Wikipedia

Talk:Abortion/Archive 4

< Talk:Abortion
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Start of discussion: Talk:Abortion/Archive 1 Talk:Abortion/Archive 2 Talk:Abortion/Archive 3 Talk:Abortion/Archive 4

Postabortion depression copyvio

Large section of text added by User:68.229.216.75 appears to be copied from [1] and other places. User:68.229.216.75, if you can provide a pedigree for the text including evidence of GFDL compatible licensing then I might support its use to start a new article about "postabortion depression controversy" or some such, but I don't think it belongs in the overview article. Saucepan 18:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm still new at this but someone erased all the links on the page including the one's to abortion by country...i assume since one can see the past version there is a way to retrieve it...could you tell me how you do it so next time i can just fix it myself?--Marcie 01:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Done - I overlooked that part when I reverted some of the changes by an IP. You can retrieve deleted text from the history by copy and paste.--Fenice 13:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abortion and Cancer

Hi, this is the text for abortion and cancer:

"Breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 53 epidemological studies undertaken in 16 countries did not find evidence of a relationship between abortion and breast cancer (Breast cancer and abortion. The Lancet, 2004;363;pg 1007). This is a highly political issue with obvious implications for the abortion debate."

I thought this is a discussion about abortion and not about the moral, ethical, or political consequences. I think that the association between breast cancer and abortion is a medical one and NOT a political one. I think we should erase this statement. I am not sure how much an internet search help. There are studies who support the links and there are studies that do not support the link. Each studies relies on statistics and on assumptions and is on first glance questionable. Science just does not know if there is an association or not.

Finally, abortion as it is has nothi

I agree. First of the study seems to be of the pill and abortion, which are two very different things. Also most of the stuff i've seen that links cancer (almost always breast cancer) to abortion has to do with not having children...lesbians who have no abortions are also at a higher risk of breast cancer if they have no children...and that link has been studied--Marcie 13:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The parity (number & age of children) of a women is taken into consideration as a confounding factor for most Abortion-Breast Cancer studies. For older studies that may not; they are correctly deemed methologically flawed and are rejected. Recent studies take parity into account... for the most part. RoyBoy 20:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there is some debate to be had over the validity and the link between cancer and abortions. But regardless, what I added about the state laws requiring notifications to women, or their contractual consent, I feel is important to indicate. Regardless of what the outcome of the abortion-cancer link, these states raised awareness but arguably perpetuated a myth. Howrealisreal 15:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Under physical effects, risk of sterility should be mentioned, if it is correct that there are risks. Indeed, if it is merely a common misconception that abortions increase the risk of sterility, perhaps that is worth a mention also? Vintermann 11:11, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know it's a misconception, but it's the kind of thing that's difficult to get good data on bacause of inherent selection bias, i.e. people who have abortions tend to be more fertile than the population as a whole (since they are clearly capable of getting pregnant). Azad 20:26, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought too. All the more reason to get data on it, since the inherent selection bias could potentially conceal quite large risks. The reason I am inquiring is that I have read many news articles blaming the low birth rates in the former USSR on its astronomically high abortion rates.

Vintermann 14:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well i would put out the social factor agani (i'm likely getting boring). There were much higher rates of abortion in the USSR but i always thought that was because there was less birth control available, and abortion was freely available (on that i could be wrong). You could very well be getting into social factors again though. The life of the average Soviet has declined by quite a bit since the end of communisim. You only need to look at how East and West Germany are having problems with each over on the topic (i think there has been somewhat of a decline generally but its been much larger in East Germany. There used to be child care so you could work after having a child. Hard to get now. You used to get at least enough to eat fine before, hard to be sure of now. I think you could put the blame on lower fertility rates on women just deciding they don't want to raise children when the circumstances are so much worse for the average person (now obviously some individuals are better off...its also a matter of how well off people feel they are comparatively). Also i knwo int he case of Germany that there have been huge problems trying to get a abortion policy for across country. Abortion is somewhat limited in West Germany and before reunification it was abortion on demand in East Germany. Its a been a while but last time i was reading on it they still didn't have one policy because the west wanted to impose theirs on the east and it looked like that would cause huge problems between the two areas....although its now more restrictive in the East than it had been.--Marcie 18:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I am from West Germany and as far as I know it works like this. Abortion is illegal, however, it is not possible to charge women for it. So, practically it is legal. There are opponents and proponents for abortion in Germany, however, my perception was, that it is not as emotional and religious biased like in the US. I am actually quite shocked about the quality of the US (en.wiki.x.io) article about abortion. This article is NOT about any religious, emotional, political or moral aspects of abortion (I think there is a separate article for it). It is about the mere facts of the WHAT, HOW, WHEN, HISTORY, etc. of abortion. It should be filled with facts and scientific evidence and somewho integrate all point of views. Somehow I do not see that this article improves much although I watch it now for a long time.

For the comment about fertility quote. I agree that refers a lot to social factors such as no child care, worse economy, etc. Getting children is not only about being able to but also wanting a child or able to raise it.

I'm glad someone is interested in my idea of being able to raise the child (of course not everyone would like my answer to that...i like the Scandinavian models. This isn't actually supposed to the be the "american" page...you can find that at "Abortion in the United States" however i agree with you there is a strong US flavour to the page. Take a look at the Abortion in Canada page, you will find that it is written quite differently in style and content. On that page we spent a lot of time talking about access through medicare...there is very little talk of financial access on the US page (which is find wierd because its harder to access in the US but it could just be a country thing) On this particular page i haven't written as much actual text as been involved in the discussions that result in text. Why not try to improve it to where you think it should go? New editors are always welcome on Wiki (and someone will erase what they don't like and then everyone can discuss it.....i'm glad to have your knowledge of W. Germany...its been a few years since i was reading on this...is it still the same that there are very different laws in the East and West...and can you have an abortion clinic or legalized safe spot to go to if individuals having the abortion can't be charged? In Canada for a while they stopped prosecuting a Doctor in Quebec resulting in Montreal having the only abortion clinic inthe country at the time...all other abortions had to be done in a hospital and fit a lot of other rules to fit into the criminal code excemption that allowed abortion--Marcie 22:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
back in the days of back street abortions there was an increased chance of infertility because there was no way of making sure folks knew how to do the procedure (i'm sure we all know well enough about that). I've never heard of any other fertility effects and the other thing to keep in mind is that about 1 out of every 15,000-24,000 (i'm not into looking up the numbers again unless someone feels the real need i did it about a month ago for another wiki page) of women who give birth to a child die. Many less die with abortion (its in the 1:200,000 range). So in the end it seems to me the risk of infertility are a lot smaller, if you just take chance of death if you are pregnant into account (ie if you are less likely to die from the abortion you are than birth you can have more kids easier...but maybe that is too cynical--Marcie 23:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is wrong on a few accounts, but I'll let someone else edit it since I'm short on time and don't want to do a hack job:

  • Some studies suggest that emergency conceptives can thicken the uterine mucus and thus interfere with implantation of a zygote, but, if true, this also happens with normal birth control pills taken regularly as well. Some institutions or individuals mistakenly consider use of emergency contraceptives to be abortions (notably the Roman Catholic Church) because they confuse emergency contraception with true fetotoxic abortion pills.

First, this issue is thinning not thickening the uterine lining. Secondly, whoever wrote this downplays the opposition to their position, e.g. Roman Catholic Church is not so naive as it is made to sound (and I'm not a Catholic!). Third, the thinning of the uterine lining is indeed an issue even with normal birth control pills.

Finally, I think a separate page should be created for the Morning After Pill and a link could be made from this page. Thanks.

There is already a page on the morning-after pill. The actual mechanism discussion might be able to be moved there but i think it is still appropriate to have some information on it, on this page, because of the fact the Roman Catholic Church does view it as abortion and it might be looked up on an abortion page. A bit of information as to why those that aren't Roman Catholic don't generally view it as an abortion pill, as say opposed to RU486 is in my view necessary...but hey there is the link if anyone wants it ! It appears to be quite comprehensive although i didn't give it a full run-through...i just wanted to see if it was there--Marcie 22:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abortion-Breast Cancer article title assistance

I have almost completed a long and I hope thorough article on the abortion-breast cancer issue. But I am remain unsure how I should name it. Here are some contenders and what my current feeling is of them.

