Talk:Intact dilation and extraction/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why so many descriptions?

I honestly do not understand why there are 3 different descriptions of the procedure on the page. I especially do not know why there is the non-technical, POV description. Is the argument that the inclusion of a medical/encyclopedic description so POV that it needs to be ballanced by an opposing POV description? I feel that the pro-life POV can be included in a manner that does not necessitate quoting that description. I would propose removing both of the quoted descriptions. --Andrew c 22:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Presenting the description of this operation by an American right-to-life organization is both blatantly POV and indicative of systemic bias. Does anyone seriously contend that their description is presented from a NPOV? Kaldari 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree with me that 3 descriptions of the procedure are too much, and 2 need to be removed?--Andrew c 05:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the point of the verbatim quoted descriptions. We don't quote descriptions of medical procedures in any other articles, we just describe the procedures from as neutral a POV as possible. Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's an encyclopedia. I don't think Britannica would find either quote appropriate, and neither should we. Kaldari 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 2 quoted descriptions, do you want to remove the NPOV tag yet?--Andrew c 04:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Intact

Just passing by so maybe flogging a dead horse, but shouldn't the article explain the meaning of "intact" in this context? (The fetus appears outwardly untouched with the exception of the collapsed skull, unlike with D&E/D&C) --> refactored question AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources discussing the meaning of "intact" in the context of iD&X? Otherwise it would be original research. Kaldari 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. But first I'm refactoring the above since it must appear in bad taste to quite a few editors around here. AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example (TWM April 5, 2004, NAF v. Ashcroft - SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK): "An intact D&E is always safer because the fetus comes out relatively intact, involving less passes of the instruments into the uterus. It also has no ability to leave fetal parts within the uterus" ... "The medical literature doesn't do a specific study on intact D&E's versus classical D&E's, and there hasn't been any study in that area. But [im]embedded in the D&E data over the last 10, 15 years there are more and more operators that have moved from doing a strictly dismemberment procedure to an intact variation."

I couldn't find anything in PubMed, which supports Dr. Fredriksen's opinion that there are no comparative studies.

FWIW, Dilation and evacuation makes the same connection (unsourced).

But even if it wouldn't be sourcable, I would still expect it to be one of those assertions that quickly gain consensus support as "stating the obvious". AvB ÷ talk 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, although it would depend on the wording. For example, saying that "intact" is a euphamism would be POV and original research (unless it was sourced and presented as a certain group's opinion). Although that's more a reply to your original pre-refectored suggestion than what you may be suggesting now. Kaldari 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. I had already forgotten what you were responding to. My bad :-O AvB ÷ talk 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the most candy-coated description of something so heinous that I have ever heard. I have to hand it to you, it takes extremed verbal dexterity to describe the brutal nature of this procedure in such faux-technical terms. To apply the NPOV tag is an absolute joke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne1975 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 August 2007

18-Apr-06 edits

The bit about Canady is covered both in the intro and the entymology section. I believe it's more appropriate to the entymology section, and so deleted the reference in the intro.

If we're writing an article about the term, we've acknowledged it as a legitimate term. Referring to it as "so-called" and putting it in quotes isn't appropriate.

As I stated above, as far as how often the procedure occurs, we should use the estimate that talk page consensus agrees is most accurate. We shouldn't take accuracy disputes into the article by qualifying estimates by saying they are very old and from biased sources. The methodology of AGI surveys seems to be well respected, and I haven't seen any more recent data. If someone believes another source has a more accurate and/or recent estimate, let's talk about it here. In the meantime, I've deleted the qualification of the AGI number.

Comments on the health of women and fetuses undergoing PBA aren't really relevent to PBA; they're more relevant to the late-term abortion article. If late-term abortions are wrong, they're wrong regardless of the method used. If the PBA procedure has something specifically wrong with it, the motivations of women seeking LTAs are irrelevant. For this reason, I've deleted the Fitzsimmons quote. A comment to the effect of "women who have PBA are motivated by the same reasons as women who have other types of late term abortion procedures" would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure exactly how to word it.

In the entymology section, the phrase "brain suction abortion" is referred to as both non-medical and as politically motivated. This seems redundent to me; I've deleted the non-medical reference. Re-adding the non-medical bit and deleting the politically motivated sentence would be equally fine by me.

The sentence "The IDX procedure is also controversial" doesn't really work with the current formatting of the controversy section. I've tried to make that paragraph flow better with the new first sentence. I've also tried to make the last sentence more accurate. Copyedits welcome.

The sentence about late-term abortion in general would be more appropriate on the late-term abortion article. I've deleted it from the PBA article.

I've also tried to make the last paragraph of the controversy section more accurate to my understanding of the issues.Lyrl 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The views of an abortion rights and partial-birth abortion advocate - Fitzsimmons - are unimpeachable and significant. This article is about PBA. The abortion doctors' chief lobbyist falsely stated that PBA was only done in extreme health situations. He later retracted that statement with stupefying candor while still a lobbyist. It is not POV to allow such information - rather it provides vital information about a hotly debated public policy. The debate is largely: Pro-life: "It's barbaric." Pro-abortion: "Yes, but it is only done in extreme health ciurcumstances." This particular statement is relevant, factual, unimpeachable and not-at-all-POV. ____G_o_o_d____ 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is barbaric to have an elective late-term abortion. I agree with that statement. Elective late-term abortions do happen - one only has to spend some time at ImNotSorry.com to see that. Or look at the Guttmacher survey discussed in the late-term abortion article. However, I fail to see how PBA is any more barbaric than the other late-term abortion procedures. And that is the only comparison - PBA vs. other late-term abortion procedures - I would find relevent to the PBA article. Not PBA vs. no abortion at all.Lyrl 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert 22-Apr

The term partial birth abortion is controversial. Many people on the talk page have documented that quite thouroughly, and have also documented that they believe it is important that statement be in the introduction. The edit also deleted wikification of the term controversial.

The first trimester is weeks 2-14 (a pregnancy is 2 weeks from last menstrual period at time of conception). The second trimester is weeks 15-27. The third trimester is weeks 28-40. Most IDX procedures are done in weeks 20-24, during the second trimester. Putting the phrase 'third trimester' in the intro is making a false statement.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is covered under the Federal Law section. Putting a large paragraph in the introduction is redundent. Speculation about the constitutionality of the Act is relevant to the Wiki article on the Act, but not to this article.

The article on late-term abortion covers reasons for such terminating advanced pregnancies. Reasons for termination are not relevant to an article on a specific procedure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that sex selection is a significant reason for late-term abortions in the United States. However, if you information about late-term abortion as sex selection in China and India was added to the late-term abortion article, that would be helpful.

Most people do not consider the second trimester (when almost all partial-birth abortions are performed) to be the 'extremely late stages of pregnancy.' Therefore, that statement is false.

Use of the word baby is POV.

AGI is pro-choice, and is a research organization. There is no reason to put that phrase in quotes as if it is suspect.

Everyone who has given an opinion on this talk page has agreed that 'partial-birth abortion' and 'IDX abortion' are interchangable terms. Using different terms in nearby sentences makes them sound less repetitive. Replacing all mentions of 'IDX' with 'partial-birth' makes the article less well-written.

If you read the reference for the AGI number, you will see that it is an estimate, which could be high or could be low. If you want to use the phrase 'at least', then use the number they got from their survey which is 1,274. The higher number is an extrapolation estimating how many were performed by clinics that did not respond to the AGI survey.

'Simple cartoons' is a more illistrative description of the drawings than 'non-graphic illistrations'.

Whether the terms partial birth or brain suction are more or less descriptive than IDX is a matter of opinion.

While pro-choice and pro-life are continuums and not absolute camps, what the people in the middle believe and how many of them there are is a matter of speculation that should not be in an encyclopedia article.

Opponents of partial-birth abortion bans generally oppose use of the term, also. Saying they believe it is 'an accurate and easily understood description of the procedure' is false.

'Supporters of partial birth abortion generally support the idea that all children who are not perfect should be disposed of while it is still legal to do so' is also a false statement.

Health exceptions are exceptions. There is no reason to put that term in quotes.

People who support the availability of this procedure do not go out and advertise it to pregnant women. They are supporters, not proponents.

Some medical conditions (such as anencephaly) have zero survival rates beyond a few days. Using the phrase 'may not survive' makes it sound as if these conditions do not exist.

'Pre-viability abortions' is correct grammar. 'Pre-viable abortions' is not.

There is no reason to put an established phrase such as right to choose in quotes.Lyrl 23:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reasons. Thank you for reverting, and thank you for making your case here on the talk page. That said, I do not agree that IDX and PBA are simply interchangeable terms. The way PBA is defined in legeslation has been ruled over and over again by courts (including the SCOTUS) that PBA is a vague term that could include D&E and sometimes all abortions. G&E tried to make the case the pro-lifers intend for the terms to be synonymous, however this simply does not seem to be the case when it comes to these bills. However, if I am wrong and IDX and PBA are synonymous, then this article should be deleted, and any relevent content merged with the IDX article. --Andrew c 17:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lyrl for a calm informative revert that is an example to all on how to deal with a disagreement of wording. I also agree with Andrew c's point that as the term is unclear it cannot be considered interchangable. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, the term is currently used interchangably with IDX. But the fear by pro-choice organizations, and possibly the secret hope of pro-life organizations, is that if the bans are allowed to stand they would in the future be expanded to cover other procedures.Lyrl 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will read this now, and it might already have been covered, but I wonder why the assertaion is made that the word "baby" is POV? If that is true, then isn't "fetus" POV as well? If the little thing has legs to pull out of the uterus and brains to suction out, then it sounds like a baby to me (as well as a fetus, which etymologically is the same). Logophile 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The word fetus is not POV, in my opinion in this article because it is the medically accepted term at this stage of pregnancy, a fetus is the developmental stage for mammals after they are an embryo and before birth, after birth they are considered an infant. Baby is generally referring to a young or newly born child, which a fetus most definitely is not... just my 10 cents.72.183.103.128 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an Idea

Let's shorten this article to the facts, shall we? There is hardly even a description of the procedure, what goes on, or why it is necessary to perform such a late abortion. According to About.com'sPro-Abortion page, the reasons for performing it are:

• Lack or lack of recognition of pregnancy symptoms, particularly by adolescents
• Inability to afford a first trimester abortion
• Inability to locate medical assistance during first trimester (due to lack of local medical professionals)
• Lack of financial resources, emotional support, and/or partner

If you don't like the wording of the previous descriptions, go get a medical text or use the one from About:

Background Partial-birth abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, with the goal of delivering a fetus that is not alive and incapable of surviving outside the womb.

Specific steps in the most commonly used partial-birth abortion procedure, Dilation and Extraction, are:

1. A medical professional induces a breech (feet first) delivery with forceps.
2. Legs, arms and torso of the fetus are delivered (i.e. expelled from the mother).
3. The back of the fetus' skull is punctured with a scissors-like instrument.
4. A suction device is inserted into the skull.
5. The device sunctions out the contents of the fetus' skull, causing the skull to collapse.
6. The lifeless fetus is delivered.

