental function is compromised due to one or more of these reasons." However, if we are to not include the 'p' word because it is not in the majority, then perhaps the 'd' word should not be included under the same logic.--Andrew c 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had seen those :-) One definition mentions the placenta in the context of a malfunction, a medical reason to abort. The other two definitions do not mention the placenta in the context of death, but in the context of removal. In addition, I would argue that 2 (or 3) out of 21 do not make mention of the placenta notable, let alone "death of the placenta" which, as argued, occurs in none of the definitions. Death of the placenta does not define abortion; if it somehow remains intact and lives on after the fetus has died, the abortion was successful. Mission accomplished. The placenta needs to be removed for medical reasons. Exactly like when a baby is born. Mission accomplished. The afterbirth follows later, and if it doesn't, it's a job for the doctor. At any rate, no one mourns the placenta and it would fall out of the equation for that reason alone. I do not support this argument against the inclusion of "death".

As you may have noticed, I no longer oppose definitions that leave out the word "death". AvB ÷ talk 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"if it somehow remains intact and lives on after the fetus has died, the abortion was successful" Actually, if any of the products of conception are not removed, it is an incomplete abortion. My point was that abortions are supposed to remove more than just the fetus/embryo. Doctors suction or scrape the uterus wall as part of the procedure. The definitions I highlighted mentioned this aspect of abortion. Of course none of them mention death of the placenta. I just felt that some of the arguments that the pro-d-word editors were using placed a special emphasis on the fetus, going into the personhood debate (which should be mentioned, just not in the first sentence). By using the same sort of arguments, only in regards to the placenta, I felt I would reveal the POV in those arguments. Sorry for the confusion.--Andrew c 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What "mother" are you talking about? Alienus 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is a ludricrous analogy; as the goal is sexual release of by-product cells. The death of those cells is not the goal; the release of them to relieve sexual tension is. (exception to the rule: masturbating for sperm donation) Meat is to be sure more interesting; but again the goal is to acquire food; not to kill the animal. (exception to the rule: artificially grown meat being tested these days; hypothetic exception: an animal with exceptional meat that is re-engineered to grow back limbs or to produce protusions of meat that can be harvested; without killing the animal) Abortion simply does not have these exceptions; and the result death makes an abortion an abortion. The death of sperm and animals does not define masturbation and meat. Please stop using these analogies; as they are functionally invalid. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand exactly where I am coming from. When I see people pushing the "results in the death of a fetus or embryo" wording, I feel the exact same way you feel about my analogies. I understand that it is one POV that the most important and defining aspect of an abortion is the death of a fetus, however, I believe that is only a POV and not appropriate for the first sentence (first paragraph, sure, but not first sentence).--Andrew c 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how it's "one POV" that the death of a fetus is the defining aspect of an abortion, along with its expulsion or removal from the uterus. It's defining in the sense that nothing else distinguishes an abortion from a live delivery. Whether that word has to occur in the opening sentence is another question, but I didn't think anybody was arguing that abortion can be properly defined without somehow conveying the idea of fetal loss, i.e., not ending up with a live baby, i.e. the death of the fetus or embryo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding masturbation and meat - those analogies make no sense to me. A better analogy would be defining an ejaculation as "activity leading to an expulsion of fluid through the penis", dodging words like "semen" and failing to distinguish it from urination. With the other example, one might define meat as "a substance consumed as food", dodging the word "animal" and failing to distinguish it from vegetables. In both of those cases, I imagine we can agree that something is missing from the given definition, because it fails to draw a line where one is needed. The word "death" is not needed to distinguish meat from... animals that stay alive when eaten(?), or to distinguish masturbation from some kind of live sperm escape. In the case of abortion, there is a neighboring concept, and we need to demarcate the boundary, somehow, because that's what definitions do. (Actually, that link doesn't directly support what I said (nor directly oppose it), but I left it in because it's interesting.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One editor changed his mind

It may surprise some editors here, but I have revised my opinion of the inclusion of the word "death" after checking how other encyclopedias handle the subject. I still feel that excluding "death" is skewed towards the pro-choice POV but I've reweighed the entire Gestalt as it exists in the general population and now feel that a slight preference for the majority POV is fully warranted under NPOV. <gasp!> It's the "most neutral" solution - we have already reached a definition that is so sharp that the only thing preventing consensus is an agreement on a slight bias towards pro-life (include "death") or a slight bias towards pro-choice (exclude "death"). All other things being equal, we can do only one thing, and bias it towards the majority POV.

I have also revisited my view on the inclusion of the word "death" in regard to its being a loaded word. I now think its inclusion may introduce more bias than its exclusion. The former says that there is death, the latter does not say there isn't. (As before, I think it is wrong to exclude or evade such words as a matter of principle; each case should be judged separately.)

I'm now willing to support something like a simple "An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it has attained viability" AvB ÷ talk 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that an abortion is not necessarily "the expulsion . . . . before it has attained viability." Abortions are sometimes caried out in cases where it would be fully possible to deliver a living child. In fact, in the case of Gianna Jessen, her mother did give birth to a living child, and the fact that Gianna now has disabilities is because she was scalded for hours by the saline abortion, not because came out (or was taken out) from the womb before she had "attained viability". Or take the case of Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose mother went in for an abortion at 32 weeks. She was sent home, having been told that the abortion was incomplete, and that she would have to come back the next day. That night, Ana Rosa was born — missing one arm, but otherwise healthy. I don't suppose anyone would argue that she "had not attained viability" ten hours before that. I don't think the Wikipedia article should make judgments about the morality of abortion; that would definitely be a violation of NPOV but we certainly shouldn't be trying to gloss over a very important, but unpleasant, fact of what abortion involves. AnnH ♫ 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But this definition does not gloss over anything important. That is not in my character nor in the character of Wikipedia. In fact this definition does not fit the instances you describe. It all hinges on the robustness of the applied viability threshold. The viability criterion is an accepted part of the majority POV; trying to abort viable fetuses (i.e. babies) is not. The examples only tell us something about the viability threshold. There's no such thing as aborting a viable fetus. That's not abortion, it's infanticide. Not my opinion; the majority POV. We should congratulate our resident pro-choicers on their willingness to accept that definition. AvB ÷ talk 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aborting a foetus that could be viable is not infanticide, as it is still a foetus. A foetus that is aborted late for a disability such as cystic fibrosis or in rare cases a cleft lip [19], is viable but has still been aborted. An abortion necessarily involves the death of the foetus either as cause or consequence, as such exclusion of the word is incorrect. |→ Spaully°τ 14:46, 30 March 2006 (GMT)

This argument is not different from AnnH's reasoning. What Annh and you are saying is important. It highlights a glaring problem with the most accepted definition: it does not apply to the third trimester. However, what you say is not a reason to change or not use the most common definition that also has the preference of editors representing the pro-choice POV.

What you are saying touches on a terrible and often forgotten dilemma, which should be discussed in the article. According to Roe v. Wade, and related legal processes & legislation in other countries, viability is precisely what differentiates a fetus from... a child? How do we call the phase between the start of viability and birth?

