![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
This appears early in the article: "Aspects of this debate can include the public health impact of unsafe or illegal abortion as well as legal abortion's effect upon crime rates..." When I read this I became curious about exactly what effect legal abortion has on crime rates, but no links or sources are provided, leaving my curiosity unsatiated. Not very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the subsection later, but a link to that subsection (or better yet, its article) would be convenient.
Also, I thought the last sentence in that subsection was out of place. "Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime.[38][39] Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action — merely reporting data as economists.
Researchers have observed changes in heart rates and hormonal levels of newborn infants after circumcision, blood tests, and surgery — effects which were alleviated with the administration of anesthesia.[40] Others suggest that the human experience of pain, being more than just physiological, cannot be measured in such reflexive responses.[41]"
It goes from economics, data, and studies right into fetal pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Below is what I would suggest as a more balanced summary of the controversy over abortion and mental health. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, you will see that I put in multiple, independent peer reviewed sources for all of the negative effects which have been shown to be associated with abortion. The multiple sources could be included in single footnote to clean up the text.
If anyone wants to help refine it, I created a draft page here. In the meantime, I'm putting an unbalanced tag on the section in the article.
The issue of abortion and mental health is very controversial. In 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reported that no definitive conclusions could be made regarding either the positive or negative mental health effects related to abortion because all available research at that time was too methodlogically flawed. [1] A year later, a team of psycholgists with the American Psychological Association published their own review of the literature. They concluded that the "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women" but also noted that "case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." They also noted that certain groups of women were at higher risk of experiencing negative reactions, including: "women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand." [2]
In a 1992 review of research on abortion and mental health lead editor concluded that "[t]here is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion," and that the issues of disagreement are centered on (1) how prevelant negative reactions are, (2) the severity of negative reactios, (3) determination of what level of negative reactions consitutes a public or mental health problem, and (4) how severe reactions should be classified. [3]
In the subsequent ten years, case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment [4] [5] [6] [7] anxiety, [8] [9] [10] depression, [8] [11] [4]alcohol use, [12] [13] [14] [15], post-traumatic stress disorder, [16] [17] [18] drug use, [8], [19] [14] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, [6] [20] [21] [22] suicidal thoughts [8] [23] completed suicides, [24] [25] and child maltreatment. [26] [27] [28] [29]
Self-esteem scores are not significantly affected by abortion. [30] Students who abort an unintended pregnancy are significantly more likely to complete high school than similar classmates who choose to give birth. [31]
It is has not been conclusively shown if the mental health problems staistically associated with abortion are directly caused by the abortion itself, by experiences associated with the unintended pregnancy, or if the abortion related experiences may only serve to aggravate, trigger, or in some manner contribute to pre-existing mental health problems.
[8] An alternative explanation is that the statistical associations between abortion and psychiatric illnesses are entirely incidental. Along these lines it has been proposed that women who already have mental problems are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Post-abortion counseling programs are offered by a wide number of peer support groups and professional counseling services. Many programs reflect a pro-choice perspective which attempt to help women deal with negative reactions while validating the choice to abort. Others reflect a pro-life perspective which includes an element of repentance for the abortion choice. [32]
The controversy over abortion and mental health is fueled by the potential effects this issue may have on the political and judicial debate over abortion. In it's most recent ruling on abortion, Gonzales v Carhart the majority opinion indicated that abortion was "fraught with emotional consequences." The minority opinion, however, while acknowleding that "for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision" insisted there is no reliable evidence that women who regret their abortions suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem." [33]
Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I was highly concerned about creating a disparity between the summary section and the main article. Specifically, it is inappropriate to have content here that isn't in the main article. There is nothing mentioned of "counseling" in the main article, nor about the SCOTUS case Gonzales v. Carhart, so the last two paragraphs need to go. Also, the Wilmoth info is nowhere to be found in the main article. High school isn't mentioned anywhere. I could go on... I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable to have so much content in a summary section that is not mentioned, let alone explained in fuller detail in the main parent article. How about this as a compromise. I propose: to replace the current summary section with the lead from the current Abortion and mental health. And once there are stable changes that are made to that lead, we can always update the summary section here. That way we make sure that the content here is actually at the main article, and we avoid bypassing consensus on the main parent article.- Andrew c [talk] 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(( Broken Record - again)) Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.---- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ at the top of this talk page has info about images. Several prior discussions are linked, regarding so-called "shock" images. So, I think it is pretty well-established that there has been a consensus not to include any images here of aborted fetuses, or to even include any links to where an interested person can find such images. However, those linked discussions contain little (if any) discussion about whether it would be appropriate for the present article to include an image of an intact fetus before it is aborted. I clarified this point in the FAQ, and was reverted. [1] Maybe such an image will someday be included in this article, and maybe not, but the linked prior discussions have not settled the point. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, didn't we have this exact conversation already? I recall you making the exact same argument not long ago. We also had this discussion on the Fetus page where the images already exist. There is no need to also post them here in order to make a political statement. The fetus page gives us more of an opportunity to qualify the images. For example, while we show an 8 week old fetus that has the beginnings of eyes and feet, we can also inform the reader that a fetus doesn't feel pain, can't control motor function, is not sentient, etc. We also talk about the length of the fetus at 8 weeks (30 mm or 1.2 inches). In short, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the fetus images here. Fetus images here make a political statement, not a medical one.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So sorry Ferrylodge. I completely jumped the gun in a rush to celebrate Valentine's day.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone who cares: I was recently reverted here by an editor, whom I subsequently contacted here about the FAQ. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In List of counseling topics there is an entry for Abortion counseling that is red-lined. Was there an article? Should there be an article, or appropriate text here? Simesa ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This article was recently edited to say the following:
“ | Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop, who is self-described as pro-life, conducted a review of the medical and psychological impact of abortion on women while he was in office. Koop summarized his findings in a letter to President Ronald Reagan by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective. | ” |
This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever. Here's what Koop said before a few of his words were yanked out of context by the people who control this article:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
As I said, I won't try to correct this article now. I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways. And incidentally, the cited sources do not say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Pres. Reagan; but, who cares about accuracy, right? Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:23, 19 Fe bruary 2008 (UTC)
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Attention Admins: Would you mind pointing out to IronAngelAlice that the article should not contain unsupported and unverified statements? None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is dishonest to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles; I may well be criticized for pointing this out, but such is Wikipedia. It appears to be Wikipedia policy for admins to look the other way. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)It is also unfair, counterproductive, and against Wikipedia policy to edit your comments after they have already been replied to, by adding huge amounts of new material. [7] Try inserting such material after the latest response. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no issue with deleting the NY Times article. But that wasn't your original argument, and now you are trying to insert a bunch of claims that weren't in your original argument. If your contention is that the article should say "congressional committee" rather than a "letter to Ronald Regan" - no problem! It's been fixed. If you would like to delete the NY Times article, fine, but there are two other non-editorial references that are proper. The fact remains, you initially tried to change the meaning of the sentences about Koop's findings. However, the reliable resources don't support your claims.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)As I said at the beginning of this section, I want this article to include Koop's clarification, instead of cutting him off. Here's what Koop said:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
This article presently excludes the last sentence. Koop said that there is an overwhelming psychological problem associated with abortion. When Wikipedia quotes a sentence which was immediately clarified by the speaker, it is not honest for Wikipedia to omit the clarification.
Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(repaste from above)
Furthermore, the quote we use is pretty much directly from the investigative Mooney article:
And the general information comes from this source:
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am simply making an argument for why the text says what it does. And we simply disagree - nothing more and nothing less. If a consensus is made (among more people than just you and I) to include the entire quote with no context, I would be happy to change the text myself. My objection continues to be that the main point of the paragraph concerns the causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health effects. It is clear that Koop does not believe abortion causes negative mental health effects from a public health perspective - the only perspective on which he is qualified to speak in his capacity as Attorney General. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence we have now is, "Koop summarized his findings to a congressional committee by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective." This is accurate, and speaks to the only thing that Koop is qualified to speak about - public health. In his position, he does not speak on behalf of individual American family members, and his later comment was an editorialization.
Also, the full title of the article which quotes Koop the same way we do is, " Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science." The article is not an editorial, and it mostly talks about David Reardon and Joel Brind. So, I'm confused - are you disputing the veracity of the facts in the article, which is published by the Washington Monthly, a reputable publication with fact checkers? Do you also object to a discussion of people like David Reardon and Joel Brind who do bend science to fit their religious agendas? Or do you simply object to the inclusion of the term " religious right" and believe that because the article identifies the religious right it is therefore POV?-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
FerryLodge, you write "He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming" - actually, he did the exact opposite. He said in terms of public health, the problem is "miniscule." Most reasonable people (including the members of the particular sub committee, most of whom were pro-life, and the
members of the media who were covering that committee meeting) agree that when Koop said, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, [the psychological problem] is overwhelming," he was editorializing, and not speaking from a scientific view (read further down the page at why Koop was compelled to testify in front of Congress). In short, Dr. Koop impressed upon the subcommittee that from a scientific perspective (Koop reviewed 250 studies), the public health problem is miniscule. This is why we, and many others, do not include the editorialization regarding the "personal perspective" being "overwhelming"--
IronAngelAlice (
talk)
06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Further reading about Koop and abortion that supports the above comments:
"Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1]
"Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object?" Ferrylodge, thus far you are the only objector.
Again, I point to all the other sources that use almost the exact same language we do - because it puts Koop's testimony in perspective:
"Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet another decent into a personal attack.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks for the corrections Mastcell. However, if you would consider the matter further, perhaps you will find that you're still very far from correct. You now accuse me of drawing "from a separate part of the hearing." On the contrary, I have already provided the following quote here at this talk page, which shows that I am drawing from a single answer to a single question on a single page of a single hearing report, with no ellipsis or other gap:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
Contrary to what you asserted in your edit to this article, [12] the word "miniscule" was not used in any letter to President Reagan. Additionally, your New Scientist quote is false; Koop did not testify that "the evidence of psychological damage to women from abortion appeared to be 'minuscule'." Koop only made that assertion regarding public health effects, as the direct quote from the hearing shows. Your Washington Monthly source by Chris Mooney uses the word "miniscule" as in his other articles and books, including his Washington Monthly article "Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science", and his book "The Republican War on Science."
