Talk:Abortion

Archives
Chronological archives
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, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43
Topical subpages
Lead: 2006, 2007-10, 2011 Lead image To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, Use of "Death"

Common?

I'm puzzled how anyone can contend that there is substantial agreement on what "abortion" means in common usage, unless they are incapable of noting that the public debate on the topic is highly polarized. Common usage varies across a wide range, from a minor medical treatment at one extreme to murder of an unborn baby at the other. There is no common usage for this word, we should just admit it and move on.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're inadvertently confusing the issue. "Common usage" means the generally accepted primary meaning of a term as described in general-purpose dictionaries. It does not mean the implications of a term. Of course many people think that "Republican Party (United States)" means lower taxes and more jobs, whereas others think the same term means foolishness, racism, homophobia, et cetera but none of that is relevant to the meaning according to common usage, which is a U.S. political party.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No common usage? If not then we can never arrive at a definition in the lede surely. What I think is the case is not that there is no common usage, there is, but that definitions are selective, not all are completely factually inclusive. The actual thing that takes place is the same in every case of what is termed an "induced abortion" - a living embryo or fetus dies, resulting in a premature end to a pregnancy (understood as the dependent intrauterine relationship existing between developing fetus and mother) The omission of reference to fetal death in some definitions is not because there is any doubt about fetal life signs being absent following an abortion. Induced abortion refers to the same thing/event wherever or whenever it is carried out, the only variation is in the method by which the abortion, is carried out, and "induced abortion" in general usage covers those variations. Polarisation in the debate it seems to me is not over whether an abortion results in fetal death but at what point personhood begins.DMSBel (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to last post: The event (OED :thing that happens or takes place) for which the term "induced abortion" has become common medical parlance basically involves the induced demise or death of an fetus or unborn baby. In a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) this is accidental, in an induced abortion intentional. A pregnant human female if she wants a baby cannot bypass the pregnancy, that seems clear. We get nowhere by confusing fetus (unborn baby), with pregnancy (the state of carrying an unborn) - Pregnant (adjective) - having a child or young developing in the womb (Oxford English Dictionary). Pregnancy (noun) - the condition or period of being pregnant. The only reason for not stating that the abortion results in the death or destruction of the fetus (when medical sources (which meet MEDRS), as well as dictionary and philosophic sources do state this), is to make the article more favorable to a "pro-choice" audience it seems to me. Certainly I could accept an appropriately written lede in which "death" was not in the first sentence - but in the first paragraph. This would probably satisfy most objections to the earlier consensus lede as the objection was only with regard to the first sentence, though it has never been established that the consensus was overturned, agreement here might help us move on. DMSBel (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Failing to respond but not conceding the point doesn't help move things on LeadSongDog. I don't think we can wait much longer. Either there is no common usage and no definition or we stop digging our heels in and accept a compromise. DMSBel (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good way of putting it, however at both extremes from a truly minor blastocyst (pill) to a grotesque third trimester (eg. war crime) there is a common element. I think viability is "overly specific" for the lead as it cannot encompass the extremes of the topic, which goes beyond a clinical setting, as I've detailed previously. - RoyBoy 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A definition of anything is based on an objective (ie. independent of the definition) signified, or an extra-linguistic actual event or state of affairs (sorry for so philosophical a way of stating it. Hope I am making sense). While there is an objection to the term "aborting" on the grounds that the term is a euphemism, I agree with RoyBoy that the issue currently is about a definition that encompasses the topic, and which acknowledges the common elements in all abortions. DMSBel (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else? - RoyBoy 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was wp:NODEADLINE, but it does appear that I dropped the ball on this discussion thread. As RoyBoy says there is an objective event associated with the term. Unfortunately those entrenched in one position or the other act as if they were incapable of recognizing the objective physical meaning, instead donning their own philosophic blinders on any use of the word. Each thinks of their own subjective meaning. Hence the use of the word carries no capacity for "commmon" usage, it is lost in the "us" vs. "them". LeadSongDog come howl! 06:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. Death does have common usage as outlined by Wikipedia. Moreover, you see "death" as creating an adversarial definition, while "viable" does not? My view (post 2006) is that "viable" has blinders of its own, just happens to be politically correct. Being pro-choice should be about a woman's right to self-determination, not dependent on a fetus' viability (hard to determine, not inclusive) / humanity (sure I guess) / being life or alive or organism (it is). If an encyclopedic definition doesn't work well, we should avoid it; Britannica's definition contorting with "usually about" indicates it doesn't work.

Separately, DMSBel pointed out to me a sentence that could be helpful in including "death" in the lead while maintaining (even solidifying) viable as the primary definition. "Many people believe a fetus to be a distinct human being, and elective abortion a process that causes its death, while others disagree, noting that the developing fetus is dependent on the woman until viability." It's very abortion debate oriented, but it could be Wikipedia's "usually about" definition caveat and can help balance out the lead.

Despite various opinions, I'm here to ensure Wikipedia's intellectual vigor and stability with a definition that is broad, inclusive and accurate. The current version doesn't quite get there, Britannica knows it -- so should we. (yes Wikipedia links to viable, but that's poor form, a lead should stand on its own if possible) - RoyBoy 01:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been established here that there's consensus against 'death' in the lede, before the ArbCom case came up, and that 'viable' is medically correct. (I don't know if it's politically correct or not.) Having you act as a conduit [1] for a topic-banned user is unhelpful and doesn't seem to me to be within the spirit of the decision.

I'm unclear why a link to 'viable' is problematic--are you implying a policy, guideline, or style against having any internal links in the lede sentence? What I see at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#First_sentence_format shows just the opposite--without exception, every example of a good lede sentence given there contains multiple internal links, including to specialized terms (e.g. IUPAC, subatomic particle, electrical impedance) In fact, look at Wikipedia:CONTEXTLINK#Contextual_links: "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that define the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." Furthermore, it says: "Do not, however, add contextual links that don't relate directly to the topic's definition or reason for notability." It appears that adding links related to the definition and the context--and surely viability is related to the context of the medical, legal, and ethical aspects of abortion, as well as to its definition--is encouraged. When you say "that's poor form, a lead should stand on its own if possible" you're entirely out of step with what is actually good form on Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Good. But let us not substitute our judgement for that of reliable secondary ones. If the sole objection were to having to follow the wikilink, a parenthetic could serve while respecting policy, e.g. "..viable (mature enough to survive birth)..." or similar. The "broad, inclusive and accurate" definition is absolutely attainable, but not in a single sentence. If it were, we'd have gotten there long ago. For the lede we must rely on the best sources available. The more inclusive elaboration of the various POVs can and should (must?) follow, further down the page. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding context is good form, relying on a sub-article to precisely define the key term is not. I concur with you viable is widely understood, just doesn't seem a practical measure in all abortion circumstances, especially as viability is fluid and can change from one hospital to another. - RoyBoy 04:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's the rub. Is it OR to note abortions do occur on viable fetus'? Also, for a war crime where a past 24 weeks mother gravida is attacked and she loses the pregnancy, is that a stillbirth or abortion? - RoyBoy 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the definition doesn't hinge on the war crime bit (with a war crime you're in deep sneakers regardless)....

In non-medical circles, the term 'abortion' is usually used to refer to the termination of an early pregnancy by artificial means whereas 'miscarriage' is used for those pregnancy losses occurring because of natural events. The medical term for both of these is an 'abortion', the definition of which is the termination of a pregnancy before 28 weeks (note that there is no mention of the cause); 'miscarriage' has no medical definition. This difference in the use of the same word may give rise to confusion. A woman who is already distressed by the loss of a wanted pregnancy may be angered to discover that the medical records describe her as having had an abortion and she may, incorrectly, assume that this implies that she chose to rid herself of the pregnancy. Her anger may cause her to seek legal advice and it is important that her advisers are able to explain the true interpretation. —Dutt, Trevor; Matthews, Margaret P.; Scott, Walter (ed.) (1999). "Chapter 13: Abortion". Gynaecology for Lawyers. {{cite book}}: |first3= has generic name (help)

