This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
This has to do with the NZ study in the PAS section. I couldn't tell from either the statement or the abstract. Also, I do not see where you get this info from the article. Can you please provide a quote here? LCP 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I could not find support in the cited refs for, "The New Zealand researchers admitted to not asking subjects if they had previous psychiatric illnesses, and further complicating the study, admit that women must claim psychiatric or physical illness in order to have an abortion in New Zealand." Were they interrogated? To whom did they do the "admitting"?
Also, although in a journal, the first cited source of criticism of the study comes from "Dr Ellie Lee is a ... co-ordinator of Pro-Choice Forum." How is this not POV??? LCP 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "Journal" in which Dr Ellie Lee's comments were published, "Abortion Review", is published by bpas, "The laading provider of abortion services in the U.K." LCP 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The title of the "Heath effects" section was recently retitled to "Risks and side effects." I realize that there has been some discussion about this above, however, I feel that the change disregards the consensus set almost two years ago in November 2005 (see Archive 13, " mental health section drop off"). The section was formerly titled "Health risks," but was altered to "Heath effects," in order to accommodate the possibility of positive effects related to mental health. The title "Risks and side effects" is a step back in terms of inclusivity as it does not reflect the full scope of the "Mental health" sub-section. I will thus retitle it to "Health considerations" in the hope of addressing some of the concerns over the ambiguity of the word "effects" expressed above. - Severa 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect to the work you've done on the Abortion page, Severa, I believe this particular section needs a fresh look and a overhaul. Undo weight is certainly put on PAS and depression. I agree that the section is too long. But the way to proceed is to write fresh paragraph that is more balanced.
Andrew C had a very good suggestion - we should put the negative and positive mental health effects in context. The following is Andrew C's paragraph with some minor modifications I have made:
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community with studies resulting in various conclusions. [1] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence) Most researchers have found that there has not been a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. Some researchers have found that abortion has a positive mental impact, while others have found abortion has negative effects on women. A handful of studies have proposed a psychological syndrome, sometimes called "post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome", although the APA does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
What do others think? -- IronAngelAlice 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Two more suggestions: From what I recall (Yes I'm going off memory right now) studies showed that other factors were highly, some said exclusively, affective concerning whether a woman experienced negative effects post-abortion. Secondly, what about neutral effects? That seems to have been omitted. Btw, feel free to simply edit your rewrite above below, as no one else has commented.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most researchers have found that there is no causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [2] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence) Studies have been conducted in several countries and cultures with varying research methods. As a result, some researchers have concluded that abortion has negative effects on women, [3] [4] while other researchers have found abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women. [5] [6] [7] [8] It has also been suggested that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have suggested that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most research has not found a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [10] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence)
otherMost research suggests abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women's mental health. [5] [6] [7]. [8] However, other research has concluded that abortion has negative effects on women's mental health [11] [12] Some researchalsosuggests that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have suggested that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
(I struck the term "other" and replaced it with "most" so that the third sentence is parallel with the second sentence. I also reverted the order so that the paragraph is more clear.)
-- IronAngelAlice 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Anymore comments/suggestions/problems? If no one objects, I'd like to replace the current paragraph either tomorrow or the next day. -- IronAngelAlice 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi LCP. The language in the third paragraph is supported by the citation in the second paragraph. My reason for changing "some" to "most" was for stylistic reasons - so that the third sentence flows from the second sentence. Nevertheless, let me try to accommodate your concerns. Also, I will change "suggests" to concludes" where it is relevant. However, with the Norwegian and Finnish studies, "suggests" is a better term. Last, I understand that you prefer the current paragraph. However, lots of people have suggested that what is currently written is disjointed and presents no context. I hope more people will give input.
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most research has not found a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [13] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence)
otherMany scientific studies have concluded abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women's mental health. [5] [6] [7]. [8] However, some research has concluded that abortion has negative effects on women's mental health [14] [15] Norwegian and Finnish researchers have suggested that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have concluded that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
-- IronAngelAlice 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. We've drafted a good paragraph considering the bulk of the information for this section should be contained in separate pages that deal with PAS or mental health after abortion. If there are no further objects, I will replace the current section with the above paragraph. -- IronAngelAlice 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The long-standing version of the "Mental health" sub-section is a lot more even-handed than the version which was recently inserted into the article. It weighed the evidence on all sides — positive, negative, and neutral — while still managing to remain both cohesive and concise. The proposed version is a step back, in that it does not really touch upon the subject in much depth, being composed mainly of short, conclusive statements. I think that this is most emphasized by the italicized "not" in the second sentence. I don't think we can achieve any balance through such truncated coverage or afford potential readers an understanding of the topic by brushing it over.
If there are unresolved problems with the long-standing text, then let's try to work around what we already have, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. The main issue at hand appears to be that the "Mental health" section doesn't present the information that the conclusion of most in the scientific community is that there is no causal relationship between elective abortion and poor mental health. This could be easily addressed in a similar fashion as is done in the "Breast cancer" sub-section. All that would be needed would be a single sentence stating what the current scientific consensus is, and, perhaps, another stating that the PAS/abortion-mental health issue is sometimes perceived as being more political than scientific in nature. This solution worked in the "Breast cancer" sub-section, so it could definitely be made to work in the "Mental health" sub-section, too.
I think we should concentrate on writing these two sentences, which can be worked into the existing structure, rather than trying to rewrite it all from scratch. The section has been re-written from the ground up many times in the past two years, and it would be nice for it to have some long-term stability, as that's one of the requirements of a Featured Article. I'd like to see this article achieve FA status one day, and, if Atheism, Global warming, and Intelligent design can serve as any indication, then that's not something that is out of reach for an article on a polarizing topic. There's a lot left unfinished on the to-do list, but, I think we can still improve the article to FA quality if we use our time efficiently. I think we can do this by addressing what needs to be addressed, directly, and avoiding — as the adage goes — "trying to fix what ain't broke." We are never going to have 100% approval from 100% of people when dealing with a topic like abortion, but, if we can get up to 75%, I think we've done our job. - Severa 09:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I replaced the top paragraph of the "Mental Health" section with the paragraph we crafted here on the talk page. (I left the other paragraphs in place.) You have reverted this change. Forgive me, but I'm confused. Is it that you do not believe that the section should be changed at all (which is what you suggested above), or that you believe what we have written is inaccurate? You suggest we make changes first in the talk page, and I've done that consistently, yet you revert our agreed upon changes. I don't quite understand... -- IronAngelAlice 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I get the distinct impression I am being bullied :( -- IronAngelAlice 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone out there have any thoughts about the proposal I made here? Beyond the needs of this page, I wonder if there shouldn’t be a Wiki page for use by all Wikipedia editors. Thoughts? Anyone? LCP 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Royalguard11 unprotected the page stating: Page protected for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary. I think by judging by the recent page history, and the controversial aspect of this topic, that this page will always be the target of anon vandals. As WP:PROT says, Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush, I'd support re-instating semi-protection. But before I am too bold in using my admin tools, I wanted to run it by others to see if there were objections.- Andrew c [talk] 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Support!. Please semi-protect. LCP 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support. Looking at the article's history, in the last couple of days, there has been a significant increase in the number of hit-and-run edits. This, ultimately, just spells a lot of mopping-up for the regular editors of this article as well as for the RC patrollers. I do think that the majority of unconstructive edits like "Jacob ROCKS! West Podunk High FOREVER!" are preventable through indefinite semi-protection. - Severa ( !!!) 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would support semi-protection for a period of a few weeks, in order to give the regular contributors a rest and dissuade the casual vandals. Can such things be automated? Sheffield Steel talk stalk 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit history is nearing a full page consisting almost exclusively of vandalism. Sure, I'm all for trying to make Wikipedia an open, inviting place where anyone is welcome to edit, but this is just open season. I see no benefit to keeping the article unprotected other than to the sort who like inserting things such as a long paragraph full of repetition of the phrase " (copulate) me." - Severa ( !!!) 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Abortion page refers exclusively to the (usually) medical practice of aborting/terminating the human fetus. An "abortion", however, might potentially refer to a number of concepts, practices etc - any thing which has been aborted. I'm not an experienced wikipedian so please forgive me if I have missed something, and I do realise that Wiki is not a 'dictionary' - my comment is not purely about linguistic semantics, but should there not be some form of disambiguation and reference to alternate definitions of Abortion? -- Te Irirangi 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the new WatchFlickr tool I found the following image:
Pretty disturbing in my opinion, but interesting nonetheless. Would it have a place on any abortion related article(s)? - Roy Boy 800 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The topic of graphic photos has been raised a lot around here. There is, in fact, a pro-choice analogue to the photos used by the pro-life movement. However, there is a only description of the photograph of Santoro's body at her biographical article — the picture itself is not included. This is basically the same concept with the "Truth display" paragraph in the "Activism" section at Pro-life.