The basic point here is that Koop uttered his "miniscule" sentence, and then immediately (i.e. right away and instantaneously) clarified what he was saying. You are seeking to omit the clarification, which is a clarification supported by a reliable online source. I think we would all be better off we let this matter drop, now that Koop is out of this article. But if you insist on including the "miniscule" quote, while omitting the context provided by the very next sentence uttered by Koop, then I will continue to disagree. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this Ferrylodge? Junior High? Get a hold of yourself.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I side with IronAngelAlice, this is common sense. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 11:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The material above is VERY interesting in that it shows the phrase "minuscule from a public health perspective" was actually the phrase used by Weiss, not Koop. At best Koop did not disagree with that characterization, but these were not words HE used in the testimony. Also, given his continued insistence that there was not enough reliable research from which to draw any conclusions, it is clear that even he could only make a best guess that it WAS PROBABLY be miniscule from a public health perspective. Subsequent research, including prospective studies of the type recommended by Koop, however, has shown that abortion is associated with a six fold increase risk of suicide, doubling of the rate of psychiatric admissions, higher rates of substance abuse et cetera. Therefore, it is quite likely that Koop might now revise this 19 year old assessment in light of the current data. Below is an objective overview of what Koop really said. POV pushers continue to delete it from the article on abortion and mental health, however. I'd welcome help on that article in retaining verifiable materials.
In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop subsequently began review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion. In a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 Koop stated that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." [2] [3] To address the inadequate research in the field, he recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade." [3]
In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material." [4] In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, Congressman Ted Weiss questioned Koop saying: "And yet the American Psychological Assocation's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective." In response, Koop stated, "From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming. All this leads up to my conclusion to the President that we don't know what we are talking about, and if you want to know what you are talking about and feel certain about what you are saying you have to do a prospective study..." [5]
In the twenty years since Koop's review of the literature, prospective and case-control studies have now found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment [6] [7] [8] [9] anxiety, [10] [11] [12] depression, [10] [13] [6]alcohol use, [14] [15] [16] [17], post-traumatic stress disorder, [18] [19] [20] drug use, [10], [21] [16] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, [8] [22] [23] [24] suicidal thoughts [10] [25] completed suicides, [26] [27] and child maltreatment. [28] [29] [30] [31]
-- Strider12 ( talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following sentence to the section on fetal pain, and to the fetal pain article: "In rare cases, insensitivity to pain is a disorder that exists before birth and continues after birth.[1]"
"[1] “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”, About Kids Health, The Hospital for Sick Children ( 2006-05-18), via Archive.org."
This would provide some needed clarity and context. The absence of pain does not say anything about sentience or about self-awareness, or about numerous other things (fetal pain studies have been cited by a POV-pushing editor in the fetus article to contend just that). Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) OK, having read the article, I don't see where it supports your statement. It says:
Neither support your assertion. Am I missing something? -- Phyesalis ( talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
((repeat)) My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I suppose it would be too much to hope that we could go a few more words without more accusations of one sort or another. I did not mention the article “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception” at the fetus article until about two minutes ago. So, no, I am not trying to bring it up here because of rejection there. And I explicity said above, "Perhaps this conversation would be more appropriate at the fetus article, where that original research occurs." Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedians Even though is just the Boise, Idaho newspaper, this article (which I've just started reading) seems influential. Simesa ( talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I request that issues related to fetal pain be discussed at Talk:Fetal pain and issues related to abortion and mental health be discussed at Talk:Abortion and mental health. We are using the lead of those articles (and the ABC hypothesis article) for our summary sections. If we make changes here, we run the risk of adding content here that isn't found in the main article, and we run the risk of bypassing the consensus of those editors working on those main articles. We are only summarizing the parent articles here, so I think it's a good idea to use the leads (as we are) for our summaries. I believe new changes should go through the talk pages of those parent articles, not here. We have tripled the size of this talk page in just a couple days discussing topics that are better suited elsewhere. So please, consider working on improving the actual articles, not these summary sections. Thanks.- Andrew c [talk] 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many reasons why women chose to have an abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Two additional subsections were added to the "Forms of abortion" section, which duplicated information and citations found in the next section down "Incidence of induced abortion". We have a chart and cite multiple studies for when abortion happens. Also, the current wording contextualizes the studies geographically (US, UK) where the previous wording made one US study seem to apply internationally. Next, we already cite the Jones/Darroch/Henshaw study in another section. I'm sorry to revert good faith edits that someone worked on, and I don't mean any personal offense by it, but the content was redundant with what we already had in the article in the corresponding sections. - Andrew c [talk] 13:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1.0 Percent of all abortions preformed are done because of rape or incest.
Abortion kills 42 Million babies per year around the world, and 70,000 women who have had abortions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to use the page for a school project, but someone vandalized the page like crazy, with an obvious slant. Is it possible to lock the page so no one can vandalize or ruin it? -- Scdog99 ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
hello, recently in my GCSE religious studies class i was told that the correct diffinition of abortion is "the premature expulsion of the foetus or embryo from the womb". i would have edited this my self but as the page is protected i decided to leave up to the experts. please concider changing this if you find it to be appropriate. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.209 ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of offending those who have finely tuned the meaning of abortion offered in the article, it seems to me that part of the current definition should be deprecated to a second level. The common interpretation of the term in contemporary speech and text is “induced” expulsion of the embryo or fetus. The “spontaneous or induced” meaning is archaic and specialized to the medical arts. Deprecating the “spontaneous” aspect of the definition is likely to offend one side or the other of the ongoing abortion debate. The following rewording is an attempt to retain the precision and neutrality of the current definition. Please comment.
"An abortion is the induced removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in its death. In medicine, abortion can refer to either induced or spontaneous expulsion. The spontaneous expulsion of a fetus or embryo before the 20th week is commonly known as a miscarriage.[1] The more commonly used definition, in reference to induced abortion, is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons” Quampro ( talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we update this and strike out some items? It appears to me the Lead expansion is done, well done in fact. - Roy Boy 800 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was the aspect of the debate that equates abortion to murder taken out? Life.temp ( talk) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject of the paragraph is "The moral and legal aspects of abortion are subject to intense social debate" The main moral objection to abortion is that it is like murder. It makes no sense to omit that from a list of the main moral aspects of the debate. Life.temp ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading it again, I notice that the paragraph also doesn't mention the individual liberty of women. It doesn't actually the mention the main moral arguments people give for being pro-life or pro-choice. Life.temp ( talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Should there be somewhere a discussion about when human life begins? This comes up in the abortion debate. Though maybe there is some other place that would be better? Yes, laws often use the moment of birth as the defining moment of humanness. But that is mostly a matter of practicality. And at one time we just didn't know any better. But it is hard to see that anything actually happens at birth that somehow changes the fetus to make it human. However popular that belief is, it seems to be merely magical thinking. Modern medical science shows an amazing picture of how early various human aspects start in a fetus. Note that I am not raising this issue to promote a "pro-life" position. I am actually in favour of abortion being legal, for reasons I won't go into, but the idea that the fetus isn't human seems to be a dishonest idea. This is a real issue, that I think deserves some honest discussion. DeniseMToronto ( talk) 00:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am making very significant changes to the ABC lead, mostly to improve readability, but also to remove some inaccurate statements and correct poor referencing. As this will effect the Abortion article; feedback now would be welcome. - Roy Boy 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on fetal pain says, "Most medical researchers agree pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy."
The cited article says that there hasn't been any consensus, that data analyzed by a recent meta-study indicates a fetus "likely" cannot feel pain by this stage, and says that some scientists disagree. So, I do not feel that the statement in the text of this article is accurate.
Also, why not also cite directly to the meta-study in the footnote?
Lee, Susan J., Ralston, Henry J. Peter, Drey, Eleanor A., Partridge, John Colin, & Rosen, Mark A. (2005). Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (8), 947-954. Retrieved 2007-02-26. "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.... electroecephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." (emphasis added) Two authors of the study published in JAMA did not report their abortion-related activities, which pro-life groups called a conflict of interest; the editor of JAMA responded that JAMA probably would have mentioned those activities if they had been disclosed, but still would have published the study. See Denise Grady, “Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties”, New York Times ( 2005-08-26).
Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The source supplied does not support the text "Most medical researchers agree", as the source discusses a review of available data by one group of researchers. I edited the text to reflect this, while attempting not to diminish the significance of study. Neitherday ( talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The old cited source says: "In Nazi Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as “Aryan” women were to reproduce to increase the “master race”. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.2" and "In contrast, Jewish women were forced to have abortions; both abortion and sterilization were used by the state against groups which it considered racially undesirable." The new cited source says: "The 'Law for the Alteration of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring' sanctions compulsory abortion, up to and including the sixth month of pregancy, for women considered 'hereditarily ill.'"
Compare this to what the old cites source says about CCCR: "In 1920, a decree from the Commissariats of Health and Justice permitted free abortions at all Soviet hospitals, and prohibited anyone but a doctor from performing them. This law reflected the belief in female equality held by the revolutionaries, as illustrated by Lenin's statement that no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will."
We have the article saying various countries "were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion." When we say "legalize abortion" it implies the type of legal abortion that is available to women in the UK, Canada, US, etc. Neither cited source says that Nazi Germany "legalized abortion". I think it is problematic to list Nazi Germany among the other countries. It was illegal for the preferred class of women (Aryans) to get abortions. I think we should remove Nazi Germany from the list of the first countries to legalize abortion, and instead of a separate sentence that says something like "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a laws was passed making abortions compulsory for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while Aryan women were specifically prohibited from having abortions." - Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There are a couple developments about this matter today. First, this article no longer mentions anything about Nazi Germany, per this edit. I haven't checked to see who initially mentioned Nazi Germany in this article, or how long it's been in this article, but it does seem that if Nazi Germany was one of the first countries to legalize abortion for many women then it shouldn't be left out of the list of such countries.
As mentioned above, I went over to the history of abortion article, and have tried to provide more reliable and notable sources. Here's what I ended up with:
[1]Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.
[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), page 366: "This emendation allowed abortion only if the woman granted permission, and only if the fetus was not old enough to survive outside the womb."
[3]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123: "Abortion, in other words, could be allowed if it was in the interest of racial hygiene.... the Nazis did allow (and in some cases even required) abortions for women deemed racially inferior.... On November 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal for Jews." Also see Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589: "In 1939, it was announced that Jewish women could seek abortions, but non-Jewish women could not."
So, I think Germany should now be reinserted into the list in the present article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ferrylodge, cease your attempts to insert this bizarre interpretation of Nazi Germany's eugenics into the Abortion article, or I will ban you from this article (weren't you already warned about this by ArbCom?). KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Although I think it could use improvement, I'll agree for now to inclusion of Andrew c's language: "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a law was passed permitting abortions for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while women considered of 'German stock' were specifically prohibited from having abortions."[1][2][3][4]
[1]Friedlander, Henry. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.
