From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Wikipedia is not censored
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 edit |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) |
- 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 consensus. There was a huge RfC on this topic in 2009. See here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images", but in the first quarter of 2009, various encyclopedic images related to abortions that show embryos have been introduced to the article. Still the topic is contentious, and other images that were introduced have been removed.
|
|
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
|
|
 |
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 project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
 |
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 discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Abortion: |
|
Expand leadProperly 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.
|
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, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
|
|
| Topical subpages |
|
|
|
| Notable precedents in discussion |
|
|
[edit] Some items
- Can we please archive the RfC? Lets take that as a non consensus, with significant majority support for some sort of image and a directive to put image inclusion on our collective agenda.
- I'd like a moratorium on terminology debates for the next month. We just had one started by a sockpuppet and all it proved was the most insane person on the internet irritates the hell out of everyone.
- I have a bunch of sources from a single, but well respected author in the OBY/GYN field, which I am working on. They are all under copyright, but available in libraries and databases world over, so it shouldn't be a problem if I distribute them to a couple volunteers. So we can work on improving the references and writing the new sections.
If for some reason we can't manage to stop wasting our time on comparatively petty debates, we're never going to improve this article. So please, take these suggestions in the spirit they are offered: I just want to get something productive done on this article.--Tznkai (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Sure, archiving the RfC would be okay by me. The idea that the RfC involved a "comparatively petty" debate is not something I would agree with, however. Wanting to provide minimal information about what is aborted is not petty whatsoever. Once it is archived, I intend to update the FAQ. I also intend to eventually keep battling against Catch-22 here, i.e. the argument that an actual image of a dismembered fetus is too gruesome, whereas a toned-down drawing of an intact fetus is not relevant.
-
- Regarding the "insane person", his position about terminology is currently the prevailing status of this article, with words (e.g. "mother" and "womb") carefully deleted for the purpose of dehumanization. However, I have no burning desire to fight that endless battle again right now here in this article. Cheers. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to be on the distro list for the sources?--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks. Can't promise involvement though.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- On the Religion and abortion page we agreed to try to use the term that was most often used by that source. Does that sound good for here? - Schrandit (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus has always been for medically accurate first, as this is a medical procedure. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Schrandit, I think it sounds good for here, per WP:Jargon and WP:MTAA. Non-medical terms can be accurate too.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify - I am not advocating medical jargon, merely accuracy. There is a happy medium between jargon and simple. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Tznkai, please get your OB/GYN to look at a contradiction in the article.
- The first paragraph says that only fetal defects are cause for "therapeutic abortion" and all other reasons are elective abortion.
- The "Induced abortion" section says, 'An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease."'
- I suspect that the second definition is correct and that the one in the overview should include maternal health. Would it be too bold of me to just go ahead and change it? The first paragraph has supposedly been reviewed although I'm surprised if the reviewers let a clunker like that through.
- Also, please add me to your e-mail list if I can be of help as an interested layperson. Thanks --Monado (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Image (again)
So...the image of a miscarriage has been the lead photograph for several months now, but for some reason the image of an induced abortion has not been added. Perhaps to have no images is fine, but how is it being neutral to show a natural abortion but not an induced one (which after all is what we all mean by "abortion.")
Also, the proposed induced abortion image (performed in a hysterectomy, right?) is not a typical induced abortion, but the miscarriage is. So to be neutral, should we not have an image of a typical induced abortion? EditorDM (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly useful sources
I submitted this just about the time it was being archived and it's now on neither the live page nor the archive. Yes, it was about images; but it points to some useful sources as well so here it is again.... --Monado (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to stir things up, but I did find an image that has both a little grey "sculpture" of an embryo and a photo close-up of its face. I don't think it has shock value. It also has a size scale beside the embryo/fetus. You can see it at Endowment for Human Development: Face of the 8-week embryo. The site sounds non-neutral to me but I like the image and they might be willing to let us use it.
Re "We're showing an embryo but not a fetus": this gestational age is absolutely typical of surgical abortions; more than 50% are done at 9.5 weeks and under. For images of later abortions, just refer people to Lars Nilsson's book. (I have heard from doctors that the proportions of some of those dismembered fetuses are wrong and they think the feti(?) are fakes.)
Re "Show an ultrasound of a birth defect and then an aborted fetus": I feel that a club foot is the most minor defect you could find and would be unlikely to trigger an abortion. It does not even rate a mention on the CDC list of birth defects. Remember that abortion grows progressively more dangerous for the gravida as pregnancy advances, thus the reluctance of doctors to do later abortions, even considering only the life of the woman. The cases that I have read about have been anencephaly (1/4000 in U.S.) (anencephaly and ultrasound) There's a non-gruesome image here, and as it's a government agency the image might be available: CDC on anencephaly. The commonest birth defect in the U.S. is spina bifida (1/1000), so that would interest the most people. Here is the CDC page for spina bifida. The severity of this defect varies greatly.
That being said, it's my impression that the commonest reason for a later abortion is that the woman needs cancer treatment ASAP and can't have it while pregnant. —Monado, 2009 June 15 20:20
how about adding diffrent options to the one that dont want to keep the baby, like livig them in a hospital and other resources they can have? Does anyone have any information about that?--TeresaHdez (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if that really falls within the scope of the Abortion article - thoughts, anyone? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Caustic" solutions; general anesthesia
[edit] Caustic
I've replaced "caustic" with "hypertonic." Caustic means strongly basic, but urea is a neutral molecule, neither acid nor base (see Wiki article on urea). Traditionally, "caustic" refers to sodium hydroxide, or lye. "Hypertonic" is the more accurate term, which means that the concentration of whatever molecule we're discussing is higher than it is in human blood. (Isotonic means the same concentration; hypotonic means lower concentration.)
Another good reason for using "hypertonic" is that it applies to saline solution, i.e. salt. Urea appears to be an organic salt since its chief virtue is that it dissolves readily in water. I think the point is to inject a strong saline solution.
[edit] General anaesthesia
The sentence about "Caesarean" abortions implied that it's considered major surgery, and therefore general anaesthetic is given. I removed the latter clause.
In fact, it's not what's being done to the body that defines major: if you get general anaesthetic, it is major surgery. If doctors can change the procedure so that they can avoid giving G.A., they will: general anaesthesia itself carries a death risk of about 1 in 50,000, so it used to contribute substantially to the risk of early abortions, which are now down to about 1 in 200,000. Monado (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Euphemism" vs. "short for"
I'm concerned about the use of "euphemism" to describe what, in other contexts, I'd call a shorthand way of referring to a longer phrase. (see How 'vanilla' became shorthand for 'bland' by Amanda Fortini). "Euphemism" implies covering up ugliness, which I think violates the Neutral Point of View. This is lumping two similar techniques together. So, for now, I'm changing it. If that is too idiomatic, would "short for" do? —Monado (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Can someone add information
can someone add information to the abortion law section for me, one part states "In the United Kingdom, as in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed." this appears as though it applies to the whole of the UK but in Northern Ireland abortion is illegal, you can't travel to get one nor can you supply information on where/how to get one. RyanM651 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
edit
To-do list for Abortion:
