Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Abortion -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Abortion has been edited continually since 2001. Over that period of time, consensus has been established on certain topics through numerous discussions on this talk page in order to avoid edit warring. Please be sure to check the topics below to see if your concerns have already been addressed. Keep in mind, that this does not reflect any sort of final say on things — only a grouping of points we've already argued to tentative conclusion. Some related discussions are continuing on subpages. See links under "topical subpages" immediately under the archives box. Everyone is always welcome and encouraged to voice their concerns at any time, because consensus can always change. Should the first paragraph of the article be changed to remove/reword "death?" No. Please see the archived discussions at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Should we add or expand coverage of a particular aspect of abortion? It is likely that we have already done so. There was so much information on abortion that we decided to split it all into separate articles. This article is concise because we've tried to create an overview of the entire topic here by summarizing many of these more-detailed articles. The goal is to give readers the ability to pick the level of detail that best suits their needs. If you're looking for more detail, check out some of the other articles related to abortion. This article seems to be on the long side. Should we shorten it? See above. The guidelines on article length contain exceptions for articles which act as "starting points" for "broad subjects." Please see the archived discussion "Article Length." Should we include expert medical or legal advice about abortions? No. Wikipedia does not give legal or medical advice. Please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer for more information. Should we include or link to pictures of fetuses and/or the end products of abortion? No. This has been discussed several times on this talk page, and for now we're leaving them out. Be sure to read the discussions below; however, please do not modify them, as they are archived copies: "Picture survey" - No - aborted fetuses are shock images; normal fetus images violate neutral point of view policy. "Link to Aborted Children" - No - shock images. "Linking to Images is Allowed" - No - shock images and shock sites violate neutral point of view policy. "Abortion Images/Links" - No - defer to prior consensus; shock images. "A picture of abortion" - No - shock images; no precedent in other medical articles (e.g. Amputation, Clitoridectomy) for images of removed body parts. "POV tag" - No - illustration of intact fetus; more appropriate to articles on pregnancy

	Abortion 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 Date Process Result December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale WikiProject Abortion      (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated B-Class) Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics WikiProject Sexology and sexuality       (Rated B-Class) Sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Human rights      (Rated B-Class) Human rights portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Abortion:

· history · watch · refresh

Expand lead Properly source the majority of information under "Forms of abortion" and "Health effects." Create more balanced sub-section on abortion and mental health to better describe scope of controversy in both science and politics. Source and write a sub-section on compulsory abortion for "Social issues" (see To-Do Items for a draft). Add statistics on national abortion rates. Rework the table for "Incidence" (see To-Do Items for a work-in-progress version) Discuss creation of "Historical perspectives" topic under "Abortion debate." Discuss potential summary section of Religion and abortion article. Discuss potential creation of "Abortion in art, literature, and film" section. Streamline article per WP:SIZE. Copyedit to simplify prose and discuss content which could be reduced or removed.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

Archives
Chronological archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Topical subpages
First paragraph (active) Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" in intro (see First paragraph & archives)

Contents 1 Wiki finding is contradicted 2 Beethoven and Abortion 3 external links 4 New section proposal 5 Miscarriage 6 Opening section change 7 Miscarriage

Wiki finding is contradicted

The Wikipedia article concludes that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion. It even uses evidence from American Psychological Association, as does the following. But the following contradicts the Wiki claim: Chair of APA Abortion Report Task Force Violates APA Ethics Rules http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html Life Site News The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article more carefully. The Wikipedia article does not "conclude that there are no adverse psychological effects of having an abortion." It reports that the American Psychological Association has reached such a conclusion. Which it has. Based on your posts here and elsewhere, it may be worth reviewing Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view, particularly its guidance on how this encyclopedia covers active debates. Additionally, since you suggest that the allegations of a partisan newsletter with questionable fact-checking and editorial oversight be used against a living person, please review the site's policies on biographical material, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, MastCell, YOU read Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. I found 36 citations in Wiki's article that were from pro-choice sources but only two that were from pro-life sources. Yet, you say "partisan" newsletter. So you're saying what? That Wiki isn't partisan?

The 36 biased Wiki citations are: 4, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 58, 61, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 108, and 111.