Wikipedia reports the use of graphic photos within the greater context of its coverage of activism for specific causes. The pictures of pro-life and pro-choice demonstrations in this article are intended to illustrate the social movements themselves. Thus, if we have a picture of people at the March for Womens' Lives to illustrate the pro-choice movement, we should logically pair it with a picture of people at a March for Life to illustrate the pro-life movement. The intent isn't to illustrate points which either movement might raise, so, really, there's no need to ensure one image counters or balances another. I imagine this is the reason why Anti-war has pictures of peace signs and anti-war demonstrations and not pictures of, say, civilian casualties of armed conflict. Beyond this, including a photo of an aborted fetus or a woman dead from unsafe abortion would be redundant, because such photos wouldn't convey anything which is not more clearly conveyed by a description of a D&E or mortality figures for unsafe abortion. The purpose such images would serve in this article would really be more argumentative than informative.
The precedent against graphic photos on the top-tier Abortion article works both ways, and, for that reason we don't link to the web sites of either Women on Waves (a Dutch pro-choice organization) or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (an American pro-life organization) from here. The use of graphic photos is a complex and very specific facet of the abortion debate, and, quite simply, we do not have the space to open up that can of worms here at Abortion. In addition to the ethical debate, we also have to try to summarize the medical, historical, statistical, and legal aspects of abortion. I would say that there is more of a case to be made for the inclusion of the pro-life van photo at Pro-life. This is where the information pertaining to the use of graphic photos within the pro-life movement is located. - Severa ( !!!) 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is new from Noam Chomsky and I think it beautifully sums things up, which is why I think it belongs here rather than elsewhere:
"You're not going to get the answers from holy texts. You're not going to the answers from biologists," he says. "These are matters of human concern." [5]
Any thoughts? LCP 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a second half to the quote: "There are conflicting values and taken in isolation each of these values is quite legitimate," he adds. "Choice is legitimate, preserving life is legitimate." You can read it in context in the article: [6]. Again, I think the quote provides an excellent intro to the section and summation of the debate. I don't see that it has pro-life or pro-choice bias.
There is also a good quote by Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard: "Everybody is right when it comes to the issue of abortion." LCP 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...although in 2006 the Chilean government began the free distribution of emergency contraception" - I don't see how this is relevant to an abortion article. Abortions are illegal in Chile, and the govt allowing emergency contraception is a separate issue. Or is this going to kick up the "emergency contraception is baby-killing" debate??? --Surfsistah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 ( talk) 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The external links section is a hodge-podge of links to groups advocating a specific position. Are those really needed? That section is growing into a linkfarm, and already a few links have appeared to groups that seem rather non-notable, at least to me. If they are needed in this article, why have such a disorganized list? It's simple to create a table with pro-choice and pro-life columns. = Axlq 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed a link (one which has been removed many times in the past) since (i) the frequency with which it appears is evidence of linkspamming, and (ii) it is not a particularly outstanding link in an area for which there are many superior to choose from (and Wikipedia is not a directory of the web). Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"The linked page adds relatively little, and the "periodically removed by the unscrupulous" comment suggests its added in bad faith." Wrong on both counts guys! Atheists don't have faith, good or bad. ;) And as for adding very little, in whose opinion? I would have thought an atheist perspective, considering the bombardment of religious perspectives would add quite a bit to the debate. AusAtheist 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Morality is wonderful, but why doesn't even this article mention the inherrent risks to future fertility that come with abortions? Politics are great and the life/choice sides have their points, but this is an encyclopedia, as in a REFERENCE source for people seeking information. Women seeking information about abortions should know of potential risks, which involve much, much more than simple depression! 128.195.186.56 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Adieu
I am struggling to understand Severa’s critieria for what should and should not go into a “Top tier article.” S has used the argument, “X should be deleted because it is too Y for a top tier article” on several occasions, and I would be grateful for a clear explication of the criteria. Please note, I respect that S has been around for a while, and I am not saying that I object to S's edits. I am saying that I do not have a acceptable grasp of the criteria and that if S could clearly explicate the guidelines, doing so would be helpful to all. Thanks in advance. LCP 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the intro to Health considerations, "sterility" is listed as one, however the study listed to support this was a study linking smoking, multiple induced abortions and secondary infertility. Since secondary fertility is when you can't become pregnant after you've already had one child, the study isn't about sterility, per se. I question the use of this study to support the general assertion that abortion causes sterility. I'm going to change "sterility" to "secondary infertility". However, the citation as it stands is unclear at best. Given that the study focuses not on abortion methods as the article states, but on multiple abortions, I question the citation in conjunction with the wording of the statement. I suggest that either the statement is clarified later in the body of the section, that someone find a more appropriate source to cite, or that the ref. be removed. Any thoughts? Phyesalis 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The section called Health considerations places undue weight on the risks of abortion. A long list of potential complications is given, without clear indication of exactly how often these risks occur, or what factors make the risk greater or lesser. I cannot find any other article on a surgical procedure that puts such great emphasis on describing the risks of the procedure in detail, and none that do so without clarifying the size of the risk.
The initial paragraphs of the section titled "Health considerations", as it was prior to my edit, are below. The changes I made begin at the top of the Health concerns section, and they end at the beginning of the paragraph that begins with the phrase, "Assessing the risks of induced abortion". Below is the part of the section, as it was:
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure, which is considered safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week under modern medical conditions. [16] [17] Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications, including perforated uterus, [18] [19] perforated bowel [20] or bladder, [21] septic shock, [22] sterility, [23] [24] [25] and death. [26] The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed. [27] [28]
Dilation of the cervix carries the risk of cervical tears or perforations, including small tears that might not be apparent and might cause cervical incompetence in future pregnancies. Most practitioners recommend using the smallest possible dilators, and using osmotic rather than mechanical dilators after the first trimester.
Instruments that are placed within the uterus can, on rare occasions, cause perforation [27] or laceration of the uterus, and damage structures surrounding the uterus. Laceration or perforation of the uterus or cervix can, again on rare occasions, lead to more serious complications.
Incomplete emptying of the uterus can cause hemorrhage and infection. Use of ultrasound verification of the location and duration of the pregnancy prior to abortion, with immediate follow-up of patients reporting continuing pregnancy symptoms after the procedure, will virtually eliminate this risk. The sooner a complication is noted and properly treated, the lower the risk of permanent injury or death.
