User talk:Ermadog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ermadog! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

How do I make a bookmarking link?[edit]

{{helpme}}

Thanks for the welcome.

I would like to know how to make a link that directs a person to a particular section of a web page. I know how to copy and insert an url from my browser bar. How can I direct the reader to the relevant paragrapgh in the page? I am using Opera 9.27 on Vista 32 bit Home Premium, if that is relevant.

Oh, yah, and how do I stick a template on my page? ermadogErmadog (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you talk about link in Wikipedia, it use [[LINK]], if you want to place a template, just do {{TEMPLATE NAME}}. Any question, you can still ask me. --Aleenf1 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I posed the question because the template name did not show up when I first pasted it. Now I see that it is there. did you edit it for me or does it just not show up in the preview mode? ermadogErmadog (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and personal attacks[edit]

Per the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, please do not make comments such as this unless you have solid reliable sources. Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the exact wording of mine which you consider to be uncivil or a personal attack. If you consult dictionary.com, you will discover that terms such as civil, rude, courtesy, etc. are matters of opinion devolving around an undefinable concept of "good manners". My experience of 55 years of living an a Western democracy shows that different social layers have different consensus as to what that constitutes good manners. For, instance, some people consider formality in matters of etiquette to be cold, and therefore rude; while others consider informality to constitute an unwarranted personal importunity. The wiki policy which you have cited further defines "unvility" as "personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress". This definition pretty much precludes any possiblity of any discussion of any disagreement whatsoever, because such discussion is, by definition, a conflict. And "stress" is another matter of subjective opinion.
For instance, Olive's response to ScienceApologist in this exchange appears to me to be a calculated dismissive response intended to stultify an unwelcome discussion:
"This edit restores NPOV to the article over the objections of those who believe that this subject can magically affect the world in mechanistic ways science does not recognize. We must be clear that the people doing the "research" are obviously deluded and biased. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
SA, thanks for your opinion.(olive (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC))"
I would consider this response to be uncivil and counterproductive. The bias to which he refers had been demonstrated in previous discussion by others.
If you think that I have made "titillating claims about people's lives", as per the biography of living persons section, please cite the exact wording. ermadogErmadog (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is Dreadstar's territory, I wanted to a reply to comments made on a statement I made weeks ago, and which may be outside of this warning period.
My response was exactly what it says it is. I consider SA's comment to be an opinion couched in less than neutral language... "deluded and biased" for which I thanked him, but did not engage him. Had he wanted to engage in further conversation there was absolutely nothing to stop him. Assuming SA is not capable of dealing with such a statement is less than complimentary. I have engaged SA in discussion in the past, and there is nothing in his history to indicate that he lacks the courage or intelligence to deal with any kind of statement if he wants to, and especially one that is so completely innocuous.(olive (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Your response was "SA, thanks for your opinion." which is terse and unwelcoming. Nowhere is there any indication that you consider his comments to have been "couched in less than neutral language or "deluded and biased". Your decision to "not engage him" indicates that you consider his comments beneath consideration. No one has appointed you the arbiter of what is or is not appropriate for discussion on this talk page. Any newcomer to the discussion would conclude that comments which you consider to be unworthy of reponse are not welcome. Your assumption that I consider ScienceApologist to be incapable of responding to your remarks is entirely unwarranted. My consideration was for the newcomer attempting to understand the current discussion on this page. Your statement regarding alleging assumptions on my part about SciencApologist are obviously a diversionary tactic, as they have no basis whatsoever in anything I said; and, futhermore, your remarks on this matter constitute an ad hominem attack and are therefore in bad faith. Ermadog (talk)ermadog

Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording.

No, actually, I won't forgive your for not providing me with the exact wording of your accusation. How can I possibly respond if I do not know the exact basis of the charge?Ermadog (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]

Here are some examples of where you targed another editor with uncivil personal attacks:

So, propaganda is acceptable on wikipedia?Ermadog (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]
Do you deny that woo woo queens exist in this world? Or are you suggesting that I referred to a wiki editor as a woo woo queen, which I did not.Ermadog (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]

As for the statement number one above, you’re wrong, there is no excuse for being uncivil…even if another editor actually is being dishonest as you so claim. This type of behavior will not be tolerated. Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar. So, if a person can be shown to be willing to waste his respondent's time by arguing in bad faith, i.e. employing argumentation methods that are blatantly dishonest, one should still treat that person as though they were arguing in good faith? I did not know that such masochism was a requirement of editorship in wikipedia. Someone needs to edit the front page of the English wikipedia from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the free encyclopedia that anyone who accepts our masochistic editing policies can edit"Ermadog (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]
Ermadog. I'm hoping you'll consider moving your comment directed to Olive that you posted on the TM Talk page to Olive's Talk page. I'd hate to have our discussion interrupted by a discussion of civility. And the Talk page may be a more appropriate venue. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Timidguy. If olive had not wanted a discussion of civility on the talk pages of the TM article, she should not have raised the topic there.Ermadog (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]

