From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

James Kopp[change source]

"Mr Kopp waited outside Dr Slepian's home with a rifle. He shot Dr Slepian in the back through a window in his home. Dr Slepian, his wife, and their four children had just come home from Synagogue (Jewish church) when it happened. His wife and his son Andrew were standing in the room with him when he was shot. "

This level of detail is not needed here. It can be placed in an article about James Kopp. Articles do not have to be all-inclusive when the information could stand on its own. Moving to James Kopp article. BallSack 00:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

very christianocentric: "Synagogue (Jewish church)". why don't we find "church (christian moque)". just because it's in english doen't mean the target audience is necessarily overwhelmingly christian;--Neal 08:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Emotional Problems[change source]

I separated the two sections about miscarriages and emotional problems - there is no question that there are emotional problems after a miscarriage.

That statement is not NPOV. Moreover, it is not supported. If the former surgeon general of the US (who was not pro-choice) can review 250 articles from the medical literature and state that there is no convincing evidince either way, I would say that there IS a question whether there are emotional problems after abortion. In addition, simply deleting the other POV (that there is no evidince of emotional problems after miscarriage) and leaving your own POV that there definitely is almost defines the term non-NPOV.
The studies that link emotional problems with abortion generally do not control for confounding factors. For example, women who have abortions are more likely to be survivors of childhood abuse, poor, and victims of sexual assault. If you control for these confounding factors, the association disappears. Though if you would like to cite a source that definitively states that there is no question, that is different.
Also, while I actually originally wrote that myself, I did a little more research about the effects of induced abortion on subsequent ability to become and remain pregnant. Again, the jury is still out. So that comment is again removed. If you would like to add something else that qualifies the statement that there is no definitive evidence either way then we can have that. However, a statement that simply says it does cause problems is not accurate.
The move of the information about Kopp is fine.-NickGorton 03:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't actually read my edit, or the supporting reference. BallSack 03:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually I was adding this and there was an edit conflict. Also, the part about spontaneous MC can be re-added, but as it was, it was smack in the middle of a section about induced abortions, and gives the suggestion to a non-careful reader that this is about induced abortions. It needs to be in a different section. And you messed up the references 5->6, and 6->5. If you haven't fixed it by the time I get back from work, I will do so.-NickGorton 03:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
If you will pay close attention, you will see that "Risks and Complications" is it's own section header, that it specifically has separate paragraphs for miscarraiges and induced abortions, and that clicking the hyperlink for the source does indeed go to the proper source. However I will be happy to fix the [i]cosmetic error[/i] of reference five and six. BallSack 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
In fact, when you cite references in the future do not put them number for them in the name of the tag. Wiki automatically orders them. When you name a reference, give the tag the name of the reference. This will avoid you causing such a cosmetic error when the article is modified or rearranged. Thank you. BallSack 03:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to thank you for giving me permission to edit your article. Sincere thanks, sir! BallSack 03:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are a bunch of terms defined?[change source]

Why are a bunch of terms defined in parentheses? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even the Simple English one. It's especially weird to define words that are linked to. They definitely need to be removed. - 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because simple readers may not know what the words mean. DJDunsie (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Crossing the line from "simple English" to "incorrect English"[change source]

