Jump to content

Talk:Intact dilation and extraction

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

Images

[edit]

Images listed directly below cannot be used on Wikipedia - their autors refused to abandon their rights:

Why does this article have no images or external links to images of partial-birth abortion (or IDX if you prefer)? Simply that pro-life arguments typically involve the horrible and grisly reality of images is no reason to have such a controversial article without pictures or the topic. 67.171.43.170 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic images are generally not preferred. So vomiting and menstrual cycle do not have any images, and pre-ejaculate has only a link to an image.
Cartoon images and line drawings are pretty widely accepted, an example is the article sexual intercourse. The cartoon by Jenny Westberg, published in Life Advocate in 1993 (that started the whole anti-PBA social movement) would probably be both aesthetically acceptable and of historical interest to the topic. However, that image is under copyright. Someone would need to get permission from Ms. Westberg to use it under Wikipedia's GFDL, or find proof that she has already released it into the public domain. Lyrl Talk Contribs 02:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is NOTHING aesthetically Pleasing about a partial birth abortion. THAT is the POINT. If you WANT aesthetically Pleasing images, go the the article on the human breast or vagina. If you go to surgery you have a photo of a procedure being performed, not a cartoon. If you go to terrorist you see the burning twin towers is that aesthetically acceptable to you? NO! People Died there, but it is Accurate. If you look up death you will see plenty of accurate pictures which describe that. There are Plenty of photos on any of the WAR subjects to illustrate EXACTLY what goes on there. AND the choice of photos can surely be described as Political. Why don't you read the article about Aestheticization of violence so you can see what you are trying to do here. I believe ALL of the abortion issues should contain vivid photos which truely represent both sides. LET Pro abotion rights supporters choose 6 photos and let pro life supporters choose 6 photos that describe or illustrate abortion. I wonder how many seconds this idea will be allowed to stay posted? Giftindex 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)giftindex[reply]

First of all, you have to understand that wikipedia is distributed under the GFDL, and therefore image copyright is a serious concern. All images have to be distributed under a free license, or have a fair use rational. Therefore, it isn't just a simple task of each side choosing images. -Andrew c 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the open heart surgery page, there is a photo of the a surgery in progress showing the open chest cavity and heart. This warrants the use of photos or illustrations in this case if some can be found whose use is not limited by copyright.L. Porrello 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with your logic here. Wikipedia has guidelines that suggest other wikipedia articles should not necessarily be used as precedent for other articles (i.e. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). We also have an image use policy that states "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." Therefore, both of these lead to the conclusion that controversial images should be discussed on a case by case basis, and supported by consensus BEFORE inclusion. I'm glad you realize the copyright issues as well. The open heart surgery image is a work of the NIH and thus in the public domain.-Andrew c 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c has taken "What about article x?" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS completely out of context. "What about article x?" has to do with whether entire topics should or should not be included in Wikipedia, not what content goes into particular articles. And even if it did apply to content within specific articles, it would still not hold weight in this discussion as the practice of including photos and illustrations in articles about medical procedures is a general practice across all of Wikipedia. It is universal. In other words, it is warranted by all of Wikipedia, not just a single article. If anything warrants debate it is why articles pertaining to abortion do not have pictures. The omission of pictures or illustrations demonstrates that this topic (and other abortion related topics?) are being dealt with differently from all other medically related topics in Wikipedia. And this suggests a grave violation of the NPOV rule.L.C. Porrello 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add some cartoonish picture if possible. Without it article is seriously incomplete. I suggest this http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm . I asked nrlc.org about legal status of pictures (waiting for response). Pseudohuman (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colorized cartoons may be more graphic. I would like to see this article include the line drawings from this article, if permission can be obtained for the images. Those particular images also have historical significance for this topic (something the colorized drawings do not), which is another argument for inclusion. LyrlTalk C 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what do you mean by "graphic" (not native english speaker). I like colours, but i consider your pictures Lyrl better because of written explanation of whats going on on them. Historical significance may be considered as another supporting factor. And i've just received answer - coloured images are copyrighted. They ask what do i have in mind (despite i said that in my first letter, perhaps my english is worse than i thought). I'll try to ask about your pictures Lyrl too. Pseudohuman (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please consider checking out Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It isn't enough to have a copyright owner say "it's ok to use my image on wikipedia". We have to have verification, filed through the OTRS system that the copyright owner has donated (aka released) the image under the terms of the GFDL, or some other free license (or released the image into the public domain). That said, we should be very careful about obtaining images from partisan organizations. Images from strong pro-choice or pro-life advocates may not meet WP:NPOV, or WP:RS for that matter. You may want to consider seeking images from more notable, reliable, less partisan sources, like college level text books. Another option would be to contact WP:GRAPHICS LAB and specifically request that someone illustrate an image (and perhaps providing some source material to aid them). -Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Perhaps it wasn't good idea to search for good images, when I lack medical and wikipedian skills to tell apart POV from NPOV and US from RS. Nevertheless I quite like Lyrl's images (http://www.lifeadvocate.org/arc/dx.htm). I added list of images which cannot be used (authors refused to abandon their rights) on the beginning of this section. Pseudohuman (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't manage to get in touch with Lyrl's images author. I tried through http://www.lifeadvocate.org site, but my mail went unanswered. Well, thats final results of my search. Pseudohuman (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disarticulate at the neck