TM and science[edit]

Hi Ermadog, I saw your note at SA's talk page asking SA or others for advice on this, so thought I'd drop by and say hello. I've only been in Wikipedia for 3 months and I've been watching these pages, especially TM-Sidhi, for most of that time (it's kind of a funny story how I first got interested in the Maharishi Effect, but not worth telling now) and trying to decide whether there's a way to address the problems. For a long time, I was stymied by a misinterpretation of WP:V (verifiability) and of WP:RS (reliable sources) that is widely held among fringe advocates, that says that as long as something is verifiable, and as long as it's published in a peer-reviewed source, it's unassailable. I spent some time last night studying the reliable sources policy and finally realized that I've let these people just flat pull the wool over my eyes. I had always assumed good faith and supposed that if they're so sure that's what policy says, then that must be a reasonable interpretation of policy, or at least a reasonable misreading of the policy, made possible because the policy isn't clearly enough written to avoid confusion. Now I see there's no way a reasonable person could read policy the way they read it. Unfortunately some of them are extremely busy just now rewriting policy to fit their misreading, to make it easier to make Wikipedia a compendium of fringe ideas rather than a serious encyclopedia, but I hope there's someone more knowledgeable and respected than I am, who's paying attention and will ultimately keep them from being successful at that effort.

I was also stymied by WP:NOR (no original research) because much of my understanding about how bad these studies are is based on my expertise as a statistician and my having looked at some of the data and at the studies themselves, but none of the result of that evaluation is allowable because it all qualifies as original research. So as I say, I'd been biding my time and trying to think of a way to approach this that might have even a tiny chance of being successful against the vested interests that guard these articles. I'm thinking now that reliable sources is the obvious way to address the deficiencies of the article, because it is in so obvious violation of that policy, but you'd need enough people who believe in NPOV (real NPOV, not the weird kind of NPOV these people engage in, where if you add some muffled criticism to balance the positive spin, they think that qualifies as NPOV) to be able to make any progress. I hate fighting, more than about anything (you seem to have more of a taste for it) so I've been hoping to find a way to make these articles encyclopedic without fighting. I'm also very encouraged by the proposal to set up a Sourcing Adjudication Board; I figure that if we editors can't convince the vested interests that the fact that basically it's all primary sources, and no independent verification make this material unencyclopedic, then the Sources Board can.

As I've watched the article, what I've seen is one person at a time comes along, raises criticisms about the research, gets gently corrected by the (oh so polite and always impeccably civil) guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the pages, ends up apologizing to them for daring to raise the questions, and goes away. (And yes, many people have raised the question of conflict of interest, but it never goes anywhere, because they are very careful to give the impression of attempting to keep the article neutral, so there's really no case, even though of course anyone looking closely can see that there's nothing neutral about it).

You asked for advice, so I'll give you some: your approach in the beginning wasn't terribly helpful; your somewhat insulting comments just gave them an excuse to dismiss your valid criticisms and focus on what they characterized as incivility. It's best not to give them ammunition but to stick to the issues. I don't think John Hagelin, for example, is dishonest; I think he's just very deluded. But whether he's one or the other doesn't really matter to writing the encyclopedia, so there's no point in sharing my opinion about it with people whose reflex reaction would be to defend him. That's a very long post, but I've been thinking about this for quite a while, so forgive me for unloading. Welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. Woonpton (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To round out the above discussion, you might be interested in looking at a post on my talk page from olive, who was shocked (shocked!) to read what I wrote to you and felt the need to respond. However, instead of rebutting anything of substance in the thoughts I shared with you, she rather corroborates most of it by and in her response. That she takes everything in it very personally and assumes it's all about her, seems just bizarre, since in fact, I wasn't thinking of her particularly when I wrote any of it but the mention of guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the TM pages. Anyway, read, and see if it doesn't just confirm much of what I said. As I said, welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. A well-developed sense of humor may not be a prerequisite, but it does make the whole experience more entertaining. Woonpton (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have not been ignoring you; I have just been occipied with life outside of the Internet.
The strategy you describe in the first paragraph is one I've seen in all sorts of "consensus" based social groupings - hippie communes, anarchist collectives, petty bourgeois co-ops. It is a diversionary tactic, intended to divert the discussion away from matters of substance and bog opponents down in a morass of arcane rules regarding community "spirit" - an ambiguous concept intended as a form of moral disarmament. It is is specifically intended to stifle dissent. There is nothing polite about it.
I can understand your unwillingness to engage in dicsussion on the talk pages of the TM article; but, I do think it would be helpfull if you were to leave some comments, for the record. I can see that most of the studies cited are statistically insignificant, and are included solely as padding to give the scientifically illiterate public the impression that "science" supports TM in some unspecified way. This is dishonest argumentation, and should not be tolerated in an encyclopedia. I have no opinion as to the character of a person who engages in such tactics - they could be deluded, naive, malicious, or ignorant. The effect is still the same. It would be good if an actual statistician would give an opinion, for the record, in the talk page. Ermadog (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog[reply]

