Ed Poor wrote:

Why not have the [[partial-birth abortion]] article be about the LEGAL aspects? You know, that bill the US Congress passed this month.

Hm. Interesting idea. We could also throw most of the controversy about the procedure there. Of course in the first paragraph we would need to refer to the actual medical procedure and link to it.

The bill creates a legal term for a specific act (which will become illegal if the president signs the bill). The article will then correctly refer to the illegal act.

This makes sense.

If I get (or stay?) involved with writing that article, I can link to [[intact dilation and extraction]] (pro-choice) and [[infanticide]] (pro-life or "anti-choice"), too!

Well no article should be 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life', but it does make sense to separate subjects from each other on a logical basis after the article gets to a certain length. So [[intact dilation and extraction]] could be mostly about the medical procedure while [[partial-birth abortion]] can be mostly about the controversy/legality/morality of using that procedure (both are separate subjects). Both articles will have to briefly summarize the other and provide a link.

There certainly is enough material on both topics to justify two articles and the proprosed scheme seems to be a natural way to disambiguate the subjects (in any medical context [[intact dilation and extraction]] will be linked to, while in any political context [[partial-birth abortion]] will be linked to).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)