As to the future of the Abortion article, I can only say that editors should do their utmost to be splitters and not lumpers. It is true, for some people there is no difference between a conceptus and 33-week fetus (one extreme arguing that killing the fetus is not morally wrong and the other that killing a single-cell conceptus is murder). Most people, however, will recognize more nuances. Example: the atheist doctor in the UK who wrote in his well-read "NHS blog?" that he draws the line for himself at the start of the second trimester and like many others does not feel comfortable seeing a dead or dying fetus that looks human, that moves, and by the end of the second trimester visually responds to pain - people who take that feeling as their cue that it's not OK. We can and should describe what it means to the various groups. Let's not focus too much on the extremes. There's so much more in between. Can we read in the article how many people actually support abortion beyond week 20? Is talking about "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" really the most important thing? Let's not be led by our indignation or anger. Treat this like the best-of-breed Wikipedians. This article can be a good NPOV example. And I think that's the best we can give to the world. <Stepping off soapbox now>

Here's a definition from Britannica's 2006 DVD: Abortion the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation). An abortion may occur spontaneously, in which case it is also called a miscarriage, or it may be brought on purposefully, in which case it is often called an induced abortion. AvB ÷ talk 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add what I added above. According to religioustolerance.org: "[D&X] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public."[20] And from the D&X article: "Intact D&X procedures are rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions in the USA. This calculates to between 2500 and 3000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000 (out of 1.3 million abortions annually)." Focusing on this issue is a technicality. It is giving it undue weight. As I said above, I do not belive we can come up with one single definition to cover every single instance considered by the public and by medical science to be abortion. I suggested having two different definitions.--Andrew c 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight in the context of NPOV is defined by the number of people who hold an opinion, not by the number of occurrences of the object of that opinion. AvB ÷ talk 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Whether or not Britannica's def is wrong does not matter. The point is that we are required to treat such definitions according to their notability/popularity per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not there to change people's minds. It is there to describe the real word. Editors don't describe what they think is right or wrong. That would be original research. The net result should be that readers get all the info in a neutral way so that they can make up their own mind. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I've got to start my weekly wikibreak; I think I've dominated this part of the discussion long enough anyway so I'll just take a back seat & probably check in again tomorrow night. I am, after all, just one editor who has changed his mind. AvB ÷ talk 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to summarize your change of heart and point thusly? Abortion should be written sympathetically to its subject. Just as other encyclopedic sources have chosen to do. Frankly I hate splitting talk pages; the only reason it was necessary in the first place was Pro-Lick's prolific and protracted prose. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi RoyBoy, that would be quite alright with me. (By the way, it's a change of mind, the heart is still very much the way it was.) AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the word death in fashioning thebest definition for abortion is NOT original research. It is nothing new to note that every induced abortion intentionally kills a conceptus and every spontaneous abortion results in or from a dead conceptus. I think what is happening is that the editors here realize that having a politically correct definition is te same as having an orwellian definition. And no one wants an orwellian definition. Those who think a conceptus is just tissue should have no qualms about acknowledging the death of the organism. If the conceptus is like snot or fingernails (as some have argued), then why quibble about the death of the conceptus? Its mention should not concern anyone. Although slaves were considered subhuman, no one used to quibble about whether a slave who had assumed room temperature was just as dead as any deceased white guy. Such fear of the word "death" is not very rational. Good 21:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I have no idea what that slavery quip is about, so I'll skip over that. Would you be opposed to using the word 'conceptus' in the definition? "resulting in or caused by the death of the conceptus". It is more accurate, because more than just the fetus/embryo die during abortion, and as I pointed out above, there are placental conditions that cause miscarriages. Is conceptus the best word for this situation? "Products of conception" is another term that means the same thing. The main issue I have with the current version is that it seems to give undue weight to the death of the fetus. I personally would want to avoid that issue in the first sentence and bring it up further along in the paragraph. However, as a compromise, I have been considering other ways to improve the current version, and perhaps this may be the one?--Andrew c 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Conceptus and products of conception are euphemisms. They are words crafted to promote a POV. patsw 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what is the proper term then? If we are going to refer to more than just the fetus/embryo, how is the best way to do it? I initially suggested listing placenta along with the things that "result in the death of", but changed my mind for a single catch-all term. Any suggestions?--Andrew c 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sympathetic vs. Accurate

I found AvB's point about making the Abortion article sympathetic to its subject matter very compelling and hits on the core issue here. Is Wikipedia to write sympathetically, is it a part of our philosophy and style? Do we pick up the lead of other sympathetic encyclopedia's or do something different. To put it succintly I don't like the word "death" in the lead; but at the same time I've stated it strikes the right tone for the article.

Is abortion a pleaseant thing? No. So why should we remove an unpleasant word from the lead. The only valid argument I've seen in all this back and forth; is that we as an encyclopedia have choosen to write sympathetically, particularly on controversial subjects. This isn't about being right or wrong; it is a choice of editorial philosophy. If policy is we are to be sympathetic death is gone; if accurate then it stays. One may object that "death" is hardly a neutral word; I agree as it is negative word, but since Abortion is a negative subject I cannot help but conclude that it is an accurate and necessary part of the definition (as death is exactly what makes it a negative/controversial subject).

Does that mean it has to go in the first sentence; I suppose not... but keep in mind the broader context. The article has adopted clinical terms (embryo/fetus) for things pro-lifers would want emotional/ambiguous terms attached to them. For the most part the article is pretty friggin neutral, congrats to us all for that accomplishment. As such I don't think it is too much to ask to have an emotional word(s) that are accurate, in the lead.

I've had a cursory glance through WP:Style; haven't found anything yet, but I do recall mention of articles being sympathetic somewhere. (it could have been on Jimbo's talk page for all I know) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since truth is detemined by the number of times keywords occur on certain pages, especially WP:NPOV, I call our attention to the fact that words beginning "sympath-" occur seven (7) times on that page, but that's counting the table of contents, and I pre-emptively plead guilty to quote-mining. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely, largely because you're wrong. The word "death" is not merely unsympathetic, it's misleading, hence inaccurate. Alienus 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Alienus, the word death is completely accurate. What's misleading is the pretence that abortion doesn't involve a death. As for being "unsympathetic", that's only the case if the thing that dies is a baby. None of the pro-life editors has tried to use the the word "baby" in the article. For the umpteenth time, if a baby dies, death is bad; if a cell and nothing more than a cell dies, death is neutral. Abortion involves death. That may be unpleasant, but Wikipedia does not have a policy of suppressing or censoring unpleasant facts. AnnH ♫ 09:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have an argument that might appeal to non-Catholics or is this the best you've got? Alienus 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I am sure that you are aware that many non-Catholics agree with me on this issue, even if you don't. There was nothing specifically Catholic or even Christian in my post above. I wrote nothing about the indivual soul created by God, nor about the sin or morality. C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called "Bulverism", which I highly recommend. Your argument is a form of bulverism. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I think the grounds for arguing that "death" is misleading are spelled out somewhere on this page. The argument is that, in the context of abortion, the word "death" has lost its clinical neutrality due to its use in partisan rhetoric. In other contexts, "death" may be a perfectly neutral word, but in this case it is politicized to the point that its use implies a side, namely the side that uses it in a political manner, the pro-life side. Language held ransom for politics - at least I think that's the argument. Alienus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as someone from a strong pro-life background, who attends pro-life meetings and conferences, who gives money to pro-life charities, who has even — everyone prepare to gasp in horror — said the Rosary (peacefully) outside abortion referral centres (we don't have abortion clinics in Ireland) — I can state with no hesitation that what we emphasize is the personhood of the baby, not the fact that it dies. In other words, we say that a BABY dies, not that a baby DIES. That it dies is so obvious (or at least I thought so until I came across Alienus and Pro-Lick) that we never felt it was necessary to emphasize it. I do, however, object to efforts to sweep it under the carpet, to use euphemisms, and to pretend that no death takes place. Whether the fetus is a baby or not, its death is an essential part of what an abortion is, and it's the only thing that distinguishes abortion from live birth. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. What amazes me is that it still needs summarizing for Ann to understand it. After all, it's been explained over and over again. I'm wondering at this point if Ann is capable of understanding it or if we've run into a cognitive limitation on her part. Alienus 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "explanation" or "understanding", it's a matter of disagreement: I disagree that the question of "clinical neutrality" is the question. I disgree that abortion creates a new "context". I disagree that the accurate word, death, is a political rhetorical device. The burden of proof is to show that abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with Patsw. It's not necessarily about understanding. I clearly understand the argument, that the word death is politicized in the context of abortion, etc, etc... but I don't necessarily buy it. I think saying that simply using the word "death" implies the whole pro-life agenda is a huge stretch. I'm not comfortable with allowing language to be held ransom to politics, especially on such tenuous grounds, and especially in an encyclopedia, which should frankly be above that kind of nonsense.

Where Patsw says "the burden of proof is to show that abortion isn't the death of an embryo or fetus," I disagree. We don't need to be thinking in those terms. Our task is to write a good encyclopedia article, whatever that ends up meaning. For us to decide not to use a certain word in a certain sentence, no "proof" is required, merely an argument that we have a better encyclopedia article without that word in that sentence, for whatever reason. We're arguably complying with policies either way, so it's a judgement call. Abortion can be defined with or without the word "death", it turns out.

