Talk:Abortion/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Guttmacher "facts" are factually wrong

The lede section of the article contains figures referenced to the Guttmacher Institute. The number of abortions in 2004, as counted by the Guttmacher, was 42,000,000. That is, in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade. This number is false on its face, and its not really clear why that organization would publish numbers like that. Perhaps in its quest to promote abortion, it thinks that using inflated numbers somehow supports its position.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the United States, we know that on average there are 850,000 abortions a year. That is 8.5 million a decade. That's one in 176 U.S. women per year. China is understood to be the worst offender, in spite of the low official numbers it releases, with perhaps twice the U.S. number, though we don't really know. There is a figure that says China destroys perhaps a million female children a year through sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

Even if China had 1.5 million abortions a year, the U.S. and China together would still only have 2.35 million abortions a year between them. Adding the second largest contributor, India, with 1.1 million abortions a year, makes the total for the big three only 3.45 million abortions a year. Assuming the rest of the world equals the big three in terms of abortions, and we have a number of 7 million a year. A far cry from Guttmacher's claimed 42+ million in 2004.

The Guttmacher Institute is a poor source of information, and in no way can it be considered a "reliable" source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is problematic because you are arguing against published scientists. Simply going to the Guttmacher Institute link shows that they also cite their sources. The source for the 42 million figure is "Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends", an article published in The Lancet (one of the most renown peer reviewed medical journals). If The Lancet isn't WP:RS, then by golly, we are in big trouble ;) The article doesn't seem to break down abortion by country, but it does by continent and region. They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe. If you have a chance, read through the Lancet article [1] or [2]. If we have any sources that respond or contradict this article, then we can present them as well, but unfortunately, we can't cite the suspicions of individual editors. We must always have sources (and in this case, the source clearly is reliable). We might want to consider directly citing the Lancet article instead of citing the Guttmacher webpage. But then we have to consider primary vs. secondary sourcing.... anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If guttmacher isn't a reliable source we are well and truly screwed - there isn't another research organization on the planet that is cited to their extent by advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate, with Guttmacher, I'm nor sure who is left.--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd (talk · contribs) suggests that China performs 1 to 1.5 million abortions per year, citing without elaboration a "figure" he's seen somewhere. The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China). That's a big discrepancy, and probably the root of the "problem" here. I'm going to go with the Lancet on this one. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andy wrote: "They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe." Asia had 29 million abortions? In one year? Anyone can see how ridiculous that number is. Further, this number was contradicted by MastCell, who does a little math (read:original but necessary common sense research):"The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China)" which means ~29 million Asia != ~8 million in China. India doesn't make up the difference. I think its time we pulled the Guttmacher figures, along with the Lancet figures it claims to be based on and ask them by mail to substantiate or else update their numbers, providing us with some statement about how they arrive at those figures. If that means some people have to reconsider what they call a "reliable source" so be it. I suggest removing the Guttmacher/Lancet references from the lede, as they are obviously false. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that; it's a poor editing practice to remove a completely reliably sourced, verifiable item because it conflicts with your untested assumptions. More power to you if you'd like to challenge the figures. Until Lancet issues a retraction or correction, though, the material is appropriately included here. MastCell ^Talk 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, if you can find a more reliable source with more accurate figures, go ahead - but you are not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We can and should at least comment in the article that those figures are problematic. It's the least we can do to prune Wikipedia of vandalism, even that kind which comes at us through "reliable" medical journals. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a great idea, as long as we can cite a reliable source stating the study's figures are problematic. If we don't have a source, then I'm not sure this discussion can continue. Wikipedia follows sources. If we personally disagree with a source, we are supposed to put our personal feelings aside, and not publish original research. Again, we must follow sources. That is one of the core tenets of wikipedia. So, is there a reliable source that disputes the Lancet article's figures? If not, can we move along?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Concur with MastCell. Zahd's evaluation of the sources seems based on Zahd's own estimations of abortion figures which in turn all seem to be based on the assumption that China has fewer than twice as many abortions per annum as the USA. Simply considering relative populations of these countries, that seems a very low estimate, and the influence of the religious right in the USA and the Chinese government's policies will surely raise this ratio significantly. There are also many countries in Asia other than China and India, and many countries worldwide where abortions are performed which Zahd does not account for.

The bottom line is that the Guttmacher and Lancet figures are close to the top of the scale as far as our reliable source guidelines are concerned, whereas Zahd's own figures, and any arguments based on them, are unpublished original research and per policy must not influence article content. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not an editor here convinced by your arguments I think.--Tznkai (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about that. I think everyone here knows those figures are destroyed, and that I've made a clear case for their destruction. Naturally we all want to attribute this to a source, and perhaps I'll just have to write an article somewhere to deal with it. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way - the apparent consensus of editors is that you are proposing changes that are specifically against Wikipedia policy, including the policy on reliable sources, policy on verifiability versus obvious truth, and our policy on novel research. These policies are in place to ensure that Wikipedia articles conform to a neutral point of view, that is an attempt to accurately represent the facts seen in the world, not our own interpretation or positions on those facts. We work hard to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a battleground for political or cultural battles. Please stop--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's hardcore. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guttmacher is a terrible source of information. It is the research branch of Planned Parenthood, and as such is highly subject to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.43.88 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

".. in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade." your logic is flawed here. you assume the female population is static, and that abortion is a one time only occurrence per entity. the female fertile population is dynamic however. let me try to explain this. lets say women are able to between their 15th and 35th. that is a timespan of 20 years. after a period of 10 years, half of the old population will be replaced with new entities. this means it is not possible to just take the number of abortions per year and multiply it and apply it to the population because not all entities present at that time have been part of it, and some entities that have been part of the population are no longer included in the set. Kasparkaspar (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancet or Guttmacher?

Research shows that the researchers who wrote the Lancet publication are almost all affiliated, and indeed even employed with the Guttmacher Institute.[3][4][5][6][7] This makes referring to the study a "Lancet" study incorrect, as it is in fact a Guttmacher study, and no doubt carries with it implicit assumptions associated with that "Institute." There is a conflict of interest in citing that source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've sufficiently demonstrated that the study is not in any way a scientific one. Furthermore the source is an entirely POV source, as it deals with the POV concept of "unsafe abortion rates" and states the information in the study "is crucial for identifying policy and programmatic needs aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion and to increase access to safe abortion." I.e. its referring to abortion as a means to correct an unintended pregnancy and it states clearly that increasing "access to safe abortion" is it's goal. Not a reliable source, and not an unbiased source. We would be better off quoting Conservapedia, or Uncyclopedia. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, consensus is against the changes you've proposed. Considering your history, and your unusual interpretation of terms such as "POV" and "conflict of interest" (which have very specific meanings to Wikipedians), I advise against making changes, to this or any other abortion-related article, without first getting support from other editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken or do I detect a certain bias in your views, and this is reflective in your comments above? Surely what your'e doing is defending a biased, unscientific source. -Zahd (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To my earlier advice regarding the policies of consensus, verifiability and no original research I must now add that our policy entitled "no personal attacks" applies to your post above - comment on content, not the contributor. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The Lancet is a reliable scientific source.--Tznkai (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Often, if bad studies do get published, science, by nature, has a corrective force. There will be counter studies and responses and letters and all sorts of things. If this article is really so bad that somehow it got by the peer reviewers and editors of one of the most prestigious and reliable medical journals, then surely we can simply point to the countless publishes, scientific responses to this bad study, right? So where are they? I encourage you to read WP:RS (and read it again if you have already read it before) and seriously consider, in terms of wikipedia policy, if there is any way that this source is anything but "reliable".-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think by inflating a number which appears to be under 7 million a year into a number of 42 million a year, the source is at the very least "demonstrably wrong" if not "entirely inaccurate." I will leave it to the experts to decide whether these have bearing on a source's "reliability." Note of course that both of you are failing to deal with the bias issue, to which I contend the Guttmacher Institute is a biased "source", and the study (quoted in red above) makes no pretense otherwise. Lancet's decision to publish the Guttmacher "study" is likely attributable to the Sokal effect. You would certainly object to using Priests for Life as a source; why the hypocrisy in defending Guttmacher? -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mate, what you're failing to address is the simple point that we only have your word for it that the number is under 7 million a year. You have no citations, no standard by which we can test your points, no methodology we can examine. The Lancet study can be examined, it has methodology we can evaluate, it is accountable to the wider scientific community, to its peers, and to public inquiry. If reputable scientific minds have both approved the Lancet study, and then presented no challenging evidence (which, to my knowledge, they have not as yet), then Wikipedia has a duty to take reputable studies into account when discussing the issue. Compare the following two statements: "The scientific publication "The Lancet" stated in a study found in (x issue) that the number of abortions performed worldwide over (x period) was 42 million." and, "Zahd, an editor on Wikipedia, states on the Wikipedia talk page for Abortion, that the number of abortions performed worldwide in a year must be under 7 million." This is not a slight on you personally, Zahd. But reputable sources are a must. How are we to know that your truth is backed by anything? On Wikipedia, any point which is likely to be challenged, or which has been challenged, must be attributed to a reliable source. YOU have challenged this point, ergo a reliable source is needed. The Lancet study is reliable. Your word is not. Presenting contrary studies is the only way to alter concensus or get your viewpoint included. Ex-Wikipedian Lurker, AKA: 24.222.254.156 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But you said "the Lancet study is reliable," which is simply not true. You can say it all you want to though. I really don't mind. Again, you've not addressed the bias issue. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're obligated to point out where someone's accused The Lancet of bias. Remember to use a reliable source which makes a valid assessment of The Lancet as NOT being neutral or peer reviewed. The Lancet's study is based on proven, transparent methodology. You can't question the numbers unless you can point to someone having questioned it who is in another reliable source. Otherwise your remarks are rooted in original research and thus invalid for admission to wikipedia. The Lancet study is definitionally a reliable source as per WP:RS. If you doubt this, there are noticeboards where you can challenge or test reliability in the assessment of the community. But since the concensus on this page is in favor of the Lancet article, it goes in. That's the nature of concensus. This is a collaborative project, standards for admissibility have been admitted. I have addressed the bias issue: I state that the article is not biased and the source is reliable. As my evidence, I submit the nature and tradition of peer reviewed articles and publications, the criticism and peer pressure of the community, and, point plank, the traceable methodology sourced from the study itself. If you have contrary evidence stated in a reliable source, cool! We can change the article to mention the study and then state that the study has been questioned by "x source". But YOU cannot be x source. Again, no grudge, but accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a rather poor discussion method. I know what I am talking about, I have seen no sources from you. I've seen claims, but no sources. Provide sources, and your opinion will have an impact on the article. Without sources, all you're doing is drawing out a discussion which will never swing around to your point of view as long as it remains sans sources. 24.222.254.156 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Not all biased groups are created equal, priest for life are not a research organization for example, nor are they widely respected by independent observers and both sides of the fight as a repuable source of information, and the burden on you is to prove that the Lancet study is not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, i think you're misunderstanding what is meant by reliable. read WP:RS and then come back. the lancet and other peer-review journals clearly meets the requirements. when you have a source with a publishing process that is similarly reliable that supports your claims, then we should start talking about whether the report published by the lancet is erroneous or not. until then, we're all wasting our time.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, reliable sources... [8]-Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:RS. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have two bits of data that contradict one another it is worth checking that we have correctly sourced and understood both, I did something similar recently on Malawi, and there it emerged that radically different percentages for tobacco exports related to different years. In this case I suspect that Zahd simply missed 11 million in his calculations . If the US with circa 5% of the world's population has 850,000 abortions a year, then if the other 95% of humanity was like the US with similar demographics, availability of contraception, abortion law and attitude to abortion one would expect 17 million abortions per annum worldwide - rather more than double Zahd's 7m but still less than half the Lancet figure. Of course the rest of the world is not quite like the US - in many countries contraception is less freely available than in the US so one would expect "backstreet abortions" to be more frequent, and Zahd says in China there are also a million female embryos aborted simply because of their gender, (though he seems not to have calculated this as an additional million) so we shouldn't be surprised if global abortion rates per million people are more than double the US rate. In all I find Zahd's bit of original research, once the obvious errors are corrected, a useful reality check on the Lancet figure of 42 million abortions per annum. Of course Zahd or anyone else is free to write to the Lancet as an individual and query if what they wrote was a typo, but I for one do not consider that the US abortion data and the Lancet's worldwide figure are so different as to be incompatible. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, you are not a reliable source. I promise you, its nothing personal.--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second-guessing a notable and highly reliable source is pretty much the definition of original research. Spotfixer (talk)03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am hostile to lies, fabrications, erroneous concepts, and bogus statistics. -Zahd (talk" 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough, soapboxing and personal attacks removed. Zahd: go get a reliable source and prove your contention.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"We can infer that China, with three times the U.S. population, might have three times the number of U.S. abortions." source