You take a kid, you stab him in the back of the head and you suck out the brain. Cut and dry, to the point. I googled a bunch of pictures and there are plenty that can be added. What does a picture of George Bush do for this article? I had to go to another source to read about this becuase this article told me nothing. Call it partial breech, partial birth or full labatomy, it doesn't matter. But make sure that there is actually an entry in all of the propaganda. --Coldbourne 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Love the NPOV. The actual procedure is covered in the Intact dilation and extraction article that is linked from this one. Since this is a political term and not a medical one this article deals with where the term PBA came from and how and who uses it. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The subject is not entirely NoN to me, but it is not something I have a vested interest in. However it starts with "A", which puts it near the top of the Controversial Topics page and thus got my attention. The ID&X page is just as sterile in it's explanation. There is more of an explanation for Extraction (dental) than for Fetus extraction. It also mirror's this page close enough to merit a Merge. --Coldbourne 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree there need to be pictures. Like this these: http://mikeaustin.org/partial_birth_abortion.htm

As they say, one picture is worth a thousand words. --149.152.34.43 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a shock picture says one word: POV. I'll remove those on sight and immediately report whoever inserted it. Try me. Alienus 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one Alienus. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't allow any side to present pictures designed to a) overly emphasize a side in the debate, or b) provoke an emotional reaction. The article is sterile, because without *making* it sterile, we risk taking sides. Ronabop 04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So keep it sterile, but make it more informative. I propose that the Intact dilation and extraction page be merged with this one. Few people outside of the debate or medical field will be aware of the medical name for this procedure. Wikipedia is here to provide a service to the general public, not a platform for debate. If I were a non-wikipedian looking for information of this subject, I would only walk away with the political implications. --Coldbourne 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the procedure. This article is about the political implications - it's a political term. I'm not persuaded at present that neutrality would be better served by discussing the procedure only under a name coined by its opponents. Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that PBA should not be the catch all term. What about merging this page with IDX? Add a note under Etymology (or rename it terminology), and expanding the political sections?--Andrew c 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PBA is a US term - I never heard it until editing here and the only use of the term I can find on GoogleUK refers to US news reports on the BBC foreign news website. In the UK it would be called a late term abortion (which I think is more widely known in other non US countries) so really that should be the top article with all the procedures/political controversies linked from there. I have voiced this before and it was supported but I haven't had the time to carry out the merge (and take the grief it will inevitably generate) so it's not been done yet. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a US politician started calling IDX/LTA Baby_brain_stab_and_suck, in such a way that opponents of IDX/LTA always referred to it that way, I would be against merging IDX/LTA into Baby_brain_stab_and_suck, just because one side preferred a specific, charged, phrase in order to emphasize their side of the debate. Since there isn't a really clear medical procedure called Baby_brain_stab_and_suck, or for that matter, even a really clear medical procedure called Partial-birth abortion, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to treat the public as if they were so naive as to believe that emotionally charged phrases often used in a heated debate should be used to *define* the content an encycopedia article. Ronabop 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else unable to get the citation for the "non-clinical description" under "Intact D&X Surgery"?? I personally doubt the neutrality of the statement and even if it were cited, if it's non-clinical, it shouldn't be included here. 76.171.5.20 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

This sentence has been flagged with a fact tag for a while now. I am moving here to the talk page. If someone can source this statement, feel free to move it back into the main article. Until then, there is no reason to leave it in the article.

Proponents of the PBA term have not applied the term to IDX procedures in the case of miscarriage, or to D&E abortions.

--Andrew c 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More

Here is an unsourced paragraph that has been flagged for awhile:

Supporters of this late-term abortion procedure argue that it prevents the pregnant woman from having to undergo childbirth or abdominal and uterine incisions of a caesarian section (c-section) when the child would not survive; they state that the risks of the procedure are less than the risks associated with childbirth and c-section. Opponents claim that IDX subjects women to unnecessary risks "for the convenience of the physician".

--Andrew c 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge, final check for consensus

This has been talked about for weeks, and I'm willing to do the merger. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agreed to merging this article into late-term abortion. Any problems or concerns?--Andrew c 02:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep - please do. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This is mostly duplication. I think there should be a mention of the term PBA on that article, with the relevant "this is a political term" info. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of bans on "partial-birth abortion" say they are banning a particular method of late-term abortion. While the general public may confuse PBA with all late-term procedures, I don't think public confusion is reason for an encyclopedia article to decide the two are the same thing. I agree that Late-term abortion should be the main article, with Dilation and evacuation and Intact dilation and extraction and perhaps something on induction methods of abortion as sub-articles. But this article overlaps much more with the IDX sub-article than with the LTA entry - if there's to be a merger, I would prefer that one.Lyrl 22:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why controversial

While I'm at it...

I'd like to see some sources supporting the unattributed statement positing as the Truth that "its methodology – removing the fetus from the womb fully intact – has made it highly controversial" (from the introduction). I mean, wouldn't "brain suction" be the controversial aspect according to opponents? AvB ÷ talk 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice to have some sources on why the procedure is considered controversial. Kaldari 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like saying watches keep track of time. It doesn't really need to be cited, it's just kind of understood that some people are against it. It must be somewhat obvious since President Bush's ban was struck down by several courts. Cs92 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

IDX vs Partial Birth Abortion

The article Partial Birth Abortion links here, but this article contains the sentence "The term partial-birth abortion largely refers to this procedure, though they are not equivalent." -- If they aren't equivalent, then WHAT IS partial-birth abortion??? What makes IDX different from PBA? What is the difference between the two terms? Thanks. xxxyyyzzz 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PBA is a term coined by pro-life politicians that was used in bills aimed towards banning certain abortion procedures. No where in these bills did PBA ever refer to IDX. The SCOTUS (in addition to other courts) ruled that the wording was so vauge that it could apply to other abortion procedures. No doctor who performs these procedures refer to them as PBA. It is not a medical or technical term. It is used in political discourse to frame abortion in a negative light. Hope this helps. --Andrew c 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So the legal definitions are different, but practically, the two terms refer to the same thing. The two articles are largely redundant. Perhaps there is some way they could be merged. Kaldari 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion on PBA about a merger. Sophia has suggested merging PBA with LTA and leaving IDX as is. I do not believe PBA and IDX are synonymous. PBA serves a specific purpose and when first defined, was intentionally designed to be vague. However, is this difference significant enough to warrant its own article? --Andrew c 23:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What other procedures besides IDX can "partial-birth abortion" refer to? I can't see the term being used to describe a hysterotomy or an induced miscarriage or even a D&E. What other late-term procedures are there? Kaldari 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, depends where you are getting your definition of "partial-birth abortion". Check out the Stenberg v. Carhart decision. Look under (c) (i) for the specifics.--Andrew c 20:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. So from a legal context, iD&X could potentially include D&E as well. That seems like something of a semantic footnote, however, rather than what should define the article. In common parlance partial birth abortion refers to iD&X, in fact it looks like some of the more recent partial-birth abortion bans specifically state that partial-birth abortion does not refer to D&E, in order to remove the ambiguity. Kaldari 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. So, basically:

• Most people, in fact everyone I've ever heard use the term, uses the phrase "Partial birth abortion" to refer to IDX exclusively.
• Some certain politicians, or some certain bills, have used the phrase "partial birth abortion" in a manner so vague it could refer to just about anything.

But the bottom line is, to most people, PBA = IDX. Right? xxxyyyzzz 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed "The term partial-birth abortion largely refers to this procedure, though they are not equivalent." and copied-in a paragraph explaining the situation from the PBA page (with some minor edits). xxxyyyzzz 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial Birth Abortion is not alltogether accurate based on Wiki's description. Because much of the fetus is extracted except for the head. The baby is 90% born then the brain is extracted by vaccum!

Intact dilation and extraction is not accurate and only states that there was a dialation of the cervix while the unborn child was still in tact and subsequently extracted. Nothing in that description states that the child is then killed.

Throw out as many medical terms as possible, try to make this "procedure" sound as clinical and emotionless as possible. But the simple fact remains that CHILDREN ARE BEING MURDERED! I found this page because I was researching Nancy Pelosi who did not support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. — (NitaReads (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Circumstances under which this procedure is used

I think it would be nice to differentiate between the reasons a woman would choose to have a late-term abortion, and, after that first decision has been made, the reasons a woman would choose IDX over other available procedures (mainly induction or D&E). The desire of parents to have an intact body to grieve over has been cited in some articles I've read, and I would like to add some mention of that to this article. (From here: Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in court, as teams of Justice Department lawyers were dispatched this spring and summer to do, requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.) I'm not sure how that would go over, so I'm looking for input here before making any changes. Lyrl 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference is important, and you are welcome to take a swing at these changes. The salon.com article said the doctor the author observed didn't know which procedure he was going to use until he actually began. Different circumstances, like dilation, were a big factor in determining the procedure.--Andrew c 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "largely intact" comment again, both on a factual basis (it is hard to dispute that the article describing the skull collapsing is in conflict with the body being intact) as well as the comment being fairly POV oriented. The line from the Harper's article cited, "so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her" is an editorial comment on the part of Cynthia Gorney, the author. It cites no cases where this has ever occurred, but is presented as an argument against the law in question: "why is it safer to dismember a fetus rather than remove it intact and wrap it in a blanket?". No doctor is quoted as saying they have ever had such a request, no woman who ever did so, etc. If there's eveidence that this is the case, it would seem to be valid for inclusion, but the only reference so far is part of a POV argument. Zooks527 11:56, 10 Sept 2006 (UTC)

One of the names for the procedure is Intact D&E. There is a reason it was named that.

One possible source is stories of women who have had the procedure. Examples [1] and [2]. These women held their dead babies. Doctors don't exactly advertise this procedure, so we are simply not going to find a medical source for this information. And women who have the procedure tend to view it as a very private thing - it is rare to find stories like this published in the media.

The information about intactness is also given here [3] Proponents of D&X suggested other advantages of the procedure including... the opportunity to present a potentially grieving woman with the largely intact body of their baby. When a wanted pregnancy is being aborted... the physician can arrange for a little hat to be placed over the back of the fetal head and the body be wrapped in a blanket for the parents to grieve. That particular quote is describing the court proceedings in the IDX legal case tried by Judge Casey in New York. A better source would be for someone to find the actual court records, of course, but I'm not sure how to go about that. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Termination/Reproductive Rights

Re: Andrew c's revert of my last edit: Well, I disagree, so let's discuss this.

You say that "termination is a medical term. it isn't a euphemism, but it does have a medical POV". I don't know what you mean by "having a medical POV". I do, however, know that "termination" is an unnecessarily vague term for what the article is referring to: abortion. Notice, on the termination disambiguation page, the line: "For termination of pregnancies, see abortion." Termination can mean many things, and the only use of using it in the article, that I can see, is to avoid using the word "abortion," for whatever reason--and this is not a useful use.

About reproductive rights vs. abortion rights: The partial-birth abortion debate has never been about reproductive rights, broadly defined. As we can see by viewing the RR page, RR has to do with birth control, education about STDs, and general sexual freedom. The debate is about abortion rights, which is why I changed the link--knowing full well that it redirects to abortion debate. It's a more accurate term. If you'd care to change the underlying link, I can understand that. It wasn't linked in the first place, actually; I added the wikilink. But, like "termination", "reproductive rights" is overly vague for this context and should not be used in the article. --BCSWowbagger 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i partially agree with both of you--i think "abortion" should be used instead of termination. termination means "termination of pregnancy" which is just cumbersome, when abortion would be succinct. but i think "reproductive rights" is the appropriate terminology for the context in which it is used, because that is the title of the reference referred to--it's a quote.