Is it more accurate to use "death", because then we succeed in clearly distinguishing "abortion" from the neighboring concept of "delivery", like a good encyclopedia should, or is is more accurate to refrain from using "death", and thus avoid giving the impression of political baggage, which tends to make for a worse encyclopedia? That's the heart of the matter, or so it seems to me. Neither side is obviously wrong.

Patsw, as to whether "clinical neutrality" is the question, that's unarguable. It is. The people objecting to the word "death" are objecting purely on grounds of it not being clinically neutral, so that's precisely the question. When you say you disagree that the word really has been hijacked as a political rhetorical bomb, there you're on the right track. Without that, there is no further reasonable argument against the word, that I can see. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Taking GTB's summary of the situation into account, which seems fair, I would say the need for accuracy outweighs any negative connotations of the word 'death'. From WP:PERFECT (also WP:LEAD):

...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.

While there is also the need for NPOV throughout the article, the emphasis clearly lies on accuracy, not sensitivity. From the same page:

...is precise and explicit; free of vague generalities and half-truths that may stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

While not using 'death' would not stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject, it is not precise and explicit.

...is very clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. Begins with a definition, and follows a logical structure;..

Not using 'death' means abortion cannot be clearly defined differently from delivery or partruition. This introduces ambiguity into the article at it's first step.

I also feel that while both sides of the abortion debate (and everyone imbetween) uses language to incite emotion, clinically correct terms such as 'embryo', 'fetus' and 'death' should be used in preference to politically neutral terms. |→ Spaully°τ 15:14, 1 April 2006 (GMT)

Look through all the individual articles on the different methods of abortion. How many mention death? Take this sentence from Suction-aspiration abortion for instance "This vacuum then aspirates out the uterus and the pregnancy tissue is removed." What would it do, in terms of POV, if we added the clause "thereby causing the death of the fetus"? It is also clear that vacuuming out "the embryo or fetus as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissue" does not result in a live birth. It would be like adding "thereby causing the death of a cow" in the beef article. While both ideas are completely factual, it is a POV that these aspects of the topic are significant. It isn't a matter of hiding factual information. It's a matter of deciding which facts are significant enough to go in the first sentence. While for some people, the death of the fetus is the most important part of abortion, that is clearly a POV and shouldn't be introduced in the first sentence (maybe abortion debate, but not here). Because a large number of cited sources can unambiguously define abortion without calling on the 'd-word', I do not see how using that clause adds clarity instead of POV.--Andrew c 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do the individual articles on breeds of dogs all mention the word mammal? No. Does dog? Absolutely. Your appeal to articles on individual methods is pretty unconvincing. Once it's establised that we're talking about a method of abortion, it's understood that a fetus is being removed in a fatal, as opposed to a non-fatal way, like say, birth. They don't need to mention death precisely because it's understood as part of the definition of "abortion".

The beef analogy is silly because there's no "as opposed to" concept from which we need to distinguish beef. If there was some kind of still-living cow tissue that we also ate, and didn't call it beef, but something else, like "livecow", then any definition of beef would have to include the word "dead" in order to distinguish the two types of comestible cow tissue. Abortion is one of two types of pregnancy ending, so the definition needs to make it clear which one it is. The distinction between the two is nothing more nor less than the death of a fetus, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Would adding the word mammal to the breed pages be inserting a POV or just redundent? That said, I see your point, but I do not feel that abortion is defined by the death of the fetus. There are sources to back this up, but I guess it can be argued that they are just using euphamisms to hide a gruesome fact. I tried to compromise above, by taking the focus away from the death of the fetus, and more on the death of ALL products of conception (as clearly noted in the suction-aspiration article I quoted above), but the only response I got was from patsw accusing me of using euphamisms. Also, just because we don't eat "livecow" doesn't mean living cows don't have muscles. What is the difference between a Tri-tip and a cow's Vastus lateralis muscle. Does not one result in death?--Andrew c 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is perfectly clear without "death", and much more neutral. I don't think accuracy is a serious concern here, as plenty of reliable sources somehow manage to deliver accurate definitions without the word in question. Alienus 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources manage to deliver inaccurate definitions by omitting the concept in question. According to several reliable sources' definitions, we were all aborted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources Alienus is refering to mention "before the twentieth week" or "before the fetus is viable", which doesn't cover the 1.4% of so-called abortions that occur after the 20th week (and which technically speaking, aren't abortions, but perhaps "induced stillbirths", which funny enough gets more google hits than "termination of the gestation"). I honestly do not think that we can get a single 100% accurate definition to cover every single case of abortion and so-called abortion and miscarriages, but not stillbirths. The reason is because we are combining medical, popular, technical, common, and archaic definitions into a single entity. I feel strongly now about defining abortion at the 20 week or viability mark, and then explaining the common usage of the word in terms of late-term abortion further down the paragraph.--Andrew c 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating but irrelevant. What's relevant is that accurate definitions from reliable sources exist that do not mention "death". You need to address this. Alienus 23:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd nitpick and say why do we need to address this; when you assert them as accurate... I'd assert they are "politically correct". I agree with you, I was wrong... but because NPOV stipulates "with representing all views clearly and sympathetically," so a sympathetic writing may still include "death".

I believe death to be accurate precisely because I currently do not see it as "misleading"; rather as "potentially misleading". This is unfortunate, but I'm not one to be politically correct. If there is a compromise available that balances your reasonable and astute political observations of co-opted language; with accuracy; I'd really like to hear it. This is frustrating for me in a way; as I consider myself a competent wordsmith... and I'd like to get away from "death". But all alternatives seem weasely. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I'd say that there are official sources that omit the word "death". That doesn't make them more accurate; that makes them more "politically correct". We don't have to imitate them. The founder of Wikipedia has said that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"[21]. I'm not aware that the director of The Times, or the BBC, or Encyclopaedia Britannica has ever said that. And suppressing or glossing over the unpleasant fact that the fetus dies is definitely political correctness inspired by a particular POV. It's also sloppy, as it fails to distinguish abortion from live birth. Or else it's inaccurate, as it implies that the fetus is never viable when abortions take place. AnnH ♫ 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to keep repeating myself, but... No one has presented a single accurate definition yet. There are two different definitions of abortion. The medical/technical definition (that includes miscarriages and induced procedures before 20 weeks), and the common term (that includes late-term abortions and all). Neither definition incudes stillbirths. When we combine the two definitions, no one has been able to cover all cases. I have repeatedly suggested using both definitions, making it clear what covers what, and who uses each definition. Next, I have always said that pointing out "unpleasant facts" can clearly be POV by putting an emphasis on a specific issue. For example, the death of animals when meat it consumed (go to meat, look for the word death, it isn't there). I initially moved to remove the d-word on principle. I later compromised and suggested referring to the death of the placenta and other products of conception. --Andrew c 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, could you write up what you would suggest for the lead paragraph? Alienus 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias of Death - News Samples

1. "Two local teens face murder charges after they allegedly chased a man who mooned them and bludgeoned him to death."--Pro-Lick 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
2. He also said several Iraqis were shot dead, and that they were cases of soldiers "shooting out of fear and inventing reasons afterward."--Pro-Lick 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

More first sentence stuff

Here is how it stands now:

• "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death."

