Jump to content

Talk:Abortion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.3.234.41 (talk) at 14:23, 16 August 2011 (→Previous death consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:WP1.0

Archive
Archives
Chronological archives

Archives

Topical subpages
Notable precedents in discussion


Request for comment

Should the lead sentence say that abortion occurs before the fetus is viable? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: THIS RFC IS A SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING PROCEEDING OF THE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously involved editors

I can't let that go by. Gandydancer, all biologists hold that life begins at conception. Please stop all this "right-wing" bullshit. (If you dispute this, then find one biologist who explicitly says the developing fetus is not alive.) It is simply a matter of science, and nothing to do with politics or religion.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael C Price, please note that we are speaking of the definition, not the body of the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, what has that to do with your outrageous smearing-by-association? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please argue my opinion elsewhere. Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So you're allowed to make your smears here, and we are not counter them? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement is not a 'smear'. Let's stick to the facts. Certainly you're not really going to dispute that the Pro-Life movement pushes the view that life (whatever that may mean) begins at conception? JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you chose not understand what the "smear" refers to. Very clever. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a schockingly false statement--esp. in light of all the sources to the contrary that have been produced. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, while I appreciate your support, I beg that you both take this discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding the two major statements at discussion. Uninvolved editors may also be interested to read the sources currently in the article. NW (Talk) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some editors have a problem with actually listing what we are discussing:
I support the first one by the way, but I also don't think it makes any sense for positions to be rehashed. We had this conversation a few days ago; I think it's safe to say no one changed their mind. Let's just wait for the second subsection to be filled out. NW (Talk) 23:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone that wonders how the references break down to numbers that use/do not use viable or death, this is pretty close: Nine use the term viable. Of the others, 2 use age of gestation, 3 use "survive" and 1 somewhat uses that term, 2 use destroy or destruction, 1 uses death, and the rest use something other. Also, it should be noted that the definition did include the word "usually" at one time to include the fact that in a small percent of abortions the fetus is viable at the time it is aborted. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Without the word "usually", inserting "viable" would deny what millions of reliable sources say: late term abortions do rarely occur after viability, e.g. to save the life of the mother. But if we insert the word "usually" then the sentence becomes misleading because it would be just as accurate to say that most abortions occur before the second trimester; plus the sentence would not say what it is about abortion that makes it different from live birth. More generally, I could support changing "death" to "demise" but would oppose doing that without consensus. Everyone hating an aspect of an article (e.g. the word "death" or the entire lead sentence) sometimes doesn't justify changing it. Even if every editor at an article unanimously hates an aspect of the article, changing that aspect of the article may nevertheless be disruptive if there is no consensus about how to change it. Some editors may want to completely delete that aspect, whereas other editors might oppose deletion but disagree among themselves about what modification would improve the article. In such a circumstance, discuss rather than edit, at least if the hated aspect has been a stable or prominent feature of the article for a long time, or was previously supported by consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both work: I was actually okay with "viable" in the lead if its clear this is a medical definition. But of course, my position is Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia, not a medical text, so this makes death preferential despite its negative emotional dynamic. - RoyBoy 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. None of these 24 WP:RS define abortion as only before viability and some give accounts of third trimester post-viability abortions [emphasis added]:

Dictionaries

  • 1. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (USA's most relied-upon dictionary) abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 2. MacMillan Dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a developing baby is removed from a woman’s body so that it is not born alive.
  • 3. Collins English learner’s dictionary, abortion: a medical operation in which a pregnancy is deliberately ended and the baby is not born alive.
  • 4. Cambridge University Dictionary of American English, abort: to end a pregnancy esp. by an operation before the baby is ready to be born.
  • 5. Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, abortion: any deliberate procedure that removes, or induces the expulsion of, a living or dead embryo or fetus
  • 6. Oxford World Dictionary, abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks
  • 7. American Heritage Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Specialty Dictionaries

  • 8. Merriam-Webster's Legal Dictionary, (online dictionary for "FindLaw For Legal Professionals"). abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 9. Webster's New World Law Dictionary, abortion: The intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or fetus.
  • 10. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Abortion: Termination of the life of a foetus, after conception but before birth.
  • 11. American Heritage Science Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Secondary Legal Text

  • 12. Gynaecology For Lawyers, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.

Medical Dictionaries/Encyclopedia

  • 13. Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, (online dictionary for NIH's National Library of Medicine). abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  • 14. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo.
  • 15. Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, Abortion is a generic term for pregnancies that do not end in a livebirth or a stillbirth.
  • 16. WebMD/MedicineNet, Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

Secondary Medical Text

  • 17. Williams Obstetrics, [Abortion] means induced pregnancy termination to destroy the fetus.
  • 18. Laminaria, induced fetal demise and misoprostol in late abortion, Hern, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics,Volume 75, Issue 3, December 2001, During a 9-year period, 1677 abortions were performed for patients whose pregnancies ranged from 18 through 34 menstrual weeks in an outpatient facility. Of these, 832 were performed by one physician. Techniques for performing all the abortions included induction of fetal demise by intrauterine fetal injection of digoxin and/or hyperosmolar urea, serial multiple laminaria treatment of the cervix, amniotomy, oxytocin induction of labor, and assisted delivery or surgical evacuation of the fetus and placenta. In the last 411 of the 832 patients whose abortions were performed by one physician, misoprostol was placed in the lower uterine segment following amniotomy in order to enhance labor induction, cervical ripening, and fetal expulsion. Results: Of the entire group of 1677 cases, the median gestational age was 22 menstrual weeks.
  • 19. Misoprostol for intrauterine fetal death, R. Gómez Ponce de León, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics,Volume 99, Issue 2, December 2007, The frequency of intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) with retained fetus varies, but is estimated to occur in 1% of all pregnancies. The vast majority of women will spontaneously labor and deliver within three weeks of the intrauterine death.
  • 20. Digoxin to Facilitate Late Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized, Masked, Placebo-Controlled Trial, Jckson, Rebecca A. MD, Obstetrics & Gynecology, March 2001, Digoxin has been used to facilitate late second-trimester D&Es with the intent of decreasing procedure risks... Another advantage is that patients, clinicians, and staff might prefer to abort a dead fetus.
  • 21. When Is Termination of Pregnancy during the Third Trimester Morally Justifiable?, Frank A. Chervenak, M.D., N Engl J Med 1984, We studied 10 cases involving fetuses with sonographically diagnosed anencephaly that were aborted during the third trimester.
  • 22. Feticide during second- and third-trimester termination of pregnancy: opinions of health care professionals., Dommergues M., Fetal Diagn Ther. 2003 Mar-Apr, To study the opinions of professionals on feticide being performed as the first step of late termination of pregnancy.

Secondary Philosophy Text

  • 23. Abortion and the Death of the Fetus, Steven L. Ross, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 3, Summer, 1982 (cited 19 times by other authors) An abortion (i) terminates a pregnancy, ending the physical dependency relationship the fetus has to the mother, and (ii) terminates the life of the fetus, ending both its present functions as an organism and its ongoing development into a more complex one.

Secondary Human Biology Text

  • 24. Human reproductive biology, 3rd. Ed., Richard Evan Jones, Elsvier Inc., Table of Contents... Chapter 15 Induced Abortion. Third Trimester Abortion.

74.5.176.81 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these are tertiary sources (and see also the discussion of dictionary defns. at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42#Dictionary_survey), and that many take pains to avoid the term 'death' that is in contention. The crux of the professional-quality secondary sources that turned the discussion to 'viable' may be found in the collapsed Extended content section at Talk:Abortion/Archive_42#Reboot:_Definition. JJL (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL: You mislead. First, the list of 9 sources you point us to includes 2 tertiary sources. Of these 9, only 4 mention viability in the definition for induced abortion. Of these four, 2 are tertiary sources. That means you have pointed us to only 2 secondary sources that define induced abortion as always before viability. Such deception makes your stock keep going down. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are more in the archives, but i didn't think it a fruitful activity to hunt them all down and link to them. As was pointed out earlier, the Notes section of the main article has more. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't think an actual viewing, analysis and discussion of all of the sources is fruitful, preciesly because the fruit of such objective inquiry is not to your liking. Your habit has been to state your opinion and then claim that you have no interest in the opinion of your fellow editors. Wikipedia policy is not (contrary to what you keep incorrectly insisting) to avoid discussion. You keep seeking to avoid any analysis of what you assert. Your stock just keeps going down. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74, Would you mind collapsing your evidence section? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You serious? :-)DMSBel (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should give the IP his due, if he can source like this on unrelated topics too, he will be a useful contributor to Wikipedia generally. DMSBel (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would mind. It is important to keep it expanded so objective information is available to juxtapose against some of the misinformation about sources in this section. Please let me know if any of the citations I have posted in this section are not accurate. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be OK if we added a citations sub-heading in this section and place them there? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want my contribution to the conversation changed or edited. Thanks. What is important to me, and will be to fair-minded editors who have not been involved, is to reckon with the avalanche of sources that DO NOT define induced abortion in terms of viability (and that DO define it terms of death/destruction). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DMSBel I was only asking if they could be collapsed in-place for thread flow and readability. I was not asking that they be removed. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can the sections be separated? If it can be moved to new section just above with link from the IPs comment here then I have no objection, its not my contrib. though. Up to the IP. DMSBel (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to collapse an informative contribution. In fact I suggest we copy these into "note 1". -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the discussion on sourcing need de-politicised. For definitional purposes limit all sources to those unassociated with political-advocacy groups or groups that have advocacy in their scope of mission. That would leave Medico-Legal, Medical, Philosophic, Legal and Encyclopedia/Dictionary. Anything else, or is that wide enough? DMSBel (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sourcing needs de-polarised so to speak, we don't have to pick between death and viable, unless there are political factors driving the discussion, which seems at times to be the case. If we could refrain from breaking up into camps, it might help. I apologise if any of my comments have tended to polarise the discussion. I don't object to the lede saying that "spontaneous abortions mostly occur before viability" if that is factually correct. It would not be intellectually honest though to deny that there are induced abortions performed right up to full term, and that abortions do result in the death of the fetus. For that reason my No above is in reference to any wording which suggests induced abortions occur only before viability. JJL might have had a point after all in regard to quantifiers, but I think that can be surmounted and both terms retained without advocacy. Not by definition strictly but by description. A formal definition can't possibly be sufficient. An extended defintion is needed, but it need not all be in one sentence. I need to give the matter more thought.62.254.133.139 (talk) User:DMSBel 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would be a flat out lie to claim all abortions occur before viability. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Grace Medical Care is a private medical practice that performs late second and third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy procedures when fetal anomalies and/or genetic defects are found or to protect the health of the woman. Therapeutic abortion procedures end pregnancies that were originally wanted, but cannot be continued due to problems with the fetus or to protect the health of the woman."
    • Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Yes, in some states, termination of pregnancy is allowed at any time during a woman's pregnancy] to protect her health or when the fetus is affected by a genetic defect or abnormality."
    • Third Trimester Abortion Clinic Website "Third Trimester Abortion. Four day outpatient procedure. Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. The first step for third trimester patients is the same as for second trimester patients at 20 weeks or more. One of the main differences for third trimester patients having a pregnancy terminated for fetal anomaly is that they may wish to have an intact fetus that they can examine and hold as part of the grief process. For many of these patients, it is not a fetus - it's a baby. The woman and her family may request special procedures such as special religious ceremonies, genetic studies, formal autopsy, private cremation, or private burial."
71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two citations are to "Grace Medical Care", which is a highly questionable operation run by a rogue physician (see Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News). The National Abortion Federation has repeatedly tried to shut down Grace's operator, saying: "His record is the most egregious one I know of in the field." ([1]). So to present these sites as if they represent anything other than a gross deviation from accepted practice is either ignorant or intentionally deceptive.

I haven't looked at the third source, but given the IP's track record and approach to sourcing, I'm not sure it's worth my time. But obviously, it describes third-trimester abortions as almost always performed for serious fetal anomalies, and thus presumably in cases where the fetus would not necessarily be viable. I guess it bothers me that every single assertion from this IP turns out to be misleading (at best) when subjected to a minute's worth of scrutiny, but whatever. MastCell Talk 18:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the slain George Tiller, whose dedication to providing late-term abortions (including third trimester abortions on viable fetuses according to his own public statements on record) earned him praise and respect far and wide among abortion advocatcy groups such as NARAL? 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are Tiller's own words: "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about not changing the subject every time someone calls you out for deceptive use of sources? How about trying to find and represent the best available sources instead of treating this like a political rapid-response operation or a high-school debate club? How about being honest with your fellow editors? Where did you come up with the three sources listed above? Do you think your presentation of them was misleading in any way? MastCell Talk 18:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masty: Please stop changing the subject every time I post verifiable information that undermines your editorial desires. Thanks.71.3.232.238 (talk)!
Masty: First, I will note that I very deliberately did not list these links as WP:RS that could be used to verify article content. If you notice, I have compiled a numbered list of WP:RS in the box above, and these links are not in it. Neverthless, these links are anecdotal support for the notion (of NYy51) that it is quite absurd to claim that there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion because we have clinics advertising them (and as many of us have noted repeatedly, more importanty as to the article content, we have WP:RS that has verified the practice of aborting viable fetuses). 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masty: If you do a simple google search and then ignore the opinion pieces and pro-life advocacy hits (as I always do), you find Grace Abortion Clinic on the first page of results. It is sad that some licensed abortion clinics are no better than back alley operations (such as Gosnell's fully licensed clinic in Philadelphia that turned out to be a butcher shop of horrors). You seem to know more about the misdeeds of Grace Abortion Clinic than I do (my view is that a licensed clinic is a licensed clinic and the reputation of such a clinic is not something I have to worry about when noting the existence of clinics that advertise third-trimester abortions). Thanks for bringing this wayward abortion provider to the attention of all of us editing this article. If you continue to the second page of google results, you find the site for Dr. Hern's clinic in Colorado, which is the third link I listed above. Do you have a problem with Dr. Hern? I think he enjoys a good reputation. Of course I haven't even mentioned the celebrated work of Dr. Carhart and Dr. Haskell. They also are on record in public statements about their commitment to continue providing post-viability abortions to women who want them. I am puzzled that this evidence of women's freedom to choose abortion disturb's you. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masty: I think my conduct has been fair and honest and helpful to editors who are encountering new information that can assist in editing this article. Now, can you explain why your own refusal to acknowledge the avalanche of sources that undermine the notion that abortions only happen before viability is fair? Is that fair to your fellow editors? And is it fair to accuse an editor who has accurately posted over a hundred WP:RS on this topic of lacking integrity because you pick an alleged nit (that is not even a nit once subjected to scrutiny) from one or two of them? 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I don't get the same Google search results you're claiming, but then I suspect you're in a different filter bubble than I. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree. You seem to think I care about the wording of the lead sentence, which I don't. I do care about the general editing environment of this article, and I think you've been largely, if not solely, responsible for its complete degeneration into a mishmash of misleading arguments, cherry-picked sources, and agenda pushing. I take it you see nothing wrong with your approach to sourcing, so thank you for confirming that. MastCell Talk 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on MastCell, it doesn't matter how "reputable" these 3rd Trimester clinics are, they exist, that's the point. Perfectly valid to cite them as evidence that post viability abortions occur. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Price! We should note in the main article that freedom to choose abortion has advanced to such a degree that there are abortion providers who actually advertise thrid-trimester abortion services on the internet. The clinic webpages themsleves are WP:RS for the fact that such advertisements exist. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give an agenda account an inch... MastCell Talk 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Talk page desperately needs a referee, ruling comments (and editors) out as needed. JJL (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...out as needed" - interesting comment. A facilitator is needed, not a referee. But this is an RFC, so comments as such are not ruled out generally, except if they are abusive or personal attacks. Lets try to not polarise this again by talking about religious right, etc. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: The vast majority of medical and professional sourcing indicates this should be the lede description of the article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your article edit that jammed "viable" back into the lead sentence, while falsely asserting in your edit summary that there is consensus here to do so. Your preferred outcome may prevail, but wouldn't it be best to prevail honestly, without tendentious editing and without trying to short-circuit the consensus-building process? Millions of reliable and professional sources (many of them cited above) refer to abortion after viability. Additionally, the Roe v. Wade decision stated: "After viability, the State may regulate, and even prohibit, abortion...." It's not our business here at at Wikipedia to push a definition that makes the US Supreme Court decision sound like ignorant gibberish (even if it imay in fact be ignorant gibberish). There's no reason why our lead cannot give both the usual definition and the viability-based definition. We can even replace "death" with "demise". But what we really should stop doing is changing the lonstanding consensus version before we form a new consensus about how to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "usual" definition is the one with 'viable' in it. JJL (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I've commented once or twice before, but again, I'll state that I support the version of the lead with viable in it. However, overall, I find this dispute to be rather trivial and it would be better for both sides to move on, instead of getting gridlocked over one sentence. Better sources use "viable".--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it should be noted that if one looks at our sources, 2 out of 3 encyclopedias do use the word "viable" and the third uses "capable of independent survival", which is the meaning of viable. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should be accurate and reflective of the most common professional opinions. 'Viable' does that. JJL (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer encyclopedias use it awkwardly, its not that simple! "usually" is to be avoided in an article (as good practice), and is frankly unacceptable IMNSHO in a lead. Death is common JJL, it ain't popular, but its common; there's a difference. We don't use "usually" yet, but to properly define the topic we are suppose to, viability exceptions / ambiguity seems to force it ... assuming intellectual honesty. LOLz... made myself laugh on that one. - RoyBoy 01:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does "awkwardly" mean?NW (Talk) 02:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this circumstance, that viable has no hope (by itself) of correctly defining the abortion topic. To do so, it needs ambiguity inserted to be correct and honest. I usually deem ambiguity in a lead, especially for a controversial lead, to be awkward (grammatically and intellectually)... however, biology seems to require it. But using a purely medical definition for an article that is much broader than a medical procedure is awkward (and dishonest) editorially. The IP's version below is decent: "Abortion is termination of gestation by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, caused by or resulting in its death, typically when it is not viable." It incorporates the goal of abortion (termination of the fetus) with the common (but not absolute) constraint of viability. That is an improved version in my view, perhaps is the true compromise we were seeking in 2006. - RoyBoy 21:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very far from clear to me that "the goal of abortion [is] termination of the fetus". I believe--and the medical sources agree--that the goal is termination of the pregnancy. These are different goals. Certainly in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy, the woman may well desire a live delivery but choose to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life. An abortion ends a pregnancy. That's why it's done--so that the woman will no longer be pregnant. You think it kills the would-be child and as a by-product ends the state of pregnancy. I think it ends the pregnancy and that for a nonviable fetus this results in there not being a live birth. JJL (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now! Why bother participating here if the goal isn't clear? Does political correctness require redefining the obvious, again (like with viable, or organism)? Don't tell me what I think -- unless you get it so wrong I get a chuckle after a long humid day -- thanks for that. I stick with reality: "I understand it ends a (one or more) fetus/embryo/blastocyst, this results in there not being a live birth for the abortus." Are you unclear on selective reduction, or just forgot about them?
As to your pro-life version... not bad, less editing to make it accurate: could-be child. I make no assumption that the fetus will be carried to term, viability, or even that the mother gravida wants it. That's her choice, not mine. "Kill" is technically okay (as a "living thing" dies), but less desirable than death; as "thing" can be interpreted as a detached object "being". I would find that more interesting to discuss (elsewhere), as living has been settled here dozens of times before we joined Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good section with a lot of helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors

  • Yes - if the lead makes it clear this is the way "vast majority of medical and professional sourcing." It also might mention the minority view, covering all the bases. I personally never thought much about distinction despite 40 year obsession with topic and think it's better to be inclusive to avoid discussions ad nauseum like this evidently has been. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not uninvolved, but may I ask if your Yes is to including "before viability"? Its just that at this point in the RFC it has become difficult to tell what people are supporting.DMSBel (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes We're not explicitly saying every aborted foetus is in-viable (e.g. the above-mentioned late abortion to save a mother's life) but with due weight, it is generally a true statement Jebus989✰ 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I think it is misleading, essentially what a reader of the lead is left with is that an abortion that occurs once the fetus is viable is by definition not an abortion. It needs some type of qualifier, "usually before viability" "generally before viability" "in most cases before viability", but without the qualifier the statement is clearly wrong. Monty845 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly would be shocked if anyone came away with that idea Jebus989✰ 09:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it reads, why there is an issue to be resolved, and why Britannica used "usually" in their definition. Unlike a medical text, we as a generalist encyclopedia do not have the luxury of presuming our readers are versed in what viability is biologically and legally, and that there is ambiguity from 21 weeks 6 days to 28 weeks gestation. PMID 11060525 - RoyBoy 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...but unlike a physical textbook, we have the ability to internally link to Fetal viability for those few who may not be familiar with the concept. JJL (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly we can link death to its clear and easier to understand definition. Linking viable is good, but it remains too narrow of a definition for Wikipedia's purpose IMO. It's completely acceptable with "medically defined", but my preference is to define abortion clearly and inclusively. - RoyBoy 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes with the caveat that there are some procedures which are controversially done otherwise and the article lede should note its scope. The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed in this way. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Deliberate, induced removal of a fetus doesn't stop being an abortion if the fetus is viable at the time. In fact, our article at Late termination of pregnancy directly says that LTOPs are still abortions, and that they are sometimes performed on viable fetuses. Viability is only a factor when you're dealing with spontaneous abortions. I recommend omitting any mention of viability in the lead, and handling it in the Abortion#Types section, which needs to make these points:
    • Induced (e.g., surgical) termination of a pregnancy at any time is called an abortion.
    • Spontaneous termination (i.e., "miscarriage") is called an "abortion" pre-viability and a "stillbirth" post-viability.
      I want to add that I'm disappointed by some of the folks who have pushed the "medical" definitions as the One True™ definition, while "accidentally" forgetting the context of those definitions. Most of these viability-based definitions often go on directly to talk about the distinction between a spontaneous abortion and a stillbirth, and that none of them say anything about this mythical idea that surgically killing a fetus is somehow an abortion pre-viability and the very same procedure is magically becomes a birth (the only other option in the medical statistics system!) if post-procedure path reports find a fetus older or larger than expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: The box above with all the definitions seems pretty conclusive. –CWenger (^ • @) 08:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: "before viability" is unsourced. The entire definition in that sentence is unsourced, but I think we have consensus and can assume good faith on the bulk of it. The only contentious aspect of that definition is the inclusion of "before viability". Even with sourcing, I would lean away from including "before viability"; without sourcing, there should be no question that those two words should be removed. Come on guys, we are not conservapedia! --Bertrc (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence options

I wanted to gauge interest in the options we have available, and see if any progress has been made. You are encouraged to support multiple options (with tweaks you specify), please don't oppose in the support sub-section. Reserve detailed comments for the comment sub-section. Versions are in approximate chronological order, if I missed a contender go ahead and add it. - RoyBoy 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2011 death consensus

Support

  • Support this version in the main, but wonder if the following would be an improvement: "Abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, during pregnancy, resulting in or caused by its death."DMSBel (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to submit the following which I believe answers an earlier question "can an embryo die?" - "Progesterone produces its effects by stimulating progesterone receptors in the womb, ovaries and elsewhere. Mifepristone reversibly competes with progesterone at these progesterone receptors and blocks its effects. This results in the death of the embryo because its nutrition is cut off and its attachment to the lining of the womb is loosened. The blocking of progesterone receptors also causes a profound fall in chorionic gonadotrophin produced in the womb by the developing embryo. This causes the corpus lureum in the ovary to shrink and cut off the supply of progesterone, thus adding to the direct anti-progesterone effects of mifepristone. The changes triggered in the lining of the womb (endometrium) result in the release of prostaglandins which further add to the effects of mifepristone, resulting in the expulsion of the embryo through its loosening from the endometrium, increased contractions of the womb and softening and opening of the neck of the womb (cervix). In other words, it causes an abortion." emphasis mine (Mifepristone) Medicines - A Guide for Everyone : Peter Parish, page 495 DMSBel (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending a discussion on death's dual meaning/emotive dynamic being appropriate for the lead. We decided it was in 2006, perhaps we were incorrect. - RoyBoy 18:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

viable version

Support

current viable version

Support

Editing what people have voted on after they've voted on it is extremely unhelpful. JJL (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, just thought I'd match the option with its heading. Ironically trying to be helpful. I've reverted. - RoyBoy 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