Cindery 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But why should that sentece link to the reproductive rights article? Reproductive rights as a whole are not relevant to that sentence, because no one in that section is talking about eroding the right to know about STD's or to use birth control, which are major parts of the broader discussion of reproductive rights. If there is no good go-to article concerning only abortion rights, then that may the only possible link, but only in part--it really ought to be [ [reproductive rights|abortion rights] ], or so it seems to me.

In any case, I'm going to go and switch back to abortion. I'll leave reproductive rights in place pending further comment. Thanks, Cindery. --BCSWowbagger 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm... looks like Andrew didn't revert me on the abortion portion. I must have misread the change log. So no edit from me to switch "termination" to "abortion". --BCSWowbagger 06:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I made a personal comment that I don't feel termination is a euphemsism. Yes, I didn't revert your changes, but I still feel that we shouldn't ban the use of the word because it is a medical term. It almost always refers to pregnancies, not fetuses. And I do agree that at times the terms are interchangable. However, for the sake of not using the same word over and over again in an article, it is good to have a repertoire of vocabulary. I still feel that we shouldn't ban the use of termination, but once again I didn't feel strongly enough to revert the changes. Sorry again for the confusion.--Andrew c 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

..well, frankly, BCS, i agree with you that there's no need for euphesisms, and i prefer plain language. but it seems that the reproductive rights article is a stub which doesn't really explain the overlap between contraception/abortion viz "rights." ( with all the controversy over "implantation" etc., i would have to say i agree in general with the term "reproductive rights" as a general term even though it's not well-explained in the wikilink, because there are a lot of pro-choice people who don't think contraception which disrupts implantation is abortificient--the abortion controversy spills over into contraception, etc. and the two sides don't agree on what "abortion" is--so part of the pro-choice position is to insist that contraception is "reproductive rights" not abortion rights. ?) since this is a sticky issue, i think it's better to ignore our opinions and defer to the reference/just reflect the outside world. the reference in this place is clearly an opinion reference--not a fact reference--reporting on the opinions of people holding a position, not asserting the position as fact. (so it's just supposed to accurately reflect opinion; it's not making any other claims on accuracy.) i just read the reference for the first time, though, and i would have to agree it's not a stellar piece of writing. maybe andrew or i or someone else could find a better ref. Cindery 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think we're quite following the same line of thought. On the other hand, this is a good point: the reference in this place is clearly an opinion reference--not a fact reference--reporting on the opinions of people holding a position, not asserting the position as fact, so I'm quite willing to drop it. Thanks! --BCSWowbagger 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PROWARRIOR and anon's edits

Someone has been editing the page to change more neutral, technical language into more casual, vernacular language which I feel lessens the encyclopedic standard of this article. Furthermore, these edits introduced the word "baby" which is highly POV. The WP:NPOV policy suggests we qualify POV with citations, or strive for language that is more neutral. When describing a medical procedure (even if it is objectable), there is nothing wrong with medical language. These edits are akin to editing the Extraction (dental) page to say "A dental extraction is the yanking of a chomper from the pie hole", instead of "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth."--Andrew c 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let the dude have his say Sanka123

And it is better to say "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from the mouth" rather than "A dental extraction is the removal of a tooth from 'the natural opening through which food passes into the body of an animal and which in vertebrates is typically bounded externally by the lips and internally by the pharynx and encloses the tongue, gums, and teeth.'"L.C. Porrello 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "Pro-choice": Unnecessary POV Terminology. Let's remove it.

The user Lyrl says that Wikipedia's policy is "describe groups as they describe themselves." But if this is true, then shouldn't articles say "freedom fighters" every time they want to say "terrorists"? To use "pro-life" without using quotes around the term is perpetuating a POV propaganda term as though it were the most accurate way to describe it. If we're talking about people who oppose abortions, let's say "anti-abortion". If we're talking about people who support abortion rights, let's say "pro-abortion rights". That is a NPOV, precise description of these groups. Even if these groups masquerade as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", that is not the issue at hand. If they called themselves "anti-loser" and "pro-cool", would we use those terms instead? The issue is whether or not these people support abortion rights. Why should an encyclopedia entry perpetuate PR nonsense? So I propose removing both terms when using the narrator voice of the encyclopedia. Organ123 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The terms pro-life and pro-choice are used throughout the Wikipedia coverage of related topics. They have significant community consensus over anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights. See for example Talk:Pro-life#A more neutral article title needed and note from Talk:Anti-abortion movement that Anti-abortion movement used to have an article but has now been merged with the pro-life article. Similarly, Abortion-rights movement used to be an article, but was moved to pro-choice about a year and a half ago [4]

Consensus can change, but it should be proposed at a place where most interested parties will see the discussion. Good places would be Talk:Pro-life or Talk:Pro-choice Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. Attempting to sneak up on the issue by discussing it on a niche-interest page like this is not likely to achieve widespread lasting results.

Specifically referring to the bans passed by various legislative bodies, the bans were not on the IDX procedure. One of the significant reasons for declaring them unconstitutional is that the language was so vague it could be interpreted to include other abortion procedures. Furthermore, they only banned the procedure when the fetus started out alive. In the case of a dead fetus in late-term pregnancy, the bans did not prohibit using the IDX procedure to remove said fetus. For these two reasons, describing the legislation as bans on the IDX procedure is inaccurate. Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas about bringing up the issue on different pages. Incorrect idea to suggest that I was "attempting to sneak up" on anything -- I was simply pointing out what I (still) perceive to be a serious problem with this specific article as it stands. There's really nothing sneaky about it. Thanks for linking to the previous discussions; I'll read through them tomorrow. Regarding your revert of my last edit -- I'm not sure why one paragraph should have "Partial-Birth Abortion" written with the first letters capitalized but with no quotes, while the next paragraph should have it written in lower-case with quotes ... but at least the strange italics are gone. :-) Organ123 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the capitalization and quotes either. I wasn't sure which one was correct, which is why I left them alone. It would be nice if someone changed them to match. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the archives, I am not convinced that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" should be used (without quotes or qualifications) in this article. True, the "anti-abortion movement" page and the "abortion-rights movement" page were moved to the "pro-life" page. However, there is broad consensus that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are POV propaganda terms, as the entries themselves explain. There is nothing wrong with having a wikipedia entry called "Pro-life", since it is a popular term that can be defined by an encyclopedia. But if this entry uses "pro-life" and "pro-choice" without proper clarification, it violates a consensus that acknowledges the POV-nature of the terms. Furthermore as Andrew C says above, there is broad consensus that "we qualify POV with citations, or strive for language that is more neutral" (see WP:NPOV). So I argue that either the terms should be rephrased to be less POV, or they should be placed in quotation marks or qualified. Organ123 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in this instance. When you bring up terrorist vs. freedom fighter, neither term is preferable. In that case, we should either refer directly to the group's name "Hamas" or "Al-Qaeda" or whatever, instead of trying to come up with some less accurate term. However, in this case, there we have to choose more broad terms because we can't always say "Members of Planned Paranthood, NARAL, NAF, and other similar groups". These groups can all be classified as part of a political movement, which is most commonly (and most obviously called) the pro-choice movement. I cannot think of a single term that can describe this body of organizations better. Same thing goes for the pro-life movement. Terms like "anti-abortion" are not always accurate, because of other issues such as stem-cell research, euthenasia (remember Terri Schaivo). And pro-abortion is almost offensive to some people, because very few people actually think abortions are awesome! Furthermore, self-identity comes into play, but not only that, " article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". The most easily recognizable terms when it comes to these poltical movements is pro-life, and pro-choice. I have yet to find a more common term, or even a more accurate term. However, all that said, if you really want to propose a cross-wikipedia naming convention change, I suggest taking this discussion up at a more visiable location, such as either the pro-life or pro-choice article, abortion article, or the wikiproject abortion talk page.-Andrew c 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my suggestion, Andrew. First, I agree with you that neither "terrorist" nor "freedom-fighter" is preferable -- but I think that only supports my case that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" also are not preferable, given the broad wikipedia consensus, mentioned above, that these are POV propaganda terms. Second, use of these terms in this article is germane only to people's views on abortion rights, not euthanasia, stem-cells, etc. To use a term that encompasses all these other unrelated viewpoints is to be less precise than we can be. Finally, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" may or may not be the best ways to identify such people (I think they're not), but there is currently a broad consensus on Wikipedia that they're POV propaganda terms. In accordance with the WP:NPOV policy, such terms should be placed in quotes or qualified. I am not proposing a cross-wikipedia naming change -- I am simply proposing that, in this article, we respect the existing policies and consensuses. Organ123 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy to treeorist vs. freedom fighter is not comparable. Those terms are relative, based on someone's POV, i.e. Hamas is a terrorist group according to Israel, but they are freedom fighters according to some Palestinians. Different perspective on the exact same group. On the other hand, the terms pro-life and pro-choice are not describing the same group from different perspectives. National Right to Life is not a "pro-life" group according to some people, and a "pro-choice" group according to other people. The vast majority of people familiar with NRtL would classify them as "pro-life" (with a small minority possibly calling them 'anti-choice' as a pejoritive). Next, the matter of consensus. There is no consensus that these terms are POV propaganda (there is a little bit of bias in the choice of language, but it is balanced. Pro-life implies the opponents are anti-life, or pro-death, while pro-choice implies the opponents are anti-choice.) Speaking of consensus, the consensus on abortion related articles is to use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (and as explained above, this follows our policies of self-identity, and using the most common english term). I see no reason to change the terms used in this article only. Do you have a specific reason why this article, and no other article, should change its terminology?-Andrew c 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My analogy with "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" was to show that wikipedia articles referencing groups should not necessarily describe them the way they describe themselves. Regarding the POV consensus: the pro-life entry says: "Both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light." That represents a consensus that the terms are POV propaganda. If you disagree with that, then we must agree to disagree. Regarding changing "this article only": I'm not arguing about any other article, and I don't have to. I'm only arguing that if this article wants to comply with the WP:NPOV and the consensus about "pro-choice" and "pro-life" being POV, then it should qualify or rephrase the terms. Organ123 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MOS, regarding self-identity: "Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence." There is consensus that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are NPOV. Also, whether or not there is a precedent, there's a "Be Bold" ideology here. If there is a precedent, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:MOS and we can be the ones to start the change. Organ123 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, from the abortion page: "In the United States, most often those in favor of legal prohibition of abortion describe themselves as pro-life while those against legal restrictions on abortion describe themselves as pro-choice." That is a qualification of the terms, which is appropriate. They "describe themselves as" pro-choice and pro-life; not, the "ARE" pro-choice and pro-life. Organ123 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was the consensus reached that pro-life and pro-choice should have scare quotes? I haven't seen that in any Wikipedia articles, and I don't find it appropriate for this one. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is a "scare quote" a quote that's written in really big, blood-colored font? I wouldn't want that either. The quotes I suggested are quoting people who describe themselves as "pro-choice" and "pro-life". It would be easy enough to get a citation for the quotes, if desired. But since there's a consensus that the terms are POV, I suggest that, in accordance with WP policy, they should be qualified in some manner to alert ("scare") the reader that these are not neutral terms. Organ123 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was this consensus that the terms are POV? Where is the policy that says terms the represent a specific POV need to be in scare quotes. There has been a long standing debate whether the main article for the church in question should be called Roman Catholic Church or just Catholic Church. What you are suggesting seems to be like either writing "Roman" Catholic Church, or Roman "Catholic" Church or even "Catholic Church". There is no need for quotations, even if a certain title is associated with a certain POV.-Andrew c 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid guideline: "The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, so instead make it clear who calls them that—use self-described, or rephrase to "the movement generally known as pro-life . . .".] ... "Self-described" is the term currently in this article, and hopefully that can stand as a compromise. As I understand it, the consensus about pro-life and pro-choice being POV is in the entries for the terms themselves. From the pro-life page: "Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light." From the pro-choice page: "Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life")." Organ123 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that guideline sure is interesting. It is actual not focusing on the term "pro-life" but instead the use of "so-called". (Ironically, isn't that the term you introduced here?) "Pro-life" is just an example, and a rather poor one at that IMO. I think it IS important to mention the term controversy on each terms main article. But to drag the controversy out onto every single article that mentions the terms is not necessary. However, I think the biggest thing to keep in mind here, which I have mentioned above, is self-identity. We avoid using pejorative terms like "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" by simply going by what these movements call themselves. Imagine going through all the articles that say "Catholic Church" and changing it to "the self-described Catholic Church", how would you feel about that?-Andrew c 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, your attitude is appears to be getting confrontational -- please assume good faith as we try to reach agreement. I was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid policy page when I suggested "so-called" (but note that I never actually put "so-called" into the entry). The term I introduced into the entry is "self-described", which is the very term suggested in the guideline for dealing with the term "pro-life" -- the exact term in question. If you disagree with the guideline, then I suggest discussing that on the guideline page. To write "self-described" is simply to recognize that the controversy exists, not to rehash the entire controversy. As for the Catholic Church, I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with that topic to comment. Organ123 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we wikilink the first occurrence of each term so people have access to the full description of the controversy with a simple click of a mouse? I would find that to be an appropriate solution.