First of all, part of abortion is the removal or expulsion of the products of conception. The current definition clearly does not cover this. It say if a fetus dies or is killed, then an abortion has occured, (even if the fetus is still in the mothers womb). It is defining abortion by the termination and death of the fetus, which clearly is not the case. I also feel the wording "resulting in or from" is ackward. My proposal would be "resulting in or caused by". One way to solve both problems would be "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion." But then someone is bound to say "well gestation ends in removing a fetus for live birth as well". Then we could add "before viability" somewhere to make it clear that a live birth is not going on. Then someone will say "what about IDX", and I will point out that technically speaking, 'abortions' performed on viable fetuses are actually not abortions. However, since there is a common usage of the word abortion that covers these nonmedical instances, what now? I proposed using two different definitions to make this distintion. Anyway, I do not know where to go from here. The definition has changes slightly from the previous longstanding version. In case we forgot what it was, here it is:

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

"Pregnancy" has changed to "gestation of..." I guess the reason for this is to cover the rare case of removing one embryo in a set of twins? Can we try to work together and reach a better definition? or do some editors feel like what we have now is perfect?--Andrew c 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect. I'd prefer pregnancy over gestation for 1. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, there's no need to try to capture every possible variation in the definition. The other obvious flaw as compared to expert sources is the use of death. I think we could satisfy your concern about expulsion and my concern about death by simply swapping the 2, such as "An abortion is the termination of pregnancy via the expulsion of the embryo or fetus."--Pro-Lick 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't that also cover live birth? I undestand that 'termination' and 'expulsion' and harsher words that do not connote a live birth, but technically speaking, someone is going to complain its not clear is differentiating it from a live birth.--Andrew c 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest:

"An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion from the uterus without viability."

For late-term procedures, there may be more going on than what is defined here, but what's defined here is the core of it. To put it another way, if a procedure doesn't involve what this definition says, it's not an abortion. Alienus 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The last clause "without viability" is ackward. Perhaps we could say "embryo or unviable fetus"? also there are three "or" phrases that tend to read poorly together "an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its removal or expulsion". But that is a minor nitpick--Andrew c 01:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The first or phrase makes sense, in regards to covering abortions that take place at different points of gestation, however the last two or phrases seem to be there in order to cover both induced and spontaneous abortions. Is there a way to clean that up a bit? I think we can cut out the middle or phrase and just say "caused by". What do you think?--Andrew c 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The second "or" covers spontaneous and induced. The third one covers the various possibilities. For example, spontaneous abortions may occur when a still-living embryo or fetus is expulsed after the placenta disconnects.

Having said this, I'm not arguing that my phrasing is perfect. Perhaps: "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, associated with its removal or expulsion from the uterus without a live birth." Alienus 02:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Associated isn't a good word. And doesn't "without a live birth" sound weasely to you? I'd prefer non-viable/unviable over that. Although the word "viable" is a $10 word and would need to be linked to its disambig page. Which is again a little clumsy word wise; but I would consider it more accurate and far less weasely. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• "without live birth" = weasely
• "viable" = inaccurate since induced abortions past viability are known to happen thousands of times a year
• "death" is the word that Webster's chose to use to ensure medical and biological accuracy (as the talk pages have also revealed after lengthy discussion of various definitions seeking one that was always accurate)

Good 15:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, your definition covers stillbirths, which are not abortions. Like I have been saying, there are two definitions of abortion, and we cannot combine them. There is the medical definition that covers miscarriages and induced abortions before 20 weeks. There is the common definition of any deliberate act taken to remove (and thereby kill) a fetus. Definition 1 excludes stillbirths and late-term abortions. Definition 2 excludes miscarriages and stillbirths. We want to exclude stillbirths, but some people feel it is important to cover miscarriages, and others think it is important to cover late-term abortions. I say present both. I believe GT and DonaNobisPacem somewhat supported this general idea (maybe not my exact wording though). However, as I pointed out above, if we are striving for accuracy, the current definition clearly is not (doesn't mention removal of the POC. A fetus dying in the womb is not the same as an abortion, spontaneous or not).--Andrew c 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is embryonic or fetal death. Prior to 20 weeks, it is a miscarriage, after 20 weeks a stillbirth. patsw 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't (see I can talk concise and authoritiative as well). Can you source your claims?--Andrew c 23:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Quoted definitions" proposal

There has been much discussion over which outside definition of abortion to model our introductory sentence after. Thus, I propose the creation of "Quoted definitions" as a subsection of "Definitions," where selected definitions from dictionaries, medical or otherwise, could be presented. While this would, in my opinion, be an example of an unecessary compromise section counter to the goal of brevity, it would at least partially resolve some of the issues which have arisen in the debate over inclusion or exclusion of certain terms. -Severa ?? | !!! 11:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As you have said I think this would be an unnecessary compromise, and serves little purpose in the article. |→ Spaully°τ 15:23, 2 April 2006 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully. The fear of candor amazes me. Why does the biological reality have to be papered over? No one is arguing that the definition be "abortion is the killing of a cute cuddly unborn baby by a vile profiteer at the request of the baby's misguided or selfish mother". That would be POV. What is proposed is that the medical and biological facts be presented. Death of the embryo or fetus is what ends the pregnancy. A woman who is pregnant wants to rid herself of the new human entity. She hires someone to kill it. Many think this is morally acceptable and even laudable. Many others think it is murder. But pretending that the embryonic or fetal death is not the key fact in every miscarriage or induce abortion is a bit odd. It simply rings hollow. It smacks of Orwellian euphemism. It begs the question "what exactly made the pregnancy end?". Stepping down from the soapbox. Good 15:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing definitions of abortion from several sources would be a contribution to the Abortion debate article and not the Abortion article. patsw 16:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people think it's POV to include death; others believe that it is POV to leave it out. If it really wasn't an issue, even among the pro-choicers who don't have a problem with "death" (or the pro-lifers who don't take issue with its absence) discussion would've died two weeks ago. "Quoted definitions" would allow for the partial satisfaction of both these demands. We include a definition with "death," a definition without, etc., all with links to references. This is as far from a "fear of candor" or "paper[ing] over" as I could imagine. I don't know what the opening definition should be, and, frankly, I don't care, so long as it doesn't include the words "baby," "human being," or "clump of tissue." Regardless of what opening definition we decide upon, "Quoted definitions" would be like covering all our bases, preventing future editorial disputes over the inclusion/exclusion of "death" in the opening by showing that abortion is defined differently elsewhere. Opposition to a solution to this utterly unproductive editorial debate convinces me that the whole thing really is just a charade for unproductive POV debate. -Severa ?? | !!! 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My two definition proposal (again)

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

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

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

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

I can't say that it's perfect, but it's certainly a major improvement over what we have today. I support it. Alienus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would change

The term abortion, in reference to humans, commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

To

In popular usage, the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

Or alternatively

In colloquial usage,the term abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus...