"Abortion-Breast Cancer Link": Straight to the point, and gets a persons attention, but seems biased and inflammatory.

"Abortion-Breast Cancer Issue": Ambiguous, but safer.

"Abortion-Breast Cancer Debate": More descriptive... but unsure if this is correct syntax. Should it be "Abortion-Breast Cancer (debate)"?

Or should I just go for "Abortion-Breast Cancer" and leave it at that. Also should there by a hyphen or not? --RoyBoy 08:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Is this going to be a stub or a full article (curiosity...i want to follow it).Personally i would favour Abriton Breasty Cancer Debate, because at this point it is just that: a debate that no one has answered yet. Also if you are going to be dealing with effects of the pill somehow there are statistics of it increasing some types of cancer and decreasing other types.
All said the only link i've ever come across is linked to social factors, or has been an unclear study. One area not mentioned (if we are going to discuss breast cancer) is early onset of peroid which puts you at a higher risk...something they have tracked down and will become a bigger issue perhaps in the future because girls are getting their preiods earlier and earlier (no firm proof but some think its hormones in food.
If you are going to look at studies i would want their url on the talk page so we can all read them (everyone interprets all things in life to a certain extent)--Marcie 14:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Big, full article. Oh yeah, I need help finding a general graphic or two for the article. Okay, I'm confused :')... "Abriton"? Is that a typo? As to syntax, should it be "Debate", "debate" or "(debate)"? No, I will not be exploring the pill; I do mention it as a confounding factor on the ABC issue.
- Well if you think about it abortion is indirectly linked to social factors. For example a upwardly mobile women gets an abortion to pursue education and a career. Any effect this would have would be difficult to separate from the confounding factors of delayed child rearing, the pill and the like. "social factors" in essence is a way to say "we don't know which is doing what, but its probably a combination of these factors prevalent to this group of women." As to early menarche, I am aware of that and I'll make an effort to find mention of it in the studies I'm examining (there are statistics indicating that, but if the study(s) do not theorize on the cause and its impact on the ABC issue, I cannot elaborate on it). But as to the cause, yes diet has to have some impact, but so does environmental pollution (estrogen mimicry of chemicals, estrogen in water... thanks to the pill), and perhaps even time watching TV (ie. exposure to artificial light) triggering early maturation.
- The majority of my references will be studies, but with the injustice of scientific publishing, you will have to either pay a bunch of money to get the stuff online, or go to the nearest University / cancer-center and research this stuff yourself if you want all the details. Only abstracts are available online for the majority of the studies. --RoyBoy 01:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It was a typo...i meant the abortion debate. As to the exact syntax as to word the article, i'm still new enough here that i'm not quite sure. My experience has been that if i do put the wrong title on an article usually someone fixes it (not that i've started that many on my own). The most recent article is started is on delisting and has to do with Canadian health care. So far its title has not gotten any complaint...but then it was one that was listed and needed a bit of filling out.
As for leaving issues of the pill out...well they are all linked in some similar ways..ie based on hormones. I'll look for an open source study in the days ahead although its likely to take a while to find. I haven't had to rely on any studies directly that weren't public domain yet.
At some point i may go to the library if there is suffient work on the page...for now i don't really feel that much like it---the right library is 45-60 minutes away that would have journal articles on the topic.--Marcie 04:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is unfair and shows a biased point of view( or the tendency towards one)if someone is using material where only the abstract is generally available publicly without expense. All of this is supposed to be GNU regardless and no copyrighted material is to be directly used (and you can't do footnotes here...which might help the problem but i've been told you don't have footnotes in a encyclopedia when i asked when i started).