[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123 and 366.
[3]Arnot, Margaret; Usborne, Cornelie. Gender and Crime in Modern Europe, page 231 (1999).
[4] Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589.
Usually, I would not attach so many footnotes to a single sentence. However, since this is a particularly controversial aspect of a particularly controversial issue, I think it's appropriate. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no rationale for including anything about Nazi Germany in this article whatsoever. This article is not about the Nazis, it is about abortion. Any information about what the Nazis laws or views on abortion were properly belongs in the Nazi family of articles, not the Abortion family of articles. It is a precise parallel to the repeated attempts to insert that Dawkins was a character in the SouthPark episode "Go God Go" - its trivia, and its trivia about SouthPark, not about Dawkins - and it is rightfully promptly removed each time some SouthPark fan attempts to add it. This Nazi information is the same. Its not about abortion; its about Nazi Germany. We learn absolutely nothing about abortion in any of the suggested phrasings - we learn about Nazis. To attempt to add it to this article is at best spurious trivia and at worst an attempt to link Nazis and Abortion - Godwin's law, anyone? KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does every controversial topic make a reference to the Nazis at some point? -- Simpsons fan 66 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct that Google policy “does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’ …” Google does permit antiabortion ads and sales of anti-religious shirts. The Christian Institute filed suit in the UK regarding the Google policy.
Former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe, MP, has called Google’s action an “appalling and blatant case of religious discrimination.” Though rejecting the Christian Institute’s ad, Google has permitted ads by abortion clinics and the sales of anti-religious T-shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.254.10 ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The current article, titled as it is "Abortion", makes little sense medically; where the term "abortion" encompasses both "induced abortions" (which is what this article almost exclusively covers) and "spontaneous abortion" which is covered in the separate article of miscarriage. I agree the section Abortion#Spontaneous abortion is well written and provides a "Main article" link, but I think this article as a whole needs a disambiguation note for its particular focus.
Hence should there be at the top of the article this disambiguation tag: "{{otheruses4|intentionally "induced abortions"|"spontaneous abortions"|Miscarriage}}" which displays as:
David Ruben Talk 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
what are the dangers of abortion and what can you do to avoid them.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.148.253 ( talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Approx 78,000 women die from legal abortions in the world each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor who only edits this article has reverted what he says is a "covert POV" edit. [16] Actually, there was nothing covert or POV. So, unless there are objections, I'll restore the removed material so that it tracks the lead of the fetal pain article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved this discussion to Template talk:Humanrightsfooter#Abortion as a reproductive right because so far this discussion has centered on that template and has had very little to do with the article on abortion. Having the discussion here makes it hard to keep a coherent history of that page. Those wishing to discuss what should be on the humanrightsfooter, please do it there. Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This statement is dubious. Is there an emerging consensus, or is there not an emerging consensus? Gary P88 ( talk) 11:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Just casually browsing the article, I see at least three references to abortion. I'm restoring the link. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article concludes that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion. It even uses evidence from American Psychological Association, as does the following. But the following contradicts the Wiki claim: Chair of APA Abortion Report Task Force Violates APA Ethics Rules http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html Life Site News The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No, MastCell, YOU read Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I found 36 citations in Wiki's article that were from pro-choice sources but only two that were from pro-life sources. Yet, you say "partisan" newsletter. So you're saying what? That Wiki isn't partisan?
The 36 biased Wiki citations are: 4, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 61, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108, and 111.
Wiki doesn't waste any time in showing its bias. You do so in the first sentence: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Apparently, citation not needed. This alleged definition greatly diminishes what an induced abortion is. In an induced abortion, an abortion is not caused by a death or result in a death in the particular way you infer. A death is caused by an abortion, and the dead baby is removed or expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember the rules of the internet, don't feed the trolls. Also, the abortion article is commonly cited as a good example of a well balanced article, which means it is relatively unbiased. The Anon however, seems to think it's okay if it's biased as long as it's slanted towards pro-life. Zanotam - Google me ( talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
didn't find a section on the talk page. At any rate. the this section was getting too long. Using WP:SEH i took out the 2 points of view that were creeping in.
I also took out one issue guide because there already was one (presumably both were unbiased), and it cuts down on redundancy. Likewise for the gov website on the issue. Lihaas ( talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed the list, removing all country specific resources. Those should be linked from Abortion Debate only, or in abortion in X sections. I'm going through the abortion statistics section later-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't it be a 'see also.' Then it goes with wikipedia's explanation. It's also not 'global' (im not 100% sure though) in nature. Maybe we should put a link to pro-life and pro-choice directly? Lihaas ( talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the link to the Just Facts website listed as "prolife?" That external site takes pains to be objective, including explaining why it believes its choice of terms within the discussion are unbiased. It tries to indeed provide Just the Facts. I propose that link's description of "prolife" be removed and that instead it have no description at all. Rather, it will continue to appear under the heading that it "may" be written those with an agenda. I am not authorized to make edits though! WikiEditi ( talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I just came back from an extended vacation, and I'm not sure who is active on this page now, so if you are, pipe up please, because I'm planning on changing the organization of the article.
I'd like to add an Abortion by country section, which will survey abortion prevalence and legality in various countries or regions, English speaking first, then moving our way down. Should be relavtively short, branching into larger articles.
Thoughts?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
before the 20th week of gestational age [32] is commonly known as a miscarriage. [33]
Problem here: This refers only to HUMAN abortions, an abortion can be induced any animal that bears young.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cut down the opening section considerably. My reasoning is fairly simple. We need a short and concise definition of what abortion is. The remaining sentences reference all of the major abortion subtopics (history, legality, by country, morality). Also, as a matter of precision abortion can be, and is induced in domesticated animals all the time, but as a lone term refers to human abortions
Everything else was cut because its covered in the article itself.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Without putting in the comments of whether abortion is moral or amoral the whole article is put in jeapardy. Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway. Anathasius ( talk) 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair - but still, there should be some indication that a "spontaneous abortion" is a "miscarriage". The latter term is widely used and understood, whereas "spontaneous abortion" is not. There should be an explicit linkage between the two terms in the lead, to avoid confusion. How would you propose we phrase this? MastCell Talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have a feeling of deja vu on this one. Hmm.. just so we're all clear (again), WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." I told you, do a "ctrl+f" for abortion in the infanticide article. I did. I came across the word eight times. You people are ridiculous. My version will be restored, in accordance with the relevant style guideline. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Paranormal Skeptic, I "assumed bad faith" in my edit summary, and by golly, someone comes along and reverts me anyway. So by your own logic, you were acting in bad faith. Infanticide is not linked anywhere from the abortion article (I checked before I made the addition). NPOV requires that all views be represented, so none of you have any reason to be complaining, unless of course, you're trying to skew the article towards your POV. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you assumed bad faith automatically which is why I reverted it to being with. It was linked in several places already (You failed to look hard enough), and you came to this article attempting to push POV. NPOV doesn't require all views, but rather substantiated views. Find a WP:RS speaking about infanticide and abortion. This was clear POV pushing. And yes, 'you people failed WP:CIVIL. I was acting in bad faith to remove a POV push? I think not. Infanticide is ruled out from the see also, and I can't think of why it would be linked anywhere in this article, rather than in Abortion Debate. Infanticide, according to intro of the article is "murder of an infant". Pre-natal isn't infant but rather fetal or foetal. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with accusing the "other side" of pushing a POV is that it works equally well both ways. It's very common for editors who support a minority viewpoint to agitate to include their own POV on the top-level article of a controversial subject (e.g. September 11 attacks, CERN, AIDS, Water fluoridation, Abortion) when, according to WP:Summary style, the material in question would be better dealt with - indeed, may be already dealt with - in a lower-level, more specific article (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, AIDS denialism, Water fluoridation controversy, Abortion debate. Arguably, the reverse is true, with "pro-mainstream" editors citing WP:UNDUE to push details of controversies into "more obscure" articles. I don't know if this observation helps this particular discussion, but hopefully it puts things into perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
INFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.
"Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant." Infantacide
I am having trouble with the edit features, so my sincere apologies. My points ARE about improving the article. I think a major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such. It is easy for people to attack my comments as presenting a point of view. People do that rather than suggest how the article could deal with the facts I present. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how the article can deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. That's magical thinking. That's a legal fiction. I state that, not to argue a position, but to point out that it is a PROBLEM with the article. Has no one any idea of how to actually fix the problem? I don't know how the article can deal with the horrible tragedies caused by abortion being difficult to obtain or illegal. But what is apparent to me is that, rather than find ways to improve the article, people would rather fight out the issue here. And simply dismiss my points as being a point of view. DeniseMToronto ( talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC) DeniseMToronto
I tried reading the arguments above, and my eyes almost immediately glazed over, but what we have here are three conflating issues. 1. Maintaining the neutral point of view. 2. Stylistic guidelines involving See Also and 3. Edit warring to get your way. Can we at least all agree that Edit warring is stupid?
Now, I suggest we try to agree on some principles about how big, and what the See Also section should contain. Please consult certain guidelines we have on the matter.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the section as it is. These links do not "naturally fit into the body of text", because the article sucks. It's not even a good article. The perfect article may not have a "see also" section at all, but this one is far from perfect and needs to be expanded, so that these links fit more naturally into the text. But until that happens, they should be kept, because they are related to the parent topic. Don't narrow the scope of the "see also" section. By its very nature, it is to be broad, while remaining relevant. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To Paranormal Skeptic and Tznkai: It doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I do everything according to policy. Infanticide is a related topic (what the "see also" is for), so it doesn't matter what people say or think about it. The fact is, right now the article isn't very good, and that's why we have such a large see also section. This article needs to be worked on to incorporate those links better. I'm not trying to "link everything somewhat related to abortion under the sun", because it really depends on what kind of article it is. We can't link to every single "abortion by country" article, because that would be insane, and we already have an article for that, so there should only be one link. This, however, is a primary topic that is related to abortion, whatever your POV may be on that. Feminism and women's rights is already thoroughly covered in the article, and effect on crime has its own section. Dunno about parental screening. That could be a topic that can go there. What harm does one stinking link do? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Paranormal Skeptic's argument apparently revolved around accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and has been proven wrong, this discussion has waned. I propose, based on the above findings, that the following "see also" links be removed:
If no one objects, I'll just go ahead with the (what should be uncontroversial) removal. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Abortion Debate" section needs to be reorganized (and then rewritten) We don't seem to have any sensible criteria for which arguments used in the debate we choose. In fact, we seemed to have completely skipped the major ones: (potential) humanity and reproductive rights/liberties. I think having some measure of the theorized and actual social, physiological, and psychological effects of abortion and various kinds of abortion (unsafe/"back alley", sex selective, possibly the crime rate thing, ABC theory if anything ever happened with that could go. Mental health section needs to be improved.
