Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chooserr (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 26 January 2007 (→Langman's Medical Embryology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Abortion Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conception vs. fertilization

To me, these two words are synonyms, and when editing relevent articles (such as this one) I try to use both words to avoid repeating the same word over and over again. But all of my edits have been changed to use 'fertilization' exclusively, never mentioning 'conception' in the article. Any ideas why? Lyrl 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article is Fertilisation. Conception redirects there. But second of all, there has been an effort by the ACOG to define "conception" at implantation. TO avoid confusion, I personally use Fertilisation if I am talking about the union of a sperm and egg. However, I am not the one who changed your edits so I cannot speak for them.--Andrew c 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, but Andrew speaks for me on this matter. Al 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification re:ACOG. On spelling, the 'z' spelling gets 18 million hits on Google. The 's' spelling gets only 3 million hits. The Misplaced Pages article indicates that both spellings are acceptable, but that the 'z' spelling is more widely used. Lyrl 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to spelling, its a matter of British English vs. American English. The normal convention is to pick one and use it consistently throughout the article. I personally think it is a hassle to have to add excessive code in order to avoid a redirect and get the spelling correct, by typing ], so I just stick with the Brittish spelling for ease. I bet there is a big discussion about the spelling over at that talk page.--Andrew c 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I should add that Google results are frequently criticised for establishing prominence of a term. They only reflect internet usage and are therefore biased to Americans and especially not reflective of Indians and others who use English in less developed countries Nil Einne 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Established pregnancy?

The edit refers to "established pregnancy" as a medical term, but it's not one I'm familiar with. In one location, it seems to be used synonomously with implanted pregnancy (replaced the phrase 'detectable pregnancy'), while in the other location it seems to mean a pregnancy further along (discounting early pregnancy losses). Does anyone have a link to a definition? Lyrl 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding as abortion

Some anti-abortion groups acknowledge the postfertilization effect of breastfeeding, but defend it based on the bioethical principle of double effect. Use of hormonal contraceptives, including EC, is usually motivated by an intention to avoid pregnancy - when one of the proposed mechanisms operates after fertilization, they consider these methods immoral. Breastfeeding is motivated by - and has the primary effect of - nourishing a child. Because the intention is presumably not related to avoiding pregnancy, they do not consider immoral any secondary, or double, effect of harm done to unimplanted embryos.

The way I see it, these groups must therefore agree that breastfeeding can cause abortions (under their view) but it's acceptable because it's a secondary effect and not part of the primary purpose. And I guess this means that any woman who continues breastfeeding to avoid pregnancy is as bad as someone who uses EC etc... I'm not suggesting we include the later but I do think we need to mention that they accept that breastfeeding can cause abortions assuming it's the case which it must be Nil Einne 12:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I question that any woman would breastfeed primarily as a method of birth control. Breastfeeding is painful for the first several weeks as the nipples toughen up. Infants generally feed for 20-45 minutes at a time, with 1.5-2 hours between the starts of feedings, including at night. That means mothers of newborns can have an infant latched on for up to 12 hours out of every day. And if extended breastfeeding is practiced (in the U.S., anything over a year, although the WHO defines it as anything over two years), the challenges of breastfeeding a toddler also make breastfeeding probably the most inconvenient form of birth control ever. I just cannot see any woman going through that unless their primary motivation was to provide the best nourishment possible for their child. Lyrl 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As OR, I know of at least one such case. As it happens, it was unsuccessful; she got pregnant within the year. Al 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, are people arguing that the Lactational Amenorrhea Method doesn't exist? Or that it doesn't work? Or that no one practices it? or what.... (perhaps we could find a way to wikilink to LAM)--Andrew c 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument: Is a woman's only or primary reason for breastfeeding ever birth control?

I'm arguing that a woman would not breastfeed unless her primary reason was to feed the child. Most women only use LAM as birth control if they were going to breastfeed anyway. While I can see help in avoiding pregnancy as being one of several factors that makes a woman choose to breastfeed, I just can't see it being the factor. Lyrl 19:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit warring: I personally think the previous version was better than the recent edits that changed the title. This article is about the beginning of pregnancy controversy, and the only reason breastfeeding infertility is mentioned is because one of the definitions of pregnancy would thereby define LAM as abortion. Also, a fact tag was recently placed on something that seems like common sense. Could that tag be further explained please? Is this citation (last paragraph) ok to add to the article if it really is needed? NYT Magazine--Andrew c 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to breastfeeding section

The topic of the section is not breastfeeding infertility. The topic is the controversy over whether breastfeeding can cause abortions. A more accurate description than "breastfeeding infertility" is needed.