death/viable combination

Support

destroy/viable combination

Support

the two major definitions

Support

loss with medical clarification

Support

Sentence that doesn't sound like the result of a tortured debate

Support

Short and simple

Support

Comments

"desmise" as a noun is defined as: "A person's death." Not exactly avoiding the pitfalls some see in death. - RoyBoy 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the connotations are different. But "destruction" would be fine instead. You're okay with using the word "destruction", right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, works as well as death. Passed over in 2006, because of violent connotations? Unsure. - RoyBoy 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "two major definitions" option, by using "birth", appears to define abortion by what its not. - RoyBoy 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any definition that says the fetus is not yet viable defines abortion by what it's not. That's how a lot of reliable sources do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and they get it wrong (for an encyclopedia) to boot. :") RoyBoy 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not define something by what it is not, this was firmly established in 2006 and is noted several times in Wikipolicy. "Medically" is needed (in my view) because this definition is narrowly situated in medical sources and context. If you want a broader definition (to encompass the abortion topic), you may need to support another option. - RoyBoy 03:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the fetus is not viable ("before it is viable") defines abortion by what it is not. Please link the Wikipolicy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions. - RoyBoy 04:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the part about "circular" definitions? That would be like "Abortion is what an abortionist does", IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You got me there, I was convinced it was in Fallacies sub-page, but I'd maintain it's misleading to primarily define it with a negative. - RoyBoy 04:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to me that you didn't include the main version that has been discussed recently and that was initially edited in after the straw poll and resulting discussion: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable. That's the version that has the greatest support from me and which has also received significant support from a number of others, and is by far the modal defn. from medical sources. Your suggestion here has already been weasel-worded toward your desired result. JJL (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From an encyclopedic perspective, its simply inaccurate (too narrow). I'll understand if you add it as an option, but accuracy trumps weaselly. - RoyBoy 23:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just so it's clear that we're being asked to decide which of the options that you personally deem acceptable is the best, rather than which option is best overall. Given that the medical defn., which has already received wide support here from a number of editors, is excluded, I'm not sure what you hope this exercise will prove. JJL (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, I've already said (twice) you may add another option. This "exercise" is about forming a new consensus, though perhaps it'll also demonstrate the selective illiteracy of some of you. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last time we had something like this and you it edited after it had started, DMSBel declared the whole thing invalid because something was changed after the start and reminded us constantly of that during every following discussion. It'd be no different this time, I imagine, esp. if it were I who added it back in. Furthermore, some people who have already expressed an opinion may not come back and notice that the most popular lede suggestion had been re-added. This exercise isn't about forming a new consensus: It's part of the continued attempt to remove 'viable' from the lede. Not listing the single best-supported option in your poll is a fatal flaw in your design. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RoyBoy has an odd idea that a handful of Wikipedia editors has the authority to pronounce the editors of just about every dictionary and the editors of every encyclopedia inaccurate. By his standards, lets go straight to the evolution article and insist that the planet is only 8 thousand years old - after all we need only produce a dozen Wikipedia editors to show that all those scientists are simply inaccurate. Easy as eating pie! Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a definition is lacking what is necessary, it only takes one editor. I missed your response to my question above, does having an abortion "make a fetus defacto non-viable"? We could waste more time trying to define a fetus to not be "life" again. Evolution... I created the original misconception section that became objections to evolution. I've shut down more than one creationist engineer, explaining in detail how biology doesn't conform to their rigid preconceptions. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's not uncommon that biology doesn't conform to one's rigid preconceptions. 'Abortion' is well-defined by the medical community. 'Life' (and hence 'death') is not well-defined by the biological community. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going ignore this, makes me angry and is a waste of my fracking time. - RoyBoy 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very bothersome to me that the most commonly occurring defn. in medical texts is being dismissed out-of-hand as not even being worthy of discussion and not everyone here is up in arms about it. Wikipedia will never be fully respected until there's some means of enforcing a minimal standard of accuracy. JJL (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. However, when you say accuracy; what I hear is conformity. - RoyBoy 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that an encyclopedia conforming with the state of the art in a technical area is a good thing. JJL (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, I have made pretty clear that it's okay with me to have both the narrower medical definition and also the more general definition in the lead sentence. You appear not to be bothered by omitting the latter (more general) definition. Why? If I had to choose between the two for the lead sentence, I'd go with the more general definition, and not just because this is a general encyclopedia. A lead sentence establishes the scope of the article, and that scope would be the same if we use the general definition compared to using both. The scope would be reduced, however, by using the narrower definition in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but when you refer to the general definition, what definition do you mean, and backed by what sources? If you mean the 2006 version, that's effectively citing Wikipedia as a source. I understand the medical definition but not the general definition--in fact, I don't think there is one widely-accepted non-medical definition (with comparable unanimity to the medical 'viable' version). JJL (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I refer to the general definition, I mean the definition prevalent in non-medical (e.g. legal and general-purpose) sources that do not say there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state the defn. you're thinking of so we both are clear as to what we're talking about? JJL (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most common English-language definition of abortion is loss of a pregnancy other than by live birth, or in other words the definition that was in this article from 2006-2011. That is also the legal definition. Thus, for example, the US Supreme Court said in the case of Roe v. Wade: "After viability, the State may regulate, and even prohibit, abortion...." Neither the most common English definition nor the legal definition say that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus. I have made pretty clear that it's okay with me to have both the narrower medical definition and also the more general definition in the lead sentence. You appear not to be bothered by omitting the latter (more general) definition. Why? If I had to choose between the two for the lead sentence, I'd go with the more general definition, and not just because this is a general encyclopedia. A lead sentence establishes the scope of the article, and that scope would be the same if we use the general definition compared to using both. The scope would be reduced, however, by using only the narrower definition in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. How was it determined that this was the most common? I am not as antagonistic to this defn. as I think you think I am. It is decidedly not what was in there before. "Not a live birth" and "dead" are not opposites if the fetus is not clearly alive. Being not born live just continues that status--it doesn't alter it to death. I prefer the medical defn. because I feel it's clearly sourced, consistent with WP style for similar matters, and appropriately technical for what the subject is, and many other suggestions are synthesized, but I don't see this one as being objectionable in the way that the 'death' version was. JJL (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RoyBoy, myself, and other editors have indicated that it would be okay to change "death" to "destruction" in the 2006-2011 version, and there may be consensus to do that. What there has never been consensus for is turning the lead sentence into a statement that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus, and that the only definitions that count are medical ones. Do you understand that such changes require consensus? This article won't ever be stable if editors continuously try to impose their own POV. You appear to think that medical dictionaries are more valid and reliable than general-purpose dictionaries, or legal dictionaries, and I disagree. In any event, if you want to identify what sorts of non-medical sources you would find persuasive on this point, then I'm all ears. Incidentally, I don't think there's consensus (yet) for my two-definition solution (this is starting to sound like Middle East negotiations).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scientific fact that two people can see and hear the same event and yet come away with an opposite picture of what was seen and heard. You can see and hear anything you want, but please do not tell me that your assessment is correct and mine is false. As editors we are obliged to keep our personal opinions out of our edits and use our sources to produce our "facts". Anyone that feels otherwise should spend their time writing a personal blog rather than editing Wikipedia articles. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find "before viable" false, I find it (my understanding/opinion) inaccurate (perhaps I should say incomplete instead) and inappropriate for Wikipedia; there is a distinction, no wonder you're annoyed. Personal, JJL said that before, it was hilarious. So I'm on a personal quest -- while others reinforce the bastion of neutrality by skipping over that viability can be ambiguous, fetus = organism = can die, not conceding abortion's goal is to end the fetus, etc. I skipped definition(s), it was plain they can be added. - RoyBoy 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion doesn't have a goal, but it does have an intended purpose. You seem to think women walk into a medical office saying "Kill it" (the fetus) rather than "End it" (the pregnancy). I believe it's the latter--they don't want to be pregnant any more. If they wanted to kill something they could wait and give birth and then kill it. If that sounds unreasonable, so is the assumption that they want to kill the fetus earlier. They want to not be pregnant any longer. That's why abortions are performed. That's what they do. JJL (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you/they wish to focus on that, your prerogative, and its your bias. An abortion is about ending a pregnancy and fetus, if just about ending the pregnancy (and transplanting the fetus), we would call it something else and it would be a different article/talk. If you want to teleport "kill" into an inappropriate context, take it to a forum. Oh yeah, don't try to guess what all gravidas want; once again the norm does not accurately define the plurality of reality -- and simplifies it at a cost to us all. - RoyBoy 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is they say neither "kill it" nor "end it". But that is beside the point. What is being pregnant? The state of carrying an embryo or fetus within the female body, right? If there is no fertilized ovum there is no pregnancy. There is no way other than birth to end a pregnancy that doesn't also end the life of the fetus. Are you saying they want a baby, but don't want to be pregnant? Excepting rape, there are ways to avoid becoming pregnant. So except in the case of a failure of contraception, a woman does not have to become pregnant. What if methods used to avoid becoming pregnant fail? Continuing with the pregnancy or abortion are the only two options. The latter will result in the death of the fetus. That simply has to be faced - there is no way to end an unwanted pregnancy without ending the life of the fetus. Pregnancy is a physical dependency relationship between the mother and fetus. Terminating a pregnancy results in the death of the fetus. DMSBel (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An abortion (i) terminates a pregnancy, ending the physical dependency relationship the fetus has to the mother, and (ii) terminates the life of the fetus, ending both its present functions as an organism and it ongoing development into a more complex one. Now performing (ii) will guarantee (i) in any state of affairs, as one cannot (logically) be pregnant unless one is keeping a fetus alive. And in current practice, we cannot perform (i) without simutaneously performing (ii).[[3]]DMSBel (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, since there is no such thing as "degree of death" you believe that the death of an embryo, a non-viable fetus, a viable fetus, and a newborn baby are all the same, if I understand you correctly. Since we have laws that forbid the taking of life, how do you justify that a woman who has an abortion should not be charged with murder? Gandydancer (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you know that there are degrees of culpability in law? Taking of another human life is not automatically murder, and guilt is not presumed, but has to be established. Typical "pro-choice" way of turning the thing back to front - ask the other person to justify something they don't agree with or that is not so straightforward. As I have told you I don't live in the US, and UK passed its abortion act five years before I was born. I didn't open the door to abortion on request. As soon as I was old enough to understand some of the issues, I was against abortion on request. At some points I have been weak pro-choice in my thinking. But as I thought the matter through I realised I agreed with the practice of preventing self-harm in mental institutions, so it was inconsisent to argue for the right to an abortion. And because for a time I didn't think through some of the rationalisations (pseudo-rationales) for abortion, specifically those related to medical indications as though it is not generally possible to try to save the life of mother and her fetus. There are some things that cannot be justified - expending more time, money and research on making abortion "safer" than on making childbirth safer for one.DMSBel (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Gandydancer your question would only have validity if I had a say in law-making. But as I understand it in America the pro abortion rights lobby didn't go to the People and still don't go to the People to find out what they want. Instead they have used the courts in America to set policy, because the courts are not subject to the People.[[4]] DMSBel (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lie. Any law found in violation of the Constitution is void. If "the people" don't like the Constitution they can change it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have misunderstood. How are Supreme court justices appointed? DMSBel (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are they not appointed by the President and serve for life? How is what I said a lie? I am willing to be shown if I am in error. But saying it is a lie implies I knew that what I was saying was incorrect. DMSBel (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Taking of another human life is not automatically murder" What then, justifiable homicide? Manslaughter? Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an answer... Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what has your question got to do with the article? DMSBel (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
Everything. And why are you so reluctant to answer? Gandydancer (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't given the matter enough thought to give a considered answer. Its a complex issue. DMSBel (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you and several others here should give it some thought since you may be calling several of my best friends and my two beloved daughters, who have dedicated more than 20 years of their life to raising their beloved children, murderers. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to your talk page, Gandydancer. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me what to do. If there are elephants in the room I believe that somebody should mention it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then mention it on your own talk page. This isn't a forum. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying I and others must regard a fetus as non-human and ignore evidence to the contrary in deference to your friends who have had abortions. If so then that calls into question whether you are able edit this article objectively. DMSBel (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist on discussing this here, Gandydancer, I agree with DMS. Are you editing to try to justify your family and friends' abortions? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need to justify the decisions made by my family or my friends since, according to our present abortion laws, abortion is not murder. Please have a look at the murder article which states: "The elements of common law murder are: Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought"

and: "...of a human being—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath."

To move the point that life begins to the moment of conception, one has no choice but to discuss its murder, which was caused by the woman who aborted it, and that is the elephant in the room that some of you do not seem to want to discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about justifying it to your own conscience. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes my point very clear, indeed. I doubt that you would be speaking of conscience if it was their tonsils they had removed. The selection for the definition of abortion in this article should not be about religious morality, and as long as I have a say-so, it won't be. Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about religious morality, I'm talking about your COI. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is COI? Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it WP:COI Well, I certainly would not want to edit this article if I have a COI. Please point out exactly what my COI may be. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has an opinion on this. Gandydancer is speaking against a religious POV in the article. The use of the medical defn. is clearly neutral--that's the way to go. JJL (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a religious point of view it is a scientific point of view that life begins at conception, not birth. Point me to one religious source that has been used in the discussion, in support of that. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how COI works, and NYyankees51, you of all people should a) know that very well and b) be the last person to argue that having an opinion on the subject disqualifies a user from editing an article. What a shameful way to behave. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to his ability to edit the article objectively as questioned above. I thought that and COI were the same thing, my mistake. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this whole discussion is off topic anyway and should be closed, as I tried to do before I was reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then let's just stick with my ability to edit this article objectively. Why exactly do you believe that I am unable to objectively edit this article? Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this subject is off topic, quite the opposite really. Please do not "hide" this discussion without good reason. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editor behaviour is never a legitimate topic for discussion on an article talkpage. Stick to discussion of the article, please, or take the discussion elsewhere. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further lead sentence options

FYI, people who supported one or more lead sentence options may want to make sure that you didn't skip over any options, especially options that were written and inserted after the initial set (as RoyBoy indicated might happen when he presented the initial set of options).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys trying to come up with a list of the worst possible sentences in the English language? FWIW, I added yet another option, which is about half as long as all the other ones. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the options acknowledges the complexity of the issue. Your option avoids it entirely. It's intellectual cowardice, inaccurate... but the main problem I see, is it appears to move the debate to the 2nd sentence. But perhaps I'm wrong on something, Kaldari, is an abortion of a viable fetus possible? Does it matter? If not, why?- RoyBoy 23:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the grammar is crap. Please fix. (you can go ahead now) - RoyBoy 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "destruction"

  • Oppose. "Destruction" is problematic because while it might apply to D&C it doesn't apply to miscarriages or RU486. Those expel the fetus but don't damage it. Not to mention the tone is inappropriate. You wouldn't describe mastectomy as "involving the destruction of a breast." Friend of the Facts (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the first paragraph of this section says, "please don't oppose". Anyway, a mastectomy involves removing a breast that has been destroyed by disease.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't oppose was only for the options section. - RoyBoy 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that notice because this section is quite long so I moved the comment down here. Mastectomy is not just done because of breast cancer. It's usually part of ftm transitioning and in that case the mammary tissue probably doesn't have anything wrong with it health wise. Define mastectomy as "destruction of a breast" and it's basically making a value judgment about what a person going through ftm transition is doing. And that value judgement tone is why we shouldn't use language like "destruction" to describe medical procedures. Not to mention that it carries an implication of intent which certainly doesn't apply to a random "act of nature" (for lack of a better term) like miscarriage. Friend of the Facts (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mammary tissue has something wrong with it health wise after a mastectomy, if not before. Anyway, biological processes of a fetus or embryo are nonexistent after an abortion, which seems like something worth mentioning in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When abortion is defined as "termination of a pregnancy" it's pretty much a given that in an abortion the processes involved in a pregnancy stop. We could break pregnancy down into a very minute level of detail -- all the hormonal changes etc. -- and describe how abortion effects everything but spelling everything out like that really wouldn't be necessary to allow the average reader to understand what abortion is. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you're correct that there are hormonal and other effects of abortion. But in terms of WP:Undue weight, the demise of the embryo or fetus is much more prominent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a subjective assessment some hold, but Wikipedia can't treat it like it's an objective fact. Does Wikipedia have to go into great detail about pregnancy -- hormonal changes, the placenta and its connection to the woman's circulatory system, fetal development etc. -- to explain abortion? Probably not. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already agreed with you that details about pregnancy are already covered in the pregnancy article; those effects occur due to pregnancy regardless of whether there's an abortion, plus those effects lack prominence compared to effects on the embryo/fetus. What facts are important is often subjective, and we should follow reliable sources in that regard, plus standard Wikipedia practice and policy, along with editorial consensus and common sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMarlin likes you, I currently don't, your account name is almost as presumptuous as OrangeMarlin. So abortion of a viable fetus is not possible? Explain please. - RoyBoy 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? It's one thing to tell me you think my suggestions or edits are off base/incorrect/unneutral/etc. That's fair. But to just come out of the blue and say "I don't like you" is extremely rude and a personal attack. As I understand it OrangeMarlin's name was a reference to the Florida Marlins team so how is that any more "presumptuous" than NYYankees51? And for what it's worth when I signed up for this site I thought "friend of the facts" was a good name for using on a website that's an encyclopedia -- ie a repository of facts -- but in hindsight maybe it does sound kind of like I think I'm a know everything. Frankly I've been avoiding commenting on this page for a while because the atmosphere seemed hostile back then. Looks like it hasn't improved if I can't even chip in and say what I think about a proposal without being personally attacked. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed me/us good. Sorry for confusion -- OrangeMarlin himself is more presumptuous, not his name. I have an issue with a chip in, after dozens of discussions, hundreds of contributions; that the ending of the abortus is a "detail" for abortion. If I misinterpreted, my mistake. I'm rather on edge for any indication of backward movement. - RoyBoy 03:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is just because some people here agreed to use "death" in the definition of abortion five years ago doesn't mean it's case closed forever. When the way Wikipedia defines abortion is way off from how most other references define abortion then it definitely deserves to be looked at again. It's not trying to stir the pot or anything like that but to make sure what Wikipedia articles say is in line with what the reliable sources say. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support use of the term "destruction" 'cause the fetus, in all abortion cases, induced or not, ends up dying and decomposing, which means destruction. Israell (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.29.94 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have filed a request for formal mediation of this dispute. I have listed the users who have been involved over the last 14 days or so, who should be notified by a bot sometime today. If you are not on the list here and would like to be, let me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the RFC hasn't been closed this seems premature...and all the more so since the Lead sentence options section seems to be progressing in a potentially fruitful way, and the article itself has been relatively stable. JJL (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only stable because we've given up debating with you, and are too polite to endlessly revert. Patience has been exhausted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No new comments in the RfC and the debate here is endless. You don't have to participate in mediation if you don't want, I suppose. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that it might have been better to wait until the RfC closed. The lede first sentence has had very little if any stability since June 8 though, and the page was protected up to one week ago. DMSBel (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You started the RFC, and didn't even wait until it was closed before going to mediation? Why not just ask for a close first? JJL (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no new comments in the RfC for weeks and it only got us new input from four people. We're going in circles. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC got little outside input because it was used as a forum for previously involved editors to restate and argue their positions at length. That's usually the fastest way to sabotage an RfC, and unless previously involved editors are capable of some minimal restraint, you're not going to get much outside input. MastCell Talk 22:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection

Mediation is not going forward, since it relies on all participants' willingness to engage. Since the RfC has not resolved anything, that leaves us with abitration. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if it does come to that, one side is not going to like the results of arbitration since they are binding. So I suggest we work together on mediation. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you guys understand how Arbitration works. The Arbitration Committee isn't going to tell you which version is "right", nor are they going to make "binding" decisions about the content of the article. What they will do, if a case is accepted, is to look at the conduct of the editors involved in this dispute. That may be useful, but it will still be up to editors to hash out a version of the lead which is acceptable, or at least stable. MastCell Talk 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...or working together. JJL (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the mediation request rejection: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Abortion. JJL (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_mediation.3F. JJL (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's about the proposed formal mediation of the dispute over the titles of pro-life and pro-choice. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about lead sentence

I'm not interested in participating in a slow-motion edit war about the lead sentence. The sentence now has a disputed tag at the end of it, which is sufficient to indicate that the sentence is not stable, no one is acquiescing to it, and there is no consensus for it. The 2006-2011 lead sentence needs to be restored, unless or until there is consensus about how to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Restore the 2006-2011 consensus, while we develop a new consensus. Just inserting a disputed lead and then editing warring over it is not editing in good faith, it's POV pushing. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not closing the RFC, not agreeing to mediation...you're just hoping to put in your favorite version and then continue stalling out discussion. It's a tactic, not a proposal. And once again, to say that using the medical defn. of a medical term is POV-pushing is simply nonsense. JJL (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was solidly against the 'death' version. Putting it in is using a lede that we know isn't wanted. Leaving in the medical defn. means we have a clearly accurate version that is well-supported here while we continue discussion. JJL (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would go read WP:Consensus, you will find that unanimous loathing of a sentence in an article is not enough to change it; there needs to be consensus what to change it to. There has never been consensus to have an exclusively viability-based definition in the lead so as to deny there's such a thing as abortion of a viable fetus. I've repeatedly asked you when such a consensus existed, and you've declined to answer. But you haven't declined to insert a non-consensus POV into the lead again and again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lede states that this is the medical defn. That's true. Nothing is being denied. What's asserted is accurate. Your concern is that what you want to see asserted is not being asserted. Why not put a death-or-no-death section in the body of the article? That's where contentious material is best placed--where it can be discussed at length. JJL (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to keep searching the Archives for you while you insist that a re-hash of the past two months must performed before any progress is made on the article; it's just yet another stalling tactic that has been used repeatedly by the pro-'death' editors here and I'm very bored with it. Start reading at Talk:Abortion/Archive_43#Lead_edit_-_viable_-_Current_form_of_first_sentence and then ask others who were here for more information if that isn't sufficient for you. JJL (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: "Instead of inventing some 'pro-death' lobby, you might acknowledge that many editors who oppose your unilateralism have supported changing 'death' to termination, ending, demise, and so forth. I've supported all of those and more. I'd even support 'termination of development'" (emphasis added). As for you declining to say when exactly consensus existed for your edit-warred lead sentence, I strongly advise you to not search the archives, because no such consensus will be found there. I've looked.

Regarding the June 15 talk page section you refer to, many editors were unsupportive of your version: Str1977, Roy, IP, GTBacchus....That talk page section also discussed instability of the lead section. And Roy said: "The presumed consensus is insulting, and the way this was done could lead NW and JJL to be topic banned. However, it is obviously a bold good-faith attempt, so we won't go down that road this week. (I am suggesting to revert it yourselves, I won't be so balanced if an admin is required to intervene.) I can do it myself, not from some sense of ownership of the lead, but from y'all ignoring the FAQ and archives."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have to read more in the archives...if you do so you'll find that it was not I who edited in the change. But I do agree that RoyBoy threatening a ban as soon as I showed up and opposed his precious 'death' version was quite childish. I don't think what you've quoted is the first instance of it but I haven't checked. JJL (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, disruptive editing can lead to a topic ban. Changing a well established consensus without the courtesy of establishing a new one, or a rudimentary read through archives on the topic qualifies as disruptive. Good faith or not. Reflecting a medical definition for abortion may work; if inclusive enough for a generalist encyclopedia (yes, the consensus can change). Looking at the post preceding my warning: "seemed to enjoy broad support". Ah yes... having several new editors turn over consensus on a documented issue; so long as they discuss on talk for a bit, then selectively reading and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies and conventions to suit themselves. Nothing amiss there! Building a "clear new consensus on what is obviously a contentious matter" is well said JJL, hint: don't start by pretending you have the gold standard. Sometimes they aren't universal. - RoyBoy 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the consensus page a while ago and I don't remember it saying anything about "unanimous loathing of a sentence" then. So I checked and this was put in recently: [5]. Changing the rule page so you can justify what you want done to an article doesn't seem ok. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How petty--editing the rules so you can bolster your own argument. It's the WP:OWN problem that remains unaddressed here. JJL (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would not be okay. But that diff shows a policy clarifaction twenty (20) days ago that has not been disputed in any way (except for the heading). Unlike the present lead sentence of this article. Moreover, it was a common sense policy clarification rather than a policy change. Anyway, a Wikipedia Arbitrator once informed me: "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary says the addition was "pertinent to an article I edited today" which is admitting the motivation behind it. A major rule page was changed by someone so they could point to it to justify having an article say what they want it to say. That shouldn't be acceptable. Also it's ironic to go and change the consensus page itself without consensus while at the same time saying we can't do anything to this article because there's no consensus. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can edit this article without consensus, once. After that, it's WP:BRRR. Or do you think BRRR is just fine?

Regarding the policy edit twenty days ago, yes, it was based on experience at this article. I don't make policy edits based on hypotheticals anymore. There was no way for me to know 20 days ago that this issue would still be pertinent here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think someone could just accidentally happen to cite a rule they wrote very recently to justify what they want done in an article. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not perpetually barred from quoting a part of WP:Consensus that was added twenty days ago. In any event, I haven't quoted it. Everything I've said here follows from other parts of WP:Consensus, such as this part: "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." The fact that everyone may hate the sentence you're changing does not justify repeated insertion of disputed material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See #7. MastCell Talk 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my purpose in editing the policy page was to sneakily influence this dispute, I wouldn't have made clear in my edit summary what prompted the edit, and I wouldn't have let 20 days pass without making the slightest allusion to the policy change here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you quoted it to buttress your point in the same month you made the change, I'm finding this a bit difficult to believe. JJL (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that you think a month would have been a sufficient lapse of time. Twenty days seemed plenty to me, but in any event I did not quote it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. JJL (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was "quoted." I said "pointed to" and "cited."