Abortion is ultimately a medical undertaking, for good or for ill, and right now the coverage of that portion of Abortion, the process and immediate effects to the individual(s) involved is poorly handled in lieu of a scattershot of abortion related controversy. Probably time to get moving on that.-- Tznkai ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the ABC section to the first paragraph, is that sufficient? - Roy Boy 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Pro-life knowing vs. pro-choice uncertainties |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway. Anathasius ( talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
|
I have changed the template used as my intent was not to stop the discussion giving me the last word. That would be unfair, I merely wanted to limit it as this discussion has been done repeatedly here. If further comments are required specifically to me you may post them on my talk page. If the comments are of a more general, specific and preferably short nature... please post them within the hidden box above. Thank you. - Roy Boy 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Mauriziosaavedra ( talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't agree with some of the things posted in this article. The way abortion methods are performed is not stated clearly, and the percentages for the reasons of abortion are incorrect.
The suction method is used within the first three months of the child's development.In this method, a tube connected to a suction device is inserted into the mother's womb. The force created by the device tears the child's body apart and draws the pieces into the tube and into a container for disposal.
The dilation and curettage(D&C)method, is also used in the first three months of development. This method involves using a loop-shaped knife called a curette to scrape the womb, severing the child's attachment to the mother. The baby's body is often cut into small pieces, and the head may be crushed to fit through the opening of the womb.
During the period between 13 and 20 weeks(3 and 5 months)of development, the most common method of abortion is the dilation and evacuation(D&E) method. In this method, a pair of forceps is inserted into the mother's womb, where they are used to dismember the child and drag the parts out of the womb through the birth canal. The tiny parts are often reassembled to ensure that none of the child's remains are left in the womb.
After 20 weeks the D&E is no longer practical, so abortionists sometimes use salt poisoning(saline abortion) to kill the child during this period. Using a long needle, they inject a salt solution(or sometimes urea)into the amniotic sac. This concentrated salt solution is swallowed and inhaled by the child, causing hemorraging, shock, and often painful burning of the skin. The baby thrashes about as it slowly dies, usually within an hour and a half. The dead baby is then delivered through the birth canalwithin 2-3 days.
Although most abortions are performed during the first three months of pregnacy, 15,000-20,000 per year are performed during the final three months of development, when the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. When the child is so far advanced, hysterotomy abortions are usually peformed. In this procedure, which is similar to the Caesarean section, the baby is surgically removed from the womb but is laid aside to die from neglect. Alternatively, the exposed baby is killed while still in the womb and then removed after he is dead.
Some mid- and late-term abortions are also peformed using the intact dilation and and extraction(D&X) method, or partial-birth abortion.The baby is delivered alive through the birth canal just as in a normal live birth, except that he is delivered feet first. When all of his body except his head is outside his mother, the baby is then killed by puncturing the base of the skull and using a suction device to remove his brain, collapsing the skull so that the head can fit more conveniently through the opening of the birth canal. An unborn baby is still a human, and very much alive. By the time the child has been developing in the mother's womb for only 8 weeks, all he organs are formed and the external features are established. By the end of 12 weeks, EVERY detail of basic stucture is developed. Life is precious and we need to protect it.
Apparently the list article was deleted, so we're going to have to fix the infoboxes and think about how to rework that.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldnt find anything that tells when is the "last chance" to abort (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.32.178 ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The cost of choice. According to the US AG Dept., IRS, and the US Census Bureau, if Abortion ended, in one year we would creat 13 million jobs and add over 600 Billion to GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf5000 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently translated as : "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."
The Russian actually says "Miscarriages induced by either folk healers or midwives not only maim the mowman, they also often lead to death."
Russian has the word "аборт" [abort] for "abortion," but here "miscarriage" is used euphemistically, and this should be maintained in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It says "One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy showed a rate of pregnancy in exposed ovulatory cycles of 59.6%; with 61.9% of conceptuses lost prior to 12 weeks of which 91.7% occuried subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother."
If a woman's pregnancy aborts itself, how is she a mother? Maybe she's a mother already by coincidence, but maybe she's not. We should just say call her a woman, not a mother.
I'd fix it myself but this article is locked tight. You should fix it for me. Spotfixer ( talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote from pro-life:
It's a framing issue. Calling a childless but pregnant woman a "mother" is rounding up, just like calling a fetus a "baby" or abortion "murder". If I understand correctly, anything but medical terminology would amount to breaking NPOV. Spotfixer ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"It is unfortunate that physicians frequently use the terms mother and baby in referring to the pregnant woman and fetus in medical literature and scientific meetings. Such language suggests that the author or speaker is unaware of the important ethical dimensions of the terms....Mother, however, should be used only when grammatically correct, to describe a woman who has borne a child. Mother is therefore not interchangeable with the term pregnant woman."
"Woman" should be enough, since the context says she's pregnant. Spotfixer ( talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
In section 7.2, we should add a new section about how abortion can be a leading factor for underpopulation and economic recessions. The words "economy" and "underpopulation" are not found in the article as of 2008-11-09. What are you guys' thoughts? There are various resources on this, e.g.: Movement for a Better America and the film Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family-- Geremia ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The book is self-published by the president of a pro-natal activist group. On pop.org, it says:
I think that makes it entirely clear that this "book" is not a reliable source. Spotfixer ( talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the pro-choice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the fetus. - Zahd ( talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't mind so much how I'm perceived, and being called anti-choice is not really as offensive as you might think. My point is not that "mother's rights" are not relevant at all. In fact I fully support "mother's rights." Motherhood is in fact a beautiful thing and in no way offends me. You see of course that by calling "choice" an aspect of "mother's rights" you've found only an oxymoron. I would suggest that "choice" itself is also a similar oxymoron, being largely a euphemism for death. "If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion." I don't see what this has to do with anything. At no time did I mention IVF, and in no way does it help matters to use IVF as the basis for a thought experiment. "Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article." I know what the arguments are, namely that in the absence of fetus rights woman's rights should prevail. My point is simply that its a violation of WP:WEASEL to call killing a fetus "ending a pregnancy." Period. - Zahd ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The terminology is pulled out of medical dictionaries in an effort to be neutral.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure what happened here as I've been busy elsewhere on wiki, but Zahd, you came here, made your position, and encountered opposition. Then you edited the article, I'm in the proccess of going over the edits, and you're reverting me. I'm just sayin, maybe thats because there isn't consensus for your view point, and we should discuss it.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai wrote: "There are a lot of problems with this edit. One, it puts questionable weight on the idea of religious groups all holding there is a soul: which, even if it is true, isn't particularly useful or neutral." LOL. This reminds me of this piece of logic (from VALIS):
God doesn't exist. And anyhow he's stupid.
- Zahd ( talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be move-protected? What if someone tries to move it to something like "baby-killing"? Jonathan321 ( talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Good, but why doesn't it have a green lock on it? Jonathan321 ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, you said "In addition, mainline christian groups are often pro choice, which is nowhere near unanimous." Do you have a source for that? Its interesting that Christians would be pro-Choice, and I know there's some truth in it. "Often" is probably not inexact, unfortunately. - Zahd ( talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the below. What the fuck is wrong with it?
- Zahd ( talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand pro-choicers don't like seeing this language, but its the most concise and plain summary of what the pro-life camp thinks of abortion. Anyway, I don't think it fair to be reverted by people who aren't even involved in discussion here, so I restored the summary to the lede, which addresses both sides very clearly: "In short, the pro-choice position holds abortion to be a human right, while the pro-life position holds abortion to be murder." Nothing POV about this, is there? - Zahd ( talk) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just deleted this entire newly added section. Sorry if this seems precipitate, but there are several problems that I think should be addressed before the author puts it back. (1) It is over-long in the context of an article about abortion as a whole; (2) it looks like a breach of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH; (3) it is badly mis-formatted, with references incorrectly constructed and every occurrence of numerous words (abortion, pro-choice, etc) needlesly wikilinked. I invite the author of this new section to come here and say why he/she thinks such a section is merited, and (if necessary) to ask for help with the formatting. Meanwhile, I feel that the article is better off without this addition. Sorry. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've modified the recent insertion of a section on the Mexico City Policy. The section as added weighted some things inappropriately, namely W. Bush's reinstating the gag rule on day one. (Watch, Obama will do the reverse).
I think a fair argument for inclusion can be made, it shows how much the topic of abortion effects foreign policy, which is a big deal. That having been said, I'm not sure if it should remain, or remain in the section it is currently in.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Since its a sufficiently debated concept, I think we should create a beginning of human life article, which details all of the varied concepts of human beginnings, detailing each argument and counterargument, etc. - Zahd ( talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of improvements that I propose to make to the article, but as this is a controversial subject I thought I'd float them on the talk page first.
Thoughts please Ϣere Spiel Chequers 18:17, 28 November 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
This appears early in the article: "Aspects of this debate can include the public health impact of unsafe or illegal abortion as well as legal abortion's effect upon crime rates..." When I read this I became curious about exactly what effect legal abortion has on crime rates, but no links or sources are provided, leaving my curiosity unsatiated. Not very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the subsection later, but a link to that subsection (or better yet, its article) would be convenient.
Also, I thought the last sentence in that subsection was out of place. "Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime.[38][39] Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action — merely reporting data as economists.
Researchers have observed changes in heart rates and hormonal levels of newborn infants after circumcision, blood tests, and surgery — effects which were alleviated with the administration of anesthesia.[40] Others suggest that the human experience of pain, being more than just physiological, cannot be measured in such reflexive responses.[41]"
It goes from economics, data, and studies right into fetal pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! -- Grrrlriot ( talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Below is what I would suggest as a more balanced summary of the controversy over abortion and mental health. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, you will see that I put in multiple, independent peer reviewed sources for all of the negative effects which have been shown to be associated with abortion. The multiple sources could be included in single footnote to clean up the text.