What definition is being tagged as unsourced? That pregnancy is sometimes defined as beginning at fertilization? That's the main topic of this article and is well-sourced in the "Definitions" section. That abortion is often defined as ending a pregnancy? A define:abortion search on Google shows that six of the seven top hits have "termination of pregnancy" or "loss of pregnancy" as part of the definition.

Or is it the connection between the definition of pregnancy, the definition of abortion, and the conclusion that breastfeeding is abortifacient? The cite later in the breastfeeding section says so: On page 63 of the 5th edition of "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions," you mention a physician as stating that breastfeeding can cause abortions. This site also draws the connection: if the emergency contraception pill causes abortions by blocking implantation, then by the same definition breast feeding may as well. As does this one: So, if emergency contraception is an abortifacient, so is breast feeding.

I would be happy to add one or more of these sources to the article if it is clarified for me what is being questioned. Lyrl 00:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire section needs work, currently reading as if breastfeeding is a common cause of abortion. It needs to downplay this, as breastfeeding stops ovulation and it is not often that fertilisation occurs. It is also confusingly worded, saying that, if pregnancy is defined by implantation, then not implanting is abortion - surely this should be if pregnancy is defined by fertilisation. The section after (Affected birth control methods) deals with this better, and I would question the need for a seperate section on breastfeeding.

I don't think the article correctly establishes the arguments about the classification of methods as contraceptives or abortifacients. It should be explicitly stated that if this definition of the start is used then these types of birth control methods are seen as abortive. I'm going to try a slight reorganisation which I hope will fix this. violet/riga (t) 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about "Ethics of Preventing Pregnancy"

I read the article up until the "Ethics of preventing Pregnancy" point, and found most of it really good, however in this section there are a couple of phrases which I don't like and one which I don't even underestand.

I'll start with the one I don't understand, "The intention of a woman to prevent pregnancy is an important factor in whether or not the act of contraception is seen as abortive by some pro-life groups." What exactly does this mean, I read it a few times and it still confuses me. Please can someone rephrase it or explain it here?

Now to the bits that bother me. "Some pro-choice groups have expressed concern that the movement to recognize hormonal contraceptives as abortifacient will also cause breastfeeding to be considered an abortion method." Have expressed concern? They are trying to trip people up saying "well if this is abortive so is THIS! What do you think about that". Of course that might not be the best thing to say, but "express concern" come on...

Chooserr 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding prevents embryos from implanting. However, women who breastfeed do not intentionally prevent those embryos from implanting - it is a side effect of feeding their child. The intention of the woman (feeding her child) makes the embryo death associated with breastfeeding moral. But the exact same effect (preventing embryos from implanting) is, according to these groups, immoral if caused by the Pill - because the woman is intending to prevent pregnancy.

Does that help? Lyrl _Contribs 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

history of the controversy of beginning of pregnancy

...how come there's no mention of it? are there any objections to adding a few sentences about "quickening" and how human chorionic gonadotropin testing changed the definition of the beginning in human understanding? (it would be sort of a mini history of the pregnancy test, i guess...i think it's interesting in particular that it was not possible to medically confirm pregnancy before 7wks gestation until mid 1970s...) Cindery 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. This article was created because the debate was taking up too much space on the abortaficent and EC articles. I still feel this article needs work, and giving background and historical information is one step towards improving it. --Andrew c 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I am reverting the last edit by Andrew c to the last version by me though I have no intention of violating the 3R rule.

Reasons: 1. Some of the references are not really references at all and haven't contributed in any way to the content of the article. As such shouldn't they be in a separate external links section? Andrew c's seems to have missed the point behind my change. As he says, " websites can be used as references". And I agree with him. My issue is that they are being used as references even though they aren't.

2. Also, even if they can indeed be shown to be acceptable references, reverting is a blunt tool and wiped out other changes I made to the article. Poweroid 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. If you remove references, you need to put a fact tag after the claims because now the claims are not cited. The first footnote is helpful, while not exactly a reference, it is an example the debate in the format of a medical journal. Instead of removing the note, I'd suggestion prefacing it with the words "For example..." The second and third links are references for a hospital and a medical company supporting the LMP gestational age counting. If we can keep the reference for doctors supporting the statement, I don't see why the hospital and medical company needs to go (if anything, combine the 3 different sources into one footnote). Finally, the 4th footnote that was removed is a clear citation of a pro-life organization considering EC to be an abortion. If we remove that note, we no longer have a verifiable source on this view. I still support including these footnotes as they were. However, I'd be interested in hearing counter arguments, and views from other editors.