Comment made in response to JJL saying the consensus was against "death:" "If you would go read WP:Consensus, you will find that unanimous loathing of a sentence in an article is not enough to change it; there needs to be consensus what to change it to."

Corresponding text from consensus page: "Even if every editor at an article unanimously hates an aspect of the article (for good-faith policy-based reasons), nevertheless changing that aspect of the article may be disruptive if there is no consensus about how to change it."

Paraphrasing or not it's still somebody citing a rule they created in support of what they want to see done to an article. The conflict of interest there should be clear. Friend of the Facts (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that I should have parenthetically mentioned here that I edited the policy 20 days ago, or maybe such a parenthetical becomes unnecessary after some amount of time has elapsed. Anyway, if you'd like to pursue this further at my user talk page then feel free. The bottom line (for me) is that WP:BRRR and repeatedly introducing disputed material have always violated WP:Consensus. That's what's apparently been happening at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you didn't agree to mediation, I'm surprised you feel you have grounds to complain like this. I thought it was the wrong time to do it but I agreed to it regardless so that we might reach a mediated solution. You didn't agree to it...and now you're complaining that there isn't unanimity on the issue. Would it help if I edited WP:Consensus to say that the word 'death' can never enjoy consensus for the lede of any article? If not, what would you suggest as a fruitful way for us to move forward? JJL (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree to mediation as soon as RoyBoy is willing to do so. A fruitful way to move forward would be for you to revert the lead sentence to the most recent consensus version. You could also acknowledge that far from all reliable sources concur that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus. You seem to be treating sources like the Oxford English Dictionary as a fringe POV.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I simply be discussing things with RoyBoy then? JJL (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to discuss why you think it's okay to treat sources like the Oxford English Dictionary as if they were fringe sources,[7] and whether you consider your lead sentence reverts to be a "major change" within the meaning of WP:Consensus: "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is against the 'death' version. The "medically defined as" version seems a reasonable temporary compromise as we continue to discuss the matter. Recall, there are those of us think "medically defined as" is already watering-down the definition. It's not what I'd want, but it's correct, and that's an improvement on the previous version. JJL (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously all the edit warring is bullshit. We go with the best definition supported by the best sources. That is the agreed on consensus. Looks like we need a none involved admin to get involved with this matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first thing they can examine is your claim that there is a "agreed on consensus"! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JzG already did and chose incorrectly, at least from the perspective of maintaining consensus. As to "best sources", I consider that presumptuous given the preponderance of them are in a medical context, while Wikipedia is not. - RoyBoy 01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the only consensus is the 2006-2011 version. Until and unless we reach a new one, that one needs to stay. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the word "death" were really the main issue, there would have been no reason to go beyond simply replacing that word with another word for the time being (e.g. termination, demise, destruction, ending, et cetera). Merely replacing that single word without consensus would still have violated Wikipedia policy, but at least it would have been more plausible than using "death" as an excuse to unilaterally replace the whole 2006-2011 sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that an errant version "needs to stay" is counter to the goals of WP. That's a non-rule created by someone involved in the current discussion in an attempt to bolster his side by citing his own personal policy. The 'viable' version is sourced and, with the 'medically' qualifier, undeniably accurate. Since consensus is against the 5 year old version, we shouldn't use it. There can't be consensus for a version that consensus is against, and arguing that there should be a rule to keep unwanted material in the encyclopedia is simply nonsense. JJL (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The constant attempts to demonstrate WP:OWNership of the page by arguing about arguing rather than about the facts of the matter are driving away less tenacious editors. I fear this delaying tactic may work. Getting attention here would help, but the pro-'death' lobby won't close their RFC and wouldn't all agree to mediation. They're trying to stall until they get their way. JJL (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree JJL. It's sad to see a small group of editors ignore Wikipedia guidelines and bring political/religious bias to the encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a huge unnecessary (to even my amazement) ongoing slipshod assertions on "life". Contorting the lead to avoid negatives, that's your bias; and doctors... but theirs is a context that defines abortion as it should be medically speaking. It doesn't include exceptional / illegal abortions as that's not in their intended scope. Wikipedia guidelines seem to require us to include exceptions, and not narrowly define it for politics disguised as medical accuracy. I am uncertain how guidelines prefer predominant medical sources -- to the exclusion of -- others and moreover verified messy reality. Several reasonable and experienced people here think it does, I currently don't get it. - RoyBoy 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should protect the page until this is settled? 6 edits today all edit warring the lede.--EdwardZhao (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now might also be a good time to remind people that per WP:GS there's a 1RR limit on this article, along with all related topics. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Edit warring is a bad idea here and will likely lead to sanctions. Mediation is a good idea, however finding a user willing to take the case will be hard to find. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that NW's attempted compromise has already been edited to make it seem like the 'technical' defn. is wrong. Since attempts to get conversation going here are failing, are editors willing to reconsider closing the RFC and, more valuably, mediation? JJL (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with how it is now. Are there any objections? If so, please be specific with what they are. NW (Talk) 02:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly not how I would write it. Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." So, the non-specialized terminology shouldn't be given here merely as an afterthought. But at least this now gives readers a pretty full picture of the primary definitions. I'm not sure why "uterus" isn't wikilinked (or at least we could put "womb" in parenthetically). It's sad what a mess this discussion became. If other editors have strong objections to the present lead sentence, then I'll probably support reverting to the 2006-2011 version, which was the last consensus version. But I myself don't have very strong objections to it. Instead of "before birth" I'd prefer "other than birth" (so we're not suggesting that a birth occurs subsequently). Also, maybe change "birth" to "live birth" (thus distinguishing stillbirth).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept NW's current definition, though I would prefer the word "medically" to "technically". Gandydancer (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I see: "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth.". I too would prefer medically to technically and would prefer used more broadly to defined more broadly. JJL (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I like "used more broadly" better too. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The presently-used word "technically" is much better than "medically" because many medical sources include the broader definition. For example, among the sources now in this article's "Note", see TeLinde's Operative Gynecology, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, and Dictionary of Medical Terms. There are many other medical sources that include the broad definition, e.g. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, and WebMD/MedicineNet. As for changing "defined more broadly" to "used more broadly", I cannot see any reason to do that other than to deligitimize the broader definition and hide from readers that there is more than one definition; I strongly oppose hiding things from readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Especially w.r.t. the medical defn., the weight of sources is strongly in favor of the viability-based defn. It's also the only uniform defn., which is one reason why "used more broadly" is preferable to "defined more broadly"--what's given here as the broader defn. isn't a single defn. that is in wide use. JJL (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "uniform". The broad definition in the Oxford English Dictionary[8] is just as uniform among reliable sources as the narrow technical definition, perhaps more so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I followed that link. Are you referring to "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks" (which is at odds with the defn. given here, which extends to all mammals) or "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently" (which is precisely the viability defn.)? The latter is the medical defn. that has the broadest support here; the former differs from what we're saying here, because non-viability defns. vary widely--they lack the uniformity found overwhelmingly often in the medical defns. JJL (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the latter says "natural causes" and is thus referring exclusively to spontaneous abortion. Anyway, howsabout we rest up for a bit before returning to the image controversy?.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way I read it too. I saw the deliberate termination definition as referring to the induced abortion and the natural causes one as referring to spontaneous abortion. I'm good with how it is now, including using technically instead of medically, which I think is appropriate because even medical sources refer to post-viability terminations of pregnancy as abortions. Also, Anythingyouwant, you asked why uterus was delinked: I'm not sure, but ask RoyBoy; he delinked it. NW (Talk) 11:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that the OED defn. was an example of the uniform defn. of abortion given in the second part of the lede sentence; but that isn't so. The OED defines induced abortion solely w.r.t. humans (at odds with what's here); it defines spontaneous abortion as "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently" which means "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is viable" which is at odds with the second part of the lede which states any time before birth. This doesn't support your claim at all--it supports the medical defn. given in the first part of the lede. There isn't a uniform "broader" defn., but there is a uniform medical defn. You're unable to support your claim of a common, often-used broader defn. It may be used more broadly, but not in a consistently-defined way. JJL (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)JJL, I really don't like going in endless circles here. What is this edit summary supposed to mean?. I said above at this talk page: "Instead of 'before birth' I'd prefer 'other than birth' (so we're not suggesting that a birth occurs subsequently). Also, maybe change 'birth' to 'live birth' (thus distinguishing stillbirth)." Where did anyone object? What objection could there possibly be? Why do you revert without prior or subsequent explanation? This is a contentious article, and edit-warring does not help, especially when it's done with no explanation whatsoever. As for your assertion that the phraseology of the narrow definition is more uniform than the phraseology of the broader definition, you may be right, but I don't see how phraseology really matters (what's important is meaning, and no definition anywhere seems to suggest that spontaneous abortion of a viable fetus is physically possible).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NW right now about your recent edits, and think they have been(for the most part) helpful improvements. My only complaint is the delayed edit war that seems to be taking place, with some users undoing changes that are improvements because of some sort of tension. I've went back and forth about the old consensus and the new one, because I do respect hard fought compromise consensus on controversial articles, even if I disagree with that consensus. Still, the current wording seems to best reflect the majority of our best sourcing, but would be willing to support a compromise by well intention editors. I will be mostly away from the internet for the next week or so, but can occasionally respond. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you figure that about 20 hours is time enough to declare it to be w/o objection? We're discussing many aspects of this sentence here and editors have listed their major ones to start things off. You might have suggested your proposed change here--indicating you intended to change it--and given it more time than a fraction of a day before implementing it if your hope is to avoid "endless circles". I gave the explanation in the edit summary--I disagreed with your claim that silence on one item for 20 hours (while the rest of the discussion of it goes on) equals consensus. (Indeed, talk about edit-warring! The demand that all editors check here every day or be left out.) We're discussing the sentence as a whole and you're editing parts of it as we try to do that. My main objection remains this: Where are the sources for the second part of the lede sentence? As you appear to grant above, it's synthesized from various conflicting defns. JJL (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're up to here. Are you now seeking to delete the entire second part of the sentence, after previously repeatedly supporting proposed sentences that include it? As for my edit changing "before" to "other than" (and inserting "live"), you have yet to give the slightest explanation why you oppose it. I didn't have to give any prior explanation at this talk page (see WP:BRD), and yet I did twenty hours in advance. No one objected, despite lots of intervening talk page edits. So I edited the article, and you reverted while still not giving any explanation. See WP:Don't revert solely due to "no consensus". BTW, as you know, sources for the broad definition are in a big box above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you my reasons above--your position is inadequately sourced. The "big box" has many conflicting defn. from which you seem to want to syntehsize your own. You don't have to give prior notice here, but by the same token, you then forfeit the right to whine that life is unfair when you're reverted. JJL (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that one would say their edit is justified because they earlier suggested a change and no one objected. This might be reasonable in some other article but in this one, where every word has been extensively argued, I would expect that an editor clearly state that they will edit the article to reflect their preference if no one objects. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby announce that I intend to edit the article as described. I also look forward to the beginning of such announcements from you, Gandydancer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it would be more fruitful to discuss things here and try to reach consensus? That is what the idea was, wasn't it? Is this your admission that you're unable to support your preferred version? JJL (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, I still have not the slightest idea whether you are now seeking to delete the entire second part of the sentence, after previously repeatedly supporting proposed sentences that include it. Are you? If not, then you still have not given the slightest reason why we should not change "before birth" to "other than live birth". I have given my reasons for this slight change, and you have given no reasons whatsoever. It's not our job to repeat verbatim what reliable sources say, and paraphrasing is a far cry from synthesis. Are you now intending to object to every single edit that I propose or make in this article? I still intend to make the edit I suggested, because no one has given the slightest policy-based reason why I shouldn't. There is not a reliable source on earth that suggests abortion generally occurs before a subsequent birth, so I want to clarify that in this article. All I hear from you is that you do not like anything I do, regardless of what it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're now in violation of the WP:1RR for this article. This is certainly not working in good faith. JJL (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I started doing an edit that wasn't a revert, and it turned into a revert. Will make the edit later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that you keep asking me to repeat myself. My objection remains: Where are the sources for the version of the second half of the lede sentence that you prefer? The actual wording appears to be synthesized to me--indeed, your own source for it does not support it. JJL (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the lead sentence, and I don't prefer it that way. Ask NW for sources, not me. Or ask GandyDancer, since she expressed support for the lead sentence. All I'm trying to do here is damage control, by replacing "before" with "other than". Got it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made this change, so it's your responsibility to support it; see WP:BURDEN. Please do so. JJL (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion above, plus my edit summary: "Changing 'before' to 'other than' for clarity. No sources imply that abortion occurs before subsequent birth. See last reference cited in note at end of lead sentence."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're now using lack of sources as a source. That isn't acceptable. The WP:BURDEN remains on you as you introduced the change. You're claiming that this is a definition: "the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy other than birth". Where's the source for that? JJL (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am merely claiming right now that "other than birth" is a clearer paraphrase of reliable sources than "before birth". Please stop arguing about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop discussing an unsourced claim about how something is defined? That doesn't seem like a good idea. JJL (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons I do not understand, you apparently are happy for readers to mistakenly infer from this article that abortion can occur before subsequent birth, you have not cited any source that implies abortion occurs before subsequent birth, and you also neglect to address the "other than" language in the Note's last reference. You are simply filibustering, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The note's last reference, from the Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945? The note also has a reference from the Dictionary of World Philosophy that uses "before birth". Do you mean that they were mistaken also? What makes the former preferable--certainly not that it's better sourced? JJL (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither source was mistaken regarding birth, it's just a matter of which one says it more clearly. "Before birth" means in this context "Before birth is allowed to occur", and the meaning would be the same if the phrase "other than birth" were used instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection

Why has the page been indefinatley semi-protected?, could someone give me a full explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PP. The explanation doesn't get more full than that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

FYI, the RFC above is now one of the subjects of an ArbCom proceeding. See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to cover a wide-ranging set of topics and it's not clear to me how big a part of the picture the lede here is yet--they seem concentrating primarily on the pro-life/pro-choice labels. I'm waiting to see the question(s) brought into sharper focus. Getting resolution here would certainly not be a bad thing if that's what they decide to do. JJL (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on lede?

In the interest of compromise, I'd be willing to settle on this version: "Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes used more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." JJL (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping we can discuss variants of this and reach a consensus on something like this rather than having a slow-motion edit-war. JJL (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to settle on that as well.Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly opposed to this proposal. As a proposed compromise, how about if we restore the most recent consensus version? That would be the version that existed from 2006 to 2011. Then we could make changes to it as consensus and Wikipedia policy allow. For example, I would support changing the word "death" to another term. The proposal suggested here by JJL has many problems that have already been discussed previously (but not addressed here by JJL).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant this as a slight variation of NW's proposal that was more to my liking. I was hoping for a counterproposal other than dropping the last 5 years of conversations and going back to the version that we know lacks consensus. Is the current version simply unacceptable to you? JJL (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What changed from two days ago, when you said "But I myself don't have very strong objections to it"? NW (Talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the edit history. I was not commenting about the version JJL now proposes. I was commenting about the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now." Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact this article has admittedly scrambled my brain, but it seems to me that you just said above "restore the most recent consensus version? That would be the version that existed from 2006 to 2011". As I have said right from the start, the important thing for me is that in a situation such as this there is an answer and the answer is Wikipedia policy of using references rather than my wish or your wish. Death and destruction are in only a very few references, so that is OUT. Most references use viable or a form of it, so we are bound by policy to choose that definition. As a compromise I will accept "however, the term is sometimes used more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." even though IMO the refs do not back this addition. However, some editors find it extremely important to include the fact that a certain number of abortions (in truth a very small number though that is not their conclusion) are done after the fetus is viable, and I will accept this as a compromise even though I do not like it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would you find acceptable, in the interests of bringing this discussion to a close via consensus? The version from NW was "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth." This is acceptable to me, though I would much prefer medically to technically. But I would accept this version if that would let us achieve consensus. Is it acceptable to you? If so we can try putting it in and leaving it in and see what other editors think about it. JJL (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Oudent) Wikipedia policy, per WP:Lead, says, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." So, as I've said, it's not appropriate to give the specialized terminology top billing, and relegate the common Oxford English Dictionary definition to an afterthought. But, in the interest of peace and compromise, I do not intend to revert the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", aside from making the obvious clarification that birth does not happen after abortion. But I will do everything I can to revert further efforts to get farther and farther from Wikipedia policy, as I believe JJL's proposal in this talk page sectuon would do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I understand your position. You would find "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy other than birth." acceptable. Is that so? I find "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may also be broadened to include the termination of pregnancy before birth." acceptable. If this is correct then we may be close to achieving a workable consensus. JJL (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not so. You have not quoted the version about which GandyDancer said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", and which I said I did not strongly oppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NW's def was: ""Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth." Am I wrong? Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I believe that's the version about which you (GandyDancer) said "I will accept NW's current version", and about which NW said "I'm OK with how it is now", and which I said I did not strongly oppose. And what's the harm in changing "before" to "other than"; that ought to be completely uncontroversial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that and in fact I believe it seems to "sound" better. But that's all I can say - "it sounds better" - since I have no references to check for what might be the correct wording. Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a good article in which to assume that something will be uncontroversial because it suits your viewpoint. I was repeatedly told that 'death' was completely neutral and uncontroversial. To me "other than" sounds like yet another attempt to sneak "therefore, dead" in through the back door. And since it's poorly sourced, there's little reason to prefer it at this point. JJL (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "other than" is synonymous with or implies "therefore dead", then there is no use trying to reason with you. Ditto about it being poorly sourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This works better if you tell me what version you're thinking of as I did for you. I copied it from NW's most recent edit of the lede--it may not have been the original one. Simply saying "No, that is not so. You have not quoted the [right] version" doesn't make for a constructive discussion. Are you trying to forestall discussion? JJL (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GandyDancer just quoted the pertinent version in this talk page section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Anythingyouwant would much prefer "other than" to "before" birth. I would agree to that, however I feel that using "medically" rather than "technically" defined as..." would be more accurate. Are there any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GandyDancer, that's been discussed above. For example, I said: "The presently-used word 'technically' is much better than 'medically' because many medical sources include the broader definition. For example, among the sources now in this article's 'Note', see TeLinde's Operative Gynecology, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, and Dictionary of Medical Terms. There are many other medical sources that include the broad definition, e.g. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, and WebMD/MedicineNet." Nuclear Warfare responded: "I'm good with how it is now, including using technically instead of medically, which I think is appropriate because even medical sources refer to post-viability terminations of pregnancy as abortions.". The present lead sentence is already the result of a great deal of compromise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the result of a great deal of compromise on all sides, don't you think? Not everything that was discussed above was resolved above...and I assume other editors who have not been posting (much here) this past week will want to weigh in when we ask if there is truly consensus. JJL (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I support "other than". I feel it is neutral and does not imply death (sorry JJL). Also, I think it avoids confusion with C-Section (which occurs before birth, but is not considered other than birth). Just my two cents. Wow, these threads are like watching C-Span during the debt ceiling debates. --Bertrc (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a C-section, the pregnancy itself terminates with birth--just not by vaginal delivery. JJL (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before/Other than