As to more than fetus/embryo being removed - the fetus or embryo that are the central focus of the procedure or sponatneous process - if there wasn't a fetus/embryo, nothing else would be there, and it is the primary intent of an induced abortion to remove either - the rest of the matter is necessary to prevent infection, etc, but not the purpose of the procedure (basically, the purpose of the procedure is to arrest the development of the embryo or fetus). I think mention of the other matter (placenta, etc.) should stay out of the definition (for clarity/length) and be inserted into the appropriate article sections on procedure, etc.DonaNobisPacem 06:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could support it as well. And, like DonaNobisPacem, I don't think it's necessary to have "in reference to humans", though I wouldn't oppose it either. AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree on the usage of colloquial. In regards to the human part - I don't think it's really necessary. What I asked myself - if someone told me their dog got an abortion, what would I think: "If you didn't want puppies that bad, why didn't you get it speyed?" was what came to mind (ie, I think regardless of specific mammalian context, people think of the induced procedure when you use the word in common usage).DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Andrew's proposal at the top of this section. I would not object to DonaNobisPacem's modifications, and support the comments regarding placenta/umbilical/amniotic sac etc, but am not sure whether or not restricting the definition to popular usage (which seems to say medical/religious/legal/etc usage is different) is a good thing. AvB ÷ talk 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I use "popular usage" in the sense of everyday parlance. Medical terminology IS different, as we've seen in the debate (particularly in regards to the medical definition being before viablity of the fetus). But from what I've seen - I saw some proposed legislation/enacted legislation for various states online, and they specifically state "abortion will refer to induced abortions, including late term" (obviously paraphrased). In politics, a politician says "I support abortion rights" - he's not referring to a woman's right to have a miscarriage(!), we automatically know he is speaking about induced abortions. And if you go to vatican.va and type in abortion, I none of the entries refer to spontaneous abortion (in fact, if you type in "spontaneous abortion" on the English search, there are no returns). So popular usage - even in law and religion - usually refers to the induced procedure, at any perioud of gestation, in contrast to the medical definition, referring to induced or sponaneous abortion before viablilty.DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading my above comment - one could change "popular usage" to "common parlance" - that would be a more encyclopedic term anyways, I suppose. DonaNobisPacem 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That solves it, and unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Termination is a euphemism. It means end, and as has been mentioned several times, the end of pregnancy is birth or death. Death is the accurate word to describe abortion. patsw 13:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Under common parlance the word death is there.....is that good enough? It points out the medical community does not use the term (in general, with exceptions) but that in common parlance it often is used. DonaNobisPacem 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DonaNobisPacem. Additionally, I do not find 'termination' to be a euphemism. For one, with movies like The Terminator, and rodent 'extermination' and terminal sickness, I do not find the word softens the reality of said events. The term is used in the medical literature (and even the wikipedia entry has a disambiguation link to abortion, not birth). The first sentence is qualified with "medically defined", and I believe the definition is fairly close to a large number of the medical definitions other editors have cited. Your changes would be inaccurate because it would cover stillbirths, which are never medically defined as abortion.--Andrew c 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Excellent proposal. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can support this one. Good work Andrew c, and everyone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I would prefer comment by a few more regulars. A mention/carbon copy should be made on Talk:Abortion; but I think Andrew c should have that privilege. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DonaNobisPacem 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A minor point, should "pregnancy" be Wikilinked, or not? I would say yes because it is a big topic and central to what is being aborted; OTOH it is a common concept, and I wouldn't want to overlink the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the sort of thing that can be dealt with after it goes live, but if it were me, I'd link pregnancy, death, and mammalian, as well as what's already there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The principal action of an abortion is the death of the embryo or fetus. The expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the uterus of the mother, or the removal of the embryo or fetus by some process is the consequence of that death whether it was intended or not. This proposed definition reads "then Y, X" rather than "X then Y" in order to obscure the definition abortion. patsw 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the principal action is to remove the fetus? (if it were not removed, then the dead fetus could harm the woman) The medical definition does not contain death because (as I understand it, I haven't done the research myself) predominantly death is hardly referred to in medical texts; as they are concerned with the action(s) (mechanics) rather than the consequence(s) of the abortion procedure. The medical definition is first; because we adopt a scientific frame of reference when possible at Wikipedia.

The seperation of the definitions into medical and layman allows Wikipedia to maintain its NPOV on both fronts. Are you more concerned with the medical definition ignoring the consequence (death), or the medical definition coming first or both? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the case of a natural death in the uterus, the death is the action which makes the consequential act, removal, necessary, in the fetus is not expelled naturally.
• In the case of an induced abortion, the removal of the fetus is not sought; the death of the fetus is intended. It is the presence of the dead fetus which necessitates removal.

In both cases, death precedes removal and expulsion. Death, as I and others have mentioned, is accurate and neutral. The rest of the terms used termination, removal, expulsion are either euphemisms or consequential actions. Abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus. patsw 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of natural death; I cannot see death as an action but a rather a state, dying is an action. I see termination is the best term, because it suits the medical context and if death comes about naturally and terminate appears more accurate and places the X before the Y; as the body and/or fetus stops/terminates development of a nonviable organism which could not develop/live anyway. "Death" seems more suitable to viable fetuses. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonviable fetuses kick and suck their thumbs. And they die. Its odd that we can kill cancer cells by chemotherapy, but we can't say that we kill embryos or fetuses. This discussion is simply revealing the strong desire to use euphemisms for political reasons. Good 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, we want to write a good article that's fair to everyone. Accusing one another of political motivations won't get that done better. Now the word "death" occurs in the proposed version. Would you prefer to say death twice, if we provide two definitions? I think that would sound weird, to repeat it. Do you object to providing two different definitions?

Also, you say that "abortion is the death of an embryo or fetus," but medical sources seem to define abortion as the actual removal or expulsion, not the cessation of life that accompanies the removal or expulsion. Are those medical sources simply incomplete, or are they actually inaccurate, pinning the essence of abortion in the wrong place? I would think they get the benefit of the doubt, on how medical terms are defined. None of them defines abortion as the death itself, and some make it clear that it isn't the death, like source #10 from the list, where MedLinePlus says that most spontaneous abortions are caused by fetal death. That makes it apparent that the cause and effect - death and abortion - are two different things. Others say that abortion results in death - cause and effect again, other way 'round. Abortion isn't itself death; it's caused by or causes in death, and the proposed lead says that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:Talk about euphamisms, the chemotherapy article says it refers to "drugs used to treat cancer." Jeez, they are hiding the fact that chemotherapy is used to KILL innocent living cancer cells. They only use the k-word ONCE in the whole article. It must be politically motivated. If we were following their advice, we should say "abortion refers to methods used to treat unwanted pregnancies", and not mention anything being killed or dying until way down the artilce. Look at these euphamisms "impairing mitosis (cell division)", "cause damage to cells", "cause cells to undergo apoptosis", "chemotherapy affects cell division". These are all pretty euphamisms used to cover up the fact that cancer cells are DYING.--Andrew c 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I think you'd have a hard time proving either way that the embryo or foetus is alive once the placenta detaches. However I think it more likely it is not, seeing as early in pregnancy hormones released by the embryo maintain the uterine lining, and so it would only be expelled once these are no longer produced, having died. Of course some abortifacients cause the body to respond as though there is no pregnancy, probably expelling a live embryo.

To patsw, what your argument comes down to is whether induced abortion primarily aims to kill the embryo/foetus, or to remove it, and which of these occurs first. In terms of motive, the aim is to stop the pregnancy (normally). In terms of a procedure both of these are aims, although many medical definitions do not acknowledge death.

Overall it really doesn't matter, as the proposal includes both removal and death, and more importantly is showing general consensus, hopefully concluding this mammoth discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

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

IDX is put within the context of viable induced abortion that result in the death of the entity. I'm unsure where you are going with this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I read the definition, it is actually stating that IDX is performed after viability - is the language not clear? DonaNobisPacem 05:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "nonviable" is simply not accurate. Abortions are done regardless of viability, as anyone familiar with partial-birth abortion (sometimes called IDX) or hysterotomy abortion knows. I just don't know why the article would lead off with a statement that is inaccurate and misleading. Abortions can be early or late term, but they are all abortions. And not every medical definition of abortion mentions non-viability as a requirement for an abortion. Lets simply remove the word for the sake of clarity. The article I think already mentions that most abortions are done prior to viability (and it should it it does not). But to lead offf with false information is good for what reason? Should our compromise as editors actually compromise accuracy? There is no POV involved. Abortion of a viuable fetus is still abortion, medically and legally (and colloquially). There are several medical definitions that do not include any mention of viability, and we also have proof that late term abortion on viable fetuses occur thousands of times each year - why are we pretending otherwise? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why there are two definitions, the "medical" one and the "common paralance" one. No one has been able to combine the two because it gets too confusing and stillbirths end up being included (which are never considered abortion). Besides, abortions on viable fetus are rare (under 2%) in the US. I do not think it is extremely important to bend over backwards to cover every single case in the first sentence. Besides, IDX is wikilinked later on, and it specifically says "even viable ones".--Andrew c 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, remember this quote: "[D&X] are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public."--Andrew c 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out by Andrew c; late term abortions are rare, as such we aren't going to lead off or emphasize them. That would be misleading; as would to say "abortions are done"; you are neglecting the fact the majority of abortions aren't "done" by anyone, they happen naturally. As to the notion of nonviable fetuses sucking their thumbs etc.; I understand what you are saying; but what I was getting at with terminate and nonviable is entities that have no chance of even reaching that stage because it will miscarry way before that stage on development. I know nonviable can also refer to healthy developing fetuses; but I was focusing on the fact the majority of abortions occur naturally and early; and terminate is better suited to that context. Induced abortion; which is the focus of common and political language; is of course a different story and has been given its very own wording and definition in the lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