Your addition to Abortion[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to the Abortion article. From your contribution history, I can see you're aware of the Abortion law and History of abortion articles. Apologies if you've already aware, but we have a guideline called summary style, which encourages editors to spin off large sections of articles into separate articles (which are linked by the {{main}} template), and to leave just a summary of the new article in the original.

The Abortion article is still too large by our normal standards, so I wonder if you'd have another look at the section where you contributed and consider if your additions are already covered in detail in either of those other two articles, and if not, whether one of those two articles would be a more appropriate place for them? I can see you quite rightly wanted to clarify an issue in the historical debate, but we defeat the point of summary style if we go into too much detail in a "parent" article, if there's a "daughter" article where such detail is more appropriate.

Whatever conclusions you come to, you're clearly interested and knowledgeable on this topic, and have access to good sources, so perhaps you might like to think about if we could condense the History and Abortion law sections in Abortion further? The topic as a whole is contentious, as you can see from Talk:Abortion, so you may feel more comfortable making suggestions in a new section on that talk page first. I have the page watchlisted, and I'll do my best to help if you ever need any assistance, or are unsure. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In case your question at the top of the page is not yet answered, you can link to any section of a wikipedia page by using [[Article title#Section title]], so the sections I mentioned above are Abortion#History and Abortion#Abortion law. HTH --RexxS (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found myself incorporating much of the same material into a number of pages in the abortion project. With respect to the point at hand, I would suggest splitting off this section, merging with the history of law section in the History of abortion page and maybe some of the stuff I added to the Privacy section in the Abortion Debate page, and creating a History of Abortion Law Page. The background of the legal history requires a brief discussion of the philosophies and cultural realities of the ancient world, not an easy matter to summarize. Thanks for answering my formatting question. Now my problem is how to put references into the reference section at the bottom of the page.I keep ending up with dashed boxes around anything I add there. --Ermadog (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind me copying this back here to keep the thread together. It will be easier for you to find the whole thread again if you search for it in the future. I'll keep your page watchlisted for a while, so I see any reply you make.
I agree 100% with your analysis of what needs to be done, but I lack the background to be much help with the actual content. I suggest you create a sub-page of your own to work in. You could click this link User:Ermadog/Abortion history then copy and paste the wikitext (what you find what you find when you edit a section) into that page. Put the tag <references/> at the end to see the references. That would allow you to experiment, and I'll keep an eye on this page, so just make a post right here if you need any help. ::For the moment, don't try to add your references in the References section - just write your reference between <ref>...</ref> tags in the text itself at the point you want the little superscript number to appear. The <references/> tag causes the text of all the references to appear where you put it (i.e. at the end).
Anyway, just experiment in your own sub-space, nobody will interfere with you, nobody will be worrying about any mistakes you might make, but I'll fix anything for you if asked.
The box with dashes is caused by starting a line with a space (don't ask me why, it's really not very useful).
Finally, don't forget to sign your posts on Talk pages (like here) by typing --~~~~ or by clicking the button on the bar above the edit window that looks like a squiggly signature. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. My initial proposal would be to simply cut and past everything from pre-20th C in the history section into the new page, leaving a "see also" type link. That would reduce the present section to just Modern History. I could easily incorporate the text in the law section of the History of Abortion section into the new page; and turn the list of notable legal events into its own separate section. And, of course, fiddle with the reference tags till I get things right.Ermadog (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start although the current "Underlying Issues" section seems quite disjointed. Also, I hope you're planning on expanding the scope of the article beyond Europe + US. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a rough draft. Right now I'm mostly interested in gathering appropriate material and making sure my references are linking properly to their origin. I'm considering splitting the underlying issues section into a "Philosophy" section and an "other" section, as the philosophy really deserves a discussion of its own. I started this project when I started researching the born alive rule, because of the popular misconceptions about it which had been repeated in so many articles in the abortion project. I ended up wandering around in ancient philosophy in consequence of my search for the meaning of "reasonable creature" in the born alive rule (you may want to see what I've done with that page). Surely, no one thought a fetus was a "reasonable creature"? Because abortion was so accepted, it just wasn't discussed much except in context of other issues such as racial purity and gender selection. Also, much of the discussion seemed to presuppose the right of the father, but not the mother, to dispose of his children as property. So, all that has to be referenced. But the main wiki pages on many of these related issues don't indicated in what way they relate to abortion. I've found Boswell's "Kindness of Strangers" is a good place to start.Ermadog (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll done a good job with the 'balancing' of born alive rule. But aren't you jumping the gun a bit by going into philosophy rather then the actual law? while there may be good grounds to make the case, brain activity and Conscious thought does not automatically grate legal personhood (hell corporations have been awarded it). Most Judicial systems in the world (even ones where abortion is banned or outlawed) do not recognise human foetuses as people. This may or may not change over time with better technology and understanding of fetal development, but that is the law at the moment. To bring up such abstract concept natural human conscious is off topic unless there is any serious talk about changing the definition of personhood around these factors in legal circles. User:Joeyjojo. —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The law is not separable from the language that informs it. The wording of the born alive rule makes that clear: "a reasonable creature in rerum natura". The term "reasonable creature" traces back in an unbroken line, via Aquina, Augustine, et al., to the concept of the "reasonable soul" as the "animating principle" posited by Aristotle and others. That is the root of the misrepresentation made by the anti-abortion forces when they claim that the scientific understanding of fertilization allows us to know when life begins. (Sagan said it begins in stars, as that is where all the elements are originally formed.) Everyone knew that the fetus is alive in the womb. The question was, what kind of life was it. The born alive rule is about when a "reasonable creature" begins, not just when biologic life begins in the womb. It's also about when the fetus can be said to be "in the world of physical things (per Staunford) - in rerum natura, which is a necessary precondition for being "in the King's peace." (I'm honestly not sure what Staunford meant. I doubt he thought the fetus was in some spirit world and then at some point enters the physical world.) As I pointed out somewhere on the born alive page, modern science tells us that the physiology of reason doesn't even begin to develop until week 28, which is when the thalamic afferents begin to enter the cerebral cortex. That development continues for another 20 years. Children are still not considered full persons under the law until they are judged capable of entering into binding legal contracts. Also, there is no legal definition of the term "person" that helps us determine whether a particular entity is a person. Every legal dictionary I've consulted defines "person" as: an individual on whom the law confers rights. So, under that definition, the fetus can never be a person. So, far, we only confer rights on human beings. We do not, yet, recognize the rights of non-human beings such as whales or dophins - or fetuses. Neither the law nor science has a definition of the term "human being". That is a philosophic concept. In law, the term human being is entailed in the term person, but the terms are not co-equal. Consult Bouvier's Law Dictionary, person. I had hoped that my philosophy discussion at least made clear what the underlying philosophic issues were. That's a difficult topic to summarize in a single paragraph; but, there is no other way to examine what "reasonable creature" means at law. I'm thinking of changing the title to "History of the Abortion Debate".--Ermadog (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just my point, i'm agreeing with you. however if this is a page on the born alive rule, then we should keep the focus on the law as written and avoid speculation on the philosophy implications with in the the law. I'm not arguing that fetues are people, just that that legal personhood and the time old question of 'what is a person?' are two related but distinctive concepts. Laws reflects public morality, but they are not one and the same and should not be mistake as such. At the moment the page refers to the Born Alive Rule, if it was to be extended and re-title to "History of the Abortion Debate" there would be good cause add the comments about about role of brain active in personhood. But the page is just about the law right now, there is no need to come up with reasons _why_ foetuses aren't seen as people just that in the eyes of the laws they are not.Joeyjojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The thread in which you are responding is a discussion of a new page I have created, which is not yet ready for publication as a wiki article. The idea for it came as a result of my correction to hisorico-legal material in a number of abortion related articles. The born alive page is just one of them. The whole point of this new page is to explain why the law has historically not considered the fetus to be a person as that term is used today. You obviously have not read either the new page or this thread. Please do so.Ermadog (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Abortion Law Debate[edit]

My new page has reached first good draft stage. Any feedback is welcome.