If anyone wants to help refine it, I created a draft page here. In the meantime, I'm putting an unbalanced tag on the section in the article.
The issue of abortion and mental health is very controversial. In 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reported that no definitive conclusions could be made regarding either the positive or negative mental health effects related to abortion because all available research at that time was too methodlogically flawed. [1] A year later, a team of psycholgists with the American Psychological Association published their own review of the literature. They concluded that the "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women" but also noted that "case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." They also noted that certain groups of women were at higher risk of experiencing negative reactions, including: "women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand." [2]
In a 1992 review of research on abortion and mental health lead editor concluded that "[t]here is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion," and that the issues of disagreement are centered on (1) how prevelant negative reactions are, (2) the severity of negative reactios, (3) determination of what level of negative reactions consitutes a public or mental health problem, and (4) how severe reactions should be classified. [3]
In the subsequent ten years, case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment [4] [5] [6] [7] anxiety, [8] [9] [10] depression, [8] [11] [4]alcohol use, [12] [13] [14] [15], post-traumatic stress disorder, [16] [17] [18] drug use, [8], [19] [14] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, [6] [20] [21] [22] suicidal thoughts [8] [23] completed suicides, [24] [25] and child maltreatment. [26] [27] [28] [29]
Self-esteem scores are not significantly affected by abortion. [30] Students who abort an unintended pregnancy are significantly more likely to complete high school than similar classmates who choose to give birth. [31]
It is has not been conclusively shown if the mental health problems staistically associated with abortion are directly caused by the abortion itself, by experiences associated with the unintended pregnancy, or if the abortion related experiences may only serve to aggravate, trigger, or in some manner contribute to pre-existing mental health problems.
[8] An alternative explanation is that the statistical associations between abortion and psychiatric illnesses are entirely incidental. Along these lines it has been proposed that women who already have mental problems are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Post-abortion counseling programs are offered by a wide number of peer support groups and professional counseling services. Many programs reflect a pro-choice perspective which attempt to help women deal with negative reactions while validating the choice to abort. Others reflect a pro-life perspective which includes an element of repentance for the abortion choice. [32]
The controversy over abortion and mental health is fueled by the potential effects this issue may have on the political and judicial debate over abortion. In it's most recent ruling on abortion, Gonzales v Carhart the majority opinion indicated that abortion was "fraught with emotional consequences." The minority opinion, however, while acknowleding that "for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision" insisted there is no reliable evidence that women who regret their abortions suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem." [33]
Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I was highly concerned about creating a disparity between the summary section and the main article. Specifically, it is inappropriate to have content here that isn't in the main article. There is nothing mentioned of "counseling" in the main article, nor about the SCOTUS case Gonzales v. Carhart, so the last two paragraphs need to go. Also, the Wilmoth info is nowhere to be found in the main article. High school isn't mentioned anywhere. I could go on... I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable to have so much content in a summary section that is not mentioned, let alone explained in fuller detail in the main parent article. How about this as a compromise. I propose: to replace the current summary section with the lead from the current Abortion and mental health. And once there are stable changes that are made to that lead, we can always update the summary section here. That way we make sure that the content here is actually at the main article, and we avoid bypassing consensus on the main parent article.- Andrew c [talk] 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(( Broken Record - again)) Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.---- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ at the top of this talk page has info about images. Several prior discussions are linked, regarding so-called "shock" images. So, I think it is pretty well-established that there has been a consensus not to include any images here of aborted fetuses, or to even include any links to where an interested person can find such images. However, those linked discussions contain little (if any) discussion about whether it would be appropriate for the present article to include an image of an intact fetus before it is aborted. I clarified this point in the FAQ, and was reverted. [1] Maybe such an image will someday be included in this article, and maybe not, but the linked prior discussions have not settled the point. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, didn't we have this exact conversation already? I recall you making the exact same argument not long ago. We also had this discussion on the Fetus page where the images already exist. There is no need to also post them here in order to make a political statement. The fetus page gives us more of an opportunity to qualify the images. For example, while we show an 8 week old fetus that has the beginnings of eyes and feet, we can also inform the reader that a fetus doesn't feel pain, can't control motor function, is not sentient, etc. We also talk about the length of the fetus at 8 weeks (30 mm or 1.2 inches). In short, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the fetus images here. Fetus images here make a political statement, not a medical one.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So sorry Ferrylodge. I completely jumped the gun in a rush to celebrate Valentine's day.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone who cares: I was recently reverted here by an editor, whom I subsequently contacted here about the FAQ. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In List of counseling topics there is an entry for Abortion counseling that is red-lined. Was there an article? Should there be an article, or appropriate text here? Simesa ( talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This article was recently edited to say the following:
“ | Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop, who is self-described as pro-life, conducted a review of the medical and psychological impact of abortion on women while he was in office. Koop summarized his findings in a letter to President Ronald Reagan by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective. | ” |
This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever. Here's what Koop said before a few of his words were yanked out of context by the people who control this article:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
As I said, I won't try to correct this article now. I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways. And incidentally, the cited sources do not say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Pres. Reagan; but, who cares about accuracy, right? Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:23, 19 Fe bruary 2008 (UTC)
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Attention Admins: Would you mind pointing out to IronAngelAlice that the article should not contain unsupported and unverified statements? None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is dishonest to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles; I may well be criticized for pointing this out, but such is Wikipedia. It appears to be Wikipedia policy for admins to look the other way. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)It is also unfair, counterproductive, and against Wikipedia policy to edit your comments after they have already been replied to, by adding huge amounts of new material. [7] Try inserting such material after the latest response. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no issue with deleting the NY Times article. But that wasn't your original argument, and now you are trying to insert a bunch of claims that weren't in your original argument. If your contention is that the article should say "congressional committee" rather than a "letter to Ronald Regan" - no problem! It's been fixed. If you would like to delete the NY Times article, fine, but there are two other non-editorial references that are proper. The fact remains, you initially tried to change the meaning of the sentences about Koop's findings. However, the reliable resources don't support your claims.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)As I said at the beginning of this section, I want this article to include Koop's clarification, instead of cutting him off. Here's what Koop said:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
This article presently excludes the last sentence. Koop said that there is an overwhelming psychological problem associated with abortion. When Wikipedia quotes a sentence which was immediately clarified by the speaker, it is not honest for Wikipedia to omit the clarification.
Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(repaste from above)
Furthermore, the quote we use is pretty much directly from the investigative Mooney article:
And the general information comes from this source:
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am simply making an argument for why the text says what it does. And we simply disagree - nothing more and nothing less. If a consensus is made (among more people than just you and I) to include the entire quote with no context, I would be happy to change the text myself. My objection continues to be that the main point of the paragraph concerns the causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health effects. It is clear that Koop does not believe abortion causes negative mental health effects from a public health perspective - the only perspective on which he is qualified to speak in his capacity as Attorney General. -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence we have now is, "Koop summarized his findings to a congressional committee by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective." This is accurate, and speaks to the only thing that Koop is qualified to speak about - public health. In his position, he does not speak on behalf of individual American family members, and his later comment was an editorialization.
Also, the full title of the article which quotes Koop the same way we do is, " Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science." The article is not an editorial, and it mostly talks about David Reardon and Joel Brind. So, I'm confused - are you disputing the veracity of the facts in the article, which is published by the Washington Monthly, a reputable publication with fact checkers? Do you also object to a discussion of people like David Reardon and Joel Brind who do bend science to fit their religious agendas? Or do you simply object to the inclusion of the term " religious right" and believe that because the article identifies the religious right it is therefore POV?-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
FerryLodge, you write "He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming" - actually, he did the exact opposite. He said in terms of public health, the problem is "miniscule." Most reasonable people (including the members of the particular sub committee, most of whom were pro-life, and the
members of the media who were covering that committee meeting) agree that when Koop said, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, [the psychological problem] is overwhelming," he was editorializing, and not speaking from a scientific view (read further down the page at why Koop was compelled to testify in front of Congress). In short, Dr. Koop impressed upon the subcommittee that from a scientific perspective (Koop reviewed 250 studies), the public health problem is miniscule. This is why we, and many others, do not include the editorialization regarding the "personal perspective" being "overwhelming"--
IronAngelAlice (
talk)
06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Further reading about Koop and abortion that supports the above comments:
"Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1]
"Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people object?" Ferrylodge, thus far you are the only objector.
Again, I point to all the other sources that use almost the exact same language we do - because it puts Koop's testimony in perspective:
"Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet another decent into a personal attack.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks for the corrections Mastcell. However, if you would consider the matter further, perhaps you will find that you're still very far from correct. You now accuse me of drawing "from a separate part of the hearing." On the contrary, I have already provided the following quote here at this talk page, which shows that I am drawing from a single answer to a single question on a single page of a single hearing report, with no ellipsis or other gap:
“ | Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.[1] | ” |
[1]Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.
Contrary to what you asserted in your edit to this article, [12] the word "miniscule" was not used in any letter to President Reagan. Additionally, your New Scientist quote is false; Koop did not testify that "the evidence of psychological damage to women from abortion appeared to be 'minuscule'." Koop only made that assertion regarding public health effects, as the direct quote from the hearing shows. Your Washington Monthly source by Chris Mooney uses the word "miniscule" as in his other articles and books, including his Washington Monthly article "Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science", and his book "The Republican War on Science."
The basic point here is that Koop uttered his "miniscule" sentence, and then immediately (i.e. right away and instantaneously) clarified what he was saying. You are seeking to omit the clarification, which is a clarification supported by a reliable online source. I think we would all be better off we let this matter drop, now that Koop is out of this article. But if you insist on including the "miniscule" quote, while omitting the context provided by the very next sentence uttered by Koop, then I will continue to disagree. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this Ferrylodge? Junior High? Get a hold of yourself.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 00:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I side with IronAngelAlice, this is common sense. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 11:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The material above is VERY interesting in that it shows the phrase "minuscule from a public health perspective" was actually the phrase used by Weiss, not Koop. At best Koop did not disagree with that characterization, but these were not words HE used in the testimony. Also, given his continued insistence that there was not enough reliable research from which to draw any conclusions, it is clear that even he could only make a best guess that it WAS PROBABLY be miniscule from a public health perspective. Subsequent research, including prospective studies of the type recommended by Koop, however, has shown that abortion is associated with a six fold increase risk of suicide, doubling of the rate of psychiatric admissions, higher rates of substance abuse et cetera. Therefore, it is quite likely that Koop might now revise this 19 year old assessment in light of the current data. Below is an objective overview of what Koop really said. POV pushers continue to delete it from the article on abortion and mental health, however. I'd welcome help on that article in retaining verifiable materials.