Self-described implies there is a controversy. While this is convenient shorthand for people familiar with the naming issue, or for an article where the naming issue is being explained to the reader, it only introduces confusion as a stand-alone term in an article for general audiences. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a wikilink is a good idea. But also, since there is a controversy, and based on the example in Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid as well as the NPOV consensus regarding the terms, I think keeping "self-described" is a fair compromise here. I don't think the term is confusing, just qualifying and flagging. It's not "so-called" and it's not "scare quotes" or "regular quotes", but it's a concise, NPOV way to acknowledge that controversy surrounds the terms. Organ123 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize, because I wasn't trying to be confrontational. Words to avoid isn't saying "pro-life" is a word to be avoided. It is saying "so-called" is a word to be avoided and gives an example by saying "so-called pro-life". I have taken up the issue of that example on that talk page. Next, you are misusing the term "consensus". Consensus means that editors in a content dispute decided as a whole on something. The text of an article doesn't necessarily represent a consensus. As we have been telling you, this topic HAS been discussed extensively, and the consensus from those discussions was that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the best terms to use, because they are the MOST neutral (anti-life clearly isn't neutral, same for pro-abortion, anti-choice, etc), and these terms are used as self-identity. The reason why I am so set on this is because I do not want every instance of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to be qualifed with "self-described". I belive these naming conventions should be universial across wikipedia, and as I suggested previously, I'd urge you to make a proposal to change the naming convention on a higher profile article. Maybe go to wikiproject abortion, or talk:abortion, or talk:pro-life and talk:pro-choice.-Andrew c 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK ... no problem if you weren't trying to be confrontational. I very well may take this topic up on a higher profile page. 1) Regarding Wikipedia:Consensus: "Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page). 'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." The sections stating that pro-life and pro-choice are POV has been up on both heavily-edited, controversial pages for quite some time without major change. If there wasn't consensus on that subject, the text wouldn't be in there. 2) Even if there is general agreement to use pro-choice and pro-life because of "self-identification", since there is consensus that they are "terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light," -- POV -- I don't think it's a big deal to qualify them. I think it is irresponsible and a violation of WP:NPOV not to. Also, it doesn't have to be for every mention -- once per term per entry would be sufficient. Organ123 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms have remained unqualified on every abortion-related article - with the sole exception of the pro-life and pro-choice articles, which go into detail describing the naming conventions - for some time. That is the current consensus. Qualifying the terms in articles other than those about the terms themselves would require a change in consensus. Lyrl ^Talk _C 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet leaving the terms unqualified would require a change in the WP:NPOV consensus. This is the dilemma when people agree to use self-identifying terms that are POV. Admittedly, there may be other dilemmas if we used more precise terms like "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights." But I think qualifying the terms with "self-described" resolves the issue. I don't see why this should even be controversial. At this point I'm not proposing anything radical. Organ123 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We view the definition of consensus differently. I see no violation of WP:NPOV by following WP:NCI, so I view the current condition as self-consistent and not in violation of any policies or guidelines. I agree, though, that your most recent proposal is moderate, and personally would not object to using self-described once per term per article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not this again. We need to have a wikipedia wide discussion on this. We cannot simply have one article that says its ok to add "self-described" in front of pro-choice and pro-life. This has to be consistent across the board. -Andrew c 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WP policy that supports that argument? There is a policy that edits shouldn't be reverted simply because they're bold. Lyrl "personally would not object to using self-described once per term per article," and Andrew c did not say anything for a month, so I thought we had reached a consensus on this. Using "self-described" wasn't my favorite choice, but it seemed like something we could all live with. Organ123 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid currently says: "The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, 'pro-life'. Whether this is true is debatable, but due to self-identity and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines, 'pro-life' is the most neutral term and needs NO QUALIFICATION]" Therefore, I think it would be most simple and straightforward in this particular article to simply say "pro-choice" and "pro-life" without qualification.Ferrylodge 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's an unhappy coincidence for me that the section you're quoting appears to have been added to the "Words to avoid" page by Andrew c (see above) only a few days ago. That's not really fair, be in an argument, then change the policy page to suit the argument, and then have the new policy page be quoted as a reason why your argument is right.
• Before Andrew c edited it, it said this: "The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, so instead make it clear who calls them that—use self-described, or rephrase to "the movement generally known as pro-life . . .".]" (Just to be clear, that version of the policy page had nothing to do with me.)
• Anyway, as per all the above discussion, we were able to agree that "self-described" does not imply that people are not pro-life or pro-choice, it simply indicates that these are not objective terms; rather, they are terms which put the stances in the best possible light. This is why "self-described" is so important. Organ123 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence that Andrew c made that change at the "Words to Avoid" page. He made the change to more accurately reflect practice at the Wikipedia abortion articles, and I don't see any problem with his change at all. The main point here is that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are already subjective; they already indicate what a person is (rightly or wrongly) supporting. So, using "self-described" is unnecessarily verbose. Everyone knows this is how they describe themselves.

Additionally, this "self-described" language has not been in this article very long. Therefore, a consensus is needed to INCLUDE it, not to REMOVE it.Ferrylodge 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1) To respond directly to your argument -- we need to include "self-described" exactly because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are subjective. The terms do not indicate what people are supporting; they indicate how people who do or do not (in this case) support abortion rights call themselves. So it is important to make that distinction in the article. The terms are loaded, POV propaganda terms, and I have argued above at length why they should be qualified. 2) The "self-described" language has lasted over a month in a controversial article, which to me seems like consensus. 3) As I've stated above, I don't see why having "self-described" should even be controversial, as it is neutral language. 4) Andrew c's changes to the policy page are very fresh and were made as a result of this discussion. I could just as easily revert his changes and quote the new page. Organ123 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to have stepped into the middle of this minefield before reading the “talk.” I removed "self-described" since "pro-life" is already in the vulgate. Just like abortion literature universally speaks of "fetus" to the dismay of those who are "pro-life,” this debate universally refers to the two camps as "pro-life" and "pro-choice"--regardless of the dismay of those who are "pro-choice." However, because the term is debated, and perhaps legitimately so, another, linked, Wikipedia article should be created to cover that controversy. Finally, while “pro-life” seems to raise the ire of those who are pro-choice, it should be noted that those who are “pro-life” do not insist on those who are “pro-choice” being labeled as “pro-baby murder”--which is certainly how they are viewed by those who are "pro-life." So, perhaps tolerance for popular usage, including “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” would be best--since, again, this is not so much an ethics text book as it is a layman’s resource. Regardless, while I will not remove my edit, I will leave further discussion of this term to those already invested (unless the result is really silly). -L. Porrello 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, if it doesn't exist already. There could be an article about the term controversy, and then the other articles that mention the terms could say something like "pro-life (see also 'Pro-choice' 'pro-life' term controversy)". Or the article could be referenced in some other prominent way or something. I still think it's easy enough to say "self-described" though. The terms may be "in the vulgate", but they are hotly contested. Organ123 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look up "pro-choice" in dictionaries, you find fairly consistent definitions:

(1) Supporting or advocating legalized abortion. ---Dictionary.com

(2) Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. ---American Heritage Dictionary

(3) Favoring a right to abortion ---Online Etymology Dictionary

(4) Advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)---Wordnet

(5) Favoring the legalization of abortion ---Merriam Webster’s Medical Dictionary

This is the sense in which the word should be used in this article. Therefore, I do not understand what the word "self-described" adds. To say that someone is a self-described supporter or advocate of legalized abortion is redundant. If someone is a supporter or advocate of legalized abortion, then it's obvious that they would describe themselves as such. These same observations apply equally to the defintions of the term pro-life.

Thus, I still think that inserting "self-described" all over the place is verbose, and redundant. Moreover, it is inconsistent with standard Wikipedia practice in other articles, and is also very unusual in the context of how the terms pro-choice and pro-life are used in other resources (e.g. the mass media, other encyclopedias, et cetera).

It is true that the terms pro-choice and pro-life were devised using a sort of propaganda mentality. However, everyone knows that. Perhaps the best solution, for the time being, would be to simply use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in this article, but wikilink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#Term_controversy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice#Pro-choice_vs_Pro-life respectively.Ferrylodge 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The above argument doesn't work because dictionaries are not the only reliable sources that have something to say about the definitions of these terms. The definitions of these terms, particularly "pro-life", have been in dispute for years in notable political publications and elsewhere. It is therefore not redundant. The terms do not indicate what people are supporting; they indicate how people who do or do not support abortion rights call themselves. I also dispute that "everyone knows" that these are propaganda terms. The point of propaganda is not so "everyone knows" that something is propaganda; in fact, the exact opposite is the case. This is another reason why "self-described" should be there, or the terms should be qualified somehow.

Still, it's clear to me that there is no longer a consensus that "self-described" should be in the article. So unless anyone speaks up in my defense, then I will throw my weight behind sticking a link to the Term Controversy page, and I hope the link is placed prominently. Organ123 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Partial Birth Abortion

Thats the name. Thats what it is. That should be the name of the article.