I know nothing of the subject, so I'll just comment on the technical side.
  • Check out your use of the template {{main}}; have a look at the documentation and you'll see it is really intended for when you summarise another article as a section of your article, but I don't think that's what you intended here. The template {{further}} (or possibly {{see also}}) is likely to be a better choice for you.
  • It's a steep learning curve for references, but you've done remarkably well. The only minor detail is that our usual convention is to place references immediately after punctuation; not to have any separator or space between multiple references; and to have whitespace immediately after the reference(s). Also you've put punctuation both before and after references in a few places (see ref#16 for example).
I could make the minor amendments for you, if you'd like me to, or you may want to do it yourself as an exercise. Let me know, but well done anyway! --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll do my final edit this evening and then publish. How do I do that? create a new title and then move this page over to the empty one? I'm not sure how to do that.
I did have a few uncertainties about how to properly format references for the web. In print, you always have to indicate as precisely as possible where in a text you've found whatever you're citing. On the web, you can sometimes point to the exact section of a page, but not always. The only thing the reader can do is plug in some key words and search the page. Also in print, you quote book title, underline magazine titles, and italicize article titles. This convention fell by the wayside in early computer use because ASCII text couldn't underline.
The second uncertainty was around citation of original text, specifically, the opinions of the ancient writers. Most academic writers don't quote this material because they assume their readers are familiar with the material. But because the general reader isn't so familiar, I tracked down as many quotations as I could, which often turned up in random blogger's pages. I have no way of knowing whether they have found a source that is generally accepted in the academic world. Usually what I do then is plug in some distinctive phrase form the quote and see if i can find a "good" copy. But then, doesn't that start to look like original research? If I cite the basic text instead of the text I was reading about it in? I suppose in those cases I should cite both. Ermadog (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To "publish" the article, you just move it from user space to article space (mainspace). Use the "move" tab at the top of the page and in the dialogue that you get, fill in the title of the article that you want. That preserves the article history (always a good idea). The process will leave behind a redirect in your user space. Just blank the redirect page and it will eventually be deleted.
There are many variations of "style" in formatting references on Wikipedia (as you can see). In general, it is sufficient to place references at the end of a sentence, unless there are several specific points within a single sentence, each of which requires a reference. There are citation templates, e.g {{cite web}} which help keep a consistent format.
Don't worry too much about that though. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, so other editors will chip in and tidy up the references for you. If a particular source isn't deemed good enough, somebody else will eventually find a better source. Finding sources is actually the research that we're encouraged to do (whether it's original or not)!
In summary, don't expect your contributions to be a "finished product". No matter how good, any article can be improved, and we have to welcome others who want to contribute to the work we've done. As you gain experience with Wikipeida, you'll want to come back to articles you've created, and give them extra "polish". Congratulations on your first article! --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asymptomatic miscarraige[edit]

Hey there. I reverted your edit here, because I don't know if that source is reflective of the medical consensus. I checked a number of sources via PubMed. UpToDate seems to adequately represent what as the general consensus of those sources: "Eight to 20 percent of clinically recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks of gestation will undergo SAb; 80 percent of these occur in the first 12 weeks of gestation [3-5]...Loss of unrecognized or subclinical pregnancies is even higher, occurring in 13 to 26 percent of all pregnancies [3-5,7-9]." I'm trying to find a better source, but I can't see anything that supports 50% (which the University of Ottawa site states without any source to back it up). MedlinePlus seems to be down for me right now; could you quote what it says? Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the current page in full. The relevant parts are bolded:

A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions.

Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include: Complete abortion: All of the products of conception exit the body Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception exit the body Inevitable abortion: The symptoms cannot be stopped, and a miscarriage will happen Infected (septic) abortion: The lining of the womb, or uterus, and any remaining products of conception become infected Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not exit the body

See also: Threatened miscarriage Causes

Most miscarriages are caused by chromosome problems that make it impossible for the baby to develop. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother or father's genes.

Other possible causes for miscarriage include: Drug and alcohol abuse Exposure to environmental toxins Hormone problems Infection Obesity Physical problems with the mother's reproductive organs Problem with the body's immune response Serious body-wide ( systemic) diseases in the mother (such as uncontrolled diabetes) Smoking

It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.

The risk for miscarriage is higher in women: Older age, with increases beginning by 30, becoming greater between 35 and 40, and highest after 40 Who have had previous miscarriages Symptoms

Possible symptoms include: Low back pain or abdominal pain that is dull, sharp, or cramping Tissue or clot-like material that passes from the vagina Vaginal bleeding, with or without abdominal cramps Exams and Tests

During a pelvic exam, your health care provider may see the cervix has opened (dilated) or thinned out (effacement).

Abdominal or vaginal ultrasound may be done to check the baby's development, heart beat, and amount of bleeding.

The following blood tests may be performed: Blood type (if you have an Rh-negative blood type, you would require a treatment with Rh-immune globulin. See: Rh incompatibility) Complete blood count (CBC) to determine how much blood has been lost HCG (qualitative) to confirm pregnancy HCG (quantitative) done every several days or weeks WBC and differential to rule out infection Treatment

When a miscarriage occurs, the tissue passed from the vagina should be examined to determine if it was a normal placenta or a hydatidiform mole. It is also important to determine whether any pregnancy tissue remains in the uterus.

If the pregnancy tissue does not naturally exit the body, the woman may be closely watched for up to 2 weeks. Surgery (D and C) or medication (such as misoprostol) may be needed to remove the remaining contents from the womb.