I believe that this article does so at its very beginning. I understand the difficulty of picking very simple, clear English words for such a complicated and controversial topic, but it's nonetheless unacceptable to begin an article like this with something like "Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended early and the baby dies.", for the simple reason that the word baby, in this context, refers only to human offspring that have been born, even if the equivalent of baby in other languages does not. An unborn human young is called a fetus starting in the eighth week and ending when it is born, after which it is a baby, or infant. Before being a fetus, it is an embryo. To call a fetus a "baby", though I'm certain it was solely done in this case due to Simple-Wiki's preference for using very simple vocabulary, is POVed and potentially offensive—not to mention inaccurate, as inaccurate as calling a sperm, a fertilized egg, or an embryo a "baby". This has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding abortion, it only has to do with using English words correctly so as to avoid confusion; if footnotes or parenthetical statements are needed to explain this within the article, then so be it, but the words shouldn't be misused for the sake of clarity and simplicity, as this will only lead to the opposite result: unnecessary confusion and complications. -Silence 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do not see where the offence lies in calling an unborn child a baby. -updated paragraph. Eptalon 09:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I was not personally offended, but I know many people who would be. More important than avoiding offense is avoiding inaccuracy, though. -Silence 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
it isn't a case of being offended or not, it's a case of ideological bias. the correct and neutral term is "f(o)etus"--Neal 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct explanation is "unborn child". If that is offensive to some, I would submit that they only find it offensive because it offeends their consciences, because they don't like to think of it as a stage in human life being put to death, so they pick these "politically correct" terms designed to make it sound more soothing totheir consciences... But that doesn't change what it is - an unborn child, no matter what kind of words or spin they use to brainwash themselves that it is something else, that's still what it is, an unborn child being put to death. The fundamental thing they fail to realize is that you can't change the truth with words, because the truth will always continue to be the truth, no matter how many words contrary to truth that they multiply. Blockinblox 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, fetus is the accepted scientific term. Whether it's a child is an ideological spin--the term fetus does not make a value judgement (for all we know a fetus is an unborn child too) but calling them unborn children is POV, whether it's true or not. The article should say that some people believe a fetus is an unborn child, while others don't. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If they don't believe the fetus is an unborn child, they are in serious denial...! Again, I submit that this is because a guilty conscience will come up with all kinds of bizarre rationalizations to get itself off the hook... Blockinblox 14:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Blockinblox, you're the one who's in serious denial here. And you use the word "truth" too much to be taken seriously.
No I'm not... That's exactly what a fetus is, an unborn baby... What does the phrase 'in denial' mean to you? Blockinblox 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps fetus is the accepted scientific term, it certainly is not the neutral term. In reality it is just a euphemism for "unborn child". To some, especially those who have killed "fetus's", it very likely is offensive to call the thing what it really is, a pre-born baby. To me, and a fair amount of Americans it is very offensive that we can't call things what they are. I don't think you can use the argument that it is offensive in this debate. Whatever the case, euphemism's are not simple English--and thus should not be used. unborn baby, unborn human being (perhaps not person yet), are words that are simple, and are true--and shouldn't be offensive. Fetus is not a simple English Word. . .it simply doesn't fit the ideology of this Wikipedia.--Laura1978 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple vs. just plain wrong, continued[change source]

I've started working on this article, not to push a particular POV, but because so much of the information contained in it is just plain wrong (Chromosomal birth defects are "diseases"? Caused by what germ, pray tell?). The whole point of SEW is to create entries using simple language -- not by substituting misinformation, becoming unencyclopedic, or mangling the English language. Contrary to what appears to be common belief here, the standard for English usage should be HIGHER on SEW than on EN Wikipedia, because the audience may not be able to read past poor grammar. OhSusanne 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one more thing -- less v. fewer. "Less" is the word used when there is a smaller amount of something -- milk, gasoline, helium, space, risk. "Fewer" is the word used when there is a smaller number of discrete things -- women, complications, abortions, cars, countries. Neither "less" nor "few" are in the BE850, so there's no more complexity in using them correctly.OhSusanne 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article protected[change source]

Hello community. This is a controversial topic. As outlined above there are groups in favor, and groups against abortion. These groups have different motivations for their choice (of being for the possibility of abortion or against it). Personally, I am sick of seeing unregistered users do changes of "unborn child" to "fetus". For this reason, I have protected the article. This means that unregistered or new users can no longer edit it. It also means that whoever changes the article is a named editor. To all those unnamed editors who want to contribute, beyond changing a few words for some other words, please create an account. If you do not want to do that, propose the changes here, and have a named editor do them. I am sad it came out this way, but there seems to be no other way. --Eptalon 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes[change source]

I changes most references of unborn child to fetus or embryo. Unborn child is POV, fetus or embryo is biological terms without the "baggage" of pro-choice vs. pro-life. Both fetus and embryo have SEWP links. The changes made from fetus to unborn child were not thorough, hopefully I have changed all links, although I did leave one which reefers to growing and being born. -- Barliner  talk  12:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Finding the most neutral terms possible[change source]

Hello there, I personally was relatively happy with the term unborn child, rather that fetus or embryo. Fetus or embryo are medical terms. If I remember correctly, they are defined with respect as to how long the pregnancy has gone on. There is also the option of preventing nidation (the nesting in the womb). This is not called abortion in many countries. For those who are not familiar with the terminology; en:Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher, he is essentially in favour of permitting women to end pregnancies. Donald Bagley Marquis (sorry, did not find a link) is one of the people who believe that the end of a pregnancy should not be artificially induced. In short, before starting another spree of editing, I think we should find the most neutral and simple terms possible for the following concept:

  • result of a conception; what the pregnancy is about, aka unborn child, fetus, embryo

I will no longer revert any edits that change these terms, until we, as a community have found words that can express the concepts we need, in the most unbiased way possible. I am sorry, but I can not take part in this discussion (beyond what I have written), because English is not my first language. I therefore do not know the connotations all these terms might have.--Eptalon 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please change the map[change source]

This map is deprecated by Image:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png, which doesn't use the legend in English. 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gynecologists inline definition[change source]

From the article:

Usually they are done by gynaecologists (doctors who take care of only women and who know very much about female organs).