Here are the references:
The feel of the section is that abortion is terribly dangerous. To give a long list of potential complications without putting the risks in context constitutes undue weight on the risk of abortion. We must either leave the section as it is right now, or we must clarify the size of the risk of each complication, and of all complications. Photouploaded ( talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
First, wasn't my word choice, but I support it. There has never been any credible evidence for a causal relationship. While many studies have been done on correlative relationships, the majority of studies have shown that there isn't even a correlative relationship. International consensus (first established by the 2003 NCI consensus workshop, subsequently upheld by every major cancer and gynecology org, and further verified by numerous studies after the fact, and canonized by a body of peer-review literature on the subject of junk/B.A.D.(biased, agenda driven)/pseudoscience politics) on this matter is well-established. This isn't a debate. It is an incredibly well-documented fact. Please provide some top-tier tertiary sources to back up your claim that it isn't discredited. Phyesalis ( talk) 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Until I see the appropriate change at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or sufficient logic/references explained, I'm going to continue reverting such changes, as I've done here and here. I see absolutely no reason why the wording of this paragraph should differ from what's found on the actual Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis page. Such differing messages are simply unnecessary, and confusing, for a reader. Erth64net ( talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It says in the ABC hypothesis article, "The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the abortion-breast cancer link) is a rejected theory[36][37] that posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation." I don't believe that the ABC hypothesis is a theory. Is there any scientific source that says that it is anything more then a hypothesis? That it is actually a theory? champben ( talk) 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Much work has been done by several editors on this article. The work done should be reflected on the abortion article, no? Here's what the PAS article says:
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used to describe a set of adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in women following an induced abortion. [1] Primarily a term used by pro-life advocates, [2] [3] [4] PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome, [5] and neither the American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association recognize it. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes. [6] [7]
A number of studies have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects on women. Others have found a correlation between clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions and abortion. Various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortions, may increase the likelihood of experiencing such feelings. No studies have established a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women. [8]
I moved the "fetal pain" section as it basically constitutes a POV violation. All effects in the section and subsection pertain to the woman. Inserting a section about fetal pain suggests a pro-life stance that the fetus is a person who experiences effects and thereby has considerations about their health. A fetus has no standing of personhood and is not the patient. This, I feel, is inappropriate. The section is "Health considerations", I think the fact that the fetus is killed kind of makes pain a side issue. If we discuss fetal pain, then we would then have to mention that the fetus is killed as that would seem to be more significant than disputed issues of pain. This I think that including it in the social section is more appropriate as it is not a medical issue (it has nothing to do with the patient's health) but a social one. I'm changing it back. I would appreciate discussion of this matter. Phyesalis ( talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the citation issues. This section does not comply with WP:V regarding scientific sources. I may have missed something but none of the sources discuss fetal pain as a health consideration in the context of abortion only in the context of fetal surgery (that is, wherein surgery is being performed on the fetus to save its life, not kill it). This is a SYN violation. Phyesalis ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Phyesalis. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If the article Fauna of Brazil gave the information, "The north of Brazil is home to a thriving population of pandas," and listed a citation which did not support that claim (or no source at all) — this would be OR. If the the article listed a source which mentioned a couple of pandas in a zoo in Rio de Janeiro, and ran away with this fact until it arrived at a "thriving population," then this would be SYN. But, from how I read the statement "[the] sources do not contextualize fetal pain as a medical health concern for the fetus", your claim of OR/SYN seems to be an extension of your concerns over possible implications of fetal personhood in the article structure. This issue has already been dealt with above, and I don't we're going to find anything new in that regard, even if we try approaching it from a different angle. -Severa ( !!!) 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree that the "fetal pain" section ought to be moved out of the "health considerations" section. This is a topic that is best dealt with under the category "abortion debate." Along with Photouploaded, LotR, and Phyesalis, I would support reverting that section back to the Nov. 25, 2007 version. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, the topic of Fetal Pain has been moved out of the Health Considerations section as discussed, but some editors have used this a stepping stone toward pushing a POV. I have reverted back to the last reasonable version. The edits occurring since then are not what I would call minor -- please discuss them here before making any further changes of this magnitude. LotR ( talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with the new headers introduced by Photouploaded -- they seem an improvement to the article. LotR ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the fetus cannot experience pain is absurd. If a premature baby born three months early experiences pain, the same baby would have felt pain in the womb. Just because a man who is a physician suggests it, that does not make it so. Thomas Verny and Arthur Janov have evidence to the contrary. The doctor who says a fetus does not feel pain has no evidence at all. Being a physician does not make a suggestion scientific. Evidence is necessary. You think a suggestion should be allowed but erase actual evidence? davidio, 1 February, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed it. Where does the Breast cancer page provide an overview of ABC? I'm thinking that since ABC has been rejected, there really isn't much of a reason to link to breast cancer, this seems kind of POV. I didn't see an overview over there, so I'm going to remove link. If the overview is there, maybe, but I don't see what the point would be since the actual article of ABC gives the whole view. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I can't find the logic in your argument. ABC was a hypothesis, not even a theory, that has been debunked. Abortion has nothing to do with Breast Cancer. The problem with the ABC hypothesis is that it is used almost entirely in a political way, not a medical one. Therefore, to "provide a medical overview free from the trap of politics" about ABC is not possible. It would be best not to confuse breast cancer and abortion.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Roy, I chose the word "debunked" because ABC is used as a political tool, not a medical one. My word choice was reflecting the political reality. But "debunked" also holds true for the current medical reality in the context of those who are trying to force political views on to science. According to the National Cancer Institute (among others), early research on ABC was "flawed," and "The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk." Therefore, when folks with political aims make medical claims (including Brind et al), I think it appropriate to use the word "debunked." It is especially important to women who may be at risk for Breast cancer to understand the true risk factors. To distract them with the ABC hypothesis seems almost cruel.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm unclear about your point.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Debunked" is usually a political term.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Ok, in a vacuum, the rejected hypothesis might be plausible, however, in the real world, the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary (including evidence that abortion may actually reduce risk in some groups) makes the hypothesis implausible. But we digress, using present tense is the preferred course, we all seem to agree on this (if I've missed a current objection, please feel free to point it out). To deny the plausibility may be degrading to some, but that's not WP's problem - the (documented) truth is that the hypothesis is rejected and implausible. The very suggestion of the causal hypothesis has been deemed illogical and irresponsible. So if those who are unfamiliar with the science behind the issue find the hypothesis's rejection degrading, they should familiarize themselves with the science. A reader's sense of degradation, particularly if, as has been suggested, that sense comes from a lack of exposure to the scientific community's response to bad science, is not a reason to censor or dilute WP articles. WP does not censor and is not concerned with readers' issues of degradation. Phyesalis ( talk) 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about
unsafe abortion is currently spread out over three I discovered another one, four sections:
None of these sections adequately address why women resort to these methods. My guess is that legal restrictions are a significant factor, as are poverty, lack of insurance coverage, and lack of access to medical facilities. Social or religious pressure to refrain from obtaining abortion may also play a role. I would like to see this information consolidated, fleshed out, and presented more fully. I'm looking for feedback before I leap into this: Any suggestions on how to approach this? Photouploaded ( talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Back-alley abortion" is a slang term for any abortion not practiced under generally accepted standards of sanitation and professionalism. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines an unsafe abortion as being, "a procedure...carried out by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both." This can include a person without medical training, a professional health provider operating in sub-standard conditions, or the woman herself.
Unsafe abortion remains a public health concern today due to the higher incidence and severity of its associated complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs. WHO estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world annually and that 68,000 of these result in the woman's death. Complications of unsafe abortion are said to account, globally, for approximately 13% of all maternal mortalities, with regional estimates including 12% in Asia, 25% in Latin America, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa. A 2007 study published in the The Lancet found that, although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. Health education, access to family planning, and improvements in health care during and after abortion have been proposed to address this phenomenon.
(undent) Look, I am not sure what the best way to handle this is but I am pretty sure that deleting it outright (as you did before) is not a good idea. Photouploaded ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the info in this article's Fetal Pain section is different from the information on the Fetal Pain page. I propose changing our section to reflect what is on the fetal pain page. The following is taken from the fetal pain page directly (though edited for summary form):
Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are debated politically and academically, particularly in regards to the abortion debate.
A 2005 American study, conducted by neurobiologists and pediatricians concluded that "...fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques." [9] With the encouragement of President Ronald Reagan, in 1984 a small group of physicians argued that the ability of a fetus to feel pain appears as early as seven weeks after conception. [10] Most medical researchers agree pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy or until after birth. [11]
There may be an "emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections" (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain. [12] Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established. [12] According to Arthur Caplan, "there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable. Some put the point at 28 weeks. Others say 26 or 24 and still others younger still." [13]
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Just a general question on sub-section linking, is it appropriate for the lead and/or being in other articles? I'm looking at: "Nevertheless, the subject continues to be one of mostly political but some scientific debate." and linking political to the ABC article sub-section "Politicization". - Roy Boy 800 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this article no longer meets the neutrality and stability required for GA status. I have brought it to WP:GAR for reassessment. -Severa ( !!!) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I agree with Severa that this article does not meet the guidelines on neutrality and stability. For example, the article cites studies without revealing the non-neutral affiliations of the authors. One such study was the subject of a full article in the New York Times about the non-neutrality of the authors, and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention the non-neutrality in the footnotes. See "Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties" (August 26, 2005). In typically biased language, the Wikipedia abortion article refers to "medical researchers notably from the American Medical Association" when in fact the study was merely published in JAMA, and "AMA disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material or for any damages arising out of the use or non-use of any of the material and any information contained therein." [12] Click on another footnoted link in this Wikipedia article, and the first thing you see is an advertisement for "Abortion to 24 Weeks". [13]
Another example of the non-neutrality of the present article involves the images. Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, this Wikipedia abortion article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus. Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", as do pro-life groups, and yet this word has been deliberately removed from this article (giving the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later).
A further example of problems with this Wikipedia article involves jargon. Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." There's no problem using jargon, which is sometimes more specific and less ambiguous, but this Wikipedia article avoids even parentheticals on first use saying something like "also commonly known as (non-jargon term)." For instance, in the lead paragraph, there is no explanation of what "viability" means, no explanation of the difference between the words "embryo" and "fetus", and no mention that the technical word "uterus" is also commonly known as a "womb."
A related problem with the article is that it provides almost no information about what is being aborted (technically called the "abortus"). The average abortion occurs at the beginning of the fetal period, so a good article would summarize some of the info at the fetus article, or at least (as mentioned above) explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo.