After treatment, the woman usually resumes her normal menstrual cycle within 4 - 6 weeks. Any further vaginal bleeding should be carefully monitored. It is often possible to become pregnant immediately. However, it is recommended that women wait one normal menstrual cycle before trying to become pregnant again. Possible Complications

An infected abortion may occur if any tissue from the placenta or fetus remains in the uterus after the miscarriage. Symptoms of an infection include fever, vaginal bleeding that does not stop, cramping, and a foul-smelling vaginal discharge. Infections can be serious and require immediate medical attention.

Complications of a complete miscarriage are rare. However, many mothers and their partners feel very sad. Seemingly helpful advice like “you can try again,” or “it was for the best” can make it harder for mothers and fathers to recover because their sadness has been denied.

Women who lose a baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy receive different medical care. This is called premature delivery or fetal demise and requires immediate medical attention. When to Contact a Medical Professional

Call your health care provider if vaginal bleeding with or without cramping occurs during pregnancy.

Call your health care provider if you are pregnant and notice tissue or clot-like material passed vaginally (any such material should be collected and brought in for examination). Prevention

Early, comprehensive prenatal care is the best prevention available for all complications of pregnancy.

Many miscarriages that are caused by body-wide (systemic) diseases can be prevented by detecting and treating the disease before pregnancy occurs.

Miscarriages are less likely if you receive early, comprehensive prenatal care and avoid environmental hazards (such as x-rays, drugs and alcohol, high levels of caffeine, and infectious diseases).

When a mother's body is having difficulty sustaining a pregnancy, signs (such as slight vaginal bleeding) may occur. This means there is a possibility of miscarriage, but it does not mean one will definitely occur. A pregnant woman who develops any signs or symptoms of threatened miscarriage should contact her prenatal provider immediately. Alternative Names

Abortion - spontaneous; Spontaneous abortion; Abortion - missed; Abortion - incomplete; Abortion - complete; Abortion - inevitable; Abortion - infected; Missed abortion; Incomplete abortion; Complete abortion; Inevitable abortion; Infected abortion References

Katz VL. Spontaneous and recurrent abortion: etiology, diagnosis, treatment. In: Katz VL, Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, eds. Comprehensive Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:chap 16.

Simpson JL, Jauniaux ERM. Pregnancy loss. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007:chap 24.

Laurino MY, Bennett RL, Saraiya DS, et al. Genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. June 2005;14(3). Update Date: 11/21/2010

Updated by: Linda J. Vorvick, MD, Medical Director, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington, School of Medicine; Susan Storck, MD, FACOG, Chief, Eastside Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Redmond, Washington; Clinical Teaching Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc. Ermadog (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to a couple of the sources, so I looked up what they actually say, rather than just relying on MedlinePlus:
  • Gabbe: "Not all conceptions result in a live-born infant, and overall human reproduction is described as being extremely inefficient compared with that of other mammals species [sic]. It has been estimated that approximately 50 to 70 percent of spontaneous conceptions are lost before completion of the fi rst trimester, most of them during the fi rst month after the last menstrual period. They are often ignored as conceptions, particularly if they occur around the time of an expected menstrual period. Of clinically recognized pregnancies, 10 to 15 percent are lost...Pregnancy loss occurs throughout gestation, beginning before implantation. Not surprisingly, losses are more frequent among morphologically abnormal than among morphologically normal embryos. Within 10 to 14 days after implantation, β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) assays can detect preclinical pregnancies. This is still before when pregnancy is recognized clinically, usually 5 to 6 weeks after the last menstrual period. About two thirds of implanted pregnancies that miscarry are lost before clinical recognition, based on cohort studies in which daily urinary hCG assays were performed beginning around the expected time of implantation (day 20 of gestation).[2] Of pregnancies detected in this fashion, 31 percent (61 of 198) were lost; the preclinical loss rate was 22 percent (43 of 198), and the clinically recognized loss rate was 12 percent (19 of 155). Data later in gestation were gathered by Mills and colleagues[3,4] in a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) collaborative study, in which serum β-hCG assays were performed 28 to 35 days after the previous menses. The total fetal loss rate (preclinical and clinical) for pregnancies was 16 percent for these pregnancies. Mean gestational age was 4 to 5 weeks or approximately 10 days later than those ascertained by Wilcox et al.[2] Spandorfer et al.[5] found a loss rate of 11.6 percent (233/2014) when in vitro fertilization pregnancies were assessed at 7-week ultrasound. The mean age of the sample was 35 to 36 years, older than in the study by Simpson et al.[4] but several weeks later in gestation."
  • Katz: "About 15% to 20% of all known human pregnancies terminate in clinically recognized abortion. However, the incidence of total human embryonic loss is estimated to be much higher. Wilcox and colleagues measured human chorionic gonado-tropin (HCG) in daily urine samples of a group of 221 healthy women attempting to conceive. Of the 198 pregnancies that occurred, 22% ended before the pregnancy was clinically recognized and the total pregnancy loss, including clinically recognized abortions, was 31%. Because some fertilized ova do not implant and thus do not secrete detectable HCG and other abnormal pregnancies do not secrete sufficient intact HCG to be detectable by immunoassay, the rate of human pregnancy loss is probably much higher; it has been estimated to be as high as 70% (Table 16-1)."
I'm definitely OK with including a variant of the sentence you had introduced, but I think we might need a little more clarity. Do you have any suggestions? NW (Talk) 20:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are of an obviously superior quality and should be substituted for mine. My lack of clarity stemmed from the lack of clarity in the source. The 50% figure is qualified with "usually before the woman knows she is pregnant". I was unclear to what degree the percentage of abortion in known pregnancies overlaps with those of unknown pregnancies. Also, my sources did not indicate the source of the estimations; whereas, the material already in the article was based on named research and testing. You seem better qualified to edit this than I; so, if you feel moved to correct it, go ahead. I also included these sources in the Epidemiology section of the Miscarriage page.Ermadog (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fetal rights abortion needs help.[edit]