No, we cannot infer that at all since China has a One-child policy enacted making abortion mandatory and readily available. The U.S. does not, indeed some segments of the U.S. have large families and even larger segments oppose abortion so much they have significantly reduced the number of abortion clinics in their respective states.

Explain why those well known realities are not included in your analysis. As I want you to somehow clarify how you are not trolling, and how you should not be barred from this issue entirely until you can improve your arguments and/or behavior. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahn; we have to cite sources in wikipedia, simple as that. That does not however mean that what it says in the article is not a bit presumptive. It is obvious that we have a limited ability to monitor abortions in many poor or undemocratic countries. WHO has cited it as approximately 50 million in 2001 and an estimated 40 - 50 million in 2003 (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/safe_abortion/safe_abortion.pdfan" other sources have it as low as 20 million or as high as 88 million as far as i can see. None of these estimations are as hihly regarded as the lancet however. My point is that a number as exact as 42 million or 46 million should be regarded as estimations not approximations(it is also called so in the lancet article). This may be a small difference but still... Lets change it to "an estimated number" in stead of "the approximate number".Nightwanderers (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Demon "doctors" performing abortions.

With all due respect to Tznkai, I just don't see how an imaginary being pounding on a woman's belly is a suitable example of an abortion. Where I come from, demons aren't licensed to practice medicine. In fact, not only don't they exist, but whatever acts they commit in fiction do not quality as medical procedures, which is what this article is supposed to be about. For that matter, there is the issue of bias, in that the entity depicted as performing an abortion is, quite literally, being demonized. In a country where gynecologists have been murdered by 'pro-life' fanatics, this strikes a sour note.

For these reasons, I think we need to remove this picture, perhaps replacing it with something appropriate, like a picture of one of the herbs or poisons once used to induce abortion. What do you think? Spotfixer (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Using a picture of a demon is mischaracterising of the professional and benevolent nature of the abortionist and his or her profession. We should instead use a picture of an angel with a labcoat and a stethoscope around their neck. The instruments signify their respectability, and the angel wings illustrate their Holy purpose. Instead of crudely pounding on the woman's belly and killing an unborn child, they would be using the power of the Holy Spirt to carefully and surgically remove from her body any excess tissue she might want to be rid of. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, out of line.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, its not out of line, it's exact. Through sarcasm I made you understand quite clearly that the image in question is appropriate and perhaps even an accurate likeness. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Spotfixer: One of the pressing known issues with abortion is its, to be gruesome, back alley nature at times. Abortion is, to put it mildly, unpopular in many places and carries significant stigma, add issues such as poverty, minorities, and youth, you get a lot of abortions performed outside of medical conditions. While in some people's ideal world (safe, rare and legal) abortion is only performed by medical professionals for medical reasons, we know thats not how it works - the other methods section tries to reflect this fact without being judgmental. As to the rest, I think you're reading into it a bit too much - although the picture is probably better suited to the history section.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the point. The point Spot is making is that it's demonizing a profession full of charity, nobility, and grace, and not to mention human mutilation. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the drawing showed a midwife or other semi-medical professional banging on some desperate woman's belly with a hammer, I'd say keep it. The problem is that it's an actual demon. I'm not even sure whether this is intended to depict an intentional termination or is a metaphor for a natural miscarriage (based on the "demon theory of disease and disaster"). In short, it doesn't depict anything like a real abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the history of abortion page, the bas-relief is the earliest known visual representation of abortion: the place where we see abortion broaching the public consciousness. (Hopefully that didn't sound too post-modern) Anyway, keep it, history of abortion section, we'll have to move the existing image there somewhere else. IMO anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Abortion was not always the sterile and noble practice that some consider it to be today. In fact the image might be the last remnant of anything kind of contrary or negative concept of abortion in the article. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, I guess "death" doesn't do it for you anymore. Should we just remove it? - RoyBoy 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the image. There is entirely too much censorship going on at this article. According to the FAQ, no image is allowed at this article showing what is aborted, either after it is aborted, or even before it is aborted. I continue to view that as a preposterous outcome at Wikipedia, particularly since Wikipedia now features a sexually suggestive image of a ten-year-old girl with full frontal nudity.[9] This is supposed to be an informative article, not a sanitized propaganda piece. It really is an embarassment.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

((editsemiprotected))

((editsemiprotected))Under 7.3 Mexico City Policy the first sentence is a double negative that is incorrect. "The Mexico City policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" forbids any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries" and should read: The Mexico City Policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" requires any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. (Mabic (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

looks like this has been done.--Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Editors interested in this article may want to look at Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Human right or Particular human right?

I noticed a little back and forth in this page's history as to whether Abortion merits the template Human rights or template Particular human rights and I figured I'd bring it to the talk page. I figure the template Particular human rights is more appropriate as abortion is specifically mentioned there and the designation of abortion as a human right is controversial. What do you folks think? - Schrandit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no objection I'll move it back to Particular human rights template. - Schrandit (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa. I'm coming late to the party, but could you explain all of that please?--Tznkai (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As of this dif by a rather controversial editor the template Particular human rights was replaced with the template Human rights. Whether or not abortion is a human right is a highly controversial subject, as such I figure the first template is better suited to it. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of that template, and this article doesn't address properly whether or not abortion is a right... so I'll abstain on this.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, an entirely uncontroversial editor made an uncontroversial change. The human rights template already lists reproductive rights, the primary example of which is... abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reproductive rights is a much broader topic than abortion and there are reproductive rights that are currently nearly universally accepted (such as freedom from coerced sterilization), which is why it is appropriate for reproductive rights to appear on the Human rights template. However, using the Human rights template on this article is POV. In addition to that, both reproductive rights and abortion appear on the Particular human rights template, making that template more relevant regardless of the POV concerns with the other. -Neitherday (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The designation of abortion as a human right is highly contentious, see Reproductive rights#Abortion. The template Particular human rights is far more appropriate. - Schrandit (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've explained that reproductive rights is already listed as a human right in that template and abortion is already listed as a reproductive right, so your WP:OR is irrelevant. You would need an actual argument, not hand-waving about controversy. Spotfixer (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Along with also including reproductive rights, abortion is specifically included on the particular human rights template. Plus, adding the particular human rights template to this article is NPOV.

As reproductive rights is also on the particular human rights template, I don't see any advantage to the human rights template in this article. What advantage do you see in adding the human rights template over the particular human rights template? -Neitherday (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm going to break the nesting here, because it's getting too narrow.)

It's not the level of detail, it's the title. Template:Particular human rights covers the same trio of broad categories as Template:Human rights, but in addition to enumerating these rights, it replaces the short, simple "Human rights" title with the weaselly "Concepts that may be considered as human rights".

Frankly, I find the weaselly-titled template deeply offensive, as it implies that a fundamental rights like freedom from discrimination is merely something that "may be considered" to be a human right. Obviously, there is some disagreement among people regarding what ought to be considered a human right, but this is best handled in the context of each specific article, not with weasel words for the entire bunch.

The WP:BOLD thing to do would be to simultaneously remove the weaselling and roll this article back to the specific template. Since I've only been blocked twice in the last week, I've still got plenty of courage to be bold, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your solution. Looking at Template talk:Particular human rights, it seems more in line with the original intent of the template. Thank you for making the change. -Neitherday (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{particular human rights}} was the result of splitting the human rights template (which had become quite large). Since the template includes abortion, abortion should continue to transclude the template. (Or use the human rights template with the argument that makes it include the particular template.)

The title of the template was carried over from the section title in the human rights template. (The title seemed too long to use as the template name, so I came up with the shorter, though not altogether satisfactory name). (For response on the template title, see template talk page).