--69.37.207.172 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the name of the procedure. D&E is the medical name, whereas "partial-birth abortion" was coined by political opponents of the procedure, much like "death tax" to describe the estate tax. 70.242.229.84 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Partial Birth Abortion is a non-medical term, coined by politicians. The term in itself is ambiguious. Sometimes it is phrased in a manner to refers to any 2nd trimester abortion procedure, and sometimes it is phrased more specifically to refer a specific procedure performed in specific circumstances. On the other hand, Intact dilation and extraction is a medical term that is clearly defined. We discuss both terms in this article, and the possible controvesy in definition. A previous consensus supported merging both concepts into a single article (we used to have an IDX article and a PBA article with a lot of redundent content). So I appreciate your imput, but I prefer to keep the title as is. Do you have any more specific reasons for changing the title?-Andrew c 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When I type Partial birth abortion, It Takes me ONLY to this page. I have NO Choice of where to go. SO, this is the ONLY place that describes the procedure and controversy. The title should either be Partial birth abortion or there should be a redundant entry with pointers to each. Giftindex 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)giftindex

"Partial Birth Abortion" is not necessarily non-neutral. The term is in the vulgate. For or against, everyone knows what it means. And since this is a layman's resource, not a scientific journal text book, the popular name should arguably be listed along with the clinical names for the procedure.-L. Porrello 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, since the procedure is arguably sometimes done an already dead fetus, the “partial birth abortion” does not fit in the definition as it is just one form of the procedure. In reality, however, I wonder who would do an intact D&X on an already dead fetus as a dead fetus in utero represents a grave risk to the health of the mother, and dilation commonly takes more time for intact D&X than for a D&X. I would think that the D&X would always be preferred in the case of an already dead fetus as it could be carried out more promptly. Nevertheless, a discussion on that topic is probably well beyond the scope of this article. -L. Porrello 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Late Term Abortions

Changed the language slightly, removing the words "uncommon" and "only" as they are unnecessary and could be construed as POV. Since the precise numbers and percentages are known and cited, there is no reason to craft the language with those words. The facts are sufficient and readers can decide for themselves what the numbers consitute in terms of prevalence. Ikilled007 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I recommend adding this web page in the "Other" category, under the "External Links" heading:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

Isaiah58 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion has a lot to say about external links guidelines. Joie de Vivre 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing court testimony

A sentence was recently added that mentioned that abortion providers testified at the first 3 district court cases that challenged the PBA Ban Act. The citation for this sentence was a polemic essay written The Human Life Review, not a neutral source. I changed the source to citing directly the caselaw for these 3 cases. And I was reverted with revert / go ahead and cite the judicial orders, but that is not the same as the much-reported testimony by abortion providers. This doesn't make sense. If it's ok to "go ahead and cite the judicial orders" why on earth were they removed?

On a related noted, I think mentioning that abortion providers had to testify at the trials is an obvious fact, and too detailed for this article. This article is not the Gonzales vs. Carhart article, and it isn't the PBA Ban Act article. We should only summarize what is in other articles per wikipedia summary and spinout guidelines. I do not see how this sentence helps this article, and I feel being concise is more beneficial. -Andrew c 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view neglegted

Aside from few lines explaining the procedure almost all the stats & arguments are of US origin. The exception being 3-4 line chapter about UK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.196.15 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2007

Where should Fitzsimmons statement go?

I do not understand how the health of mothers or fetuses this procedure is performed on is relevant to the "circumstances" section. The first decision the woman makes is to have a late-term abortion. Health is certainly a relevant moral topic to that decision, and would be appropriately discussed in the article late-term abortion. The second decision the woman makes is which procedure to use, and it is this decision the "circumstances" section is concerned with. Health is not relevant here - the decision to abort has already been made, the only question left is "how".

I can see the media's treatment of the issue making Fitzsimmon's statement relevant to the "controversy" section, and I have no objection discussing it there. What do others think? Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

PBA in intro

Not noting the political nature of the 'partial-birth' phrasing is like not noting the political nature of 'death tax' when discussing the estate tax.And the political nature of the 'partial-birth' phrasing is decidedly notable enough to warrant mention in the lead. Also, please refrain from immediately reverting good-faith reliably sourced edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.229.84 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 April 2007.

Noting that the term is politicized would be one thing; attributing its use strictly to pro-lifers is another entirely. The reference to "partial-birth abortion" in the intro has stood unchanged in this article since May 2006. Thus, in a content dispute, the onus lies with the editor who wishs to see changes to build consensus before such changes are made — it is not on other editors to defend the long-standing, stable version. -Severa (!!!) 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The estate tax article has a nicely sourced discussion of how the term death tax is framing (The "Death Tax" neologism). I've seen lots of articles that repeat "PBA is not a medical term" but none that discuss the term PBA along the lines presented for the term death tax. I see the parallel, but I don't find the MSNBC passing mention to be sufficient for making such a claim for the PBA term.

Also, it is Wikipedia convention that the most recently stable version of disputed text stay on the article while discussion takes place. The intro to this article was stable for months before the recent Supreme Court ruling - it can continue to be the face of this article while we discuss this and possibly find more sources and better wording for this topic. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also support Lyrl's and Severa's comments that the stable version should remain while discussions are taking place. If 70.242.229.84 is arguing that "Partial Birth Abortion" is a politically motivated term created and marketed by abortion opponents, and that this is an important aspect of the term, then I agree with him/her. However, if information like that is ever going to "stick" in the intro to an article like this without being reverted, it's going to have to be phrased delicately, and perhaps include a counter-argument from an anti-abortion rights perspective. That's my two cents. Organ123 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to note that the intro has changed a little bit in the past day. The word "colloquial" was removed in reference to the term PBA, and the AGI survey has been qualified as "voluntary response". That said, I feel that we have a very good "Terminology" section that discusses the term's origins and that some people oppose its use. The current edit under dispute because it is inaccurate (maybe it was accurate back in 95) but now the term has entered into common English. It is used extensively by the media, and is now legally defined by federal law. It is an understatement and misrepresentation to say that the term is only used by pro-lifers. We could discuss whether it is important enough to note that the term "partial birth abortion" was coined by a pro-life senator in the lead. I think not. I believe our current phrasing is sufficient, and the details are given in the "terminology" section.-Andrew c 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing sufficient about leaving out the verifiable truth that this term was coined by staunch anti-abortion congressmen and activists.

Can we discuss the changes? Multiple editors have had issues with the recent content and have asked for users to come to talk. Please, state what is wrong with the entry and propose what needs to be fixed. -Andrew c 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between two extremes in a definition — dismissing "partial-birth abortion" entirely as a term used only by "abortion opponents," as in this edit, or completely accepting the term's legitmacy, as suggested here — I'd say we should opt for the middle ground: state simply that it isn't a medical term and avoid commenting on whether it's just a loaded term invented by the pro-life movement or a legitimate term rejected only by the pro-choice movement. Controversy over the term can be discussed in other sections. -Severa (!!!) 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not noting where the term originated from in the lead is nothing short of a whitewash. I can drop "used by" for "coined by" if it'll assuage your concerns that it's somehow become an everyday accepted term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.229.84 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The term “partial-birth abortion” appears in the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. The term had a non-medical origin, but that doesn't mean that it remains non-medical, or that it has to be called non-medical even if it is non-medical. The term has been accepted by all three branches of the federal government, it appears in medical dictionaries, it is also in common use, and it was formulated to be somewhat descriptive. Why must Wikipedia adopt the pro-choice mantra that it is not a medical term, especially when pro-life groups dispute that it's a non-medical term?[5] We can include the pro-life etymology of the term without endorsing the view that it’s “non-medical.” Also, please note that the term "intact dilation and extraction" first appeared in the literature of a pro-choice organization in 1996, and pro-life groups contend that it was a contrived attempt to legitimize the partial birth abortion technique by wedding it to "D&E" (a then-recognized procedure) using a sort of legitimacy by association. Why doesn’t this article call “intact D&E” a "non-medical term", or at least describe its pro-choice etymology?Ferrylodge 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the term "partial-birth abortion" has has been used by three branches of the US government is irrelevant. Although uncommon, the procedure is not exclusive to the United States, and so the US-biased "pro-life" term is inappropriate. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the two terms are not directly interchangeable, so there is an issue of accuracy. Wikipedia adopts the accepted medical terminology, and not the politicized, pro-life mantra. -- Scjessey 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should adopt neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice mantra. Saying that PBA is a "non-medical term" is the pro-choice mantra. The article can say that pro-choice groups believe it is a non-medical term, but the article should not say (as it now does) that Wikipedia believes it is a non-medical term.Ferrylodge 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "partial-birth abortion" is a loaded pro-life term. "Intact dilation and extraction" may have its origins in pro-choice organizations, but it has become an accepted medical term in many nations of the world. It has the advantage of carrying no pro-life or pro-choice bias at all. As I said earlier, the two terms do not appear to be directly interchangeable, so perhaps the argument is moot anyway. -- Scjessey 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life groups deny that PBA is a non-medical term. Wikipedia should not take sides.[6]Ferrylodge 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of "taking sides" at all. Wikipedia should report only factual data and suitably referenced opinion where appropriate. "Partial-birth abortion", regardless of whether or not it is a legitimate medical term (and only pro-lifers think it is) is not exactly the same as "Intact dilation and extraction". This article is on the latter. -- Scjessey 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should not take sides by saying that Wikipedia believes PBA is a "non-medical term". Not only do pro-life groups deny it, but also the term appears in medical dictionaries. And, it has no less of a political origin than IDX. All of this can be explained in the article (or not), without taking sides.Ferrylodge 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "non-medical" from the definition, because I agree with you; however, I do not think the term should appear in the introduction of the article, since it is not directly interchangeable. -- Scjessey 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means ready to accept that IDX is a term created by pro-abortion rights advocates, as the sources provided as evidence are anti-abortion rights propaganda sites. Furthermore, even by the most mainstream US medical association, PBA is a non-medical term: according to the American Medical Association -- not known for it's liberalism -- "THE ABORTION ISSUE remains in the public eye and the media headlines largely because of a single late-term abortion procedure referred to in the medical literature as intact dilation and extraction (D&X) and in the common vernacular as partial-birth abortion." This from a medical organization that doesn't support universal health care. Granted, some anti-abortion rights advocates may use PBA to refer to the medical procedure IDX, but that does not make PBA a medical term. By that logic, if I form a club and start calling IDX "party time for fetuses," if enough people and politicians start using the term, I can say that "PTF" is a medical term for IDX.

Anyway, I would support both Severa and 70.242.229.84's ideas, so I don't have much to add at the moment on that issue. Organ123 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. Undent. This is a reply to Scjessey above mainly.) I disagree. Given that we have one editor who wants to wholly dismiss the term as being used only by "abortion opponents," and another who wants to completely accept its legitimacy, taking the middle ground is the best option. Regardless of whether PBA is just a pro-life neologism, or an accurate lay description,you can't dispute the fact that it isn't a medical term (see the sources Andrew c posted here). -Severa (!!!) 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Severa, even if Andrew c's three PMID references are persuasive (which they are not), there still is a controversy about whether PBA is a "medical term" (and about whether IDX is a "medical term"). Why should Wikipedia take sides?

As far as Andrew c's three PMIDs ( PMID 12294330, PMID 9673308, PMID 10404899 ), they are all from a previous millennium. As for the first of the three, do you really want Wikipedia to subscribe to an article from "Reproductive Freedom News" (1998) which does not even list its authors? As for the second, the abstract of the New England Journal of Medicine (1998) article does not state whether PBA is a "medical term". And, re. the third of Andrew c's PMIDs (JAMA. 1999), it says "neither the phrase 'late term' nor 'intact dilation' and evacuation is present or defined in any of the partial-birth abortion laws passed in 27 states or in the federal bill." So, the author seems to be implying that "intact dilation" is a non-medical term, but in any event no reference is made to the 2003 federal statute.