Generally (depending on jurisdiction, etc.) before ~20 to 28 weeks that would be an abortion with the possibility of confusion as stated above. On your first, gotta reference? Not exactly sure where you're coming from (not in a bad way just need a place to start from). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Deep sneakers" hehehe, awesome. Excellent reference again ArtifexMayhem. As to the confusion, indeed I chose the middle of 20 to 28 weeks as viability isn't really a consideration for a induced miscarriage from an attack, which is known as an abortion. - RoyBoy 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't seem practical"? Please tell me there's a platinum-plated source to back that assessment up. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh... why is a source necessary to maintain the practicality of "viable" is suspect? Viability being unverifiable is the reality (ie. backstreet abortion), but I bring up Britannica's / Encarta's handling of the lead sentence as diamond encyclopedic standards; even though "usually" has made me cringe in the past ... actually it still does, so I'll reduce that one to gold. - RoyBoy 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

One more attempt

Since the lead's inline discussion tag is still there, I've came up with two versions to somehow address the related concerns above:

• "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo"
• "Abortion may be defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo", where "generally" may be inserted before "defined".

Both proposals seek to summarize and reconcile all definitions given in the note. The dropped "prior to viability" may be added in the form of "before it is considered viable". Thoughts? --Brandmeister t 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was planning on reopening this discussion too, but I decided to wait a bit. Can we hold off until Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion is closed before having this discussion? NW (Talk) 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While definitions like these deftly side-step issues, it fails to specify what happens to the abortus and how this differs from other pregnancy endings. - RoyBoy 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes--"prior to viability" is indeed highly relevant here. JJL (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevant yes. Encompassing? I'd maintain no. - RoyBoy 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys seriously need some outside eyes. Tell me how expulsion is different from removal, and how a reader is supposed to interpret that sentence? Perhaps you could also explain why it includes an obvious untruth later contradicted in the article? Please don't write for someone who already knows the subject, and please at least make the article consistent. B^e——C_ritical 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you think of this version:

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

"Removal" and "expulsion" are the same thing, the same result. This also removes the contradiction. The Intact dilation and extraction article says "Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a procedure done in late term abortion," and thus abortions do occur after viability, unless that article is wrong which I very much doubt. It's not Wikipedia's call to redefine terminology in both common and legal usage. You have to cite that abortion does not include IDX. This, according to the notes in the article, has not been done, because several of the sources merely say something like "usually before fetal viability," or they simply say nothing about viability, as "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo." The sources do not justify an absolute statement as in the current lead sentence. We should not be taking sides in this debate, as a matter of NPOV. "Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it." I would personally argue that given that the usage of IDX may not be an abortion, then partial birth abortion is the only term specifically used for late term abortion, and we are dealing with an anomaly in terminology and taking sides in a debate in the process. I would also argue that you would have to source that IDX is not an abortion procedure: the burden is on that side of the debate. B^e——C_ritical 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The current version is extremely well-sourced by the top medical texts. The term partial birth abortion is more a political term than a medical one, isn't it? There may well be some inconsistency in how WP is describing things--as happens with many editors--but what you propose sounds dangerously close to OR to me: Parsing the phrases partial birth abortion/late term abortion and insisting that they follow some consistent logic, some hierarchy, that may not reflect how their usage has actually evolved. The lede is backed by extensive sources and I'm more inclined to bring less well-sourced material into line with it than the other way around. JJL (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with that, if you can have a source which says that Late termination of pregnancy is not abortion, or that IDX is not abortion. We could bring all the articles into line with that, and decide that whereas prior to 20 weeks it is abortion, after that it's termination of pregnancy or having an IDX procedure on a living fetus, or some such. But you know that won't fly. What's really OR is what is there now, which is a statement that takes sides among the various sources. But here is a source that looks good to me, as it's JAMA calling IDX "abortion" B^e——C_ritical 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that source isn't exactly the "JAMA calling...", but rather three authors who wrote a "special communication" published in JAMA thirteen years ago (Aug 1998), in the aftermath of Clinton's veto. The same issue carried Grimes' paper doi:10.1001/jama.280.8.747 (and, for a variety of controversies, a book review of Shapiro & Shapiro's The Powerful Placebo : From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician). Something more current and more authoritative would be desirable. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good source too. I don't see the problem here, we have sources calling it "late term abortion," and the sources in the article disagree. Thus, we do not take sides. Further, Wikipedia ought to have some common sense to it. It's blatantly obvious that late term abortions are "abortions." So change the text. Here's another source though Thus, late-term abortion, defined as abortion after twenty weeks, is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.1 percent of all abortions, and this is interesting. But the sources you've already gathered necessitate changing our text. B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources stating "late term" includes post-viability? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I've already seen, we have sources saying IDX is abortion, and IDX includes post viability [2], viability is as young as 21 weeks and IDX is performed as late as 26 weeks [3]. That's just what I found in a few minutes, but it's pretty obvious. I suspect there is considerable secrecy here. We should ask some other editors who would know more. Also the sources already in the article pretty much sew up the case, just for example "[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen...[T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250." 28 weeks is well after viability. This is what I mean about taking sides with the sources. Several sources say 28 weeks, and viability of 90% is 26 weeks. B^e——C_ritical 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