Please consider discussing matters like template title on talk page of the template, or at least providing an indicator there of discussion going on elsewhere. (So editors of the template know where to find all the discussion.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Since the title of the template was changed back to the offensive one, I just removed it from this article entirely. Spotfixer (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Need eyes

We could use some more eyes on an abortion-related article, Hyde Amendment. Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History of abortion

History of abortion could use some attention. Spotfixer (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Newer "Abortion Surveillance" Report

There is a newer Abortion Surveillance report than the 2003 one this article currently uses.

Unsafe abortion

Currently, the lead of the "Unsafe abortion" sub-topic is "Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies sometimes resort to unsafe methods, particularly where and when access to legal abortion is being barred" - this seems like common sense, but I think it requires a source to keep it from appearing NPOV (in the sense that it might be considered advocation of the legalization of abortion). The same deficiency exists on the main page for this topic, BTW. Kerri Lynne (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. How's this one http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml ? Hadrian89 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the citation, but it's hardly our fault if basic logic leads to apparent support of one side or another. Spotfixer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a controversial topic like this there's no harm in erring on the side of caution. Hadrian89 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go to the medical literature, there are the following:

• PMID 18249585 ("The determinants of unsafe abortion include restrictive abortion legislation, lack of female empowerment, poor social support, inadequate contraceptive services and poor health-service infrastructure.", emphasis mine).
• PMID 17933648 ("Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively.")
• PMID 17126724 ("Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by law and countries where, although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible... Unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.")

Among many other such sources... MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Human life

My points ARE about improving the article, yet people who feel strongly pro-choice keep editing it out. Ironically, they do that though I'm pro-choice myself. It seems some people just don't want to face an unpleasant inconvenient fact.

Please TRY to be intellectually honest.

Nor is this edit warring. I keep ASKING for solutions to improving the article. Just deleting my comments, might make some people here feel happy, but it doesn' solve the problem with the article.

Try to actually offer solutions to the problem with the article.

A major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such.

I don't have all the answers.

But the article does not deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. The idea that it begins at birth is magical thinking from a time when we didn't have the scientific knowledge to know better. It is also, at times, a legal fiction.

Whether the unborn child is human _IS_ part of the debate that goes on, whether you agree that it is human or not, and leaving that out IS a problem with the article. It _IS_ a significant ommission. DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this is about, but I'm sorry that you feel agitated over whatever this is. It does not appear that you have ever edited this article, and you haven't been on Wikipedia in over a month. Perhaps you should simply start fresh, either a) making a bold change to the article to try to improve it and/or b) starting a new topic here discussing specific issues you have with the article, and then making a proposal on how you would specifically change and improve the article. Without specific things to discuss, I cannot help you any further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on the "beginning of life" might be worth while - somewhere. It can discuss conflicting ideas such as "viability" (Roe V. Wade), ensoulment, and quickening in brief and human being/human life/personhood. Any other terms I'm missing?--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 30 January

2009 (UTC)

The latest addition isn't sourced and is too conversational. Try to avoid editorial comments like "it is indisputable that..." Its important we don't draw any conclusions when we write or provide in depth analysis (determining that modern science has changed the humanity question is analysis)--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that rather than IMPROVE my addition, someone has just deleted it. I'm sure it would be easy to provide a source for the information about umbilical cords --- if that is REALLY necessary --- and the same with modern science's findings (which are facts, not analysis). Whether any of us like it or not, THIS IS PART OF THE ABORTION DEBATE, so it DOES belong here. Maybe it SHOULD be somewhere else too, but it DOES belong here. I have TRIED to be fair to both sides (all the sides) in how I have worded it, but WELCOME improvements on either side --- i.e. that the fetus is part of the woman's body, and that the fetus is human. Just try to keep BOTH sides fairly represented, as in a highly charged issue like this, that is probably the closest to neutral that we can come. DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

as I mentioned in the edit summary, your addition is unsourced original research, and doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. I looked over it from some time, and I couldn't figure out a way to get past all those problems and keep a significant part of the original text. Your addition is too much like a introductory college level ethics paper: its got good ideas, many of which I am sympathetic to, but the approach is not encyclopedic. See my comment above as well.--Tznkai (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your contributions reverted can seem discouraging. But please don't let it get to you personally. You should take it as encouragement to go out and make your edits that much better. Please keep in mind some basic wikipedia policies. ALL content must be verifiable. We do that though citing sources which are reliable. Also, we cannot publish original thought, but instead simply summarize our cited sources. We must also remain neutral. Your edit was full of generalizations and WP:weasel words. I agree with Tznkai that the tone seemed more like an introduction to an essay, than part of an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you could find some sources and post them here on the talk page and we can help work on a section together? I'd like to encourage you to keep working on this, and not be discouraged, but instead read up on basic policies and see if you can't do even better! Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A better way of saying what I was saying indeed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what you might consider weasel words are an attempt to be balanced, and to say things with respect to both sides of the debate. You talk about neutrality, even though this isn't at all a neutral subject. That can remain a Wikipedia policy forever, but it still won't make this a neutral subject. All I'm calling for, in order to make the article more complete, is HONESTY and RESPECT. I don't give much credence to complaints about a lack of verifiability. Nor is what I said original thought. If anyone really doubts what I said about the umbilical cord, by all means provide a cite. I INVITED people to add cites. Isn't this supposed to be a colloborative effort?

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abortion is a very controversial issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabemeier123 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

I'm sure this has been argued several times, but it is possible that we could include pictures of aborted fetuses or abortion activities in general?

I'm sure many might see this as POV pushing, but the article is about abortions - why dance around it. A picture(s) could prove to be very valuable, as I believe most people truly don't understand the typical phases of an abortion.

Or, if we aren't going to include pictures, why not an illustration?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was working on File:Vacuum-aspiration-temp.gif, but the main advocate for "images of abortion" didn't seem to really care about something like that, but instead just wanted gory/offensive images for the sake of being gory/offensive, so exhausted of arguing and trying to do something productive, I simply gave up and never finished the diagram.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, User:Andrew c. It's clear and professional. Have you thought of creating an image representing the other methods? -- Ec5618 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, and avoids any appearance or substance of POV pushing.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The one complaint I had back then was that the transparency of the sac was obscuring the embryo underneath on some people's monitors. If I was to finish this, I said I would make the embryo more visible. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'll see if I can't pull the original file up and work some more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not going to argue with Andrew c here about this, so I'll just refer to him in the third person. On average, an abortion occurs about two months after fertilization. At that point, the fetus has every major organ, including head, eyes, legs, arms, et cetera. The image that Andrew c is preparing is wonderful, but it shows none of those organs. It shows a blob. So, please do include the image that Andrew c is preparing, but don't imagine that it gives the reader the slightest idea of what it is that is being aborted. I wish that realistic images of what is aborted were not gory/offensive, just like I wish that realistic pictures of lots of horrible things were not offensive. I wish that pictures of piles of skulls in the Cambodian killing fields were not offensive.[10] I wish that sexually suggestive images of nude ten-year-old girls were not offensive.[11] It is not my fault that they are offensive.

Additionally, there is nothing offensive about an image of an average abortus before it is aborted. Andrew c once suggested this mocking image. It would be a far cry better than what we have now, and also better than what Andrew c now proposes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured article topics such as this are often painted POV pushing when in fact it's political correct pushing. =D If we can host extremely graphic pictures, I don't see why we can't include relevant abortion-related photos. Maybe some people just don't understand the realities of abortion. Understand, I'm not trying to convey an opinion, but rather provide a crucial quality that could VASTLY improve the integrity and educational value of the article.

White-washing for sake of "neutrality" doesn't make sense. I just don't want this to get shelved like every other controversial idea...Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't get your hopes up. It's been shelved many times before. Wikipedia is packed full of offensive images, but this article has always been an exception. See Hemmorhoid, breast reconstruction, breast cancer, prosthetics, feces, decapitated heads, to name a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. OK. Lets try this again. If we use graphic images, we're taking a position - either by substance, or by appearance. If all of the images available are horrifying, then we have trouble - but that doesn't mean we have to use the images, nor that we are being politically correct by doing so.

The fundamental issue is that this article must inform without convincing. If I show graphic images when discussing abortion, I both appear to be, and probably am, trying to convince you of a position. Not only is this against policy, it immediately turns off the reader. These articles are written as a service - not as a platform for advocacy, nor as a place to fight wars over political correctness or the lack thereof, and before anyone makes the argument that we host graphic images of, I dunno, mass killings, and therefor we should be able to show it here - think about whether that sounds like a neutral argument.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is indisputably factual and accurate information that is used by one side in a political dispute, then excluding it from Wikipedia merely because it is used by one side is wrong and biased. Additionally, there is nothing horrifying about an image of an abortus before it is aborted. Incidentally, Wikipedia is not censored.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It still devolves down to advocacy - either in substance or in appearance.--Tznkai (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing does the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, this article is "abortion" not "aborted fetuses". Second of all, do we have a freely licensed image to consider. We can say "let's put some gory pictures of dead babies all over this page" until our faces turn red. But if we don't have something that is FREE, then we have no use arguing over this. Please, in the future, discuss SPECIFIC IMAGES. Due to our strict image use policy, arguing hypotheticals is simply wasting time. I hope this brings focus to these discussions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the FAQ for this article, no images of what is aborted are allowed at this article, either before or after the abortion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to obtain quality free images as long as that policy stays. Why would I want to waste my time if there's not just a prejudice but a prohibition against whatever I obtain?

The average stage of development of an abortus is between 6 and 8 weeks of development, with a large percentage of abortions occurring before that range, and a large percentage occurring after that range.

• 
  Embryo at 4 weeks after fertilization, younger than average for an abortion
• 
  Fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization, older than average for an abortion

Are there still objections to inclusion of these images in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just read the FAQ. What a load of crap. "OH NOES!, IT'S SHOCKING!! WE MIGHT...UHH...OFFEND SOMEONE!! CEEENSSOOORRRR!!!"

I couldn't care less whether you are for or against, but this article is about ABORTIONS. We are obligated to include illustrated or real-life pictures to ensure balance and not make this yet another controversial articled reduced to PC in the name of neutrality. If we can include pictures of mass graves, dead bodies, concentration camps, bloody Gaza children, all of which are often interpreted as "shocking" (the exact excuse give in the fact) and therefor advocating a POV, then this article should receive the same treatment. Section 5 contains a picture of a stoned tablet depicting a demon inducing an abortion. Why is that allowed but everything else isn't?