Moreover, the article contains POV statements like the following: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week." Two words could be inserted to remove the POV: "safer for women." As one admin said, “Those two words don't push anything, but leaving them out does.” Nevertheless, those two words have been removed. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's be intellectually honest. Any discussion of the fetus carries political rather than medical concerns. The political strategies of the pro-life movement is to focus attention on the fetus. However, this article is about the abortion procedure, not about the fetus. If you want to have a discussion about the fetus, you should probably do so on the fetus page.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree! And in this case, the relevant biological facts concern the procedure only, not the "fetus" or "abortus."-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This has now been delisted: the GAR discussion will be automatically moved to the GAR archives in just under an hour. The article currently fails WP:LEAD, and also neutrality issues were raised. Some of these were minor and/or trivial, but others were not adequately answered. Good luck fixing this. I surely know that controversial articles such as this are extremely difficult to raise to good article status, and this one is much better than many that come to GAR. Please renominate at GAN once the issues are resolved. Geometry guy 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph which describes the "Breast cancer hypothesis" is one of the worst disgraces of one-sided politicking I have yet to have seen on Wikipedia. Just two points:
Here’s a new study published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which – without speculating on the causes - seems to conclude that abortion is "the best predictor of breast cancer". That seems to imply that there might be a causal relationship (rather than a direct relationship) and argue against it being a rejected hypothesis.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf Rune X2 ( talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Rune, please look at the archives on this topic. In fact, it is a "rejected hypothesis," by the majority of non-biased researchers in the field. According to the (American) National Cancer Institute, it is well established that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)"( [15])
See also:
Medical studies:
The folks who continue the ABC hypothesis, like Joel Brind have been shown to do so for religious reasons. For more information about the politics of the ABC hypothesis, please see the following:
For further discussion on the topic, please see the ABC-hypothesis talk page
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This section is ancillary and seems to give undo weight to a very rare occurrence. I move we remove it.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be out of place. It isn't really a "health consideration." -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week. [14] [15] Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications. [16] [17] The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed. [18] [19]
Women typically experience minor pain during first-trimester abortion procedures. In a 1979 study of 2,299 patients, 97% reported experiencing some degree of pain. Patients rated the pain as being less than earache or toothache, but more than headache or backache. [20]
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting to see much thought has gone into the content of the lead, but seemingly little into its length, or lack of. Everywhere I look I see massive articles with absurdly small leads. I have seen one sentence leads, but this is getting 'up there' with the best. I really wish people who make these assessments, especially GA (and to a lesser extent FA - they seem to have some comprehension of the issue) would take more notice of this problem. Richard001 ( talk) 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me so far, except the # per year - the source is from 1999 I notice, should we hunt for newer? and should we even have that in the lead? And if we do, IMO we should specify "worldwide". Thoughts? KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed the lead definition because it was long, unwieldy and repetitive. I'm fine with the switch back to "medical" from "medicinal" but I feel like the revert just put the definition back to the old same verbose place. Andrew, I know you just switched it back, but would you mind discussing this? Phyesalis ( talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: There is related discussion at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, going over the recommended list, the discussion centers primarily on death, and I find that a number of sources bear closer scrutiny:
To address the number of discounted examples I pulled the unique def sources from the first page search for “medical dictionary:
So, I get: 12 for no – 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25b; 4 for yes – 4, 5, 17, 21; 3 for mixed – 18, 19, 25a; and not counting 7 – 2 (not found but source site is #3), 6 (1911), 7 (1913), 10 (repeat of 9), 11 (Vet), 14 (r of 9), 15 (not a def, but argument for death, and not viability). Not much of an argument for a clear trend for viability. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, there is a trend. I agree, and I'm certainly up for outside input. But I think we might be able to work this out. Again, not against the word being in the lead, just don't like the way it was used globally so as to exclude forms of selective and therapeutic abortion right off the bat. I'm thinking maybe a little rewording of "Definitions" and maybe a new title like "Types"? You up for letting me take a whack at and then some friendly WP:BRD? Phyesalis ( talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, there are surely other users watching this, could someone offer a 3rd opinion?- Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Okay, as I understand it, the disagreement is as follows. The lead paragraph used to have a sentence like this: "Abortion can refer to an induced procedure at any point during human pregnancy; it is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability" (emphasis added). However, it's been changed to say simply that abortion can occur "at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons," without mentioning viability. The cited sources remain the same: " Merriam Webster’s Online Medical Dictionary. See also The Free Dictionary which includes definitions from Dorland's Medical Dictionary and from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary."
Unless I'm mistaken, Phyesalis supports the current wording without "viability" whereas Andrew c thinks "viability" should go back in. It seems clear from the cited sources that "abortion" is often defined without being limited to instances before viability. But "abortion" sometimes is instead defined with that limitation; for example, Dorland's says: "expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable." And it seems that Dorland's is very clear about what the word "viability" means: "able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth."
So, in my opinion, this article should mention somewhere (either in the lead paragraph or in the footnote of the lead paragraph) that "abortion" is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability. And, it could also be mentioned in the footnote that "viability" means "able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth." [16] Sound reasonable? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following for the time being:
My first issue is that the text clearly isn't global and seems to only apply to the Abortion in the United States article. My next concern is that we don't have a citation for the 64% statistic. Next, there has been a huge amount of controversy regarding the Elliot Institute being a reliable source or not (see the talk page for David Readon and Post-abortion syndrome). If we had a more notable or scholarly source, it would be better. Also, the section doesn't seem balanced, in the both sources (paprolife.org and Elliot Institute) are pro-life, and we don't cite a neutral source, nor do we cite a pro-choice response. But like I said in my first concern, if we don't have a source that makes this an international issue, I don't believe it warrants being in the top tier article, and this discussion should move to the US centric page. Also, if the only sources of information on this are from pro-life sources, and the term itself only gets 5,000 google hits, I'm concerned about notability of this issue. This topic needs to be researched further.- Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I know a lot of you are going to grown, but I do not believe that the issue of using the word "death" in the first sentence was fully resolved per the previous discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Neutrality_of_the_first_paragraph and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_2#medical_sources
I don't understand why we cannot resolve it now by simply having the first sentence say, "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in the termination of a pregnancy." I mention this because the suggested terminology is taken Dictionary.com which has changed it's definition to "termination" from one that included the word "death." This seems significant to me. Also, the American Heritage dictionary never used the term "death." The American Heritage definition is: "The ending of pregnancy and expulsion of the embryo or fetus, generally before the embryo or fetus is capable of surviving on its own."
With these definitions in mind, please look at the previous inventory of definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_2#medical_sources
Because prominent sites, including the Miriam-Webster dictionary as well as the majority of medical sources use the "termination" terminology - we should probably change the first sentence. As it stands now, I believe as others have said that "death" carries too many connotations. This is 2008, our sources have changed their definitions.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Take it to the feticide article, please. Don't start that war here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fishie instructed me to see the talk page in undoing my edit. I'm here, and I don't see a darn thing explaining Fishie's edit. I'm assuming Fishie just hasn't gotten around to posting it here. So Fishie, what's your reasoning? KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the introduction to the article claims "In some medical contexts, elective abortion is defined as occurring before the point of viability." However, the reference makes no mention of elective abortion - at least I can't find it. Both sources give definitions of abortion but neither mentions elective abortion as something that occurs before the point of viability. Am I wrong? I thought I should check here before editing. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In a nutshell - and very coarsely worded - therapeutic is for the health of the mother - the pregnant woman might die - and elective is not. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I'm fine with removing it. -- Phyesalis ( talk) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Right, that's why I changed it - I guess that's why I'm confused. Do you have objections to the current version? - Phyesalis ( talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this addition to fetal pain is undue weight. The book is a how-to guide for expecting mothers, is 25 years old, and is used in a generic refutation "this is in complete contradiction of Verney's book". I think it should go or be reworded. - Phyesalis ( talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - At the moment, the article has a section telling us about the incidence of induced abortion that comes before the section that describes the different types of abortion - spontaneous and induced. That appears the wrong way round. Surely we should reorganise this? Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For discussion and eventual inclusion in the section on abortion and mental health:
These are just a few key sources which should be included to make this section more complete.-- Strider12 ( talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
This has to do with the NZ study in the PAS section. I couldn't tell from either the statement or the abstract. Also, I do not see where you get this info from the article. Can you please provide a quote here? LCP 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I could not find support in the cited refs for, "The New Zealand researchers admitted to not asking subjects if they had previous psychiatric illnesses, and further complicating the study, admit that women must claim psychiatric or physical illness in order to have an abortion in New Zealand." Were they interrogated? To whom did they do the "admitting"?