'Viability' refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. This is well-defined but poorly measurable. The guidelines on numbers of weeks are attempts to estimate when viability will have occurred. There's no question in principle about the definition of the term but many issues in practice of ascertaining whether it has occurred without actually performing a procedure to remove the fetus. JJL (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a broad range of acceptable lead sentences, and these include both what we have now as well as the very long and wordy one that we had a few months ago that gave both the definition from common parlance and the one from medical textbooks. We could also change the footnote to say something like "The definition of abortion, as with many words, varies from source to source. The following is a partial list of definitions as stated by obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) textbooks, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Some abortion procedures, such as intact dilation and extraction, may occur even after the fetus is viable." NW (Talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, would "usually prior to viability" be acceptable? Because that's both true and not taking sides per NPOV. Also it doesn't raise a question with the lay reader who knows viable fetuses are sometimes aborted. B^e——C_ritical 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's there now is what the medical sources say--I understand your objection but it is precisely what's in the appropriate WP:MEDRS. Changing those sources to fit what seem like inconsistencies in our personal, lay opinion would be WP:SYNTH, wouldn't it? JJL (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're factually wrong about the sources, see the above discussion. B^e——C_ritical 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that wp:MEDRS has still not been read and understood. The NYTimes, Salon.com, and CTV are not reliable publishers for medical assertions. Nor are "original research", "commentary", "letters", "special communications" or other non-review contributions considered to be MEDRS, even if they are published in Lancet, JAMA, CMAJ, or NEJM. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are unreliable sources in the article, you should take them out. The argument is based on the sources already in the article, and all other links are only peripheral to the discussion. B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We require MEDRS for assertions of medical facts, not for every fact in the article. Non-medical assertions can be backed up by generic wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the sources used to back up the current lead sentence are not MEDRS? If there are any non-MEDRS there, they should be removed. B^e——C_ritical 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The lede sentence is fully supported, and reflects, WP:MEDRS, per a discussion taking place since about June of this year. (See the Talk archives.) Some have added other sources to the lengthy note on this in the article as an attempt to undercut the lede sentence. I think I don't fully understand your objection to the sources for the lede sentence. JJL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would request that you remove any sources you don't think meet MEDRS. But the sources there now contradict each other on the viability issue. They give a figure in weeks which is beyond the age of viability, yet say that "abortion" is only prior to viability. But the Wikipedia text takes sides in this contradiction. I think per NPOV we should not take sides. BTW, I do not know how some would react relative to any POV about the abortion debate(s), this comes purely from the seeming inaccuracy of the text, and I looked at the sources and saw they contradict. I also do not fully understand the objection to the JAMA source I found. (In case you think this is OR, the Churchill’s Medical Dictionary source says "usually before fetal viability."

BTW, I'm sorry for not digging through the archives, but I suspect that this issue would have been resolved if people weren't POV pushing, not that I understand how this plays into POV, I'm just guessing. I'm guessing ArbCom has now made this a safer jungle..... I'm reading a bit of the RfC here, and I see people reacting to POV or not POV, but not reacting much to being reasonable or referring much to sources. Also, I note that some of the quotes of the sources are cherry picked, for example: The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age. which is what's in the note, but it goes on to say "The legal definition of viability—usually 20 to 24 weeks—differs from state to state. Some premature neonates of fewer than 24 weeks or 500 g are viable," and thus it is not nearly as cut and dried as the WP text. B^e——C_ritical 06:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"usually" was a point of discussion prior as Britannica used it and this was of importance to me. I definitely welcome your continued rigor on this topic. - RoyBoy 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should ask others here whether they dispute that there have been abortions subsequent to viability? If not, then there is no original research involved in opting for caution in representing the ambiguous sources (for example, inserting the word "usually"). There may also be the option of a sentence explaining that IDX is commonly but not properly called abortion, and may take place subsequent to viability; if that can be sourced well. I very much like LeadSongDog's suggestion in that discussion "An abortion is the end of a pregnancy which does not result in a live birth." We can either decide to discuss the contradictions, or to leave them out of the lead. We could also say that purposely terminating a pregnancy subsequent to viability is called X or that there is no term for it. Whatever the sources say, but we can't just leave it as it is. It's probably much wiser to avoid the issue. B^e——C_ritical 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, from memory I believe that no one disputes the fact that a viable fetus is sometimes aborted. In fact our article states that 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, the undisputed earliest age of viability. However, looking at the definitions that we have to choose from for our references, how many times do you see the word "usually"? Thoughts? As for my thoughts, as I have said all along, while Wikipedia may aim to tell the Truth, Wikipedia does not always tell the truth. We have no choice, NONE, to decide that we may alter references to suit our fancy. This policy was wisely put in place to prevent a small group of perhaps well meaning but biased editors from providing politically biased articles for our readers. That said, all those lofty words, and yet I did agree to using the word "usually". If I remember correctly, there was only one hold-out on the word, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Reading the thread I see that I said that the CDC's earliest gestation week (21 wks) before viability is achieved is undisputed. Since I am well-aware that other sources give a later date, what I should have said is that no source uses a date prior to 21 wks gestation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well put. NPOV does say "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." That's what I'm arguing here. The majority of RS say "before viability," and some RS say something like "usually." There is also the problem of legal and some medical sources calling IDX abortion. All in all something like avoiding the issue or using the word "usually" seem justified. The CDC speaks of abortion occurring at "≥21 weeks" [4].