This is the FIRST hit for abortion on google, meaning wikipedia will be the first place people will go when they search. I cannot begin to emphasize how important this is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I object to the inclusion, and also to the tone. Please remain civil, polite, and respectful - I have been doing that for you, I would appreciate it if you did the same. It remains my position that any photograph expected to create a knee-jerk reaction should not be used as it damages the encyclopedic nature of the article. I maintain that position about abortion procedures, just as I would maintain that position if someone wanted to put up pictures depicting a rape. We're not here for that.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, would you please clarify what you're objecting to? Are you objecting to the two drawings pasted above?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to those images, yes - not because they are graphic (they are not) but because they are tenuously related. I could find the average age of a woman/girl/what have you having an abortion performed and post a picture, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Unfortunately, this article lost its best graphics team a while back.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This article already discusses the incidence of abortion by gestational age, and additionally already contains some discussion about the age of women who get abortions (e.g. "This risk of spontaneous abortion is greater in those ... over age 35"). Might I kindly suggest to you that it would be unwise to include an image of a 35-year-old woman here because everyone knows what a 35-year-old woman looks like? In contrast, many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. Do you see no relevance or importance in showing readers what is being aborted? And were you objecting to my tone? If you are really saying that we should include this image portraying what is aborted as a blob, but should deliberately omit images which show otherwise, then I must conclude that something has gone seriously awry here at this article, yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A wikilink to Embryo or fetus usually handles that sort of thing nicely. I believe gestation stages are also in the pregnancy article.--Tznkai (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I asked above, Tznkai, were you objecting to my tone or not? If so, maybe my tone is something that I should be working on.

Regarding your idea of wikilinking various different articles, those articles say nothing about what stage of development the average abortion occurs at, and of course therefore do not illustrate those facts. Moreover, this is a summary article, and therefore including some information from other articles is not only acceptable but necessary. I see that you are all well on your way to including the blob image, and excluding any realistic image of what is aborted, so I don't expect that what I say will make any difference. However, I sincerely believe that that is the path of censorship, and the path of misleading readers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ferry, it's no use. Wikipedia is not a democracy. : ) Anything that is remotely controversial and is prone to bandwagon is almost always reduced to POV-pushing. It always has, it always will. I know a few admins but even in the event that a picture is agreed upon, it will start a revert nightmare. We might as well trash the article all together if something so simple can't be implemented. Oh yeah, and sorry about my tone. I know the real-world can be quite "shocking." LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last time there was anything remotely funny about abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Wikifan12345 for bringing up the subject of images again. And I certainly don't think his slight jest was anywhere near as inappropriate as other humor I've seen at this talk page. And, please, let's not forget what it is about abortion that makes it not remotely funny: the reality of what is aborted (i.e. the reality that thus far has not been shown at this article).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this bothers way too much. I think if we are going to start with the picture process, the FAQ needs to be discussed. According to the author of the FAQ, pictures that detail an in-tact fetus, aborted fetus, illustrations of a fetus or an abortion, are either shock images or POV pushing. I don't get the reasoning behind this. How does a picture of an aborted fetus, or perhaps an illustration of the abortion process (or frick, the tools used), constitute a violation of NPOV?

It's just so arbitrary compared to other controversial articles that seem to have no issue including arrays of disgusting pictorials. So, if we solve the FAQ sheet, and come to a reasonable compromise over a picture, then this could get done.

It's sad to see an article with so much popularity and potential to be in a lockless prison. This can be solved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic of certain types of images have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include those images then. That is all. Consensus can change. However, due to the VERY IMPORTANT issue of licensing, I suggest we work with specific images, instead of going around in circles about the types of images we may or may not allow. If you have a specific, freely licensed image in mind that you think would make this article even more encyclopedic, then please make your proposal, and hopefully the editors can discuss it on it's individual merits, not on some general vague notion regarding certain types of images. I really think this discuss needs focus, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will bring some focus, Andrew c: do you support or not support the flat prohibition on images in the FAQ? Simple question. Here's another: do you support or oppose inclusion of the images I presented above? Simple question.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for singling me out. 1. I support the FAQ as it is summarizing past discussions/consensus. I do not believe it is simply a "flat prohibition on images", so it's hard to answer a loaded question like that. 2. No I do not believe it would be appropriate to include either of those images from 3Dpregnacy.com. Hope this answers your questions!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does, Andrew c, and your answers are exactly as I would expect. Thanks so much!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous two pictures of embryos aren't sufficiently relevant. If a reader wants to see the images, they are easily accessible, a single click away.--Tznkai (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the two images was not an embryo, and is not available in the article on embryo. If a reader does manage to track down images of embryos and fetuses at Wikipedia, how is the reader then to determine which images are close to depicting what is aborted in an average abortion? I don't intend to mince words here. You are behaving like a censor and a propagandist. Feel free to criticize my tone all you want, but it's the truth. You allow images in this article of women, but not a single image showing what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. Instead, you favor inclusion of a blob image, that will be misleading to readers. I strongly disagree with your approach to this article, and wish you would reconsider. The exclusionary mentality at this article is unlike any other at Wikipedia, AFAIK. Except perhaps the fetus article, which does not even include accurate picture captions, as you must know very well.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We are only going to be showing what happens to an aborted baby. That is not NPOV in my opinion. It is not pretty what happens to the baby, so why should we try to hide it. And before anyone asks, yes, I am pro-life. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an aborted baby. Please try to adhere to NPOV, even when discussing this topic. -- Ec5618 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ec5618, THAT is a pretty good example of edit warring or going POV.

To deny that it is a baby is itself POV. NPOV is an admirable goal, but by objecting to her using 'aborted baby', you ARE yourself going POV. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, DeniseMToronto, it isn't. Accuracy isn't inherently POV. -- Ec5618 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy can certainly reflect POV even if it is accurate. I can, for example, say that when Martin Luther King Jr was killed, a preacher was killed. I can say he was assasinated. I can say someone who touched a lot of people, who many considered to have said important things, who had considerable influence, was assasinated. Each is an accurate statement, and each would seem also to express a slightly different POV.

And as you are I'm sure aware, as you seem well informed, whether it is a fetus alone or also a baby is very much one of the issues in contention. So it is POV. The notion that humanity comes at birth is certainly a widely held belief, and frequently incorporated in laws, but it is still a matter of great debate, and there is no widespread agreement as to even what humanity consists of, never mind when it exists. Heck, if I look only at the science, I could argue arteries to and from the umblical cord don't disappear or close up until DAYS after birth... does that make it still in some sense really a fetus rather than a baby? ... No, as you know, this isn't as simple and straightforward as you suggest.

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, alright we're getting no where. I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise, and I think its unlikely I will be convinced otherwise. If we do so, we open the door for escalating pictures of aborted ZEFs (Zygote/embryo/fetus) side by side with images of coathanger abortions with the arguments fundamentally similar on both sides. That having been said, no one knows what D&X, vacuum aspiration etc. is, and some sort of visual would help. Where can we find compromise there?--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Double sighs. You said, "I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise....Where can we find compromise there?" Perhaps it would help if you would explain what you mean by "graphic images." Does that mean you're uncompromisingly opposed to any image in this article that accurately shows readers what is aborted in an average abortion, including both drawings and photos, and including both before-images and after-images? Does it make a difference to you whether a photo shows flesh and blood, as opposed to merely a skull or skeleton?

Although perhaps not the best analogy, I'd like to point out that the article on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster has an image of the astronauts taken long before the accident. That image does not show them being blown up and ripped to pieces, but rather informs the reader of what they looked like beforehand. Hundreds of Wikipedia articles are the same way. But not this one.

Another key to finding compromise might also be to not talk past each other, but rather to try being as responsive as possible. For example, you could explain to Miagirljmw why graphic images are forbidden at this article but permitted at virtually every other Wikipedia article; has a slippery slope argument like the one you gave above been employed successfully at any other Wikipedia article? Or, you could explain to me how a reader would be able to navigate to other Wikipedia articles to find out what a fetus or embryo looks like at the gestation of an average abortion, when those other Wikipedia articles do not say anything about abortion, either in the image captions or in the text (much less say anything about whether each image is before or after the average abortion gestation). I'd also be interested to know why you do not think WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.