Also it seems to me from what i've seen of the first study you mention that it would need to be social effects to cause women from Russia and the US to have differences that were so large after having an abortion...although i'm going to go through the stats to see the probability. What do others think?--Marcie 21:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have an acquaintance who works at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta in the unit that deals with maternal health; specifically, she works on breast-feeding. At dinner a few weeks ago we were discussing the studies concerning breast cancer and abortion. She mentioned a recent study that showed that any correlation between breast cancer and abortion was due to the fact that breast-feeding lowers the risk of breast cancer, and of course women who have had abortions are less likely, often not being mothers, to be or to have been breast-feeders. The incidence of breast cancer in women who have had abortions versus other non-mothers or non-breast-feeding mothers is the same, she said. She also described how the CDC gets called in by State Health Departments to help with their publications and documents on this issue. She mentioned that many state health department are under pressure from State Legislatures and governors to publish materials stating a link between abortions and breast cancer. The workers in the CDC unit so far have not been put under political pressure about this, which I was pleasantly surprised to learn. This is all from my memory of a conversation, but if this is of interest to anyone for the purposes of the article, I might be able to get references. --BM 22:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Breastfeeding as a factor is interesting and could explain partly the increase in breast cancer (more mothers feed by bottle now than did at one point, and there was no bottle early on). I've gone through the Russian/American stats in the paper. It took a lot of regressions for them to get statistically signficant information in most case P=.05 (as a minimum required in stats to prove anything). Also the methdology varied between the two groups (one group was asked the questionaire and the other was filled out). Also there seemed to be a good corelation between past abuse and PTSD symptoms...which even the authors state could be a complication of prior ptsd. While intersting i don't think this study proves much of anything except that Russian women on average seem to have less problems after they have an abortion.....but that is not what is on the page at the moment. Also it is clearly not GNU license. How far can an article be used that isn't GNU (and no this isn't particularly to be picky here...i've wondered but this is where it came up in a large way)....comments folks? And to put a bit of perspective in, i don't know if this has been published in a study (i've never cared to look) but a large percentage of abuse survivors in childhood (especially sexual abuse but not limited to) have a horrific time going to the dentist...books have chapters on how to deal with it if it is a problem for a person....but skipping the dentist isn't always the best solution--Marcie 22:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Marcie. Well, very few references are under GNU. Under the fair-use doctrine of copyright law, you can quote copyrighted works, often quite long quotes. Facts cannot be copyrighted. So that means statistics cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation format can be. That means you can summarize and present facts and conclusions for a published study, expressed in your own words, and presented your own way, without any constraints at all. Of course, academic standards related to plagiarism, etc, demand that you provide the reference and credit the source, somehow, either in the text or a footnote. (But you knew that.) I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy holding people to academic standards regarding citations, etc, but I don't see how it hurts. If people couldn't quote passages and cite statistics and results from studies, studies would be of no use to anyone. The only exception that I could think of would be if you had to sign some kind of Non Disclosure Agreement to get your hands on some material, which might take the form of a clause in a license or some other kind of agreement. Then, it wouldn't be copyright, but the NDA that you had signed which you would have to worry about. --BM 22:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When i started out (a while ago) and wanted to use footnotes on my first page i was told that "this was an encyclopedia, and they don't use footnotes". Interesting how things differ from place to place on the wiki eh? People didn't want the footnotes taking up space on the page was what i was told bascially. So i've never only infrequently quoted anything...just taken the statistics and information and reworded it. Is anyone else here good in stats? I'm not bad but i'm not great either but it seemed to me that the authors of the first study mentioned (on trauma) were presenting the statitics in full but only commenting on the one's that they found interestinig or that fit well into their model. I'd love to track back the funding too...could be an interesting one but not for tonight. The article was available which was appreciated.
Actually when you get down to it copyright probably differs between country. I'm Canadian and the Supreme Court recently ruled that stopping people from doing peer to peer music (in a non-comercial way ie not a company) was like trying to bar people from using the photocopier in the library and made no sense (record companies are not happy and are trying other methods to get it banned). In university i thought it was a hoot how they put up the rules of photocopying in the photocopy room and said they took no responsability if anyone broke the rule...but then they didn't exactly say what the rules were either (any journal article can be copied for personal use, a certain percentage of a book etc etc). More was allowed then you would sometimes thing...less at other times. I didn't bother to pay much attention to it...i didn't read well in the library so if it was on reserve it got photocopied.--Marcie 23:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Concerning footnotes in the Wikipedia. I didn't know it was a policy, but I must admit I've never seen footnotes. But that doesn't stop you from quoting and just giving the attribution right in text. In the December, 2002 edition of the "Journal of Omniscience", well-known know-it-all B.M. stated "You can do a kosher quote like this." --BM 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes thank you BM. I'm not sure even that was left or maybe i gave up (i was never any good at doing that type of citation and took too old fashioned footnotes because they were most often used in my major and that meant on set with some variations in courses (ie history course wants it in this way, this teacher liked that. Eventually i came up with a mix that worked well for me and pleased the proffessors well enough except i'm not sure its in any book. I did a lot of cross discipline so it seemed like there was yet ANOTHER way to do it. For an article here i'll start that way i think.Academic habits are hard to get rid of when doing it wrong could get you kicked out of school (unusual they took it easy on folks in 1st year and sometimes 2nd...i was told one of my first year papers wasn't sufficiently footnoted and that how i did it was part of the problem as would likely be a bigger problem in 2nd year. But they showed me an idea of how it could have been done, and it was very clear they didn't think i'd taken someone else's idea, i just didn't quite get the standard right. I lost one mark for it (i forget what it was worth but say from like a B+ to a B)...and after a while its just a habbit that you work with towards writing better papers--Marcie 02:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I reverted my contribution about state laws that require notification or signatures in regards to the questionable Abortion-Breast Cancer link. I think it is absolutely valid to indicate in the article that there are states that perpetuate this finding regardless of substantial scientific evidence. --Howrealisreal 00:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Howrealisreal - Thanks for the formatting change, I did it that way initially and thought it was "wrong" because it didn't line up. As to the reversion I actually prefer it there since it provides a quick way to see the the 'news' of the ABC issue. But at the same time I agree with Marcie on using U.S. references in the Abortion page; and in case you had not noticed I put that paragraph in the Conclusion of the ABC debate article since it was a result of the ABC debate. As to your characterization of it being a "perpetuation", some would deem it an "informing". I'm not speaking from a pro-life perspective... I'm talking about potential legal action in the future. Something that, as I understand it, is a real threat to medical professionals. As I see it, it isn't a matter of biology, but of legal preemption. Some states may regret not doing it sooner regardless of what link there actually is. There could be a legal basis to argue information was withheld; particularly if the abortion is delayed for various reasons. Maybe I should add this to the Conclusion... hmmmm... maybe a new section called State Laws since the paragraph seems out of place in the conclusion in the first place. --RoyBoy 06:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that the information is relevant but that what needs to be kept in mind is that this is the page on abortion not the page on Abortion in the United States. A mention of it here as one way it is getting more difficult to get an abortion with a link to the american page would seem more suitable to me. The page here was split a while ago because of issues like this. It is very relevant information (forcing women to read stuff that isn't scientifically based as a way of decreasing abortions). However it is a US issue so i would suggest a very short summary here and them move over there (there is a list of countries and abortion and you'll find they are all written differently ,different concerns maybe as well as culture. The section on the cost of abortion and accessiblity in the US was brought up by me...while the Canadian page abortion in Canada has a whole section that deals with access to abortion in various ways...when access in Canada is generally better than in the US).--Marcie 02:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Marcie - As to forcing women to read things that aren't scientifically based, well that is certainly the style of pro-lifers, but I would hope the state was a little more discerning than that regarding what they tell women regarding the ABC issue. Then again I've never been one to trust Texas; they routinely try to get Creation in the classroom there! :'D --RoyBoy 06:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These are ongoing concerns with the page which need to be discussed

Abortion when done early are much more safer than 1%. They tend to have a death rate of 1 for every 200,000 women who have the procedure. I don't know of the later types of abortion although i may well go and look it up. I do know that the death rate in giving birth is about 1 for every 15000-20000 women. One statistics means the other should be included i think. You are statistically much more likely to live if you have an abortion...and living you have a chance to have another child although i'd reword it for point of view issues
I don't think you have read one of the articles you included a paragraph about. It looks like you either used the abstract or copied out the conclusions (i'm going to look). If you look at the statitistics in the report i think it shows that they are ignoring important evidence that they are getting that is signficant ie p=0.05 or less and only using the statistically useful information to push their point of view.They don't spend much time on the impact of past abuse even though there is a huge load factor where those stats are concerned. In fact there were different methodologies used between the studies (a huge no no if it is at all possible to avoid in statistical papers),including that one was filled in personally and one was filled in by a doctor or nurse asking questions of the woman. While they were trying to correct for culture it makes the answers difficult to correlate, for good or for bad ie either way. The main thing that statistics seemed to show is that women from Russia don't get as upset over an abortion as women in the US which makes perfect sense because its not a big no no there and due to lack of birth control it was used regularly.
Have you looked into the Elliot institute. Generally its not proper to put a link in that has bias except at the end (where you will notice there are pro choice and pro life links. Generally links are left to the end of the page unless there is another Wiki article on the topic, especially ones that are opinonated in debate).
Personally i think too much is left in the article about the ABC link seeing as it is really an American set of arguments (you have to be way into reading the debates to come across it here and then you only usually do based on US policy, although people do recognize that there is a possibility perhaps...but as i pointed out there is a possibility that you will die in birth as well, which is more often pointed out). Given the fact that it is a large debate but American centric something along these lines i think would be better if presented as such (and i'm trying to maintain your writing)...
The Abortion-Breast Cancer (ABC) debate centers around the fact that during early pregnancy hormone levels increase significantly.. This initiates cellular differentiation (growth) in the breast preparing for lactation. The ABC theory is if the pregnancy is aborted prior to full differentiation in the third trimester this could leave more "vulnerable" cells than prior to the pregnancy; resulting in an elevated risk of breast cancer and this position has a significant but minority position and continues to do research. The Planned Parenthood website notes that "attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed."At the same time it has yet to be invalidated. Regardless of the debate over the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link some of the US states are requiring women to read information including this before having an abortion, which is more fully discussed on the Abortion in the United States page which appears to be a method of making abortions harder to aquire. It does not appear that they provide information on the full debate, just one side.
In my opinion the rest should be moved to the ABC page or to the abortion in the United States and some parts to both. Its an american issue in terms of main impact and which states are requiring it and such is also an american issue.Not a general one. Canadians are not forced to read anything before they have an abortion and i'm not currently aware of other countries that do (perhaps there are some...that would strengthen your argument to keep it on the main abortion page). Some of the medical information on what you wrote is not just an american issue. I don't necessarily agree with all of what i suggested be left in, but my POV is not the one to run the page by, and i have heard of the debate before so its not inappropriate on the page or POV in my view. My personal view from statistics follows the line of if you have no children you are more likely to get breast cancer and the possible one about breast feadin mentioned above...in fact i think that one would be worth working in as a counterpoint. Can you find a reference for what you were talking about BM? I would think its relevant regardless as it is another position that is taken frequently (that not having children at least causes some of the problems...this one suggests why).
Royboy i do appreciate that you have done a lot of work on the topic, and it may be controversial but worthy of partly being on the main page, partially on the US page, and partially on the ABC page (although i'm likely to go looking at your sources there eventually). Its not a personal issue and in fact your writing is good. Its an issue of where its relevant and what sources are being used...i would think that with such a popular (if small) opinion there ought to be some studies written in English---i've got second year statistics, enough to know some things but that paper was not written for those with even second year statistics. You would need a minimum of fourth year, at least where i went to university (there was a 200 and a 400 but the 400 was not required...however i think it dealt in large part with how regressions work and not a lot of new content because sometimes the grad students would take it and hand in extra paperwork---but the content can not then be that different)
And people can screw up their stats worse than this in my opinion. Do you remember the book The Bell Curve. If you went through all the statistics taht were supposed to show you that overall whites were smarter the author only managed with all his regressions to get a probability of p=0.10. That means that it might be worth looking into but from a staticians point of view it means nothing whatseover....but he sure sold a lot of those books--Marcie 14:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the acknowledgement Marcie, it was a lot of work. As to changing the first two paragraphs of the ABC entry... well I was merely following Wiki formatting (as I understand it) and putting the introduction of the ABC article here. Although it does make reference to U.S. institutions, that happens to be where the debate is centered, as you noted. To move parts to "Abortion in the U.S." would make it not only difficult to read but would contradict the content of the ABC article intro. Although your editing attempt has made me reconsider the content of the ABC introduction; I currently believe it to be appropriate. The goal was to briefly tell about the ABC theory, show it wasn't proven, but at the same time plausible (although using U.S. institutions this is focused on the ABC debate)... and then give an overview of the ABC debate. So I would have to disagree with your edit, but as you may have noticed I do agree with removing the third paragraph since it deals just with the U.S. and is contained in the ABC article anyway. As to not having children and not breastfeeding; these are confounding factors in the ABC debate and are important to consider, but it is not a counterpoint. Meaning that scientists are fully aware those things reduce breast cancer risk, and they are included in the case-control and/or statistical adjustments in ABC scientific studies. Although breatfeeding is usually not listed as a factor, the reason for that is it's assumed part of the protective effect of having a full term pregnancy comes from breastfeeding. Meaning breastfeeding is already included within another factor. If women breastfeed less, well then the protective effect of having a full term pregnancy is reduced and that will be reflected by that factor. (assuming they have a recent study of it) And I just realized I might need to explain that in Confounding Factors. Thanks for pointing it out, and keep up the suggestions. BTW, I'm Canadian too! --RoyBoy 18:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think someone may have reentered the paragraph after you...some guy that isn't even discussing things has done a lot of editing on the page and i must admit i somtimes find it hard to look exactly from edit to edit (although some of it just seemed to be Wiki stuff that some folks are particular about). I added in the meta-analysis that was done by the Lancet to the area as i feel that seeing as it is viewed as controversial it is reasonable to include other studies as well. Somewhere along the way someone erased it (but i remembered it being there and went back far enough to find it...unfortunately these pages get vandilized a lot).
I will admit i misread what was here in the article about PTSD (or its been altered i think i misread it). It says that it will be more likely to cause problems in those who are abused (just what i was bitching about in the last entry---sorry). I do think there could be a clearer way of putting it such as "a study showed that for those with a history of being abused it was shown that an abortion...and then on with the statistics". I do think also there needs to be a caution about the different methods used to collect the data...it isn't really fair to compare a self filled out form with a form that your doctor or nurse is filling out in my view (and that was how they did it although they do note that factor and why...)...even if it shows that Russian women are much less effected, which could well be used either way. Appreciate sane conversation...can be hard to find sometimes--Marcie 22:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Marcie, uh it wasn't vandalized... I erased it since it is in the new ABC article I wrote. It should be removed, along with the other reverted paragraph not only because it is repetitive, its making the ABC entry in Abortion long, and elevating a study to the Abortion article is hardly NPOV. That would force me to put another study which indicates a link to balance that one out, but that is silly since they are both already in the ABC link debate article. Have you read the new article yet? And your welcome for the sane conversation... although I prefer insane conversation myself... civil, but insane. :') --RoyBoy 22:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ABC Article Intro

I have reworded the ABC Article intro (moving part of it into Confounding Factors where it seems to be better suited) and pasted that into the Abortion article deleting the previous paragraph reversions. The reasons for the deletions is to be in compliance with Wiki formatting regarding the intro being the only thing to appear on a parent page, and because those paragraphs have been incorporated in the new article. --RoyBoy 00:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, I just got around to seeing your progress of the ABC debate article. I just wanted to take some time to thank you for maintaining my contribution, and placing it in a very appropriate spot in the debate article, which is referenced in the parent Abortion article. I think that this is a better way of organizing the information. Nice work, and let me know if I can help you at all in your future endeavors. --Howrealisreal 01:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! And I thank you for not only the contribution, but also for the reversion. Because it forced me to reconsider the recent information (which I had missed in my research) in a broader context... hence the new State Laws section. I think I'm starting to feel the Wikilove. :'p Actually now that I think about it... I need help trying to come up with a good an appropriate image for the new article. The best I've come up with is a naked women covering her breasts... but isn't just about breasts, its about politics and abortion and bias and... argh! What kind of image can embody that? --RoyBoy 07:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you can keep the image of the naked woman but have her holding a law book over one of her breasts, a biology book over the other, and a confused look on her face. Perhaps that is a little too politically charged? =] --Howrealisreal 19:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the flurry of edits, I kept screwing up.

I went to the site, and even as a pro choice person, felt it was not neutral. Introduced many opinions without facts supporting them. [[User:GregNorc|GregNorc|Talk]]

It was a good call. Uh, I'm new here... should I say seconded or something like that? :'D In order to make up for the loss I added a religioustolerance.org link. You likey? --RoyBoy 07:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Moved religioustolerance.org link to appropriate section.) (Unsigned anon)
I moved Planned Parenthood back to the politically neutral section. The site has some great, documented, neutral information on it. PP is also involved with political action stuff like www.saveroe.com, etc., which is obviously not neutral. Since the material that has an agenda is not on the plannedparenthood site, though, I think it belongs back in the politically neutral section. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Without having looked at the site, I think I can say that it should have remained where it was. A link to a site that represents one side is not a politically neutral link, even if the information linked to is "factual" and "documented", and even if they try to be objective. As for neutrality, if side A feels that the article is biased toward side B, then side B shouldn't get to decide that it's neutral. In short, neutral should be reserved for those links everyone agrees is neutral. I'm putting it back. Oh, and I remove that dentist parallel. Comparisons like that don't belong in an encyclopedia.
Fair enough; I won't start an edit war over it. I do urge you to take a look at the site, though. The name "Planned Parenthood" might stir up some ire from pro-lifers because it does have a political agenda, but that's not the group's sole responsibility for being. What I intended for the "politically neutral" section was links that don't touch upon whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal, but rather links to sites where you can get factual information about the procedure. Seeing as the Planned Parenthood material that is political is not in the www.plannedparenthood.com domain, but rather www.saveroe.com etc., I think plannedparenthood.com fits. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

problems still (partial list)

References to the laws are still too american to the page...do you see many other references that specific to a country? No you don't because its been moved to that countries page. At the very most there should be a mention that women are forced to information on this is some american states. I'm sorry but that SHOULD be on an american page---and it makes sense on the debate page. So Planned Parenthood isn't neutral? None of the doctors you are using on these pages (or the next on one the debate) appear neutral at all to me or to have published neutral pages! If you want to write on a topic that can get as politicized as this one part of it is (IMHO) managing to balance the links, not just find one's that aren't political. Political pages will often do a better job of giving the character of the debate. And even if you view planned parenthood as "political" they are a well known group AND their biases are well known by the population. One way of solving this may be reintroduing the lancet article on meta analsys here.

Between this and the other page (ABC) page, i feel like there are a lot of problems. Hopefully they can be worked out...but at this point the page is blantantly POV even if such were not the goal --Marcie 10:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Elliot Institute

I agree on the Elliot Institute. That URL, when misleadingly introduced as "another good reference", has no place next to a discussion of academic quality research. I am deleting the reference from that section in its present form, though it may yet find a place when described properly as an organization that engages in anti-abortion campaigns. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The link removed is: http://www.afterabortion.org/elliot.html --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clinical Depression

I have modified the categorical claim that abortion has been associated with clinical depression. Actually the evidence on this is mixed, and tends toward the negative. A longitudinal study by the APA found no evidence of Post Abortion Syndrome. There are many other studies that have tried and failed to find good evidence of a link. When I have time I'll write a review of the pro- and con- studies. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Politics and abortion

I've talked with American friends am so I'm aware that abortion is an extremely hot potato in some parts of the USA. I've added a section illustrating the apolitical nature of the abortion debate in the UK. British politicians do care about, and debate, issues like the improvements in technology that permit premature neonates to survive as early as mid-second trimester, but the debate lacks the edge that it possesses in the USA. No woman in the UK need fear that politicians will take away her right to a medically sanctioned first or second trimester abortion. I feel that the debate in the UK may more properly represent that general debate than that which takes place, in the presence of extreme religious viewpoints, in the USA. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

article rewording

I basically moved two parts of an article around, the one on ptsd like symtoms. The way it was presented it was not clear that most of the bad results came from women who had already been abused in the past. After shifting the two parts i added in that other factors that still need doing show similar effects for women in those situation--Marcie 21:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abortion article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abortion}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't try that. I just did and the list is very big. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_4&oldid=1136491154"