This definition is false in that U.S. gynecologists (OBs) perform surgeries on males as well as females. In addition, "gynaecologists" isn't even spelled correctly. i suggest removing the inline definition totally. Jkister (talk)

I have changed the wording; welcome. I suggest you edit some more so that you become a regular editor (and can change controversial articles such as this one yourself). --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have: In text refs[change source]

Hello, if there is anyone qualified enough (and obviously able ot edit the article), what about getting in-text refs (to studies and papers illustrating the different points)? --Eptalon (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Towards a good article[change source]

Hello all, I am proposing this to be a good article.Here are a few observations:

  • Please keep in mind that the subject is controversial. By making this a good article we show that we can handle controversial subjects equally well. Simply removing or curtailing one perspective will not get us there.
  • Except for very early on (when it defines embryo, and fetus), the article talks about unborn child. I personally think this is a good compromise, I do not want to see it replaced by fetus or embryo (etc) without discussing it here, first.
  • Wherever possible, claims should be backed up by inline citations. Unreferenced claims (and unreliable sources) can easily be removed.
  • Please remove in-text definitions. This article is about abortion; it is better to link a word to its definition, so that the reader should not get distracted.
  • Check whether images/graphics are appropriate before adding them.

So let's get to work. --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More changes[change source]

Hello there, I have made some more changes, but it looks like this article is not going to make GA status anywhere soon, which is a pity, but I am simply not going to devote much more of my time if I am practically the only editor doing so. I will summarise a few points:

  • Unborn child vs fetus or embryo - this is merely a point of definition, and like so much else it is laden with controversy. If we speak about unborn children abortion does indeed kill the unborn child, if we speak about fetuses or embryos it is merely a matter of putting away some heaps of tissue - Let me add that certain countries do stem cell research that involves embryos- In short no matter what position we take we make a statement. Talking about an unborn child is probably simpler because we do not need to make a difference between embryo and fetus (up to 8 weeks old: embryo, then fetus) except when we define the two.
  • I have moved the opinions and the selected issues to their own section, as they are completely different from the largely medical and statistical info above; they also do not correlate with the reasons why people have an abortion. Note also that our religious views section is very short, as what we need are statements provable by reliable third-party sources. I have not taken the crime rate hypothesis, and the Mexico city policy. One is completely unscientific, the other has an US-only view.
  • I feel it is a pity we cannot get enough consensus to get a controversial subject to GA or VGA status, but that's just my personal opinion.--Eptalon (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How do we call the beast?[change source]

Hello there,

My unborn child has recently been replaced by fetus or embryo (or fetus/embryo). As already outlined above, no matter what terms we chose, we will face criticism from the group of people who does not like our choice. I used unborn child because I felt it was better suited to our crowd; however, abortion kills an unborn child, the killing (or rather: dying of the cells) is less pronounced/clear when we use fetus or embryo (or one of its many forms. Another thing to consider: fetus or embryo does not really add information, because all that is said applies equally to both.

This is Simple English Wikipedia - one of the very premises here is that confusion should be avoided. This also applies to euphemisms, in my opinion. Abortion kills the fruit of the womb, no matter what you call it. Some people have to hide this fact behind beautiful words to feel morally at ease. And please don't come with the it is the scientifically accepted terms we use argument - Yes, fetus/embryo are the scientific terms, but we should aim for clarity here. And using fetus/embryo (or its variations) all the time simply sounds awkward.

For this reason, we need to find a terminology that we can use (after we have explained fetus/embryo).

Comments welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple Edit[change source]

At line 163 there was a typo. "there is no likely wood that the embryo would feel anything." I changed the sentence to "But as the law states that its only legal to terminate before twenty weeks it is likely that the embryo or fetus would not feel anything." This also includes the fetus, as after 8 weeks the product of conception is called a fetus, not an embryo. (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)