In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop subsequently began review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion. In a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 Koop stated that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." [2] [3] To address the inadequate research in the field, he recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade." [3]
In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material." [4] In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, Congressman Ted Weiss questioned Koop saying: "And yet the American Psychological Assocation's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective." In response, Koop stated, "From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming. All this leads up to my conclusion to the President that we don't know what we are talking about, and if you want to know what you are talking about and feel certain about what you are saying you have to do a prospective study..." [5]
In the twenty years since Koop's review of the literature, prospective and case-control studies have now found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment [6] [7] [8] [9] anxiety, [10] [11] [12] depression, [10] [13] [6]alcohol use, [14] [15] [16] [17], post-traumatic stress disorder, [18] [19] [20] drug use, [10], [21] [16] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, [8] [22] [23] [24] suicidal thoughts [10] [25] completed suicides, [26] [27] and child maltreatment. [28] [29] [30] [31]
-- Strider12 ( talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following sentence to the section on fetal pain, and to the fetal pain article: "In rare cases, insensitivity to pain is a disorder that exists before birth and continues after birth.[1]"
"[1] “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”, About Kids Health, The Hospital for Sick Children ( 2006-05-18), via Archive.org."
This would provide some needed clarity and context. The absence of pain does not say anything about sentience or about self-awareness, or about numerous other things (fetal pain studies have been cited by a POV-pushing editor in the fetus article to contend just that). Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) OK, having read the article, I don't see where it supports your statement. It says:
Neither support your assertion. Am I missing something? -- Phyesalis ( talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
((repeat)) My thoughts on your sentence is that we should not include every disorder on the abortion page. There just isn't enough space or time. This is not the appropriate page to discuss disorders.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I suppose it would be too much to hope that we could go a few more words without more accusations of one sort or another. I did not mention the article “Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception” at the fetus article until about two minutes ago. So, no, I am not trying to bring it up here because of rejection there. And I explicity said above, "Perhaps this conversation would be more appropriate at the fetus article, where that original research occurs." Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedians Even though is just the Boise, Idaho newspaper, this article (which I've just started reading) seems influential. Simesa ( talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I request that issues related to fetal pain be discussed at Talk:Fetal pain and issues related to abortion and mental health be discussed at Talk:Abortion and mental health. We are using the lead of those articles (and the ABC hypothesis article) for our summary sections. If we make changes here, we run the risk of adding content here that isn't found in the main article, and we run the risk of bypassing the consensus of those editors working on those main articles. We are only summarizing the parent articles here, so I think it's a good idea to use the leads (as we are) for our summaries. I believe new changes should go through the talk pages of those parent articles, not here. We have tripled the size of this talk page in just a couple days discussing topics that are better suited elsewhere. So please, consider working on improving the actual articles, not these summary sections. Thanks.- Andrew c [talk] 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many reasons why women chose to have an abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Two additional subsections were added to the "Forms of abortion" section, which duplicated information and citations found in the next section down "Incidence of induced abortion". We have a chart and cite multiple studies for when abortion happens. Also, the current wording contextualizes the studies geographically (US, UK) where the previous wording made one US study seem to apply internationally. Next, we already cite the Jones/Darroch/Henshaw study in another section. I'm sorry to revert good faith edits that someone worked on, and I don't mean any personal offense by it, but the content was redundant with what we already had in the article in the corresponding sections. - Andrew c [talk] 13:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1.0 Percent of all abortions preformed are done because of rape or incest.
Abortion kills 42 Million babies per year around the world, and 70,000 women who have had abortions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to use the page for a school project, but someone vandalized the page like crazy, with an obvious slant. Is it possible to lock the page so no one can vandalize or ruin it? -- Scdog99 ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
hello, recently in my GCSE religious studies class i was told that the correct diffinition of abortion is "the premature expulsion of the foetus or embryo from the womb". i would have edited this my self but as the page is protected i decided to leave up to the experts. please concider changing this if you find it to be appropriate. many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.209 ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of offending those who have finely tuned the meaning of abortion offered in the article, it seems to me that part of the current definition should be deprecated to a second level. The common interpretation of the term in contemporary speech and text is “induced” expulsion of the embryo or fetus. The “spontaneous or induced” meaning is archaic and specialized to the medical arts. Deprecating the “spontaneous” aspect of the definition is likely to offend one side or the other of the ongoing abortion debate. The following rewording is an attempt to retain the precision and neutrality of the current definition. Please comment.
"An abortion is the induced removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in its death. In medicine, abortion can refer to either induced or spontaneous expulsion. The spontaneous expulsion of a fetus or embryo before the 20th week is commonly known as a miscarriage.[1] The more commonly used definition, in reference to induced abortion, is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons” Quampro ( talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we update this and strike out some items? It appears to me the Lead expansion is done, well done in fact. - Roy Boy 800 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was the aspect of the debate that equates abortion to murder taken out? Life.temp ( talk) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject of the paragraph is "The moral and legal aspects of abortion are subject to intense social debate" The main moral objection to abortion is that it is like murder. It makes no sense to omit that from a list of the main moral aspects of the debate. Life.temp ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading it again, I notice that the paragraph also doesn't mention the individual liberty of women. It doesn't actually the mention the main moral arguments people give for being pro-life or pro-choice. Life.temp ( talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Should there be somewhere a discussion about when human life begins? This comes up in the abortion debate. Though maybe there is some other place that would be better? Yes, laws often use the moment of birth as the defining moment of humanness. But that is mostly a matter of practicality. And at one time we just didn't know any better. But it is hard to see that anything actually happens at birth that somehow changes the fetus to make it human. However popular that belief is, it seems to be merely magical thinking. Modern medical science shows an amazing picture of how early various human aspects start in a fetus. Note that I am not raising this issue to promote a "pro-life" position. I am actually in favour of abortion being legal, for reasons I won't go into, but the idea that the fetus isn't human seems to be a dishonest idea. This is a real issue, that I think deserves some honest discussion. DeniseMToronto ( talk) 00:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am making very significant changes to the ABC lead, mostly to improve readability, but also to remove some inaccurate statements and correct poor referencing. As this will effect the Abortion article; feedback now would be welcome. - Roy Boy 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on fetal pain says, "Most medical researchers agree pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy."
The cited article says that there hasn't been any consensus, that data analyzed by a recent meta-study indicates a fetus "likely" cannot feel pain by this stage, and says that some scientists disagree. So, I do not feel that the statement in the text of this article is accurate.
Also, why not also cite directly to the meta-study in the footnote?
Lee, Susan J., Ralston, Henry J. Peter, Drey, Eleanor A., Partridge, John Colin, & Rosen, Mark A. (2005). Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (8), 947-954. Retrieved 2007-02-26. "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.... electroecephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." (emphasis added) Two authors of the study published in JAMA did not report their abortion-related activities, which pro-life groups called a conflict of interest; the editor of JAMA responded that JAMA probably would have mentioned those activities if they had been disclosed, but still would have published the study. See Denise Grady, “Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties”, New York Times ( 2005-08-26).
Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The source supplied does not support the text "Most medical researchers agree", as the source discusses a review of available data by one group of researchers. I edited the text to reflect this, while attempting not to diminish the significance of study. Neitherday ( talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The old cited source says: "In Nazi Germany, abortion was strictly prohibited, as “Aryan” women were to reproduce to increase the “master race”. Abortion was declared an act against the state; the death penalty was introduced in 1943.2" and "In contrast, Jewish women were forced to have abortions; both abortion and sterilization were used by the state against groups which it considered racially undesirable." The new cited source says: "The 'Law for the Alteration of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring' sanctions compulsory abortion, up to and including the sixth month of pregancy, for women considered 'hereditarily ill.'"
Compare this to what the old cites source says about CCCR: "In 1920, a decree from the Commissariats of Health and Justice permitted free abortions at all Soviet hospitals, and prohibited anyone but a doctor from performing them. This law reflected the belief in female equality held by the revolutionaries, as illustrated by Lenin's statement that no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will."
We have the article saying various countries "were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion." When we say "legalize abortion" it implies the type of legal abortion that is available to women in the UK, Canada, US, etc. Neither cited source says that Nazi Germany "legalized abortion". I think it is problematic to list Nazi Germany among the other countries. It was illegal for the preferred class of women (Aryans) to get abortions. I think we should remove Nazi Germany from the list of the first countries to legalize abortion, and instead of a separate sentence that says something like "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a laws was passed making abortions compulsory for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while Aryan women were specifically prohibited from having abortions." - Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There are a couple developments about this matter today. First, this article no longer mentions anything about Nazi Germany, per this edit. I haven't checked to see who initially mentioned Nazi Germany in this article, or how long it's been in this article, but it does seem that if Nazi Germany was one of the first countries to legalize abortion for many women then it shouldn't be left out of the list of such countries.
As mentioned above, I went over to the history of abortion article, and have tried to provide more reliable and notable sources. Here's what I ended up with:
[1]Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.
[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), page 366: "This emendation allowed abortion only if the woman granted permission, and only if the fetus was not old enough to survive outside the womb."
[3]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123: "Abortion, in other words, could be allowed if it was in the interest of racial hygiene.... the Nazis did allow (and in some cases even required) abortions for women deemed racially inferior.... On November 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal for Jews." Also see Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589: "In 1939, it was announced that Jewish women could seek abortions, but non-Jewish women could not."
So, I think Germany should now be reinserted into the list in the present article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ferrylodge, cease your attempts to insert this bizarre interpretation of Nazi Germany's eugenics into the Abortion article, or I will ban you from this article (weren't you already warned about this by ArbCom?). KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Although I think it could use improvement, I'll agree for now to inclusion of Andrew c's language: "In 1935 Nazi Germany, a law was passed permitting abortions for those deemed 'hereditarily ill', while women considered of 'German stock' were specifically prohibited from having abortions."[1][2][3][4]
[1]Friedlander, Henry. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of Northern Carolina Press, 1995): 30. Via Google Books.
[2]Proctor, Robert. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press 1988), pages 122-123 and 366.
[3]Arnot, Margaret; Usborne, Cornelie. Gender and Crime in Modern Europe, page 231 (1999).
[4] Woman’s Studies Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing 1999), Edited by Helen Tierney, page 589.
