[WikiEN-l] An expansion of Ed's proposal on "partial-birth abortion"

Wed Oct 29 21:00:29 UTC 2003

Here's a proposal to try to achieve something reasonably neutral.

Despite the fact that I think our commentator is biased in the opposite 
direction, upon re-reading the article I do agree that something should 
be done about the problematic terminology (though I don't think the 
article as a whole is particularly bad).  The basic problem is that both 
terms are considered biased by the people who use the other term: the 
disagreement is over whether this partial removal of the fetus from the 
"womb" (or corresponding term if you prefer) properly constitutes 
"birth".  Those who say yes call it "partial birth", while those who say 
no refer to it simply as "extraction".  Many "pro-choice" advocates find 
the former biased, implying as it does that it's a baby being killed 
rather than a fetus being aborted; many "pro-life" advocates find the 
former biased, implying as it does that it's merely some tissue being 
"extracted".

Since I think perhaps some citations will help our credibility here 
(since it's so contentious an issue), I've been casting around for who 
to cite as neutral enough.  So far the best source I've come up with is 
the Journal of Applied Ethics, which seems to take a fairly neutral 
stance on these issues, and consider all points of view more fully than 
the medical journals do.  A quick survey of articles I could readily 
identify as "pro-choice" or "pro-life"  indicated that they're 
numerically biased slightly in favor of "pro-choice".

They primarily use the terminology "partial-birth abortion", written in 
one of the following ways:
* Partial-birth abortion
* "Partial-birth abortion"
* "Partial-birth" abortion

Some commentators further qualify it, as in "The loosely-defined 
'partial-birth' abortion has featured prominently in the recent 
political debate over legalized abortion in the United States ...".

Use of the term "partial dilation and extraction" is fairly sparse, 
often also put in quotes; it's used now and then to identify a specific 
medical procedure when the details of the procedure are relevant to the 
argument (but not to refer to the entire issue).  A typical sentence 
would be along the lines of "The most widely used 'partial-birth' 
abortion procedure is 'partial dilation and extraction', in which 
[...description...]".

With that in mind, and expanding on Ed's proposal, what do people think 
of the following:

one article
---
[[Partial-birth abortion]] - A discussion of the legal, moral, and 
related issues, and a link to specific procedure(s) that commonly are 
held to fall under this heading.  An introductory sentence (well, two) 
might be along the lines of

"The term '''''partial-birth abortion''''' is used by some to refer to 
abortion procedures such as [[partial dilation and extraction]] in which 
the fetus emerges partially from the uterus during the procedure.  Note 
that some supporters of legalized abortion consider the term biased, and 
there is controversy over which procedures it covers; the remainder of 
this article [...some sort of disclaimer...]."

a second article
---
[[Partial dilation and extraction]] - Dicsuss only the specific medical 
procedure, and mention that it features controversially in the debate 
over [[partial birth abortion]].

---

As for terminology within articles, it'll just take some careful reading 
to try to balance it.  The basic tension is between opponents of 
legalized abortion, who want the descriptions to be as gruesome and 
detailed as possible, and between supporters of legalized abortion, who 
want the descriptions to be as detached, clinical, and jargon-filled as 
possible.  Hopefully we can avoid doing either.

Does that sound reasonable?

.-Mark