Re the sources: there is a contradiction in the specific weeks given, for example CDC above saying "≥21 weeks", and these quotes: "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation" "definitions vary widely according to state laws" "loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy" "Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion" "Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom up to the 24th week of pregnancy[5]" "...especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" "Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced" (this last would include any age, and is one of the major textbooks). B^e——C_ritical 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the time periods for viability do vary greatly from one source to another. That is why I choose to use the CDC >21 wks date. Re "usually", I believe that policy would say that all references are not equal. Since abortion is a medical procedure, I would assume that medical sources would be preferable to non-medical sources. If my memory is correct, none of the medical sources use the word "usually". It seems to me that one dictionary does, and three give a definition that does not speak of viability. Something like that...please check and see what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well "usually" can be sourced to CDC stats, but "before viability" might be problematic as you say if we think of it as SYNTH to put together CDC stats with the age of viability from other sources. Could we just not deal with it or do you think we should try to source it? What do you mean by "medical sources?" The heading in the note is Other medical dictionaries. B^e——C_ritical 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. Let's start here: The note lists refs from MAJOR OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS and OTHER OB/GYN TEXTBOOKS----MAJOR MED DICTIONARIES and OTHER MED DICTIONARIES----MAJOR DICTIONARIES and OTHER DICTIONARIES----and ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I believe that our ref for our definition should come from a major textbook or medical dictionary, or an encyclopedia. Do you agree or disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We could do that; but in such a case we should also agree to take out the other sources that aren't of sufficient value to base our definition firmly. If we're going to exclude the other sources, then we really ought to have an explanation of what ending a pregnancy later than viability is called. This is out of respect for the reader who will know the common definition (which is any procedure preformed prior to birth to get rid of a fetus and prevent live birth). We might also say medically defined. B^e——C_ritical 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The note has grown fitfully and was used as a form of argument by various editors seeking to undercut whatever the current lede was. Cleaning it up is very sensible. Abortion is a medical procedure that, like most, is to a greater or lesser degree regulated--greater than usual in the case of abortion, of course. The definition in the lede now defines what abortion is, as a medical procedure according to the sources, and the article addresses the legal issues afterward. The definition in terms of viability is, regardless of whether one likes it or not, the definition; that's what it is. We never turned up a comparable body of sources that address the issue of how unambiguously post-viability procedures fit in--and some of what we did find alluded to the fact that many later abortions are of nonviable fetuses even though they're well past the point that for a normal development would have resulted in viability. Determining viability is hard in a case-by-case basis, as seen by the varying guidelines and laws; but none of that changes how the term is defined, just how decisions about it are made in practice. JJL (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So then, are you saying that although abortion is a medical operation, it is much more than that and as such both medical sources and non-medical sources should be used for our definition? Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be a case for legal definitions to be relevant? I think perhaps we just need to make clear what JJL says, that there isn't a term for post-viability intentional termination of pregnancy. That would clear up the whole issue. Can it be sourced? B^e——C_ritical 05:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I said. The medical defn. is clear and involves viability. It's extremely well-sourced and near-universal among medical textbooks. Is there a source for the claim that the medical defn. is incorrect or incomplete? I understand your concerns but what you are suggesting seems like synthesis to me. As to the legal matters, they are relevant but secondary--the laws are about the procedure. The legal discussion of course must be included but not in the first sentence. Define what it is first and what people think about it next. JJL (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but you have to explain that termination of a pregnancy on a post-viable fetus is commonly called abortion, but that's not the definition. You have to make the distinction out of respect for the reader. Of course, you probably can't source that it's not the definition. It's a gray area. And that fact should be explained. I think that can be sourced because it's mentioned relative to partial birth abortion. "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."[6]

Abortion is medically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term to non-viable fetuses. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