Usually, I would not attach so many footnotes to a single sentence. However, since this is a particularly controversial aspect of a particularly controversial issue, I think it's appropriate. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no rationale for including anything about Nazi Germany in this article whatsoever. This article is not about the Nazis, it is about abortion. Any information about what the Nazis laws or views on abortion were properly belongs in the Nazi family of articles, not the Abortion family of articles. It is a precise parallel to the repeated attempts to insert that Dawkins was a character in the SouthPark episode "Go God Go" - its trivia, and its trivia about SouthPark, not about Dawkins - and it is rightfully promptly removed each time some SouthPark fan attempts to add it. This Nazi information is the same. Its not about abortion; its about Nazi Germany. We learn absolutely nothing about abortion in any of the suggested phrasings - we learn about Nazis. To attempt to add it to this article is at best spurious trivia and at worst an attempt to link Nazis and Abortion - Godwin's law, anyone? KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does every controversial topic make a reference to the Nazis at some point? -- Simpsons fan 66 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct that Google policy “does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’ …” Google does permit antiabortion ads and sales of anti-religious shirts. The Christian Institute filed suit in the UK regarding the Google policy.
Former Tory minister Ann Widdecombe, MP, has called Google’s action an “appalling and blatant case of religious discrimination.” Though rejecting the Christian Institute’s ad, Google has permitted ads by abortion clinics and the sales of anti-religious T-shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.254.10 ( talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The current article, titled as it is "Abortion", makes little sense medically; where the term "abortion" encompasses both "induced abortions" (which is what this article almost exclusively covers) and "spontaneous abortion" which is covered in the separate article of miscarriage. I agree the section Abortion#Spontaneous abortion is well written and provides a "Main article" link, but I think this article as a whole needs a disambiguation note for its particular focus.
Hence should there be at the top of the article this disambiguation tag: "{{otheruses4|intentionally "induced abortions"|"spontaneous abortions"|Miscarriage}}" which displays as:
David Ruben Talk 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
what are the dangers of abortion and what can you do to avoid them.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.148.253 ( talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Approx 78,000 women die from legal abortions in the world each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right2Life ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor who only edits this article has reverted what he says is a "covert POV" edit. [16] Actually, there was nothing covert or POV. So, unless there are objections, I'll restore the removed material so that it tracks the lead of the fetal pain article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved this discussion to Template talk:Humanrightsfooter#Abortion as a reproductive right because so far this discussion has centered on that template and has had very little to do with the article on abortion. Having the discussion here makes it hard to keep a coherent history of that page. Those wishing to discuss what should be on the humanrightsfooter, please do it there. Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 04:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This statement is dubious. Is there an emerging consensus, or is there not an emerging consensus? Gary P88 ( talk) 11:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Just casually browsing the article, I see at least three references to abortion. I'm restoring the link. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article concludes that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion. It even uses evidence from American Psychological Association, as does the following. But the following contradicts the Wiki claim: Chair of APA Abortion Report Task Force Violates APA Ethics Rules http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html Life Site News The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No, MastCell, YOU read Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I found 36 citations in Wiki's article that were from pro-choice sources but only two that were from pro-life sources. Yet, you say "partisan" newsletter. So you're saying what? That Wiki isn't partisan?
The 36 biased Wiki citations are: 4, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 61, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108, and 111.
Wiki doesn't waste any time in showing its bias. You do so in the first sentence: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Apparently, citation not needed. This alleged definition greatly diminishes what an induced abortion is. In an induced abortion, an abortion is not caused by a death or result in a death in the particular way you infer. A death is caused by an abortion, and the dead baby is removed or expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember the rules of the internet, don't feed the trolls. Also, the abortion article is commonly cited as a good example of a well balanced article, which means it is relatively unbiased. The Anon however, seems to think it's okay if it's biased as long as it's slanted towards pro-life. Zanotam - Google me ( talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
didn't find a section on the talk page. At any rate. the this section was getting too long. Using WP:SEH i took out the 2 points of view that were creeping in.
I also took out one issue guide because there already was one (presumably both were unbiased), and it cuts down on redundancy. Likewise for the gov website on the issue. Lihaas ( talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed the list, removing all country specific resources. Those should be linked from Abortion Debate only, or in abortion in X sections. I'm going through the abortion statistics section later-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't it be a 'see also.' Then it goes with wikipedia's explanation. It's also not 'global' (im not 100% sure though) in nature. Maybe we should put a link to pro-life and pro-choice directly? Lihaas ( talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the link to the Just Facts website listed as "prolife?" That external site takes pains to be objective, including explaining why it believes its choice of terms within the discussion are unbiased. It tries to indeed provide Just the Facts. I propose that link's description of "prolife" be removed and that instead it have no description at all. Rather, it will continue to appear under the heading that it "may" be written those with an agenda. I am not authorized to make edits though! WikiEditi ( talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I just came back from an extended vacation, and I'm not sure who is active on this page now, so if you are, pipe up please, because I'm planning on changing the organization of the article.
I'd like to add an Abortion by country section, which will survey abortion prevalence and legality in various countries or regions, English speaking first, then moving our way down. Should be relavtively short, branching into larger articles.
Thoughts?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
before the 20th week of gestational age [32] is commonly known as a miscarriage. [33]
Problem here: This refers only to HUMAN abortions, an abortion can be induced any animal that bears young.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cut down the opening section considerably. My reasoning is fairly simple. We need a short and concise definition of what abortion is. The remaining sentences reference all of the major abortion subtopics (history, legality, by country, morality). Also, as a matter of precision abortion can be, and is induced in domesticated animals all the time, but as a lone term refers to human abortions
Everything else was cut because its covered in the article itself.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Without putting in the comments of whether abortion is moral or amoral the whole article is put in jeapardy. Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway. Anathasius ( talk) 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair - but still, there should be some indication that a "spontaneous abortion" is a "miscarriage". The latter term is widely used and understood, whereas "spontaneous abortion" is not. There should be an explicit linkage between the two terms in the lead, to avoid confusion. How would you propose we phrase this? MastCell Talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have a feeling of deja vu on this one. Hmm.. just so we're all clear (again), WP:SEEALSO states "[Links] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." I told you, do a "ctrl+f" for abortion in the infanticide article. I did. I came across the word eight times. You people are ridiculous. My version will be restored, in accordance with the relevant style guideline. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Paranormal Skeptic, I "assumed bad faith" in my edit summary, and by golly, someone comes along and reverts me anyway. So by your own logic, you were acting in bad faith. Infanticide is not linked anywhere from the abortion article (I checked before I made the addition). NPOV requires that all views be represented, so none of you have any reason to be complaining, unless of course, you're trying to skew the article towards your POV. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you assumed bad faith automatically which is why I reverted it to being with. It was linked in several places already (You failed to look hard enough), and you came to this article attempting to push POV. NPOV doesn't require all views, but rather substantiated views. Find a WP:RS speaking about infanticide and abortion. This was clear POV pushing. And yes, 'you people failed WP:CIVIL. I was acting in bad faith to remove a POV push? I think not. Infanticide is ruled out from the see also, and I can't think of why it would be linked anywhere in this article, rather than in Abortion Debate. Infanticide, according to intro of the article is "murder of an infant". Pre-natal isn't infant but rather fetal or foetal. Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with accusing the "other side" of pushing a POV is that it works equally well both ways. It's very common for editors who support a minority viewpoint to agitate to include their own POV on the top-level article of a controversial subject (e.g. September 11 attacks, CERN, AIDS, Water fluoridation, Abortion) when, according to WP:Summary style, the material in question would be better dealt with - indeed, may be already dealt with - in a lower-level, more specific article (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, AIDS denialism, Water fluoridation controversy, Abortion debate. Arguably, the reverse is true, with "pro-mainstream" editors citing WP:UNDUE to push details of controversies into "more obscure" articles. I don't know if this observation helps this particular discussion, but hopefully it puts things into perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
INFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.
"Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant." Infantacide
I am having trouble with the edit features, so my sincere apologies. My points ARE about improving the article. I think a major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such. It is easy for people to attack my comments as presenting a point of view. People do that rather than suggest how the article could deal with the facts I present. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how the article can deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. That's magical thinking. That's a legal fiction. I state that, not to argue a position, but to point out that it is a PROBLEM with the article. Has no one any idea of how to actually fix the problem? I don't know how the article can deal with the horrible tragedies caused by abortion being difficult to obtain or illegal. But what is apparent to me is that, rather than find ways to improve the article, people would rather fight out the issue here. And simply dismiss my points as being a point of view. DeniseMToronto ( talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC) DeniseMToronto
I tried reading the arguments above, and my eyes almost immediately glazed over, but what we have here are three conflating issues. 1. Maintaining the neutral point of view. 2. Stylistic guidelines involving See Also and 3. Edit warring to get your way. Can we at least all agree that Edit warring is stupid?
Now, I suggest we try to agree on some principles about how big, and what the See Also section should contain. Please consult certain guidelines we have on the matter.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the section as it is. These links do not "naturally fit into the body of text", because the article sucks. It's not even a good article. The perfect article may not have a "see also" section at all, but this one is far from perfect and needs to be expanded, so that these links fit more naturally into the text. But until that happens, they should be kept, because they are related to the parent topic. Don't narrow the scope of the "see also" section. By its very nature, it is to be broad, while remaining relevant. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To Paranormal Skeptic and Tznkai: It doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I do everything according to policy. Infanticide is a related topic (what the "see also" is for), so it doesn't matter what people say or think about it. The fact is, right now the article isn't very good, and that's why we have such a large see also section. This article needs to be worked on to incorporate those links better. I'm not trying to "link everything somewhat related to abortion under the sun", because it really depends on what kind of article it is. We can't link to every single "abortion by country" article, because that would be insane, and we already have an article for that, so there should only be one link. This, however, is a primary topic that is related to abortion, whatever your POV may be on that. Feminism and women's rights is already thoroughly covered in the article, and effect on crime has its own section. Dunno about parental screening. That could be a topic that can go there. What harm does one stinking link do? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Paranormal Skeptic's argument apparently revolved around accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and has been proven wrong, this discussion has waned. I propose, based on the above findings, that the following "see also" links be removed:
If no one objects, I'll just go ahead with the (what should be uncontroversial) removal. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Abortion Debate" section needs to be reorganized (and then rewritten) We don't seem to have any sensible criteria for which arguments used in the debate we choose. In fact, we seemed to have completely skipped the major ones: (potential) humanity and reproductive rights/liberties. I think having some measure of the theorized and actual social, physiological, and psychological effects of abortion and various kinds of abortion (unsafe/"back alley", sex selective, possibly the crime rate thing, ABC theory if anything ever happened with that could go. Mental health section needs to be improved.