Hello. I'm pleased to see you have returned. I've been digging around the abortion articles and archives over the last few months and was wondering if we might work together. Your original History of abortion law debate article shows a balance I find missing in the current abortion panoply of insanity. I think the Fetal rights could use this style of balance. The article is about rights but doesn't touch on what those rights might be. It gives example cases yet cites no case law. i.e. State v. Ashley, 701 So. 2d 338 - Fla: Supreme Court 1997. I can do the research, gather sources, pull summaries, produce numbers, charts, graphs, outlines, formatting, etc. Thoughts? Interested? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am definitely interested. Unfortunately, I am interested in way too many things! Some initial thoughts:
It should be edited by someone who understands the general concept of rights preferably, someone who understands the development of the Enlightenment discussion on Natural Rights theory and understands the different between Natural and legal rights As I understand it, this discussion recognized rights of persons only, not animals or things. While I personally support animal rights, and would extend those rights to the fetus if it were sentient in the womb(current science says it's not), I do not see that either fetal or animal rights have been firmly established in law.
How much do you understand re: the actual legislation discussed in the article? From my google research, I understand that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - at least on the federal level - rests on the doctrine of transferred intent. Any crime requires a mens rea - guilty mind. If I aim a gun at someone, miss, but kill someone else, technically there is no crime; because I did not intend to kill the passerby. The doctrine of transferred intent states that "intent follows the bullet". A fetus is not recognized as a victim in his own right, only as an incidental victim during the commission of a crime against the prospective mother. I don't have good quality sources for this, but have seen it discussed on "pro-life" websites.
Although many states have succeeded in defining the fetus as a human being from conception, none have succeeded in defining them as persons from conception. It fails in both popular referenda and legislatures. The rationale from Planned Parenthood v Rounds (S. Dakota) is that "human being" is correct in a biological sense only, but not in the sense of "person".
The list of women convicted for "fetal abuse" crimes is incomplete. At least 200 women have been charged with such "crimes", but the vast majority are not convicted. Laws which cannot be enforced cannot stand.
Here in Canada, Parliament has twice rejected attempts to define the fetus as a person at law. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the common law born alive rule denying the fetus legal personhood until it is born whole and breathes. Ermadog (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are agreed. I'm of the mind rights are best scaled by dependence, sentience and the reality of the situation.
I'd suggest a study of the legislation and case law will inform us on the article and indicate how/why/when Natural rights and Natural law are being applied (both being an important part of US (and Canadian?) jurisprudence).
For starters I could put together a work page on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and related case law with sources and extracts. Sound good?
- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to understand the underlying doctrines and principles, which are often not discussed in the court transcripts. Court cases often just cite precedent and expect the lawyer to understand what that means. For instance, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not mention the doctrine of transferred intent, but records of the proceedings leading up to the law do. The average layman reading the Act would see that the fetus is treated as a human being and conclude that this means the law sees it as a person. I have these arguments on Youtube all the time. Natural rights doctrines figure prominently in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the English Law, which are foundational to common law jurisprudence in Britain and in all former colonies of Britain which have adopted common law, such as Canada and the US. It played an important role in establishing the rights of commoners over those of the monarch. Note, however, that many of the rights we enjoy are statute rights i.e. rights created by law, which can be removed by law.
The second area that needs attention is the section on Behavioral Intervention. I am aware that the "crack baby" scare of the 1980s has turned out to be an urban myth, and have recently seen indications that many of the other health risks mentioned here are overblown. Again, I don't have access to good sources on this.
The third area is the claim that opponents of abortion are concerned with fetal rights. That may be true of some, but many others are concerned with punishing "sluts" who should "learn to keep their legs closed". I hear this on Youtube all the time. However, it would be difficult to document this in the current discussion. It was quite prevalent in the period prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and can be easily documented for that period.Ermadog (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral Intervention sources covering a large number of cases (with citations)...
Most of the behavioral intervention case boiled down to...