The point is, why must Wikipedia take sides about this?Ferrylodge 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but Wikipedia isn't taking sides at all. I've already removed the "non-medical" words that you objected to. Remember that IDX is not the same as P-BA. P-BA covers additional procedures. In the meantime, I have already moved the P-BA sections down into the meat of the article so as not to cause confusion in the introduction. -- Scjessey 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, I was referring to Severa. I agree with you that the "non-medical" words should be removed. My understanding is that Severa would like to put them back.Ferrylodge 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring "non-medical" will not add value to the article, so I think it should be left alone. To be honest, "partial-birth abortion" should have its own article. It makes no sense for it to be extensively covered here. -- Scjessey 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Just for everyone's info, here's what SCOTUS said last week about this:

“ The abortion procedure that was the impetus for the numerous bans on "partial-birth abortion," including the Act, is a variation of this standard D&E. See M. Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (1992), 1 Appellant's App. in No. 04-3379 (CA8), p. 109 (hereinafter Dilation and Extraction). The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as "intact D&E," "dilation and extraction" (D&X), and "intact D&X." Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 440, n. 2; see also F. Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 243 (22d ed. 2005) (identifying the procedure as D&X); Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology 567 (J. Scott, R. Gibbs, B. Karlan, & A. Haney eds. 9th ed. 2003) (identifying the procedure as intact D&X); M. Paul, E. Lichtenberg, L. Borgatta, D. Grimes, & P. Stubblefield, A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion 136 (1999) (identifying the procedure as intact D&E). For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. ”

Ferrylodge 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but what SCOTUS calls the procedure has no bearing on what the procedure is actually called. -- Scjessey 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for throughness, I should also quote the SCOTUS dissent: "The term 'partial-birth abortion' is neither recognized in the medical literature nor used by physicians who perform second-trimester abortions. See Planned Parenthood Federation of Am. v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957, 964 (ND Cal. 2004), aff'd, 435 F. 3d 1163 (CA9 2006). The medical community refers to the procedure as either dilation & extraction (D&X) or intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E)."Ferrylodge 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the issue over the term controversy is that Ferrylodge has been portraying the controversy as a pro-life vs. pro-choice sort of thing, i.e. both sides have equal say. However, I do not believe the controversy is polarizes and as significant as that. For example, ACOG, an organization of roughly 50,000 people, makes up 90% of all board-certified ob-gyns, while AAPLOG is an organization of roughly 2,500 that may or may not be board-certified (assuming so, that gives the figure of under 5%). Portraying the AAPLOG's opinion against the ACOG as two sides of a coin is giving undue weight. Next, I found a post 2003 source, From Harvard Journal on Legislation v. 41 (2) p. 502: "While the 2003 Act does not specifically refer to any medically recognized procedure by name, the procedure that would most likely be affected is what is known as "dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation," or simply "D&X." [note:The use of the term "partial-birth abortion" to refer to the procedure at issue is itself a controversial aspect of the Act. The term was created by then-Representative (and now Judge) Charles Canady (R-Fla.) and his aides in 1995 while they prepared to introduce a ban on certain abortions. Debra Rosenberg, Chipping Away At Roe, Newsweek, Mar. 17, 2003, at 40. Failing to find a name for the procedure in any medical texts, Canady and his aides created the name "partial-birth abortion." See id. The name has stuck, much to the dismay of the ban's opponents.]" -Andrew c 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article from the Harvard journal is already discussed in this Wikipedia article, and is cited at footnote 8. I have no problem with that, although it might be worth mentioning in our article that Canady failed "to find a name for the procedure in any medical texts." This provides a non-propaganda reason why he invented a new term.

As far as mentioning AAPLOG's view as to why ACOG named the procedure "intact D&E", I'm not aware that ACOG has denied that they did so in order to legitmize this abortion procedure by wedding it to the long-established "D&E" procedure. In any event, even if ACOG does deny it, still a contrary opinion of 2500 ob-gyns is nothing to sneeze at.Ferrylodge 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While 2500 OB-Gyns are certainly worth mentioning in the article body, a position held by 5% of a medical profession does not need to be addressed in the introduction. Why would the ACOG need to legitimize anything? The medical community does not seem to have ever considered the procedure illegitimate (and how IDX is considered ethically worse than dismemberment abortion - a.k.a D&E - is something that continues to escape me). As far as the "wedding" to D&E: this procedure is, to me, fairly obviously a variant of the D&E procedure. The first step - artificially dilating the cervix - is identical. The next step - removing the fetus with instruments - is very similar. The problem of how to remove a comparatively large fetus through a comparatively small opening is solved differently (dismemberment vs. reducing cranial size). The last step - suction removal of remaining uterine contents - is identical. IDX is certainly much more related to D&E than, say, feticide followed by induction of labor - the third option for women seeking terminations later in pregnancy. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, Lyrl. The stuff before the table of contents is the "introduction", right? Neither ACOG nor AAPLOG are mentioned there. They're only mentioned in the section on etymology. I'm fine with that. I'm not urging that they be mentioned in the introduction. If people want to move the etymology section lower down in the article, I have no problem with that either, although Severa once said that the etymology section belongs immediately after the table of contents (see fetus).Ferrylodge 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an solution to the ACOG vs AAPLOG is to flat out say that the AAPLOG is holds a minority position (this is what we do in various New Testament related articles where there are notable minority positions that argue, for example, for a very early dating of the Gospel of Matthew, or another notable minority group that argues for a mythological Jesus). The idea is that we do present both sides, but we use qualifiers to let the reader know how notable or prevalent the position is compared to similar scholarship. (I also believe this was the reasoning behind qualifying PBA as "non-medical"). Another solution would be to give more space to the ACOG position (expand if possible). -Andrew c 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there ever a Medical Necessity??

One of the biggest complaints about the Partial Birth Abortion ban I've heard is that there is no exceptions for when the health of the mother is at stake. But is there ever a situation that would neccesitate a third trimester partial birth abortion as opposed to simply attempting an early C-section or inducing labor? Obviously there could be a good chance the infant would die from a premature removal, but I can't imagine a circumstance in which the mother's health would be negatively impacted from receiving an early C-section vs. a partial birth abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.61.244 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2007

I haven't yet found this from reliable published sources (so not in the article) but I believe from anecdotal accounts that the concern is where there is a fetal abnormality incompatible with life (so the fetus is going to die anyway) AND the woman's health is threatened by the pregnancy. So there is a need to end the pregnancy right away for the woman's sake, but no benefit would be gained by putting her through major abdominal surgery (the baby would still die). Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Patial Birth Abortion called Intact dilation and extraction?

Is there political bias in re-naming this procedure to something less descriptive?

--69.37.254.129 12:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the is a political bias in calling the procedure Intact dilation and extraction if you believe that using medically accepted terminology has a political bias over using a term that is more or less loaded. Partial birth abortion is not an accepted medical term by majority of authorities on the subject. Plus, medically, intact dilation and extraction is far more descriptive that partial birth abortion. Gracewastes 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this particularly conroversial?

The article doesn't really say... Thomas Ash 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, anything to do with abortion is controversial. This particular procedure is viewed by the so-called "pro-life" lobby as being particularly "gruesome". The "pro-choice" lobby see the banning of the procedure (in the United States) as an erosion of a woman's right to "reproductive freedom", and perhaps as a kind of beach head for the movement campaigning to ban abortion in the US entirely. One particularly controversial aspect is that the health of the woman undergoing the procedure is basically ignored by the "partial-birth abortion" ban outlawing the procedure in the US. The article attempts to explain this controversy as dispassionately as possible (quite rightly), so perhaps the emotional aspect is lost somewhat. -- Scjessey 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-clinical description from Gonzales v. Carhart

Someone removed this section. Abortion is a medical procedure and a moral issues. And while a purely medical discussions, such as one might find in medical text books or journals, should be informed only by the terminology of science, when medical procedures raise moral questions and are being presented in a non-medical, non-scientific forum, those procedures need to be understood in clinical and non-clinical terminology. They need to be understood in layman's terms. Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. It is a resource for layman. And the "non-clinical" description is every bit as important as the clinical description for the layman trying to understand the procedure. Since the text came from Gonzales v. Carhart, it is clearly reliable and fit for inclusion in any overview of the procedure. Since a fetus at 26.5 weeks looks like a “baby,” the non-clinical description is legitimately colloquial and clearly not biased by an overriding philosophical agenda. In contrast, it is arguable that those who would limit the discussion to only the specialized terminology of medical science, which is intellectually inaccessible to many laymen, are the ones with an overriding philosophical agenda. I am not saying that a blastocyst should be called a “baby.” I am saying that if to even a trained medical professional the creature looked like a “baby”, that information is critical to anyone trying to understand this procedure who has not witnessed it first-hand.L. Porrello 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with [email protected] that an accurate non-technical description is helpful here, so I've reinserted it (along with an accurate cite that somehow was previously deleted).Ferrylodge 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to read the description and name what words are too technical to be encyclopedic? Comparing the two descriptions, the quote uses "tube" while our text uses "catheter". I don't see any more technical jargon that we allegedly use explained any better in the quote. I feel strongly that our current wording is encyclopedic, is not too technical, or too full of jargon. Read through it again yourself, if please point out the problematic areas. What specific language do you believe is too difficult for a lay audience to understand?

The rest of your argument seems to deal with the term 'baby'. While a 26.5 week fetus is most likely viable, the procedure was rarely performed on fetuses so far along. Therefore, I see no reason to use the word 'baby' in the text of our description because the word fetus is more inclusive and more neutral. Is there anything else in the quoted text that you feel is covered in a more neutral manner than the other description of the procedure?

I also question the accuracy of how this descriptions covers the IDX procedure in general because, as stated above, it is usually performed much earlier in pregnancies and because the Salon.com article's author wrote "In the three intact D&X procedures I witnessed, not once did I see even a glimmer of response from the fetuses -- the anesthesia having passed through the placenta into their bloodstreams."

I feel that there is no need to quote from a primary source at such length here, and move that we remove the newly added quoted text. The only purpose it serves is to introduce emotive, POV language. If there are specific issues with the description, we should address them, but we shouldn't fight a bad description by adding an even worse description. One description should be fine.

As for the moral issue, I believe this is a good point, but the description of the procedure is not the place for the debate to come through. We should discuss the debate in the "Controversy". We can say that certain sources describe the procedure as grotesque and never medically necessary and such. We can allow all POV to be heard, and we can allow them to give their opinions on the procedure, but the debate should not spill out into the description of the procedure itself.-Andrew c 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Andrew c. I believe you are trying to soften what our sources say. The passage in question was congressional testimony of a nurse, quoted in a Supreme Court opinion. In lieu of graphic photos of aborted fetuses, a graphic description in plain English is the next best thing. The preceding paragraph in this article is full of technical jargon. No reason to exclude a paragraph in plain English. There's nothing unencyclopedic about that. If you'd like to add that a fetus is often instead sedated, or is often at an earlier gestational age, then that would be fine too.Ferrylodge 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge. The problem with the current "clinical" description is that it is not from a NPOV. Andrew c, do you think that you can write a truly NPOV section that we can look at here so that we don't need to do the juxtaposition thing? In any case, the current "clinical" section should include something about the anesthesia and its effect on woman and fetus.L. Porrello 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your specific issues with our phrasing. How can we change our phrasing to address your concerns. We don't have two different descriptions of animal slaughter at Slaughterhouse, one from a industry POV, and one from a vegetarian POV. Why do we need two descriptions of the same procedure here? The only purpose the quoted text serves is to insert emotive. I think we should mention our cited sources objections to the procedure in the controversy section, but I see no reason why the debate has to spill out into the simple description. How can we work up the description so only one is necessary? Please discuss specific concerns that we can try to address.-Andrew c 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The specific issues have to do with what is omitted. The Slaughterhouse article is a pretty good example of the level of detail that should be included. However, its application to our case is limited because unlike a D&X procedure, the slaughter is not performed on humans. For excellent examples of POV, level of detail, organization, and how this article should read in general, see the articles on pregnancy and childbirth.L. Porrello 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by 65.95.105.248 that disregarded this discussion.

Ok, what specifically is omitted? Can't we simply just add the things you are concerned about, instead of including a long quote? I think we can create a good description of the procedure without resorting to long quotes or emotive, POV language.-Andrew c

(undent) I think that it is very appropriate to have both a technical, clinical description of the procedure, in addition to a brief non-technical description. The non-technical description by the nurse seems very appropriate. The columnist George Will wrote a book in which he addressed this very same quote from the nurse. He wrote: "To object to this as sensationalism is to say that discomforting truths should be suppressed." Our Wikipedia language before and after the nurse's quote can certainly put it into proper context, but I think deleting the quote itself would not be appropriate.Ferrylodge 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the state of the article almost two years ago when it featured two separate descriptions from Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life. These were both removed in April 2006 (see the threads "Why so many descriptions? and "NPOV tag" above). We've been over this before. Including the nurse's testimony is basically just reintroducing the partisan forking of two years ago in a slighty-altered form. It belongs in the "Controversy" section, if it belongs anywhere. -Severa (!!!) 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Severa’s change. And, along the lines I suggest above, I would like to see the description section expanded and humanized, more in line with what we see in the articles on pregnancy and childbirth. I think this can be done while preserving a NPOV. Unfortunately, in striving for NPOV all of the abortion related articles read more like a Chilton’s manual than they do articles touching on one of the most intimate and important of human experiences. I think this can be remedied while respecting both pro-life and pro-choice ideologies.L.C. Porrello 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add some introductory text that gives the quotation a context in terms of the controversy. Some thing like, "Part of the partial birth abortion conflict has to do with the fact that at the stage of pregnancy at which fetuses are aborted in partial birth abortions, their appearance is very similar to that of newborns." Any other ideas or suggestions?L.C. Porrello 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please source this statement? -Andrew c 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. It seems like common sense. Have I commited a faux pas?L.C. Porrello 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a citation that says "fetuses look similar to newborns in certain ways". I'm asking for a citation that the physical appearance of fetuses is a notable aspect of the PBA debate. Hope that helps clear up why I am asking for a citation. (I'm not saying the statement is necessarily dubious, which is another tag, I'm just making sure that new article content is attributed and thereby verifiable)-Andrew c 23:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understood you the first time. As I said, it seems like commons sense. If they really did look like just "blobs of tissue," I doubt that there would be much controversy. Nevertheless, my statement is implied in the nurse's testimony and I have also included a ref. to another source. After your changes, however, I am not sure that my statement, with or without ref, is necessary. BTW, I edited some of your text for style and brevity. I did not try to change meaning. I do wonder why you added "Downs Syndrome." Care to share?L.C. Porrello 00:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the source you added. It doesn't state anywhere that the controversy surrounding PBA has to do with fetus' appearance. Perhaps you are correct that the quoted text and my changes make the first sentence obsolete.

I added "down syndrome" because it was mentioned at the very beginning of Shafer's description, but left outside of the quoted text in the article. It speaks to the patient's reasons for having the procedure, and is a more descriptive, accurate modifier for the particular story Shafer is retelling. Perhaps I didn't phrase it best, and it may be just adding extra wordiness. I'm not too attached to it, but I was trying to summarize the context of the quoted material, which is a lot to cover. I also wanted to mention how disturbing the procedure was to Shafer and how she almost threw up, but I couldn't figure a way to do that without making the sentence even more wordy. I considered adding "described one that she found particularly gruesome performed on a 26..." Part of me is concerned that we don't include her whole account, and single out the middle, but the rest of me doesn't want to add more quoted text, and in fact would rather have a summary instead of quoted text to begin with. What are you thoughts (or anyone else)? -Andrew c 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed the line and added that the nurse found the procedures deeply disturbing.LCP 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of References Vandalism

Someone has repeatedly removed references from this page. Please, let's all keep an eye on to ensure that this does not continue to happen. -L. Porrello 17:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

In an attempt to remove some of the US-centric bias, I have reordered the article slightly. The section on "partial-birth abortion" has been moved down in the article, but I've increased the importance of its heading. The explanation and reasons for the procedure (which is what the article is supposed to be about) have been given more prominence. -- Scjessey 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the change. Thanks. I noticed that you also state that you restored "terminated." But, I couldn't see where. L. Porrello 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted "terminated." See here. The statute uses entirely different language, and I think we should stick to the statute.Ferrylodge 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with using the wording of the statute itself. The PBA law uses language grossly biased toward the pro-life stance. There is no need for Wikipedia to echo this POV language when explaining the meaning of the statute. Paraphrasing is acceptable. -- Scjessey 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with paraphrasing where meaning is not grossly compromised. I also do not have much trouble with using “terminated” instead of “killed.” However, the term "kill" does not come from the statute. It comes from the opinion of the court written by Justice Kennedy. It is the term that Kennedy and the court used. The use of the term is a question of authority and usage. And the court's authority trumps Scjessey--unless, perhaps, Scjessey is a legal and medical professional who has gained authority on this subject via publication in peer-reviewed journals. Then, I think, we would have arguable grounds to defer to your preferred terminology. Apart from authority, we need to remember that Wikipedia is written for laymen, so it won’t do to speak only of “termination of life via asphyxiation” if what the layman understands is “lynching” or “hanging.” It won’t due to speak of “termination of the life of the subject” or “euthanizing the subject” if what the layman understands is “putting to death a convicted felon.” It won’t due to speak of “blunt force trauma to the cranium” when the layman understands, “she was struck on the head with a hammer.” The exclusive use of technical language in lieu of the vernacular does not make Wikipedia more authoritative. Regardless, “terminated” is a euphemism used in medical discourse to enable physicians to maintain objectivity in clinical settings in which objective judgment is absolutely essential. Wikipedia is not such a setting. And, “kill” is no less accurate or scientific--but it is arguably the term foremost in the mind of the reader. In contrast, “terminated” is pretty low on the list. The criminal wasn’t “terminated” by the police. He was “killed.” A cow isn’t “terminated”; it is “slaughtered.” “Kill” is the language of the layman who, arguably, is Wikipedia’s primary audience.L. Porrello 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence of the article is describing the statute. If the words of the statute are biased, then it is more appropriate to quote those words than to replace them with pro-life euphemisms. Instead of reverting this edit, I have simply deleted all reference to the ultimate fate of the fetus. I note that the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart likewise did not replace words in the statute with euphemisms.Ferrylodge 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that passage in question was directly from the statute.L. Porrello 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If "terminated" is unacceptable, perhaps "aborted" is more accurate. My objection was not just the word "kill", but to the entire phrase. Bear in mind that the "opinion of the court" was only the opinion of the 5 explicitly pro-life members of the court, so the text was bound to have had pro-life POV in it (just as the dissent had a more pro-choice stance). Ultimately, the removal/termination/execution/death of the whole phrase is an act of clinical brilliance on the part of Ferrylodge. The phrase wasn't necessary, so it is better to nix it than argue over it. Good job. Scjessey 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, what makes you think that Anthony Kennedy is "pro-life"? He is responsible for upholding Roe v. Wade in 1992. And what makes you think the other four justices are pro-life? Although you may not believe it, some Supreme Court Justices may actually believe that the Constitution is silent on the abortion issue, and that the question should therefore be left to the democratic process. There are many pro-choice liberals who believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. See here.Ferrylodge 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey states as if it is an obvious fact that the use of language in the opinion was politically motivated. It seems to me that the court, although fallible, is nevertheless the most reliable to provide the most unbiased use of terms and presentation of facts in this case. If they are not able to be objective, then our entire system of government is arguably a sham. I wonder if Scjessey sees that implication.L. Porrello 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. The ruling made by SCOTUS flies in the face of all good sense. The only good thing to come out of it was the sanity that prevailed in the dissent. I am astounded that anyone should think a politically-appointed group of 9 people are better qualified than the overwhelming majority of the medical profession to judge what is best in matters of abortion. When I see a decision as illogical as this, I am forced to read more into it than I probably should. All that being said, I am a fairly experienced Wikipedian and I like to think I can edit controversial articles with an open and impartial mind. -- Scjessey 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean by “matters of abortion.” Do you mean what is medically in the best interest of paticular patients? Or, are you talking about the broader issue of human rights? In the case of what is medically best, I would agree that medical professionals are in the best position to decide how best to perform abortions and when abortions are medically necessary to save a mother’s life. In the second case, however, they have absolutely no special competence. Medical professionals have only very, very little training in ethics--less than someone with even only a minor in philosophy--and no training in civil rights law. Generally, medical professionals are no better qualified to make ethical, moral, and legal judgments than your average chemistry professor would be.L. Porrello 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what L. Porrello said. Not to stray too far off topic, but the current ban on the sale of used body parts by the person whose body they are in to someone who could use them falls into this exact category also. The law says one things, the consumer says another, the medical professionals play God determining who lives and dies. Ikilled007 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

dictionary definition

I feel like this is an effort to imply that PBA is a medical definition when clearly the source say it isn't a technical term. I think the previous version made it is clear what PBA means, and there is no reason to quote online dictionaries. Can we remove the recently added dictionary definition?-Andrew c 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence so that it reads: "According to medical dictionaries, 'partial-birth abortion' is a non-technical term for a late-term abortion, 'in which the uterine cervix is dilated and death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal.'"