Also, although in a journal, the first cited source of criticism of the study comes from "Dr Ellie Lee is a ... co-ordinator of Pro-Choice Forum." How is this not POV??? LCP 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "Journal" in which Dr Ellie Lee's comments were published, "Abortion Review", is published by bpas, "The laading provider of abortion services in the U.K." LCP 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The title of the "Heath effects" section was recently retitled to "Risks and side effects." I realize that there has been some discussion about this above, however, I feel that the change disregards the consensus set almost two years ago in November 2005 (see Archive 13, " mental health section drop off"). The section was formerly titled "Health risks," but was altered to "Heath effects," in order to accommodate the possibility of positive effects related to mental health. The title "Risks and side effects" is a step back in terms of inclusivity as it does not reflect the full scope of the "Mental health" sub-section. I will thus retitle it to "Health considerations" in the hope of addressing some of the concerns over the ambiguity of the word "effects" expressed above. - Severa 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect to the work you've done on the Abortion page, Severa, I believe this particular section needs a fresh look and a overhaul. Undo weight is certainly put on PAS and depression. I agree that the section is too long. But the way to proceed is to write fresh paragraph that is more balanced.
Andrew C had a very good suggestion - we should put the negative and positive mental health effects in context. The following is Andrew C's paragraph with some minor modifications I have made:
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community with studies resulting in various conclusions. [1] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence) Most researchers have found that there has not been a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. Some researchers have found that abortion has a positive mental impact, while others have found abortion has negative effects on women. A handful of studies have proposed a psychological syndrome, sometimes called "post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome", although the APA does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
What do others think? -- IronAngelAlice 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Two more suggestions: From what I recall (Yes I'm going off memory right now) studies showed that other factors were highly, some said exclusively, affective concerning whether a woman experienced negative effects post-abortion. Secondly, what about neutral effects? That seems to have been omitted. Btw, feel free to simply edit your rewrite above below, as no one else has commented.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most researchers have found that there is no causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [2] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence) Studies have been conducted in several countries and cultures with varying research methods. As a result, some researchers have concluded that abortion has negative effects on women, [3] [4] while other researchers have found abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women. [5] [6] [7] [8] It has also been suggested that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have suggested that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most research has not found a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [10] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence)
otherMost research suggests abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women's mental health. [5] [6] [7]. [8] However, other research has concluded that abortion has negative effects on women's mental health [11] [12] Some researchalsosuggests that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have suggested that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
(I struck the term "other" and replaced it with "most" so that the third sentence is parallel with the second sentence. I also reverted the order so that the paragraph is more clear.)
-- IronAngelAlice 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Anymore comments/suggestions/problems? If no one objects, I'd like to replace the current paragraph either tomorrow or the next day. -- IronAngelAlice 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi LCP. The language in the third paragraph is supported by the citation in the second paragraph. My reason for changing "some" to "most" was for stylistic reasons - so that the third sentence flows from the second sentence. Nevertheless, let me try to accommodate your concerns. Also, I will change "suggests" to concludes" where it is relevant. However, with the Norwegian and Finnish studies, "suggests" is a better term. Last, I understand that you prefer the current paragraph. However, lots of people have suggested that what is currently written is disjointed and presents no context. I hope more people will give input.
The effect induced abortion has on mental health has been studied by the medical community. Most research has not found a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress. [13] (reference is to specific page that talks about preponderance of medical evidence)
otherMany scientific studies have concluded abortion has a neutral or positive impact on women's mental health. [5] [6] [7]. [8] However, some research has concluded that abortion has negative effects on women's mental health [14] [15] Norwegian and Finnish researchers have suggested that an individual woman's stress level after receiving an abortion is influenced by her economic status, family situation, the status of her mental health before the pregnancy, and the culture within which she lives. [9] A handful of studies have concluded that some women who have an abortion suffer from a psychological syndrome, sometimes called " post-abortion syndrome" or "abortion trauma syndrome." The American Psychological Association does not recognize this syndrome and convened a panel that rejected the existence of the syndrome.
-- IronAngelAlice 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. We've drafted a good paragraph considering the bulk of the information for this section should be contained in separate pages that deal with PAS or mental health after abortion. If there are no further objects, I will replace the current section with the above paragraph. -- IronAngelAlice 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The long-standing version of the "Mental health" sub-section is a lot more even-handed than the version which was recently inserted into the article. It weighed the evidence on all sides — positive, negative, and neutral — while still managing to remain both cohesive and concise. The proposed version is a step back, in that it does not really touch upon the subject in much depth, being composed mainly of short, conclusive statements. I think that this is most emphasized by the italicized "not" in the second sentence. I don't think we can achieve any balance through such truncated coverage or afford potential readers an understanding of the topic by brushing it over.
If there are unresolved problems with the long-standing text, then let's try to work around what we already have, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. The main issue at hand appears to be that the "Mental health" section doesn't present the information that the conclusion of most in the scientific community is that there is no causal relationship between elective abortion and poor mental health. This could be easily addressed in a similar fashion as is done in the "Breast cancer" sub-section. All that would be needed would be a single sentence stating what the current scientific consensus is, and, perhaps, another stating that the PAS/abortion-mental health issue is sometimes perceived as being more political than scientific in nature. This solution worked in the "Breast cancer" sub-section, so it could definitely be made to work in the "Mental health" sub-section, too.
I think we should concentrate on writing these two sentences, which can be worked into the existing structure, rather than trying to rewrite it all from scratch. The section has been re-written from the ground up many times in the past two years, and it would be nice for it to have some long-term stability, as that's one of the requirements of a Featured Article. I'd like to see this article achieve FA status one day, and, if Atheism, Global warming, and Intelligent design can serve as any indication, then that's not something that is out of reach for an article on a polarizing topic. There's a lot left unfinished on the to-do list, but, I think we can still improve the article to FA quality if we use our time efficiently. I think we can do this by addressing what needs to be addressed, directly, and avoiding — as the adage goes — "trying to fix what ain't broke." We are never going to have 100% approval from 100% of people when dealing with a topic like abortion, but, if we can get up to 75%, I think we've done our job. - Severa 09:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I replaced the top paragraph of the "Mental Health" section with the paragraph we crafted here on the talk page. (I left the other paragraphs in place.) You have reverted this change. Forgive me, but I'm confused. Is it that you do not believe that the section should be changed at all (which is what you suggested above), or that you believe what we have written is inaccurate? You suggest we make changes first in the talk page, and I've done that consistently, yet you revert our agreed upon changes. I don't quite understand... -- IronAngelAlice 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I get the distinct impression I am being bullied :( -- IronAngelAlice 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone out there have any thoughts about the proposal I made here? Beyond the needs of this page, I wonder if there shouldn’t be a Wiki page for use by all Wikipedia editors. Thoughts? Anyone? LCP 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Royalguard11 unprotected the page stating: Page protected for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary. I think by judging by the recent page history, and the controversial aspect of this topic, that this page will always be the target of anon vandals. As WP:PROT says, Indefinite semi-protection may be used for: Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush, I'd support re-instating semi-protection. But before I am too bold in using my admin tools, I wanted to run it by others to see if there were objections.- Andrew c [talk] 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Support!. Please semi-protect. LCP 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support. Looking at the article's history, in the last couple of days, there has been a significant increase in the number of hit-and-run edits. This, ultimately, just spells a lot of mopping-up for the regular editors of this article as well as for the RC patrollers. I do think that the majority of unconstructive edits like "Jacob ROCKS! West Podunk High FOREVER!" are preventable through indefinite semi-protection. - Severa ( !!!) 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would support semi-protection for a period of a few weeks, in order to give the regular contributors a rest and dissuade the casual vandals. Can such things be automated? Sheffield Steel talk stalk 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit history is nearing a full page consisting almost exclusively of vandalism. Sure, I'm all for trying to make Wikipedia an open, inviting place where anyone is welcome to edit, but this is just open season. I see no benefit to keeping the article unprotected other than to the sort who like inserting things such as a long paragraph full of repetition of the phrase " (copulate) me." - Severa ( !!!) 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Abortion page refers exclusively to the (usually) medical practice of aborting/terminating the human fetus. An "abortion", however, might potentially refer to a number of concepts, practices etc - any thing which has been aborted. I'm not an experienced wikipedian so please forgive me if I have missed something, and I do realise that Wiki is not a 'dictionary' - my comment is not purely about linguistic semantics, but should there not be some form of disambiguation and reference to alternate definitions of Abortion? -- Te Irirangi 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the new WatchFlickr tool I found the following image:
Pretty disturbing in my opinion, but interesting nonetheless. Would it have a place on any abortion related article(s)? - Roy Boy 800 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The topic of graphic photos has been raised a lot around here. There is, in fact, a pro-choice analogue to the photos used by the pro-life movement. However, there is a only description of the photograph of Santoro's body at her biographical article — the picture itself is not included. This is basically the same concept with the "Truth display" paragraph in the "Activism" section at Pro-life.
Wikipedia reports the use of graphic photos within the greater context of its coverage of activism for specific causes. The pictures of pro-life and pro-choice demonstrations in this article are intended to illustrate the social movements themselves. Thus, if we have a picture of people at the March for Womens' Lives to illustrate the pro-choice movement, we should logically pair it with a picture of people at a March for Life to illustrate the pro-life movement. The intent isn't to illustrate points which either movement might raise, so, really, there's no need to ensure one image counters or balances another. I imagine this is the reason why Anti-war has pictures of peace signs and anti-war demonstrations and not pictures of, say, civilian casualties of armed conflict. Beyond this, including a photo of an aborted fetus or a woman dead from unsafe abortion would be redundant, because such photos wouldn't convey anything which is not more clearly conveyed by a description of a D&E or mortality figures for unsafe abortion. The purpose such images would serve in this article would really be more argumentative than informative.
The precedent against graphic photos on the top-tier Abortion article works both ways, and, for that reason we don't link to the web sites of either Women on Waves (a Dutch pro-choice organization) or the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (an American pro-life organization) from here. The use of graphic photos is a complex and very specific facet of the abortion debate, and, quite simply, we do not have the space to open up that can of worms here at Abortion. In addition to the ethical debate, we also have to try to summarize the medical, historical, statistical, and legal aspects of abortion. I would say that there is more of a case to be made for the inclusion of the pro-life van photo at Pro-life. This is where the information pertaining to the use of graphic photos within the pro-life movement is located. - Severa ( !!!) 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is new from Noam Chomsky and I think it beautifully sums things up, which is why I think it belongs here rather than elsewhere:
"You're not going to get the answers from holy texts. You're not going to the answers from biologists," he says. "These are matters of human concern." [5]
Any thoughts? LCP 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a second half to the quote: "There are conflicting values and taken in isolation each of these values is quite legitimate," he adds. "Choice is legitimate, preserving life is legitimate." You can read it in context in the article: [6]. Again, I think the quote provides an excellent intro to the section and summation of the debate. I don't see that it has pro-life or pro-choice bias.
There is also a good quote by Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard: "Everybody is right when it comes to the issue of abortion." LCP 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"...although in 2006 the Chilean government began the free distribution of emergency contraception" - I don't see how this is relevant to an abortion article. Abortions are illegal in Chile, and the govt allowing emergency contraception is a separate issue. Or is this going to kick up the "emergency contraception is baby-killing" debate??? --Surfsistah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 ( talk) 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The external links section is a hodge-podge of links to groups advocating a specific position. Are those really needed? That section is growing into a linkfarm, and already a few links have appeared to groups that seem rather non-notable, at least to me. If they are needed in this article, why have such a disorganized list? It's simple to create a table with pro-choice and pro-life columns. = Axlq 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed a link (one which has been removed many times in the past) since (i) the frequency with which it appears is evidence of linkspamming, and (ii) it is not a particularly outstanding link in an area for which there are many superior to choose from (and Wikipedia is not a directory of the web). Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"The linked page adds relatively little, and the "periodically removed by the unscrupulous" comment suggests its added in bad faith." Wrong on both counts guys! Atheists don't have faith, good or bad. ;) And as for adding very little, in whose opinion? I would have thought an atheist perspective, considering the bombardment of religious perspectives would add quite a bit to the debate. AusAtheist 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Morality is wonderful, but why doesn't even this article mention the inherrent risks to future fertility that come with abortions? Politics are great and the life/choice sides have their points, but this is an encyclopedia, as in a REFERENCE source for people seeking information. Women seeking information about abortions should know of potential risks, which involve much, much more than simple depression! 128.195.186.56 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Adieu
I am struggling to understand Severa’s critieria for what should and should not go into a “Top tier article.” S has used the argument, “X should be deleted because it is too Y for a top tier article” on several occasions, and I would be grateful for a clear explication of the criteria. Please note, I respect that S has been around for a while, and I am not saying that I object to S's edits. I am saying that I do not have a acceptable grasp of the criteria and that if S could clearly explicate the guidelines, doing so would be helpful to all. Thanks in advance. LCP 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In the intro to Health considerations, "sterility" is listed as one, however the study listed to support this was a study linking smoking, multiple induced abortions and secondary infertility. Since secondary fertility is when you can't become pregnant after you've already had one child, the study isn't about sterility, per se. I question the use of this study to support the general assertion that abortion causes sterility. I'm going to change "sterility" to "secondary infertility". However, the citation as it stands is unclear at best. Given that the study focuses not on abortion methods as the article states, but on multiple abortions, I question the citation in conjunction with the wording of the statement. I suggest that either the statement is clarified later in the body of the section, that someone find a more appropriate source to cite, or that the ref. be removed. Any thoughts? Phyesalis 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The section called Health considerations places undue weight on the risks of abortion. A long list of potential complications is given, without clear indication of exactly how often these risks occur, or what factors make the risk greater or lesser. I cannot find any other article on a surgical procedure that puts such great emphasis on describing the risks of the procedure in detail, and none that do so without clarifying the size of the risk.
The initial paragraphs of the section titled "Health considerations", as it was prior to my edit, are below. The changes I made begin at the top of the Health concerns section, and they end at the beginning of the paragraph that begins with the phrase, "Assessing the risks of induced abortion". Below is the part of the section, as it was:
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure, which is considered safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week under modern medical conditions. [16] [17] Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications, including perforated uterus, [18] [19] perforated bowel [20] or bladder, [21] septic shock, [22] sterility, [23] [24] [25] and death. [26] The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed. [27] [28]
Dilation of the cervix carries the risk of cervical tears or perforations, including small tears that might not be apparent and might cause cervical incompetence in future pregnancies. Most practitioners recommend using the smallest possible dilators, and using osmotic rather than mechanical dilators after the first trimester.
Instruments that are placed within the uterus can, on rare occasions, cause perforation [27] or laceration of the uterus, and damage structures surrounding the uterus. Laceration or perforation of the uterus or cervix can, again on rare occasions, lead to more serious complications.
Incomplete emptying of the uterus can cause hemorrhage and infection. Use of ultrasound verification of the location and duration of the pregnancy prior to abortion, with immediate follow-up of patients reporting continuing pregnancy symptoms after the procedure, will virtually eliminate this risk. The sooner a complication is noted and properly treated, the lower the risk of permanent injury or death.
Here are the references:
The feel of the section is that abortion is terribly dangerous. To give a long list of potential complications without putting the risks in context constitutes undue weight on the risk of abortion. We must either leave the section as it is right now, or we must clarify the size of the risk of each complication, and of all complications. Photouploaded ( talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
First, wasn't my word choice, but I support it. There has never been any credible evidence for a causal relationship. While many studies have been done on correlative relationships, the majority of studies have shown that there isn't even a correlative relationship. International consensus (first established by the 2003 NCI consensus workshop, subsequently upheld by every major cancer and gynecology org, and further verified by numerous studies after the fact, and canonized by a body of peer-review literature on the subject of junk/B.A.D.(biased, agenda driven)/pseudoscience politics) on this matter is well-established. This isn't a debate. It is an incredibly well-documented fact. Please provide some top-tier tertiary sources to back up your claim that it isn't discredited. Phyesalis ( talk) 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Until I see the appropriate change at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or sufficient logic/references explained, I'm going to continue reverting such changes, as I've done here and here. I see absolutely no reason why the wording of this paragraph should differ from what's found on the actual Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis page. Such differing messages are simply unnecessary, and confusing, for a reader. Erth64net ( talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It says in the ABC hypothesis article, "The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the abortion-breast cancer link) is a rejected theory[36][37] that posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation." I don't believe that the ABC hypothesis is a theory. Is there any scientific source that says that it is anything more then a hypothesis? That it is actually a theory? champben ( talk) 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Much work has been done by several editors on this article. The work done should be reflected on the abortion article, no? Here's what the PAS article says:
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used to describe a set of adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in women following an induced abortion. [1] Primarily a term used by pro-life advocates, [2] [3] [4] PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome, [5] and neither the American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association recognize it. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes. [6] [7]
A number of studies have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects on women. Others have found a correlation between clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions and abortion. Various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortions, may increase the likelihood of experiencing such feelings. No studies have established a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women. [8]
I moved the "fetal pain" section as it basically constitutes a POV violation. All effects in the section and subsection pertain to the woman. Inserting a section about fetal pain suggests a pro-life stance that the fetus is a person who experiences effects and thereby has considerations about their health. A fetus has no standing of personhood and is not the patient. This, I feel, is inappropriate. The section is "Health considerations", I think the fact that the fetus is killed kind of makes pain a side issue. If we discuss fetal pain, then we would then have to mention that the fetus is killed as that would seem to be more significant than disputed issues of pain. This I think that including it in the social section is more appropriate as it is not a medical issue (it has nothing to do with the patient's health) but a social one. I'm changing it back. I would appreciate discussion of this matter. Phyesalis ( talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the citation issues. This section does not comply with WP:V regarding scientific sources. I may have missed something but none of the sources discuss fetal pain as a health consideration in the context of abortion only in the context of fetal surgery (that is, wherein surgery is being performed on the fetus to save its life, not kill it). This is a SYN violation. Phyesalis ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Phyesalis. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If the article Fauna of Brazil gave the information, "The north of Brazil is home to a thriving population of pandas," and listed a citation which did not support that claim (or no source at all) — this would be OR. If the the article listed a source which mentioned a couple of pandas in a zoo in Rio de Janeiro, and ran away with this fact until it arrived at a "thriving population," then this would be SYN. But, from how I read the statement "[the] sources do not contextualize fetal pain as a medical health concern for the fetus", your claim of OR/SYN seems to be an extension of your concerns over possible implications of fetal personhood in the article structure. This issue has already been dealt with above, and I don't we're going to find anything new in that regard, even if we try approaching it from a different angle. -Severa ( !!!) 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree that the "fetal pain" section ought to be moved out of the "health considerations" section. This is a topic that is best dealt with under the category "abortion debate." Along with Photouploaded, LotR, and Phyesalis, I would support reverting that section back to the Nov. 25, 2007 version. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, the topic of Fetal Pain has been moved out of the Health Considerations section as discussed, but some editors have used this a stepping stone toward pushing a POV. I have reverted back to the last reasonable version. The edits occurring since then are not what I would call minor -- please discuss them here before making any further changes of this magnitude. LotR ( talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with the new headers introduced by Photouploaded -- they seem an improvement to the article. LotR ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the fetus cannot experience pain is absurd. If a premature baby born three months early experiences pain, the same baby would have felt pain in the womb. Just because a man who is a physician suggests it, that does not make it so. Thomas Verny and Arthur Janov have evidence to the contrary. The doctor who says a fetus does not feel pain has no evidence at all. Being a physician does not make a suggestion scientific. Evidence is necessary. You think a suggestion should be allowed but erase actual evidence? davidio, 1 February, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed it. Where does the Breast cancer page provide an overview of ABC? I'm thinking that since ABC has been rejected, there really isn't much of a reason to link to breast cancer, this seems kind of POV. I didn't see an overview over there, so I'm going to remove link. If the overview is there, maybe, but I don't see what the point would be since the actual article of ABC gives the whole view. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I can't find the logic in your argument. ABC was a hypothesis, not even a theory, that has been debunked. Abortion has nothing to do with Breast Cancer. The problem with the ABC hypothesis is that it is used almost entirely in a political way, not a medical one. Therefore, to "provide a medical overview free from the trap of politics" about ABC is not possible. It would be best not to confuse breast cancer and abortion.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Roy, I chose the word "debunked" because ABC is used as a political tool, not a medical one. My word choice was reflecting the political reality. But "debunked" also holds true for the current medical reality in the context of those who are trying to force political views on to science. According to the National Cancer Institute (among others), early research on ABC was "flawed," and "The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk." Therefore, when folks with political aims make medical claims (including Brind et al), I think it appropriate to use the word "debunked." It is especially important to women who may be at risk for Breast cancer to understand the true risk factors. To distract them with the ABC hypothesis seems almost cruel.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm unclear about your point.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Debunked" is usually a political term.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Ok, in a vacuum, the rejected hypothesis might be plausible, however, in the real world, the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary (including evidence that abortion may actually reduce risk in some groups) makes the hypothesis implausible. But we digress, using present tense is the preferred course, we all seem to agree on this (if I've missed a current objection, please feel free to point it out). To deny the plausibility may be degrading to some, but that's not WP's problem - the (documented) truth is that the hypothesis is rejected and implausible. The very suggestion of the causal hypothesis has been deemed illogical and irresponsible. So if those who are unfamiliar with the science behind the issue find the hypothesis's rejection degrading, they should familiarize themselves with the science. A reader's sense of degradation, particularly if, as has been suggested, that sense comes from a lack of exposure to the scientific community's response to bad science, is not a reason to censor or dilute WP articles. WP does not censor and is not concerned with readers' issues of degradation. Phyesalis ( talk) 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about
unsafe abortion is currently spread out over three I discovered another one, four sections:
None of these sections adequately address why women resort to these methods. My guess is that legal restrictions are a significant factor, as are poverty, lack of insurance coverage, and lack of access to medical facilities. Social or religious pressure to refrain from obtaining abortion may also play a role. I would like to see this information consolidated, fleshed out, and presented more fully. I'm looking for feedback before I leap into this: Any suggestions on how to approach this? Photouploaded ( talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Back-alley abortion" is a slang term for any abortion not practiced under generally accepted standards of sanitation and professionalism. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines an unsafe abortion as being, "a procedure...carried out by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both." This can include a person without medical training, a professional health provider operating in sub-standard conditions, or the woman herself.
Unsafe abortion remains a public health concern today due to the higher incidence and severity of its associated complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs. WHO estimates that 19 million unsafe abortions occur around the world annually and that 68,000 of these result in the woman's death. Complications of unsafe abortion are said to account, globally, for approximately 13% of all maternal mortalities, with regional estimates including 12% in Asia, 25% in Latin America, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa. A 2007 study published in the The Lancet found that, although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. Health education, access to family planning, and improvements in health care during and after abortion have been proposed to address this phenomenon.
(undent) Look, I am not sure what the best way to handle this is but I am pretty sure that deleting it outright (as you did before) is not a good idea. Photouploaded ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the info in this article's Fetal Pain section is different from the information on the Fetal Pain page. I propose changing our section to reflect what is on the fetal pain page. The following is taken from the fetal pain page directly (though edited for summary form):
Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are debated politically and academically, particularly in regards to the abortion debate.
A 2005 American study, conducted by neurobiologists and pediatricians concluded that "...fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques." [9] With the encouragement of President Ronald Reagan, in 1984 a small group of physicians argued that the ability of a fetus to feel pain appears as early as seven weeks after conception. [10] Most medical researchers agree pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy or until after birth. [11]
There may be an "emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections" (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain. [12] Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established. [12] According to Arthur Caplan, "there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable. Some put the point at 28 weeks. Others say 26 or 24 and still others younger still." [13]
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Just a general question on sub-section linking, is it appropriate for the lead and/or being in other articles? I'm looking at: "Nevertheless, the subject continues to be one of mostly political but some scientific debate." and linking political to the ABC article sub-section "Politicization". - Roy Boy 800 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this article no longer meets the neutrality and stability required for GA status. I have brought it to WP:GAR for reassessment. -Severa ( !!!) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent)I agree with Severa that this article does not meet the guidelines on neutrality and stability. For example, the article cites studies without revealing the non-neutral affiliations of the authors. One such study was the subject of a full article in the New York Times about the non-neutrality of the authors, and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention the non-neutrality in the footnotes. See "Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties" (August 26, 2005). In typically biased language, the Wikipedia abortion article refers to "medical researchers notably from the American Medical Association" when in fact the study was merely published in JAMA, and "AMA disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material or for any damages arising out of the use or non-use of any of the material and any information contained therein." [12] Click on another footnoted link in this Wikipedia article, and the first thing you see is an advertisement for "Abortion to 24 Weeks". [13]
Another example of the non-neutrality of the present article involves the images. Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, this Wikipedia abortion article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus. Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", as do pro-life groups, and yet this word has been deliberately removed from this article (giving the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later).
A further example of problems with this Wikipedia article involves jargon. Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." There's no problem using jargon, which is sometimes more specific and less ambiguous, but this Wikipedia article avoids even parentheticals on first use saying something like "also commonly known as (non-jargon term)." For instance, in the lead paragraph, there is no explanation of what "viability" means, no explanation of the difference between the words "embryo" and "fetus", and no mention that the technical word "uterus" is also commonly known as a "womb."