[edit]

I have replaced the phrase "disarticulate at the neck" with the phrase "decapitate it". This is clearly not an easy area to edit in but I am trying for language which is as non-emotive as possible but does not obscure meaning - "disarticulate at the neck" is a rare and hard to understand phrase - Google gives it just 13 hits, many from Wikipedia and mirrors. My first attempt, "behead", was hurried and admittedly crass, and I see that "remove the head" was unclear (remove from what?). "Decapitate" is an accurate and I hope non emotionally loaded word to convey the meaning clearly. Springnuts (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Decapitate" brings on images of the French revolution and La Guillotine. As accurate as opponents of the procedure may find it, it's hardly a non-emotionally loaded word. "Disarticulate at the neck" is a direct quote from the reference for that statement. Perhaps that sentence could be reworded to make clear that phrase is a quote from a doctor who performs abortions? LyrlTalk C 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Behead" also was emotionally loaded as being about executions. My quarrel with the "disarticulate" term is pretty much just its being so obscure - I had to look it up - it sounded as if it meant to break the beck. not sever it. How about "cut the head from the body"? "Cut" has no emotional weight in normal speech since it can be related to many activities across the moral spectrum (vegetables, surgery, flowers, knife crime, trivial accidents with paper) - it depends on context. Springnuts (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I like Springnuts' suggestion of "cut". I've gone ahead and put "cut through the neck" in the article, I hope that will work for both of us (and anyone else interested). LyrlTalk C 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works better the way you have phrased it - thank you. Springnuts (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


G'day. I'm a volunteer over at the mediation and arbitration boards. I came to the talk section to ask for clarification on 'disarticulate at the neck' as I haven't a clue what that means, and I'm an academic. I am absolutely indifferent towards abortion as I am male and thus do not poop children, and I am inclined to agree that 'decapitate' is acceptable if that is what 'disarticulate at the neck' means. I assumed disarticulate at the neck was weasel words for breaking it's neck, I wasn't aware that they killed the fetus by beheading it. But regardless, the bottom line is that 'disarticulate at the neck' is not the normal and ordinary language that lay people would use, nor understand.

I am not going to bother making any changes as it appears that some party with a neutrality issue feels their agenda is being threatened. I understand that the anti-abortion mob are quite loopy, especially in the United States, but I cannot condone nor agree with the incessant reversions to a term that is too narrow in definition on the grounds that they feel it somehow makes the act of killing a fetus less grotesque. It's a necessary act, they can't just pull the kid out and leave it to die like a fish on a pier. But weasel wording just shows a lack of moral integrity, it doesn't change the fact they're pulling a fetuses head off, nor is the act of pulling a fetuses head off intrinsically 'evil' or something that needs defense, it's a medical procedure and I can off hand think of several other far, far more graphic and horrific procedures that are carried out every day.

So what I am--quite verbosely--getting at here is, whoever the nancy is who keeps reverting ought to reconsider whether they are assisting their political agenda, or just looking like a tockley to all and sundry. If you're that butthurt about the words offered by the other editors above, instead of reverting the next change (and I do suggest that one of the editors above--who are quite rational and neutral in their approach--do reapply their changes) perhaps you should chime in here and we can discuss your grievances and come to a consensus. Arbitrarily reverting every edit that you disapprove of is not how wikipedia works, and I won't go pointing out who the editor/s are who keep reverting anything that offends their sensibilities, provided this doesn't turn into a misconduct issue, but please, please reconsider your behaviour. It's exceptionally counter productive and will just impact adversely on your experience with the project and the project itself, it won't survive the constant queries of 'wtf is disarticulate at the neck' that would be being made, and I would hazard to guess that after reading this article most lay people would be googling that term. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, one last thing of note. Near 100% of the first four pages when googling 'disarticulate at the neck' are propaganda single interest blogs for the anti-abortion movement. So again, to the editor in question who's use of weasel words I am addressing, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face brother, so please air your grievances on the talk page as opposed to reverting to weasel words incessantly. You may have a very strong argument as to why it ought to use such weasel words even, and consensus may very well agree with you. But if you just continue to revert we shall never know. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Term

[edit]

I believe the article is misleading when discussing the origins of the term. It states that "This term was first suggested in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" however, I distinctly remember the term being discussed and even used in some educational media when I was attending school as early as 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.236.114 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are currently using two citations to support the claim. If you could find the educational media that predates 1995, or any other citation, then we can discuss changing the article. But until we have another source, the current sentence meets WP:V, and unfortunately we cannot use your recollection as a WP:RS :) -Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial- Birth Abortion Supplementary quotes

[edit]

I tried to put these quotes on the actual page but various editors persisted in deleting them, even though they are objective statements by the SUPREME COURT and Congress during an in depth discussion on the issue of Partial Birth Abortion. In fact, I believe these court cases (Specifically Gonzales V. Carhart) one of the greatest sources of information on the issue. Please see quotes below:

Dr. Haskell's testimony was used to describe the procedure in Gonzales V. Carhart: "At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). "'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under the tip of his middle finger. "'[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. "'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into the hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.'" 550 U.S. 7 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

Another excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart "Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26.5-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus.... "'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. "'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.... "'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.'" 550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

The Supreme Court reported several variations of the procedure used by different physicians. Excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart: "Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." "Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull." "Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it." 550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court Excerpt.

Another testimony regarding the procedure from an Abortion Doctor before the Supreme Court: "Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus' skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation." 550 U.S. 9 (2007).

In Gonzales V. Carhart, "Abortion doctors testified, for example, that intact D&E decreases the risk of cervical laceration or uterine perforation because it requires fewer passes into the uterus with surgical instruments and does not require the removal of bony fragments of the dismembered fetus, fragments that may be sharp." 550 U.S. 31 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

Congress found that "No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life," "The abortion methods it proscribed had a "disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant," and that ""Implicity approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life."" 550 U.S. 28 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

"Congress was concerned, furthermore, with the effects on the medical community and on its reputation caused by the practice of partial-birth abortion. The findings in the Act explain: "Partial-birth abortion...confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life." Congressional Findings." 550 U.S. 27 (2007), Opinion of the Court, Gonzales V. Carhart.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuter1000 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 July 2008

The procedure is described in the "intact D&X surgery" section. The description there is broad enough to cover both Haskell's procedure (the first quoted paragraph above) as well as variations used by other doctors (third quoted paragraph above).
The nurses' testimony in (second quoted paragraph above) is discussed in the fifth paragraph of the "controversy" section.
Use of feticide to ensure a dead fetus as part of an abortion procedure is discussed in Feticide#Use during legal abortion. Crushing the skull as a method of feticide would probably be a good addition to that article, but paraphrasing instead of just dropping in a lengthy quote would be much more encyclopedic. The feticide article should also probably be better linked from this article.
Advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, including those in the fifth quoted paragraph above, are already covered in the bulleted lists in "Circumstances and reasons for this procedure".
Opinions of those who oppose the procedure (such as that in the sixth and seventh quoted paragraphs above) are discussed in the "Controversy" section.
In summary, the quotes add a lot of length to the article, and decrease its readability, without adding encyclopedic substance. It's not the content I am (and I presume the other editors who deleted these quotes are) opposed to: it's the format. If there is relevant information in these quotes not currently covered in this article, please be more specific about it, and we can work to incorporate it in an encyclopedic manner. LyrlTalk C 00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the quotes are true is not the issue, inserting large blocks of quotes and being selective (for you are not inserting all of the Supreme Courts hearings) which quotes to insert are issues. A succint description of the procedure is probably all that is needed to make it clear what is being described in the article. Detailed description of surgical technique is not called for, by way of comparison look at Cholecystectomy where Wikipedia not being a textbook means that the precise surgical details of cutting, tying off arterial bleeds, manipulating tissues and excising are not mentioned in that great detail compared to say WikiSurgery's 143 page description at http://www.surgicalscripts.com/Cholecystectomy-laparoscopic-Operationscript.pdf Seeking to load the article with selective "gruesome" bits is therefore, IMHO, POV pushing (see WP:WEIGHT). David Ruben Talk 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live Birth Abortion

[edit]
Is IDX the same thing as what is called a "Live Birth Abortion" in American politics? It's kind of hard to keep up with all the new names the right wingers come up with. Craig Sniffen (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The common term in American politics is partial-birth abortion. IDX and PBA are not exactly the same thing, and the article discusses the differences. But generally speaking, you can assume that the terms are basically synonymous.-Andrew c [talk] 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to keep up with all the names those who cherish life use to describe killing an unborn child. For future reference and sake of ease, why don't you just stick with premeditated murder :) 70.250.214.209 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, all of the terms "intact dilation and extraction (IDX)," "intact dilation and evacuation," "dilation and extraction," "D&X," "DNX," and "intrauterine cranial decompression" are political, to the extent that they try to take the moral sting out of the words used to describe this procedure.98.119.141.253 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take the Obama bashing parts out of the text. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information to the world , not political campaigning! Shame on you for using it as such! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.63.226 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial birth vs. Postnatal vs. Postpartum

[edit]

What is the difference between Partial birth abortion, Postnatal abortion and Postpartum abortion ? Is it all the same and/or does it come close to infanticide ? 69.157.239.212 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 7 is dead link.

[edit]

Sentence 2 under Partial-birth abortion. "The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor"... The link did not go any source of information; it seems it has moved. Please rectify.--Posted by: SoC (talk) -- Posted at:: 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental live births

[edit]

I have heard of cases where the partial birth abortion failed in that the baby was fully born. I suppose it can pop out fast. Further, I have heard that in some of those cases the baby is then, what, aborted? murdered? terminated? Are there any reliable sources for either case (born alive or born alive then terminated)? I do not see that mentioned in the article. Shouldn't that be in the article? I have even heard of a baby born alive and left for a day or so until it eventually died despite best efforts of a priest once he noticed some movement. I am not likely to edit this page further, so I hope others will pick up the baton and go from there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial-birth abortion section

[edit]

In the partial-birth abortion section, it's claimed that the term "partial-birth abortion" is "primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States." The source for this statement is a pro-choice, left-wing, anti-religious Canadian political organization that ironically has the term "religious tolerance" in its name. The term is used in other contexts in the United States, not just in reference the legality of abortion per se, but also in regard to the legality of the particular procedure, and also to the procedure itself. I think that a more neutral source should be found for this claim than one that has an ad for abortions on the page where we're supposed to verify the claim. I think that this sentence should be removed.

Also, I'm not opposed to relating the history of the term, as long as the information is properly sourced, but to say that the term "partial birth abortion" is not "recognized as a medical term" by the AMA or ACOG not relevant to a balanced article. It only serves the needs of those who support the legality of the procedure, and who want to score high school debating points by mentioning this fact. (Does using the word "discourse" ever get old)? Having the "shits" probably isn't "recognized" (whatever that means) by the AMA either, but that doesn't stop people from using the term, even though, like "partial-birth abortion", it offends some. This article has many shortcomings, but the first paragraph in this section (as well as the entire section for that matter) is so blatantly flawed that it needs a complete rewrite. Hopefully someone with more time than me will do it, but I'll give it a try eventually if no one else will. --AntigrandiosËTalk 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Because the term "Partial-Birth Abortion" is a political term not a medical term, not used in any medical textbook or recognized by any mainstream medical professional organization, it belongs in quotation marks in the section heading. Using the phrase without quotation marks to head a section violates WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I have inserted the necessary quotation marks. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

FOUR links to articles in support of this procedure, and only one link to an article against it. Last I checked, that is biased. DavidSteinle (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New subsection to UNITED STATES section: Clinical responses to bans

[edit]

I have added a new subsection to the UNITED STATES section, entitled "clinical response to bans on the procedure", in which I point out that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act only forbids "partial-birth abortions" of LIVING fetuses; therefore, late-term abortion providers now routinely induce fetal demise before starting the extraction, in order to avoid violating the ban. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What D&X includes

[edit]

Before my edit, the text said all D&X, which includes miscarriages, were partial birth. This is not true. I'm pretty sure it is not true after feticide either. I tried to make minimal changes to correct the errors but it should really be rewritten. Sdfoltz (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

It looks like references 4 and 6 are referring to the same souce. Should #6 be removed? 79.160.213.154 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intact_dilation_and_extraction&oldid=1250562380"