B^e——C_ritical 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, "Medically defined" has been suggested in the past (by me). If I remember correctly, I changed my mind because other medical/surgical procedures, appendectomy for instance, do not give a definition using the words "medically defined". As for the suggestion that post-viability induced abortions have no name in medical literature, they are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development. Gandydancer (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Medically defined" seems to me an appropriate summary/paraphrase, we don't have to use wording plucked verbatim from some source. If you can source that post-viability induced terminations are termed abortions regardless of the state of fetal development, then that is a resolution to this problem. But apparently no one can do that, so we have to go with some sort of split definition. Right? B^e——C_ritical 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A split defn. rather than a sourced one? JJL (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are sourced, the split one just takes into account the legal sources. This article covers more than the medical, and therefore should use sources beyond MEDRS. It has a huge section on Society and culture. B^e——C_ritical 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the lede sentence, the lede paragraph, or the whole lede (before the TOC)? Currently the lede section does provide a broad overview of the issues. For the lede sentence, abortion itself is a medical procedure. As with other medical procedures, I think we must define what we're talking about before defining a societal and legal response to it. That is the consistent style across the site--the lede sentence established what the medical procedure is even when it's something controversial. For the lede paragraph, the current structure seems to be first a paragraph on abortion as medical event and medical procedure; then a paragraph on the public health aspects; and finally a paragraph on the history and broader cultural implications of the procedure. That seems to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") including the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence ("The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject."). The lede sentence examples given there are short, succinct, and clinical. To take an example from there, "Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!. does not indicate why this song is notable, but the two-paragraph lede section goes on to describe it as "one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music" and ""Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners. In 2000, "Yesterday" was voted the #1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame." That's what we're doing here. Arguably the second paragraph of the Abortion article could be shorter and the third could expand on the social/religious/legal issues, including late term abortions, but it's fundamentally hitting all the major notes and maintains a global, rather than U.S.-centric, view of the subject,as required.. JJL (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Medicine does not have a monopoly on defining words. Law defines abortion differently from the medical texts: it specifically talks about post-viability abortions. This contradiction needs to be part of the first paragraph unless we expunge everything but medicine from this article. We have to specifically state that the medical definition is different from other definitions. We could do as you say... but only by eliminating the viability issue entirely, so that the lead sentence would be something like "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo." But that also has problems. Alternately, my suggested lead above is an alternative. There are lots of different ways we could do this, but what we can't do is cover social and legal aspects while leaving those aspects out of the definition. B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be in the lede sentence. Covering the medical, legal, and social aspects in one sentence would be very unwieldy. Looking at the style per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence and similar articles on medical matters of social import, I think we're well in-line with Wikipedia conventions now: Define what it is, then cover how people feel about it and react to it. Other defns. merely attempt to codify social/legal procedures related to the medical issue. JJL (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't have to both be in the lead sentence as you say: read my suggested text above. The reason for giving the legal definitions as part of what it is, is that while abortions occurring post-viability don't have a name in the medical literature, they do have a name in the legal literature. This is just a way to tell the reader "yes, the medical textbooks don't have a name for such procedures, but legally speaking they are still called abortion." This isn't how people feel about them, it's what to call it. What you're saying is that post-viability abortions aren't "abortions," and that's just misleading the reader. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm open-minded on that, though "has no name in the medical literature, but legal and common usage does not limit the term" makes affirmative statements that need sourcing (How will you establish it has no name? by the trouble we've had finding one? What's the source?) and "medically defined" has always seemed awkward to me. But it's not unreasonable. If consensus ends up going that way then that's that. I don't see it generating much interest here though and I do prefer the current version. What you see as a major omission I see as a topic to be discussed later in the article. JJL (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true so how about "Induced termination of pregnancy which occurs post-viability is also termed abortion in legal and common usage." I don't think the "common usage" part needs sourcing, as it's WP:BLUE, and the legal claim can be sourced with an example or two, plus the source already in the article. B^e——C_ritical 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds more sourceable. Again, while I'm open-minded on this change I do prefer the current set-up--the three-paragraph lede covering first the biomedical defn., then the public health issues, and then the historical and soiolegal aspects--so I'm not in favor of a change. If consensus swings this way I could certainly work with it though. JJL (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember a great deal of discussion re using "medically" - to my memory I suggested it and quickly dropped it after a very short discussion. I would have no problem using it if it would help to bring closure. I also have no problem saying "usually before...", if it would help to bring an agreement. I need to resort to using the common sense and/or break the rules policy for that, but in this case it seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to suggest a beginning paragraph which integrated the common and legal definitions? B^e——C_ritical 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some indication that a reasonably wp:WORLDWIDE legal definition exists? Even one that is widespread through the anglosphere? Is there any international law that pertains? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No international law. "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."[laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html] That's a clear mention of post viability abortion, calling it "abortion." I'm sure you could find other sources from other countries, but I don't have time right now. B^e——C_ritical 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, there's wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• "allowed in post-viability abortions the physician to use a technique…" Management of post-mortem pregnancy, ISBN 9780754643043 p. 3
• "late-term abortion: post-viability abortion. Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a nonspecialized health center." Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine, ISBN 9780838515358
• "Section 10: Partial-birth and post-viability abortions" ISBN 9781590317259 p. 549
• "Restrictions on postviability abortions" Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care, ISBN 9781444358476
• "all late-term or post-viability abortions" Genetic Testing, ISBN 9780471649878 p. 204
• "explaining that post-viability abortions were rare", "a ban on all post-viability abortions" Protecting the Right to Choose, ISBN 9780452285682
• "care for the fetus in post-viability abortions", ISBN 9780313306440