A related problem with the article is that it provides almost no information about what is being aborted (technically called the "abortus"). The average abortion occurs at the beginning of the fetal period, so a good article would summarize some of the info at the fetus article, or at least (as mentioned above) explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo.
Moreover, the article contains POV statements like the following: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week." Two words could be inserted to remove the POV: "safer for women." As one admin said, “Those two words don't push anything, but leaving them out does.” Nevertheless, those two words have been removed. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's be intellectually honest. Any discussion of the fetus carries political rather than medical concerns. The political strategies of the pro-life movement is to focus attention on the fetus. However, this article is about the abortion procedure, not about the fetus. If you want to have a discussion about the fetus, you should probably do so on the fetus page.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree! And in this case, the relevant biological facts concern the procedure only, not the "fetus" or "abortus."-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This has now been delisted: the GAR discussion will be automatically moved to the GAR archives in just under an hour. The article currently fails WP:LEAD, and also neutrality issues were raised. Some of these were minor and/or trivial, but others were not adequately answered. Good luck fixing this. I surely know that controversial articles such as this are extremely difficult to raise to good article status, and this one is much better than many that come to GAR. Please renominate at GAN once the issues are resolved. Geometry guy 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph which describes the "Breast cancer hypothesis" is one of the worst disgraces of one-sided politicking I have yet to have seen on Wikipedia. Just two points:
Here’s a new study published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which – without speculating on the causes - seems to conclude that abortion is "the best predictor of breast cancer". That seems to imply that there might be a causal relationship (rather than a direct relationship) and argue against it being a rejected hypothesis.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf Rune X2 ( talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Rune, please look at the archives on this topic. In fact, it is a "rejected hypothesis," by the majority of non-biased researchers in the field. According to the (American) National Cancer Institute, it is well established that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)"( [15])
See also:
Medical studies:
The folks who continue the ABC hypothesis, like Joel Brind have been shown to do so for religious reasons. For more information about the politics of the ABC hypothesis, please see the following:
For further discussion on the topic, please see the ABC-hypothesis talk page
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This section is ancillary and seems to give undo weight to a very rare occurrence. I move we remove it.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be out of place. It isn't really a "health consideration." -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week. [14] [15] Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications. [16] [17] The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed. [18] [19]
Women typically experience minor pain during first-trimester abortion procedures. In a 1979 study of 2,299 patients, 97% reported experiencing some degree of pain. Patients rated the pain as being less than earache or toothache, but more than headache or backache. [20]
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting to see much thought has gone into the content of the lead, but seemingly little into its length, or lack of. Everywhere I look I see massive articles with absurdly small leads. I have seen one sentence leads, but this is getting 'up there' with the best. I really wish people who make these assessments, especially GA (and to a lesser extent FA - they seem to have some comprehension of the issue) would take more notice of this problem. Richard001 ( talk) 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me so far, except the # per year - the source is from 1999 I notice, should we hunt for newer? and should we even have that in the lead? And if we do, IMO we should specify "worldwide". Thoughts? KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed the lead definition because it was long, unwieldy and repetitive. I'm fine with the switch back to "medical" from "medicinal" but I feel like the revert just put the definition back to the old same verbose place. Andrew, I know you just switched it back, but would you mind discussing this? Phyesalis ( talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: There is related discussion at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, going over the recommended list, the discussion centers primarily on death, and I find that a number of sources bear closer scrutiny:
To address the number of discounted examples I pulled the unique def sources from the first page search for “medical dictionary:
So, I get: 12 for no – 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25b; 4 for yes – 4, 5, 17, 21; 3 for mixed – 18, 19, 25a; and not counting 7 – 2 (not found but source site is #3), 6 (1911), 7 (1913), 10 (repeat of 9), 11 (Vet), 14 (r of 9), 15 (not a def, but argument for death, and not viability). Not much of an argument for a clear trend for viability. Thoughts? Phyesalis ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, there is a trend. I agree, and I'm certainly up for outside input. But I think we might be able to work this out. Again, not against the word being in the lead, just don't like the way it was used globally so as to exclude forms of selective and therapeutic abortion right off the bat. I'm thinking maybe a little rewording of "Definitions" and maybe a new title like "Types"? You up for letting me take a whack at and then some friendly WP:BRD? Phyesalis ( talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, there are surely other users watching this, could someone offer a 3rd opinion?- Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Okay, as I understand it, the disagreement is as follows. The lead paragraph used to have a sentence like this: "Abortion can refer to an induced procedure at any point during human pregnancy; it is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability" (emphasis added). However, it's been changed to say simply that abortion can occur "at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons," without mentioning viability. The cited sources remain the same: " Merriam Webster’s Online Medical Dictionary. See also The Free Dictionary which includes definitions from Dorland's Medical Dictionary and from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary."
Unless I'm mistaken, Phyesalis supports the current wording without "viability" whereas Andrew c thinks "viability" should go back in. It seems clear from the cited sources that "abortion" is often defined without being limited to instances before viability. But "abortion" sometimes is instead defined with that limitation; for example, Dorland's says: "expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable." And it seems that Dorland's is very clear about what the word "viability" means: "able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth."
So, in my opinion, this article should mention somewhere (either in the lead paragraph or in the footnote of the lead paragraph) that "abortion" is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability. And, it could also be mentioned in the footnote that "viability" means "able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth." [16] Sound reasonable? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following for the time being:
My first issue is that the text clearly isn't global and seems to only apply to the Abortion in the United States article. My next concern is that we don't have a citation for the 64% statistic. Next, there has been a huge amount of controversy regarding the Elliot Institute being a reliable source or not (see the talk page for David Readon and Post-abortion syndrome). If we had a more notable or scholarly source, it would be better. Also, the section doesn't seem balanced, in the both sources (paprolife.org and Elliot Institute) are pro-life, and we don't cite a neutral source, nor do we cite a pro-choice response. But like I said in my first concern, if we don't have a source that makes this an international issue, I don't believe it warrants being in the top tier article, and this discussion should move to the US centric page. Also, if the only sources of information on this are from pro-life sources, and the term itself only gets 5,000 google hits, I'm concerned about notability of this issue. This topic needs to be researched further.- Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I know a lot of you are going to grown, but I do not believe that the issue of using the word "death" in the first sentence was fully resolved per the previous discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Neutrality_of_the_first_paragraph and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_2#medical_sources
I don't understand why we cannot resolve it now by simply having the first sentence say, "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in the termination of a pregnancy." I mention this because the suggested terminology is taken Dictionary.com which has changed it's definition to "termination" from one that included the word "death." This seems significant to me. Also, the American Heritage dictionary never used the term "death." The American Heritage definition is: "The ending of pregnancy and expulsion of the embryo or fetus, generally before the embryo or fetus is capable of surviving on its own."
With these definitions in mind, please look at the previous inventory of definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph/Archive_2#medical_sources
Because prominent sites, including the Miriam-Webster dictionary as well as the majority of medical sources use the "termination" terminology - we should probably change the first sentence. As it stands now, I believe as others have said that "death" carries too many connotations. This is 2008, our sources have changed their definitions.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Take it to the feticide article, please. Don't start that war here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fishie instructed me to see the talk page in undoing my edit. I'm here, and I don't see a darn thing explaining Fishie's edit. I'm assuming Fishie just hasn't gotten around to posting it here. So Fishie, what's your reasoning? KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the introduction to the article claims "In some medical contexts, elective abortion is defined as occurring before the point of viability." However, the reference makes no mention of elective abortion - at least I can't find it. Both sources give definitions of abortion but neither mentions elective abortion as something that occurs before the point of viability. Am I wrong? I thought I should check here before editing. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In a nutshell - and very coarsely worded - therapeutic is for the health of the mother - the pregnant woman might die - and elective is not. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I'm fine with removing it. -- Phyesalis ( talk) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Right, that's why I changed it - I guess that's why I'm confused. Do you have objections to the current version? - Phyesalis ( talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this addition to fetal pain is undue weight. The book is a how-to guide for expecting mothers, is 25 years old, and is used in a generic refutation "this is in complete contradiction of Verney's book". I think it should go or be reworded. - Phyesalis ( talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - At the moment, the article has a section telling us about the incidence of induced abortion that comes before the section that describes the different types of abortion - spontaneous and induced. That appears the wrong way round. Surely we should reorganise this? Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For discussion and eventual inclusion in the section on abortion and mental health:
These are just a few key sources which should be included to make this section more complete.-- Strider12 ( talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)