Another possible solution would be to include an "inset" or two in Andrew c's image, showing what is actually inside the blob shape that is supposed to represent the fetus. An average abortion occurs at 7.5 weeks after fertilization, so I think it would be appropriate to have the inset be one of our images of an 8-week fetus, either a drawing or a photo. Or we could have two insets, one before the average abortion gestation, and one after.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Showing a ZEF is an emotional appeal and isn't otherwise relevant the article. Your very reasoning shows that it comes from an emotional pro-life knee jerk reaction to something being "torn apart." That is not an argument I am interested in having over a Wikipedia page. Find me a neutral reference source in the world that does that sort of thing.--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Your position appears to be that we can show the tools, we can show the intrauterine environment, we can show the pregnant woman, and the protestors, and every imaginable thing associated with an abortion. But not what is aborted. Your position is POV in the extreme. You're asking for a neutral reference source that both mentions abortion and also shows an image of a fetus? You must be joking. There are millions of them.[12][13]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Tools are relevant, although it creates very little information on its own. Pregnant women can also be used as an emotional appeal, and also of tangential relevance at best. Protesters are relevant elsewhere (coverage of abortion debate and its incontrovertibly major impact on politics). I listed several image types that cannot be used because of their non-neutral nature as well. Time is a news magazine, and you might read the little line in the lower right about how pregnancy crisis centers don't play fair (since they use emotional appeals such as images, ultra sounds, although they do it deceptively). The second piece illustrates a specific point, that imaging techniques are effecting the debate - which is a valid insertion somewhere else under the Abortion debate subheader, chor maybe articles on pregnancy counseling, legit and quasi-legit (if you can find that sort of image freely licensed) --Tznkai (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking me to find another Wikipedia article titled "Abortion" that includes images of what is aborted, then I confess: I cannot. However, if you seriously think that I cannot find a thousand more such images that accompany abortion articles in reliable sources, then you are mistaken.[14][15] I look forward to seeing you at the article about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, deleting the photo of the astronauts as "irrelevant." Or maybe you'll be at the Tonsillectomy article stamping out, censoring and suppressing all of those knee-jerk images of the tonsils? I agree with you about one thing: "we're getting no where."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a bad analogy, and I didn't ask if reliable sources, I meant references sources, encyclopedias and the like, which serve a similar purpose and mission as Wikipedia. The first source doesn't show me the context, but I'd wager significant cash that its either a news feature, opinion or a partisan advert. The second source is from one of the world's most notorious tabloids unless I've badly misunderstood British standards for journalism.--Tznkai (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's not the slightest hint that the "Abortion Graphic" from the Independent is anything other than an abortion graphic.[16] And the Sun has the highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world. So, now you're restricting me to "encyclopedias and the like". Interesting. How's about I go into this article right now and delete all of the references that don't fit that description. Would you find that disruptive?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I asked you was to find a Wikipedia like reference source that uses images the same way you wish to, and the piece you linked is a feature (at least, that is how I would term it) about a legal battle on abortion and the arguments involved about how developed an embryo/fetus is. Again, those articles are good places for pictures of fetuses and embryos. This one is not, because it is not sufficiently relevant or encyclopedic.--Tznkai (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You have given me a very time-consuming and narrow assignment. There are many such images available for various types of fetal surgeries. Limiting it to abortion and to encylopedic-type sources makes the search much more difficult. I dare say that your narrow criteria would rule out much Wikipedia content, in this article as well as many others (e.g. see here). Off the top of my head, here are two sources that do a much better job than this present Wikipedia article currently does: [17][18] IMHO, the ban on such images at Wikipedia is beyond absurd, and the worst kind of political censorship. Given time, I could find lots more and lots better examples for you. But I do not have the time right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hay, "Ec5618", don't tell me about WP rules when you don't even have a link to your user page where I can contact you about it. Now, down to business. If it makes anyone feel better I will use "fetus" from now on. I do believe in the fact there is no censorship on WP. If anyone is worried that this might affect a woman going to have an abortion, it won't. She will do what she wants no matter what she sees. Why should we not provide all the info on abortion that we can to all people. The good and the bad. The pictures is the bad part. But the good parts of abortion are the fact that the woman gets rid of something she does not want. And I think, as a pro-lifer, I am being pretty neutral. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Miagirljmw14. Firstly, m:don't be a dick. Secondly, I didn't ask you to use feel-good words, I asked you to use correct words. There is an obvious difference there. Thirdly, using emotionally charged (and incorrect) words to make a point does not make you neutral. -- Ec5618 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what educational or informative value images have. Many people know of such images, whether they've seen them personally or not. The images don't seem to educate or inform anyone. I question whether they are POV. It is quite possible to look at them and ignore their resemblance to living creatures --- and many people do look at them and do manage to ignore that. Or at least not see it. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I suggest the "blob" image should be taken out. The person who prepared it meant well, I'm sure, but a "blob" is probably misleading, being largely unrepresentative. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "blob" for people who weren't here when the proposal was first made... Underneath the amniotic sac is an embryo from my File:Fetus proposal.svg series. I made the "sac" transparent, but not transparent enough for people with cheap or poorly adjusted monitors (sorry). I said even back then that in the final revision I would make the sac less transparent to account for that (so I have no idea why people who were there the first time around are still complaining about that). That said, my source imagery and the World Health Organization, for example, all have "blobs" or worse in their diagrams. Keep in mind my sources are gynecological textbooks. Hope this helps clear up some old topics.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I do vaguely recall your images of a fetus (File:Fetus proposal.svg) but I do not recall what people said about them. Perhaps you have a link to the talk page archives?

In this present talk page thread, you suggested inserting this image into this article. I may have a cheap or poorly adjusted monitor, so I don't see any fetus. Would it be possible for you to upgrade the image for people like me, so that we can see the fetus?

Your images of a fetus would violate the FAQ for this article, which says: "No illustration of intact fetus; more appropriate to articles on pregnancy" and also says "normal fetus images violate neutral point of view policy." Shall we modify the FAQ, or just disregard it?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion is at Talk:Abortion/Archive 29#Not another image discussion. There is no such thing as a FAQ violation as FAQs are simply summaries of past discussions, not binding policies or anything (although they can represent past consensus, though, needless to say, consensus CAN change). The past discussions the FAQ link to were in regards to fetal images taken outside of the context of abortion, and therefore I don't believe the quoted text even applies to my diagram. Furthermore, not a single person has raised concerns regarding the idea of a more clearly depicted embryo in the diagram. If I am wrong, then someone please speak up about the diagram before I spend more time working on it. However, because of mixed comments and no clear universal support, I must apologize that I have been reluctant to donate any more of my time in completing the image if it is simply going to be blocked (which is why you need to use your imagination in regards to the amniotic sac transparency issue ;).-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can sympathize with that. No one wants you to donate time working on an image that will be blocked. I think the best (and quickest) solution would be just to do an inset. For those who aren't aware, an inset is "a small graphic representation (as a map or picture) set within a larger one." That way, you could simply copy and paste one (or two) of Wikimedia's current images into the inset. And it would allow far more detail than in your image here. No offense, but we've got some very professional images at Wikimedia Commons.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What I would really like to find is a photo like the one that they have on the "in the womb" documentary's on national geographic channel. Does anyone think we can pull off fair use??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the documentary. Is it a documentary about abortion? (if it isn't I'm not sure a non-free image from that documentary would be relevant on this article) We have a fairly strict fair-use policy (see WP:FUC). Criteria 1 and 8 seems most applicable here. Would it be possible for a wikipedian (say who is a doctor or nurse) to produce a free equivalent? Or could a user-created illustration or photo serve the exact same purpose of the copyrighted photo? There may be a case, but since I am not familiar with the imagery in question, I can't say either way.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about abortion, so we should have either a picture of te result, or a picture of the procedure from the outside, prefarable. For the latter, that graphic posted at the begining is great, but for the latter I don't know.--Patton^t/c 16:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the documentary is not about abortion. But I am sure that a doctor (along with a person that has great computer skills) could be able to reproduce the image. Sorry, but I really do not know how they do the imaging for the documentary. Here is a link to the documentary site In the womb. And I would personally vote for the aborted fetus, b/c an abortion from the outside might mean nudity (I know WP is not censored), and I think we should avoid those kinds of things when we can. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)As things stand now, I plan on doing an RFC next week regarding inclusion of the images presented above. One is an image of an embryo, and one is a fetus, and together they show pretty clearly what is aborted in an average abortion. There's no reason to conceal such information here, but show it for a tonsilectomy. Without these images here, readers would find it difficult enough to obtain embryo/fetus images at any other single article at Wikipedia, and even then would not be able to discern which of those images show a conceptus that is younger than average or older than average for an abortion. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between, we should agree that it is unacceptable for this article to not show any image of what is aborted, at least before the event.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should add images of what is being aborted, if WP really wants to be neutral. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed image

A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at 8 weeks gestation.
1: Amniotic sac
2: Embryo
3: Uterine lining
4: Speculum
5: Vacurette
6: Attached to a suction pump

I propose that File:Vacuum-aspiration.svg be added to the article in the surgical abortion subsection, with the caption "A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at 8 weeks gestation." -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I would also not object to the embryo having slightly more defined eyes and/or head, but I prefer this one without seeing the alternative. --Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two figures is that one includes the fetus blob, and one does not. Therefore, I see no need for two figures instead of one. The caption could explain that the blob is sucked into the tube, or you could insert a small arrow into the figure indicating the same thing. Additionally, I do not understand the comment that the eyes and/or head should be more defined. No eyes or head are visible on my monitor. I do agree with Tznkai, however, that there should be an accurate image of what is aborted.