There's more where these came from. Can we all agree now that induced "post-viability abortions" are actually abortions, and that they are actually called that, even by textbooks used in medical schools?

The problem you have with the lead is that you're trying to deal with two separate issues: there's abortion-as-pregnancy-loss and there's abortion-as-medical-procedure. The first is defined according to viability. The second is defined by your intent not to produce a live birth.

Example: If you surgically remove a fetus because it has Down syndrome at 26 weeks with the goal of having a dead fetus at the end of the procedure, you are performing an abortion procedure on a viable fetus. If that same 26-week fetus simply died, we'd classify it as a stillbirth, not as a miscarriage.

The only realistic solution is to separate the two separate things. So you need a first paragraph that says something like this:

Abortion is one way that a pregnancy may end. When it occurs spontaneously before fetal viability, it is commonly called a miscarriage. An abortion procedure is a purposeful action taken to end a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth. Although abortion procedures may be performed at any point during the pregnancy before childbirth, they are most common in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. A scheduled abortion procedure is called an elective abortion and is commonly performed for non-medical reasons. An abortion procedure performed for medical reasons is called a therapeutic abortion.

If that next-to-last sentence surprises you, note that "elective" refers to Elective surgery. It is the preference of all good surgeons that all therapeutic abortions also be elective abortions, because the alternative to elective surgery is called emergency surgery.

And I hate to break it to you, but "expulsion" and "removal" are not strictly necessary components for an abortion. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage has already occurred before the expulsion. (Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a missed miscarriage, since that would literally mean "non-expulsion expulsion".) Spontaneous abortion is fundamentally defined by the embryo or fetus' death, not by its removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That list of books is interesting, but it speaks only to the legal language used in US courts, not medical language. Searching gbooks on each of the entries for "post-viability", every found paragraph is a discussion of laws and court decisions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Current NEJM article

The current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contains a review article on induced abortion:

• Templeton A, Grimes DA (2011). "Clinical Practice: A Request for Abortion". New England Journal of Medicine. 365: 2198–2204.

It might be a useful source for our article. In particular, the review contrasts medical and surgical abortion, outlines the current understanding of associated health risks, and briefly describes areas of uncertainty in the medical literature. MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, you beat me to it. Good for an overview of medical vs. surgical abortion, and the latest statistics. And it's a free article. --Nbauman (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

David A. Grimes again? Seems like we're citing him quite a lot. Not that that's a bad thing of course. NW (Talk) 03:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Open Directory

I don't think the Open Directory is a good link. Most of its links wouldn't meet WP standards, like this and this page which leads to this ("LIMITED TIME SPECIAL! PRINT THIS PAGE AND BRING IT IN FOR $40 SAVINGS!"). Using the Open Directory as a substitute for our own external links was a good idea once, but it's not a good idea any more. Certainly not in this case. --Nbauman (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

180 Movie

Hello,

I wanted to include a section about the 180 Movie ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_(2011_American_film) ) in the Arts/Films in the Abortion article.

The movie compares abortion to the holocaust and has been highly controversial.

A few minutes after my addition, it was removed.

Is there a way to get it back in the Abortion article?

Thanks!

brambmanu