This article page (including mirrors of it) is the only Google hit for "termination of pregnancy other than birth"--a total of 5 hits. On the other hand, there are over 40K results for "termination of pregnancy before birth" (e.g. [9], [10], [11] (Sec. 23.6); you have to weed out a number of mirrors of this site, including older versions of this article page, or pages that clearly adopted its language, to get truly independent instances, as there are a great many low-quality pages out there that seem to have just used the 2006 version of this article as a basis for their definition). Since one wording is attested only here and in one source in the note section, and the other is broadly attested, we should use the "before birth" version. JJL (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJL, if we search google for "JJL is correct about how to phrase the lead" then we get zero hits. Does that mean you are wrong about the lead? Of course not. Doing google searches is completely irrelevant here, because both versions ("before birth" and "other than birth") mean the same thing. It is simply clearer for some unsophisticated readers if we use "other than"....if such a reader sees "abortion happens before birth" then that reader's first (incorrect) impression might be that abortion happens and then birth happens. I'm sure you're not so unreasonable and paranoid that you would simply object and revert until hell freezes over so that this Wikipedia article will say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that readers may think as you suggest is completely unreasonable. As you know, I discussed the use of the word "viable" with a group of 12 to 15 year olds and the only thing they didn't understand was why adults were having so much trouble with it and why they were wikipedia editors. Do you really want me to ask them if they believe that abortion before birth might mean that "abortion happens and then birth happens" (what ever that means...). It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way and wants the article to say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say. Please read source 7th from the last which uses the term before birth. Let's go with our sources. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already referred to the last source, which uses the "other than" language. If you want to assume that everyone already knows what abortion is, then there's no need for the lead sentence. Can we please argue about something more interesting? You haven't suggested that saying "other than" is less clear, or gives the lead any different meaning, so why not be agreeable? Because it's some sinister "back door" plot (as JJL has already alleged)?[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's more correct--it's certainly much better sourced. The use of the word 'terminate' should allay your concerns about post-abortion births. JJL (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it more correct, in your view? Is there any reason? Some might reasonably think that inducing labor (before birth) terminates pregnancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that people will think that that is what is meant here. In my view "before" is preferable because it is very well sourced in a variety of references, including technical medical sources and also ones meant for the lay public, while the "other than" phrasing is sourced only to the Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945. It's a clear, simple, well-sourced statement. We've had a discussion of this sort of issue already, and some editors made various objections. Going from memory here, one comment was that labor in which a medical error or other problem causes death in the birth canal could be construed as termination of the pregnancy resulting in something other than birth. I don't think we'll be able to defend against all possible misconceptions in a single sentence. It may be that those who want to understand the matter may have to read more of the article than the first sentence. JJL (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your notion that we have to follow a particular source or set of sources verbatim, without putting anything in our own words, is incorrect. You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why "other than" is inaccurate or means something contrary to what any source says. Feel free to link to whatever discussion you're referring to, if such a discussion exists. You've already stated your real motivation here: "To me 'other than' sounds like yet another attempt to sneak 'therefore, dead' in through the back door."[13] Which is absurd. There is no consensus for the current lead sentence, and there has been no consensus for the lead sentence since you edit-warred the stable 2006-2011 version out of existence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel we have to follow the sources verbatim. However, when the majority say it a certain way we should strongly consider doing so. Since your change has repeatedly been described as inconsequential, let's leave it the way the professionals do. There's no reason to veer from the way that the professionals put it except your exaggerated fear that some reader will think 'abortion' means 'birth'. On another matter, once again I've addressed your concern in detail and once again you've said that I haven't even given you the slightest hint as to my thinking. You're not reading my comments thoroughly enough. JJL (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No link to the "discussion of this sort of issue already" that you want me to think about? If we were to leave this lead to the professionals, then we would define the word "abortion" by starting with a definition consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary instead of your ultra-technical definition that assumes readers know what "viable" means but are ignorant of what "abortion" means.

I support reverting to the 2006-2011 version, which is the most recent consensus version. Then we could work from there. I'd be glad to support an alternative to the word "death" that some editors like yourself find so displeasing.[14] My intention is to re-insert the "disputed" tag at the end of the lead sentence, because this slow-motion edit-warring is tiresome, and the tag will be sufficient to indicate that there is still no consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. JJL (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's OK?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You inserting a "disputed" tag to indicate that you feel we haven't achieved consensus. I have no objection to that. JJL (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking you were the one who was obsessed, actually. JJL (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which was basically the finding of the previous ArbCom case - that he "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion". While Anythingyouwant has moderated his approach somewhat since then, I'd like to caution Anythingyouwant about becoming too contentious in this matter, especially as regards sarcasm and hostility towards other editors ("your ultra-technical definition" - "some editors like yourself".) As Gandydancer kindly reminds you, "It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way." I realize that now that there is another ArbCom case in which you are involved, concerning Abortion - the topic which led to you being placed under editing restrictions and nearly led to you being community banned - you might be feeling some stress. Try not to take that stress out on your fellow editors, ok? And JJL, I'm not seeing where calling another editor "obsessed" here on the article talk page, without some kind of hint on how to improve that editors' approach to disputes, can be helpful. You may have only meant to draw Anythingyouwant's attention to how his recent edits may appear to others, to try to get him to moderate his tone, but the overall effect is also, sadly, unfriendly and even sarcastic. Let's all try to do better, ok? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, KC, and as I've said to you before, this page is not for personal and/or user conduct issues. If you would like to move this comment to your user page, and leave a link to it here, please feel free.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall you offering your opinion regarding this, but even if I did, obviously I think this is an appropriate venue for this particular reminder. I hardly think your combative response to my reminder is moving in the right direction; you are shifting the focus from the civility on the talk page to your personal animosity towards me. I refuse to get drawn into an argument regarding this with you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence opposition

The lead section options section has indicated multiple options. I've tried to list them here in order of most supported, to least. Here we should discuss / list opposing reasons for each option in an attempt to remove some of the options. The emphasis, in my opinion, is on the functionality of the definition and adherence to Wikipedia policy and our goals.

At the last second, I've added "Oppose reasons", the intent is to put point form problems with the lead option; the points can be tweaked and expanded as necessary (hence not signed) please re-sign if modified. But a consensus is needed to strike out a reason, with a followup signed rationale for removal. (see below for my example attempt, anyone can unstrike and say why) An RFC can be listed for this. Hopefully by September we can at least agree on what we don't prefer. Oh and please comment on possible tweaks to remove your opposition to an option. - RoyBoy 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Termination before viable

Oppose reasons

  • While complete for medical text(s), it is too narrow a definition for a generalist encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include exceptions. Or simply: Wikipedia is not a dictionary / medical text.RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." Many medical and non-medical sources use a broader definition, and it's not NPOV to favor the narrower specialist terminology, or use it to limit the scope of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to mince my words here - this is weak factually, it would be intellectually dishonest [we know that third trimester abortions do take place and can be legally performed up to full term in some jurisdictions and that they are called abortions and are abortions regardless of the stage of development of the fetus, or it's ability to survive outside the womb]. Lacking in content [no mention of baby/embryo/fetus or mother/female], and bad semantically and gramatically. Would set a very poor example for an encyclopedic definition.DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Termination with medical clarification

Oppose reasons

*This would include induced labor and birth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

*Removing "destruction" now makes the definition so broad that it could cover live birth. After "embryo" I would add "and its demise". The word "demise" is not merely a synonym for "death". Sometimes it means death, but it can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I came back to this definition with those very concerns. Demise cannot be used because it requires personhood (while death/destruction doesn't). I have put destruction back, and switched "a" to "the". Thanks for the feedback. Well, looking here demise does seem appropriate, but here it seems not appropriate. - RoyBoy 17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your second link doesn't seem convincing, because if you click on "more" you'll see that Google Dictionary has met its, uh, demise. Google Dictionary is not a reliable source. I can support "destruction", though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version

Oppose reasons

Comments

Previous death consensus

Oppose reasons

Comments

  • While I get it, death is correctly defined once at Wikipedia. It seems easier to understand than viable, so we preferred it in 2006. - RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Death is blunt, simple and straightforward, but it's not used when tonsils are removed. Tonsils are not really a distinct organism, whereas a fetus/embryo is regarded as a distinct organism, or at least a parasitic distinct organism. The word "death" has strong connotations, perhaps suggesting brain death, which is an organ that may not yet have formed in the embryo. The word "demise" is much better; it sometimes means death but can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is straightforward and clear as a formal definition, there is nothing counterfactual here in regard to what an abortion basically is. Some may regard a fetus/embryo as a parasitic organism, it is incorrect though as parasites are from a species different to the host species. In origin and manner the dependent intrauterine relationship of baby on its mother is not the same as parasite on a host. I don't see a NPOV issue or a need to give more than one definition as viability will be mentioned in the article, but is non-essential to a formal definition. DMSBel (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had this discussion already a million times. Consensus by posting until other editors give up and go away is not strictly forbidden, but there is a time to just leave things as they are and walk away. NW (Talk) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page discussion is rarely discouraged regarding how we can get a consensus thst allows removal of a disputed tag. Only three or so editors have even commented about whether "termination befote birth" might be misunderstood to include premature labor induction, for example. No one likes endless discussions, but that's often what happens when high-profile articles are substantially changed without any consensus whatsoever for the changes (as happened here). I can support changes and compromises here, but the thing is not settled yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Anythingyouwant. The removal of death was non-consensual, supported with bogus (anti-scientific) arguments and anyone who dissented was/is accused of being a right-wing religious nut-case. We should revert back to the 2006 death consensus.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than that. The original section for comments was repeatedly changed--statements modified after people had voted for them--and it continues to happen here. There has been a long discussion to get to the current stable version and any discussion not starting with that is just another attempt to get the much-loved 2006 version back in. If a discussion of this form is to work it needs to include statements that are not modified during the discussion of them, just for starters. Waiting until a stable version was reached then trying to get it thrown out and the old, old version restored is just another delaying tactic in hopes of wearing out the editors on the other side. It isn't an honest attempt to reach consensus. JJL (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 48 hour straw poll qualifies as a honest attempt? If changes to unsigned proposals are noted, transparency remains, this is the Wiki-process. "stable version" is that another joke? Motive guessing again, I waited for the "Lead section options" to slow then proceeded to construct an actual consensus. The current lead is messy and (I think) undermines the whole point of a lead (to define something broadly once), if you want to keep it, fine. I'd like to verify this is what the community actually wants / expect; they'll likely want the "termination before viable" version... well I certainly hope not. - RoyBoy 04:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it wasn't structured very well, like the current lead. If the current version holds its own re WP:Lead, then there is no change required. Besides, if things were "left as they are", we would be forced to revisit every year. That possibility is preposterous to me, but if you're willing to sign up then awesome fantastic! BTW, NW do you find "demise" okay, or equally poor / misleading as "death"? - RoyBoy 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This definition is virtually identical to the definition in the most well-regarded US dictionaries; fair-minded editors will agree that those dictionaries do not define abortion this way to advance a political POV, but instead to provide a broad yet concise definition for the word. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=445157608"