G&E is perplexed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, I fail to see the problem. The common usage definition focuses not only on the fetus, but on the DEATH of the fetus as the defining aspect. --Andrew c 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I do have a question; can the medical term "late term abortion" include the abortion of a potentially viable fetus; or is Good incorrect? My understanding is "late term abortion" refers to an abortion done between 12-20 weeks. Late but still prior to viability. It may have come from this exchange on his talk page, in that case DonaNobisPacem could help clarify. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter; as Late-term abortion is defined in a different article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the exchange on G&E's talk page - I mentioned there most medical sources defined late term abortion after 18-20 weeks (when they also define viability to start) - that matches up with the Wikipedia definition you linked to above... I'm getting confused now - what is the confusion about? DonaNobisPacem 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, about whether defining abortion in a way that leaves out "Late-term abortion" is misleading. I would say no, as they have their own articles. And we can put Late-term abortion in See also section of Abortion to make sure. And as Andrew c points out, commonly Abortion has a broader definition that includes viable healthy fetuses. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Late term abortion" only gets 29 hits on pubmed. I wouldn't call it a "medical term".--Andrew c 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Late-term abortion gets 76 hits. *shrug* RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is why I am confused or perplexed by the inclusion of the word "nonviable" for the definition of the broad term "abortion". I am not convinced, and I have not seen any evidence, that technicaly abortion can only be done to a nonviable fetus. Perhaps at one time the idea was that no doctor would perform an abortion on a viable fetus. But we now know that is not true. Again, is it a medical fact that the killing and removal of a late term viable fetus is not actually an abortion? ____G_o_o_d____ 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The first definition is the medical definition; not a "broad" definition. That comes after with clarification of common usage of the term. While I acknowledge "Late-term abortion" is a wrinkle in a perfect definition; the proceedure is rare and is set apart from Abortion as Late-term abortion has its own article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy: Maybe we should wikilink to LTA instead of IDX? or include both?--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is preferable; and clarifies there is a dinstinction. But I'm concerned now about "induce early pregnancy" listed under the procedure. That means late-term abortion doesn't necessarily involve "death" of the fetus. That could force us to stick with IDX. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E:The confusion stems from editors wanting to include the broad, technical, medical term for abortion (that includes miscarriages) in an article that is basically about the "induced abortion procedure (not miscarriages)". We start with the technical definition of abortion, explain it, then move into the common usage and how it relates to human society. Your confusion is trying to make the technical definition fit your conception of what an abortion should be defined as. I believe the way it is written explains this issue clearly, but maybe I'm just used to this wording (and the concepts behind it).--Andrew c 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I just don't think an accurate technical definition should exclude abortion of a viable fetus. Regardless of whatever reference we find says, we all know for a fact that a woman carrying a viable fetus can have an "abortion". Technically, a late term abortion is still an abortion - its just a specific kind, as a chemical abortion is a specific kind of abortion. No one has really given any good explanation as to why non-viability would be included, especially since I have already posted two medical definitions that do not reference viability. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Technically speaking, late term abortions are not abortions (see previous citations). It is not a problem to possibly exclude them from the "medical" definition (besides, they are under 2%. Focusing on them seems to give them undue weight). However, it is explained CLEARLY further down that the common usage of the word abortion DOES cover LTA. If you read the whole paragraph together, I believe everything is explained, and all instances of what a doctor and what someone on the street would call an "abortion" are presented. If we were to remove the "nonviable" aspect, it would make no sense at all to refer to "even viable ones". We'd have to take that part out, and the wikilink to the IDX or LTA articles. --Andrew c 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we change IDX to Late-term abortion? Now that I think about it; it seems odd to have technical terminology in a "common parlance" definition. LOL, did you just suggest that above? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and you found that suggestion ;) I think what is meant by "early induction of labor" is that a chemical is injected to kill the fetus, and then the woman gives "birth" to the dead fetus. However, that is complete speculation on my part. Maybe google could tell us more?--Andrew c 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Yeah "'Induced labor leads to the fetus dying on its own, often in the arms of its parents,' says Calvin, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists." There is also [22] and [23]--Andrew c 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Huzzah? I'll go get my leather mug.

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

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

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

____G_o_o_d____ 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's critique of the proposal

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

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

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

Euphemism alert: "actively ending a pregnancy" above means killing the unborn life.

A pregnancy can be actively ended as well by delivering a living child. In fact, if you are alive and reading this, your mother's pregnancy was actively ended by your birth. patsw 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still like definitive proof that nonviability is required for the medical definition of abortion to be accurate. Since when is there a consensus here at wikipedia or otherwise that aborting a viable fetus is not an abortion? (Of course some would call it homicide, but I am talking about doctors who support abortion - do such doctors really consider that a late term abortion is not an abortion?) I repeat: perhaps prior to the advent of partial birth abortion the definition assumed no doctor would stoop to such lows as to abort a viable fetus, thus the word nonviable at one time was accurate. Too, spontaneous abortion is alwasy a nonviable fetus since at some point the fetus dies naturally with no intentional inducement. I am ok with the proposed new paragraph with the exception of the viability reference in the first line - and my objection has nothing to do with POV - it is about accuracy. I am not convinced that the viability reference is medically accurate. Abortion is abortion. Any time prior to the exit from the womb, the baby can be aborted. I would like to know why some of you think the viability reference - knowing it is not accurate and that it excludes some induced abortions - is so necessary. Do you really think that doctors don't consider late term abortions to be abortions? "Late term" is an adjective that modifies abortion. Its not really that hard to understand. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all "late term abortion" is not a medical term. Search it on pubmed if you like. Next, technically speaking champagne only refers to sparkling white wine made in the Champagne region of France. Despite that, it is not only common for California sparkling wine makers to label their product as "champagne", it is also common for the general public to use the non-technical, general word "champagne" to refer to ALL sparkling white wines. Similarly, technically speaking, an "abortion" that takes place after 20 weeks is not an abortion, despite everyone calling it that. The argument you are using to remove "nonviable" can similarly be used to suggest removing the references to the Champagne region in the Champagne (beverage) article. About your 2 definitions: the majority of the cited definitions refer to 20 weeks or viablity. Just because you found 2 that do not mention this does not change the majority. I could use the same argument that I found 2 definitions that do not include "death" therefore we should not say death. I'll agree to remove "nonviable" if you agree to remove "death". How's that? :Þ--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a medical source that specifically states that a late term abortion (whihc, by the way, was what someone else insisted was the proper term for them) is not an abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What, all the already cited medical definitions that reference 20 weeks or viability are not good enough? I did a search of the Oxford Reference Online (which searches over 140 different dictionaries and reference works published by Oxford University Press) earlier today and it was full of quotes like "before it is able to survive independently, esp. in the first 28 weeks of a human pregnancy." And from the Oxford Companion to Medicine "The loss of an immature embryo or fetus before viability is an abortion." And from A Dictionary of Nursing and the Concise Medical Dictionary "the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus at a stage of pregnancy when it is incapable of independent survival (i.e. at any time between conception and the 24th week of pregnancy)."--Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

patsw: My wording wasn't an actual proposal, just a "rough cut" of an alternative (common definition first, technical definition second). If you are unhappy with any of these ideas, perhaps you could share a proposal of your own, or are you happy with the current wording (which I personally find problematic, as I pointed out a couple topics up).--Andrew c 16:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What case has been made against the appearance of death in the definition of abortion on the basis of accuracy? If would want to describe the intentional killing of a fetus as something other than abortion, that is obviously inaccurate.

If you want to add that a naturally occurring fetal death after 20 weeks is commonly called a miscarriage or stillbirth while the intentional killing of the fetus after 20 weeks is called abortion. That would be accurate, but such language, I suggest, would be considered POV, not by me, by the advocates of unrestricted access to abortion at any time before natural birth.