I feel strongly that this sentence should remain in the article, and I hope this edit resolves any problem.Ferrylodge 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The definition does not give a unique perspective on PBA. The definition in fact is not for PBA, but "dilation and extraction". It is inaccurate to say that medical dictionaries define PBA as the quoted text. The dictionary in question defines PBA as "dilation and extraction", and then defines "dilation and extraction" as the quoted text. You are skipping the middle man, and thus misleading the readers. I think if we are going to include this dictionary business (which I oppose), we should say that the cited source defines PBA as the same thing as "dilation and extraction". We discuss the medical procedure in different sections of the article already. -Andrew c 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I think it's kind of silly to say that I've been "misleading" here. However, I will change the article as you suggest, even though I don't think it's at all necessary.Ferrylodge 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the following newly added text while this discussion is on going: According to medical dictionaries, "partial-birth abortion" is a non-technical term for a late-term abortion, especially after viability,[ref]American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary[/ref] and synonymous with the term "dilation and extraction" in which "the uterine cervix is dilated and death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal."[ref]Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary[/ref]

The phrasing is awkward, and selective to push a POV. This section is going to turn into a he said she said back and forth real fast, and I think its better to not bother digging through the dictionary. If it's ok if we add the OED's parenthetical comment originally and chiefly a term used by the anti-abortion movement in the U.S.? Why is M&W's definition superior to Stedman's? or any other source? I believe because M&W's entry for PBA is simply a redirect, that they are not the best choice for a quoted definition (if we most quote a definition). I also believe it is misleading to say "according to medical dictionaries" when one dictionary says certain things and another dictionary says other things. It gives the false impression of agreement.-Andrew c 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, it's wrong to say that this is POV pushing. It's merely an attempt to recite what the dictionary says. At every turn here, you have made some minute little criticism, and I have been thoroughly accomodating. You thought that it's important to mention the word "non-technical" so I went ahead and inserted the word "non-technical." You thought it's important to mention the words "dilation and extraction" so I inserted the words "dilation and extraction." I'm perfectly happy to make further changes. For you to all of a sudden start jumping up and down and claiming "POV-pushing" is absurd and insulting.

You imply it's "POV-pushing" because I didn't include some parenthetical comment from the OED? Please, give me a break. When have you urged inclusion of that parenthetical comment? Have I ever refused to include it? If you think it's important, then fine, we'll include it, just like we included "non-technical" and "dilation and extraction." Do you have a link? I very much prefer online sources so they can be easily verified.

You complain that "M&W's definition [is not] superior to Stedman's." When did I ever say or imply that M&W's definition is superior? Neither one is superior. They're completely consisten definitions, without any contradiction whatsoever. Where is there any disagreement or inconsistency?

I really think you are making mountains here --- not out of molehills --- but out of nothing at all. I'm happy to make changes that you suggest, but you have to suggest them before I can be aware of them.Ferrylodge

I've tried again to get this right. See here. I don't have a link or cite for the OED statement, but I've incorporated that language so a link and cite are unnecessary. Moreoever, now that PBA has been accepted by all 3 branches of the federal government, it is no longer correct to say that it's a word "chiefly" used by the pro-life movement. Anyway, I have given the full definitions from the two medical dictionaries. There's utterly no way that you can say I've slanted anything. Omitting this stuff from the article would be to conceal that PBA is listed in medical dictionaries, and would be an extreme example of POV.Ferrylodge 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But now that you have bloated this section, you have created a very unencyclopedic, uninformative mass. I never once suggested that we include the OED definition. I feel strongly that we shouldn't list dictionary definitions, and adding more and more isn't helping the situation (it's making matters worse). Seriously, this doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, but a play by play series of quotes from different dictionaries. As noted above, this article was fine before these dictionary quotes were inserted. You have not explained what purpose they serve that isn't already covered. Please, lets stop edit warring, and revert to the version before the controversy w as inserted until we can clear things up on talk.-Andrew c 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, let me put it to you this way: what is wrong with mentioning that "partial birth abortion" is defined in a couple medical dictionaries, footnoting the medical dictionaries, and explaining what they say? What could possibly be more NPOV than that?

I feel that you are intentionally raising one objection after another in order to eliminate any mention of medical dictionaries, in order to help delegitimize the term "partial birth abortion". You've already insisted that we emphasize the term was coined by pro-lifers and that the AMA refuses to use the term. Apparently, mentioning its use in a couple medical dictionaries is somehow offensive to you.Ferrylodge 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am not edit-warring. I am trying to include medical dictionary definitions in a way that will be acceptable to you. But perhaps no way will be acceptable. I have edited the material yet again, so that it is more encyclopedic and concise, though I fear that you will now accuse me of leaving something out in order to push a POV: "The term 'partial-birth abortion' (PBA) was originally used by the pro-life movement in the United States.[15] It is a non-technical term referring to a late-term abortion, especially when a viable fetus is 'partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted.'[16] This term is synonymous with 'dilation and extraction,'[17] which is a surgical abortion, normally after the middle of pregnancy, in which 'the uterine cervix is dilated and death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal.'[18]"

I think that any neutral person would acknowledge that is well-written, encyclopedic, neutral, well-sourced, and appropriate.Ferrylodge 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c is correct: the inclusion of PBA in the M&W online dictionary is a redirect, not an actual entry, and so it can't be used as evidence to support the claim that the term "partial-birth abortion" is listed in medical dictionaries. For example, a search of the M&W online dictionary for "tummy tuck" yields the result "see abdominoplasty," and a search for "nose job" yields the result "see rhinoplasty." We couldn't infer from the existence of the "tummy tuck" and "nose job" redirects that these were both accepted technical terms listed in medical dictionaries. We certainly couldn't use these redirects as evidence to support such an assertation in any article — that would be original research. The redirects were obviously included to maximise the usefulness of the search engine, but, they neither confirm nor deny the acceptance of terms like "tummy tuck," "nose job," or "partial-birth abortion," and thus they should not be used in such a fashion. -Severa (!!!) 03:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Severa, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. The material you have just deleted is as follows:

"It is a non-technical term referring to a late-term abortion, especially when a viable fetus is 'partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted.'16 This term is synonymous with 'dilation and extraction,'17 which is a surgical abortion, normally after the middle of pregnancy, in which 'the uterine cervix is dilated and death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal.'18"

Contrary to your stated rationale, this text does not include any "claim that the term 'partial-birth abortion' is listed in medical dictionaries." This text does not even mention "dictionaries". There is no assertion here that PBA is an "accepted technical term listed in medical dictionaries." And all of this text is fully supported by footnotes 16, 17, or 18. You have not suggested otherwise. Given that this seems to be a misunderstanding, I will revert your edit.Ferrylodge 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The M&W online dictionary simply isn't conclusive regarding the PBA term; the existence of "tummy tuck" and "nose job" redirects reaffirm that. We can't base conclusive assertations on ambiguous sources. That's OR, WW, and undue weight. I agree with Andrew c that listing dictionary definitions is unencyclopaedic. We've been through this before at other articles. I agree that the previous version should be restored until the text that is under dispute has been approved. -Severa (!!!) 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Severa, your notion that we should conduct orginal research into the meaning of terms by examining a spectrum of published articles --- while purposely ignoring authoritative medical dictionaries --- is Original Research. It is also an invitation for Wikipedia editors to select which random sources they prefer. If there is some Wikipedia policy about this of which I am unaware, then please cite it. Otherwise, please explain why you are distrustful of medical dictionaries. What makes the M&W "ambiguous"? What's wrong with such a dictionary explaining the meaning of non-technical terms? How is this "ambiguous"? Did the M&W Dictionary give an incorrect definition of the terms you refer to? Why do you want to delete any mention of Stedman's Medical Dictionary merely because you don't like the M&W Dictionary?

If your goal is to undermine, deligitimize, and otherwise ridicule the term "partial-birth abortion", please keep in mind Wikipedia policy WP:POV.Ferrylodge 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like deja vu. When, in the past, we have disputed what a term means (such as stillbirth), the solution seems to be "lets fill the article with citations and quotes from dictionaries". This is a content dispute, and I don't think we need to fill the article with this clutter just because we disagree. What I think is important is describing this term in encyclopedic terms. When was it coined, how has it been used over the years (legislation, court decisions, in the media), how has the terms meaning been refined? Citing dictionaries doesn't help establish any of this context. Saying that it generally refers to late-term abortions is fine, then going into detail about how in the past courts ruled it to vague, but then the language in the 2003 Act was ruled unambiguous. Say the media sometimes uses LTA and PBA interchangeably. Say medical organizations claim it isn't a medical term. Say it is a much more common term to the public than IDX or D&E. But quoting so many dictionaries just fills the article with clutter. We don't know when these definitions were added, or under what context. They don't tell us anything more than anything we already include. As I mentioned above, adding more to this section is not helping. I know you believe you are addressing my concerns every time you add another quote for footnote, but this is just adding unencyclopedic bloat. Try to address my concerns on the talk page, instead of addressing them in the article. I suggest it is a bad idea to go and quote every dictionary we find, so you decided to add info I mentioned from the OED.

And another thing, dictionaries can be a good source to defining established terms, but they are not updated daily, nor are they the best, definitive source for current events. Legally speaking, PBA has many meanings and has changed over the years. PBA is a buzzword. Putting so much emphasis on dictionary definitions is misplaced. What is more important, something found in an online dictionary, or a statement made by the largest professional organization for doctors in America?

Here is a solid proposal. State that online medical dictionaries definition conflict, and then footnote the links. If the user wants to know more about what these dictionaries say, they can follow the links easy enough without us quoting from them. They can see that M&W has a redirect to another term, so we avoid having to describe that situation. We remove the bloat and extra weight and emphasis that is given by having such a long section with so many sources and quotes, but we still leave the material accessible to users.-Andrew c 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, you are exaggerating. Mentioning two dictionaries in the footnotes is not "filling the article with citations and quotes from dictionaries." Please tell me if there is one iota in the following that is incorrect or contradictory:

"It is a non-technical term referring to a late-term abortion, especially when a viable fetus is partly delivered through the uterine cervix before being removed.16 This term is synonymous with 'dilation and extraction,'17 which is a surgical abortion, normally after the middle of pregnancy, in which the cervix is dilated and 'death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal.'18"

How is this the least bit incorrect? Thank you.Ferrylodge 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead's use of POV terms without noting their controversy.

Why do some editors here adamantly insist upon using the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "brain-suction abortion" without disclosing how controversial these terms are, or where they originate from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.23.45.192 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Since the article has a huge section on PBA, it seems like PBA should at least be mentioned in the lead. As far as I know, no one has objected to disclosing the controversy about this term, or its origin, and the section on PBA does that.Ferrylodge 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned as a controversial USA-centric political term. I also don't appreciate your inserting "brain suction" into the list of synonyms despite only claiming to add "PBA" in your edit summary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.23.45.192 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that "brain suction abortion" does not belong in the lede, because it's obsolete. I've just put a reference in the text explaining it's obsolete. I am not the one who put "brain suction abortion" into this article in the first place. Edit summaries often don't contain every detail.Ferrylodge 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ban statement in lead incorrect?

the lead says, Intact dilation and extraction became illegal in the United States after the U.S Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.. i think this is not correct - the ban applies to abortions using this procedure, (as opposed to extracting a dead fetus using the procedure) and is not a blanket ban, having a exception for the mother's life. Doldrums 12:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Areas where IDX and PBA definitions do not overlap

The current section titled "partial birth abortion" has two paragraphs devoted to saying the term is synonymous and interchangeable with "intact dilation and extraction", then has a paragraph explaining that if the fetus is dead when the procedure is started, this is IDX but does not meet the definition of PBA, then at the very end of the section has a paragraph about state definitions of PBA that have been found to include D&E abortions.

It does not currently mention a third distinction between the terms, partial delivery of the fetus and then "disarticulate at the neck" . (This article includes quoted testimony from a doctor who discusses this option.) This is technically a D&E abortion, because the fetus is no longer intact. But because of the partial delivery before the fatal part of the procedure was performed, it does meet the definition of "partial birth abortion".

These two terms appear to be closely interrelated, and are frequently used interchangeably, but there are enough differences to make them two distinct terms. I would like to reorder/rewrite that section to address this at the beginning of the section. Does this sound reasonable? Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)