I would support the upper figure, together with the image shown at right (Correction: the image is now shown in the next section, because Andrew c has moved it there.)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please not hijack this thread with the proposal you made above (and which was rejected above). I created a new section for this proposal for the purpose of separating it from your proposal.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your tone, Andrew c. I made a good-faith comment, and am not hijacking anything. Both the image that I pasted here, and your proposal, have been discussed and objected to before. Please don't try to inflame this discussion with personal attacks. Tznkai asked that the embryo have slightly more defined eyes and/or head, and I am showing a way to accomplish that. I am also showing the circumstances under which I would find your image acceptable. As I said, "I would support the upper figure, together with the image shown at right."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the best answer would be to have a diagram with a vague representation of the aborted prenatal, followed by images of what that prenatal could look like. A better way would be to decide how to best represent the image in the first place. To be fair, for its size, the proposed image doesn't seem very different from the 8 weeks diagram found at this site. Also to mention, I wouldn't much care for the proposed caption of "What is aborted depends on when it is aborted." I'd find that statement a bit troublesome. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The image you linked to still has more definition, and Ferrylodge's proposed solution is dubious.--Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c's proposal would be the first image of aborted material in this article. That's progress. It never made sense to me that we should have images of everything but the aborted material. That said, we should not go down this route unless we make it clear to readers that the appearance of aborted material depends on when the abortion occurs. The two images that I've combined into an image file would accomplish this, and their accuracy has been very well-settled (they've been in other Wikipedia articles for years). I'm not sure why they would be considered "dubious". We even converted them to black and white after there was an objection that the more realistic reddish color made them look too cute. Please bear in mind that "8 weeks after fertilization" does not necessarily mean "eight weeks' gestation."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time that surgical instruments used during abortions would be shown in this article. Do speculums really look like that? What about the vacurette? There is a level of detail given to objects in this illustration which is relatively consistent (let me add, that I added the detail of the embryo which was not found in any of my sources). Now you are asking me to do even more on that one part, but not increase the details elsewhere? Seems like undue weight to me. But I will take all of your comments under serious consideration. As for the two figures, I got that from my sources as well. If medical textbooks thought it was necessary to have two different figures, then who am I to question them? But the second figure isn't that informative, I agree with FL on that. We can reduce it to just the top figure if that is what the consensus is for.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On my monitor, your image of the abortus has no head, no arms, no legs, no eyes, and no features at all other than a blob. Is that your intention? As you know, I am not asking you to do any artwork at all. I said your first image would be acceptable, together with the image that you removed from this thread without my permission.[19]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the requested details. Please check the file again. Shall I add the details to the rectum next (what I mean to say is it seems a little odd to have to zoom in so much (1600%) to add a few lines here and there for the embryo, but not any other feature of the image)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, on my monitor, your image of the abortus has no head, no arms, no legs, no eyes, and no features at all other than a white blob. And, as you know very well, a layperson's concerns and interest about abortion (e.g. moral, political, religious and other concerns) have nothing to do with anyone's rectum. Do I really have to gather reliable sources on that point for you?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You might be looking at label #1 instead of label #2. Label 2 is the darker shadow within the white blob, showing at least the distinctive "C" shape of the prenatal. The depiction is small, but that's because it's to scale with the rest of the image. Adding this diagram would be huge; it gets around the no-images block that the FAQ has declared and allows us to have an actual depiction of one of the procedures, including the terminated target. I'm actually surprised that the "no-shock-images" supporters aren't the ones finding fault right now. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at label #2, and all I see is the slightest discoloration, with no arms, no legs, no head, no nothing. Same when I click on the image to enlarge it. And why is there such intense opposition to showing an enlargement of whatever it is that is not showing up on my monitor? Additionally, the image above still includes a second figure which seems superfluous to me. An enlargement could take the place of the bottom figure. And why have callout numbers, if there is no explanation in the caption of what the callouts represent?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are or are not seeing, so I apologize if my comments don't help. But perhaps you are looking at a cached version, and the new image hasn't updated? Also, SVG format is a scalable format. You can zoom in as much as you like. Feel free to zoom in and check for the presence or absence of details. From a technical standpoint, we cannot simply superimposed your images on my image because of the difference between rastor and vector images. On top of that, there has been numerous outstanding concerns with those specific two images raised in the past that I'd rather not discuss in the thread about my proposal.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On my screen, the sac "1" is empty. No enlarging or refreshing is changing that. Also, the image above still includes a second figure which seems largely superfluous to me. An enlargement could take the place of the second figure. And why have callout numbers, if there is no explanation in the caption of what the callouts represent? Regarding the callouts and the caption, it seems like the callouts are unnecessary in this article, and you could instead simply write in the caption that a vacuum device is being used to suction out an embryo (the callouts could be included at the image description page, if at all). But whether or not there are callouts, my main objections are that no image of the embryo is showing up on my screen, and even if it were showing up, one or more enlargements (such as the figures that were moved out of this section) should be provided instead of the second superfluous figure.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think this image would be a useful addition to this page. I would suggest that only the top part is needed as I think the second image adds little that cannot be imagined. Perhaps the foetus is too small for the most common age this procedure would be attempted? Yours is probably 2-4cm in length compared to an average of 8cm at 10 weeks gestation. The discussion about adding detail to the foetus is distracting and the current level of detail is more than enough, especially given the normal viewing size. Nice work on the svg, and you lot are brave to bring this up again! |→ Spaully^₪† 01:08, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Thanks for your comment. According to the CDC's latest figures, [20] 62% were performed at <9 weeks' gestation, while File:UK abortion by gestational age 2004 histogram.svg shows a spike at 8-9 weeks. Fetal_development also gives smaller lengths than what you list (8cm at 12 weeks, and 30cm at 8 weeks). I wasn't trying to undercut the average age, or put this on the smaller end of the scale. I'm partial to the 2 image version because my sources had two images, and it illustrates the action of the procedure. It gives a sense of visual motion and sequence. I feel like without it, it seems more like it's just an anatomical diagram with a hand in it than a diagram of a procedure (as a procedure has steps). But perhaps I'm too familiar with the drawing, and it really does just work better without the 2nd figure. I would not oppose by any means a final version with just one figure, but I support the 2 figure version more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The size of foetus and gestational age seem reasonable given that evidence. Thinking about it further I am not sure about the size of the uterus though - it perhaps should be larger. You mentioned you used a non-gravid uterus as your guide and if my obstetrics knowledge remains correct it should be 'grapefruit' size at 8 weeks. This is all nitpicking though really and I think it is good as-is.

I take your point about the 2 image version showing some motion but I probably still prefer the 1 image version. Again this seems a minor issue as both would be perfectly clear. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:41, 18 February 2009 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully that the second figure is unnecessary (and Andrew c has already acknowledged that "the second figure isn't that informative"). I would support replacing it with this enlargement of the first Figure, until we can agree on a better image of the abortus. Please note that the abortus in the first figure is still not visible on my monitor, and even if it were it would be exceedingly small and difficult to discern. Does anyone else have an opinion about including this enlargement produced by the Graphic Lab?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One frame version

An SVG is scalable, so by definition, anyone can zoom in on any part of the illustration to their hearts desire. Therefore, an "enlargement" second figure is much less useful than the current second figure, IMO. I'd be glad to produce another version that crops out the second frame. I cannot support FL's alternative proposal, though. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that an SVG can be enlarged by clicking on it, I've already explained that that is not possible for computers that do not have the software for it. Additionally, even for those who do have the software, it is advantageous to be able to see stuff without clicking on it. You could reduce your Figure 1 to the size of a postage stamp, and argue that some people will be able to enlarge it, but I don't think that would be a valid argument. I cannot support inclusion of Figure 1 without an enlargement, because it exacerbates a severe and existing problem with this article: there is not the slightest summary description of what is aborted, or the fact that it changes over time, or the fact that an average abortus has any bodily organs whatsoever. Figure 1 adds to this problem by portraying the abortus as infinitessimal, and (on some terminals) completely invisible. The article on tonsilectomy shows before-images and after-images of what's removed. In contrast, this article omits such info entirely. I oppose inclusion of Figure 1 without an enlargement.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, do you believe me when I say that no embryo is appearing on my monitor? If so, is a solution possible? I have never had any difficulty viewing any other images at Wikipedia. It puts me in a very difficult spot to be critiquing something that I cannot see. If I cannot see it then there surely must be others who will have the same difficulty.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you. Though I'm not sure what to say. I've tested this on 5 monitors. One is a 5 year old laptop LCD with very poor contrast, one is an old CRT monitor, one is a public terminal (though I could even see the embryo in the proposal picture on that monitor), and 2 are my personal monitors, and I am not experiencing this problem. If you have a LCD monitor, try shifting your viewing angle to see if you can make anything out in the amniotic sac. You can also try adjusting your brightness and contrast to see if that helps, or try calibrating your monitor. I'll keep this under consideration and try to find even worse monitors to test this on (with out seeing what you are seeing, I'm not even sure what I can do to fix the problem, as it could be a number of things).-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might try a different format, such as jpg. I've got a Dell, and it works fine for eveything else I've used it for.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but it probably isn't the image format. Anyway, this is a vector image and thus should be in SVG format. If it were a raster image, JPG would be fine. (Rule of thumb #7 and WP:IUP#FORMAT) Besides, the wiki software renders the SVG as raster images automatically in their thumbnails, so the file format shouldn't be an issue (as the images of the thumbnails you are seeing are PNGs). If you are running Firefox, you can try to using the Zoom and Pan extension so you can zoom in on the actual SVG in browser.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have Internet Explorer and Firefox, and it looks the same on both; i.e. there's nothing in the sac. Why not make the thing all black, or at least darker red?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a pink fetus inside the sac very clearly. (Calibrated to FP standards) §hep • ^Talk 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it pink? I still can't see a thing on my monitor. There were considerable objections at another article to showing the fetus as pink, because that allegedly made the fetus look too cute.[21] Regardless of color, I think we should have an enlargement.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are summarizing past objections poorly. I don't see anything on the talk page saying pink=cute, per se, furthermore, that archive is real confusing because I see that the users are talking about pink images, but it only shows black and white images... as if someone has overwritten the pink images with B&W version, thus rendering the past discussion "incomprehensible". If this is really a concern of yours, perhaps we should contact User:Antelan, the user who raised the "cute" objection and ask if my proposal is too cute (though that user hasn't edited since August). But if no one here currenltly thinks my image is too cute for wikipedia, then I think we can considered the "cute" matter closed here :)-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor said about the black-and-white images: "These are much better than the bright pink ones." However, if we have consensus here to go with the original pink, then that is fine with me. No need to contact Antelan if he's not been around for a long time. The pink is obviously more realistic, even if it makes the thing look more like a kewpie doll.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for accompanying figure

What is aborted depends on when it is aborted. An average abortion occurs between the stages drawn here: at left is an embryo four weeks after fertilization; at right is a fetus four weeks later.

I posted the image to the right at this talk page, but another editor moved it.[22] This image is intended to accompany the image proposed above of a vacuum abortion, in order to provide an enlargement of what is aborted. This article ought to have an image or two of what is aborted in a typical abortion that is large enough to have some detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We are asking the readers to mentally average two images? Neither image is what the caption is supposed to illustrate, the average age. So why not use an image that does meet that criteria?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have disruptively decided to move the image that I posted,[23] the comment that I made (accompanying that image) no longer makes any sense. It is not among the responsibilities of a Wikipedia administrator to alter the comments of other editors thereby making them incomprehensible.

While you may enjoy posting disgusting editorial images on this talk page, the image that I posted is directed at improving this article. It is not a separate proposal. It is a proposal to make yours acceptable.