Of course, the reason why this confusion got started in the first place was the mistaken belief that the intentional killing of human embryos and fetuses would happen before 20 weeks. If that were the case, a question of what defining abortion after 20 weeks would be moot. patsw 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never argued that it is not accurate to say a fetus/embryo dies at some point during an abortion procedure. I have argued that certain ways of presenting this "fact" can be seen as POV. No one would argue that the consumption of meat doesn't result in the death of an animal. However, would it be giving undue weight to the vegetarian position to mention this fact in the opening sentence of meat? What's worse, is there are some pro-choicers who do not consider the fetal tissue destroyed during an abortion any more significant than the death of your tonsils during a tonsillectomy. I do not believe the first sentence is the proper place to raise this issue and then worry about awkward qualification phrases to keep NPOV in mind (such as when someone inserted "death of a cell"). Furthermore, an abundance of medical sources do not mention death. Therefore, when we are giving a 'medical' definition, it isn't that odd to keep a similar wording. To top things off, we then present the 'common' usage of the word that clearly mentions death, and references not only late term abortions (<2%) but we also mention abortions on viable fetuses (~.08%). If anything, that is giving undue weight to such a minor occurrence in the first paragraph. But I thought it was a good compromise to make it clear the different usages of the word abortion, and what each definition covers. I think the confusion is that the first medical definition covers "abortion"(1). While the second common usage covers "the induced abortion procedure"(2). You can have an induced abortion procedure (2) any point during a pregnancy, but technically, the ~.08% of abortion procedures (2) on viable fetuses are not "abortion"(1). Just like stillbirths are not abortion (1). Really, to look at this more objectively, go to some medical journals that deal with livestock and see how they use these terms there. --Andrew c 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Question, should "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure." be changed to "such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures." Given there is more than one late-term procedure; I'm guessing it should be plural. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that all late-term abortion procedures are controversial. Alienus 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't. So there. Actually, 2 issues. 1st is that it would be true to say all abortion procedures are controversial, so it's essentially a meaningless qualification. 2nd, those that are performed to save a woman's life are relatively as controversial as standard abortions.--Pro-Lick 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True; but I read into that LTA are especially controversial. Would adding "especially" be clarifying? Or overdoing it? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual procedures used to perform life-saving LTA's are used to perform any kind of LTA, so I'm not sure what you mean. For that matter, I don't think that most LTA's are actually life-saving. I thought they're mostly from women who, for a variety of reasons, didn't get an abortion earlier. Alienus 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there is more than one type of LTA procedure; therefore there are multiple procedures, meaning proceedure should be pluralized and the sentence tweaked to reflect that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. "Especially" does not. Maybe if controversial gets used excessively, it will be needed.--Pro-Lick 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"controversial but rare"

I propose dropping "controversial but rare."

• A mention of a "controversy" should explain what's controverted and who's doing the controverting. A freestanding "controversy" is meaningless.

• "Rare" is a vague and relative word (relative to what)? It is a word lifted from debates where one is advocating the right to obtain a late term abortion, or arguing against laws that would restrict such abortions. The Late term abortion article itself doesn't call these abortions rare. patsw 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. LTA's are both more controversial than early abortions and much rarer. Alienus 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortions performed when the fetus is viable are estimated to be around 0.08%. Abortion performed after 20 weeks is estimated to be around 1.4%. p. 12 The LTA article is only about a week old and needs work. I personally felt it was important to mention how common abortions with viable fetuses are. Maybe the opening paragraph isn't the best place, and maybe the word "rare" is vague, but I'm not sure dropping the adjectives without replacing them with some other sort of modifier would help clarify things. --Andrew c 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just changed:

• such as the controversial but rare late-term abortion procedure.

to:

• in controversial but rare late-term abortion procedures.

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

The mention of a freestanding controversy is meaningless. Is the controversy that after viability, the choice made is to deliver a dead corpse rather than a living human baby? patsw 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a false choice; so not exactly. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, I posted the .08% quote. Can you cite a source that claims there are thousands of abortions with viable fetuses each year? If something happens under 1%, I would consider it rare. So clearly abortions on viable fetuses are rare (by my standards). What standards are you using?--Andrew c 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what matters here is not percentages, but what medical professionals precisely call procedures on potentially viable fetuses. Do they say "abortion", or something longer than abortion? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A rare event in the United States is not .08% and I dispute that number is that low. If a low number is used, it's 18,000, the actual number is likely 25,000 because of the distortions in the data collection process (i.e. undercounting such abortions by improperly recording the gestational age of the fetus). Any cause of death above 1,000 deaths should not be called "rare". patsw 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV, but I'll stick with Einstein and everything is relative. In addition, this an exhibition of why I object to the use of "death". Patsw equivocates on it as if these deaths are somehow equivalent to the deaths of people.--Pro-Lick 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree on what the word "rare" means. .08% is still very low. Why do you dispute AGI's estimate? I agree that there method is a little rough. They make an estimate total number of abortions (because the CDC only covers what is reported, and there are around 13 IIRC reporting areas that do not report). And then use the CDC's proportions for gestational age and apply them to their new total estimate. Do you have any data that contradicts AGI's findings? Are you saying that there is a disproportionately large number of abortions past 24 weeks that are unreported? Do you have proof? Next, you are completely wrong with the 18,000 number. AGI estimated that there were 1.29 million abortions that took place in 2002 (roughly 450,000 more than were reported to the CDC in that year). The CDC's report, which is based on hard numbers, said that 1.4% of abortions took place after 20 weeks. So you take the CDC's hard number, and apply it to AGI's estimate and you get 18,000. The place where you are wrong is that saying past 20 weeks is equal to viability. AGI estimates that there were only .08% of all abortions that actually took place after 24 weeks. That is an estimate 1032 abortions (probably after viability) out of 1.29 million. Why do you saythat 25 times as many abortions took place after viability than estimated?--Andrew c 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: adopt the new opening paragraph or not?

Moved from main talk page, as discussion only refers to the 1st paragraph

Current opening:

• An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

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

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

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

• Adopt new opening: Andrew c
• Adopt new opening: Alienus
• Adopt new opening: RoyBoy * (I'd like contro/rare sentence tweaked, mainly on grounds that its awkward, use perhaps "at any stage of pregnancy with rare late-term abortion procedures." Then put controversy in the last sentence like: "human abortion is controversial so it receives the most focus..." - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Adopt new opening: Pro-Lick
• Adopt new opening: GTBacchus
• Adopt new opening: AvB (as stated here)
• Adopt new opening (except the inaccurate word "nonviable" since viable fetuses are aborted): ____G_o_o_d____
• Adopt new opening (except with Goodandevil's proposal): --WikiCats 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reject new opening, "nonviable" is inaccurate, the obfuscation of the biological fact of death is POV. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reject new opening, wandered into this discussion, some extremely premature babies are more viable than people might think. Give the modern day medical profession some credit eh? Homestarmy 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  By rejecting their definition? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• Oppose the new definition and support the old. Numerically those who prefer the euphemism termination over the accurate word death, dominated the discussion in Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and declared consensus. patsw 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

Fortunately, Alienus, it is not for you to decide who gets a vote and who doesn't. If there is anything in Wikipedia policy to say that an editor in good standing, who has edited extensively in a particular article, has not left that article but has been busy in the last few days with other articles is to have her vote declared null and void because another editor alerted her about the vote (which she was already aware of anyway), you can be assured that I will abide by that policy. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When you make a major change to the opening that was discussed on a seperate talk page that many editors have likely not seen, you will likely find that many editors have no idea what is being proposd, so it is not really accurate to claim "consensus". If the version is a consensus version it will become clear. Alerting editors who have edited this article in the past is no crime. Trying to spring a new opening (that was created on a hidden subpage) on everyone during an article freeze is problematic. Asking editors to weigh in is not. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's nothing honourable in recruiting editors who are sympathetic to one's cause, but there's nothing dishonourable in it either, as long as they're not meatpuppets who joined Wikipedia for the purpose of making an extra three reverts per day for your cause. And if Alienus thinks it's dishonourable to recruit editors who are likely to support him, it rather puzzling that he does it himself — see this and this. AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting the opinion of other editors who have not worked on the paragraph is a sham if targeted to bolster a specific POV. To solicit input without introducing bias, editors should use the relevant procedures (surveys, RfCs). The general idea (and I'm sure AnnH, as an admin, will agree) is that the number of editors with specific personal POVs should ideally reflect the ratios found in the general population. When in doubt, consult the policies. Meanwhile I'm copying the following verbatim from the Wikipedia:Consensus guideline. AvB ÷ talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

Also see Wikipedia:Single purpose account for considerations relating to brand new users who appear and immediately engage in an specific issue.