2. I understand that reverting can remove helpful and neutral changes, and I apologize if I removed helpful content. However, your wikilink the terms contraceptives and menstruation isn't helpful because the first is a redirect to birth control, which is already linked to in the same sentence (menstruation is a redirect to Menstrual cycle, so adding brackets around the term is less prefered than to creating a soft redirect by typing ]). However, I will try to be mindful of removing helpful content in the future when doing reverts. I apologize if my revert came off as too aggressive. I hope we can work these matters out! (and I too have no intention of edit warring or coming close to the 3RR rule). --Andrew c 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Helpful points Andrew. OK, let me edit again to take account of your comments above and see if you approve. Poweroid 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of keeping the reference for doctors and adding the references to hospital and medical company I'd have preferred to remove all three references. However I have, in fact, restored the two I deleted.

With respect the pro-life group I don't have any pro-life or pro-choice agenda but just didn't think that it merited being quoted as a reference rather than just where I've got it now, in external links. I'm open to other editors' views.

I've taken your advice on the wikified links and have reversed my original edit + modified the menstuation one. Poweroid 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements in Misplaced Pages articles, especially if they are possibly controversial, need cites - proof that Wikpedia editors are not just making this stuff up.

The statement "professionals have debated the issue in medical journals" needs to be supported by proof. A citation to such a debate provides support for the statement.

The statement "Use of these drugs... is seen by some pro-life groups as immoral... because of the possibility of causing what they believe to be an abortion." also needs support. A citation to a pro-life group stating that oral contraceptive pills cause abortions provides support for the statement.

Renaming the citation section to "footnotes" or something may be more accurate, but the main issue is that Misplaced Pages articles need to be verifiable. The citations that have been removed have hurt the verifiability of this article by disconnecting statements in the article with the specific sources that support them. Lyrl _Contribs 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there is a site about pregnancy symptoms in the external links section. How is that relevant to the article topic? Lyrl _Contribs 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed you've changed the references all back to pretty much how they were before I edited the article at all. And it's probably how Andrew would prefer it too. To me it looks all screwed up and, unlike other articles, has references all over the place even when they are more appropriate in External Links. I'm not into edit wars but when I get a chance to read up some more on what constitutes valid references - and do some more research into how references are used in other articles - I'll be back with a more persuasive argument. Poweroid 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

External links are for general information on a topic. If the validity of a specific sentence or paragraph is being supported, that's when references/footnotes are used. My concern on removing the current footnote system is that it destroys the connection between the specific sentences/paragraphs and the evidence used to support them. This makes the article more difficult for a reader to independently verify. At least, that's my understanding of it. Lyrl _Contribs 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of controversy

I believe the source used "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin. Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus. No. 1. Philadelphia: Davis, September, 1965." is questionable. Searching google for "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin" gets one hit, a pro-life page. Searching google for "Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus" gets 48 hits, also pro-life sites. Does Ferrylodge have a copy of this source, or is the actually source a secondary source which is claiming to use this ACOG Bulletin? I think the best thing would be to find a good, reliable source (not a pro-choice/life site) that explains the history of the controversy, and site them instead. I'm not sure if such a source exists though.-Andrew c 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation I used is from a congressional hearing record. See here. Is more needed?Ferrylodge 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you should accurately cite where your information comes from. I'll look into this further, but if you get a chance, it'd be nice if you could replace the citation with the hearing citation.-Andrew c 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the footnote.Ferrylodge 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you were curious Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it. And I can't figure out how to view the text in the Senate Hearing that is referencing this Bulletin. Any suggestions? Thanks again.-Andrew c 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure you can view the Senate hearing online. One approach would be to go to the link I provided, and click on "Find Libraries", then input your zip code.Ferrylodge 02:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

According to aTime article, the "Human Life Bill" was a bill proposed by Jesse Helms in 1981, which was designed to "statutorily establish the beginning of human life at conception." The article Congressional hearing states:

" hearings provide a forum where facts and opinions can be presented from witnesses with varied backgrounds, including Members of Congress and other government officials, interest groups, and academics, as well as citizens likely to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposal."

We really cannot ascertain from the tiny snippet of the document offered by the Google Books search who provided the testimony regarding ACOG or in what context they did so. But, even so, their citation of the ACOG Bulletin is an example of a secondary source, which really is not sufficient to support the claims in the "How the Controversy Began" section. We would need to refer to the original ACOG Bulletin. -Severa (!!!) 14:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I quoted directly from the original ACOG bulletin. I only mentioned the Senate hearing to help confirm for Andrew c. the authenticity of the original ACOG bulletin. If you would like to obtain a copy of the Bulletin, feel free to call ACOG at 202-863-2518.Ferrylodge 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You quote one line from the Bulletin "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum." Everything else seems to be personal commentary/OR. I could do the same thing.