And are you disputing the accuracy of the caption? No one is asking readers to mentally average any images. Obviously, an "average" abortion refers to the average gestation at which abortions are performed. The exact average is not known with certainty, and varies somewhat from country to country. Even within a single country, the average fluctuates by region and over time (e.g. the average in the United States has receded toward fertilization over the last few years). Showing a small 4-week range solves that problem, while also illustrating the important fact that what is aborted depends upon when the abortion is performed.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate. It just seems conflated. The caption is basically saying "an average abortion is around 8 weeks, but since we don't have a picture of an 8 week fetus, here is week 6 and week 10." I'm saying, if we are to talk about average, why not just show the average. Assuming A->B->C, showing the steps before and after B requires a type of mental averaging of A and C on behalf of our reader in order to imagine what B looks like. I say, no need to show A and C when we are really talking about B. Just show B (ignoring for a second that 3dpregnancy.com didn't donate a thumbnail image of B). Seems like one image, in theory, could replace these 2 and be more to the point.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for acknowledging that it's not inaccurate. Do you see some value in showing readers that the thing that's aborted changes over time? One figure alone cannot show that. Perhaps more importantly, there is uncertainty about when in gestation the average abortion is performed. Using US and European statistics alone is misleading; developing countries such as China, India and Viet Nam have "more second trimester abortion than in developed countries."[24] Therefore, the average gestation is somewhat later in developing countries. Even in the US and Europe, a very substantial percentage (more than a third) of abortions happen after 8 weeks from fertilization, so I don't think it's at all inappropriate to include an 8-week image.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I think it is not helpful to include these images, at no stage would anyone in the process see something such as this - they look distinctly alien with the grey colouring and pose. These look somewhat amateurish with the differing textures or illumination, and there is no sense of scale. In general I don't see what could be gained by including such images save to insinuate that they are essentially babies. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:14, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Yes. This article ought to have an image or two of what is aborted in a typical abortion that is large enough to have some detail. I fail to see how an image that looks "distinctly alien" could possibly be intended to insinuate that it is "essentially" a baby, and therefore I cannot take such a comment seriously. There has been steadfast opposition at this article to showing a clear image of what is aborted, and that opposition seems to be continuing. If you would like to confirm the veracity of the 8-week image, for example, see here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misconstrue what I was saying - this image is distinctly alien; such images which might be better formed seem to serve mainly to insinuate they are essentially babies. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:34, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Pardon me if I misunderstood you. I'm still not sure if you're saying that I have tried to insinuate anything. All I have tried to do is provide accurate images that show readers what is aborted in a typical abortion. Any problem with that?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on the general idea of the type of image you want. I'll comment on these specific images that you are proposing. Please do not misconstrue the two. If I oppose these specific images, it does not mean I oppose the general idea of "what is aborted in a typical abortion" (though I don't see any sense in talking generally when we are discussing specific proposals). These particular images are remarkably poor in a number of counts. They are extremely low resolution (120px x 120px). They are in greyscale (not that the "pink" original images were any better). They are also inaccurate, to the extent that they don't show how translucent the skin is, and they are isolated from their surroundings and the other products of conception (placenta, amniotic sac, etc) which are expelled during abortions (nor is any sense of scale achieved.. in fact placing the two side by side at the same size makes matters WORSE). Furthermore, I personally do not like how they were rendered. It looks cheap, silly, and cartoonish (especially the eyes), and I think that they are of poor quality and unprofessional. I'll also note that other users in the past have questioned the reliability and motives of the source of these images, 3Dpregnancy.com, being a site targeting expecting mothers, not medical professionals (nor abortion patients for that matter), though the source issue is minor in my eyes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I am not contending that these are high-quality images. All I am contending is that they show much more detail than you could possibly show in such a tiny space on the image that you have provided. These images are in use at other Wikipedia articles until we find something better. I urge you to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you can deplore these images, why should I not deplore the image that you have provided, which must show much less detail?

I provided this link above for confirmation of the 8-week image. You will see that the match is very good.

You object that these photos do not show the placenta, amniotic sac, and other things in the environment of a typical fetus. Well, that's very typical, because lay people are especially interested in the fetus itself. I can give you tons of links to reliable sources that show the fetus or embryo itself. That's not to say we cannot also have an image that shows the other environmental things. In fact, I have supported inclusion of your first figure, which does show environmental things. But why must every single photo that depicts a fetus in this article have to also include the environmental things?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• No - If I understand this correctly, I think the inclusion of an image of a fetus or an embryo is not particularly useful but is in fact rather crufty.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this one, from Gray's Anatomy?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll assume from that non-response that you (and perhaps Andrew c) would not find the Gray's Anatomy image acceptable at this article. May I ask, then, whether you think the Endowment for Human Development is a reliable source? If so, perhaps I'll approach them for permission to use a couple of their images. This question is directed also at Andrew c and anyone else who may have an opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My activites on-wiki and in meatspace mean I don't always answer your questions promptly - but I'll list my objections to the picture (again). For this article it is cruft. It doesn't add anything substantial to the article - this is not an article about feti, it is an article about abortions. A number of things are involved in abortions, a gravida, a fetus/embryo/zygote/unborn, and typically, a doctor. Lets take the pro-choice and pro life positions for a moment and split the difference and give the gravida (as has been pointed out, not all gravidas are women) and the unborn equal weight in the event. Does adding a picture of the gravid add anything to the article? Not really, its ancillary, adding a "thousand words" without significant meaning, because what new information is actually given?

Its also prone to non-neutral interpretations. If I show a picture of say, a terrified pregnant teenage girl (not an entirely atypical candidate for abortions), what am I saying to the audience? What if it is a person dressed displaying low socio-economic status? If we have a white woman or a black woman, what does that choice say. Is there a male figure in the photograph as well? Pictures are, as rightly pointed out below - potentially powerful statements - and I am uninterested in running the gauntlet of neutrality problems unless the picture has clear and immediate relevance.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My question did not involve the image that you previously called "cruft". It involved this image from Gray's Anatomy, and also sought your opinion about the Endowment for Human Development. Are you calling all of that "cruft" as well? I feel like you have not addressed my question at all.

As far as your assertion that abortions involve zygotes, I believe you will find that less than 1% of induced abortions are of a zygote,[25] so I don't think there is a pressing need to show an image of that. I'm not sure I understand your comment that "not all gravidas are women." You mean as opposed to girls? You said above: "the inclusion of an image of a fetus or an embryo is particularly useful." If that's really what you meant, then I hope we can work toward that goal. I am not sure what your argument is regarding images of women and girls. First, this article already contains images of pregnant females. Second, readers are very familar with what a pregnant female looks like, but are not familar with what an abortus looks like. Third, are you saying that including more images of pregnant females in this article would make it more acceptable to have images of what is aborted?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I would highly encourage you to see if the EHD wouldn't mind donating some images to the commons so that all wikimedia projects can use them. There are some really neat images there, that could be useful on hundreds of projects, and multiple articles. So even if there isn't consensus for their inclusion on this specific article, they would still be really useful to the project in general. In your request, you should make it clear that their images are being considered for use on the abortion article (this may be an issue that the pregnant woman who allowed cameras inside of her may not want her baby to be the poster-child for abortion).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, all images donated to Wikimedia would be available for all Wikipedia articles. So, I'd make it clear to EHD that that would include this article and many others. And what about the Gray's Anatomy image?

If I approach EHD, I will have to explain what type of image we are looking for in this article. If people would please tell me what is undesirable about this image from Gray's Anatomy, then that will help me understand what to ask for. I don't want to play a game here where every image I come up with gets shot down for one reason or another. All of the images I have suggested at this talk page show much more detail than what is in the article now, and no one claims that the images I have suggested are inaccurate, so frankly it seems like people are asking for perfection.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Take my response, and apply it proposals all images of feti regardless of originating source. Also corrected a missing "not" in one of my statements above. Also also, since I apparently cannot communicate my point in a way you will understand, I object to any inclusion of an image whos primary subject fetus, embryo, zygote, toddler, child, or human of any sort because it does not add value to the article, because (in my editorial judgement) they do not add value to the article.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you have reversed your previous statement,[26] I do understand your position better: no image or enlargement should be included in this article that primarily shows what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. I disagree, and will try to put together an RfC about it later this week or maybe next.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But I think I understand their argument, Ferrylodge. Look at the article on capital punishment. You won't find any single image of a human condemned to be killed, or of a body of someone who was killed. You WILL, however, find quite a few illustrations of people undergoing different processes of execution. This is why I think the diagram proposed by Andrew c, fetus and all, is the right direction. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised image

File:Fetus About to be Aborted.PNG

A fetus about to be aborted by vacuum aspiration eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at 10 weeks gestational age)

If I do the RfC it will probably focus on the image at right. So, if the regulars here would like to comment now, maybe we could get consensus without an RfC. Obviously, my photoshop skills are limited, but you get the idea.

I feel like it would be censorship to have a whole article about abortion without a close up showing some detail of what is aborted. It has legs, hands, a head, eyes, fingers. I feel like this is very relevant, and has not thus far been shown in this article. Part of this image is also used in a couple of other Wikipedia articles. The present article is a summary article, so it seems very appropriate to include this relevant information. Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This idea has been put before the graphic lab (see here) so another image will be forthcoming soon. We already have File:Fetus About to be Aborted.svg which is a zoom in of my diagram with minor modifications. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A fetus about to be aborted by vacuum aspiration eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at 10 weeks gestational age), the thick white line at lower right is a vacurette

Yes, the Graphic Lab is considering the matter. In the mean time, to the left is a cleaned-up version.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any images will add anything useful. To some people, it is an image of a human being. But as people here illustrate, some other people will see a fetus. It won't convince anyone either way, and I suspect it won't educate anyone either. That said, the FAQ is simply wrong in ruling it out as POV. If you truly believe the fetus is not human, and have a reason convincing yourself of that, then you believe whatever is shown in the image is not human. So it should not be a problem to you. You might be disturbed or bothered by rememblances, but if you honestly believe it isn't a human, then you still should be able to accept the image. I doubt any undecided people come here, and I don't see that a single photo by itself should be any problem.

WHAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM is the caption on the photo or image. There should definitely be caution with the caption. There's where care should be exercised.

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ~

Does anyone object to inclusion of the image (above left) in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And would there be a reason for that?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you both would prefer that this article exclude this information. With no apparent reasons. As mentioned previously, I support inclusion of Andrew c's first image, but believe this enlargement should also be included, so that this article gives at least some slight indication of what is aborted in a typical abortion. The information is verifiable, relevant, reliably sourced, and necessary for NPOV. If the best you can say is that you don't want it, without giving reasons, then no weight should be attached to your opinions, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I and others, for years now, have discussed issues with the 3dpregnancy.com image. I urged you at length at the graphics lab to use another image. Your version, while clearly made to try to address one of my many concerns (the lack of scale/background context), it does a poor job of addressing that concern and fails to address mine and others numerous other concerns with that specific image (needless to say other users issues with having an image focused solely on the fetus). Your image looks like a psychodelic, techno, alien. The zoomed in view has the weird looking fetus situated in a series of colorful, concentric amorphic circles. "wow, trippy, man!" (I'd add that caption to your image, but you'd hang it over my head for the next year and a half). Plus, there are technical issues (such as aliasing), and the fact you have converted a perfectly good SVG into jpg, and the fact that it is a color diagram with a black and white fetus in it (although the original 3dpregnancy.com colors are problematic from the get go as well). I understand your concerns to an extent. I added details to the fetus in my diagram, against my personal preference, for the sole purpose of to trying to address those concerns, but they were not satisfactory to you. I guess similarly, in creating this image, you have tried to address some of our concerns, but again they are not satisfactory to us. Perhaps there still is a way to meet somewhere in the middle, or perhaps our differences are irreconcilable. All I'm saying is that we clearly are not at that point yet. Your image is just the highly disputed image placed on top of a zoom in of my image (but it's zoomed in to the point where the context is not recognizable), and as I suggested at the graphics lab, if we weren't using the highly disputed image as a starting point, perhaps I'd feel differently. I hope this explains my opposition to this image, and I really hope that none of this is a surprise to you because I feel like I've said most of it before, and I was acting in good faith to avoid this situation by my intervention at the graphics lab.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, the black-and-white image has been accepted in multiple Wikipedia articles for years, so whatever concerns there were ultimately have been addressed. I do not know what "aliasing" is. You say, "I added details to the fetus in my diagram." That is incorrect, because the image in your diagram is not a fetus. It is an embryo. For example, it does not have separated fingers, and there are no legs connecting the feet and torso. The description page for your image does not say where you got the embryo image from, but does confirm that it is an embryo rather than a fetus (i.e. it's at 8 weeks gestational age which is two weeks short of becoming a fetus).[27] Would you agree to use an image of a fetus instead of an embryo, and to have an enlargement of same in this article (keeping in mind that I cannot even see the tiny embryo image in your figure on this talk page)?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<= Firstly, I consider the revised image to be completely inappropriate for this article simply based on quality - the amalgamation of the two images is misleading and incorrect. If such a zoomed image was to be included it would have to have similar detail paid to all parts, so if the uterus and placenta are included they should be well detailed. I see this image as more of a guide than anything suitable for inclusion.