Wiki doesn't waste any time in showing its bias. You do so in the first sentence: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Apparently, citation not needed. This alleged definition greatly diminishes what an induced abortion is. In an induced abortion, an abortion is not caused by a death or result in a death in the particular way you infer. A death is caused by an abortion, and the dead baby is removed or expelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooookay. Citation #12 is from the World Health Organization. #16 is from the New England Journal of Medicine. #20 from the medical journal Gynecology & Obstetrics. And so on. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox; there are plenty of other venues on the Internet for what you seem to want to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"resulting in" points out death is caused by an induced abortion, whereas a spontaneous abortion is "caused by its death"; both are incorporated into one sentence. It is not laid out chronologically in simple step by step terms, it says precisely what you wish it to say, but with a compound sentence. Death is a strong non-biased word, and many would prefer not to use it. Make your case elsewhere. - RoyBoy 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven and Abortion

We need to add article on social effects on/of abortion, look at russia and ukraine, they are losing tons of babies, china, india abort gals, they want boys, so stupid and ignorant, in the long run they will not be able to pay for retirement when generations get old, when men would like to marry they will not be able to get their women, they will not get any tail, will have to search for partners outside their countries or become gay. Beethoven was almost aborted by his mother, imagine the world without his music... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the personal opinion on Beethoven's music, we do have a section and article on sex-selective abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

external links

didn't find a section on the talk page. At any rate. the this section was getting too long. Using WP:SEH i took out the 2 points of view that were creeping in.

I also took out one issue guide because there already was one (presumably both were unbiased), and it cuts down on redundancy. Likewise for the gov website on the issue. Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the list, removing all country specific resources. Those should be linked from Abortion Debate only, or in abortion in X sections. I'm going through the abortion statistics section later--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just trimming it a big more. WP:SEH says "Points of view starting to creep in, minority dissent from the authorities and other monographs" as a sign the list is getting to big. As you said it's for Abortion debate (which is another can of worms altogether)

The laws of the world link should be in the abortion laws page (i think it already is)

Public agenda is good, but it's not global in perspective (ie- roe vs. wade)

Also, not too sure waht the pbs link is here for? what resource above and beyond does it have?

Meanwhile the dmoz link was recommended UNTIL consensus here is reached. (so its a temp link)

Also, importantly, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." (as you see planned parenthood already has a wiki site, maybe 'see also'?) Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes and have some thoughts

• Public Agenda removed: debate centered and U.S tilted.
• Dmoz I think should stay, we have those links everyone else
• PBS link was too old, it stays out.
• Planned parenthood should go back in. Its the major prochoice player in the debate, AND a major provider of abortions, but I don't have a good pro-life link to balance it out with. Suggestions?
• Guttmacher Institute link *has* to stay in. Its a PP connected institute, but it is the major respected source for abortion statistics. I kept its associated links since I havn't weeded them yet.

--20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is this is not supposed to have links to the different issues for support and abortion. Especially when there are links for it: pro-choice, pro-life and abortion debate already exist (kind of contradictory and pointless to have debate despite the individual pages). If Guttmacher is good for stats we should find the link on the website that has stats and link to that. For planned parenthood and the link, linking to organization is like WP:advertising. Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a quick note Lihaas, I formatted your comment. Anyway, abortion is meant to serve as a survey. It covers everything, but in brief. How brief is a matter of editorial opinion. And we're not advertising PP, but I can honestly say we're diminishing the article by not linking to them. Abortion in the modern day is tied to PP, they are everywhere. Wikipedia is here to provide information. As a matter of expediency however, we maintain the appearance neutrality by linking equally pro life and pro choice. The substance of neutrality is of course, the top priority in everything we do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't it be a 'see also.' Then it goes with wikipedia's explanation. It's also not 'global' (im not 100% sure though) in nature. Maybe we should put a link to pro-life and pro-choice directly? Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New section proposal

I just came back from an extended vacation, and I'm not sure who is active on this page now, so if you are, pipe up please, because I'm planning on changing the organization of the article.

I'd like to add an Abortion by country section, which will survey abortion prevalence and legality in various countries or regions, English speaking first, then moving our way down. Should be relavtively short, branching into larger articles.

Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be useful information. It will probably rapidly become large enough to warrant a spinoff article. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we in fact HAVE a list of abortions by country, but we might consider a small section inside the article itself, instead of the info box.--Tznkai (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage

before the 20th week of gestational age^[1] is commonly known as a miscarriage.^[2]

Problem here: This refers only to HUMAN abortions, an abortion can be induced any animal that bears young.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening section change

I've cut down the opening section considerably. My reasoning is fairly simple. We need a short and concise definition of what abortion is. The remaining sentences reference all of the major abortion subtopics (history, legality, by country, morality). Also, as a matter of precision abortion can be, and is induced in domesticated animals all the time, but as a lone term refers to human abortions

Everything else was cut because its covered in the article itself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage

Yeah, that's fair - but still, there should be some indication that a "spontaneous abortion" is a "miscarriage". The latter term is widely used and understood, whereas "spontaneous abortion" is not. There should be an explicit linkage between the two terms in the lead, to avoid confusion. How would you propose we phrase this? MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I was relying the wikilink in spontaneous and on the terminology section below to take care of it, but I do see your point. I'm looking at it now.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 5 September 2008, at 01:34.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Abortion".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Abortion

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.