Talk:Abortion/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

RfC on use of the words safe and safety

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus clear that the article's use of the terms safe and safety in connection with abortion is okay. NightHeron (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Are the terms safe and safety used correctly in this article? NightHeron (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion and yes or no votes

• Yes as OP. Some editors have raised objections (see Talk:Abortion#"Safe" is subjective above), but those terms are used extensively in RS and MEDRS sources. As in other medical procedures, safety for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman, has been widely studied and is often evaluated in comparison with alternatives (namely, continuing the unwanted pregnancy). NightHeron (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Based on the comments above, and on your own clarification ("safety for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman,"), it would probably be appropriate to change one instance of the word "safe" in the article to "safe for the pregnant woman", and maybe also one instance of "unsafe" to "unsafe for the pregnant woman". Presumably this should be a sentence towards the beginning of the ==Safety== section. IMO repeating that phrase within the section would be unnecessary. The clarification could also appear in one sentence in the lead. My thinking is that this change would avoid unnecessary disputes about "but it isn't safe for the baby!", and that adding four words to limit the scope of the sentence is better than having these repeated discussions.

  That said, what level of risk counts as "safe" is a subjective, personal opinion. Lots of things are relatively safe (e.g., a competent first-trimester surgical abortion is less likely to produce a dead adult than competently managed childbirth) without being absolutely safe (anesthesia sometimes kills people, even if you are having an abortion; surgical abortions have a tiny risk of causing permanent health problems, such as an inability to carry a pregnancy to term in the future). I'm more satisfied with the sentences that say "safer than childbirth" than the ones that baldly assert that "it's safe". I do not find the sentence comparing it to marathon running to be an indication of safety (I consider running marathons to be a borderline dangerous activity), but I did find it to be informative.

  As for specific uses, I think most of them are okay, but:

  • The word "safe" probably doesn't belong in this sentence: "In jurisdictions where abortion is legal, certain requirements must often be met before a woman may obtain a safe, legal abortion". This seems to imply that in some jurisdictions where abortion is legal, there are no requirements if you are seeking an unsafe-but-still-legal abortion, and AFAIK that is not true.
  • The word "safe" in the sentence about conservatism in the 17th century fails verification. The source says that it prevented "discussion and dissemination" of [all] abortion techniques – not just the safe ones. Also, it says "the medical profession", not specifically physicians. At that time, physicians and surgeons were separate professions in many countries, and physicians have never been the entire medical profession.
  • It might be worth reviewing how many of the sentences about "safe abortions" actually mean "abortion performed by a trained healthcare provider". That could be a bit of a euphemism, and we could be more direct.

  Overall, I think my view is that it's not bad, but that we could probably do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Unsafe abortion" has a specific, reliably source definition, so in my view it makes sense to speak of "safe abortion" as its opposite, although I agree perhaps we could better define the term here. As for safety "for the pregnant woman", no reliable source that I'm aware of uses such language, so including it feels more like a sop to the agenda of a handful of insistent Wikipedians rather than a policy-compliant, encyclopedic wording change. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Kermit Gosnell was a trained health care provider, but not safe.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  We generally don't define the safety of medical procedures by citing damage caused by incompetent or malicious outliers. For example, we don't define the safety of spinal fusion surgery by citing the work of Christopher Duntsch. More generally, this kind of intentionally inflammatory nonsense degrades the level of discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Gosnell was an outlier, but even the general makeup of the abortion-provider profession doesn't exactly inspire great confidence. See Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges:

Nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least 1 malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action, or criminal charge. Half (50.6%) of the abortionists reported hospital privileges, but only 32 (37.6%) admitted at least 1 patient to a hospital. Seven physicians accounted for 68.2% of all the admissions, and 79.6% of all admissions were related to a live birth.

What causes this? Maybe the general shortage of abortion-clinic doctors has something to do with it. Even as outliers, Duntsch's crime-spree/career lasted two years, compared to Gosnell's crime-spree/career lasting 32 years. If spinal surgeons operated independently in their own clinics and there was a longstanding shortage of them, maybe Duntsch would have lasted as long as Gosnell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you are pushing a personal agenda here rather than identifying and following the best sources, and further concerned by your apparent inability to assess source quality. The paper you cite is non-credible, unscientific, and produced by an anti-abortion lobbying group rather than a legitimate scientific body. Its poor quality should be evident from its constant use of the term "abortionist"—a term used solely by anti-abortion ideologues and not one that would be found in a serious, scientific study of the topic.

Separately, the paper's conflation of malpractice claims with criminal charges is dishonest and misleading, as these are not remotely comparable. Also dishonest is the omission of the background rate of malpractice claims in American medicine: 99% of American physicians in high-risk specialties (such as OB/GYN) will face a malpractice claim by age 65 (NEJM, 2011). That essential context not only demolishes the paper's (and your) insinuations, but even suggests that perhaps abortion providers have a lower likelihood of being sued than the average OB/GYN.

That said, there is no doubt a shortage of abortion providers in the US. That probably has a lot to do with the anti-abortion movement's successful decades-long effort to doxx, harass, threaten, and in some cases murder physicians who perform abortions. I'd welcome your advocacy in pushing back against that, at least. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This comment is belated because earlier I didn't notice your previous comment; it (and any follow-up) should not count towards deciding when to close this: I came across this paper by doing a generic literature search; it was the first and most recent study I found. It is published in a reputable journal by the authors without financial support; the authors list their affiliations. Most are affiliated with two different anti-abortion groups. If Guttmacher Institute is to be allowed as a source, their affiliations should not disqualify this paper either. I agree that OB/GYNs face high malpractice claims; that gives context to this study but does not exactly overturn it; rather than showing that those doing the abortions are safe this calls into question the safety of OB/GYNs as opposed to midwives. The common factor in both abortion clinics and (U.S.) maternity wards is a greater tendency towards medical intervention what is preferred by midwives. It should not be surprising if they both have higher malpractice rates than midwives since they have more opportunities for iatrogenesis to occur. I quickly looked for malpractice figures in midwifery and found this and this; from this it seems they have lower malpractice figures. I think the correlation with criminality found by the authors is at least partly due to criminal records unrelated to abortion. A criminal record can make some medical professionals nearly unemployable; they may turn to an abortion provider for employment; they may still be hired given the shortage. Yet it still has implications for abortion's safety, depending on the particular crimes involved. As for use of the term "abortionist", it is used today in academic literature in a non-pejorative sense, see this. With respect to advocacy, an editor who in the past frequented this talk page got taken to ANI and lost on the basis of WP:NOTFORUM, so I can't in this context.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, my words for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman were directed at the editors who objected and were not intended as wording that needs to be added to the article. My point was that in medical procedures the default meaning of safe is safe for the patient, not safe for the health care provider and certainly not safe for the virus or pathogen. Please also see the response to question 6 of the FAQ at the top of this page. NightHeron (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed the two occurrences of safe that Whatamidoing identified as being out of place; hopefully that removal won't be controversial. NightHeron (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Usage in this article does appear to be consistent with WP:RS. All medical procedures involve some risk, but some are relatively safer than others, and abortion –– at least when performed by qualified doctors in a modern medical facility that is able to operate legally –– appears to be considered by the medical community to fall squarely on the "safe" side. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, and RfC's can't overrule fundamental site policy. Wikipedia requires that we accurately and honestly reflect the best available sources. These sources discuss the safety of abortion in both qualitative and quantitative terms, which our article reflects. We cannot discard extensively, reliably sourced wording and content simply because it conflicts with a handful of editors' personal preferences or viewpoint, regardless of the outcome of any RfC. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is nice rhetoric, and for a lot of bad content entirely explains the problem and how to fix it. But in practice the question will often which source (and which fields source) is the best source. Whether the language used is likely to mislead the reader or be most easily understand. Talpedia (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we have pretty clear definitions of the best sources for medical content—they include position statements and guidelines from reputable expert bodies as well as prominent textbooks and such literature. None of these, to my knowledge, discuss the safety of abortion using "for the pregnant woman" phraseology. So I think it's a lot less murky than you're making it out to be, and it misleads the reader (to echo your concern) if we insert clunky caveats that don't appear in reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps. In my head, I'm thinking about, say, psychiatrists saying antidepressants are "perfectly safe", or people talking about comestic surgeries. I can see that "for the pregnant woman" is potentially divisive. I'm more concerned with the word "safe" itself! Talpedia (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm hesitant about arguments that extend "use the terminology of an article" to common language words like safe. I feel like the concept of "safe" should be owned by considerations about language, and if there is disagreement by general discussions about risk rather than the literature on abortion. There are academics who spend all their time thinking about such things (https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/about/people/). It would preferrable to use such sources, if they discussed abortion directly, or if their approaches and terminology have been applied in another good source.

I second comments about subjectivity.

I think there should be some caution about the conflation of "illegal" and "unsafe" abortion. The article seems to do a reasonable job of this though. The most likely source of contention here is black-market self-administered medication (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZolJBIKqck8J:https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/05/abortions-are-becoming-safer-and-easier-to-obtain-even-where-they-are-illegal&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0 ) Talpedia (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• No There are two ways the article could improve-- it define "safety" and related terms in a medical context and use it that way, or define "safety" and related terms in an everyday context and use it that way. The meaning of "safety" which is chosen for use could even be defined in the text. Currently the article switches between both professional and everyday understandings when discussing issues of safety, safe, risk, and correlation. Having articles using terms inconsistently within an article is not a surprising issue when articles are written by multiple editors, so this is the sort of thing that should be consciously looked for and corrected, not just on this article, but in general.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - I will (like MastCell) note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS CANNOT be used to override Wikipedia's policy of following Reliable Sources. In this article, we say: "one of the safest procedures in medicine" and the sources say: One source says: "legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice," another source says: "The safety of induced abortion as practiced in the United States for the past decade met or exceeded expectations for outpatient surgical procedures and compared favorably to that of two common nonmedical voluntary activities."---Avatar317^(talk) 23:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Some folks who have raised questions here in the last few months don't like the current wording as taken directly from the highest quality medical sources, so they are trying to convince everybody else that Wikipedia should make up its own mind about what is considered "safe". That's not Wikipedia's job. Let's WP:STICKTOSOURCE material, as we always should. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GI and CDC based data are lower in quality than studies relying on European single-payer systems. If quality is what you are looking for, use European data based studies in the article instead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• yes per Binksternet--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• yes per Avatar317's arguments. The terms reflect the available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Current version of the article have a dedicated subsection for the safety concerns and the safetly is often mentioned in the context of medical procedures. Given a short discussion above (#"Safe"_is_subjective) I don't think there are any serious issues. The subsection requires some refurbishing though. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, at least as framed in the lead. The "safety" is interpreted incorrectly on the page. This is not just about death, but about any harm due to the procedure, such as infertility, injury, etc. In other words, I think that an ordinary person just wants an answer to a simple question "Is it safe?" And the answer is no, this is not safe. None of major surgical procedures is safe. Is it clearly articulated on the page? Yes, it does provides the statistics for "unsafe abortions" in the lead: 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year. But what are the numbers for "safe abortions"? The footnote provides the statistics of deaths in the USA. But this is not the major concern here. What are the numbers for various complications, leading to the infertility, for example? Such data need to be included to the lead, and not only for the USA, but worldwide. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Early abortions (which comprise over 90% of legal abortions) are not major surgical procedures, and they're safer than normal childbirth, according to sources that are cited in the article. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, what are the numbers of complications in such cases, such as infertility, etc.? It needs to be included to the lead. Those can be small numbers, whatever. Sure, the abortion can be safer than childbirth, but perhaps giving birth to a child worth the risk? This is a comparison of apples and oranges, classic. That should not be in the lead, but only in the body of text. We do not want to misled people on the risk of their surgical procedures, right? My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

" perhaps giving birth to a child worth the risk" I doubt that giving birth to a brat is worth risking your life. But what are your sources for this idea? Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I only said that giving birth and abortion are two different things (and the comparison is therefore misleading, just as for apples and oranges). This is plainly obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Abortion and childbirth are obviously not unrelated, since a woman who's dissuaded from getting an abortion because of the misinformation about the safety of abortion that is spread by the anti-abortion movement then runs a greater risk of injury or death by continuing the pregnancy to childbirth (or natural miscarriage), especially if there are health reasons for terminating the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, related, but different. I could not care less about any politics here. The actual issue is not to misinform a potential patient about the risks to her health. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a request for the source of all these talking points: is it some academic literature, a social media site, a closed user group, or thinking out loud? ~ cygnis insignis 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Cygnis insignis:The main source of the data and talking points in the article is the Guttmacher Institute. They both rehash data from the CDC and also collect voluntary response surveys from abortion providers. There are scholarly articles from respected sources which rely on Guttmacher. There are concerns in the academic literature about the reliability of the data Guttmacher uses in the medical literature; some published articles rely on European data from countries with single-payer systems. Another alternative source is that Medicaid data in the relatively few states which fund elective abortions. One reason to question the reliability of the CDC data is that there is a large spread in pregnancy's safety by state; the spread is equivalent to the safety ratio between birth and abortion. The large spread is suggestive of incomplete reporting in some areas.

In a textbook-like review publication where best practices for many medical aspects are evaluated, confidence in surgical abortion's safety is low, but the assertion that abortion is safe is still stated. It seems that the major problem is that the Guttmacher Institute is not an unbiased source and that there are good reasons to believe that its data and the CDC's data are not as complete as the data for European countries which have single-payer systems and a concomitant single source of data. Confidence is low because the data quality is low. One difference between the medical review approach and and the approach used in this article is that the medical reviewers state both the generic safety of abortion (in terms of mortality) and also state the risk of various permanent complications of abortions. This article inadequately discusses the forms of lasting physical harm which anyone undergoing a surgical abortion procedure risks.

Some years back I (& I wasn't alone) questioned the more limited description of abortion's safety; shortly afterwards, the article was edited to make the assertion more bold and prominent. On this talk page, I related that development to the saying, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Another editor took issue with this. I have attempted to get more detailed information about safety added to the article. The current mention of pre-term births was added by another editor with my support after about a year's worth of discussion. There appears to be resistance to elaborating about the different aspects of safety.

There is a movement by some in the medical community to change how some abortions are done so they become safer, but generally the proposed practices have not been implemented. Doing so would require more physician time and patient care, making the process less efficient and cost-effective. So it is not purely an anti-abortion phenomenon to be concerned about abortion's safety. Likewise, literature (for a popular audience, not published studies) from Asherman's syndrome support groups emphasizes the risk of uterine surgeries independently from political abortion related perspectives. They advocate making surgeries less common, or to carry out the surgeries in ways less likely to cause Asherman's.

One difficulty with comparing abortion's safety to birth's safety, is that a previous abortion makes subsequent birth less safe, but the reverse has not been demonstrated. A second issue is the sociological factor: in US Medicaid statistics, the outcome of a woman's first pregnancy is predictive of subsequent pregnancies: Women who start with an abortion tend to have subsequent abortions; women who start with birth tend to have subsequent births. The speculation from the 1960s or early 1970s that women would use abortion for birth spacing appears to be incorrect. Because the term of an abortion tends to be much shorter than 9 months, it is possible to accumulate more abortions than births; some academic literature indicates the physical impacts of abortion are cumulative: a second abortion is medically riskier than the first. So abortion may be safer than birth in a raw-statistics type sense, but the ratio of safety may be flipped for particular cases. Another factor is that surgical abortions are geographically clustered near abortion clinics, while births are more spread out and include many who live in rural areas far from the nearest maternity ward.

It is impossible to say (with confidence from the existing data) that a woman considering her fourth surgical abortion in two years faces more or less risk than a woman considering her fourth birth in 7 years (with no prior C-sections). Aren't most patients apples and oranges? The raw-figures approach looking at mortality has some use for policy makers, but by itself the safety ratio is useless for most individual patients or prospective patients. So it is reasonable to have a serious concern that the article is giving inadequate medical type information.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. MVBW, what's gotten into you? We should keep the conclusions of professional medical bodies out of the article because "perhaps giving birth is worth the risk"? Why is this even a discussion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, I suggested to include the conclusions by professional medical bodies on the side effects other than deaths because safety of medical procedures would include any harm to the health of a patient as a result of such procedure.My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and all safety-related information should be placed together in the article to give the reader perspective.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)_{Striking this; I am not sure that placing everything together would be the best; this does not affect when the discussion should be closed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)}

Yes - MastCell expressed it well, if a MEDRS currently in use gets retracted then it's a reason to get concerned and review. —PaleoNeonate – 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The wording of this RfC makes presenting an argument difficult - what exactly is the reverse viewpoint? Is the opposite to not say its safe? "Safe" is the wording used by the MEDRS, so safe is the appropriate word for us to use. Is the opposite viewpoint that we need to make the scope of who it is "safe" for more clear? Because its inherently really obvious that the safety is in reference to the pregnant woman. It cannot feasibly be safe for the embryo/foetus. It cannot feasibly be unsafe for anyone else. People aren't requesting that be changed because they don't understand. They're requesting it because they disagree with the obvious scope, so a redundant clarification of scope will change nothing. Finally, is the reverse viewpoint that we need to give more detail about what "safe" looks like (i.e. more info on what the risks are either way)? Because the point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise consensus, not to list it out in detail. We'd also have to list out every conceivable benefit in order to maintain due weight. Can you imagine? The article would become monstrous (as would all other medical articles, because that would disrupt sitewide consensus). So, yes, the article is talking about safety correctly. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In October an editor started a thread on this talk-page (see [1]) saying that they thought that the use of the word safe in reference to abortion violated WP:NPOV. The purpose of this RfC is to resolve this issue, so that it doesn't have to be continually debated. Presumably the alternative to using the word safe would be to remove or rewrite the parts of the article where the word is used. NightHeron (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question: Would anyone object to closing this RfC soon? On Monday it will have been open for 1 month, and so far 2 editors are arguing for "No" and 12 for "Yes". NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I support closing the discussion right away under fifteen conditions from you personally. Each of these requests pertains to specific items that need to be changed in the article. Discussions about other factors, such as the phenomenon of a subset of patients with repeated abortions and the risk of placenta previa, are separate from this list and can be discussed alone. It is reasonable to ask you personally for this given your past efforts. I think if I just went ahead and fixed the article right now, you would revert it, but you might agree to the changes on the talk page. For this to work, I'll also need Avatar317 to tolerate it, but not necessarily actively support it on the talk page.

The list:

1. Clarify the meaning of safety or risk in the article text according to the meaning intended in the peer-reviewed source. This means about two sentences once in the article and likely also in the lead along with shorter phrases referring to the medical sense of risk in other parts of the article where the topic of risk comes up. It could be cited to a medical text discussing what "risk" means.

2. Either remove discussion of maternal mortality from the lead or mention the the risk of preterm birth next to it.

3. Change the sentence "The risk of death from abortion approaches roughly half the risk of death from childbirth the farther along a woman is in pregnancy" to "...risk of death from the combined total of C-sections and vaginal childbirths the farther along..."

4. Change "It appears that having had a prior surgical..." to "Having had a prior surgical..." Discuss one type of risk with the same type of language that you discuss another. Or alternatively, add "It appears that" to every assertion of abortion's safety.

5. Change "Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups,[109][110] but lack scientific support.[109] For example, the question of a link between" to "The question of a link between..." The rationale for this is that the sources are only about the breast cancer link anyway, and it is unwise for the article to overstate the sources to the effect that a plurality of risks lacks scientific support.

6. Allow me or others to add reliable sources opposing the views of Linda Gordon, Jerome Bates, and Edward Zawadzki. The current portion asserting the safety of illegal, pre-legalization abortions in the US takes up 1,599 characters. I am aware of reliable sources indicating the opposite of this view. Equal space for the opposing views would be fair. Alternatively, this part of the section could be removed.

7. Remove the line, "sometimes including "risks" not supported by the medical literature" This line appears to have no source. Also, the article should not be second-guessing informed patient laws in a broad, indeterminate sense. Medical literature indicates varying degrees of support for varying degrees of risks. Is Wikipedia in a place to tell a state health department or state legislature that they are not interpreting the sources correctly? Maybe they aren't, but language directed directly in favor of or against a health authority is better suited for a controversies or criticisms section for individual health departments or public officials. It is not realistic to be able to evaluate them all in a helpful way in a broad topic article like this one, and a generalizing aside like this is unfair to health departments in general.

8. I am okay listing the teratogenic effects of chemotherapy and also with the mention of thalidomide. However, the teratogenic effects of the two drugs used together for medication abortions should also be described. This is a meaningful risk in the event a drug regime is not completed and the baby is born, or if a woman becomes pregnant soon after having a medication abortion. This could go either under the Medical section or under the Safety section.

9. Source [85] states "The legality or illegality of the services, however, may not be the defining factor of their safety." on page 5 of the pdf. This should be reflected in the article. Legal does not equal safe.

10. Change "In the UK, guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that" to "In the UK, guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which discuss maternal mortality state that"

11. Change "Outpatient abortion is as safe from..." to "Outpatient abortion has a similar maternal mortality from"

12. Change "The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth." to "The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than the combined figure for C-sections and vaginal childbirths".

13. Change "Unlike D&E, labor-induced abortions after 18 weeks may be complicated by the occurrence of brief fetal survival, which may be legally characterized as live birth. For this reason, labor-induced abortion is legally risky in the United States" to "Unlike dilation and evacuation, labor-induced abortions after 18 weeks may be result in the fetus being born alive. In the United Sates, once born the fetus is considered an infant and may not be killed under the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act."

14. Remove "When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems" from the lead. This is contradicted by the material already in the article discussing the increased risk for preterm birth.

15. Change "It is safer than childbirth, which has..." to "It has a lower risk of maternal mortality than the combined figures for C-sections and vaginal childbirths, which have...". Making a blanket statement in the lead which contradicts content in the article is a problem.-Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So you'll allow us to end this RfC—where your proposals have been soundly and nearly unanimously rejected—as long as we agree to a list of 15 of your demands? This is either comically tendentious or performance art; the latter possibility is at least interesting. MastCell ^Talk 01:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I second MastCell's comment, and compliment MastCell on saying that so nicely. @Epiphyllumlover: if you continue responding this way, CLEARLY showing WP:IDONTHEARYOU than I'm going to have to push for an Abortion-wide topic ban, this type of editing is genuinely tendentious.

I also agree with MastCell's earlier comment here about your "...pushing a personal agenda here rather than identifying and following the best sources,", which is why I have had problems with your Original Research additions at the Roe_v_Wade article, where you try to bring in every source relating to Abortion or Population Control that supports what you want to say, when that article is about a court decision.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You all thought I wanted to keep the RfC open indefinitely if NightHeron rejects it? No, I don't think that. I'm sorry for not being more clear. I think there is a benefit to keeping the RfC open because more ideas might bring more discussion or new voters. But if nobody cares, by all means close it. Given the size/volume so far, and that there isn't much else at hand currently on this talk page, it would be reasonable to wait a week after the last comment or vote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I support closing the discussion right away under fifteen conditions from you personally would be a good opening to a satirical parody of Wikipedia discussions. As for NightHeron, you needn't have asked the question, really, just waited for a close at the one month period or requested one if it reached a few days after. Yes, this discussion can be closed soon. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, since Epiphyllumlover wants more opinions to make the consensus clear. The arguments for are consistent with our actions at other articles, while the arguments against are appeals to special pleading: discussing whether anything can hypothetically be safe, whether a child's life outweighs the risk of death of a person who has not consented to giving birth to the child etc. is simply off-topic. No general rule has been presented that would enforce omission of "safe", nor any reason for exception in this one medical topic only. There is no reason not to describe abortion as "safe", unless the topic is specifically the small subset of unsafe abortion conditions. — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Abortion rates are similar between countries that ban abortion and countries that allow it."

This is implying that banning abortion doesn't stop it but when you look at the study you see this: The unintended pregnancy rate in countries where abortion is broadly legal is 58. The abortion rate in countries where abortion is broadly legal is 40. The unintended pregnancy rate in countries where abortion is restricted is 73. The abortion rate in countries where abortion is restricted is 36.

Despite the unintended pregnancy rates being vastly different, the abortion rates are similar, this implies legal restrictions are cutting down on the number of abortions and the main issue is a lack of sexual education and birth control access in these countries.

I think the line "Abortion rates are similar between countries that ban abortion and countries that allow it." should be removed for how misleading it is.

141.165.225.162 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to find WP:Reliable sources discussing the aspects you describe here. Armed with such references, you will have leverage to change the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my source, it's from the paper "Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019", Table 2:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S2214-109X%2820%2930315-6 141.165.224.194 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bare table with stats. Wikipedia allows simple arithmetic calculations per WP:CALC, but what you are proposing involves deeper analysis. You need to cite an author who analyzes the situation in prose. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement "abortion rates are similar..." in the article has a citation already. That source contains prose about the rates being similar but it includes additional context that is left out in the article. The full context is:

Abortion is sought and needed even in settings where it is restricted—that is, in countries where it is prohibited altogether or is allowed only to save the women’s life or to preserve her physical or mental health.

Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal.

As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socioeconomic grounds).

In analyses that exclude China and India, whose large populations skew the data, the abortion rate is actually higher in countries that restrict abortion access than in those that do not.

In countries that restrict abortion, the percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion has increased during the past 30 years, from 36% in 1990–1994 to 50% in 2015–2019.

It is clear if you read the source's full context—including the key words 'as a result'—that the similar rates are in large part a result of the higher unintended pregnancy rate, which the Wikipedia article omits—in a misleading way, I would agree. In my opinion, the same source cited in the statement itself provides justification for its removal. Baller McGee (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My point does not rely on a conclusion not stated by the source and so it is not original research. See below. Baller McGee (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote from the source doesn't give any analysis one way or another of the reason for the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics between the two types of countries or for the similarity between the abortion statistics. The similarity of the abortion statistics is striking and deserves inclusion in the article. The OP writes that the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics is due to a lack of sexual education and birth control access in these countries. This is a reasonable hypothesis, since the same countries that have liberal laws about women's reproductive rights also generally have birth control and sexual education much more available than in the countries that ban abortion. That is, liberal abortion laws go hand-in-hand with liberal policies and practices on birth control and sexual education. If the OP's explanation for the discrepancy in unwanted pregnancy rates is correct, that would mean that if countries that ban abortions were to legalize abortion and at the same time promote safe sex, then the number of abortions would remain about the same. And of course women would get their rights restored. So the similarity of abortion statistics between countries that ban abortion and those that don't is not a misleading statistic to include. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

One does not need to draw an original conclusion about the "reason for the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics." The source plainly says that the similar overall incidence is due to the fact that abortion is sought even where restricted, and the fact that unintended pregnancy rates are higher—for whatever reason—in those countries which restrict the practice of abortion. Baller McGee (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I certainly wasn't suggesting that what I commented here on the talk page belongs in the article. I was just commenting that the statement as it stands is not misleading. Without going into details or giving a clear analysis, the source suggests that many women feel a great need for abortion in the countries where it's prohibited as well as in the countries where it's legal, and that those countries also have a high rate of unintended pregnancy. But without RS giving a clear analysis of the statistics, we can't speculate about the reasons in the article. NightHeron (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

141.165.225.162, I agree it should be removed, but my rationale is that worldwide a large portion of abortions are done in China, where statistics are considered a state secret and not widely available to the public or foreign scientists. So any generalization about abortion rates worldwide is amiss without at least discussing this hole in the data. Since the article doesn't do that, it shouldn't make this sort of sweeping generalization. Also, some countries which have legalized abortion have legal mechanisms to reduce the rate; such as with waiting periods and mandatory counseling. To generalize based on a premise that the rate of abortions is a function of legal vs. illegal is misleading, because some countries legalize it, but require counseling first against the abortion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreverting Baller McGee's comment

I am unreverting this comment:

*No, abortion is lethal to the unborn, developing human being, and to call it safe is to ignore half of the individuals involved. Baller McGee (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My rationale for unreverting is that the RfC was closed by the opener. In order to account for this unorthodox procedure, belated comments should not be penalized by reverting, but should instead be discussed separately from the RfC. In particular, this comment raises an issue not addressed during the RfC, since it discussed maternal safety, and this comment raises the question of fetal safety. Fetal safety in a broader sense does not only address the risk to the aborted fetus, but also the safety for sibling fetuses not targeted by the abortion. Another question which sometimes comes up is exactly when fetuses begin to feel pain, and if the current laws intended to protect fetuses from pain during abortion really do that, given uncertainties in determining gestational pain. It is possible that the RfC needed to be closed by the opener because third parties otherwise thinking about closing it may have had concerns about the wording of the RfC and the involvement by a minority of those involved who used accounts apparently created for use on controversial edits or topics. Not getting involved in this may have been a less energy intensive choice for third parties should someone try to appeal it; concerns from potential third-party closers may have involved the medical content guidelines or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

Response to Baller McGee:

I agree that there should be acknowledgement in the article that abortion kills the fetus. Wikipedia is used by people of many education levels. Norma McCorvey in an autobiography discussed looking "Abort" up the dictionary, and even then not really understanding what went on during an abortion until years later. I doubt she is the only one. So while it may seem too obvious for most readers, it could still help some to understand.

There are really two separate questions discussed in the literature types already used to source the article: one is that of the abortion advocates. They say that abortion is safe, period. The other issue is within the medical profession; a review characterized abortion as being safe but with low confidence. Also, in discussions by medical professionals for other professionals about abortion, safety is often defined only in terms of maternal mortality. Professional, judgements about safety in terms of mortality occur separately from questions about long-lasting effects on fertility, subsequent preterm birth, birth defects caused by lingering medications during a subsequent pregnancy, or any other pregnancy complications. The closed RfC discussed "safety", but not "risk". Do you support any of the 15 changes I advocated on 20:56, 4 February 2022 which concerned risk?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the literature specifically about maternal safety or risk, and so, respectfully, I have no opinion about it or your 15 changes, but that wasn't the point I was making. I agree with you that the article should acknowledge that abortion kills the fetus. This is obvious to many. It's also obvious that a horse is a mammal, but the article on Horse says this anyway. Baller McGee (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Baller McGee I think one could work in a reference to abortion killing the fetus in a line about the risk to sibling fetuses. Something like, "Besides causing the death of the fetus or fetuses targeted by surgical abortion procedures, abortion also causes an increased risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by selective reduction.[ref]" Assuming I can find a suitable reference, would you support me adding this line to the article? (I am also open to revision ideas.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Baller McGee, Your concern, which I support, is extremely similar to TWM03's 19:15, 16 July 2021 comment, Zfish118's 16:43, 11 August 2021 comment, and 24.228.128.119's 21:58, 5 May 2021 comment in Talk:Abortion/Archive_51#Problematic lead sentence and more loosely similar to DeaconShotFire's broader comment which was archived on April 9th as Talk:Abortion/Archive_51#"Safe"_is_subjective. Closer to your original comment, I suggest adding "Some find it inconsistent to consider abortion to be safe, given that it kills the fetus.[ref]" This reference could work: Chris Rock Emerges Victorious at Chaotic Atlantic City Performance, although there are other possibilities. This change or something similar would help make the article consistent with its existing ranking as one of the "Mid-importance Death articles"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect it seems like you’re not really interested in improving the page and more interested in finding the least controversial way to sneak in WP:POV language about abortion killing “the unborn” (pretty sure that’s not a medical term). Of course “safety” only refers to maternal safety. While covering the risks of abortion in this area are important, nobody is arguing that abortion is unsafe to a fetus since the literal point of the operation is killing the fetus. Dronebogus (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sneaking anything; this is a straightforward talk page discussion. There is a decent amount of academic literature dealing with the risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by abortion; it is reasonable to ask the article to mention it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Epiphyllumlover: I am available if there is a particular item you would like my comment on, however I am uncertain what the issue is here. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am uncertain as well. Seems to be a mishmash of “should we say abortion kills the fetus” (consensus is no due to being considered obvious through inference; I don’t really care as long as it isn’t put in a nonsensical and unintentionally (darkly) comical section like “safety risks” and doesn’t use unscientific POV terminology like “the unborn”) and discussion about including miscellaneous health risks to the mother that I have no opinion on due to lack of expertise. Dronebogus (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Zfish118, I'm wondering if you support adding either "Some find it inconsistent to consider abortion to be safe, given that it kills the fetus.[ref]" or "Besides causing the death of the fetus or fetuses targeted by surgical abortion procedures, abortion also causes an increased risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by selective reduction.[ref]". As for me, I don't support adding both lines, but favor adding only one, either one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t support any lines of this sort at all, since it goes against the established omission rationale of “it’s obvious” AND comes across as a clear attempt to play the hypocrisy/dishonesty card, which is extremely POV. Sort of like saying “when operated responsibly, the AKR-4715 is safe to use”— even though the purpose is killing people/things, it’s understood it’s low-risk to a sensible user. Adding “however, some say this is inconsistent because it’s a killing tool” is obviously gratuitous POV. Dronebogus (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

False claim in "History and Religion" section

The section "History and Religion" of this articles falsely claims that "In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope before 1869 to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;". This is simply wrong; it is known that Pope Stephen V, in his letter Consuluisti de infantibus, stated that committing an abortion was an homicide (DZ 670). The original latin text can be even consulted HERE. I suggest that this statement in the article be corrected as soon as possible, if they can.--Potatín5 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that discusses what Pope Sixtus V stated and what the context and the effect of his statement were? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There is reference to Stephen's V letter in page 16 (7 of de PDF) of this essay [1]. There it is said that in the letter "it is presumed that the crime of abortion is murder". The original latin text, stating that "quia si conceptum in utero qui per aborsus (abortum) deleverit, homicida est", can be consulted in the website I had already put in my previous commentary. Potatín5 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

An essay is not the same thing as a reliable secondary source, and the essay makes only a passing reference to Stephen V's letter without describing the significance at the time or the effect of the letter. If Stephen V's letter in the 9th century (rather than Sixtus V's Effraenatam in the 16th century) were the Church's first clear adoption of a strict anti-abortion policy that included early abortions, there would be commentary about this in reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

1) I have been checking and the only reliable secondary source, at least in my opinion, may be this: [1]

2) You seen to be missing what I was trying to correct. I did never say that Stephen V's letter was "the Church's first clear adoption of a strict anti-abortion policy". What I wanted was to indicate that Stephen V, and not Sixtus V, was the first pope to declare that abortion (at any state of pregnancy) is homicide in a magisterial document, independently on whether he ever passed or not a law to enforce that declaration. Potatín5 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That source is a primary source, since all it has is a quote from Stephen V. That quote would have to be interpreted by a secondary source. For example, the term "abortion" was often used to refer only to what happens after "quickening" or "ensoulment", and many commentators who condemned abortion as murder were not including abortion in the modern sense, which includes pre-ensoulment abortion. Also, it's not clear what authority that statement conveyed, and the extent to which Stephen V was committed to implementing any policy on the subject. A 9th century statement, translated into modern English, has to be interpreted by a historian in a scholarly secondary source. It's not for a Wikipedia editor to make a decision about the significance of the quoted words of Stephen V. NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need a reliable secondary source to remove something that is incorrect; you need a reliable source for replacing the mistaken history with what really happened.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Potatín5, if you have access to an academic library, you might consult Joseph Dellapenna's works to see if he says anything about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that some of the disagreement stems from unclarity in the text due to the word "declare", which can just mean "express an opinion" or (in the case when the opinion is expressed by the Pope) can mean much more. So I edited that sentence to make it clearer. NightHeron (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Another complication is that legal designations involving pregnancy were intended to guide what was feasible to prosecute. In the case of a pope that would mean in an ecclesiastical court. They couldn't implement specific policies prosecuting abortions at the earlier stages of pregnancy because hundreds of years ago it wasn't possible to consistently prove that the defendant was pregnant in the first place. This aspect in a general sense has been researched and published in scholarly journals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I suppose there are many things that the Church has condemned in harsh terms that would not be feasible to prosecute. I believe that Sixtus V's Effraenatam was reversed right after his papacy in part because it was unenforceable (and also because of the widespread disagreement within the Church about pre-ensoulment abortion), NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest removing the line going from Pope Sixtus V... Pope Gregory XIV until more sources can be examined and a consensus about what should be stated is formed. This might just be between you and Potatín5, although you never know who might join in. Do you agree?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, what's there now is the stable version, except that I changed the wording to meet the complaints in this thread. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to change the stable version. You need a consensus in order to omit the sentence. If you think that more sources are needed, that's another matter, and I can supply them. NightHeron (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The statement is overly broad and vague as-is to merit removal even without more or better sources. What defines an official "policy" vs. a practice? Moreover, throughout much of Roman Catholicism's history, ecclesiastical authorities left as much of the "dirty work" of enforcement as possible to secular authorities. This blurs the lines between what was official for the Roman Catholic Church versus what ecclesiastical authorities did in unofficial ways through lobbying various states or nobles. And even if "policy" was definable and used in a way that is not ambiguous to the reader, it would be extraordinary to prove the absence of a policy this during first millennium or so A.D. when records are incomplete. Proving the existence of a practice in this context is a much more simple manner than proving the absence of a practice. That is why it is extraordinary to claim the absence of a policy, and even more so in Wikipedia voice.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I added two scholarly sources, with page numbers. The statement is a clear and accurate paraphrase of what the sources say. I see no purpose in continuing this thread. A Wikipedia editor's own opinion and rationale for that opinion are not what belongs in the article, per WP:OR and WP:V. NightHeron (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In the last decade especially there has been extensive scholarship detailing the origins of revisionist history regarding abortion's legality and ecclesiastical sanction. Will you let me add an equal number of scholarly sources on the opposing side?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

First, let me explain why I reverted the very recent edit by Zfish118, which greatly changed the sentence on Pope Sixtus V. The edit summary for the replacement sentence on Sixtus V wrongly claimed that his being the first was not in the sources. Here are the words of Riddle: "Pope Sixtus V issued a bull that was radically different from previous Church positions on the use of birth control. The bull, known as Effraenatam, began with a traditional embrace of Augustine, but moved rapidly from Augustinian moderation to absolute condemnation of contraception and abortion... This is the strongest statement made heretofore by an official, to my knowledge."

To answer Zfish118's request for clarification on pre-ensoulment abortion, from Riddle: "The succeeding Pope countered it [Effraenatam] and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime but that abortion could not occur until after the 40th day when the fetus was ensouled."

The Noonan source essentially says the same, but I don't have the exact text available at the moment.

One problem with removing the statement about the unprecedented nature of Pope Sixtus V's bull on contraception and abortion is that the replacement sentence mentions Pope Sixtus V as if he's just an example of an anti-abortion policy pre-1869, whereas in reality he's the unique example, as per the sources.

Any major change needs to reach consensus first, perhaps through an RfC or just through a well-publicized discussion. Sources have to be reliable. Writings by Church theologians are questionable on the abortion issue. Since 1869, and especially since 1930, the Church position on abortion has been extreme, and the Church has viewed it as centrally important, so that Church theologians have the duty to support the Church's position. Part of that official view holds that the extreme anti-abortion stance has been consistent throughout the Church's history. So regardless of what disinterested historians say, that has to be the view of Catholic theologians. NightHeron (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• The first quote specifically address a "radically different" approach to birth control, not necessarily to abortion. Even then, it is Riddle's opinion that it is the "strongest" (not "first") statement of condemnation. A revision to the article text to the effect: "Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) institutes a Church policy labeling abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy; according to [scholar Riddle] this was a "radically different" approach from prior policy" rather than claim that it is the "first" would be an improvement. I would also strongly prefer that the prior policy/early Christian views be discussed first, rather than jumping a 1580's pope who allegedly made radical changes to early Christian policy. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The second quote clarifies the intent of the cited line. However, further clarification is still needed in the line. The church's traditional position was that abortion before the purported date the soul ensoulment was considered an act of contraception rather than an act of murder (ie, illicit abortion). As Riddle states, contraception was considered a sin, even if not the particular sin of murder. Since the modern definition of abortion is literally the termination of a pregnancy, it is confusing to say that early Christians did not believe the termination of the pregnancy was an "abortion" without noting the different definition used by Christians at the time. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  NightHeron's assessment is reasonable, and well-sourced. The salient point is the Church was not vigorous about opposing abortion until the 1800s (coincidentally the time when doctors developed a safer method.) Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  NightHeron, asking again if you will let me cite an equal number of sources with the opposing view. To resolve your question about sources I will propose terms and you can accept them or negotiate if you reject them. If they are Catholic theologians, their writings will be in peer-reviewed articles or books published by respectable secular scholarly publishers or secular academic bodies; if they are Catholic law or history scholars or non-Catholics, the sources can be from any reliable source which would typically be respected on less controversial articles. (You might remember from the past than I am a non-Catholic and I agree that at times the Catholic Church has varied in its practices regarding pregnancy and fetuses. So I read Catholic history scholars with a critical mind. There are three cases of pregnant women being executed for heresy during the Counter-Reformation; this was typically not allowed. In the most notorious of these cases, the mother gave birth to a live boy while being burned at the stake. The boy was brought before a judge, who ordered that he be burned too due to his inherited sin (both parents were Protestant); priests were present and approved of this.)

  You stated "perhaps through an RfC" I should respond to it: I am concerned about taking it to RfC given the circumstances of the last one: an overly broad and vague question, respondents who appear to come to the RfC from a single noticeboard, and you both opened and closed the RfC instead of waiting for an independent closer. Going through the talk pages archives I got a closer picture of what is going on: this article is the worst example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS out of all the medical content articles I am aware of, and the RfC dynamics seem to be part of it. Over the years, a certain percentage of people who vote at RfCs appear through their comments to not understand the question, not care what the medical content guidelines say, or both. If issues had to find consensus between all of the people who randomly float into the talk page and the "regulars" the local consensus issue might never have developed, or at least would not be as severe; the RfCs seem to exacerbate it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  First, an informal warning. Although I personally almost never bring misconduct charges against another editor, even if their conduct is very problematic, others are far less tolerant than I am of violations of policies such as WP:BLUDGEONING. You have insisted on either reopening matters that have recently been decided by consensus or else strongly encouraging other editors who do that, and then adding long posts that turn the thread into a time sink.

  Next, I reject the charge that there's anything improper about RfCs that I've started or participated in. My closure of the earlier one on safety was per WP:SNOWCLOSE, except that that particular RfC went on longer than is typical for an RfC where the opinions are overwhelmingly on one side. The statement was not overly broad and vague. It was in direct response to the objections that were made to the statement on safety of abortion. The editors who objected tried in various ways to argue against that statement, claiming that it needs to be qualified by saying that the embryo or fetus dies, or that late abortions carry risks of future unsuccessful pregnancies, etc. But we didn't need a separate RfC on each one of those suggestions of ways to undermine the statement about safety.

  Any RfC on this talk page is normally announced on relevant wikiprojects, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You're not going to get anywhere trying to undermine the legitimacy of the many RfCs that have rejected attempts to insert an anti-abortion POV into this article.

  No, a source cannot be judged to be reliable because it was published by a mainstream publishing house. Some very respectable presses sometimes publish books and article collections that are full of nonsense, ranging from homeopathy to white supremacist pseudoscience.

  I did not at all mean to suggest that an author's Catholic faith would be disqualifying. Let me make an analogy. An article about the 2020 U.S. presidential election written by an author who's a Republican wouldn't necessarily be unreliable. But an article by a Republican politician arguing in support of the claim that the election was stolen from Trump would be unreliable. An article about the Russian invasion of Ukraine written by a Russian would not necessarily be unreliable. But if it's by a Russian official claiming that Ukraine's to blame for the war, then it would be. Certain political or religious entities try to dispute well-established facts. Wikipedia does not give such claims equal time, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  As an alternative condition to the above, instead of "mainstream", will you accept sources which are "academic-oriented, and are not generally in disrepute for misinformation"? In response to your other comments, where "local consensus" and the overall site-wide consensus for medical content have been at odds I have backed the latter. And often enough I've weighed in on things others have started, including every content thread which is not currently archived, so I am not guilty of bludgeoning. This sort of article will naturally have different kinds of people coming in and making comments because it is both higher in traffic and a controversial topic. It is not surprising that others would reopen things you consider settled; and if they do you can't blame me for supporting them. If you do another RfC, will you agree to a third party closer? And also, will you accept it if I post to other boards or talk pages besides the ones currently utilized, or will that be considered canvassing?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I see that on my user talk-page you suggested that I back off and wait for others to comment. I'm happy to do that. In particular, it makes no sense for me to "negotiate" with you, since I don't represent anyone but myself, and I'm only one of over 1000 editors who have this article and talk-page watchlisted. If you propose a specific source or specific edit that I object to, I might still comment here (or revert something on the article page), but in that case I'll keep my comments very brief. NightHeron (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  That wasn't quite what I intended but not all the way off either; I thought about completely staying off for a period of time. How about 30 days and we check back later on your or my talk page about continuing to completely mutually refrain or extending it? This would include the "thanks" button, any conversations about the article, and any use of drafts or sandboxes related to new article sections.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand. What does "completely staying off" mean? Staying off what? Whatever you have in mind, why are you proposing it? NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just this article & talk page; I brought it up because I thought you might spring for it after your recent comment; it seems fair enough to me but if you aren't interested I understand and won't try to persuade you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's sufficient if we both informally agree to be as brief as possible in our comments on this talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that you don't accept my proposal and I won't consider either of us bound by it. I can't commit to being brief, but at the least I can understand your wish for brevity and try to be good to you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. It's not a question of brevity being good to me; rather, its good for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Under the Motivation section, under the subheading Personal, the last sentence reads "Additional reasons include not being able or willing to raise a child conceived as a result of rape or incest" It should be changed to "Additional reasons include not being able or willing to raise a child conceived as a result of rape or incest." as the sentence is missing a form of punctuation. FishOnTheFloor (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing

The line "When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems" reads very awkwardly to me.

It seems to just be saying that a procedure performed "safely" is "safe" which seems redundant. It also seems to be caveated with "a woman who desires it" which could use further explanation. Also the way it's phrased referring only to "long term" problems seems to imply short term problems? 2A02:8084:4040:1480:ADC3:1181:D1D9:C57D (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence seems clear to me, and not redundant. Here "safely" means under safe conditions, that is, by a qualified person using a medically accepted technique. What wording would you prefer? NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Here "safely" means under safe conditions" Which by implication would include an up-to-standards healthcare facility, proper sanitation, and access to medication for any after-effect. I am not certain about the availability of such conditions in certain regions. Is there a source which covers the standards of safety in more detail? Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What's needed depends very much on the circumstances, especially the stage of pregnancy. Most early medical abortions do not require an up-to-standards healthcare facility or any healthcare facility at all, and can occur safely at home under the guidance of a qualified person. Late abortions or abortions as a result of medical complications during pregnancy are another matter. I don't know if there's a single source (perhaps the W.H.O.?) that covers this issue in a comprehensive way that would apply internationally. NightHeron (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is overly vague and should be removed. Even with a qualified person using a medically accepted technique, abortion as is generally practiced is dependent on the availability of developed-country quality health care should complications arise. And sometimes they do arise, and not just in the case of late term pregnancies either. Abortion is more risky without "backup" by the overall health care infrastructure. Also, if taken broadly enough the sentence contradicts what is already known about abortion's effects on subsequent preterm birth.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not just “when performed under proper conditions”? We don’t need to cover every detail in one sentence! Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The difficulty with saying, "proper conditions" is that it wades in on an ongoing medical issue. The professional medical community has been in disagreement in recent years over the correct protocol for a D&C; there are concerns about the most commonly used first-trimester method. The general, textbook-like general medical reviews which are typically the best source for medical content articles state that cervical priming is not necessary prior to a first trimester D&C abortion. So to say "proper conditions" means the article makes an assertion that cervical priming is not necessary for a first trimester abortion; the alternative method is to first do cervical priming to prevent damage to the cervix. An earlier post from the talk page archive has references about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues in medicine that are like that. I stand by my assertion that we don’t need meticulous coverage of every possible issue lest we get into WP:COATRACK WP:UNDUE territory. Dronebogus (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern is the phrasing. It is a bit confusing in my opinion. What exactly is meant by the caveat of "a woman who desires it". Why does it refer to only long term issues? Is there a relevant citation to include here? Acasualobservation (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The citation already included in the article suggests a possible re-wording: Uncomplicated abortions are not associated with long term psychological or physical sequelae Acasualobservation (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

“Abortions without complications” you mean? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So then then the article would state that abortions without short term complications are not associated with long term complications. The problem with that is that when there is immediate damage to the cervix, or uterus, (such as would cause Asherman's Syndrome), the immediate damage may not be known until later on. The review article used in the article for subsequent preterm birth discusses this in detail with respect to abortions causing cervical damage. You wouldn't want the article to commit a no true Scotsman by saying that if a chronic condition comes up, the abortion wasn't uncomplicated in the first place.

It is possible to keep meticulous issues in mind without covering them specifically. If an overly broad statement will wade in on a meticulous issue that shouldn't be covered due to WP:UNDUE, the best response is to not make the overly broad statement; otherwise one commits a lie-to-children against the reader.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point Epiphyllumlover. Acasualobservation (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Types: Spontaneous

@NightHeron: :@Generalrelative:

I agree my wording was not good in my last edit here my wording did make it appear to say something which I was not intending. I don't disagree with any of the facts stated just wanted to add more context and clarity. Obviously I failed in doing that. However I have summited new changes that I think address this confusion. I added the most up to date research on these numbers and agree with the already stated numbers. For the sake of math 30% - 50% divided by 80% is equal to 37.5% to 62.5% which is in agree with the the study I cited. In the abstract you can see the quote "A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth" They arrive at this number in great reliance on the second study I cited for the 10-40% lost prior to implantation and re-analysis of hCG study data which chemically detects if implantation has occurred and has been found to be over 95% effective. --Tjpolega (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I honestly do not understand what you're concerned about but have just popped into this discussion so I may be missing something. In any case, your most recent addition is still nonsensical. I suspect there may be a writing competency issue at play. All the more reason to establish consensus for any proposed additions here on the talk page before attempting to re-add this material. Generalrelative (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What did you find so objectionable to my last reworked edit? Tjpolega (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is mostly ok (I haven't yet checked the sources) but it is somewhat confusing: "....reaching past the third trimester." This would indicate BIRTH, since PAST the last trimester is childbirth. I need to read the source, but it seems that there should be a clearer way to say whatever the source is indicating. Your second sentence seems fine (again I haven't checked the source), but just wait and let this discussion complete before re-adding it, please. I'll look at this more in depth tomorrow. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester, and only 40 to 60% reaching birth. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. In part because 10 to 40% of embryos never even successfully implant into the uterus. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. Tjpolega (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester, and only 40 to 60% reaching past the third trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. In part because 10 to 40% of embryos never even successfully implant into the uterus. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. Tjpolega (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments on the first sentence: (1) "conceptions progress" is a word usage error; it should be "pregnancies progress". (2) "conceptions progress...and reaching" is ungrammatical. (3) The sentence is unclear because it doesn't specify 40 to 60% of what. (4) There are two possibilities for "of what", and in either case the sentence is wrong. It could mean 40 to 60% of all pregnancies, but then the sentence would be saying that more pregnancies reach childbirth than make it past the first trimester, and that's logically impossible. Alternatively, "of what" could mean "out of the 30% to 50% that get past the first trimester", but, as I said before, it's almost certainly wrong to state that about half of all pregnancies that are past the first trimester will end in miscarriage. If that were true, it would mean that there are about as many late miscarriages as births. (5) As Generalrelative pointed out, "past the third trimester" is an odd way of saying "until birth". NightHeron (talk 11:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron:

@Generalrelative:

@Avatar317:

Many, 40 to 60%, of embryos do not progress to birth. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester.(note would like to combine statements for simplicity and clarity as well as citations) The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. In part because 10 to 40% of embryos never even successfully implant into the uterus. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman Sources I’d like to add are https://f1000research.com/articles/5-2765#ref-27 And https://f1000research.com/articles/5-2083/v1 Both are in agreement with all other cites on the numbers but add more current and comprehensive research to the consensus strengthening its validity Tjpolega (talk)

Your first sentence now makes sense. Notice that your sentence that I commented on said exactly the opposite of what you meant to say, because you wrote "progress" rather than "do not progress". The problems you've been having don't seem to be with the content or sources you'd like to add, but rather with your writing. The only content comment I have on the first sentence is that you should indicate what population was studied, that is, whether the stats are worldwide, just the US or UK, or just some city or region. NightHeron (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am glad we have worked on the wording together. The data sets come from three studies two in the US and one in China involving over a 1000 women who were clinically screened for fertility sexual activity and lab tested results and were combined to give meta data that was used.These experiments are very expensive and do show consistency in results. Though certainly not conclusive I would say that they represent correct numbers for women worldwide and would only likely be different for serious abnormal populations suffering from malnutrition. China is a developing country with a different racial make up and is known to have high levels of environmental hazards but still have similar results. Not sure how to add your request but I would suggest to leave it has is as it is currently and likely to be assumed to be true for women generally and I think additions would cloud clarity rather than improve it. But here is a suggestion.

Many, 40 to 60%, of embryos do not progress to birth in the general population. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.

or

Many, 40 to 60%, of embryos conceived by most women do not progress to birth. 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.

Personally I like the second better @NightHeron Tjpolega (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on what you've written, this is what I would suggest for the wording:

Studies of pregnant women in the US and China have shown that between 40% and 60% of embryos do not progress to birth. Of these spontaneous abortions, 80% happen in the first trimester and most occur before the woman is aware that she is pregnant.

I've removed your last sentence, because it's not clear how the studies could have known about spontaneous abortions that occurred before medical practitioners were able to detect an embryo. In any case, that sentence doesn't add much. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That now makes sense to me. I would support adding NightHeron's suggested language here, and thank Tjpolega for raising the issue. Generalrelative (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

proposed change with input from @NightHeron and @Generalrelative would. ask for @Avatar317 to check if they argue also

Studies of pregnant women in the US and China have shown that between 40% and 60% of embryos do not progress to birth. Of these spontaneous abortions, 80% happen in the first trimester and most occur before the woman is aware that she is pregnant. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.

Although I strongly disagree that the studies haven't shown the percent of spontaneous abortions prior to implantation. I will agree that the paragraph taken as a whole is is satisfactory with your suggested changes. I think it's very important to talk about embryos lost prior to implantation however ill agree it doesn't add much in this paragraph and shouldn't be added. Tjpolega (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your wording was (in my opinion) a little redundant/confusing. Here's my version:

Studies of pregnant women in the US and China have shown that 40-60% of embryos do not progress to birth. Of these spontaneous abortions, 80% occur in the first trimester with most occurring before the woman is aware that she is pregnant and before medical practitioners can detect an embryo. Between 15-30% of detected pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage.

Comments? ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the History and religion section

@NightHeron: I would like to request the remove of the statement "From 1750, excommunication became the punishment for abortions." This citation is the absolutely only cite I can find for this and as it is no longer publicly available I find it dubious because of that. Abortion and the Catholic Church: A summary History by Noonan from Notre Dame Law School https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum is a far better source and I have read the entire chapter and searched it for any even remote mention of this and it doesn't exist. Tjpolega (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to remove that sentence. NightHeron (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, excommunication for abortion started in 1679, when Innocent XI issued the papal bull Sanctissimus Dominus to condemn two propositions related to abortion. He first condemned a proposition which stated that procuring an abortion before the animation of the fetus was licit. He also condemned a proposition which claimed that it was probable that the fetus (as long as it is in the uterus) lacks a rational soul and begins first to have one when it is born, so that no abortion was a homicide. Check here [1]. Potatín5 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your source says nothing about excommunication. A much better source written by a historian (unlike the article in The Embryo Project Encyclopedia) is the article "Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History" by John T. Noonan, Jr. (Natural Law Forum, Oxford University Press, 1967, Vol.12 (1), p. 85-131). On p. 110-111 of that article Noonan discusses the two laxist propositions relating to abortion (out of 65 that were rejected by Pope Innocent XI) as follows: The censure, therefore, at the minimum bore on the prudence of teaching the propositions, not on their abstract truth. What were rejected was Sanchez's opinion that danger of death from relatives was ground for abortion and the opinion of the "prince of laxists," John Caramuel y Lobkowicz, on the time of ensoulment. The main line of casuistic thought on therapeutic abortion was unmentioned and unaffected. Outer limits of permissible teaching were, however, established in practice by the decree. Noonan also says nothing about excommunication, and in fact dismisses the notion that Innocent XI's papal bull had much effect on Church doctrine. NightHeron (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: If you check carefully, both sources tell essentialy the same on the subject. In both cases it is indicated that someone at the time proposed that procuring an abortion before ensoulment was licit under the excuse of threat of death by relatives, which indicates that for the Pope it was an assumed fact that procuring an abortion even prior to ensoulment was inherently sinful.

No, that's not correct. The two sources say very different things. (1) The short article in The Embryo Project Encyclopedia by a non-historian falsely states that Pope Innocent XI said that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is homicide. The author clearly confused the fact that the Pope rejected the laxist view that no abortion can be homicide with a declaration that all abortion is homicide. Noonan says the opposite, namely, that Innocent XI's papal bull had little effect on Church doctrine and was mainly a guide to teaching. (2) Innocent XI knew that the time of ensoulment was an important matter, because an abortion after ensoulment was a serious violation, and before ensoulment it was usually not even regarded as a true abortion. For this reason he condemned the view of some laxists that ensoulment didn't happen until birth. (3) Yes, he did not regard pre-ensoulment abortion as "licit" and so it could be regarded as a sin. But of course in the Catholic Church there are widely different levels of sins, ranging from trivial ones to homicide. NightHeron (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

And concerning excommunication, let me remmember you that those condemnations appear in the Dezinger, so a denial of them must have been regarded as a heresy and therefore a cause for excommunication. Potatín5 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports what you are saying about excommunication? Your own conjecture about what "must have been regarded" cannot substitute for a source, per WP:NOR. NightHeron (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

{{re|Potatín5]] I agree with @NightHeron on all of his recent points on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpolega (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Proposed change to this paragraph In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on whether early abortion was murder, and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[24] However since ~100 A.D. in the Didache the Church has consitently taught that ending a pregnancy was always sinful even prior to "ensoulment" but as a sin of contraception not homicide. Several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.[183][184][185] Among these authors are the Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope before Pope Pius IX in his 1869 bull, Apostolicae Sedis, that would institute a Church policy labeling all abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[186][187]: 362–364 [82]: 157–158 however, his pronouncement of 1588 was reversed three years later by Pope Gregory XIV.[188] After the new codification of Canon Law in 1917, Apostolicae Sedis was further reiterated, in part to clarify a possible reading that excluded the excommunication being applied to the mother. Statements made in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the codified summary of the Church's teachings, opposed abortion from the moment of conception as homicide and calls for the end of legal abortion[190]

I understand I am purposing some significant changes and wish for you and everyone to come to an agreement about my proposed changes to this paragraph Tjpolega (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the proportion of fertilized eggs that don't get implanted, if you have a source that explicitly gives that information. A word of caution is that failure to get implanted should not be referred to as spontaneous abortion or as termination of pregnancy, since I believe most scientists consider pregnancy to start with implantation, not with fertilization. Certain contraceptives (I believe most of them other than barrier methods) act by preventing implantation, not by preventing fertilization, but nevertheless should still be called contraceptives rather than abortifacients.

Here are my comments on the text you added to the paragraph:

1. The second sentence is not clear. Note that some ancient theologians believed that contraception is worse than abortion and worse than murder. (See the last part of the "Early writings" section of the article Catholic Church and abortion). So the term "sin of contraception" doesn't have a consistent meaning. Also, the sentence doesn't have a source. In general, it's best to be cautious about stating that "the Church has consistently taught" something related to contraception and abortion, since the Church has been anything but consistent, and in any case the common understanding of words like pregnancy and abortion has changed over time.

2. In the sentence starting "Pope Sixtus V" I'd suggest the following word changes:

first Pope before --> only Pope before

that would institute --> who instituted

3. In the sentence starting "After the new codification"' I'd suggest the following changes:

After the new codification --> In the codification

further reiterated --> strengthened

to clarify --> to remove

excluded the excommunication being applied to --> excluded excommunication of

4. In the last sentence change "calls" to "called"

Thanks for slowing down and bringing proposed edits to the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I appreciate your suggestions and agree with all of them. To be honest on the Didache I just assumed it proposed a more radical reading as stated by many commenters on the issue. Afterwards I looked to read the passage myself and I think my corrections more faithful describe the text. Also added cite for the translation of the doc and location of relevance. The only issue I may have is on your last suggestion which I think doesn't fully describe the current position of the Church since the CCC and up to the current pope. Despite my reservations I feel the following would be a good edit.

In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on whether early abortion was murder, and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[24] However as early as ~100 A.D. in the Didache the Church has taught that murder by abortion was sinful.(cite) Several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.[183][184][185] Among these authors are the Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the only Pope before Pope Pius IX in his 1869 bull, Apostolicae Sedis, who institute a Church policy labeling all abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[186][187]: 362–364 [82]: 157–158 however, his pronouncement of 1588 was reversed three years later by Pope Gregory XIV.[188] In the new codification of Canon Law in 1917, Apostolicae Sedis, was strengthened, in part to remove a possible reading that excluded excommunication being applied to the mother. Statements made in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the codified summary of the Church's teachings, opposed abortion from the moment of conception as homicide and called for the end of legal abortion[190] (cite) https://legacyicons.com/content/didache.pdf pg 5Tjpolega (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tjpolega: It would improve the quality of your edits if you first use "show preview" to proofread your sentences carefully before publishing the edit. The paragraph above has many typos and other minor errors:

(2nd sentence) need comma after "However"

(2nd sentence) has taught --> taught

(2nd sentence) "murder by abortion" should never be written in wikivoice; just change it to "abortion"

(5th sentence) who institute --> who instituted

(6th sentence) new codification --> codification

(6th sentence) no comma after "Sedis"

(6th sentence) being applied to the mother --> of the mother

I'd also suggest changing the wording in the last sentence to "considered abortion to be homicide from the moment of conception"

Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: As for the issue on lose of embryos prior to implantation honestly though I find it important I'm just not sure how to or where to state the issue effectively which for the time being I think is ok Tjpolega (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on whether early abortion was murder, and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[24] However, as early as ~100 A.D. in the Didache the Church has taught that murder by abortion was sinful.(cite) Several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.[183][184][185] Among these authors are the Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the only Pope before Pope Pius IX in his 1869 bull, Apostolicae Sedis, who instituted a Church policy labeling all abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[186][187]: 362–364 [82]: 157–158 however, his pronouncement of 1588 was reversed three years later by Pope Gregory XIV.[188] In the recodification of Canon Law in 1917, Apostolicae Sedis was strengthened, in part to remove a possible reading that excluded excommunication of the mother. Statements made in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the codified summary of the current Church's teachings, considered abortion from the moment of conception as homicide and called for the end of legal abortion[190]

Most of these I agree with

I disagree with the has taught --> taught

Although the quote alone supports gives support for taught there exists no evidence this has ever been changed and I think it is misleading to change otherwise all the doctors mentioned as well as canons of the church have indicated otherwise and restated by the USSCB in their summary of church teaching.

(2nd sentence) "murder by abortion" should never be written in wikivoice; just change it to "abortion" I also disagree especially with the quote from the historians later. This wording of "murder by abortion" is a directly from the Didiche itself and by stating murder it differentiates the complex change in definition of the meaning of abortion.

I also disagree on the new codification --> codification rather I agree my original position is misleading at it was recodified again in 1983 rather I propose recodification. Tjpolega (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

On the issue of has taught --> taught even this doesn't fully represent the church teaching on the sinfulnesss of contraception often attached to terminating pregnancy prior to ensoulment. I didn't want to add a long addition about this in the paragraph but is part of why I think has taught should stay as it is more representative of the Churches position than taught. Tjpolega (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, you wrote "murder by abortion" in wikivoice as if it's a standard term, which it isn't. This is totally unacceptable. Even among Catholic theologians there was disagreement about whether post-quickening abortion was as bad as murdering a person. There's also a crucial distinction between the word "abortion" as used today (to apply to any stage of pregnancy) and the way it was used in earlier times, usually to apply only to post-quickening. So a modern reader will be misled if you're not careful. Writing "has taught" is misleading, since it implies that the Church has consistently taught the same thing about abortion, and this is false. It's probably best to delete the sentence about the statement in ~100 A.D. rather than getting into a debate about how to word it so as not to be too misleading.

If you keep rejecting other editors' corrections and suggestions, this isn't going to go anywhere. NightHeron (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: What do you think of this wording? However, as early as ~100 A.D. the Didache taught that abortion was sinful.

With the final as In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on whether early abortion was murder, and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[24] However, as early as ~100 A.D. the Didache taught that abortion was sinful.(cite) Several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.[183][184][185] Among these authors are the Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the only Pope before Pope Pius IX in his 1869 bull, Apostolicae Sedis, who instituted a Church policy labeling all abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[186][187]: 362–364 [82]: 157–158 however, his pronouncement of 1588 was reversed three years later by Pope Gregory XIV.[188] In the recodification of Canon Law in 1917, Apostolicae Sedis was strengthened, in part to remove a possible reading that excluded excommunication of the mother. Statements made in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the codified summary of the current Church's teachings, considered abortion from the moment of conception as homicide and called for the end of legal abortion[190]

@Tjpolega: Your sentence on the Didache seems okay to me now.

In your proposed paragraph the first half of the first sentence is problematic because it lacks context. As mentioned later in the paragraph, most people debating the seriousness of abortion as a sin were only talking about post-ensoulment abortion (what we would call late abortion). In addition, abortion was typically considered along with other sex-related transgressions. Several of those transgressions that were often considered worse than abortion would be considered by the modern Church to be much less serious. In Chapter V of his book Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, John Noonan gives a table of 18 penitentials from the Middle Ages (6th to 11th centuries). Eight say nothing about abortion. Ten include abortion among the sins but usually prescribe less punishment for abortion than for several other sex-related offenses, such as contraception, sex for pleasure rather than procreation (within marriage), oral sex, and anal sex. Out of the 4 penitentials that include contraception, two prescribe more serious punishment than for intentional homicide and one prescribes the same punishment.

Here's how I would suggest modifying your paragraph:

In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with other sex-related actions, such as contraception, sex for pleasure rather than procreation, oral sex, and anal sex, and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[24] However, as early as ~100 A.D. the Didache taught that abortion was sinful.(cite) Several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.[183][184][185] Among these authors are the Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the only Pope before Pope Pius IX (in his 1869 bull, Apostolicae Sedis) to institute a Church policy labeling all abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy.[186][187]: 362–364 [82]: 157–158 However, Sixtus' pronouncement of 1588 was reversed three years later by Pope Gregory XIV.[188] In the recodification of Canon Law in 1917, Apostolicae Sedis was strengthened, in part to remove a possible reading that excluded excommunication of the mother. Statements made in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the codified summary of the current Church's teachings, considered abortion from the moment of conception as homicide and called for the end of legal abortion.[190]

Also, the sentence about the recodification of Canon Law in 1917 needs a citation; and you should probably add the following reference to Noonan's book to the first sentence:

NightHeron (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely understand the needed context for the first sentence. I certainly wouldn't want to dispute that. However I think a briefer context would do better here in this paragraph and the complexities of these issues addressed in another location. I also do have citations for all of you mentioned questions and yes much of them are from Noonan which I agree is probably the strongest source on these issues.

What would you say to this briefer proposition? And keeping all of the rest the same.

In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with other sex-related actions and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century. Tjpolega (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That shortened form leaves it up to the reader's imagination what's meant by "sex-related actions". The Noonan source emphasizes that the comparison is with sex-related actions that most people today, including Catholics, regard as either normal or at least not something to be punished. If we just leave it as "sex-related actions", the reader might think that we're referring to serious crimes such as rape or child molestation. So without being more specific we're likely misleading the reader. NightHeron (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with other issues of Catholic sexuality and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.

What do you think of this revision linking to the page on "Catholic theology of sexuality"? Personally I am very happy about you bringing up the much more complete issues on catholic sexual morality and I think wiki needs them a lot but I feel that here we should focus on the abortion issue. The things you bring up are very complex and I think that they deserve significant expansion in their own space. Tjpolega (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This page is in need of a lot of expansion we could both add a lot of detail to make it a good source of reference for people on these complex issues. I've already started some of mine own recently as well as in the past Tjpolega (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

By simply listing a few of the sexual practices that abortion was compared with, we're just providing context so that the reader isn't kept guessing. Please keep in mind that providing a link to another Wikipedia article usually does not result in the reader going there to find clarification. And if readers do go to Catholic theology of sexuality hoping to find clarification of what we mean (that is, what Noonan means, since Noonan is our source for that), they won't find it there. The lead of that article lists the following sexual transgressions: masturbation, fornication, pornography, homosexual practices, adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union. None of those are what Noonan listed. NightHeron (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with other issues such as contraception or promiscuity and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.

What do you think of this? I don't have access to Noonan's book on contraception rather Ive been using his on abortion. I believe the part you are referring to is primary about The Decretum of Burchard of Worms, which I have requested from my university. I think however that this restating better addresses the issues of divided opinion from the Burchard of Worms but as well early sources such as the Didiche St Augustine, St Jerome, St Basil, canons made by Gratian which were that standard from the 12th century to teach cannon law, St Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, all the way up to the current debate today.

As for the linked article I wrote that part you quoted. I would actually appreciate as many of your contributions to that page as it needs a lot of development honestly Tjpolega (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Promiscuity is not on Noonan's list either. I'd agree to shortening the list I gave to 3 items, which would be enough to give readers an accurate impression. So the sentence would read as follows: In Christianity, and in the Catholic Church in particular, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with such acts as contraception, oral sex, and sex in marriage for pleasure rather than procreation; and the Catholic Church did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century. NightHeron (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Over all I am very glad we worked together and love all the changes we have made. Keep up the good work here on wiki Tjpolega (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Epiphyllumlover's behavior on this Talk page at Administrators’ Noticeboard

I have started a discussion about Epiphyllumlover's discussions/behavior as exhibited on THIS talk page at the ANI board here: WP:AN#Epiphyllumlover's_behavior ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

About a year ago a man from a non-English speaking country messaged me off-wiki about how he was paid to comment on wikipedia. He wanted me to pay him to edit, which I did not do. He told me his username, which made him appear female and to be a native English speaker. I realized this was the only article and talk page where he and I intersected. I wanted to know who was paying him, so I decided to use myself as bait to lure the employer (sockmaster) out. In general I put myself out on a limb and made myself more vulnerable than normal; I suggested some things which I knew were unlikely to be adopted, but seemed likely to draw out the employer/sockmaster. My strategy failed because neither the employer or the paid commenter came back to this page. (They both may be onto me from a past comment I made about them.) I have figured out who the employer/sockmaster is with one of the tools. It turned out to be someone who has not participated on this talk page since I learned of it. Prior to when I found it, neither individual ever made a difference in the outcome of the proceedings on this talk page.

If you personally are among those who I bothered, I am sorry for making you put up with it. It didn't work anyway, and it vexed you. I regret doing that, and will do better, if not on this talk page due to banning, then on other talk pages.

Not all of the behavior Avatar complains about was due to this. Sometimes I did not read all of your posts because it hurt emotionally. Yet I felt bad if I didn't respond, as if I wasn't doing the right thing by walking away. So I would try to read enough to see what your main point was, and reply only to that. I think those times corresponded to some of the "I don't hear you" complaints, especially when I did not grasp your main point.

As for the last paragraph we were working on, I really did think some of the content would be used (or repurposed, although not by me), either on this article like I hoped, or on unsafe abortion. I left after my last comment and did not return because I felt yucky from it. I don't keep this page in my watchlist, and decided to forget the recent discussion and give up.

Now I see that an IP editor posted about me in a comment some distance above this one on the Abortion talk page on 7 May 2022. I also see that Avatar317 was alerted by an IP editor from the exact same location as the May 7th commenter; the editor told him about a general question I had asked at the noticeboard about WP:SILENT. An IP editor with the same geolocation also reverted some photos from the space station and several satellites which I had placed on three geographical related articles completely unrelated to this one. On one article, the IP editor kept a single photo out of the group which was removed, but it seemed to be the one which was least flattering. I thought that was strange. I was concerned that the choice of image could have been in order to bait me into changing it, so I left it be.

I feel that sometimes I'm in a situation where I'll write a "wall of text" if I do respond to every point made by the other party, but be told that I'm doing a "I can't hear you" if I try for shorter posts and respond only to some points.

There are some people who like drama, but I get worn out from it, especially on this article. So even if I get topic banned, and the odds seem pretty good, watch out and don't get drawn into unnecessary drama.

I am going to transclude this to the noticeboard.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

In history and Religion, can there be a mention of Indirect abortion? Some sources https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23539470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5592307/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0024363919838852 64.53.212.155 (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed in the lead of Catholic Church and abortion, but it might be too narrow a question for the general article on abortion. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a single sentence on it, provided it's clear, neutral, and well-sourced. We can wait to see what other editors think. NightHeron (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How much do Abortions cost the taxpayer? It would be nice to have this information included.

Please cite Facts and figures in years where Abortions where done or paid for by governments, and about the Labor & part costs to do abortions with tax dollars. It would also be nice to see a chart of this, with inflation. 2600:8800:1F03:FC0D:84DA:C4A1:ACA:96B4 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And where do you suggest this information will come from? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A Google search brings up The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication on the first page, but I've come across this topic before in respectable sources. Abortions have complications which require modern, first world inpatient care so they don't become more serious. Developing countries may struggle to provide this even in the areas which are best served with health care; in other areas hospital beds may not be available. This tends to tilt attitudes against abortion in developing countries. This overall topic is worth including in the article because it is not generally known, yet appears to be a significant factor in policy choices.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

How about a section about how much unwanted children and children with extreme birth defects cost the taxpayer?

Your source from Iran is affiliated with a Shi'ite institution Vali-e-Asr, and in general Shi'ite Islam is anti-abortion, so it's not surprising that your source has an anti-abortion POV. NightHeron (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We can’t cover every country’s tax stuff in a general overview. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron, respectfully consider that the metaphorical sword you mention cuts both ways; one of the medications used in chemical abortions has been documented in the medical literature as causing severe, Thalidomide-like limb deformities when present in a woman's body at concentrations not sufficient to kill the fetus; this should be mentioned in the article under safety. Dronebogus, I agree with you about not covering individual tax info.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but Epiphyllum, "chemical abortion" isn't a term that Wikipedia or ACOG use. Mife hasn't been shown to cause birth defects, and the evidence for Möbius syndrome after misoprostol exposure is weak. Maybe you mean methotrexate? Which is very rarely used for that in the US. (Your sentence also is jarring to me, since when I read "a woman" I don't assume that the woman in question is pregnant. Also "the fetus" is an odd choice for discussions about medication abortion, since up to 10 weeks we're talking embryos, not fetuses.) I don't want to quibble over these, but I think good language probably starts at the talk page. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this is getting off-topic and seems to be a WP:COATRACK continuation of Talk:Abortion#Unreverting Baller McGee's comment, a thread where EL shows POV/topic ignorance issues. I’m assuming general good faith but this seems like a topic outside of EL’s skill zone. Dronebogus (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This subject is appropriately covered at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_financing. Don't see any reason to add anything on Abortion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how an article about just the US can cover an obviously global issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The economic considerations of abortion, particularly in developing countries, are surely a fascinating topic; however this is a general overview so the details are moot. I’d recommend possibly starting a new article if there’s enough interest. Dronebogus (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened here, and some editors have begun to discuss this issue from a purely US perspective, whereas the question did not specify that at all. This a global encyclopaedia. My initial response here (the second comment in the thread) was driven by the fact that I know the figures being sought would not be available for my country. They simply are not recorded for abortions separately from other related and overlapping procedures. I am certain similar problems would exist for other countries. If someone wants to tackle this for a single country with less than 5% of the world's population, they are welcome, but they need to clarify that is what they are doing. And I shall (probably) withdraw. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Table 3 gives specific dollar values for the societal cost of abortion for a large number of countries. This could be summarized as a general range and combined with a summary of the "Introduction" section. If summarized as four sentences, it could fit under "Safety". If summarized to two paragraphs, it could be a subsection under "Society and culture". I could go either way, and am willing to write it, but am looking to gauge support before doing the work. Triacylglyceride; do you want to start a separate discussion topic on the teratological risks of the medications, and how they could fit into the safety section?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Table 3 doesn't give that -- I'm not sure what you or they mean by "societal cost." This table seems to have a wild mix of fees for abortion, costs of treating complications of unsafe abortions... sometimes it appears to be costs per abortion or complication treated, and in other cases it seems to be the total cost per year... I really don't see how this is to be summarized to a general range.

The original question here was "how much do abortions cost the taxpayer?" a question that is almost absurd outside of conservative understanding of it, in which the taxpayer pays and some other mooching entity benefits. Now it seems to be morphing into "how much does an abortion cost?" -- which is a very different question.

EL, I think that would be more appropriate for the medication abortion page. You're welcome to write up a draft on the talk page there, but please don't cite the Linacre quarterly in it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate for that page. But dealing with this page for now: Table 3 is a review of cost of illness studies. For more about cost of illness studies, see this link. The overall dollar range in the chart, from low to high could be included for this article. The range would serve support the general statement that the costs may strain developing countries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel your reply has really addressed the concerns I raised about table 3. You write "the overall dollar range in the chart" -- do you mean "from $15.25 to $67 million"? You write "the general statement that the costs may strain developing countries." But these costs include both costs of abortions and costs of treating complications from unsafe abortions. So is this the general statement that developing countries may be strained by the cost of ensuring safe access to abortion, or the cost of not doing so?

I have a theory: this is a low-quality review with a disorganized apples-and-oranges chart that you just found on Google two hours ago, it isn't actually a sound basis for adding a section to this article, and we should stop acting like it is. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just the per-abortion costs would be enough; the overall budget figures could be omitted. One could either include all of the places listed, or only the developing countries listed. If you want a second source, The cost of post-abortion care in developing countries: a comparative analysis of four studies could work. The issues you cite are not severe enough to keep the articles from being useful to the reader.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Responding to: "So is this the general statement that developing countries may be strained by the cost of ensuring safe access to abortion, or the cost of not doing so?" Clearly both have a cost, but the issue is a trilemma instead of a dilemma. The cheapest option for a country with a minimal hospital healthcare system is to not have either safe or unsafe abortions. In particular think of areas where births are handled by midwives; while the hospital system will have a maternity ward, it will typically be used by (maybe just some) mothers in the cities where they are located due to lack of transportation and maybe cost. The next cheapest option is safe abortions and not any unsafe abortions. The most expensive option are unsafe abortions. Yet as seen from the authorities' view, and also within the (local) medical profession, both safe and unsafe abortions are at fault, and they may not separate the two that much.

A way to think of it is how in developed countries, elective plastic surgery is seen as a Veblen good; in developing countries elective abortion gets lumped in that category too along with elective plastic surgery. So government officials and professional stakeholders may see the costs of abortion and its complications in a different light than in the US. They may see it as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Please strike that last paragraph comparing abortion to cosmetic surgery as a "lifestyle/status symbol" in developing countries. It is deeply offensive to women who need an abortion, and to anyone who empathizes with them. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll reword it as a curtesy since it could be interpreted wrongly. Yet there is enough that is helpful about it in contextualizing the two review studies linked to earlier that I ought to restate it. Yet please understand that it will be less brief the second time around: In developing countries, things which are not seen as status symbols in the US may instead be seen as Veblen goods. This includes things perceived as necessities in the US, such as an inexpensive watch or other timepiece which in an urban area in the US is necessary to tell time for catching the bus and getting to work. Likewise some non-necessities in the US which are still not seen as luxuries, such as a no-frills digital camera, may be seen as a status symbol in a developed country where the cost of buying it would take many months of saving.

Probably most people in the US would perceive getting an unsafe abortion in a developing country to not be the greatest thing, an act of desperation rather than as a status symbol. But the government officials and professional stakeholders in developing countries may see the costs of abortion and its complications in a different light than in the US. They may have concerns about either just unsafe abortion, or both safe and unsafe abortion together. They may see it as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol. Such officials or professionals feel the same way about treating complications for elective plastic surgery, something which people in the US could understand more easily because elective plastic surgery is generally regarded as a Veblen good or status symbol in the US. This perspective, although it may be offensive, partly explains why so many individual studies have been done in developing countries pertaining to the costs of abortion and/or its complications.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What you're proposing now is bordering on original research: doing your own synthesis of the numbers to allege that countries should pick "no abortion" over "safe abortion" over "unsafe abortion" -- as though countries that have high rates of unsafe abortions have a way of preventing them other than ensuring access to safe abortions.

You've put forward a theory now that abortion in the developing world is seen as a status symbol, like plastic surgery. Like NightHeron, I find that laughable and offensive. Your arguments also ignore the truth that abortion is of significant benefit to the person having the abortion (see: the Turnaway Study) and, more worryingly, that caring for people who have had complicated unsafe abortions is of significant benefit to them. You seem on the verge of advocating for policies that developing countries should simply allow people with complications of abortion (and, possibly, plastic surgery) to die.

This has been a frustrating conversation for a variety of reasons, even before I realized that you were recently claiming that the Linacre's use of the pejorative "abortionist" constitutes academic use adequate to rationalize its use on Wikipedia. It's frustrating because some IP user says "what's the cost to the taxpayer?" a wording that has obvious context in American political discourse, and now you've morphed that into a thesis on developing countries that is, I think, quite absurd... even before you started calling abortion a Veblen good.

There's no clear edit that you're proposing here. I'm going to stop engaging until there is one. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Asked earlier to add a "summary of the "Introduction" section. If summarized as four sentences". Will you accept a four sentence summary of the "Introduction" section without a cost range, cited to the two review articles linked above?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Initially when I saw you had struck that last offensive paragraph, I had some hope that you'd come to your senses on this issue. But then you repeated the same absurd and offensive claim that "the government officials and professional stakeholders in developing countries may see the costs of abortion and its complications ... as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol." Why would you think that officials and professionals in developing countries are so ignorant and misogynist as to think that women get abortions as a "lifestyle/status symbol"?

I very much doubt that sentences that you're likely to write on this subject will get a consensus of editors for inclusion in the article, but of course you're welcome to try. NightHeron (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reread the introduction section and I find its content reasonable. I still don't think that this is a very high-quality source, and I don't think it actually addresses the question "what is the cost of abortion to the taxpayer?" so much as the question "what is the cost of *not* ensuring safe access to abortion?"

However, that's an important question, too. Please go ahead and summarize the intro of "The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication Treatment Cares: A Systematic Review" in four sentences, so we can make sure we're reading the same document. Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you support adding this under the "safety" section?

Both safe and unsafe abortions can cause complications, which pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries. Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and the health care system in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref][ref]

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. I feel that it puts "safe" and "unsafe" abortions on equal footing here, which the source doesn't support. From that paper:

"...18 million induced abortions annually are performed by persons without the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards and are therefore unsafe. In addition to the risk of death because of unsafe abortion (around 350 per 100,000 cases of abortion), the non-fatal complications contribute significantly to the global burden of abortion. Women pay heavily for unsafe abortions and post-abortion complications, not only with their health and their lives but also financially."

To get from there to your summary of "both safe and unsafe abortions can cause complications... this poses a substantial burden on society" is a gobsmacking "both sides" take on this, that I can only make sense of if YOUR thesis is "abortion poses a burden on society" and you're looking for a way to shoehorn that in.

If I don't reply further, please don't mistake my fatigue for acquiescence.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've now read through that paper and several of the papers it cites... all of them emphasize the risks of unsafe abortions but then go on to characterize the cost of all abortion complications. There's the unspoken assumption there that, because safe abortions (that is, done with adequate training in a professional medical environment) have a very, very, very, very low complication rate, the overwhelming majority of complications are derived from abortions done in unsafe environments. (The language here starts to get almost tautological, I recognize.) Even if these papers don't break those down, we can see those in relative complication rates in countries with good access to safe abortion vs. complication rates in countries without.

Just heading off an argument I'm afraid you might make here. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The suggested text is completely misleading. The vast majority of legal abortions performed safely do not result in complications. Such abortions are among the least risky procedures in medicine. On the other hand, illegal abortions performed by unqualified people are a major cause of maternal mortality, especially in developing countries. All of this is documented in MEDRS sources. In addition, there are huge human and financial costs to society of forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term -- for example, if the embryo or fetus has severe defects that require round-the-clock care after birth for the few years that it lives, or if the birth of an unwanted child forces the woman to leave her job and go on welfare, or if her partner is abusive toward her and toward the child. These costs -- both human and financial -- are likely to be much greater than the cost of a rare complication in a safely performed legal abortion. NightHeron (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The paper discussed both safe and unsafe abortions in the introduction and described the impact of their costs in a general manner. The introduction doesn't say that unsafe abortions tend to be performed in developing countries, but this is generally understood, so maybe that is why the authors didn't say that. The breakdown is mentioned in the second linked paper. How about including the 98% figure described in the second linked paper? Do you accept this instead?

Complications following an abortion are more common for unsafe abortions; the complications pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries, where 98% of unsafe abortions occur.[ref1][ref2] Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and health care systems in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref1]

::--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere here, but we've also diverged dramatically from the core question of this section, which was "how much do abortions cost the taxpayer?"

Now we seem to be more in a... "how much does the cost of unsafe abortion complications burden developing countries?"

This seems more appropriate for section 3.2, Abortion#Unsafe Abortion, or Unsafe abortion#Treatment of Complications -- a subsection that could use a lot of love, frankly.

Even so, I don't feel familiar enough with the economies of the countries we're talking about to say what a substantial burden it is for these healthcare systems. What constitutes a substantial burden? Are appendectomies a 'substantial burden' to the US healthcare system? Is anybody looking at these developing economies and saying "yeesh, you know, Bangladesh would really have taken off, but they have to pay for all of the unsafe abortion complication management..."

You seem really committed to this phrasing and it's feeling a bit pushy. It really feels like you started your approach here with a statement you wanted to make and have been searching for articles to back it up.

But you've gotten me to do a lot of reading on this subject, and now that I've discovered how much work Unsafe abortion needs I'm going to head on over there next week and start making some bold edits. If you want to meet me on the talk page there we could hash out something.

(This is a smaller matter, but I'm not a fan of "Africa, Latin America, and Asia." If we mean developing economies, let's say so. But if we don't mean to include Argentina, Japan, and Singapore...)

Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in section 3.2, Abortion#Unsafe Abortion. Now that you mention it, "Africa, Latin America, and Asia" should be changed to "developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia". The second review covering four countries quantifies the substantial burden in terms of the cost of care per case of complications as a percentage of the per capita annual income. The percentage varies considerably by country, but the burden was demonstrated for all four countries. A hospital could not be expected to recoup much of its expenses by billing their patients. If you want to check the broader impact combined with the general lack of health care; see Google for economic impact of bad health care in developing countries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of saying "developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia" compared to just saying "developing countries."

I feel like if we're going with section 3.2 it really just needs one additional sentence to cover the material that you seem to be advocating for at this point. Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Europe, Oceania and non-Latin North America have developing countries too. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• On what basis are we supposing that abortion causes a "burden" on a tax-funded healthcare system that giving birth does not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Roscelese's concern. Michael Vlassof's paper is being taken out of context (Epiphyllumlover cited it near the top of this section, but here it is again: https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article/31/8/1020/2198177). The authors talk about the "financial burden" of abortion and post-abortion care (PAC) for individual patients (not "the taxpayer") in developing countries relative to the lower cost of modern contraception. Without that context, some readers might mistakenly assume abortion and PAC are a burden relative to birth and postpartum care. While the authors note that post-abortion care resulting from unsafe abortions in the countries studied tend to be 2-3 times more expensive per case than maternal and newborn healthcare (MNH), PAC only accounts for roughly 3-4% of MNH in the countries surveyed for the study. From the paper: "The national cost of MNH in Uganda (without PAC costs included) was estimated in 2008 at US$345 million ( Vlassoff et al. 2009a ), which, when extrapolated to 2012, becomes around I$990 million. The annual national cost of PAC in Uganda was found to be around I$42 million in 2012, a little over 4% of the MNH total ( Vlassoff et al. 2014a )." Just based off those numbers, giving birth uses far more resources in developing countries than abortion and PAC. By ignoring all of this context, the proposed addition to the article places an undue weight on the "financial burden" of abortion that could easily mislead readers.

  To me, it seems like information in this discussion is being cherrypicked or misread to support claims that the original sources aren't making. I really hope that baseless speculation doesn't end up in this article, especially the completely made up, unsupported stuff about the motivations of generalized policymakers in developing countries concerning abortion. There's already enough misinformation about abortion on the internet. Can we please keep it out of Wikipedia? Thank you! – a Wikipedia reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:41C0:1484:F976:A5C1:FDDF (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. This is the full quote from the abstract of Vlassof's paper: "The financial burden of PAC is considerable: the expense of treating each PAC case is equivalent to around 35% of annual per capita income in Uganda, 29% in Rwanda and 11% in Colombia. Providing modern methods of contraception to women with an unmet need would cost just a fraction of the average expenditure on PAC: one year of modern contraceptive services and supplies cost only 3–12% of the average cost of treating a PAC patient."

  I agree you don't need to mention "the taxpayer"; out-of-pocket payments are part of health care in most African nations. In nations where the government doesn't cover everything, billing is arranged with mothers planning on giving birth in hospitals. As for unpaid emergency care of post-abortion patients or new mothers who can't pay, some facilities detain their patients, sort of like 19th century debtors' prisons. Yet the high mortality rate for post abortion complications would complicate this method.

  The article doesn't need to break down who pays. It is enough that a reliable source says it is a burden on society to include it in the article. The article doesn't need a breakdown of exactly how much is society and how much is individual. Vlassof's paper states: "These various estimates suggest that spending on PAC is an important financial burden." It compares the percentage to MNH, but the "N" in MNH includes the newborn, so of course the total dollar value is going to be higher. And when you look at the overall budget figure, corruption is part of it. This 2008 article from the UN's Africa Renewal magazine has a quote stating, "Currently sub-Saharan countries are spending less than $2 per person for maternal health". The article also discusses corruption. At less than $2 per person, that would be less than $60 per birth if the crude birth rate is 30 per 1,000, but at 2008 that figure is dated. (The same figure was reused in 2012 Africa Renewal article.) And some countries like South Africa are considered developing, but spend considerably more. Yet it is way less than Vlassoff's costs for MNH. The difference between the two could be that Vlassoff's costs price in the corruption, or include costs typically successfully paid for individually.

  Another factor is not just the cost, but the strain on the healthcare system as a whole. Hospital resources are finite; post abortion care takes up hospital resources, while births often do not. Burdens on society are not necessarily strictly a cost burden. A large percentage of the births in developing countries (typically a minority although this varies by area) are out-of-hospital. It is not hard to find statistics for different areas if you search. Midwives rather than doctors are attending the births. And there are also a sizable number of unattended births, something which good people are trying to change. Also in some rural areas there are medical clinics which will handle births and a variety of less intensive forms of health care, but they are not full hospitals. Getting hospital-level care in some areas means sitting on a bus or lorry for hours to get to the city, and if you are in bad enough shape you are going to need a friend or relative with you on the bus to make sure you make it. There are statistical tables in this 2018 article which describe the geographical factors in quantitative terms. This particular paper dealing solely with unsafe abortions cited the median hospital stay for post-abortion care (that is, due to unsafe abortions with complications) as 10 days, the paper noted that this was significantly longer than the stay for C-sections.

  The currently standing proposed addition to section 3.2, Abortion#Unsafe Abortion is

  Complications following an abortion are more common for unsafe abortions; the complications pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries, where 98% of unsafe abortions occur.[ref1][ref2] Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and health care systems in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref1]

  One needn't agree with any of the extended or extraneous discussions on this talk page to agree with the four sentences; this is Wikipedia and proposed discussions often get more talk than the bare minimum required. And if this was too long of a block of text I should summarize it — and also answer a question asked a a few posts further up — (this is to Roscelese specifically), it is enough that the source says it is a burden, the required care is greater than for C-section, and that the financial figures indicate that on the whole, governments in question do not pay much for maternal health care. If you want to picture an explanation why, it could be that hospitals in developing countries who detain their patients as a bill collecting tactic have an easier time collecting bills when a live baby is detained. Wouldn't you want to help pay to free your extended family member's new baby and his or her mother? You'd get to see the new baby. Conversely, mortality precludes patient detention.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  To avoid creating another WP:WALLOFTEXT, I'll only respond to the proposed 4-sentence text. In the first sentence please delete the word "more", which is a misleading weasel-word here. It suggests that complications are comparable to complications of safe abortions, only more common, whereas in reality safe, legal abortions are extremely safe, while unsafe, illegal abortions in many countries are the leading cause of maternal mortality. Second, to avoid WP:UNDUE coverage of the financial cost aspect, the section has to emphasize the main cost of unsafe abortions, which is the human cost to the woman and her family. Third, we have to recognize that there's no clear, easy way to estimate cost in developing countries, which have vastly different health care systems and circumstances from one another, and so sources have to be used very carefully, with some attention to what methodology was used. NightHeron (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  • When you say "[ref 1]," are you referring to "The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication Treatment Cares: A Systematic Review" (https://jfrh.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jfrh/article/view/1294), Epiphyllumlover? If so, I have serious reservations about even using that as a source, because it does not appear to be very reliable. The authors of that study are given to polemic factually inaccurate statements, including this one from from the "Discussion" section: "This review can be useful to inform health policymakers on the current status of the economic burden of pregnancy termination cares. Also, it advocates increasing the awareness of the public to recognize abortion and post-abortion cares as a burdensome illness" (Abortion is not an illness. It is a medical procedure in the context of this paper). This paper has only been cited in one other study, which means this is not an influential source widely accepted by the medical community. And I agree with NightHeron that we should avoid walls of text and try to answer each others points as briefly as possible, with few or no tangents and unsourced original speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:41C0:1CAE:5F55:7EEF:C943 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think its bias or polemics, I think it is unusual English from authors (and maybe also copyeditors) who grew up speaking a different language. I didn't find any other review articles which are as geographically broad as this one and discuss both the economic impact and the burden to the healthcare system. As for "more", including "more" is necessary to prevent the article from doing a lie-to-children also and to reflect the source, since one of the reviews is inclusive of both safe and unsafe abortions. I agree with adding in about the human cost; I nearly added that myself. Maybe a fifth sentence?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    So you're arguing that [ref 1], which is a review of medical studies that use highly specialized English, isn't polemic and is reliable on the grounds that its authors actually just don't have proficiency in standard English?

    I do not accept your interpretation as true. The fact that there aren't any more reliable sources is a pretty good indication that this proposed addition is on very shaky footing and requires sources that are at best poorly written by researchers who might not have the language skills to accomplish their objective. Or at worst, this is a biased source from a Iranian religious medical institution that uses fiery rhetoric to claim that "abortion and post-abortion cares are a burdensome illness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:41C0:715E:1BF3:4633:14C7 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    The word "more" in the proposed text is a lie-to-the-reader that sneakily insinuates that complications are also common for safe, legal abortions. The section is about unsafe abortions, so that's what the sentence should be about.

    Yes, it would be fine to add a well-sourced 5th sentence about the human costs of unsafe abortions. NightHeron (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you; and maybe there is a third source specifically addressing the human cost. In response to your concern about extremely low complications for safe abortions, extremely low isn't quite right if incomplete abortion is considered a complication. One specific study looking at a specific developed-country hospital:

    Over the course of the study, complications occurred in 6.7% (n = 333) of all induced abortions. Table 2 presents data on postabortal complications by method. Complications occurred in 7.3% of the medical abortions < 12 weeks. Over time, the rate of complications for medical abortions < 12 weeks increased from 4.2% in 2008 to 8.2% in 2015 (Fig. 2). This difference was significant (RR 1.49, 95% 1.04–2.15). The most common complication (57%) related to medical abortions < 12 weeks was incomplete abortions, which occurred 153 times, comprising 4.1% of all medical abortions. The frequency of infections related to medical abortions < 12 weeks was only 1.2%.

    For safe abortions, an incomplete abortion is going to be caught soon and treated, but maybe not soon enough or even at all for an unsafe abortion. The proposed paragraph is on-target in that it states complications in general require treatment. I especially don't want a reader to get the impression that complications for safe abortions aren't as medically urgent as complications for unsafe abortions.

    In response to the IP editor: unusual English is very common in academic articles written by scholars whose English is not a first language. And there is no Wikipedia policy saying that people writing on this website must screen for bad English in their sources. It is enough that the Wikipedia article is written in good English. Maybe you can find a better, similar review article and link to it for general consideration.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    That does not answer my concern about the fact that this is a review of English-language literature by authors who demonstrate a lack of proficiency in standard English, which does raise questions about this paper's reliability and is very different from it being "badly written." You also have not addressed my concern about the source's practically non-existent citation count. And you are begging the question by assuming that this is merely a case of non-native speakers who just happened to write something that sounds an awful lot like anti-abortion rhetoric. You need to make some pretty big assumptions for your good-faith interpretation of the source. You just need to read the words on the page to see it as a polemic work. And finally, in response to your suggestion: The burden is on you to find reliable sources for your proposed change, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:41C0:715E:1BF3:4633:14C7 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the study from Sweden, per WP:MEDRS we need a reliable secondary source, not a single study in a primary source. In any case, information on safe, legal abortion doesn't belong in the section on unsafe abortion. NightHeron (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Another editor preferred it moved down to unsafe which seemed reasonable; but if you prefer that it be moved up back to the general section 3 under safety I can go along with that too. I agree that Sweden should not be cited in this article; I quoted it for your reference and explained things so you would understand the pitfall I am trying to avoid. And in response to the IP editor, the journal it was published in is good enough for the purposes of this article. Wikipedia policies don't have a minimum required citation count, so it didn't seem worthwhile to address it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That editor had good reason to want the passage moved to the section on unsafe abortion, since that's where it belongs and that's what it should address. There is no pitfall.

Serious complications almost never result from safe, legal abortions. As for minor complications, they can also come from a tooth extraction or from taking aspirin. NightHeron (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"The journal it was published in is good enough for the purposes of this article." This is begging the question again. Saying "No, actually the source is reliable," without any proof isn't a real argument. Your source may very well be outside mainstream scholarship based on its low citation count (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP&redirect=no) and the fact that it only appears on PubMed Central, which is not an inherently reliable source (https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good). I have already explained why in this context it is inappropriate to use a source about a controversial topic that native English speakers could easily misunderstand, and while it may not seem worthwhile for you to respond, I kindly ask you please explain why we should think otherwise. Also, would you care to elaborate on why we should assume good faith in the claim that "abortion and post-abortion cares [are] a burdensome illness" rather than taking it at face value as evidence of this paper's biased unreliability? 2601:410:200:41C0:A01C:A2ED:791C:4396 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to write just a sentence but also came up with a bunch of other things which could go under "3.2 Unsafe Abortion"

Abortion among adolescents in Africa: A review of practices, consequences, and control strategies, Shallon Atuhaire Int J Health Plann Mgm

(link to this, which I'll call "ref3", hope it works)

The fifth sentence:

"An estimated 5.3 million women worldwide are suffering from complications or disabilities from unsafe abortion, which may be either temporary or permanent.[page 7 of ref3]"

Additional things from ref3 which could be added here and there in section 3.2:

41% of unsafe abortions in developing countries are performed on women aged 15 and 25 years old,[page 1] and 70% of all hospitalizations due to complications of an unsafe abortion are for patients under 20 years old.[page 1]

Health care workers have been documented abusing, mistreating, and stigmatizing women seeking health care following an abortion.[page 3]

A list of complications is in the article, but this review has a list which could be added to the existing list: Cited in to one study concerning self-induced abortions or abortions done by traditional healers, 81.8% of the patients were infected and 68.2% suffered from loss of blood.[page 3]

Other complications include severe anaemia, trauma, a foreign body lodged within the patient, sepsis, endometritis, and hepatonephritis.[page 6] Longer term effects include infertility, psychosocial trauma, and permanent disability.[page 6]

To the IP editor, native vs. non-English abilities do not reflect the scientific or medical quality of the article, so your concern does not apply here. Both ref1 and ref2 agree with each other, and I have not found any reviews or journal articles disagreeing with ref1.

To NightHeron; the pitfall I implied about would be to write the article such that if 153 patients from a developed country with incomplete abortions under 12 weeks were to read the article and say, "Well, sure I might have complications, but Wikipedia says that since my abortion was a safe abortion, the complications are not urgent." However the article is written, it can't be written in a way that downplays the urgency of seeking medical attention for safe abortion complications. There may be more than one way to write the paragraph, so if you want to think it through maybe you'll find something you like better than what I wrote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question as to why we should make the unverifiable assumption that the authors of ref1 are not intentionally using anti-abortion rhetoric.

Also, "Both ref1 and ref2 agree with each other" is a misrepresentation, because ref2 never makes any explicit claims about complications being a "societal burden" and never makes the false (or metaphorical) claim that abortion is an illness.

You have repeatedly insisted that ref1 is a reliable source. Merely sharing some facts with a reliable source does not make it reliable by proxy. If this paper is truly as reliable as you claim, you should have no problem providing a concise case for why you think this is a reliable source without resorting to any unprovable assumptions and speculations. Why should we trust a paper that seems to have been all but entirely ignored by other researchers and which appeared in a journal only cited on one other Wikipedia article: Promiscuity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity#cite_note-Wylie-16)? Based on its next-to-nonexistent usage, there doesn't seem to be much consensus about this source and journal's reputability, so I am eager to hear your argument on its behalf.

Ref2 seems fine (as long as you do not give undue weight to data and omit context; NightHeron's suggestions seem all seem pretty reasonable and will bring your copy in line with what the sources actually say), but if you cannot offer a substantive reason as to why you think ref1 is reliable, then you should probably delete it as a reference and omit the "substantial burden on society" bit from sentence 4 of your proposed addition, because Vlassoff never talks about "societal burdens" in the same way in which ref1 tends to generalize. 2601:410:200:41C0:9D01:DAE1:38D4:BF4C (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"You still have not answered my question"--you've said that before; but I don't feel that it is absolutely necessary to answer every objection, as long as in general other editors understand the questions are off target. ref1 is peer-reviewed in a good enough journal and is the most comprehensive review on this topic I've seen. So it is worth using; moreover it is just a four sentence summary of the introduction section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

So there is no substantive answer to the charge that this is source's reliability is compromised by the strong possibility of anti-abortion rhetoric. Your only viable response is to ignore the question a serious question about this source's possible bias. From Wikipedia's page on reliable sources: "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs" so saying "It's reliable because the peer-reviewed journal is reliable" is not a justification, no matter how many times it is said. There's no reason to believe that the Journal of Family and Reproductive Health (do not be fooled into mistaking this for the far more famous Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care) is reliable. All the objections I have articulated about this source are only met with circular reasoning ad nauseam. This source is only reliable insofar as the proposed addition relies upon it and you have not been able to find any other sources except this fringe one to support shoehorning in an over-generalized claim about "societal burdens" spanning multiple continents. 2601:410:200:41C0:9D01:DAE1:38D4:BF4C (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand you here; I'll wait and see what others say. The current proposed addition is

Complications following an abortion are more common for unsafe abortions; the complications pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries, where 98% of unsafe abortions occur.[ref1][ref2] An estimated 5.3 million women worldwide are suffering from complications or disabilities from unsafe abortion, which may be either temporary or permanent.[page 7 of ref3]" Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and health care systems in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref1]

--Epiphyllumlover (talk)

I agree with the IP that you have not made a good case for reliability of [ref1]. The last sentence of your proposed text is a vague and over-generalized claim that is sourced only to [ref1]. "Substantial" compared to what? "Burden" in what sense (financial, human suffering, social consequences)? In all developing countries, most of them, or some of them? Your argument for including the word "more" in the first sentence doesn't make sense. It does not convey a warning that a rare safe abortion that has a complication must be treated urgently. In any case, Wikipedia is not a source of medical advice, and it is not Wikipedia's job to ensure that patients whose minor medical procedures result in complications know that they need to take that seriously and get treatment right away. One of the strategies of the anti-abortion movement is to falsely claim that abortions are unsafe for the pregnant woman. This POV is based on cherry-picking primary sources and unreliable sources. It is strictly against policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS to include such misinformation. The same goes for wording that implicitly suggests that legal abortions performed by qualified people are unsafe. As you know, this was confirmed in a recent RfC on this talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If ref1 makes you reluctant, maybe there are alternatives. Do you approve of either of these sentences?

"Unsafe abortions cause an estimated 5 million lost disability-adjusted life years each year by women of reproductive age"[ref4,pdf page 8, print page 7] Sexual and Reproductive Health 4 Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic by Iqbal Shah

"It is thought that globally there is a high burden of complications from unsafe abortions."[ref5] (from this abstract)

For the word "more", I am not committed to the word "more" specifically, but the overall message. There are other ways the paragraph could be reworded even without using "more". As the nature of complications in unsafe abortion are similar in nature to the complications of safe abortion, it is dangerous to firmly separate them in the article. Safe abortion has considerably fewer complications, but because safe abortion and unsafe abortion are both abortion they both have the same sort of complications which if untreated may follow the same progression. In general the article shouldn't undercut this sort of advice:[2]:

Abnormal Side Effects If you have any of the following symptoms, you could be experiencing an emergency. Please call us right away (see calling instructions above).

The urgency conveyed in the quote reflects the sizable 4.1% in that study; which looking at it again included a mix of medication and surgical abortions in the sample. 4.1% is not an insignificant minority and the subset quickly needs medical attention to prevent infection and sepsis. If you extrapolate that with the figure for abortions every year in the United States it is a figure in the tens of thousands.

The recent RfC did not follow the rule against self-closing, so it shouldn't be considered binding. Until you closed it, I held out hope that the closer would reject it for being too vague or broad. In addition, under the medical content guidelines, the article ought to state that the professional confidence in abortion's safety is low, yet still affirmed. An RfC, even if correctly carried out, can't abrogate the medical content guidelines.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What "rule" against self-closing are you talking about? Please see WP:SNOWCLOSE. Of the 15 editors who participated over a 5-week period, only one other besides you chose "NO" rather than "YES" on the question of appropriateness of "safe" and "safety" in reference to legal abortion performed by a qualified person.

Your WP:WALLOFTEXT does not respond to my points that (1) it is not the business of Wikipedia to give medical advice, and (2) per WP:NPOV we're not going to include misleading language that supports the anti-abortion POV claiming that legal abortions by qualified people are unsafe. NightHeron (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on the annual readership of this article, US demographics, and extrapolating the 4.1% statistic from Sweden, an estimated 6 or 7 of the total readers every month are women have had or will have an incomplete abortion during the year of reading the article. The article should not be written in a way which contradicts or undermines the medical advice they are given during and following their abortion about situations where they are to call their doctor right away. This sort of thing is one of the reasons the medical guidelines were written. There is a saying that two wrongs don't make a right; if anti-abortion activists are misusing particular figures to scare people, that doesn't give anyone else the right to error on the side of complacency. As for citing WP:WALLOFTEXT at me, you lose the moral authority to do that when you've written longer posts not long ago. If you want to read up on RfC closings, see Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Requests_for_comment, Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Editors_who_are_uninvolved, and Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think it is safe to assume that most editors involved in this discussion do not approve of the proposed addition on various grounds. This conversation displays a pattern of other users objecting to the proposal’s verbiage, sourcing, assumptions, and omission of context only for the editor proposing the change to bury other users’ objections with logical fallacies, unverifiable speculations, original research, and links that are tangential at best and then state that the proposal still stands (a pattern that bears a striking resemblance to “Gish galloping,” which seems to be one of the reasons for Wikipedia’s recommendation against walls of text, even though this rhetorical move may not be an intentional action on the proposer’s part). It seems pretty clear that this conversation will not result in an approval of the proposal based on the consensus of users involved. It will only serve to exhaust users into non-participation, but attrition and consensus are not the same thing. I advise the proposer to recognize the proposal’s failure and move on. 2601:410:200:41C0:60BC:EE1A:2FF:EDB8 (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover has repeatedly shown a focus not on improving the article but on pushing fringe POV via blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. I’ve tried to be tactful about this but this is descending into WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT territory. Dronebogus (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the end of Unsafe_abortion#Treatment_of_complications relying on the sources you vetted and conversed with me about. I adjusted the paragraph on the basis of your (plural) advice. I think you will all approve of it; I did not use "[ref1]". I am not trying to bother you all by adding it, but didn't want to leave the unfinished work undone. I figured I better do it now, because once I'm topic banned, I won't be able to. I started an SPI against the IP editor, who under an IP address also sought out conflict with me over pictures on geographical articles. I will need to fill out another SPI form because I found a third sock.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Abortion bans in no way affect prenatal care" - biased statement

In response, opponents of abortion point out that abortion bans in no way affect prenatal care for women who choose to carry their fetus to term. The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health, signed in 2012, notes, "the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women."[132] emphasis mine

I have an issue with this statement. First off, it's false, women are injured due to lack of care in places with abortion bans, in fact, Ireland is one of those places, one month after this claim, Savita Halappanavar, died as a result of being pregnant and refused care. "Pointing out" something implies truth. it needs to be edited or removed, it's misleading. Yo bailaba (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. The first sentence is quite the stretch from what the source actually says, and the second sentence is misleading and probably undue. ––FormalDude talk 05:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in the Bible

As this has become a topic in the news, I think we need to clarify a point of which it seems most people on both sides of the argument are completely unaware.

In the Bible book of Numbers, chapter 5, verses 11 through 27, there are specific instructions that a married woman who becomes pregnant through an extramarital affair must have an abortion, and provides specific instructions for how an abortifacient should be administered:

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “ ‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Should this information from the Judeo-Christian Bible be included in the article? Dan Ratan (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a section on abortion in the Bible in the article Christianity and abortion. I think that the topic is too specialized for the general article on abortion (although perhaps a brief mention with a wikilink to the section of the Christianity and abortion article would not be undue). NightHeron (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for general discussion, but I couldn't help but point out that your conclusion is just based on one or two particular translations of the passage. The "womb... miscarry" phrases are more literally translated by others as "thigh... rot," possibly indicating an external mark. TNstingray (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about naming: "medical abortion" vs. "medication abortion"

At the Talk:Medical_abortion#Rename_article_to_"Medication_abortion"? page.

I am posting this here because this article (Abortion) seems to get many more knowledgeable editors than that one, so I'm inviting others to please comment on that rename/usage question. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Mental health and abortion

Additional information should be added to accurately reflect the debate over abortions’ impacts on the mental health of patients who receive the procedure. The claim, “When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.[14],” is at best misleading and borders on completely untrue. The source attributed to this claim offer insufficient information and lacks credibility. There is substantial evidence to suggest a significant negative impact on the mental health of at least some patients who receive the procedure, and ignoring this body of research limits the reliability of the page.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/ 2600:1700:A240:4590:247D:CDC9:1A93:EBE (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

How can you say "The source attributed to this claim offer insufficient information and lacks credibility" but then go and present another source of the same variety (though published in an open journal)? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed quite a bit. Major medical societies and expert bodies have consistently, if not unanimously, concluded based on available evidence that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems in comparison to carrying an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to term. Anti-abortion advocates have continued to promote misinformation on the topic, but that misinformation doesn't have a place here. Nor do people dedicated to promoting it, for that matter. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the current phrasing is confusing. The quote from the article mentioned above does not make reference to a comparison of abortion with carrying an unwanted pregnancy.This could be more clearly articulated in the article. Acasualobservation (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)— Acasualobservation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Edit request

Change the link to the safe/safety RfC (at question 7 of the FAQ) to Talk:Abortion/Archive_52#RfC_on_use_of_the_words_safe_and_safety. It currently links to the talk page but the discussion has long been archived. 129.67.118.105 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Historically innate necessity of Abortion and/or Infanticide

Article should refer to the self-evident necessity of abortion [and infanticide] in the context of human history, from its inception until the modern development of reliable contraception and the lawful provision of safe abortion services.

Axiomatically, until very recently humans have always reliably borne more children than could be provided for. As most if not all organisms do. It follows that historically infanticide and abortion must have been necessary, as a means of minimising suffering, and of self-preservation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide some reliable secondary sources for this theory; otherwise it's WP:OR. Saying it's "axiomatic" doesn't get around the need for sources. NightHeron (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like synth or original research. I also don't think it is true. If people had lots more children than could be provided for (debatable, I think this is false), then that would indicate the lack of abortions being performed. However, there is already historical information in the article about abortion similar to the kinds you want to include. BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Frequency of spontaneous abortion

The first paragraph of this article states that spontaneous abortion occurs in “approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies.” However, the number should be much higher than that, as approximately half of all pregnancies miscarry before the woman ever even knows she was pregnant, usually due to aneuploidy. The number of known pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion added to the number of pregnancies that miscarry before the woman ever even knows she was pregnant would likely show that it’s approximately 70% to 80% of all pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The number is going to depend upon the speaker's beliefs about the Beginning of pregnancy controversy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources say that the number is higher than 40%, and the article should reflect that. To address the Beginning of pregnancy controversy, it can simply be mentioned before the % as what the defining metric was. BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that you're answering the question of "What is the chance that a fertilized egg will result in a live birth?"

This textbook (p. 343) says that 70% of conceptions are lost, and that most of these losses (totalling about half of all conceptions, and more than two-thirds of lost conceptions) happen before implantation (i.e., the last week of the menstrual cycle during which conception occurred, and the point at which the medical world says the pregnancy begins).

It also says "A miscarriage refers to the loss of a confirmed pregnancy before 20 weeks of gestation", which means that all of the conceptions lost before implantation plus all the losses that happen in between implantation and medical confirmation are not miscarriages/spontaneous abortions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree that the beginning of pregnancy should be defined from implantation, as pregnancy is something that happens to a woman’s body and simply having a fertilized egg free-floating inside of your body doesn’t do anything to you until it implants and starts messing with hormones and siphoning nutrients, in my experience, both the medical and legal worlds almost always define the beginning of pregnancy as the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period (LMP). There seem to be very few abortion restrictions that define the beginning of pregnancy as implantation, actually. There are a few laws that define the beginning of pregnancy as fertilization/conception, and the vast majority seem to define the beginning of pregnancy/gestational age from LMP. And there’s also the fact that the anti-abortion movement and some religions proclaim that “life begins at conception” and the push to ban any forms of birth control that might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting to consider. There are certainly many sources that would define a fertilized egg failing to implant as an abortion, and that is what the definition of gestational age being based on LMP would imply, as well. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The article on gestational age (obstetrics) also defines the beginning of “actual gestation” as the point of fertilization. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It is generally far easier to determine the time that has elapsed since the last menstruation than it is to determine the time since conception or since implantation. But I don't think that anyone seriously believes that pregnancy in the physiological sense begins before conception. Rather, the medical understanding of pregnancy is that it begins with implantation. Wikipedia follows MEDRS and scientific consensus; it's irrelevant what law codes and anti-abortion groups say about this. NightHeron (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

And that is indeed what Wikipedia should do. However, as I just explained, the medical understanding of fetal age (or embryonic age, as the case may be) begins with conception. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the difficulty will be that "an abortion" (spontaneous or otherwise) is something that happens to "a pregnancy" rather than something that happens to "a conception".

The solution might be to focus this article on induced abortions. Using the term abortion to talk about miscarriages is generally considered both outdated and offensive. I'm surprised that this article is not following the professional advice in this area. A miscarriage is not considered one of the "types" of abortion; it is considered a separate thing. That means there should be something like Template:Distinguish to say "For what used to be called a spontaneous abortion, see Miscarriage" and probably then mention that they're different once in the text, without dwelling on it for several paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be offensive, it’s just a fact. An abortion in biology just means something that began to develop but didn’t finish developing. And Wikipedia shouldn’t be concerned with what is or is not offensive, it should be concerned with what is or is not true. As NightHeron said, Wikipedia follows scientific consensus (or, at least, should do that), and the scientific/medical term for a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. There is nothing wrong with this article in that regard. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Miscarriage is the colloquial term, not the scientific or medical one. I’ve never heard of it being considered “outdated” and am quite sure that the appropriate scientific/medical terms have not changed in this area. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The very article you just linked to begins with “Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion”. An induced abortion is also referred to as an induced miscarriage, because an abortion and a miscarriage are the exact same thing. Procuring a miscarriage is inducing an abortion. Miscarriage is just the colloquial term, not the scientific one. “Induced” and “spontaneous” are the key words. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, addressing the relevant part of this reply, the expression “aborting a fetus” is very commonly used. Although, yes, just as the true name for a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion, I’m aware that it’s a pregnancy that’s aborted, not a fetus/embryo/blastocyst/zygote, and that the scientific accuracy shouldn’t be sacrificed just because people have the habit of referring to fetuses being aborted, and have corrected that statement on many occasions, it’s also true that the accurate percentage of fertilized eggs that are naturally aborted is important information that should be shared considering the tendency of certain people to incorrectly claim that it can be assumed that a fertilized egg would become a baby if neither the woman it’s inside of nor anyone else induced an abortion of her pregnancy. It’s also very important information considering that it means that conception is more likely to end with the conceptus being aborted than the conceptus becoming a viable fetus, because this means that anyone attempting to conceive should reasonably assume that they’re going to cause an abortion. Perhaps we could just add “after implantation” to the statement in the article, and then add “and a further 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant”, or something like that. And on a related note to the “beginning of pregnancy controversy”, similar clarification seems to be needed on the pages referring to the laws of many jurisdictions regarding induced abortion, and I’m wondering if using the legal text is actually the appropriate thing to do when it says, for example, that abortion is legal “up to the 24th week of pregnancy” and is referring to the 24th week LMP, which is the measurement that physicians use as well, despite LMP being approximately 4 weeks before implantation. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Spontaneous abortion is not offensive to anyone. I completely agree on the importance for this information. BooleanQuackery (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's see what the sources say:

• The first time I saw the words spontaneous abortion, they were on the bill from my first miscarriage. I called the doctor's office and said I had not had an abortion. I did find it offensive.
• "Until recently, the term "abortion" was generally used in professional communication and "miscarriage" was used in discussion with patients. However...as the term "abortion (which many patients find offensive) has pejorative connotations of "elective termination of pregnancy", there has been an overall shift away from using "Abortion" to describe the spontaenous loss of a pregnancy."
• Such a suggestion can be heartbreaking and offensive to mothers who have lost babies they desperately wanted. ... It is not acceptable to use the term 'abortion' for miscarriage ... despite its historical clinical prevalence.
• The medical term for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion” – a term that many women find offensive.
• the term abortion is offensive to the lay mind . The word miscarriage does not carry this thought , and in ordinary discussion it should be employed. (from 1935!)
• "patients...felt offended by the fact that doctors used the word 'abortion' when referring to miscarriage."

I wonder if you will change your view. I hope that you don't react to this evidence that the term is offensive to "many" people by declaring that other people are wrong to have feelings that you don't happen to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is OFFENSIVE to ME, and to any other women who would never want to have their bodies subjected to the hells of pregnancy and childbirth and the permanent damage that they do to a woman’s body. This is attempting to stigmatize women who dare to assert their bodily autonomy and choose to protect themselves! Unless you want to throw out the word abortion altogether and refer to induced abortions as induced miscarriages and spontaneous abortions as spontaneous miscarriages, this is extremely misogynistic, allowing women who want to abort to be continually stigmatized so that women who have the horrible view that abortion is “evil” or whatever can avoid being associated with women who would choose to not carry a pregnancy to term. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope that you don’t continue to have the extremely misogynistic pronatalist view that the feelings of women who would choose to give birth should take precedence over the feelings and the fight for the human rights of the women who would choose not to give birth. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And all you’ve done is make it clear that abortion IS the correct medical term used by medical professionals to describe both spontaneous abortions and induced abortions. You’re arguing against your own goal, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that’s meant to show the scientific consensus, not cater to the feelings of morally misguided people who don’t care about scientific reality. Doctors can choose to refer to spontaneous abortions as miscarriages when speaking with their own patients if they think that’ll help their patients feel better, but an encyclopedia can’t lie and try to create a distinction between women exercising their human rights to free themselves from the violation, torture, mutilation, and much higher possibility of death that carrying a pregnancy to term brings and the women who would make the irrational choice to put themselves through that because of biological urges that are ingrained in their genes through billions of years of evolution and have come to make up the majority of the population, allowing those who don’t have those urges to be horribly discriminated against. An induced miscarriage is clinically indistinguishable from a spontaneous one. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if we put up your explanation as part of a Wikipedia:Requested moves process. "This article should be moved to Induced abortion, because it's really important to that people think miscarriage and induced abortion are the same thing, because it's hateful to women who have induced abortions to say that miscarriages aren't the same thing."

Also – and perhaps there should be a note about this in the FAQ on many medical pages – there is no "scientific reality" about what words mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The scientific reality is the objective fact that an induced miscarriage is clinically indistinguishable from a spontaneous one. Exactly the same thing happens in both cases, medically and physiologically speaking. And you’re still promoting false information by saying only “miscarriage” instead of “spontaneous miscarriage” because, yes, a miscarriage can be an induced miscarriage, the same thing as an induced abortion. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Clinically indistinguishable" is not the same as "the same thing". Spontaneous vomiting and induced vomiting are clinically indistinguishable. Rhinovirus and coronavirus infections are clinically indistinguishable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Spontaneous vomiting and induced vomiting are a good example, yes, and they, like spontaneous abortions and induced abortions, are the same thing/have the same result: vomiting. There, too, the key word is just spontaneous or induced. But you’re wrong to say that rhinovirus and coronavirus infections are clinically indistinguishable, as tests can show which a person is infected with and they are different diseases that are different in the way they affect physiology, especially considering the scary effects of “long Covid”. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Clinically indistinguishable" means that you can't tell the difference in the "clinic" (i.e., not in the lab).

If we get to use the level of technology required to differentiate between a rhinovirus that causes the common cold and a coronavirus that causes the common cold (SARS-CoV-2 isn't the only coronoavirus seen in humans, and none of the others cause long covid), then drug-based induced abortions can often be identified, with suitable lab testing on a blood sample, during the three days after taking the drugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Every source I’ve found says that it is absolutely not possible to detect misoprostol like you’re saying.

https://gynuity.org/assets/resources/factsht_misoinblood_en.pdf

https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/997/can-misoprostol-be-detected-in-a-blood-test VictimOfEntropy (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Misoprostol's half-life is too short to be detected even an hour later. But you can detect Mifepristone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

But mifepristone isn’t necessary to induce an abortion. Mifepristone is not supposed to be used on its own, and it’s much less accessible than misoprostol, and misoprostol alone can (and often is) used to induce a miscarriage. There are well-established guidelines for women who live places where induced abortion is illegal but misoprostol is accessible (as it often is, over-the-counter and cheap) to abort a pregnancy in either the first or second trimester by using misoprostol alone. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Either this page could be renamed “Induced abortion” and the “Miscarriage” article could be renamed “Spontaneous abortion”, or this article could be renamed “Induced miscarriage” and the “Miscarriage” article could be renamed “Spontaneous miscarriage”, as I already said. Anything else would be dishonest about the physical reality of it. But nothing that you’re saying makes any sense, so I don’t expect you to learn anything from my attempts to explain the reality of physiology to you. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have a statement in this article saying what percentage of conceptions are lost, and also clarify whether or not these are medically termed "abortions". Here's one source saying that >70% of conceptions result in preterm death.[3].---Avatar317^(talk) 06:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, and, yes, these are medically termed abortions, and I think it’s important that they’re recognized as such. Here’s a source I found: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/372193v1

And here’s a shorter article that reported on it: https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv

And here’s another article I found (which, interestingly, refers to “conception” as implantation, not fertilization. I don’t know what to make of that. Personally, I’ve always thought that “conception” is a strange word to use if you believe that something is actually physically happening, because to conceive something just means to think of it, to plan it... If something has only been conceived, that means that it hasn’t happened yet, so to “conceive a child” would refer to just thinking of a child that doesn’t yet exist. Some words mean a lot of different things, apparently): https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article72132087.html VictimOfEntropy (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

See also:

• "Do not use the term ‘abortion’, or threatened, missed or incomplete abortion, to describe miscarriage as this is inappropriate. Women often say they find terms like ‘products of conception’, ‘blighted ovum’, ‘scrape’ and ‘vacuumed out’ hurtful and upsetting."
• Clinical language applied to early pregnancy loss changed in late twentieth century Britain when doctors consciously began using the term ‘miscarriage’ instead of ‘abortion’ to refer to this subject.
• "the word abortion... The use of miscarriage, with descriptive adjectives such as threatened, incomplete, and complete, is recommended and the term delayed miscarriage is suggested in place of missed abortion."
• In British medical research, the transition from abortion to miscarriage, to describe early pregnancy loss, occurred in the late twentieth century. A 1985 letter to The Lancet by a group of eminent obstetricians was long considered unilaterally to have prompted this shift.
• The majority selected “miscarriage” (n=79 [54.5%) followed by “early pregnancy loss” (n=49 [33.8%) as their preferred term. (Only 14% of US women accepted heard "spontaneous abortion" from their healthcare providers; .)
• "There is no reason that the language around pregnancy loss can’t continue to evolve – terms such as “spontaneous abortion” or “habitual aborters” are, thankfully, no longer used routinely in the UK."
• "Miscarriage, or a procedure to complete a miscarriage, is not an abortion. In a miscarriage, the unborn child has died of natural causes. At that point, it would be impossible to perform an abortion on the woman because (1) the baby is no longer alive and thus cannot have its life ended, and (2) the woman is no longer considered pregnant and therefore cannot have her pregnancy terminated."
• But to the layperson, “abortion” refers to the elective termination of a pregnancy. Regardless of political beliefs about abortion rights, the use of this word to describe mothers grieving the loss of wanted pregnancies is harmful. Grieving mothers are labeled with emotionally insensitive, outdated language that is at odds with their experiences.
• A miscarriage is not abortion. A miscarriage is a miscarriage.

Also, we have an article about pregnancy loss in general. It's at Pregnancy loss. Notice that this article (Abortion) is the first item under the heading "Pregnancy loss through intentional termination". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: So you've found lots of low-quality, NON-WP:MEDRS sources that argue that "spontaneous abortion" should be called "miscarriage". Do you have any MEDICAL sources that say this? Contrasted with the astrophysics community's "is Pluto a planet" discussions. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317, I've quoted in this section from patient advocacy groups, newspapers, and legislative testimony, but I've also quoted from The BMJ, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology (journal), Elsevier Health Sciences, Wiley (publisher), Berghahn Books, and several other books. Even if you believe that the medical establishment has sole control over what English words mean, all of the latter are "MEDICAL sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You’ve cited sources that are pushing propaganda to take away the human rights of women, WhatamIdoing. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And you’ve presented links to pages that don’t exist, and specifically British links, and misrepresented what is said in the fifth article. The 14% (actually 14.4%) is just the percentage of women who said that their doctor used the term spontaneous abortion when speaking with them. But it’s very telling that you think a narrow majority preference (presumably of women attempting to reproduce) should take precedence over the preference of many other women, instead of the various articles being designed to address everything as they are now. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you're right; I apologize. That was from a different sentence. I'll correct it. We now have no evidence that any women accept or prefer "spontaneous abortion" as the term for an involuntary pregnancy loss.

I would very much like to know which sources have "pages that don't exist". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The seventh link. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Try this link, which will load the PDF: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/testimony-harle-2022-07-12 WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose you’re next going to start objecting to the term fetus and posting citations of “advocacy groups”, newspapers, and legislative testimony that insists on using the terms “unborn child” and “baby” instead, because anti-abortion people would prefer it that way. The article on “miscarriage” already does claim that “healthcare providers are expected to respect and use the language that” each individual patient chooses. Of course, every person on earth will feel differently about everything. I just hope that you’ll stop thinking that your feelings or those of the particular type of people you approve of should be allowed to get in the way of encyclopedic articles merely addressing the facts. The original terminology (which reputable doctors still use. Your claim of it being something that only “used to” be used has of course been demonstrated as false by you yourself) is the one that addresses the physical reality of it, not subjective wording preferences that vary drastically from person to person and have only arisen due to misogynistic pronatalist stigma against women having human rights and choosing not to go through childbirth. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your goal here involves Wikipedia:Righting Great Wrongs. That is not usually a successful approach to editing articles, especially articles about social issues or geopolitical disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that would be you. You were the one who suggested changing the terminology of articles. I never did that. This discussion was supposed to only be about addressing what percentage of zygotes have no chance of becoming a viable fetus. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@VictimOfEntropy: Do you have any RS that say that women who have induced abortions are offended when the term miscarriage is used when women have spontaneous abortions?

Please assume good faith and don't impugn the motives of editors who disagree with you. There's an honest difference of opinion about whether miscarriage or spontaneous abortion should be the preferred term on Wikipedia. The arguments made for miscarriage have been sensible and well-sourced, and have not "arisen due to misogynistic pronatalist stigma against women." There is no reason for you to suggest that editors who prefer the term miscarriage are opposed to abortion rights. Nor is there any reason to assume that honoring the preferred terminology of women who go through the tragedy of an unsuccessful pregnancy that they desired is somehow dishonoring women who choose to have an abortion. The term abortion as commonly used strongly suggests choice, that is, the desired outcome of the pregnant woman. Apparently many women who suffer a miscarriage are offended when they hear a term that implies choice being used for what they went through. Isn't this understandable? Why should people who strongly favor abortion rights be bothered by this? I'm not. NightHeron (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If this: Apparently many women who suffer a miscarriage are offended when they hear a term that implies choice being used for what they went through. is true, than many women need to be educated on the meaning of the adjective "spontaneous". "Miscarriage" is an older, NON-scientific term, like the current stupidity we still use of the "common cold" (because people used to believe that cold weather or being cold made an individual sick) rather than URI for Upper Respiratory Infection. Wikipedia has a policy AGAINST saying "someone passed away"...we say they died, see: WP:EUPHEMISMS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that, at least in the U.S., many women and also many men need to be educated about the meaning of spontaneous. But I don't anticipate that education occurring any time soon, and in the meantime it's not surprising that women who are physically and emotionally drained after a miscarriage would hear the term spontaneous abortion and focus on the noun and ignore the adjective.

WP:EUPHEMISM says a term should be neutral and precise and it gives examples (such as passed away) where the word choice hides the true meaning. Can you explain why you think miscarriage is a euphemism? The phrase "carry a pregnancy to term" is neutral, precise, and not euphemistic. "Miscarry" is just the opposite of "carry to term".

It's likely that, at least in many parts of the U.S., the medical profession will increasingly use the term miscarriage rather than spontaneous abortion. That's because there will be attempts in many states to criminalize standard treatments of miscarriage that are effectively indistinguishable from a D&C or other types of abortion. In order to resist this, physicians will have to avoid terminology that will confuse people who are not well educated to begin with. NightHeron (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the word “miscarry” implies that something went wrong in the “carrying” of the pregnancy, which is usually not what actually happens in a spontaneous abortion. It could be seen as implying that a woman failed to carry it “properly”, rather than the far more likely situation of the zygote merely being unable to develop further because of how the genetic dice rolled, outside of anyone’s control. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Miscarriage isn't a euphemism. Language is not rational and true to its etymology. (Consider the "pencil lead", which has never contained any lead.) We have to use words based on what they do mean to people, not on what we think they ought to mean to people or what we think the origin was.

The term miscarriage is objected to by a (very) small number of people on the grounds that Victim describes, namely that it implies the previously pregnant woman did something wrong/badly. A small minority of women actually are "miscarrying" in the etymological sense (i.e., they are unable to continue carrying the pregnancy due to anatomical problems, malnutrition, drugs, etc.), but the word's meaning is not constrained by its etymology. Some of these women prefer early pregnancy loss. I've found no evidence that they prefer to call it any kind of abortion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have found some people in forums saying that they prefer the scientific term “spontaneous abortion” because the “spontaneous” bit makes it clear that this is something that just happened out of the blue, through no fault of their own, whereas the term “miscarriage” seems to imply that the woman was at fault, and I’ve seen medical publications that felt the need to explain that although that is how the word “miscarriage” could be interpreted, it’s not actually true. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Internet forums are not reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I didn’t bother to cite them. But, regardless, these are the real feelings of many real women. And every woman is drastically different from every other woman and has drastically different preferences for different terms. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

All I’ve done is attempt to address the real harm that using the non-scientific term “miscarriage” in place of non-elective abortions could do. I’m saying that an encyclopedia using “abortion” to address induced abortions but miscarriage to address spontaneous abortions is what is supposed to be an unbiased source of medical information choosing instead to allow a stigmatized term (as WhatamIdoing’s own links stated it has “pejorative connotations”) to only be used for this thing happening to women who would choose not to give birth, but not for women who did not choose it and had this same thing happen to them spontaneously. As you can see, sources that WhatamIdoing cited are specifically political ones. And what about the women who have to have induced abortions of wanted pregnancies because of severe fetal defects or health problems that arise for them during pregnancy? If this was about being sensitive toward women’s feelings (because of the stigma on the word abortion, which, yes, has only arisen due to misogynistic pronatalist stigma against women having human rights and choosing not to go through childbirth), then WhatamIdoing would’ve suggested throwing out the word “abortion” altogether and only referring to “Induced miscarriages” and “Spontaneous miscarriages”, so that women who aren’t comfortable with the word “abortion” but have to get one in order to survive or not have their life ruined or avoid severe suffering that they don’t want to go through wouldn’t be hurt. Also, if, as you say, “The term abortion as commonly used strongly suggests choice, that is, the desired outcome of the pregnant woman”, then that’s another reason not to use it, because many women who have induced abortions are certainly not experiencing their “desired outcome” but are doing what they have to do because of the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy being inflicted on them or issues they’re facing relating to their own health or the development of the fetus/pregnancy or their inability to properly care for the child that would be born if the pregnancy was carried to term and their inability to cope with the horrible fate of giving birth and then having to give their child away. No one should be bothered by the scientific term abortion, but, unfortunately, some are. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers to follow the reliable sources, especially when we have sources that directly address language choices. Wikipedia does not apply "a stigmatized term" for the purpose of "address[ing] the real harm" (by stigmatizing and harming even more women?).

I do not suggest induced miscarriage because that language fell out of favor in the sources by the end of the 19th century, and before then it was largely used to describe a serious crime ("procuring a miscarriage"), although this book defines it as a procedure to be regarded as "Under normal conditions a crime" and happening from the third to seventh months of pregnancy (according to them, an induced "abortion" happens during the first trimester).

Also, you've provided no evidence that miscarriage is a "non-scientific term" (even if we assume that pregnancy belongs to scientists instead of to humanity, which we shouldn't). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Look up the origins of the word. And here’s an article from a doctor arguing strongly against the use of the term “miscarriage” because of the harm that word causes women who experience spontaneous abortions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/its-time-to-stop-calling-pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/article26823539/ VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Your source says "The term spontaneous abortion is not acceptable". Are you going to follow that source's advice? (It recommends natural pregnancy loss.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you? I’ve also seen women who were very offended by the term “pregnancy loss”, by the way, because they said it was offensive to imply that all they had lost was a pregnancy. (Yep, it’s ridiculous, but so is this whole pointless discussion which has wasted so much of what little time I have on this earth.) VictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And here’s a reliable dictionary source saying that “miscarriage” means “ : corrupt or incompetent management

especially  : a failure in the administration of justice” or “ : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation”. So, not especially what we’ve been talking about here (and should really stop talking about, because there’s no point going in circles about how everyone disagrees about the wording in every situation and wasting time like this. I really wish you hadn’t insisted on derailing the simple subject this discussion was meant to be about with this ridiculous pedantic stuff). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miscarriageVictimOfEntropy (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Women who have tokophobia (which is a term that I strongly disagree with, because the “phobia” implies not only an extreme fear but also a fear that may be irrational, and a fear of something as harmful to the body as childbearing could never be irrational, but I’m using it because it’s a clinical term and you might not realize what I’m referring to if I only say “Women who are very repulsed by pregnancy”) also don’t have a choice in the matter, even if they technically do. And you don’t seem to realize that a lot of the women who get induced abortions do not “strongly favor abortion rights”. I actually saw a headline just yesterday about women literally leaving anti-abortion picket lines to go get abortions. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead section work needed: Abortion/miscarriage

The ongoing discussion re the naming of the loss of a pregnancy brought up something that has long concerned me about this article. To understand my concern one must read user WhatamIdoing's statements above in the "Frequency of spontaneous abortion" section about the way we are using the out-of-date practice of giving so much importance to discussion of the abortion/miscarriage connection. I think that I understand what is going on here because I have seen something similar in other medical articles: they were written years ago from a totally medical perspective, using medical language, and very much for medical people to read, not the general public. So, this information is fine perhaps further down in the article, but not in the lead. Thoughts? Sectionworker (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the out-of-date practice of giving so much importance to discussion of the abortion/miscarriage connection, I'm not so sure that that's out-of-date. Today's New York Times had a guest essay by two law professors titled "Why Do We Talk About Miscarriage Differently From Abortion?" (see [4]). NightHeron (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Err, NightHeron, two law professors? Besides, they seemed to have an awful lot of undocumented information about how women felt about this and that. I know quite a few women who had abortions and none of them suffered emotional trauma. I know two women who lost planned pregnancies in miscarriage and they suffered as though they had lost a child. Here's what Guttmacher says: [5] Gandy Sectionworker (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reading the NYT article a second time I'm going to instead just say that they are looking at the issues from a legal standpoint while I believe that our lead is coming from a historical medical use of wording that I believe needs updating. Legal issues are for some other discussion. Sectionworker (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the two law professors are exaggerating the likelihood that an abortion results in an emotional feeling of loss. They would have been on more solid ground if they had restricted their attention to abortions in the course of a desired pregnancy that are needed for medical reasons (what used to be called "therapeutic abortions") or because of defects in the fetus. Those are similar to miscarriages, but they are not the majority of abortions. In any case the issue you raised was whether the Wikipedia article was written too much from a totally medical perspective, using medical language, and very much for medical people to read, not the general public. So the fact that the authors are law professors summarizing a forthcoming law review article (which hopefully will have better sourcing than the opinion piece) does not mean that their perspective is irrelevant. I wouldn't say that the authors are looking at the issue only from a legal point of view. They speak of strategy for the abortion rights movement, and observe that public opinion is likely to turn more strongly against the anti-abortionists if more attention is focused on the connection between abortion and treatment of miscarriage and how the anti-abortion laws victimize women with miscarriages as well as women with an unwanted pregnancy.

The New York Times has run several articles recently on the effect that the attack on abortion rights has on women who need treatment for miscarriage. (There was also some coverage a few years ago of women in El Salvador -- one of only 2 countries in the world besides the U.S. that has gone sharply backwards on abortion rights -- who were imprisoned for miscarriages under the draconian anti-abortion law.) The purpose of this coverage is clearly not to privilege women who miscarry over women who have abortions. Rather, it's a way of highlighting the misogyny of the anti-abortion laws. Certainly the fact that the laws criminalize best-practices treatment of miscarriage is a reason why most of the medical profession opposes the current anti-abortion witch-hunt in the U.S. NightHeron (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well this has been a first for me. I have a smart daughter who is aware of the present abortion legislation and the threat to women that it presents. Since we are pretty much in agreement on every issue that I can think of I asked her to read the first paragraph so as to back me up in my desire for some overdue wording changes. She read it twice and said she thought it was perfect as it is. She pointed out that it goes around covering bases and then winds up giving the basic meaning, "The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion". I trust her opinion and I believe that she represents the thoughts of many others. BTW NightHeron, over the years I've admired your excellent editing and I think I now understand your position here a little better after talking with my daughter about present chatter about political movements currently going on. Sectionworker (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandydancer, for your kind words. I remember when I was a very new editor you gave me some good advice, which I was foolish not to follow, about how my attempts to edit the alt-med article would not end well. Of course you were right, and, after a very bad experience at ANI, in addition to the punishment imposed on me there I decided to self-tban from alt-med for life.

I'm glad your daughter likes the lead paragraph of the abortion article. Does she edit Wikipedia? There's a need for more editors who can knowledgeably edit contentious topics such as abortion. NightHeron (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, over the years this article has seen some pretty darn good editors here to watch over any content changes. Doc James kept it on his list for years and even before that MastCell has been here. You have been an important new editor to the article which has very much helped me to feel at ease. Yes, daughter Jane would really do well here because she would supply a woman's wisdom, which is a little different than that of a man, but she spends her time at other sites and has no interest in wikipedia--same for every other woman that I know. I'm retired and WP fills my need to do "social work" from my arm chair at home, so it works well for me to occupy my time in later life. About alt med, yes too bad about it--it's a good example of what can happen to an article (and related articles) when a wide variety of editors don't improve it. About this article, it seems that you and Jane have both caught up on the importance of legal aspects right now, while I had not. Sectionworker (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the homicide sidebar (No, it's not what you think!)

Avatar317 You reverted my addition of the homicide sb for POV. I immediately understand why you might think it was a POV, but the addition of the sb was not for the ideological purpose of advancing a pro-life interest, but rather because the page is a part of the series for homicide, which I think is worth knowing. GuardianH (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen what consensus included the topic of abortion in the homicide series, but I doubt you'll find consensus on this talk page for including it in that series, which I oppose. (Update) I now see that there was no consensus for its addition into that template, so I have removed it from the template. As always, this can be discussed, both there and here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Methods:Surgical

Hello everyone! What is a "Vacurette"? Does it have its own article(under a diffrent name perhaps)? And could you link to it? Thank you Hank the Sniper (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"When properly done, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine"

This is factually incorrect; a medical intervention whose goal is to kill cannot be a safe procedure. Qualifying this statement with "for the mother" would at least make it more truthful, and if you think the cited source does not support this more accurate characterization, then the source must be faulty and should be replaced. Miripog (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see #7 of the "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page, and the RfC that's linked there. NightHeron (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

I wanna edit it. IHasBalls (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in Texas has an RFC

Abortion in Texas has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Yeetus that Fetus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yeetus that Fetus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 12#Yeetus that Fetus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. schetm (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

I can't stand it when miscarriage is referred to as abortion. It's so insensitive to anyone who's suffered a miscarriage!!!!!!!!!!! I started this conversation once before, and it was deleted!!!!!!! 2603:6000:8740:54B1:490:44B2:8A68:29FF (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a valid medical term. A miscarriage may be known as a "spontaneous" abortion, whereas the ones you're thinking of are "induced" or "surgical" or "medication" abortions. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that it was a valid medical term. Most major medical organizations and medical school textbooks no longer use the term spontaneous abortion to describe involuntary pregnancy loss, and several of them actively recommend against it (especially in the UK). I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some sources also oppose it because the word spontaneous, as in "Arising from a momentary impulse", suggests that women get abortions whimsically, but for the most part, sources oppose it because it is confusing and upsetting.

Perhaps we should re-work the ==Types== section to list the common ways that pregnancies end, without trying to justify their inclusion as "a type of abortion". That would probably be:

• induced abortion (including late terminations)
• miscarriage and stillbirth
• childbirth

Alternatively, ==Types== could be replaced by a shorter ==Terminology== section, that briefly defines the term and gives a link to Miscarriage or Pregnancy loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this up to date information. I've wanted to see a change for some time. I am strongly in favor of making some changes. Sectionworker (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Either sounds OK though I like the second suggestion a little better. Could you write something up? It is a good idea to make the lead change done in two steps. Sectionworker (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sentence at citation number 20

Propose change to the text to more accurately reflect the wording used in the cited paper ie. change the sentence to "In countries where abortion is safe and legal and modern methods are used, women can be reassured that major complications and mortality are rare at all gestations."

The current wording does not read correctly to me. Acasualobservation (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean this sentence: When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.[20] Sectionworker (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sentence. Acasualobservation (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

So your suggestion is to use less encylopedic language and not mention mental problems? I think that the sentence as it stands now is better. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence in the current version gives facts; the proposed sentence gives advice (women can be reassured), which is not the role of Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems." Less reassuring, when the woman has pre-existing health problems. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

My quotation is a direct quotation from the paper cited. The current wording is not supported by the cited paper as the paper refers to mental health issues not being substantially different between women who get abortions and women who continue unintended pregnancies. This is distinct from "women who desire it" which makes it seem like women desire abortion which doesn't seem right to me. Acasualobservation (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Women who desire it" is who the source studied (women who CHOSE to have an abortion); it did not study the outcomes for women who were FORCED to have an abortion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The citation refers to an article examining other peer reviewed research. It doesn't make the distinction between chosen or forced abortion as you suggest. Acasualobservation (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to learn to read the sources: "Most women seeking an abortion have made their decision..." - WP:CIR ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the study didn't take into account women who wanted their babies, either. Elizium23 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The line "Most women seeking an abortion have made their decision..." does not support your point above re chosen or forced abortion as a decision can be forced or chosen... and it is also in reference to a different citation in the article than the point on mental health. Acasualobservation (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You're not making sense. The full sentence from the source is "Most women seeking an abortion have made their decision before consulting with a healthcare provider and require unbiased information and prompt referral for services." It occurs in the source's list of "Summary points". The sentence is obviously referring to women who wish to terminate their pregnancy, not to forced abortions, which are relatively rare and in which someone else makes the decision and forces the woman to have an abortion against her will. Those rare situations are not what the source is about. It's not at all clear why you're objecting to that sentence in the lede. NightHeron (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I take the point about wiki providing advice and I now think my proposed wording change should be amended. I will reconsider my proposed edit and revert or I would also be happy for others to suggest alternative wording.

The cited article states mental health issues are comparable between those who receive abortions and those who continue "unintended" pregnancies. The current wording in wiki does not distinguish between intended and unintended pregnancies in the comparisons looking at long term mental health outcomes. Acasualobservation (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Both the sentence you're questioning and the source [20] are talking only about women who want an abortion, that is, who do not want to continue their pregnancy. In some cases those were unintended pregnancies from the beginning, and in other cases they were initially intended pregnancies but no longer are, because of complications, changing circumstances of the woman, fetal deformities, etc. Concerning mental health, the logical comparison to be made is between the woman's mental health after an abortion and what it would have been without the abortion, i.e., continuing the pregnancy. That's what's in the source, and that's the point of the sentence citing that source. So I don't see any issue here. NightHeron (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify a misconception above, the cited article states, as is quoted above, that most women have made the decision to have an abortion before consultation. This is obviously distinct from any factors that have influenced that decision. It is absolutely not obvious that this wouldn't include forced as well as freely chosen abortions. I do not think it is the role of wiki to interpret research conclusions that are not explicitly stated on the research.

Secondly, I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of unintended pregnancy. A pregnancy can most certainly be intended and then for whatever circumstance the pregnancy is aborted. The decision to have an abortion does not mean the pregnancy was unintended. Your claim above is not supported by the cited article. The fact that the article distinguishes between intended vs unintended pregnancies indicates this is not a fair interpretation. Acasualobservation (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the source includes in the "unintended" category only those that were unplanned and unintended from the beginning, and not what it calls the "small but important proportion of abortions [that] are performed for serious maternal medical conditions or fetal indications." But the key statement in the source that relates to the sentence you're questioning is in the "Summary points" section: "Uncomplicated abortions are not associated with long term psychological or physical sequelae." Note that since the sentence you're questioning is in the article's lead, it doesn't have to cite sources if the statement is treated in more detail in the main body and is well-sourced there (from WP:LEAD: "it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead"). In section 3.1 of the article, in addition to source [20] the statement is supported by two other sources [123] and [124].

When the source speaks of the woman's decision occurring in most cases before consultation, that means that it's the woman who's making the decision, and that clearly excludes the tiny proportion of abortions that are coerced, i.e., not her decision. NightHeron (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly a plausible interpretation that the statement re the woman's decision excludes interference or coercion etc. However, I find that interpretation difficult to support given the article provides no basis for how those cases would be excluded here. A person's decision can of course by influenced in a variety of ways and there is no basis to suggest the possibilities above are excluded here. In any case I don't think this point is key to our edit here.

The current wiki wording doesn't distinguish between intended vs unintended pregnancies which it should based of the given citation - number 20.

I have also examined below the other relevant citations given under the mental health section of the wiki which I see to be - 123, 124 and 125. I think the current wiki wording on the connection between mental health issues and abortion should be reworded to account for the issues identified below. I am happy to propose alternative text or examine text prepared by other editors.

The noted citations are all based on the Turnaway Study. This study compares mental health outcomes between women who got abortions and women who sought out abortions but were denied based on gestational age and who later agreed to interviews. In this way the Turnaway Study only looked at certain specific cohorts of women, it even excluded women who wanted their pregnancy but had an abortion for fatal fetal abnormality reasons. It also excluded women who carried their children to term by choice. This was a deliberate choice made by the Turnaway Study. Naturally, there will be some disagreement here around the suitability of the methodology of the Turnaway Study and it wouldn't be appropriate to delve into that via wiki discussion. For our purposes here, I would simply note that the wiki article makes a more generalized claim that abortion doesn't effect mental health which fails to specify the limited cohort that all papers based on Turnaround Study refer to and fails to incorporate the significant research which indicates negative mental health outcomes as discussed below. The Turnaway Study conducted 6 monthly interviews over a 5 year period with women who got abortions and women who wanted abortions but were denied because of gestational age and it was then reported the women expressed similar mental health outcomes based on the telephone interviews. There are a number of published criticisms of the Turnaround Study, for example see here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6161227/ - As you can see the situation is certainly less definitive than the current wiki article text suggests. 

There is also good quality meta analysis linking abortion provision to mental health issues for example here -https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-quantitative-synthesis-and-analysis-of-research-published-19952009/E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BEE6C3D

There is a general consensus amongst the research, for example outlined here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/#section29-2050312118807624title), that - "Common ground exists regarding the very basic fact that at least some women do have significant mental health issues that are caused, triggered, aggravated, or complicated by their abortion experience." Acasualobservation (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The context for the mental health question is whether or not the mental health of a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy would be better if she is either pressured into changing her mind (perhaps because of difficulty of access or because of a torrent of misinformation if she goes to a Crisis Pregnancy Center) or is simply forbidden to have an abortion. The evidence in the sources is that mental health is not improved by requiring or pressuring women into bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term. I don't know why you keep mentioning forced abortions, which are rare and are not the issue; no one is arguing that coercing a woman to have an abortion wouldn't be bad for her mental health. The context is forced childbirth, not forced abortion.

Of course one can argue that a woman who desires her pregnancy -- who's healthy, happily married, and in good enough financial shape to support a family -- is likely to have better mental health one year later than a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy because she was raped, or has an abusive boyfriend or one who abandoned her when she became pregnant, or is too poor to adequately provide for a child. The studies cited in the article did not compare women in those two categories, presumably because that's not where the disagreement has been.

One can also argue that the abortion experience itself takes a toll on women's mental health. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that this is the case in places that protect women's reproductive rights and have easy access to abortion services. But it's certainly plausible that a woman who has to face legal and practical obstacles in order to get an abortion or who has to walk through a gauntlet of anti-abortion demonstrators shouting insults at her will have a very stressful experience of procuring an abortion.

I don't think you've made a convincing case for changing or adding to the article's treatment of the mental health issue. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As stated in my last comment I think we can set aside the forced, coercion aspect. So we agree here.

What about the other parts of my comment above. There is significant research suggesting abortion is linked to mental health issues and I provided links to some above. The only counter research I'm aware of is the Turnaway Study and there are a number of issues with that study for which I've also provide a citation for above. Whether or not you personally are convinced of this connection between abortion and mental health or if you feel it might be connected to external factors like difficulties in associated administration seems beside the point here. Acasualobservation (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Both of the sources given in your last two paragraphs are low-quality. Concerning Priscilla K. Coleman, the author of the first one, see her wikipedia page. The author of the second one, David C. Reardon, is an electrical engineer and anti-abortion activist. Neither has scientific credibility in this area. NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that they are low quality is just your own opinion. I'd think we should agree self referencing wiki as a source is bad practice, particularly considering the poor quality of the wiki page on Coleman. Also an ad hominem with regard to Reardon is also inappropriate, particularly noting that the Turnaway Study is from the ANSIRH, which is openly pro choice and this has its own biases. For our purposes here you are biasing the outcome by simply asserting that those who agree with you are reliable sources and those that don't agree with you are unreliable sources. Meanwhile there are clearly key issues with the Turnaway Study that you are willing to ignore, for example the high proportion of the women, 68 percent, who rejected interview, who are just ignored by the Study.

I think it's fair to say it's an emotive issue and there are concerns with much of the Studies available because of the biases associated. But it is clearly not a resolved issue as the current wiki wording suggests and it would be irresponsible for us to mislead the reader in this respect. Acasualobservation (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the wikipedia article on Coleman be used as a source in this article. I suggested that reading it would give you information on why the source you proposed is low-quality. If you have objections to the article Priscilla K. Coleman, you should raise them on the talk-page for that article, not here. My statement about the other author was not "ad hominem". I pointed out that he's an electrical engineer with no apparent scientific qualifications for writing about mental health and abortion, and that he's an anti-abortion activist, which apparently explains why he would write about the topic despite a lack of qualifications in the area. NightHeron (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your statement above is almost the very definition of an ad hominem - ie. you are making statements about "the researcher" and not the "content of the work" in question. However, I think it can be valid to highlight a biased view on this topic that must be considered but in the same way I also think it's valid to highlight the bias of the ANSIRH in this regard. Given the subject matter, it is very difficult to find unbiased sources.

To summarise the situation there are published research subject to peer review to support both positions re mental health outcomes and abortion but the published research is from biased sources and there are some compounding issues and controversy with regard to the research across the board. However, the current wiki wording is presenting only the Turnaway Study without acknowledging that controversy and the view expressed in the wiki article is not a faithful reflection of what was actually in the Turnaway Study. For example, in relation to the specific cohorts involved in the Study and the high number of no shows re participants for interviews. This is not reflected in the wiki text and presents a misleading idea that this is somehow a settled view. Acasualobservation (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not gained any support even though the editors here have spent a great deal of time to discuss your opinions. It seems that it is time to walk away rather than to go on and on with no support. Sectionworker (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

````

Sectionworker, surely the whole point of this talk page is to have these discussions. This discussion was opened only over the Christmas break, so only a couple of weeks ago. In addition, we can also see that the significant contributions here have just been from NightHeron and myself so I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm somehow wasting editors time.

It is also incorrect to simply reduce my comment above to just my "opinions". I believe I have set out clear reasoning for my view. If you disagree, please provide a substantive response that can help us refine the wording in the article rather than just a dismissal of legitimate concerns. Acasualobservation (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If you continue a discussion by pushing the same arguments after said arguments have failed to gain traction then you are wasting the community's time. The source saying "Uncomplicated abortions are not associated with long term psychological or physical sequelae" is perfectly good support for the idea that mental health is not substantially harmed by abortion. Your wish to remove that statement is struck down by that source. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, as discussed above, this statement refers to the Turnaway Study. There are other studies with conflicting conclusions. The Turnaway Study has methodological issues which I have provided citations for above and it and the other studies I've referred to all have biases associated as myself and NightHeron have highlighted. Given these issues why aren't we presenting the reader with a broader view of the literature on the subject? Acasualobservation (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "it [the Turnaway Study] and the other studies I've referred to all have biases associated as myself and NightHeron have highlighted", please don't misrepresent what I said. I explained why the sources you want to use are unreliable. I did not say, and do not believe, that the source that's cited in the current version is biased or unreliable. NightHeron (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not mean to misrepresent you. Is there a particular reason you don't accept the criticisms I have referred to regarding the Turnaround Study? Acasualobservation (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How about the absence of any reliable, repeatable study proving that abortion causes mental problems? We have sources asserting no mental problems, and we have no conclusive proof otherwise, so you have no leverage. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We have the Turnaway Study conducted by a recognized pro choice organisation, which relied on twice yearly phone interviews of a limited cohort of women and which also ignored the high dropout rate from the study. Simultaneously we also have meta analysis, some conducted by those with pro life leanings, indicating links to poor mental health outcomes, with questions regarding repeatability but with counter claims of differing underlying assumptions. So we have conflicting but also biased data in the literature across the board. The question is how do we fairly reflect that here in the wiki article? Acasualobservation (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A source does not become unreliable just because the authors have an opinion on the issue. I did not say that the two authors you want to cite are unreliable because they are anti-abortion. Their "studies" are unreliable because neither author has a good reputation as a scholar in the relevant area. That's the point I made earlier. To include low-quality sources to provide "balance" goes against policy, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. You should also read WP:DEADHORSE. NightHeron (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

NighHeron, thank you for your comment.

You make the claim that "Their "studies" are unreliable because neither author has a good reputation as a scholar in the relevant area."

This has two components the studies and the authors. If you have a citation for any issues you see with the studies please provide them here and I will examine them in detail.

As you have stated above the views of the authors are not relevant to the quality of the studies. In addition, I don't think the case that the authors "reputation" in the field is poor has been adequately made here, even if it was a relevant point. I think the focus should be on the "research" and not the researcher.

The claim that the studies cited are "low quality" has not been adequately supported by citation above. This is particularly true given recognised issues with the Turnaway Study, as cited above, are ignored.

Even if we accept only the Turnaway Study, there are still issues with the wording in the wiki article which doesn't note the limited cohort of the study or the dropout rate within the study. This gives a false perception to the reader of the wiki article that should be addressed.

The claim that this somehow represents false balance is inappropriate here. Acasualobservation (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As others have told you earlier, it's become obvious that you're not going to obtain consensus here for the changes you want to make. You have not convinced anyone, and the discussion is repetitious. It's time to move on and drop it. NightHeron (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AngkorWatAbortionAD1150.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Horatio Storer Pseudoscience

Is there more sources on Horatio Storer Pseudoscience? Currently, this pseudoscience was mentioned by a noncredible NPR talk show host. Remove the pseudoscience and add more reliable sources. Take the source https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/horatio-robinson-storer-1830-1922 which doesn't mention pseudoscience instead says he distinguished obstetrics from gynecology131.193.86.107 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that pseudoscientific is not the best word to use here. In 19th century medicine it's sometimes hard to distinguish between pseudoscience and bad science. I'd be okay with replacing the word with "misogynist", which is definitely supported by sources (for example, on p. 86-87 of reference [222]). NightHeron (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change "pseudoscientific" to "misogynist" and see if anyone objects. NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad definition?

“Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies.”

This could be trimmed down to: “Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.”, miscarriage could still have a redirect above the a page, but i reckon it that miscarriage isn’t relevant to abortion enough to warrant so much text about it ViralAnsatz (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

In medical terminology, an abortion is an "induced miscarriage", so it is important to clarify the difference. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrewgarcia1973 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ridakazmi2, Sasukedagoat, Cgonz98, Brittneyguizar, ChristopherH13.

— Assignment last updated by Ridakazmi2 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

Remove the line "When properly done, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine.", because The impact of abortion on women is not only in terms of the success rate of abortion but also in the wider impact on life and psychology after the operation. Ayin Angelous (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See #7 in the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

unexplained

Hey, @Zilch-nada, this doesn't seem to me like an improvement, and you didn't leave an edit summary explaining your reasoning? Valereee (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee, "woman's right to make decisions about her own body" redirected to reproductive rights. I think the redirected description of "reproductive rights" sounds more dispassionate, clearer and shorter than "right to make decisions about her own body". Zilch-nada (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Zilch-nada, not sure I agree, but we'll see if anyone else has an opinion. Please use edit summaries, they are literally as important as the edit itself, and this is especially crucial when you're working in the lead sections of highly-contentious articles. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree; apologies for that omission. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ZN makes a valid point, but I think that "part of a woman's reproductive rights" would be better, since reproductive rights include many other things in addition to abortion. There's also an argument that the change is more in keeping with WP:GLOBAL, since the earlier formulation, while very common in the West, is not the way many people talk about abortion in some other parts of the world. NightHeron (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I also feel most sources talking about 'a woman's right to make decisions about her own body' are talking about a whole lot of other body-autonomy issues that people in many cultures take for granted. Reproductive rights are just one of those. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

Add Indirect abortion to See Also section. Sources are not needed for this change. 71.201.78.227 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ANA.B2004 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ANA.B2004 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Miss-matching miscarriage percents

In the first paragraph of the article, it mentions that miscarriages, or spontaneous abortion occurs in "30% to 40% of all pregnancies." The website source for it, which is now gone, claims a "15% to 20%" rate for known pregnancies, and "up to half" for all pregnancies, so I assume that the figure is for both known and unknown pregnancies. I wasn't able to find the reference for it in the cited book, but the main article for Miscarriages also uses it as a source, and claims the same "30% to 40%", but also clarifies that the figure includes both known and unknown pregnancies. Later on in this article, in the spontaneous section, it says 40% to 60% of embryos do not progress to birth. So, unless I've misunderstood something, either 30% to 40% is wrong, or 40% to 60% is wrong.

 The people in this topic, agree with the 40% to 60% figure, and the studies cited also say that, so that's probably the right one. Also, I am new to this, so sorry if I'm doing something wrong, I did look through the archives a bit, but I might've missed something. GCreeper00 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is that ~50% of all conceptions fail to implant, which means that they never are defined as a pregnancy. Then of the ones that do, 30-40% spontaneously abort. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 05:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I did have a misconception for what pregnancies meant, so, that would definitely make sense, but now that I read it again, in the Miscarriage article, they actually say that the 30 to 40% is for all fertilized eggs, though it is in the first trimester category, so maybe that accounts for it? although they don't explicitly say that Altrup (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@Avatar317 reverted my minor edit, elaborating on the "safety of abortion" in the lede. They claimed that describing abortion as "one of the safest procedures in medicine" is clear to any reader, which I disagree with. Obviously, safety here refers to maternal safety (immediately providing maternal statistics), and thus my change (which was reverted) read "one of the maternally safest procedures..."; I realise that "maternally one of the safest procedures..." makes more grammatical sense.

Thoughts? Zilch-nada (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed repeatedly in the past. The conclusion is that we follow the practice of the source material which always describes modern medical abortion as safe. The sources aren't calling the procedure "unsafe" for the woman or the fetus, even though the fetus is killed. Intentionally killing the fetus is not a question of safe or unsafe; it's the entire goal of the procedure. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with this and I understand the medical context and usage.

That said, I do not think outright describing it as "safe" is informative enough for the reader, especially given that there are two organisms involved in the procedure. Like you said; "safety" has got nothing to do with the fetus; therefore, the mother, as statistics relating to maternal mortality are mentioned. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

i.e. Perhaps we should be clear that "safety" has got nothing to do with the fetus. Zilch-nada (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As already explained to you, the consensus of editors is that this is so obvious that it's enough to say "safe". You even agree that it's obvious ("Obviously, safety here refers to maternal safety.") I don't see any need to continue discussing this. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In saying that "Obviously safety here refers to maternal safety"; therefore I elaborated on the term "safety". We agree that safety with regard to abortion refers to maternal safety, so why not elaborate for the reader? In medical contexts it may be obvious, but not necessarily for the reader; there ought to be no negation with the term, "safety"; only elaboration. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the RFC you requested last January asked whether the words "safe" and "safely" were used correctly. I respect the consensus that "safe" is used correctly, only that it could be elaborated upon; again, I don't intend on negating the definition, only elaborating upon it. (The very fact that there was an RFC shows contention even among editors about definitions! There ought to thus be elaboration.) Zilch-nada (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME I do not object to the use of the term unsafe abortion as WP:COMMONNAME overrides neutrality. However, I am not sure what policy everyone is referring to that we HAVE to use this exact wording about abortion being one of the safest procedures in medicine. Can't we instead use language such as "women who receive abortions are 14 times less likely to die than women who give birth" or "Women receiving abortions face fewer complications than nearly all other medical procedures." They're both correct, but my wording seems more neutral. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The current wording in the lead (When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. In the United States, the risk of maternal mortality is 14 times lower after induced abortion than after childbirth) is clearly written, well sourced, neutral, and supported by consensus of editors. It's also unambiguous (anyone who doesn't know the precise definition of "maternal mortality" can find it at the beginning of the article Maternal mortality in the United States). Your proposed replacement is unclear, and there is no place a reader can go to find exactly what "likelihood of dying" is supposed to mean. The second proposed sentence is also ambiguous (does it mean compared to all medical procedures or only the ones for the aborting woman?), and it has a grammatical error (lack of parallelism) that contributes to the unclarity. Why are we wasting time talking about changing something that doesn't need changing? NightHeron (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed recently added sentence

I removed a recently added sentence from the lead because it is highly misleading and poorly sourced:

• The first source is the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and hence has a strong POV on abortion; the second one is about Finland and does not support a "globally" statement; and the third is an article in an obscure journal in Taiwan about a survey in Korea and hence also does not support a claim about the global situation.
• The first part of the sentence talking about "global" mortality misleadingly seems to contradict the earlier statement about the safety of legal abortion, but the claim in this sentence clearly combines countries where it's legal and countries where it's illegal and so, even if true, it's a useless statistic.
• The second part of the sentence falsely suggests a causal relation between abortion and suicide. Often women have abortion because of terrible personal and psychological situations, such as incest, rape, abandonment, extreme poverty, etc. The same factors can obviously make suicide more likely. This is a classic example of confusing correlation with causality. NightHeron (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"The reasons why women have abortions..."

I'm not a fan of the listing of reasons why women have abortion found in the first paragraph of the lead. It reads as follows: ''The reasons why women have abortions are diverse and vary across the world. Reasons include maternal health, an inability to afford a child, domestic violence, lack of support, feeling they are too young, wishing to complete education or advance a career, and not being able or willing to raise a child conceived as a result of rape or incest.'' The problem I see here is that the listed sources are uniformly abortion-rights sources. And the wording is made to sound as sympathetic to women seeking abortions as possible within the confines of a presumably neutrally written encyclopedia article. Sure, women seek abortions for all of those reasons. They also seek abortions for other, less sympathetic sounding reasons such as to not encumber their freedom and, in some cultures, because the fetus is of the "wrong" sex, perhaps female instead of male. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So you're aren't contesting that any of the statement is false or non-factual. What types of reasons do you expect anti-abortion sources to list? Guttmacher is used by BOTH SIDES of the abortion debate as a reputable source of data, like surveys of why women chose to abort rather than carry.

I'm not opposed to ADDING to that statement something like: "...and, in some countries/cultures that value men over women, to choose the sex of the baby (Sex-selective abortion). ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Another reason (though I don't have any sources that include statistics on this) is to abort a severely disabled child which might not likely live more than a few years, and would have a miserable and painful life in those years. (pre-birth Child euthanasia). ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 23:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that each listed "reason why women have abortions" is true and factual doesn't, of course, make the listing satisfactory. If we instead said "Reasons include not wanting a female baby, a desire to live permanently child free, and not wanting a ruined figure"; those would also be entirely true reasons but they wouldn't amount to a very satisfactory encyclopedic listing. As for Guttmacher, the fact that they don't, apparently, cook the books on bare-boned numbers is commendable in the sense that not robbing a bank is commendable. As for what numbers they choose to present and how they interpret those numbers, they are clearly partisan. They always come out as a reason for easier access to abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Those "reasons" would not be included in the list because (1) they are unsourced and probably unsourceable, (2) the wording of the first one falsely assumes that it's the woman's personal opinion about female babies rather than external social pressures that cause sex-selective abortions, (3) they are insulting to women who seek an abortion, and (4) the third one is also insulting to women who carry a fetus to term (referring in wikivoice to their appearance as a "ruined figure"). Avoiding sexist trash-talking against women does not violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy. NightHeron (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

NightHeron, you seemed to be confused here. Note that I said those reasons " wouldn't amount to a very satisfactory listing". True, they could be included in a much more extensive listing, but a couple would need rewording. For example, the "not wanting a ruined figure" item should be worded as to make it clear that this refers to the self image of the set of abortion-seeking women in question and not, of course, to Wikipedia's (or Goodtablemanners') image of women who have given birth. The "not wanting a female baby" item should certainly include the "external social pressure" women in some cultures and subcultures face, keeping in mind that some women of child-bearing age, fully embrace those social norms and need no extra convincing. As for the item about wanting to live child-free, I think it's pretty darn good as is and would be relatively easy to source. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon thinking about this more, I have realized (what I should have known based on Wikipedia policy) that we DO NOT list reasons that are POSSIBLE reasons, we say what RS's say.

The statement: "As for the item about wanting to live child-free, I think it's pretty darn good as is and would be relatively easy to source." - "relatively easy to source." is NOT the way things are done on Wikipedia. That's how to write an article WP:BACKWARDS. What we do is find the BEST source(s) we have for the reasons women have abortions and paraphrase what those sources say.

The best source we have currently in the article is this one: (the other two are US based) which says:

Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.

This is why I made the edit I did, and I had not yet had time to modify the following sentence.

The reality is that there may be thousands of different reasons for abortions; we should discuss them in order of, and give most weight to: the highest reported reasons. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 23:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Avatar317, You did notice, I hope, that the source you are relying on here is more than 25 years old. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Incidentally why is this conversation [6] being carried on at an editor's Talk page instead of the article's Talk page?

It's perfectly normal to raise a question about an editor's edit on their talk page. In this case it related to an issue of clarity and not to any content controversy. You should not be so suspicious toward your fellow editors, per WP:AGF. NightHeron (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Abortion under Jewish law

When discussing Abortion from the perspective of Jewish Law, the article failed to mention that abortion is generally prohibited, unless the fetus presents a legitimate threat to the mother's life. 176.228.1.108 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding Additional Context on Abortion Safety

My recent edits to the Abortion article received controversy and a revert by both @NightHeron and @EvergreenFir.

The current statements, specifically and especially in the second paragraph, in the article are incorrect and missing context.

1. "When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine." This is MISLEADING. First, I feel as if this is a violation of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Peacock. Secondly, one of the two sources used for this claim is based on United States abortions, and the other lacks any explanation on how data was received. There are a plethora of other more recent and well-researched studies that state the exact opposite of what this statement claims.
2. "In the United States, the risk of maternal mortality is 14 times lower after induced abortion than after childbirth." This is FALSE. Firstly, California and New York, the two states that have the highest estimated abortion rates, do not provide abortion statistics to the CDC. Less than 1/4th of states require doctors to list abortion as a cause of death if a maternal death comes after an abortion, which is why numerous deaths from abortion are often listed simply as "maternal death," or "pregnancy complications." That's aside the point, however, as there are a predominance of other sources (and MORE RECENT sources) that state the opposite of what this statement claims. In the end, this statement cannot be backed by a majority of sources. Due to the lack of data available, this statement should be completely removed.
3. Suggested Addition: "However, the mortality rate for abortion increases 38% for each week of gestation that passes." (to add after the first sentence of the second paragraph) Not sure why anyone is against adding this. It's a fact, and if we are going to use United States and international statistics, then this is one that should be included. Abortion early on is much safer than abortion later on, and the first statement does not mention the classification of early abortion at all, therefore making it misleading. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/abstract/2004/04000/risk_factors_for_legal_induced_abortion_related.20.aspx

DocZach (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We must follow WP:MEDRS and cannot engage in original research. Do you have meta-analyses? A 20-year-old article using 30-year-old data is not sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more? I see numerous PubMed articles around this article, but the problem is that some of these PubMed articles aren't as reliable as others. And, there are numerous other articles that have an opposite result than the one source backing up the sentence as I elaborated on in point 2. Furthermore, the third addition is not changing any sources, but rather adding more context. Out of all of the points, I think the third point is the one we should be able to agree on. DocZach (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What you want to add in point 3 is misleading and misrepresents the source. First, it lacks the context that the vast majority of abortions are early ones. Second, the risk from late abortions is being compared to the risk from early abortions, which is miniscule, and not with the risk from other medical procedures. Third, legal late abortions performed by qualified physicians are normally performed when either the woman's life is in danger, the fetus is badly deformed, or the fetus is unlikely to live. The point of the article, stated clearly in the last sentence of the abstract, is that the earlier such abortions are carried out, the better. In such cases, the obstacles that anti-abortion laws have placed to reduce access have caused delays and hence an increase in late abortions and so an increase in risks. Even if the source were a high-quality recent secondary source, as required by WP:MEDRS, it would not be correctly summarized by your version.

Also, the risk from legal abortion is averaged over all legal abortions, and that means that early abortions dominate the statistic. There's nothing incorrect or misleading about that statistic. Moreover, in places that have reasonable access to legal abortions, among elective abortions (not counting ones needed because of severe medical complications in the pregnancy) practically all are early. NightHeron (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

To say that abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine is incredibly misleading. You are also claiming that most abortions later in pregnancy are almost always for medical emergencies, which is incorrect. The majority of late-term abortions are actually completely elective.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/185540-most-late-term-abortions-are-elective/

Can you provide your source that shows the majority of late-term abortions are medically necessary? DocZach (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly your CLAIMS 1) and 2) will be (and should be) ignored by editors here unless you can provide SOURCES that back your claims. That is, sources that are BETTER than the ones we currently have, since Wikipedia's policy is to rely on the BEST sources.

Re: 3) We don't cherry-pick random statistics to mislead and confuse readers. The number stated before your proposed sentence is the AVERAGE mortality rate, not the early rate. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you are cherry-picking evidence, though. All of the sources in this article are meticulously selected to align with a pro-abortion narrative. And then you discard reliable sources from the same organizations or even more credible organizations that contradict the assertations this article makes. DocZach (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Pinging DochZach, NightHeron, Avatar317, and EvergreenFir. Could someone please tell me why we cannot use DochZach's source, but we can use the non-WP:MEDRS compliant source that says abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth. To me this looks like uneven enforcement of site policy. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DocZach, trying again. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Doc Zach's claim (see above) that most late abortions are elective is sourced to a blog by an anti-abortion zealot who makes a bunch of ludicrous assumptions, such as that any late abortion that's not because of fetal abnormality is elective. Apparently the blogger has never heard about all the conditions that could put the life of the pregnant woman at risk, even if the fetus is not deformed. No need to bring in MEDRS, since the blog is not remotely RS-compliant. The text that I reverted contained a blatant logical error. It compared mortality among women who get late abortions, a high proportion of whom have dangerous pregnancies, with the maternal mortality of women who give birth, the vast majority of whom are young, healthy women with normal pregnancies. It's like arguing that heart bypasses are bad for the patient because people who have them die within 5 years at a greater rate than people who don't. NightHeron (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the blog. I was referring to the study he linked about abortion being less safe later in pregnancy. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. DZ's source, The Linacre Quarterly, is the "official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and primarily focuses on the relationship between medicine and spirituality" [7]. Not surprisingly, the Catholic Medical Association has an extreme anti-abortion POV: "Not only is abortion not health care, it is a medical atrocity and a grave legal injustice. Just as slavery and the Dred Scott decision unjustly denied the constitutional right to liberty for individuals based on race; abortion deprives innocent children their right to life based on age alone and the Roe decision has no rational basis in law" [8]. In the edit I reverted DZ had removed a source from the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, the official journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and replaced it with an article from an anti-abortion source that DZ used to support in wikivoice a bogus comparison between late-term abortion and childbirth by women who are overwhelmingly young, healthy, and with normal pregnancies, as I explained above. NightHeron (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. Just to clarify, I don't think we should add his claim about abortion being more dangerous later in pregnancy per WP:MEDRS. However, we should mot be claiming that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth on WP:WIKIVOICE because the source appears to be a WP:PRIMARY source. The only thing that appears to be reliably sourced is the claim that abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The statement taken from the source in this case is a simple statement of the ratio of death rates from childbirth to death rates from abortion, with no need for interpretation, and so I would think qualifies as permissible. Could we compromise (assuming other editors accept this) by attributing the statement rather than having it in wikivoice? That is, "According to a study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology by F. G. Raymond and D. A. Grimes,...". NightHeron (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement, but it wouldn't be due for the lead. Hopefully there are MEDRS about safety vs. childbirth, because wiki-voice claims about medical safety definitely require that level of sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about mentioning death of zygote, embryo, or fetus

How was the conclusion reached that explicitly mentioning the death of the zygote, embryo, or fetus, would constitute POV for the pro-life/anti-abortion side? It is an objective biological fact about the procedure of abortion and is relevant to the debates around abortion as well as the facts of the procedure itself. Further it would seem to be the case that starting the article stating that using terms such as "terminates a pregnancy" contain just as much, if not more POV bias as explicitly stating that an abortion ends the life of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. Both statements are true but both have differing connotations and to allow one but not the other seems to violate NPOV. Obviously as the thing at the top of the talk page states everyone generally knows that abortion kills the zygote/embryo/fetus, but many Wikipedia articles include statements that a general knowledge and are often written in a manner which allows those unfamiliar with a topic to learn about it. To suggest that explicitly stating an objective fact about abortion on the basis that it constitutes POV is absurd, ad the same would apply to any other issue on any other article. Obviously mentioning death of zygote, embryo, or fetus may foster unpleasant feelings about abortion for some however, that does not mean it constitutes POV as it is a generally accepted fact that this is the result of a successful abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.144.231 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. At the top of the page there is a search box where you can run a search of the talk page archives. Enter the word "death" and take a look over some of the past discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the search box isn't really easily spottable if you use mobile browser. There's just an info icon and a line of text (that doesn't stand out in anyway) that says "learn more about this page". Only if you notice that note and click it, will the information and search box appear.

I didn't notice it at first and was wondering what was meant by the statement "FAQ at the top of this page" in this Talk page section "Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023". Took me a second look at the top of the page to notice the info icon. Nakonana (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The original poster makes a good point. Death (or at least non-birth) is rather essential to the definition of abortion. The definition in the first sentence of the article would also include some types of childbirth. Jmaranvi (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been commented before, termination of pregnancy is a universally understood standard term for abortion that does not mean childbirth, and the same is true of the expression removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. The sentence is clear and unambiguous. Please read FAQ #6 right above. NightHeron (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any FAQs. Maybe a mobile browser issue? Jmaranvi (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it in the info link after reading the exchange above. Jmaranvi (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens." Seriously? 101.98.134.21 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the problem with using "pregnancy" as a euphemism for "embryo or fetus," and using "embryo or fetus" as a euphemism for "dead embryo or fetus." Terminating a pregnancy, using the plain meaning of the words, ends a pregnancy (the state of being pregnant). It may be "universally understood" to mean "abortion," but it's still euphemistic.

I twice "terminated a pregnancy" by having a fetus removed. My family celebrates the terminations every year with cake, ice cream, and presents. 76.113.191.15 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you show your photos from the occasion? Anything to veryify your non-credible story. TruthseekerW (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed an incredible non-credible story. Probably the most incredible non-credible anecdote that I have ever come across. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

An update on post-abortion syndrome and more accurate research is needed. Research showing that 99% of women do not regret abortion is false and misleading. TruthseekerW (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Please read the instructions that accompanied this edit request. You are giving no specific text and no sources. NightHeron (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

It is not an edit request yet, but a suggestion of how to improve the page. First, I suggest (as I intend to) basing edits on the book by Karin Struck: "ich sehe mein Kind im Traum". I do not know if English translation is available, but I have Polish one at my disposal. Another book on the topic, which I could not find yet, was written by Susan Stanford. She also conducted research on post-abortion syndrome, which opposes the debatable one that is present on this page. There is also Marion Poensgen, who, in her book, presented research on post-abortion syndrome (which stated that 40% of women researched "would like to bring life back to their children"). She also talked about Niobe syndrome, which is not discussed on this page. Another book which could turn out immensely helpful is "Aborted Women silent no more", by David C. Reardon, published in 1987. It contains interviews with women after abortion. There is research which I could not locate myself which suggests that in some women after abortion, who got sick with cancer, the sickness was the outcome of abortion. One more book which should be studied for this case was written by Wolfgang Furch, and is called (my own translation) "Abortion - a way of fixing the problem". That is all I could find for now. I consider the book written by Struck to be a reliable source.

As I stated in my edit request (which was rightly closed), I could spot a high degree of misinformation which requires debunking.

Any source used on the page to talk about medical and/or psychological dimensions of abortion would need to meet the standards at WP:MEDRS, with the highest quality sources (like review studies in high-quality medical journals) taking priority. I haven't looked into all of these, but I suspect the quality is not up to that standard. — Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 14:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of these sources are not medical literature that simply cannot be up to the standard you mentioned, but I suggest looking into them before making assupmtions. Karin Struck was also mentioned on a different page relating to abortion written in different language, therefore it could be mentioned as an opinion, could it not be?

Also, regarding the latest edit, I have found no evidence that the authors of the study have indeed taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population. The selection of candidates remains largely unclear. Naturally, I will read the study once more if I can prove to be mistaken as I believe in the good will of other editors. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[9] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[10] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[11] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[12] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"When done legally..."

The problem with User:Avatar317's preferred version is that the moral issue is already insinuated but not clearly stated in the current second paragraph. If the paragraph is strictly about the science of abortion why bring up the issue of legality? Legality would not be an issue except for the dispute over the morality of abortion. So if legality is raised as an issue it should be done so with a PRIOR mention of the dispute over the procedure's morality. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not true that illegality implies a moral issue. A drug or medical procedure might be illegal because it's unsafe. For example, if the falsehood propagated by the anti-abortion movement that abortion is unsafe for the woman were correct, then that alone could be a reason for legal restrictions or prohibitions. NightHeron (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in previous talks about the safery of abortion, the process is quite safe, if there is access to well-trained medical personnel and sanitary conditions. The risk is considerably highter, when these conditions do not exist. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding these points: Except, of course, in reality neither of those hypotheticals is the case here. Illegal abortions exist because abortion is either broadly illegal or significantly restricted in some places; and the anti-abortion movement exists, and would exist, regardless of the safety of legally done procedures. No, "done legally", rather than simply "done properly" is used here because of the moral/political dispute over abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead amounts to a preemptive argument for legal abortion

After the first few sentences of its opening paragraph until its last paragraph, the lead is largely a defense of legal abortion. This starts with generally sympathetic listing of reasons why women seek abortions. The second paragraph goes on to note that when done legally. abortion is " one of the safest procedures" in the medical profession. How many other Wikipedia articles describe relatively routine medical procedures in like terms? It also notes that self-managed medication abortions are safe. Again, why the emphasis on safety without specifically raising the issue of safety in the first place? The third paragraph includes the World Health Organization's seal of approval for "access to legal, safe, and comprehensive abortion care... for the attainment of the highest possible level of sexual and reproductive health." This endorsement, however, has little to do with the science of the procedure and more to do with its place in society. It is sociological rather than medical and presented without any challenge. By the time a reader reaches the lead's last paragraph, a good case for legal abortion has already been made without the merest mention of anyone opposing it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The notional "argument" you describe is the result of multiple editors following proper WP:BALANCE found in sources. The safety of the procedure is listed by a great many sources, I'm sure as a response to opponents of legal abortion. I don't agree that we have any problem to solve. If you wish to provide a counterpoint to modern safety, you could elevate the mention of unsafe abortion, highlighting how illegal abortions are bad, flowing into how legal abortions are safe. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the editorial arguments on this Talk page for not introducing the moral/political debate over abortion earlier in the lead has been that the article should focus on the science of the procedure before delving into that debate. But, as you say, the safety of the procedure is listed as a response to opponents of legal abortion. If the safety of abortion is stressed in the lead because of that, and it undoubtedly is stressed, then the fact that there's a big debate about legal abortion should at least be mentioned first. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the abortion debate, which is of course explained in more detail in the main body. It's reasonable to assume that the reader already knows about the abortion debate, but does not necessarily know the medical background that comes earlier in the lead. So I don't see any reason why the paragraph summarizing the abortion debate has to come first. Note that in the main body the sections on medical issues (methods, safety, incidence) come first, and the sections that relate to the debate (history, religion, society, culture) come later. The organization of the lead is consistent with the main body. NightHeron (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, we have a SEPARATE ARTICLE for that subject: Abortion debate. THIS article is primarily for information about the procedure. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"One of the safest procedures in medicine"

On the contrary, there is plenty wrong with this wording. How safe does a procedure have to be to be rated among of the safest in medicine"? Are there official updated ratings of the safest? Is it in the top five? The top twentyt? It is plainly Peacock phrasing and an example of things that make the lead as I noted before, a preemptive argument for legal abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fair paraphrase of the source: "legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice, with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death."

As well as "Conclusions: The safety of induced abortion as practiced in the United States for the past decade met or exceeded expectations for outpatient surgical procedures and compared favorably to that of two common nonmedical voluntary activities."

Your failure to want to believe what experts conclude is not our problem. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Avatar317. which source contains the description "one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice"'? I didn't notice that specific wording. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Noticing the British spelling now, I suspect it's The Lancet which has a reputation for being opinionated and controversial, not the ideal source here if one wants to keep the phrasing neutral. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#List_of_core_journals. If you feel The Lancet isn't a neutral source, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) would be the place to discuss. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The question is not whether The Lancet is a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia; it is; or whether it is a neutral source on the subject of legal abortion; it isn't. The question is whether in this case its wording is a good one to model. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the either the first or second most prestigious medical journal, depending on how one measures such things. There is no evidence that it has any neutrality problems on this or is not the ideal source here as you claim - in fact it is difficult to conceive of a source that would be more ideal. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie: This is what the summary of The Lancet source article says [13]. Access to safe legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion are not blood and infection but, rather apathy and disdain toward women. Now does that sound as if The Lancet is neutral on the subject of legal abortion? Pleeze! Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That you personally disagree is not evidence that the source is not neutral. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, we don't require sources to be unbiased, as you well know. And Lancet's valid viewpoint is widely held. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I don't dispute that this Lancet and other Lancet articles can be used. I'm saying that in this particular case the Lancet phrasing shouldn't be the basis for our description. "A comparatively safe procedure" is preferable to "One of the safest procedures in medicine". The latter has an air of trying to convince people in an argument. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with The Lancet's wording. The relevant part of Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV is the section WP:FALSEBALANCE. Although opposition to abortion, whether motivated by religion, morality, or misogyny, is not a fringe viewpoint, some of the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement contradicts medical science, i.e., is flat-out wrong -- notably, claims that abortion is unsafe for women. One of the tasks of the medical profession is to circulate correct information on this subject in order to counter the misinformation of the anti-abortion movement. The Lancet is a MEDRS source whose reporting on this is obviously reliable. The strong wording of the conclusion when countering egregious misinformation is justified and is consistent with NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it has the tone of trying to convince people in an argument. But the issue hasn't even been raised yet in the article. Sorry, but my wording is better for the lead, "a comparatively safe procedure". Later, in the body we could give the Lancet description which probably should be identified as such. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact in a extremely reliable source. Sometimes the facts favor one side of a dispute. That does not mean we water them down to reach some sort of false balance. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, The Lancet has been involved in a number of relatively recent factual controversies. You can get up at noon once you have the reputation as an early riser. More to the point, the wording "a comparatively safe medical procedure" is quite factual and no doubt supported by numerous "reliable sources". We are in no way required to use The Lancet's verbiage here. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to try at WP:RSN, but you're not going to get anywhere by attacking the Lancet. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet as a MEDRS source has not been deprecated. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS here as it does everywhere, and The Lancet's abortion article has not been questioned for accuracy by anyone. Give it a rest; this is growing tiresome. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it a rest but not before noting that of all the many sources talking about how safe legal abortion is, editors here have opted for one which essentially accuses the other side of having "disdain for women". Goodtablemanners (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As an outsider reading this, it is blatantly obvious the editor here is gatekeeping his bias. What grants such power, that one user can control the page? How many people need to object before a change is made? 2600:1006:B32D:ACD4:81A9:28AB:3EC:55C2 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Which editor is gatekeeping his bias? And what on Earth does that statement mean? HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It means that a bunch of editors intend to keep the misleading version just because they want it. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem with opening sentence

The current definition of abortion in the opening sentence seems too broad: 'Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.' This could misleadingly encompass any end of pregnancy, including live births. To improve accuracy, it could for instance specify that abortion refers to termination before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. LennCali (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not have to give a dictionary definition. But even for a dictionary definition one can assume that the reader knows that a live birth is not an abortion. For example, in dictionary.com definition #1 of abortion is "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should, however, give as much information as possible, as it strives to be an ecyclopaedia.

The definition of dictionary.com is highly misleading one. "Removal" does not suggest that the fouetus or embryo need to be killed or crushed first.

LennCali does have a point there, but I also stand with the word "human", as most of the text relates to human. Plus, nobody refuted what I said in April. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Safety section

The safety section seems disproportionately about "mortality rate", perhaps to paint abortion in a more positive lens?

I do not see much description about the downsides of abortion from health perspective, especially with the ability of the woman to have kids in the future, or other long term health issues that may arise (even if the operation itself does not end in death).

All it mentions is "scientifcally unsupported" issues such as a link to breast cancer.

As someone who is pro choice, I find this article unreliable - I do not believe the authors are seriously trying to balance both viewpoints, but rather trying to defend the right to choose. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "unreliable" at all. It's widely asserted in the medical literature that modern abortion procedures are very safe for the woman, even with respect to future pregnancy and long-term health. When we balance viewpoints it's not exactly 50 percent of this view compared to 50 percent of that view. Instead, WP:BALANCE is achieved by summarizing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it balanced though?

According to this article, which analyzes many studies on abortion, the results were rather mixed, and largely inconclusive, especially when there are multiple abortions on the same woman:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507237/

This wikipedia article is certainly much more emphatic that abortions are healthy than that paper is, which to me is concerning. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part of the linked study which said "there is no association between abortion and secondary infertility," meaning that abortion is no more likely than childbirth to cause problems with future pregnancies.

I'm concerned that you are participating on Wikipedia for the purpose of trolling everybody here. Your comment at the Flat Earth page is worrisome. Wikipedia will never give flat earth nonsense a "balanced" perspective if that means ignoring obvious science. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? No, I did not miss that part. The article listed about a dozen potential issues with abortion, and around half of them it said the existing literature was not up to snuff, and therefore inconclusive. There were some cases (a minority) in which sufficient data was present, which did show - only for those minority of issues - that there wasn't a correlation. For women with more than one abortion, however, it showed some negative health effects, which is certainly concerning.

I did not post that article in an attempt to show abortion is dangerous (again, I am pro-choice, and I believe abortion is mostly healthy), but I am concerned that this Wikipedia article reads like a speech by Nancy Pelosi and less like the balanced viewpoint in the article I shared.

As for my comment on the flat earth page, I stand by that completely. If you read what I actually said, it was not that I think flat earth should have a balanced perspective, but that Wikipedia as an entity should not take a stance, and should just stick to the facts. Which is correct. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please make a concrete proposal to improve the article based on a reliable source. Otherwise, this discussion is finished and you should find another website to exchange opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the base material.

https://www.cantstaysilent.com/assets/pdf/09LA2022_CSS_Report-Digital.pdf TruthseekerW (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That source is very far from satisfying WP:MEDRS. Its obvious extreme political slant (starting out by characterizing abortion as "violence against children") is an indication of its unreliability. NightHeron (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Reference no. 135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704

One person reverted my edit, and the second claimed it it disputed. That's two people. I claim that my edit adds value and clarification to the article. My edit is visible in the latest history. The source material is not clear on this respect as it generalises the research (135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704), and the research itself, as I said in the initial edit, does not make abundantly clear the criteria of selection of candidates. Thus, I added a small clarification that NightHeron now claims to be disputable. ("in this case your addition was unnecessary and didn't add anything of value") It appears to be a bit arbitrary. The person who reverted the edit did not seek a conversation, and thus I reverted it back. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust and peer-reviewed and vetted. That's called WP:OR and not allowed. If you have issues with the research, take that up with the researchers or the journal that published their work. If the paper gets retracted, than we won't use it as a source on Wikipedia anymore. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Naturally I don't.

All I seek here is to clarify the results of the research, and I am really surprised by the negative conducts towards this minor edit. This really is silly, as the case of semi-protecting the entire article - should be obvious to add. Relate to the edit, as I insist that it adds value to the entirety.

It is no surprise that the article was delisted from good articles list as any positive contribution is immideately reverted. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why you reverted does not go on par with what you said earlier. I do not yet challenge the results nor the method of the disputed research.

I think my edit fits exactly where you said "summarizes". Did I challenge anything with the sentence I added?

It is part of the summary, a short presentation of data that does not litter the passage in any way.

If you or @NightHeron claim that it is a pointless edit, then please justify. If not, please do not make arbitrary reverts. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

Does it make a consensus? TruthseekerW (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A disputed edit that changes the stable version of an article does need a consensus before it's reinserted into the article. That's explained in WP:BRD. NightHeron (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only what NightHeron said above, but if there is a new consensus, it is that your edit adding the sample size of the study does not belong in the article, because editors: myself, NightHeron,

Mathglot [14] "Revert editorializing. The source supports the content." and

Generalrelative [15] "That's just how opinion surveys work. If the source is reliable, they will have taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population."

have all reverted your addition, with essentially the same reasoning as that which I've stated above: "You don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust." - If the sample size was insufficient, that would have come up in peer-review, or as critiques from other researchers; you don't get to add your own IMPLICATION that this sample size is too small: per WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 This does not apply to my edit at all. My edit only expands on the summary of the study, and does not add any implications, other than the obvious statement that the study was conducted on such a number of women. Can you read what I wrote above again and with understanding? Everything I wrote is a conclustion boldly stated by the source

I have to yet again repeat that and kindly ask to relate to what I wrote and not attempt to twist the conversation in undesirable course.

@NightHeron my edit is not disputed. It was only challenged by @Generalrelative, and what that user stated was highly hypothetical language' which I don't see how it justifies his revert at all.

And finally, please relate to the sentence that I added and which does not imply anything else over than what was already written in the research. TruthseekerW (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

TS, you clearly have been ignoring my request that you carefully read WP:BRD and adhere to it. Any edit that changes the content of the stable version of an article becomes a disputed edit if it's reverted by another editor. Then it's the obligation of the person who made the edit (not the person who reverted it) to seek a consensus supporting their edit and not to reinsert it until most of the editors participating in the discussion agree that the edit (or some modified version of it) belongs in the article. You've not done that. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And I got the feeling that some people did not adhere to the rules as well, by simply disliking my edit.

I promise to adhere to the imposed rules and seek the consensus, but the issue is silly, and your reasoning weak (statement that my edit does not add anything - it just proves what I said).

Coming back to the topic, I cannot see any problem with presenting the number of people involved in an opinion poll. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Selection bias

More important than the number of women included in the longitudinal study is the method for their inclusion. Read [16] 2. Methods and you will see an obvious problem with selection bias. Stated simply, doesn't it make sense that women with some doubts about their decision to have an abortion will be less willing to subject themselves to years of follow-up questions about it? Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That it why it is crucial to note the number, and you made a good point that I have not been aware of yet. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Figures like "99 percent" tend to raise red flags. That's why I looked over the section on 2.Methods (the "methods" section that comes after the shorter "methods" section in the Abstract) to see if there was something off base about the selection of the subjects. Later I googled "abortion studies selection bias" and found this article: [17]. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That opinion piece full of speculation by an anti-abortion person is not what's meant by a reliable secondary source. You may agree with him, but putting that POV concerning the study in the article violates WP:NOR. Someone can almost always support their opinion by googling for an article that agrees. That's called cherry-picking, and it doesn't comply with WP:RS. NightHeron (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That way, the whole earlier stady violates it too, for the reason that the study was done by pro-abortion people, so it is extremely hard to call it a neutral article. It is easy, checking the profiles of people who made the research from the reference no. 135. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The source in the article that gives the results of the study is not an opinion piece, and it's not full of speculation, so it's not analogous to your source. A scientific or scholarly work can be RS even if the authors have a strong viewpoint on the topic. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As editors we select among the "reliable sources" that are used in Wikipedia articles. Because a source is eligible to be used does not, of course, mean that it must be used. The longitudinal study in question here does not have to be used as the key source article for the subsection as it is now. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This study is both misleading and insufficient. Looking forward to more editors inserting more actual studies.

As far as the topic goes, I agree with what @Goodtablemanners said on April 12th. If the figure like 99% is supposed to stay in the place, it should be noted that the research did not cover 99% of the whole population, as some less educated readers may think. TruthseekerW (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The reader would have to lack both education and common sense to think that the source's statement about 99% means that the researchers surveyed 99% of the whole population of women who'd had abortions. NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

... and we can't be 100% sure that it isn't the case... in many cases, can we? ;) TruthseekerW (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[18] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Any further discussion here should concern the "issue" of adding one to the opening sentence. There has been no replies since my last explanation. TruthseekerW (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This topic keeps getting archieved, and edits keep getting reverted. It's very hard to believe in a good will of other people under some circumstances, but I will be calmly trying. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination have you obtained a consensus to insert the word "human". In this thread, I count one editor who agrees with you and three who don't. Adding long repetitive texts won't substitute for getting a consensus in favor of changing the lead in the way you want. NightHeron (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeronAnd where exactly it this "long repetetive text" if I may kindly ask?

There is a large number of people who agree but keep quiet, but I'm sure they will come and share their viewpoint very soon. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@TruthseekerW I hate to break it to you, but you probably will never be able to implement any changes to this article. Wikipedia and its editors have a strong left-wing bias, and they have been particularly progressing and working to having a more pro-abortion POV in this article and others alike. For years, the article mentioned that abortion results in the death of an embryo or fetus. That was then removed to reflect a more soft and progressive article on abortion.

My personal advice to you would be to leave this article alone for a while, and perhaps come back when matters (such as abortion) in society are less polarizing and politically contentious as they are right now. Because as of now, it appears impossible that anyone will be able to fix the article to reflect an NPOV without it getting reverted over-and-over again. DocZach (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that's perfectly fine. If I can't do that, that's fine. Maybe somebody will achieve it some day. TruthseekerW (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus means others ACTIVELY agreeing with you. Non-response is NOT a substitute for agreement, which is why this thread keeps getting archived. This might be helpful for you to read: WP:DTS ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@TruthseekerW You should also read WP:IDHT and, if you're thinking of inviting other anti-abortionists to come here to support you ("I'm sure they will come and share their viewpoint very soon"), you should first read WP:CANVASS. I glanced at your talk-page (the part you recently blanked), and see that you've been repeatedly warned. After a while, tendentious editing becomes simply disruptive, resulting in sanctions. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeronAnd you should refrain from personal attacks. Saying that I'm sure the will come and share their viewpoint does not mean I will urge somebody and post a wikipedia notice that "I'm loooking for other people to share my viewpoint". As it states there "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

It is impossible to be impartial in these kind of topics, and if you shall call me an anti-abortionist, then I will call you an abortionist. Stop making false accusations. I cannot make anybody to share my opinion.

Either we will be calling each other names, or strive to make any positive changes. If positive changes are blocked, than you are not contributing and neither doing any good. But I will not argue with wiki rules, which I have read. Thank you for the links.

And adding "human" to the opening sentence does not indicate that somebody is, what you call, an "anti-abortionist". Both "abortionists" and "anti-aborionists" can acknowledge this basid biological fact. TruthseekerW (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "personal attack" for an editor to warn a new editor about the consequences of repeated violations of Wikipedia rules and policies. Your blanked talk-page shows that multiple editors have already warned you, and you've already been blocked once. NightHeron (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is not a threat, I do not know what is. Please refrain from making logical errors. This is strictly ad personam. I am aware that I have been warned. Thank you. And there is a good reason why the page does look differently now. That reason is that I've come to understand how Wikipedia works. The person who shared my viewpoint on the reasonable edit that I pust explained it thoroughly. And thank you from your information from 11:21. It spoke to me louder than a thousand words. You've said more about you than you could in an essay. I appreciate that. Now, be aware that if you continue to edit articles in your favor, but not to pursue the truth (as I percieve it, according to my true, not archived talk page), you will -might- face much worse fate than what could happen to my account. And I mean in in a religious aspect, as you may suspect (not meaning any harm). Believe in what I say. Please try not make any furher logical errors and focus on answering tough questions that I asked earlier and nobody answered for months. If I debunked all the false theories intended to stop this one sentence from being corrected and nobody argued, I took it as an invitation to edit. I am positive that many more people share this viewpoint, but they may not necessarily be interested in editing this article, seeing how it degraded, and does not have prospects of becoming any better (more factual). These people do find it more useful to carry real help to women in need - not feeding them lies of multinational corporations that are only interested in money. I only wonder what your agenda is. TruthseekerW (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@TruthseekerW, I think you're saying God will punish those who refuse to include the word 'human' in the lead sentence? Valereee (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee No. Let only the interested party be part of the discussion and watch if you like. Maybe if you read more, you will understand more. I do reccomend other sources. Adding one sentence, I will clarify: surely, God will punish everyone according to their deeds. Keeping evil agenda is cerainly not a good deed. I try not to judge people. TruthseekerW (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read the entire wall of text. You said you will face much worse fate than what could happen to my account. And I mean in in a religious aspect. I asked for clarification. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's "hell" for believers, and nothing for non-believers. As I deeply believe that there is only one truth, that whether you believe in Heaven and hell or you are an atheist, does not change the fact that it exists, and is filled with people who didn't believe in its existence during their lives. Is that clear enough? You've ignored the next sentence which clarifies it enough. Now, come back to the main topic and keep out of somebody else's conversation please. TruthseekerW (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to any replies relating to the issue TruthseekerW (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on content here, just here as an admin keeping an eye on a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely. So I would recommend to you reading other sources - other than articles on wiki. This here article is in very bad shape.

@NightHeron if you have anything to add, feel free to do so on my user page. It's for everyone. I might update it.

Now, I would delete the above passages, but think I cannot do that, since it contains replies of other people. I could say the same in private conversation.

In the meantime, maybe let's hear some other opinions on the issue of the opening sentence. Or the topic gets archived again. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't delete even your own posts on an article talk if anyone has replied to them. You can strike through your own posts like this if you wish to retract a comment. You can collapse a portion of a conversation you feel is extraneous, but if someone uncollapses you shouldn't revert. We keep conversations intact so that other editors can easily follow them. Valereee (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron's first response on this matter. This is such a non-starter that I encourage advocates of adding "human" drop the stick and move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be great to hear why is this a "non-starter", because for me it is a "big starter", it is a fact that must be acnowledged. Such as the one that @DocZachsaid earlier, the initial version informed readers, that abortion meant precisely death of fouetus or an embryo (both meaning a child). Over time, for absolutely no reason other that political corectness, the definition was changed to "expulsion".... Now, I wouldn't call ripping somebody's body apart (by pulling out limbs and crushing head) an "expulsion". It's crucial to note that abortion relates to human. In most cases. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a non-neutral POV here. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This comment is not neutral. But most of the above arguments (in favor of changing the opening sentence) respect neutrality IMO. TruthseekerW (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Update translation of old Soviet poster

The "Miscarriages induced by either grandma or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." is mistranslated. Word 'бабка' in the poster doesn't mean "grandma" but rather "self-taught midwife" (Ref: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BA%D0%B0#Etymology_1), and 'акушеркой' is а female version of 'accoucheur', i.e. a non self-trained obstetrician (Ref: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%80#Etymology).

Proposed label is "Miscarriages induced by either self-taught midwives or obstetricians not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." 91.105.17.149 (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been corrected by a member of WikiProject Russia, thank you IP for bringing it up. Valereee (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#translation_correction? for explanation. - Altenmann >talk 04:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding to NightHeron's comment at WikiProject Russian section (copying over: @Altenmann, @Valereee. The English-language meaning of the revised translation is very different from the meaning of the Soviet poster. The background for the poster is that in 1925 abortion was legal in the USSR. (The history section of the abortion article mentions the Soviet legalization of abortion in 1920.) The poster warns women against the use of informal abortion providers, namely, midwives and what (in the African American dialect of English) are sometimes called "granny midwives" (older women who perform some midwife functions). Nothing in the Russian indicates "self-taught", which in current English usage means learning from books or videos. Typically they were not self-taught, but rather learned from the older generation of midwives, through woman-to-woman instruction or apprenticeship. Nothing in the Russian indicates "professional" or "obstetrician", both of which in current English usage indicate accreditation by the recognized medical establishment. The Soviet poster was not a warning about abortion performed by credentialed doctors, that is, obstetricians.

Please note that, according to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the stable version of the caption should remain while this matter is being resolved here or on the article talk-page. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No objection to restoring if you disagree with the second translation; you probably don't need to quote policy to people who haven't even disagreed with you or reverted you yet. :D Perhaps we should for now just say "1925 Russian poster warning of the dangers of abortion by non-obstetricians" or something? Valereee (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My correction was mistranslation of "babka" as "grandmother" and "akusherka" as "obstetrician". In this context "babka" is an abbreviation of "povivalnaya babka", i.e. NightHeron's "granny midwife" is literal, word-by-word, equivalent (originally I thought of "old hag midife", because 'babka' is not at all a term of endearment such as "grammy" - an objection akin to yours gains "self-taught"). Hovever "akusherka" is literally "midwife". I thought the text "old hag widwifes and midwifes" looks strange, therefore I distinguished them with epithets. The most recent translation misses "akusherki", who are actually midwifes with credentials (and yes not obstetricians). I don't think an English reader knows what a "ganny midvife" means. Therefore I suggest it to at least modify it to "by folk and professional midwifes" or "by midwives, both folk and professional", or something elese along the lines I described. - Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In English this is simply a "lay midwife", no? 213.191.231.235 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an article that already describes exactly this term, it is Traditional birth attendant and could be linked to. 213.191.231.235 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The folk practitioner in the poster is not shown to be a lay midwife or traditional birth attendant. We have no idea what have been the woman's previous activities regarding pregnancy or childbirth. All we see is one panel where the woman is standing and pointing while holding on to a flask with brown liquid, and a long, sharp tool. For all we know, her only involvement with pregnancy is as an abortionist. Let's not make assumptions and saddle the woman with unsupported career titles. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with Binksternet's version (the current version) that has a shorter caption. If others think we should include a translation of the warning at the top of the poster, I'd favor "Miscarriages induced by midwives or folk healers not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." That would preserve the original meaning and make sense to English speakers. NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I like Binksternet's version, or your version would be acceptable to me also. It seems that this is a hard translation to get clear given then context and meanings and changed times. ---Avatar317<sup>(talk)</sup> 22:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my phrasing tweaks

Edits:

1. My first change Special:diff/1234751342
2. NightHeron's revert Special:diff/1234763684
3. My second change Special:diff/1234767399

I'm working to improve the readability of articles on contentious topics without involving myself in content disputes. I didn't intend to change the articles meaning, and I'm appreciative that NightHeron noticed my initial edit (unintentionally) also changed the meaning. Any editor who prefers the old wording is welcome to either directly revert or ask me to self-revert. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@BillMPike: Thanks, I appreciate that your edits are obviously in good faith. Your second change also changes the meaning, since "home medication" (like the term "home remedy") suggests that it's a medication designed to be taken at home, which in this case is not true. In fact, regulations in some jurisdictions require that the medication be taken at a clinic or doctor's office. Please self-revert. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Reverted I still feel the dangling modifier is bad for readability. Is there any verbiage you would suggest? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@BillPike: Does my edit just now fix the problem? NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Boldly editing without disrupting consensus

I'm in the midst of some WP:WikiGnome work to improve readability per WP:Writing better articles.

I understand much of the existing verbiage is the consensus of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycles. My goal is improve readability without challenging any existing consensus on NPOV, nomenclature, topic weight, reliable sources, etc.

If any editor feels that my edits disrupt any existing consensus, please ping me and I will self-revert. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)