We have previously agreed to 8 weeks gestation on the basis of statistics and so the correct detail should be included and the correct terms used. If that is embryo then it would be incongruous to start using foetus.

Here is an interesting image of this stage of life, scroll down a little for a progression of gestations.

Finally, the discussion on this image is derailing Andrew's diagram which I think has significant merit on is own and should progress. I don't think one can block that image conditional on this one being passed. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:32, 15 February 2009 (GMT)

What is your position about including an enlargement of Andrew c's image? Is that image defective as well?

I assume you agree that whatever enlargement we use should reflect an average or typical abortion. It follows that we should not calculate the average based only on statistics from developed countries such as Europe and the U.S. China and India generally have a larger percentage of later abortions. Therefore, I think we should have an image of a fetus at least 8 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks gestational age). Can we at least agree about that?

Regarding holding up or delaying Andrew c's (un-enlarged) image, it shows the abortus as something so tiny that it is barely visible (and on some monitors completely invisible). That is in keeping with this article's uniform minimization of fetal reality. This article sets up a bunch of straw men (e.g. fetal pain, breast cancer, mental health) and then knocks them down, while assiduously avoiding any fleeting mention of the fact that a fetus has a head, brain, arms, legs, fingers, and movement. So, in my view, Andrew c's un-enlarged image exacerbates the problems with the present article. If it is included right away, then an enlargement will never be included, because that would be the easiest way to keep this article slanted in a pro-choice direction. What I want is the reader to be fully informed, and that requires an article that does not censor, does not whitewash, but rather is honest. Given the importance of informing people about this volatile topic, I do not see why we cannot provide the slightest information about what is aborted (other than the notion that whatever it is feels no pain), in stark contrast to an article like tonsilectomy which shows what's removed both before-the-fact and after-the-fact. I have never seen a Wikipedia article that exemplifies censorship more than this one.

Additionally, I believe that Andrew c's un-enlarged image takes up too much "real estate" in this article, and his Figure 2 is unnecessary (it's virtually the same as his Figure 1).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you WP:AGF here. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Spotfixer. When censorship or POV are evident, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. If I did not assume some capacity for good faith, I would not bother trying to engage people such as yourself.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

The size and shape of a typical abortus varies. For example, at left is a drawing of an embryo at four weeks after fertilization. At right is a fetus eight weeks after fertilization, which is six times larger.

At right is a drawing that I believe would be useful for this article. As you can see, it shows an abortus before an abortion. Why should an article like tonsilectomy show what is removed, but an article on abortion should exclude that information? This article does not even include any written description of an abortus. People can raise all kinds of objections to the image at right, but it is vastly better than nothing. Similar images have already been accepted in a couple other Wikipedia articles for years. I've alternatively proposed here that we include an image from Gray's Anatomy and an image created by the Wikipedia Graphic Lab, but they have been rejected. The images at right depict a typical abortus. Readers cannot go to any other Wikipedia articles to find this information (because other articles do not explain the gestations at which abortion is typical), and even if other articles did provide that information, this is a summary article which appropriately provides summary information. I think it's obvious that the image at right is hugely informative, and it's not even close to being a shock image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've presented a new argument here, you've just repeated yourself, and I'll repeat myself: it doesn't add anything to the article, and raises NPOV concerns because of the emotional impact of images. We're at an impass until someone comes up with something new, or a compromise, or maybe even an RfC.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, we've used about 86k on this topic alone. Can we move onto something else instead of repeating ourselves incessantly?--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The image above right is not a repetition. In case you didn't notice (and I think you did notice), this adds a size comparison, which none of the previously-discussed images contained. It also has the attribute of being a rough drawing, so people will not be inclined to haggle about details which are not shown. Perhaps you also didn't notice that the previous B&W images were objected to by two different editors because of lack of scale, given that the two figures were side by side at the same size. But I understand that no image whatsoever would be satisfactory in a censored, whitewashed type of article. RFC on the way, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Given difference of monitor sizes and user-display settings will show images at very differring sizes, would an included ruler-bar (or some length measurement bar) help with size comaprison ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The caption says the image on the right is 1.25 inches. It doesn't seem like including a ruler bar would make that more clear. But if something like that is done, I'd prefer a coin to a ruler.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean the image's description (as not in the caption shown immediately above-right), but yes that would help. As for comparative coin, I like the idea of relating to a common everyday item, but from which country ? Dimmes, euros, 50 pence sterling all probably meaningless outside respective locations, so perhaps a golf-ball (and that's not a serious proposal... I think... hmmmm) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a pencil then. Also, the image under discussion is immediately below right, not immediately above right. Would inserting a pencil make the image acceptable? I'm not sure how popular or familiar golf is in some countries.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrible bias

First Image: A misleading chart as it suggests that no abortion is or can be performed after approximately 30 weeks of pregnancy. Enough said.

Second Image: A demon who induces an abortion. Could be interpreted as pro-life as it is a demon who performs the abortion. However an important pro-choice talking point is that abortions have always been performed. Of course what is really meant here is that anti-abortion laws have no effect whatsoever on the number of abortions, a claim so absurd that it can't be said directly, which is why it is claimed indirectly. The image reinforces that pro-choice talking point especially as it is so old.

Third Image: An histogram showing at what point in the pregnancy abortions are performed. One of the pro-choice talking points is to insist abortions are usually performed "early" in the pregnancy. That histogram happens to be the most efficient way to reinforce that talking point.

Fourth Image: Almost unreadable. Who cares about the content? Actually it relies on a pro-choice organisation and promotes the pro-choice talking points to the effect that abortion is "the" answer to unexpected pregnancies. Many people who experience such pregnancies do not undergo abortions, even among pro-choicers. The real reasons explaining why abortions are performed are elsewhere.

Fifth Image: An old ad for an illegal abortion pill. Reinforces the pro-choice talking point explained in Second image.

Sixth Image: An old poster promoting legal abortions over illegal abortions. Another image favouring the pro-choice position.

Seventh and Eighth Images: The pro-life demonstration seems to be bigger, however the pro-choice demonstration is shown first. One can easily read a pro-choice slogan ("It's Your Choice ...Not Theirs") but no pro-life slogan can be easily read. Overall these images lean pro-choice.

Ninth Image: I can't detect any bias in that map.

Overall it is obvious that the images currently included in the Abortion article promote in a not-so-subtle way the pro-choice point of view. I find it fascinating to see that this doesn't seem to be a problem for some users, but somehow if an image promotes the pro-life point of view then it becomes a problem.

Trulymakes (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your point, exactly? Are you suggesting that the facts are biased? Are you actually arguing that images of demons performing abortions are 'pro-choice'? -- Ec5618 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No he isn't, he clearly said he thought that image had a pro life bias. He says he thinks the rest of the images have a pro-choice bias. That's his review of the article, and we should strive to make it seem neutral to all editors, including him.--Patton^t/c 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Please read the comment:

"Of course what is really meant here is that anti-abortion laws have no effect whatsoever on the number of abortions, a claim so absurd that it can't be said directly, which is why it is claimed indirectly."

As for making the article neutral, I honestly doubt we can make the article unbiased in the eyes of someone who considers any text or image that deals with socalled 'talking points' to be biased. We can hardly remove all content that has been deemed to be worth talking about. -- Ec5618 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm afraid not. We should strive to make it neutral, but making it seem neutral to all editors is impossible. If we try really hard, we'll get neutral-enough. What we're seeing here is a problem with the overall tone of the article - and a neutral tone is going to be tilted away from the pro-life pole because the core pro-life position is one of moral outrage. Merely by addressing abortion as a medical procedure, and the skills and . Pro-choice and Pro-life arguments use facts - and we can't avoid repeating those facts just because some support one side over the other. For a pair of examples, a factual, neutral description (especially in jargon-free text) of intact D&X (also known as partial birth abortion) is one of the most horrifying things any person can read. If I can ever find a source to back it up, I'd like to note that the vast majority of pro-choice OB/GYNs refuse to use the procedure and to associate with those who do. Flipside, abortion is historical, and just because pro-choicers have decided to use that kind of appeal doesn't burden us with not repeating the fact - just from repeating the appeal.

Does that make any sense?--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any particular fact should be removed from this article just because it may happen to promote one point of view (no matter which point of view). In some cases the wording could be improved but that's another matter.

The problem in my humble opinion is that, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and if the selection of images in the article have the effect of promoting one point of view, when this could be avoided (either by adding images promoting the opposing point of view, or by removing or correcting images supporting the point of view initially promoted), then something should be done to address this problem.

Trulymakes (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific proposals to make? Do you have any images you'd like included, or ones you think should be removed? Any suggestions for changing captions, or things that could be done to the current images? I don't think it's productive to argue over your personal perceptions of these images (though I don't necessarily agree with everything you said). What I do think would be productive is to see some specific ideas for improving the article... so... any proposals :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative images would be great as well.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)