Abortion is ultimately a medical undertaking, for good or for ill, and right now the coverage of that portion of Abortion, the process and immediate effects to the individual(s) involved is poorly handled in lieu of a scattershot of abortion related controversy. Probably time to get moving on that.-- Tznkai ( talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the ABC section to the first paragraph, is that sufficient? - Roy Boy 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Pro-life knowing vs. pro-choice uncertainties |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although the morality of abortion has been lightly touched upon, this subject cannot be ignored. Abortion cannot be discussed without the fact that the very act of abortion is the murder of a human being. There is no argument against the fact that life begins at conception. Distinguished physicians and scientists all agree that life can begin at no other time. With this being true, to purposely kill a baby while it is still in it's mother's womb is murder. Why abortion can be such a desirable thing has never been explained to me and most people in general. What is the difference between murdering a baby in it's mother's womb and killing your next door neighbor? Or better yet, how is it different from the government going to your city and killing off half the people? All three do the same things. They murder an innocent person that has the right to life. If anyone doubt what I am saying would you please explain how these innocents are not really being murdered. Our country and our whole world are being transformed by the almost 1 billion babies aborted in the last 50 years. Who can step up to the plate and explain why this is such a good thing? If a serial killer goes out and kills 15 people, people will unquestionably call him crazy. Do the people who condone the killing of millions of babies get a reprieve because they might have a university degree. Who dares to say that killing babies is a good and wholesome thing. By what standard of justice to these people speak out? And if they do speak out, why should one who disagrees with them not hold sway. Anathasius ( talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
|
I have changed the template used as my intent was not to stop the discussion giving me the last word. That would be unfair, I merely wanted to limit it as this discussion has been done repeatedly here. If further comments are required specifically to me you may post them on my talk page. If the comments are of a more general, specific and preferably short nature... please post them within the hidden box above. Thank you. - Roy Boy 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Mauriziosaavedra ( talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't agree with some of the things posted in this article. The way abortion methods are performed is not stated clearly, and the percentages for the reasons of abortion are incorrect.
The suction method is used within the first three months of the child's development.In this method, a tube connected to a suction device is inserted into the mother's womb. The force created by the device tears the child's body apart and draws the pieces into the tube and into a container for disposal.
The dilation and curettage(D&C)method, is also used in the first three months of development. This method involves using a loop-shaped knife called a curette to scrape the womb, severing the child's attachment to the mother. The baby's body is often cut into small pieces, and the head may be crushed to fit through the opening of the womb.
During the period between 13 and 20 weeks(3 and 5 months)of development, the most common method of abortion is the dilation and evacuation(D&E) method. In this method, a pair of forceps is inserted into the mother's womb, where they are used to dismember the child and drag the parts out of the womb through the birth canal. The tiny parts are often reassembled to ensure that none of the child's remains are left in the womb.
After 20 weeks the D&E is no longer practical, so abortionists sometimes use salt poisoning(saline abortion) to kill the child during this period. Using a long needle, they inject a salt solution(or sometimes urea)into the amniotic sac. This concentrated salt solution is swallowed and inhaled by the child, causing hemorraging, shock, and often painful burning of the skin. The baby thrashes about as it slowly dies, usually within an hour and a half. The dead baby is then delivered through the birth canalwithin 2-3 days.
Although most abortions are performed during the first three months of pregnacy, 15,000-20,000 per year are performed during the final three months of development, when the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb. When the child is so far advanced, hysterotomy abortions are usually peformed. In this procedure, which is similar to the Caesarean section, the baby is surgically removed from the womb but is laid aside to die from neglect. Alternatively, the exposed baby is killed while still in the womb and then removed after he is dead.
Some mid- and late-term abortions are also peformed using the intact dilation and and extraction(D&X) method, or partial-birth abortion.The baby is delivered alive through the birth canal just as in a normal live birth, except that he is delivered feet first. When all of his body except his head is outside his mother, the baby is then killed by puncturing the base of the skull and using a suction device to remove his brain, collapsing the skull so that the head can fit more conveniently through the opening of the birth canal. An unborn baby is still a human, and very much alive. By the time the child has been developing in the mother's womb for only 8 weeks, all he organs are formed and the external features are established. By the end of 12 weeks, EVERY detail of basic stucture is developed. Life is precious and we need to protect it.
Apparently the list article was deleted, so we're going to have to fix the infoboxes and think about how to rework that.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldnt find anything that tells when is the "last chance" to abort (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.32.178 ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The cost of choice. According to the US AG Dept., IRS, and the US Census Bureau, if Abortion ended, in one year we would creat 13 million jobs and add over 600 Billion to GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf5000 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently translated as : "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."
The Russian actually says "Miscarriages induced by either folk healers or midwives not only maim the mowman, they also often lead to death."
Russian has the word "аборт" [abort] for "abortion," but here "miscarriage" is used euphemistically, and this should be maintained in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It says "One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy showed a rate of pregnancy in exposed ovulatory cycles of 59.6%; with 61.9% of conceptuses lost prior to 12 weeks of which 91.7% occuried subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother."
If a woman's pregnancy aborts itself, how is she a mother? Maybe she's a mother already by coincidence, but maybe she's not. We should just say call her a woman, not a mother.
I'd fix it myself but this article is locked tight. You should fix it for me. Spotfixer ( talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote from pro-life:
It's a framing issue. Calling a childless but pregnant woman a "mother" is rounding up, just like calling a fetus a "baby" or abortion "murder". If I understand correctly, anything but medical terminology would amount to breaking NPOV. Spotfixer ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"It is unfortunate that physicians frequently use the terms mother and baby in referring to the pregnant woman and fetus in medical literature and scientific meetings. Such language suggests that the author or speaker is unaware of the important ethical dimensions of the terms....Mother, however, should be used only when grammatically correct, to describe a woman who has borne a child. Mother is therefore not interchangeable with the term pregnant woman."
"Woman" should be enough, since the context says she's pregnant. Spotfixer ( talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
In section 7.2, we should add a new section about how abortion can be a leading factor for underpopulation and economic recessions. The words "economy" and "underpopulation" are not found in the article as of 2008-11-09. What are you guys' thoughts? There are various resources on this, e.g.: Movement for a Better America and the film Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family-- Geremia ( talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The book is self-published by the president of a pro-natal activist group. On pop.org, it says:
I think that makes it entirely clear that this "book" is not a reliable source. Spotfixer ( talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that "ending a pregnancy" is doublespeak that comes from the pro-choice camp. Its deliberately obfuscative, when the actual action isn't in fact terminating a condition in the mother, but is rather terminating a condition in the fetus. - Zahd ( talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't mind so much how I'm perceived, and being called anti-choice is not really as offensive as you might think. My point is not that "mother's rights" are not relevant at all. In fact I fully support "mother's rights." Motherhood is in fact a beautiful thing and in no way offends me. You see of course that by calling "choice" an aspect of "mother's rights" you've found only an oxymoron. I would suggest that "choice" itself is also a similar oxymoron, being largely a euphemism for death. "If IVF technology had improved to the point where babies could be brought to term without implantation into a woman then yes it would be possible to abort a fetus without a woman having an abortion." I don't see what this has to do with anything. At no time did I mention IVF, and in no way does it help matters to use IVF as the basis for a thought experiment. "Can I suggest you read some of the prochoice literature and try to understand their view, remember what you are trying to achieve is a neutral article." I know what the arguments are, namely that in the absence of fetus rights woman's rights should prevail. My point is simply that its a violation of WP:WEASEL to call killing a fetus "ending a pregnancy." Period. - Zahd ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The terminology is pulled out of medical dictionaries in an effort to be neutral.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure what happened here as I've been busy elsewhere on wiki, but Zahd, you came here, made your position, and encountered opposition. Then you edited the article, I'm in the proccess of going over the edits, and you're reverting me. I'm just sayin, maybe thats because there isn't consensus for your view point, and we should discuss it.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai wrote: "There are a lot of problems with this edit. One, it puts questionable weight on the idea of religious groups all holding there is a soul: which, even if it is true, isn't particularly useful or neutral." LOL. This reminds me of this piece of logic (from VALIS):
God doesn't exist. And anyhow he's stupid.
- Zahd ( talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be move-protected? What if someone tries to move it to something like "baby-killing"? Jonathan321 ( talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Good, but why doesn't it have a green lock on it? Jonathan321 ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, you said "In addition, mainline christian groups are often pro choice, which is nowhere near unanimous." Do you have a source for that? Its interesting that Christians would be pro-Choice, and I know there's some truth in it. "Often" is probably not inexact, unfortunately. - Zahd ( talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the below. What the fuck is wrong with it?
- Zahd ( talk) 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand pro-choicers don't like seeing this language, but its the most concise and plain summary of what the pro-life camp thinks of abortion. Anyway, I don't think it fair to be reverted by people who aren't even involved in discussion here, so I restored the summary to the lede, which addresses both sides very clearly: "In short, the pro-choice position holds abortion to be a human right, while the pro-life position holds abortion to be murder." Nothing POV about this, is there? - Zahd ( talk) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just deleted this entire newly added section. Sorry if this seems precipitate, but there are several problems that I think should be addressed before the author puts it back. (1) It is over-long in the context of an article about abortion as a whole; (2) it looks like a breach of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH; (3) it is badly mis-formatted, with references incorrectly constructed and every occurrence of numerous words (abortion, pro-choice, etc) needlesly wikilinked. I invite the author of this new section to come here and say why he/she thinks such a section is merited, and (if necessary) to ask for help with the formatting. Meanwhile, I feel that the article is better off without this addition. Sorry. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've modified the recent insertion of a section on the Mexico City Policy. The section as added weighted some things inappropriately, namely W. Bush's reinstating the gag rule on day one. (Watch, Obama will do the reverse).
I think a fair argument for inclusion can be made, it shows how much the topic of abortion effects foreign policy, which is a big deal. That having been said, I'm not sure if it should remain, or remain in the section it is currently in.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Since its a sufficiently debated concept, I think we should create a beginning of human life article, which details all of the varied concepts of human beginnings, detailing each argument and counterargument, etc. - Zahd ( talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of improvements that I propose to make to the article, but as this is a controversial subject I thought I'd float them on the talk page first.
Thoughts please Ϣere Spiel Chequers 18:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)