• m:Polls are evil - Didn't we discuss this thoroughly enough that this isn't necessary? Obviously, I support adopting the new version. I think it's probably rude to insert other editors' assumed votes, Good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The 4 editors I listed above unequivocally voiced there support to adopt it. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I think it is a terrible practice to insert someone's vote. People already voiced their opinion on the talk subpage. Here are some people G&E missed: "PS - I support this definition. DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "I could support it as well... AnnH ♫ 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)" "unless someone comes up with a better solution I will support it. (I can't think of any right now.) AvB ÷ talk 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)" "This seems a good idea for a compromise, although I would propose slight changes to the suggestion... Spaully°τ 16:08, 3 April 2006 (GMT)". We implimented Spaully's changes. Like I said above, AnnH was reluctant, but seemed to support this as a compromise. G&E even supports it minus the one word "nonviable". The only person who has been critical is patsw, however I haven't really figured out what the problem (maybe something to do with the d-word. he seems to want to define abortion by a fetus dying, and nothing else).

So why do I think we need the word "nonviable"? Because there is a huge practice of defining abortion this way in medical literature. Since this definition is clearly qualified as a medical definition, I do not see why this is a problem. If we remove "nonviable" we are removing this definition. And maybe we need to argue out again why we need to include a medical/technical definition, as opposed to having the whole article deal with the induced abortion procedure in humans. (you may want to see how the word "abortion" is used technically in journals that deal with livestock. should we ignore this definition completely just? I say no)--Andrew c 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Medically speaking, an abortion of a viable fetus is still considered an abortion (unless it is called manslaughter - but I think most here would reject that label for this article as too POV) and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.____G_o_o_d____ 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

And speaking of lesser Evils, he just tried to revert back to the death-laden definition, which would have been a step backwards. I wonder if he has any excuse at all. Alienus 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the "new opening paragraph" that's subject to this vote? Please specify by posting on top of the poll.

Having asked that, any version containing "nonviable" is of course factually inaccurate (and hence no consensus can put it here), while any version that tries to cover up the biological fact of death is POV.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not factually inaccurate to say a medical definition defines it that way when, well the vast majority of medical definitions define it that way. It is POV, but since it is qualified as to who says this, I don't think it is a problem. On top of that, there is a second common definition, that specifically says it occurson viable fetuses, and links to late-term abortion. Note, there are only an estimate .08% of all abortions with viable fetuses. If anything, mentioning viablitiy and linking to LTA is giving this issue undue weight in the first paragraph. Finally, the second common definition clearly says death. Both of your issues are addressed in the proposal. While it is POV to specifically focus on the death of the fetus, it is also POV to focus on the medical definition. Since we do both, it seems to me to be a ballanced compromise. So what is your specific concern? Do you feel that including the medical definition is problematic? do you not like seeing it first and would rather have the more common definition in the opening sentence? or do you have an argument why we should ignore the technical, medical POV in an article covering a term sometimes used in a technical, medical context?--Andrew c 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I think the consensus definition, if anything, goes too far in placating the pro-lifers. LTA's are such a rarity that any mention of them near the top is undue. In any case, it is my estimate that these people will not settle for anything less than a grossly misleading definition on top that emphasizes death. Alienus 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Viable fetuses are aborted:

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

____G_o_o_d____ 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It's common sense that some fetuses would be still alive. --WikiCats 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two items:

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

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

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

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

Hmm... interesting suggestion. I agree with the reasoning (and I, among others, were having issues with that "controversial but rare/LTA" part. ) However, the placement of your proposed clause "at any stage of pregnacy" would need to be moved to the sentence about the common usage, or we defeat the purpose of differntiating between two different definitions. Maybe including two definitions is making matters worse (althought the near concensus we had on the talk subpage speaks otherwise), but I felt that to cover all cases of what a newspaper and what a medical journal would consider "abortion" we needed to do something to make sure miscarriages were included, but stillbirths were not.--Andrew c 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the people not quite happy with the rare/LTA thing, but I think that giving both the medical and lay definitions is very clearly the right approach. The fact that it offends only the most extreme of anti-choice zealots shows that it's accurate and neutral.

To raise one point that Pro-lick has been known to make, requirements such as verifiability and neutrality are not subject to vote or consensus. At this point, the text that was reverted to by Str1977 is entirely unacceptable on the basis of those two requirements, so there is no way it can be kept. The reason we're working on getting your text accepted officially is to prevent the almost inevitable edit war that Str1977 and his cohort will launch at the drop of a hat. The secondary reason is to get constructive criticism to improve the text before we permanently insert it.

In short, I am disgusted by Str1977's attempt to edit-war this issue instead of discussing it, and I'm disgusted by Evil's attempt to stack the vote. The process has failed, which leaves us only to do the right thing. Alienus 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, if Late term abortion is only opposed by "The most extreme of anti-choice zealots" what are the less extreme pro-lifers opposing and how is whatever that is more controversial than LTA? Homestarmy 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Homestarmy, do you oppose all abortions?--Pro-Lick 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be a sham if friends of Goodandevil with no prior history on Wikipedia joined for the puropse of voting for what he voted for, and reverted to his version. It could also be considered improper if Goodandevil contacted all the people in the Pro-Life Wikipedian category, if that category still exists, and if lots of them descended on this article to vote, having had no prior history here. If people like DonaNobisPacem, Str1977, and myself, who are known to have a longstanding involvement in this article, are alerted to the vote, which they either had already seen would have seen, I see nothing wrong with that. As of yesterday (the server is running a day behind) Str1977 had 295 contributions to abortion and abortion talk combined (not counting subpages). DonaNobisPacem had 163. I had 128. You had 60. "Evil" is a very strong word, and borders on a personal attack. Most people reserve that word for things like murder, rape, etc. Couldn't you just say you think it is wrong? Alerting a few likeminded people who are already established editors and who might be considered likely to revert to your version or vote for what you want is certainly not a blockable offence, unless you think that Alienus should be blocked for this? AnnH ♫ 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see I made a general statement without the proper qualifiers. I have removed my statement since you have such problems with it and posted a politically correct version above (below Good's statement to which it responds). AvB ÷ talk 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The first I knew of Goodandevil alerting others to the vote was when I clicked on "last change" on the new messages bar, and saw a not untypical sneer from Alienus suggesting that three editors who did have a prior history on this page (two of whom had an extensive history) should get one vote between them.[24] Some time later I saw your post, which did not have the addition that you subsequently made (after I had replied to it), in which you called his action "evil". (Note inserted later: I see you have now removed it. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) I think you could have chosen a better word. The "polls are evil" phrase is an established one here on Wikipedia, and is not likely to be taken personally. I think people here might take it personally, though, if I described their comments or their behaviour as evil (which I would not do). I would describe canvassing for votes as "not the done thing"; I would not describe it as evil, particularly when referring to someone who is currently blocked and is able to read all this without posting. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good is blocked? Anyway, I've already refactored the "evil" comment. But please stop the repetitive "guilt by association" ploy by mentioning other editors. I am not a part of anyone's cabal and suggesting I am is an ad hominem attack, unlike calling policy violations evil. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that comment. I don't know on what grounds you can think that I am suggesting that you are part of anyone's cabal. Let me make it clear that I do not and did not think that. I felt that Alienus's post to me was rude. I felt that your choice of the word "evil" about Goodandevil's action was too strong. I do not in any sense associate you with Alienus. My introduction to this debate was in seeing a general outcry against a few perfectly visible requests (he could have used e-mail), which in the case of Alienus extended to those who had received the request. It's hardly worth squabbling about. I appreciate also that you were unaware that Goodandevil was blocked. Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I would not feel comfortable in allowing lots of brand new users to vote. That's an invitation to sockpuppetry, but perhaps you meant users who are new to the article rather than to Wikipedia? AnnH ♫ 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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