"Extending such liability to the pregnant woman herself would constitute a radical and dangerous expansion of the existing law....[s]ince anything which a pregnant woman does or does not do may have an impact, either positive or negative, on her developing fetus, any act or omission on her part could render her liable to her subsequently born child . . . Mother and child would be legal adversaries from the moment of conception until birth . . . Holding a third person liable for prenatal injuries furthers the interests of both the mother and the subsequently born child and does not interfere with the defendant's right to control his or her own life. Holding a mother liable for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries subjects to State scrutiny all the decisions a woman must make in attempting to carry a pregnancy to term, and infringes on her right to privacy and bodily autonomy . . . Logic does not demand that a pregnant woman be treated in a court of law as a stranger to her developing fetus . . . As opposed to the third-party defendant, it is the mother's every waking and sleeping moment which, for better or worse, shapes the prenatal environment which forms the world for the developing fetus."

- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick perusal through your first source shows plenty of quotations that could be used in discussing the claim that the anti abortion crowd are motivated by concern for the fetus. Unless you have specific edits in mind, I would be prepared to take that on. Fentiman is good. I have her paper from 2006. It appears your area of expertise is law. At some point, we need to solicit the assistance of someone qualified to assess the medical claims regarding the harm posed by mothers who drink, etc. while pregnant. No matter how much we wish to focus on the rights of the pregnant woman, there will be those who wish to switch the focus to the fetus. And at some point, we need to take this to the fetal rights talk page, out of fairness to the other editors. Ermadog (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Been a bit crazed. I was just pushing out sources for your reading pleasure without specific edits in mind. I do like the change you made removing sovereignty. What was that word doing in there? I'm going to be a bit busy over the weekend but would like to discuss/exchange ideas on how the article might explain the topic better. For example, there is currently no information on the fetal rights that do exist i.e. the viability balance from Roe. Thinking... ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well sovereignty was easy cause it's just not in the source linked to. Pitting fetal rights against abortion rights is wrong for a whole lot of reasons. If we simply choose to extend to the fetus the same rights we would for other (on grounds of attempting to prevent uneccesary suffering of a sentient being), there is no conflict at all. The human rights of the prospective mother trump those of the fetus. If we extend human rights to fetuses, the implications go far beyond the simple matter of abortion. For one thing, we'd have to start issuing death certificates to Hydatidiform Moles, as well as to the products of spontaneous abortion. Did you know that 50-70% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortions? All those tiny little corpses would be subject to the laws regulating the disposition of human remains - would require proper burial. (You got laws like that in the US, doncha?) The state would have to start monitoring the underwear of all women of childbearing age. Did you have a look at my comments in the Talk page of Fetal Rights?
I've been looking into the reality behind the various health scares used to scare women into being good during pregnancy. The amicus brief in Mississippi v Rennie T. Gibbs has a good overview of the actual medical findings to date. I skimmed through it and it looks good. I've proposed an edit at Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to make the lead paragraph sound less POV.
You comments at Fetal Rights are spot on. "...the implications go far beyond the simple matter of abortion." is exactly what I'm getting at (and doing a damn poor job of it). One side seems to think a magic "Fetal Rights Amendment" will make everything duckies and bunnies when, as those "activist" courts have been trying to explain, is would in fact be a total disaster. Do you think this could be explained better in the articles? or am I just being dense?
State v. Whitner is an interesting South Carolina Supreme Court case. I'll fetch Mississippi v Rennie T. Gibbs. I'd advise extra care with amicus briefs as sources; they can be an easy target for claims of "bias" regardless of the facts...silly. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by the amicus in Mississippi v Rennie T. Gibbs are excellent. Nice find. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you think this could be explained better in the articles?" Oh, yes. I think it must. I am thinking of proposing a section on "Opposition", which could cite concerns from ACLU, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, etc. which draw out the broader implications. You know about the state bills that outlaw miscarriage, do you? Georgia H.B. 1 http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb1.htm and Utah H.B. 12 http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillenr/hb0012.htm would leave a woman open to charges of homicide if she cannot prove that a spontaneous abortion was not the result of negligence on her part. Kinda has implications for the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing."Ermadog (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ermadog&oldid=1142991700"