Traditionally, pregnancy was defined as beginning with fertilization. However, with advances is medical knowledge things began to change. In 1959, Min Chueh Chang's successfully performed IVF in rabbits. The scientific consensus was beginning to recognize how imprecise the traditional definition was. Test tubes did not become pregnant, even though they contained fertilized eggs. With a greater understanding of the female reproductive system, coupled with technological advances in IVF and birth control, it was becoming gradually clear to the scientific community that pregnancy began when a fertilized egg was implanted on the uterus wall. This is exemplified when the ACOG announced in 1965 that "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum." This change however is sometimes criticized in the abortion debate arena by those who personally believe human life begins at fertilization.

Of course this is over the top, and I would never suggest it be part of the article. I do think we should cut down on the editorializing in the current version, and perhaps find a neutral, reliable source that summarized the change, because right now all we have sourced is a single sentence from the Bulletin.-Andrew c 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bulletin is available to the public. Do I have to get you a copy?Ferrylodge 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Andrew c that quoting a single line from the ACOG document is not a "direct quotation." "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum" seems to be the only bit of the Terminology Bulletin anyone feels like quoting. The current version is especially problematic given the fact that it makes the unsourced, speculatory assertation that the issuing of the bulletin by ACOG was motivated by political ends. It might have just as well been that the bulletin was an attempt to refine to the definition of pregnancy to bring it into alignment with the new scientific evidence from the IVF experiments. The simple fact is that we don't have a reliable source to back up an assertation that there was an underlying motive either way, and, thus, including the suggestion in the article is counter to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. It should thus be removed.

As an aside, there wasn't a single return for in a PubMed search for an "ACOG Terminology Bulletin," although there were some for "ACOG Practice Bulletins" and "ACOG Technical Bulletins" . -Severa (!!!) 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'm not sure if you got a chance to read Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it yet. You need to cite The Human Life Bill. Just because they are citing other sources does not mean you can bypass the middle man.-Andrew c 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi andrew c., I did look at that link. Footnote 8 mentions the Human Life Bill. Did you take a look at footnote 8? Is that not adequate?Ferrylodge 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we consulting the original sources (i.e. hardbound medical textbooks c. 1972) on Boving, etc. in writing this? Because "borrowing" the information and citations from secondary sources really wouldn't be sufficient. Successive dependence on secondary sourcing tends to work like a telephone game. -Severa (!!!) 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am consulting original sources. Also, I am trying to find online links as best I can so people can verify the authenticity themselves, without having to go to the library like I had to do today. Please note the biographic information I inserted into the footnote about Dr. Biggers. This guy was extremely reputable, and he OPPOSED the bill that Severa has so diligently attributed to Senator Helms.Ferrylodge 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate that you actually went out of your way to go to the library. -Severa (!!!) 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I had to mess with microfiche. It was painful.Ferrylodge 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Langman's Medical Embryology

I believe the way that this is referenced is misleading (I tried to change the wording to be more accurate, but I feel it shouldn't be there). Langman's doesn't go out and give a straight forward definition of pregnancy. The citation mentions how gestational age is counted. It mentions Last Normal Menstrual Period (LNMP) (roughly a 40 week pregnancy) and it mentions counting from fertilization (roughly a 38 week pregnancy). It chooses to count from fertilization. This doesn't mean that they are defining pregnancy as starting at fertilization. This is a book on Embryology, and of course part of embryo development occurs during fertilization. No one is arguing that an embryo magically starts to develop at implantation. The focus of Langman's is the embryo, so it isn't strange at all that they start counting at fertilization. The focus is NOT on the woman, or pregnancy in general. On top of that, on page 41 they discuss contraception. They mention IUDs, oral hormonal contraception, and mifepristone (among others). They say that the pill works be preventing ovulation, they say it isn't clear that IUDs prevent fertilization or implantation, but they clearly consider IUDs contraception, and they say the mifepristone is an abortifacients . Judging by this, it is clear that Langman's does not support the arguments put forth in this article that certain forms of controversial BC are abortifacients. So a) they never say that pregnancy starts at fertilization (they say embryo development starts then) and b) they clearly say that IUDs, while possibly preventing implantation are not abortifacients. I'd propose removing that sentence, and possibly finding another medical text to replace it (if one exists).-Andrew c 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the Controversy

The first sentence under the Beginning of the Controversy section, states that the word "conception" has been used in reference to the beginning of pregnancy long before the discovery of fertilization, however, when clicking on the fertilization article, it says that it is also known as conception (which is a bit confusing). Also the reference to what most dictionaries said by the 1960s is misleading, because I think it implies, at least indirectly, that that has always been the definition of pregnancy. Just my thoughts on the matter, Chooserr 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Doesn't breastfeeding do the same thing as the Pill? Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2006. Accessed May 2006.

• Unassessed Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles