Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:40, 2 February 2009 editTznkai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,985 edits →Pictures?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:21, 14 January 2025 edit undoPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,357 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025: Decline 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ab|style=long|1RR=yes}}
{{controversial}}
{{pbneutral}} {{Calm}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{American English}}
{{FAQ}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN|action1date=26 December 2006|action1link=Talk:Abortion/Archive 26#GA Passed|action1result=listed|action1oldid=96430492|topic=NatSci
|action1=GAN
|action2=GAR|action2date=23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)|action2result=delisted|action2link=WP:Good article reassessment/Archive 34#Abortion|currentstatus=DGA|}}
|action1date=07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
{{MedportalSA |nested=yes}}
|action1link=Talk:Abortion/Archive 26#GA Passed
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
|action1result=listed
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid |nested=yes}}
|action1oldid=96430492
{{WPAbortion|class=B |nested=yes}}
{{philosophy|ethics=yes|class=B|importance=high |nested=yes}}
{{WP Sexuality|class=B|importance=High |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=B|importance=high |nested=yes}}
}}
{{todo}}
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Natsci|VA=yes|small=yes}}


|action2=GAR
{| class="infobox" width="240px"
|action2date=23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
|-
|action2result=delisted
!align="center" |]<br>]
|action2link=WP:Good article reassessment/Archive 34#Abortion
----
|action2oldid=184179033
|-
| align="center" |'''Chronological archives'''
|-
|
*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
* ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|-
|
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Topical subpages'''
|-
|
*] <br>Archives:], ], ], ], ]
*] (active)
|-
|
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Notable precedents in discussion'''
|-
|
* ]
*]
*], ], ], ]
*"Death" ]
|}


|action3=GAN
== Guttmacher "facts" are factually wrong ==
|action3date=02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|action3result=not listed
|action3link=Talk:Abortion/GA1
|action3oldid=647246416


|currentstatus=DGA
The lede section of the article contains figures referenced to the ].
|topic=NatSci
The number of abortions in 2004, as counted by the Guttmacher, was 42,000,000. That is, in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade. This number is false on its face, and its not really clear why that organization would publish numbers like that. Perhaps in its quest to promote abortion, it thinks that using inflated numbers somehow supports its position.
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Abortion |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Top |selected=yes |translation=yes |reproductive=y}}
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=High |USGov=yes |USGov-importance=Mid |category=}}
{{WikiProject Women's Health |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid |ethics=yes |social=yes}}
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Press
| author = ]
| title = Scholarly Authority in a Wikified World
| org = ]
| url = http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1202/Scholarly-Authority-in-a-Wikified-World.cfm
| date = 2012-02-01
| quote = Even controversial topics that are famous for generating warring submissions by opposing sides often do a remarkably good job of migrating toward shared middle ground. Compare Misplaced Pages's entry on 'abortion' or 'abortion debate' with Britannica's and ask yourself which does a better job.
| author2 = Ina Fried
| title2 = Misplaced Pages blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://www.axios.com/2022/07/15/wikipedia-blazes-a-trail-to-agreement-in-a-divided-world
| date2 = 2022-07-15
| quote2 = Of note are how many frequently cited "facts" are debunked as myths, including claims made by both sides related to the safety of both legal and illegal abortion.
}}
{{Notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 52
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Abortion/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{archives|index=Archive index |1=
'''Lead'''
*], ], ]
*]
*] (inactive)


'''Notable precedents in discussion'''
Let's start with some basic facts. In the United States, we know that on average there are 850,000 abortions a year. That is 8.5 million a decade. That's one in 176 U.S. women per year. China is understood to be the worst offender, in spite of the low official numbers it releases, with perhaps twice the U.S. number, though we don't really know. There is a figure that says China destroys perhaps a million female children a year through sex-selective abortion and infanticide.
*]
*]
*], ], ], ], ],
*]
}}


== very short on graphics ==
Even if China had 1.5 million abortions a year, the U.S. and China together would still only have 2.35 million abortions a year between them. Adding the second largest contributor, India, with 1.1 million abortions a year, makes the total for the big three only 3.45 million abortions a year. Assuming the rest of the world equals the big three in terms of abortions, and we have a number of 7 million a year. A far cry from Guttmacher's claimed 42+ million in 2004.


why so few photos?
The Guttmacher Institute is a poor source of information, and in no way can it be considered a "reliable" source. -] (], ] or ]" 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
there are plenty of public domain photos that can be obtained to provide actual abortion photos. ] (]) 03:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


:See FAQ. ] (]) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:Your argument is problematic because you are arguing against published scientists. Simply going to the Guttmacher Institute link shows that they also cite their sources. The source for the 42 million figure is "Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends", an article published in ] (one of the most renown peer reviewed medical journals). If The Lancet isn't ], then by golly, we are in big trouble ;) The article doesn't seem to break down abortion by country, but it does by continent and region. They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe. If you have a chance, read through the Lancet article or . If we have any sources that respond or contradict this article, then we can present them as well, but unfortunately, we can't cite the suspicions of individual editors. We must always have sources (and in this case, the source clearly is reliable). We might want to consider directly citing the Lancet article instead of citing the Guttmacher webpage. But then we have to consider primary vs. secondary sourcing.... anyway, hope this helps.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::In it, it says: "No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed."
::If guttmacher isn't a reliable source we are well and truly screwed - there isn't another research organization on the planet that is cited to their extent by advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate, with Guttmacher, I'm nor sure who is left.--] (]) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::But if the actual abortion photos are described as "shock images" then why is abortion called a standard medical procedure?
:::{{user|Zahd}} suggests that China performs 1 to 1.5 million abortions per year, citing without elaboration a "figure" he's seen somewhere. The ''Lancet'' article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China). That's a big discrepancy, and probably the root of the "problem" here. I'm going to go with the ''Lancet'' on this one. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::Does it not shock you? ] (]) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::An article talk page ]. ] (]) 12:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that either more photos or cartoons/drawings would make a lot of sense, as that is the norm in articles such as this, and I think it would help people understand what an abortion is. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: inform well about the topic at hand. ] (]) 03:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


== Safest procedures in medicine ==
:::: Andy wrote: <font color="purple">"They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe."</font> Asia had 29 million abortions? In one year? Anyone can see how ridiculous that number is. Further, this number was contradicted by MastCell, who does a little math (read:original but necessary common sense research):<font color="purple">"The ''Lancet'' article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China)"</font> which means ~29 million Asia != ~8 million in China. India doesn't make up the difference. I think its time we pulled the Guttmacher figures, along with the Lancet figures it claims to be based on and ask them by mail to substantiate or else update their numbers, providing us with some statement about how they arrive at those figures. If that means some people have to reconsider what they call a "reliable source" so be it. I suggest removing the Guttmacher/Lancet references from the lede, as they are obviously false. -] (], ] or ]" 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


This statement should be removed. It is obviously incorrect as there are safer procedures like palpation, auscultation, blood pressure, etc.. The reference that supports the claim is a 2006 study that has a bit of biased/opinionated wording in some parts and this is one example. A superlative statement should need to be quantified/supported with data and whilst there is data that it is safe, there is none that show it as being the safest. ] (]) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please don't do that; it's a poor editing practice to remove a completely ], ] item because it conflicts with your untested assumptions. More power to you if you'd like to challenge the figures. Until ''Lancet'' issues a retraction or correction, though, the material is appropriately included here. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Zahd, if you can find a more reliable source with more accurate figures, go ahead - but you are not a reliable source.--] (]) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :You're misquoting the article. It says "one of the safest" and "among the safest", which is indisputably correct, and does not say "THE safest". ] (]) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead. ] (]) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: We can and should at least comment in the article that those figures are problematic. It's the least we can do to prune Misplaced Pages of ], even that kind which comes at us through "reliable" medical journals. -] (], ] or ]" 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Palpitation and blood pressure measurements aren't surgical procedures. That's an important distinction. ] (]) 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That is a great idea, ''as long as'' we can cite a reliable source stating the study's figures are problematic. If we don't have a source, then I'm not sure this discussion can continue. Misplaced Pages follows sources. If we personally disagree with a source, we are supposed to put our personal feelings aside, and not publish original research. Again, we must follow sources. That is one of the core tenets of wikipedia. So, is there a reliable source that disputes the Lancet article's figures? If not, can we move along?-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Abortion isn't necessarily a surgical procedure. Also that distinction is not made in the article. ] (]) 07:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::(e/c) Concur with MastCell. Zahd's evaluation of the sources seems based on Zahd's own estimations of abortion figures which in turn all seem to be based on the assumption that China has fewer than twice as many abortions per annum as the USA. Simply considering relative populations of these countries, that seems a very low estimate, and the influence of the religious right in the USA and the Chinese government's policies will surely raise this ratio significantly. There are also many countries in Asia other than China and India, and many countries worldwide where abortions are performed which Zahd does not account for.
:::::Surgical abortion is very safe compared to other surgical procedures, as is non-surgical abortion compared to other non-surgical procedures. So "one of the safest" and "amopg the safest" is correct. ] (]) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The bottom line is that the Guttmacher and Lancet figures are close to the top of the scale as far as our ] guidelines are concerned, whereas Zahd's own figures, and any arguments based on them, are ] and per ] ''must not'' influence article content. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::There is not an editor here convinced by your arguments I think.--] (]) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::No it isn't, there is only a single ] stating that. ] (]) 09:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::There is plenty of room for disputing it. The idea that surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures is extremely questionable. We could start with sebaceous cyst incision, punch biopsy, toenail wedge resection and easily find another thirty safer surgical procedures. We could do the same for non-surgical abortion and other non-surgical medical procedures. Non-surgical abortion certainly has its complications (please see the article Medical Abortion) and is not 'one of the safest' when compared to many diagnostic and rehabilitative procedures. ] (]) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Even if your estimate of thirty surgical procedures is correct and you have a ]-compliant source for it, that wouldn't refute the statement "one of the safest" about surgical abortion, since there must be hundreds of surgical procedures that doctors perform. In addition to being correct, the strong wording in the section on safety is necessary to set the record straight, in view of the disinformation by the anti-abortion movement claiming that abortion is unsafe and that abortion bans protect women --- despite the massive evidence since the reversal of Roe v. Wade that women suffer mightily from such bans, and despite the high maternal mortality in parts of the world that ban or severely restrict abortion. ] (]) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::All that is needed to convey that is a simple 'safer than uninduced parturition' ] (]) 10:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The wording 'one of the safest procedures in medicine' is not 'necessary' as it is wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting wart removal, ear syringing and nail splinting on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients (for both surgical and non-surgical). I'm not going to attempt to edit the wording but perhaps you might see sense to. ] (]) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::"{{tq| wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting ear syringing on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients ."}} From ]: "...complications included otitis externa (swimmer's ear), which involves inflammation or bacterial infection of the external acoustic meatus, as well as pain, vertigo, tinnitus, and perforation of the ear drum. Based on this study, a rate of major complications in 1/1000 ears syringed was suggested," followed by a citation to the ]. I'm not the one who's being {{tq|"ridiculous"}} here. The stable version of the wording appears to be supported both by sources and by a consensus of editors. ] (]) 13:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, have I accused someone of being ridiculous? I have labelled the current wording as ridiculous. It is. By definition diagnostic tests such as measuring blood pressure, performing mammograms, ophthalmoscopy and reflex tests are all medical procedures, as are applying a plaster cast or administering a vaccine. Abortion is simply not one of the safest procedures in medicine.
::::::Were I so inclined I might respond to your lack of civility in kind and accuse you of being ridiculous for attempting to draw equivalence between those 1/1000 major complications of ear syringing and the 1/1000 of abortion - sepsis, damage to or infection of the womb, injury to the cervix, very heavy bleeding and pelvic inflammatory disease. ] (]) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We get it, you think the sources are wrong on this. But since this is Misplaced Pages, we're going to keep following what the sources say regardless. ] (]) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The majority of sources do not make this specific claim. One source, supports the claim whilst others just don't mention it. ] (]) 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay, trying to maintain my ability to admin here, so I'm going to try to thread this needle with a simple explanation of policy. @], I'm not sure how much you've worked on articles subject to ], but MEDRS has extremely high sourcing requirements which this article must follow. Even a single MEDRS-level source is likely to be seen by those at that project as good enough for such a statement unless another MEDRS-level source disputes it. If you have a MEDRS-level article that disputes this assertion, you can bring it here to talk. ] (]) 21:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If 1 source makes a claim and 100 sources don't make the claim why do we use the source that is in the minority? Most sources will state things like 'relatively safe' for example instead of using superlatives and other emotionally charged language. It is source cherrypicking to use this one Lancet article whilst the majority of sources do not state that. ] (]) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::If a source is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that that source disagrees with that point. Being in the minority means that the majority of sources are in dispute, not silent. ] (]) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is not at all how it works, or else any fringe theory is fair game. If the majority of sources state 'the sky is blue' but one states 'the sky is red' we won't write 'the sky is red'. Calling abortion 'relatively safe' is directly contradicting the idea that it is the 'safest'. ] (]) 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'Relatively safe' does not contradict 'one of the safest', so your comparison is not apt. If you want to undercut the cited source, you'll need sources in real, direct contradiction. Something like 'Abortion is not safe'. That a fact is not often reported does not equate to it being fringe. ] was for many years the least populated city in the US. Most sources about the US or cities did not mention that. But nonetheless, it is true and saying so is not fringe. ] (]) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::you forgot to mention the fact that in some cases it may cause inability to bear or carry a child later on. perhaps there should be a page on the mental and physical consequences of abortion; since our American society seems to put the ability to do what we want above safety and humane treatment.@] ] (]) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You forgot to cite a ] for your claim. ] (]) 00:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::its common knowledge. I'm just stating the obvious. its in the forms they hand you before you get an abortion in a clinic, I mean lets be honest. I'm not going to post it here because no matter how reliable the source, someone will take it down. its a waste of my time when you can find it on any legitimate medical site. ] (]) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If it's common knowledge, you should be able to readily find a source and bring it here. This is an article that is subject to ]. We can't use "common knowledge".
::::::::::@], I do very strongly recommend you read that link so that you understand what MEDRS requires. This is a contentious topic, which is really a terrible place for a new editor to learn. This is not the place to be making your newbie mistakes. ] (]) 19:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I simply thought this was a talk space, I haven't done any edits on the article itself and was just making a suggestion. I would do it myself, but don't quite have the time. of course I'd hate to make any "newbie mistakes", next time I'll come with a source. ] (]) 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You should also be aware that this issue has been discussed before, and the consensus of editors has been that the current text is correct, and that ] requires that we don't give a ] with the disinformation spread by the anti-abortion movement about safety. ] (]) 10:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It isn't a false balance to provide non-emotional neutral language in favour of an extreme superlative used by a single journal article. I'd suggest you don't imply everyone opposing your view as anti-abortion. ] (]) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@], the contentious topics policy covers article talk pages and discussion in other spaces as well as articles themselves.
::::::::::::Don't worry about making newbie mistakes. Everyone does when they're newbies. The point is that it's best not to make them ''at contentious topics''. There are 6 million articles (and their associated talk pages) where newbie mistakes get much, much more leeway, where people will be actively happy to help a new editor learn. At contentious topics, many editors won't have the time, patience, or energy to help you learn. ] (]) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== First sentence/definition update ==
::::::: I don't think you're right about that. I think everyone here knows those figures are destroyed, and that I've made a clear case for their destruction. Naturally we all want to attribute this to a source, and perhaps I'll just have to write an article somewhere to deal with it. -] (], ] or ]" 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Let me put this another way - the apparent ] is that you are proposing changes that are specifically against Misplaced Pages policy, including the ], ], and our policy on ]. These policies are in place to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles conform to a ], that is an attempt to accurately represent the facts seen in the world, not our own interpretation or positions on those facts. We work hard to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming ] for political or cultural battles. Please stop--] (]) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


I tried to change it to: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus, but different from a C-section or labor induction because in an abortion there is no intention for the embryo or fetus to remain alive." or similar. With these changes I've heard it's not constructive or no one is confused about this. It's constructive because it helps make this Misplaced Pages article encyclopedic... This is not about confusion, it's about making Misplaced Pages encyclopedic. Our goal is not to assume that people already understand a topic. Kids could be coming to Misplaced Pages for the first time to understand what abortion or anything else is: if we don't make it clear and differentiate abortion from other procedures, we are failing at our encyclopedic mission. Someone who does not know what abortion is would be confused by how it was defined in the Misplaced Pages article before the edit I made, because based on the definition that was given a c-section would be considered an abortion. ] (]) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Wow, that's hardcore. - ]] 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


:We write articles ], meaning a level of understanding below that at which the subject is usually studied. For articles about medical procedures, we should be writing for a college-level audience. Incidentally, both induction and c-sections have been used in abortions. ] (] / ]) 02:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Guttmacher is a terrible source of information. It is the research branch of Planned Parenthood, and as such is highly subject to bias. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::But that would be called a c-section abortion, not a c-section. Even at college level, we cannot assume that someone understands what happens in an abortion even at a basic level. It's not very well known, perhaps because of the taboo nature of the subject, which is why clear, simple language that does differentiate it from other procedures is needed. If I could get a source at the college or high school level that differentiates it, I think that would be useful in framing the language in a NPOV. ] (]) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The writing should be at the level of an ''average'' college student, not one who's so out of touch with the world as to confuse "abortion" with C-section or live birth. Note that at the end of the sentence a handy reference is given to other definitions, in case the reader wants that. ] (]) 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::But like I said about this topic being taboo, I wonder where the in-touch high schooler would have learned that the given definition here is not accurate? What's the source? Without a source I'm afraid there's nothing verifiable that differentiates the procedure for people. It seems to flow in this sentence "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage"." ... that we could, after "end a pregnancy" add words like "and to terminate the embryo or fetus". So that people understand what an abortion is and differentiate from many other things that end a pregnancy. I think a lot of people here are assuming that "end a pregnancy" is a well-known euphemism for terminating a fetus, so that it differentiates from things like a normal c-section and labor induction, but to base an encyclopedia on a euphemism does not seem encyclopedic or helpful to me. I can't think of a more watched or edited article where we're basing it on a euphemism and assumption of understanding in this way. ] (]) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The wording is ''not'' a euphemism; the purpose of an abortion ''is'' to end a pregnancy. And the topic is ''not'' taboo; there are many discussions in the news media and elsewhere of the abortion controversy (e.g., in coverage of the US presidential election), the increasing use of abortive pills in early pregnancy, and other such matters. ] (]) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Ok, but you can end a pregnancy with c-section or induction of labor for live birth, so how are we differentiating this from that? Also, what about girls and woman who are pre-teen or teen considering an abortion? Should we make it clear to one step below them (elementary schoolers) what an abortion is? I think this article should. ... meaning in needs to clearly differentiate between and abortion and the many other ways to end a pregnancy, including natural labor and birth as well. Am I missing something? ] (]) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, you're trying to solve a problem that simply does not exist. ] (]) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I just described a ton of problems that simply do exist and there was a famous one in the news lately. But I can only try to help so much! I highly recommend that we make the abortion article encyclopedic and not assume that people know what it is. ] (]) 14:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps if you brought in this news source, it'll clarify what you're referring to. ] (]) 15:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::https://apnews.com/article/harris-abortion-death-trump-georgia-f9c65fb7019938f0fff18e61d4f2d84a ] (]) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And here is a 10 year old rape victim, sadly. Clearly this article (the abortion article) should be written with very young people in mind, not just the average college educated person, since very young people deal with abortion at a very real level: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/indiana-doctor-defends-actions-in-10-year-old-rape-victims-abortion ] (]) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay, @], so I'm not trying to be obtuse, but how are those articles support for what you're arguing to add? ] (]) 22:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait, you're arguing that this should be written for 10-year-olds because they can be raped and impregnated and might not understand what abortion means? OMG. ] (]) 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sadly, yes, you're right. I wish it weren't true, but young people need to know what abortion is not just because of rape, but also because young people have sex, and that can cause pregnancy. Also, sadly, some young people do not have parents or do not want to confide in parents when trying to learn about abortion or when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. So we need to make sure this article is understandable to those young people, particularly the beginning of the article which may be helping to define abortion for them for the first time (if even through Google's AI or a Google Snippet). ] (]) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So maybe should be creating ]? ] (]) 11:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Perhaps, but clearly some experts in the subject think that it needs to be defined differently. I think we should try to mimic the CDC's definition: 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion ] (]) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You can try to gain consensus for that, but first if I were you I'd go through the archives, starting with the most recent first, and look to see what consensus was formed for the current language and when. This is a ] with 52 archives, which is unusual even at a CTOP, and administrators are quite likely to find it disruptive if editors new-to-the-topic come in to start relitigating points that have already been decided multiple times and/or recently. ] (]) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I get it. But if a new argument is made that is logical and impossible to refute, they would be happy to reconsider, I'm sure. ] (]) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You can find information on how to format an RfC correctly at ]. ] (]) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Also, I notice this in the FAQ above: 'Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
::::No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.' As mentioned previously, we need to differentiate this not from a transplant, but rather from normal delivery and birth, delivery by induction, and delivery by c-section. This is not clear in the current article and I think we can make it clear without using the word "death". Scientifically something does die, on that scientists agree, but we of course would not say it's a person because that's not NPOV, but to not say "death" is perhaps in itself taking a POV. Separately but related to the personhood debate, I'm surprised that there isn't a specific morality section in this article, since there are multiple commonly held views. Not sure what it should be titled, though, to remain NPOV. Perhaps "Ethical Perspectives"? ] (]) 03:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think readers are confused about whether abortion and miscarriage are the same as delivery or birth. This strikes me as a ] argument and feels ]. ] (]) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::As mentioned previously, I doubt there is no confusion, because the CDC works hard to make it very clear. I would consider them authoritative, and I recommend we try to get our definition of abortion in line with theirs particularly in the first sentence or two: : 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion ] (]) 11:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There is no requirement that Misplaced Pages align with the CDC. For one thing, that's US-centric, which right off the bat is going to probably be a nonstarter. ] (]) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Notice how Misplaced Pages defines "miscarriage": "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion, is the death and expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive independently." Notice how they use the word death when defining it. You could say the exact same, thing: "No one is confused." But of course it is part of the definition. This isn't just the CDC, this is Misplaced Pages itself being extremely consistent (except in the case of the abortion article as far as I can tell) in defining things clearly and succinctly, while leaving little room for ambiguity. A definition in line with the CDC's or even Misplaced Pages's miscarriage article would get us to the clearness goal, I believe. If the word "death" is too non-NPOV for this article, I suggest we lean more toward the language that the CDC uses. But I stand by my logic that the definition at the top of the article, as it stands for "Abortion", is indefensibly ambiguous. ] (]) 12:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::We don't really care what other articles say; they may be incorrect and in need of work. But again, you can see if you can gain consensus for what you want. ] (]) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Great, here's what I'm thinking, not based on another article but mostly based on the abortion Misplaced Pages article. A first sentence change should be in order to avoid ambiguity with so many other procedures, but also to get in line with what I believe is a sound definition and as NPOV as this article is looking to achieve. Also avoiding the word "death". Please let me know if this is good to go: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus that does not result in a live birth." Update: see here for a source for this new language: https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-024-01745-w/tables/4 ... this language is used in many sources, but I tried to find one that was sufficiently neutral. ] (]) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Probably not good to go. You can certainly try to make that edit, but if anyone reverts, it means you need to come back here and get consensus for it. Here at this CT, that likely is going to require an RfC. ] (]) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::How about I just wait for more commentary here? ] (]) 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sure, you can also do that. ] (]) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think that your proposed wording could easily be interpreted to imply that a live birth was the desired outcome. ] (]) 14:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks! So how about: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus where a live birth is not the desired outcome. ] (]) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think the word "death" here would make it more clear... as in the miscarriage article, but the above avoids that. ] (]) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think we could even simplify this to say: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy where a live birth is not the desired outcome." ] (]) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Or: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that makes a live birth impossible." ] (]) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To me it looks like you are just trying to tar the topic with negative wording. Your suggestions don't fit with the literature on the topic. ] (]) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The goal is to differentiate our current definition from regular live delivery, live induction, and live c-section. hoping not to make it sound negative. Or how about: Abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy to prevent a live birth. ] (]) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Here's a "common definition" according to an Oxford Law article: "Abortion is commonly defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause the death of the embryo (embryos and embryonic stem cells) or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus. I know this uses the word "death" so it needs to be tweaked. How about?: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus. ] (]) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Using the literature to come up with something less ambiguous and hopefully not negative. I worked with ChatGPT to create this one: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy with the intent to end the life of the embryo or fetus." Please let me know what you think! ] (]) 21:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::One consequence of ] and ] is that consistency between articles is considered a poor argument here - sourcing and context on one topic may differ from sourcing and context on another, and we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source for itself. ] (]) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Consistency in encyclopedicness is what I'm espousing for among all articles. But that specific article in this case does make some enlightening parallels, in my opinion. ] (]) 13:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::Suggest then that the article needs some vigorous pruning in order to conform with ]. 'An induced abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy', 'Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions', 'there remains debate with regard to moral, religious, ethical, and legal issues'. 'The rate of legal, induced abortion varies extensively worldwide'. The average college student will be aware of these things. The article could be quite a bit leaner. ] (]) 09:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:I'm feeling this one. I'll stick it on the article and if no reversions perhaps people are happy with it? "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus ] (]) 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::Before publishing I noticed the current first sentences uses ''an'' embryo instead of ''the'' embryo, so I made my edit consistent with that, here it is as published: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus." ] (]) 05:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@], your edits to the lead sentence of this article have been reverted three times over the past three days by three different editors. Please don't edit it again without gaining consensus first. ] (]) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I did what I could. I definitely think we need to change the first sentence definition so that it defines itself away from live birth c-section, live birth inductions, live birth just generally. I see people don't want to use the word life or death. That's fine, it just needs to be conveyed somehow as seen in various literature. Without an update this article fails at being encyclopedic. ] (]) 11:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The first sentence should include word "human" as well, don't you agree? ] (]) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== First sentence again ==


Please edit the first sentence to conform to a NPOV.
".. in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade."
The '''not neutral''' sentence, as it is:
your logic is flawed here. you assume the female population is static, and that abortion is a one time only occurrence per entity. the female fertile population is dynamic however. let me try to explain this. lets say women are able to between their 15th and 35th. that is a timespan of 20 years. after a period of 10 years, half of the old population will be replaced with new entities. this means it is not possible to just take the number of abortions per year and multiply it and apply it to the population because not all entities present at that time have been part of it, and some entities that have been part of the population are no longer included in the set. ] (]) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
''Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the '''life''' of an embryo or fetus''.
The neutral sentence that good encyclopedias strive to include is:
''Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in its embryonic stage.''


(In other words, the American "Right to Life" PAC's political platform needs some other outlet than this encyclopedia.) ] (]) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
=== Lancet or Guttmacher? ===
Research shows that the researchers who wrote the Lancet publication are almost all affiliated, and indeed even employed with the Guttmacher Institute. This makes referring to the study a "Lancet" study incorrect, as it is in fact a Guttmacher study, and no doubt carries with it implicit assumptions associated with that "Institute." There is a conflict of interest in citing that source. -] (], ] or ]" 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


:Yeah, that edit was made today by {{u|U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z}} against consensus. I've restored the status quo. ] (]) 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
PS: I've sufficiently demonstrated that the study is not in any way a scientific one. Furthermore the source is an entirely POV source, as it deals with the POV concept of "unsafe abortion rates" and states the information in the study <font color="red">"is crucial for identifying policy and programmatic needs aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion and to increase access to safe abortion."</font> I.e. its referring to ] as a means to correct an unintended pregnancy and it states clearly that increasing "access to safe abortion" is it's goal. Not a reliable source, and not an unbiased source. We would be better off quoting Conservapedia, or Uncyclopedia. -] (], ] or ]" 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::p.s. I wouldn't call that sentence consensus, I'd simply call it majority rule. ] (]) 11:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, in Misplaced Pages policy, consensus is complicated. It's more about policy arguments and discussion than it is about a pure vote, but it's also not an attempt to gain unanimity, and depending on the question and whether or not it's a policy question, the fact there's a majority in favor on one thing vs another, the fact there's a majority may be considered very important, although there are discussions that are closed in favor of a compelling minority opinion. In the end, if needed, a closer assesses the strengths of arguments and may discount those that aren't policy-based. ] (]) 18:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::In here, the discussions all rely on the number on people in favour of not changing the biased parts of this pseudoarticle. That's what I witnessed, and that is what is still happening. ] (]) 10:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== Safety and gestational age ==
:Zahd, ] is against the changes you've proposed. Considering your history, and your unusual interpretation of terms such as "POV" and "conflict of interest" (which have very specific meanings to Wikipedians), I advise against making changes, to this or any other abortion-related article, without first getting support from other editors. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Am I mistaken or do I detect a certain bias in your views, and this is reflective in your comments above? Surely what your'e doing is defending a biased, unscientific source. -] (]) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::To my earlier advice regarding the policies of ], ] and ] I must now add that our policy entitled ] applies to your post above - comment on content, not the contributor. Regards, <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You're mistaken. The Lancet is a reliable scientific source.--] (]) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Often, if bad studies do get published, science, by nature, has a corrective force. There will be counter studies and responses and letters and all sorts of things. If this article is really so bad that somehow it got by the peer reviewers and editors of one of the most prestigious and reliable medical journals, then surely we can simply point to the countless publishes, scientific responses to this bad study, right? So where are they? I encourage you to read ] (and read it again if you have already read it before) and seriously consider, in terms of[REDACTED] policy, if there is any way that this source is anything but "reliable".-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: I think by inflating a number which appears to be under 7 million a year into a number of 42 million a year, the source is at the very least "demonstrably wrong" if not "entirely inaccurate." I will leave it to the experts to decide whether these have bearing on a source's "reliability." Note of course that both of you are failing to deal with the bias issue, to which I contend the Guttmacher Institute is a biased "source", and the study (quoted in red above) makes no pretense otherwise. Lancet's decision to publish the Guttmacher "study" is likely attributable to the ]. You would certainly object to using ] as a source; why the hypocrisy in defending Guttmacher? -] (], ] or ]" 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Mate, what you're failing to address is the simple point that we only have your word for it that the number is under 7 million a year. You have no citations, no standard by which we can test your points, no methodology we can examine. The Lancet study can be examined, it has methodology we can evaluate, it is accountable to the wider scientific community, to its peers, and to public inquiry. If reputable scientific minds have both approved the Lancet study, and then presented no challenging evidence (which, to my knowledge, they have not as yet), then Misplaced Pages has a duty to take reputable studies into account when discussing the issue. Compare the following two statements: "The scientific publication "The Lancet" stated in a study found in (x issue) that the number of abortions performed worldwide over (x period) was 42 million." and, "Zahd, an editor on Misplaced Pages, states on the Misplaced Pages talk page for Abortion, that the number of abortions performed worldwide in a year must be under 7 million." This is not a slight on you personally, Zahd. But reputable sources are a must. How are we to know that your truth is backed by anything? On Misplaced Pages, any point which is likely to be challenged, or which has been challenged, must be attributed to a reliable source. YOU have challenged this point, ergo a reliable source is needed. The Lancet study is reliable. Your word is not. Presenting contrary studies is the only way to alter concensus or get your viewpoint included. Ex-Wikipedian Lurker, AKA: ] (]) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I understand your concern. But you said "the Lancet study is reliable," which is simply not true. You can say it all you want to though. I really don't mind. Again, you've not addressed the bias issue. -] (], ] or ]" 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Well, you're obligated to point out where someone's accused The Lancet of bias. Remember to use a reliable source which makes a valid assessment of The Lancet as NOT being neutral or peer reviewed. The Lancet's study is based on proven, transparent methodology. You can't question the numbers unless you can point to someone having questioned it who is in another reliable source. Otherwise your remarks are rooted in original research and thus invalid for admission to wikipedia. The Lancet study is definitionally a reliable source as per WP:RS. If you doubt this, there are noticeboards where you can challenge or test reliability in the assessment of the community. But since the concensus on this page is in favor of the Lancet article, it goes in. That's the nature of concensus. This is a collaborative project, standards for admissibility have been admitted. I have addressed the bias issue: I state that the article is not biased and the source is reliable. As my evidence, I submit the nature and tradition of peer reviewed articles and publications, the criticism and peer pressure of the community, and, point plank, the traceable methodology sourced from the study itself. If you have contrary evidence stated in a reliable source, cool! We can change the article to mention the study and then state that the study has been questioned by "x source". But YOU cannot be x source. Again, no grudge, but accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a rather poor discussion method. I know what I am talking about, I have seen no sources from you. I've seen claims, but no sources. Provide sources, and your opinion will have an impact on the article. Without sources, all you're doing is drawing out a discussion which will never swing around to your point of view as long as it remains sans sources. ] (]) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(e/c) Not all biased groups are created equal, priest for life are not a research organization for example, nor are they widely respected by independent observers and both sides of the fight as a repuable source of information, and the burden on you is to prove that the Lancet study is not a ].--] (]) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:Zahd, i think you're misunderstanding what is meant by reliable. read ] and then come back. the lancet and other peer-review journals clearly meets the requirements. when you have a source with a publishing process that is similarly reliable that supports your claims, then we should start talking about whether the report published by the lancet is erroneous or not. until then, we're all wasting our time.&nbsp;&nbsp;—] <sup>]</sup>&#8260;<sub>]</sub> 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


under safety and gestational age, it says that complications are rare... speaking from a educated standpoint that's wrong, and I believe that it should be replaced with a simple "complications can include... but usually only occur in blank% of abortions using this method." ] (]) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, reliable sources... -] (], ] or ]" 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please actually '''''read''''' ]. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:If we have two bits of data that contradict one another it is worth checking that we have correctly sourced and understood both, I did something similar recently on ], and there it emerged that radically different percentages for tobacco exports related to different years. In this case I suspect that Zahd simply missed 11 million in his calculations . If the US with circa 5% of the world's population has 850,000 abortions a year, then if the other 95% of humanity was like the US with similar demographics, availability of contraception, abortion law and attitude to abortion one would expect 17 million abortions per annum worldwide - rather more than double Zahd's 7m but still less than half the Lancet figure. Of course the rest of the world is not quite like the US - in many countries contraception is less freely available than in the US so one would expect "backstreet abortions" to be more frequent, and Zahd says in China there are also a million female embryos aborted simply because of their gender, (though he seems not to have calculated this as an additional million) so we shouldn't be surprised if global abortion rates per million people are more than double the US rate. In all I find Zahd's bit of original research, once the obvious errors are corrected, a useful reality check on the Lancet figure of 42 million abortions per annum. Of course Zahd or anyone else is free to write to the Lancet as an individual and query if what they wrote was a typo, but I for one do not consider that the US abortion data and the Lancet's worldwide figure are so different as to be incompatible. ''']]]''' 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:Zahd, you are not a reliable source. I promise you, its nothing personal.--] (]) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

::Second-guessing a notable and highly reliable source is pretty much the definition of original research. ] (])03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::: I am hostile to lies, fabrications, erroneous concepts, and bogus statistics. -] (]" 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Enough is enough, soapboxing and personal attacks removed. Zahd: go get a ] and prove your contention.--] (]) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"We can infer that China, with three times the U.S. population, might have three times the number of U.S. abortions."

No, we cannot infer that '''at all''' since China has a ] enacted making abortion mandatory and readily available. The U.S. does not, indeed some segments of the U.S. have large families and even larger segments oppose abortion so much they have significantly reduced the number of abortion clinics in their respective states.

Explain why those well known realities are not included in your analysis. As I want you to somehow clarify how you are not trolling, and how you should not be barred from this issue entirely until you can improve your arguments and/or behavior. - ]] 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Demon "doctors" performing abortions. ==

With all due respect to Tznkai, I just don't see how an imaginary being pounding on a woman's belly is a suitable example of an abortion. Where I come from, demons aren't licensed to practice medicine. In fact, not only don't they exist, but whatever acts they commit in fiction do not quality as medical procedures, which is what this article is supposed to be about. For that matter, there is the issue of bias, in that the entity depicted as performing an abortion is, quite literally, being demonized. In a country where gynecologists have been murdered by 'pro-life' fanatics, this strikes a sour note.

For these reasons, I think we need to remove this picture, perhaps replacing it with something appropriate, like a picture of one of the herbs or poisons once used to induce abortion. What do you think? ] (]) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. Using a picture of a demon is mischaracterising of the professional and benevolent nature of the abortionist and his or her profession. We should instead use a picture of an angel with a labcoat and a stethoscope around their neck. The instruments signify their respectability, and the angel wings illustrate their Holy purpose. Instead of crudely pounding on the woman's belly and killing an unborn child, they would be using the power of the Holy Spirt to carefully and surgically remove from her body any excess tissue she might want to be rid of. -] (], ] or ]" 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::Zahd, out of line.--] (]) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::: No, its not out of line, it's exact. Through sarcasm I made you understand quite clearly that the image in question is appropriate and perhaps even an accurate likeness. -] (]) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:Spotfixer: One of the pressing known issues with abortion is its, to be gruesome, back alley nature at times. Abortion is, to put it mildly, unpopular in many places and carries significant stigma, add issues such as poverty, minorities, and youth, you get a lot of abortions performed outside of medical conditions. While in some people's ideal world (]) abortion is only performed by medical professionals for medical reasons, we know thats not how it works - the other methods section tries to reflect this fact without being judgmental. As to the rest, I think you're reading into it a bit too much - although the picture is probably better suited to the history section.--] (]) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::: This isn't the point. The point Spot is making is that it's demonizing a profession full of charity, nobility, and grace, and not to mention human ]. -] (]) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::If the drawing showed a midwife or other semi-medical professional banging on some desperate woman's belly with a hammer, I'd say keep it. The problem is that it's an actual demon. I'm not even sure whether this is intended to depict an intentional termination or is a metaphor for a natural miscarriage (based on the "demon theory of disease and disaster"). In short, it doesn't depict anything like a real abortion. ] (]) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Glancing at the history of abortion page, the bas-relief is the earliest known visual representation of abortion: the place where we see abortion broaching the public consciousness. (Hopefully that didn't sound too post-modern) Anyway, keep it, history of abortion section, we'll have to move the existing image there somewhere else. IMO anyway.--] (]) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. Abortion was not always the sterile and noble practice that some consider it to be today. In fact the image might be the last remnant of anything kind of contrary or negative concept of abortion in the article. -] (]) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Really, I guess "death" doesn't do it for you anymore. Should we just remove it? - ]] 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say keep the image. There is entirely too much censorship going on at this article. According to the FAQ, no image is allowed at this article showing what is aborted, either after it is aborted, or even before it is aborted. I continue to view that as a preposterous outcome at Misplaced Pages, particularly since Misplaced Pages now features a sexually suggestive image of a ten-year-old girl with full frontal nudity. This is supposed to be an informative article, not a sanitized propaganda piece. It really is an embarassment.] (]) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== ((editsemiprotected)) ==

((editsemiprotected))Under 7.3 '''Mexico City Policy''' the first sentence is a double negative that is incorrect. "The Mexico City policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" ''forbids'' any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to ''refrain'' from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries" and should read: The Mexico City Policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" ''requires'' any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries.
(] (]) 03:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC))
:looks like this has been done.--] (]) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Preimplantation genetic diagnosis ==

Editors interested in this article may want to look at ]. ] (]) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

==Human right or Particular human right?==
I noticed a little back and forth in this page's history as to whether Abortion merits the template Human rights or template Particular human rights and I figured I'd bring it to the talk page. I figure the template Particular human rights is more appropriate as abortion is specifically mentioned there and the designation of abortion as a human right is controversial. What do you folks think? - ] (]) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:If there is no objection I'll move it back to Particular human rights template. - ] (]) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Whoa whoa. I'm coming late to the party, but could you explain all of that please?--] (]) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed. As of by a rather controversial editor the template ] was replaced with the template ]. Whether or not abortion is a human right is a highly controversial subject, as such I figure the first template is better suited to it. - ] (]) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Not a huge fan of that template, and this article doesn't address properly whether or not abortion is a right... so I'll abstain on this.--] (]) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::As it happens, an entirely uncontroversial editor made an uncontroversial change. The human rights template already lists ], the primary example of which is... ]. ] (]) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::] is a much broader topic than abortion and there are reproductive rights that are currently nearly universally accepted (such as freedom from coerced sterilization), which is why it is appropriate for reproductive rights to appear on the ] template. However, using the Human rights template on this article is POV. In addition to that, both reproductive rights and abortion appear on the ] template, making that template more relevant regardless of the POV concerns with the other. -] (]) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The designation of abortion as a human right is highly contentious, see ]. The template Particular human rights is far more appropriate. - ] (]) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I've explained that ] is already listed as a ] in that template and ] is already listed as a ], so your ] is irrelevant. You would need an actual argument, not hand-waving about controversy. ] (]) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Along with also including ], ] is ''specifically'' included on the ] template. Plus, adding the particular human rights template to this article is NPOV.

:::::::::As reproductive rights is also on the particular human rights template, I don't see any advantage to the ] template in this article. What advantage do you see in adding the human rights template over the particular human rights template? -] (]) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm going to break the nesting here, because it's getting too narrow.)

It's not the level of detail, it's the title. ] covers the same trio of broad categories as ], but in addition to enumerating these rights, it replaces the short, simple "Human rights" title with the weaselly "Concepts that may be considered as human rights".

Frankly, I find the weaselly-titled template deeply offensive, as it implies that a fundamental rights like ] is merely something that "may be considered" to be a human right. Obviously, there is some disagreement among people regarding what ought to be considered a human right, but this is best handled in the context of each specific article, not with weasel words for the entire bunch.

The ] thing to do would be to simultaneously remove the weaselling and roll this article back to the specific template. Since I've only been blocked twice in the last week, I've still got plenty of courage to be bold, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. ] (]) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:I like your solution. Looking at ], it seems more in line with the original intent of the template. Thank you for making the change. -] (]) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

::{{tl|particular human rights}} was the result of splitting the human rights template (which had become quite large). Since the template includes abortion, abortion should continue to transclude the template. (Or use the human rights template with the argument that makes it include the particular template.)
::The title of the template was carried over from the section title in the human rights template. (The title seemed too long to use as the template name, so I came up with the shorter, though not altogether satisfactory name). (For response on the template title, see ]).
::Please consider discussing matters like template title on talk page of the template, or at least providing an indicator there of discussion going on elsewhere. (So editors of the template know where to find all the discussion.) Thanks. ] (]) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Since the title of the template was changed back to the offensive one, I just removed it from this article entirely. ] (]) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

== Need eyes ==

We could use some more eyes on an abortion-related article, ]. ] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== History of abortion ==

] could use some attention. ] (]) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Newer "Abortion Surveillance" Report ==

There is a newer than the 2003 one this article currently uses.

== Unsafe abortion ==

Currently, the lead of the "Unsafe abortion" sub-topic is "Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies sometimes resort to unsafe methods, '''particularly where and when access to legal abortion is being barred'''" - this seems like common sense, but I think it requires a source to keep it from appearing NPOV (in the sense that it might be considered advocation of the legalization of abortion). The same deficiency exists on the main page for this topic, BTW. ] (]) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:Agreed. How's this one http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml ? ] (]) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

::I'm all for the citation, but it's hardly our fault if basic logic leads to apparent support of one side or another. ] (]) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, with a controversial topic like this there's no harm in erring on the side of caution. ] (]) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

::::If you want to go to the medical literature, there are the following:
::::* PMID 18249585 ("'''The determinants of unsafe abortion include restrictive abortion legislation''', lack of female empowerment, poor social support, inadequate contraceptive services and poor health-service infrastructure.", emphasis mine).
::::* PMID 17933648 ("Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively.")
::::* PMID 17126724 ("Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by law and countries where, although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible... Unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.")
::::Among many other such sources... ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

== Human life ==

My points ARE about improving the article, yet people who feel strongly pro-choice keep editing it out. Ironically, they do that though I'm pro-choice myself. It seems some people just don't want to face an unpleasant inconvenient fact.

Please TRY to be intellectually honest.

Nor is this edit warring. I keep ASKING for solutions to improving the article. Just deleting my comments, might make some people here feel happy, but it doesn' solve the problem with the article.

Try to actually offer solutions to the problem with the article.

A major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such.

I don't have all the answers.

But the article does not deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. The idea that it begins at birth is magical thinking from a time when we didn't have the scientific knowledge to know better. It is also, at times, a legal fiction.

Whether the unborn child is human _IS_ part of the debate that goes on, whether you agree that it is human or not, and leaving that out IS a problem with the article. It _IS_ a significant ommission. ] (]) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what all this is about, but I'm sorry that you feel agitated over whatever this is. It does not appear that you have ever edited this article, and you haven't been on Misplaced Pages in over a month. Perhaps you should simply start fresh, either a) making a bold change to the article to try to improve it and/or b) starting a new topic here discussing specific issues you have with the article, and then making a proposal on how you would specifically change and improve the article. Without specific things to discuss, I cannot help you any further. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::A subsection on the "beginning of life" might be worth while - somewhere. It can discuss conflicting ideas such as "viability" (Roe V. Wade), ], and ] in brief and human being/human life/personhood. Any other terms I'm missing?--] (]) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
:::The latest addition isn't sourced and is too conversational. Try to avoid editorial comments like "it is indisputable that..." Its important we don't draw any conclusions when we write or provide in depth analysis (determining that modern science has changed the humanity question is analysis)--] (]) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== Pictures? ==

I'm sure this has been argued several times, but it is possible that we could include pictures of aborted fetuses or abortion activities in general?

I'm sure many might see this as POV pushing, but the article is about abortions - why dance around it. A picture(s) could prove to be very valuable, as I believe most people truly don't understand the typical phases of an abortion.

Or, if we aren't going to include pictures, why not an illustration?

] (]) 06:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:I was working on ], but the main advocate for "images of abortion" didn't seem to really care about something like that, but instead just wanted gory/offensive images for the sake of being gory/offensive, so exhausted of arguing and trying to do something productive, I simply gave up and never finished the diagram.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::I like it, ]. It's clear and professional. Have you thought of creating an image representing the other methods? -- Ec5618 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::That looks good, and avoids any appearance or substance of POV pushing.--] (]) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::::The one complaint I had back then was that the transparency of the sac was obscuring the embryo underneath on some people's monitors. If I was to finish this, I said I would make the embryo more visible. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'll see if I can't pull the original file up and work some more.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)I'm not going to argue with Andrew c here about this, so I'll just refer to him in the third person. On average, an abortion occurs about two months after fertilization. At that point, the fetus has every major organ, including head, eyes, legs, arms, et cetera. The image that Andrew c is preparing is wonderful, but it shows none of those organs. It shows a blob. So, please do include the image that Andrew c is preparing, but don't imagine that it gives the reader the slightest idea of what it is that is being aborted. I wish that realistic images of what is aborted were not gory/offensive, just like I wish that realistic pictures of lots of horrible things were not offensive. I wish that pictures of piles of skulls in the Cambodian killing fields were not offensive. I wish that sexually suggestive images of nude ten-year-old girls were not offensive. It is not my fault that they are offensive.

Additionally, there is nothing offensive about an image of an average abortus '''''before''''' it is aborted. Andrew c once suggested . It would be a far cry better than what we have now, and also better than what Andrew c now proposes.] (]) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah, I figured article topics such as this are often painted POV pushing when in fact it's political correct pushing. =D If we can host extremely graphic pictures, I don't see why we can't include relevant abortion-related photos. Maybe some people just don't understand the realities of abortion. Understand, I'm not trying to convey an opinion, but rather provide a crucial quality that could VASTLY improve the integrity and educational value of the article.

:White-washing for sake of "neutrality" doesn't make sense. I just don't want this to get shelved like every other controversial idea...] (]) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, don't get your hopes up. It's been shelved many times before. Misplaced Pages is packed full of offensive images, but this article has always been an exception. See , , , , , , to name a few.] (]) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:Sigh. OK. Lets try this again. If we use graphic images, we're taking a position - either by substance, or by appearance. If all of the images available are horrifying, then we have trouble - but that doesn't mean we have to use the images, nor that we are being politically correct by doing so.
:The fundamental issue is that this article must ''inform'' without ''convincing''. If I show graphic images when discussing abortion, I both appear to be, and probably am, trying to convince you of a position. Not only is this against policy, it immediately turns off the reader. These articles are written as a service - not as a platform for advocacy, nor as a place to fight wars over political correctness or the lack thereof, and before anyone makes the argument that we host graphic images of, I dunno, mass killings, and therefor we should be able to show it here - think about whether that sounds like a neutral argument.--] (]) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::If there is indisputably factual and accurate information that is used by one side in a political dispute, then excluding it from Misplaced Pages merely because it is used by one side is wrong and biased. Additionally, there is '''''nothing''''' horrifying about an image of an abortus '''''before''''' it is aborted. Incidentally, .] (]) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::::It still devolves down to advocacy - either in substance or in appearance.--] (]) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Whitewashing does the same.] (]) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, this article is "abortion" not "aborted fetuses". Second of all, do we have a freely licensed image to consider. We can say "let's put some gory pictures of dead babies all over this page" until our faces turn red. But if we don't have something that is FREE, then we have no use arguing over this. Please, in the future, discuss SPECIFIC IMAGES. Due to our strict image use policy, arguing hypotheticals is simply wasting time. I hope this brings focus to these discussions.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::According to the FAQ for this article, no images of what is aborted are allowed at this article, either before or after the abortion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to obtain quality free images as long as that policy stays. Why would I want to waste my time if there's not just a prejudice but a prohibition against whatever I obtain?

::The average stage of development of an abortus is between 6 and 8 weeks of development, with a large percentage of abortions occurring before that range, and a large percentage occurring after that range.

<center><gallery>
Image:6 weeks pregnant.png|Embryo at 4 weeks after fertilization, younger than average for an abortion
Image:10 weeks pregnant.png|Fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization, older than average for an abortion</gallery></center>
::'''''Are there still objections to inclusion of these images in this article?'''''] (]) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::Wow, I just read the FAQ. What a load of crap. "OH NOES!, IT'S SHOCKING!! WE MIGHT...UHH...OFFEND SOMEONE!! CEEENSSOOORRRR!!!"

::I couldn't care less whether you are for or against, but this article is about ABORTIONS. We are obligated to include illustrated or real-life pictures to ensure balance and not make this yet another controversial articled reduced to PC in the name of neutrality. If we can include pictures of mass graves, dead bodies, concentration camps, bloody Gaza children, all of which are often interpreted as "shocking" (the exact excuse give in the fact) and therefor advocating a POV, then this article should receive the same treatment. Section 5 contains a picture of a stoned tablet depicting a demon inducing an abortion. Why is that allowed but everything else isn't?

::This is the FIRST hit for abortion on google, meaning[REDACTED] will be the first place people will go when they search. I cannot begin to emphasize how important this is. ] (]) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes. I object to the inclusion, and also to the tone. Please remain civil, polite, and respectful - I have been doing that for you, I would appreciate it if you did the same. It remains my position that any photograph expected to create a knee-jerk reaction should not be used as it damages the encyclopedic nature of the article. I maintain that position about abortion procedures, just as I would maintain that position if someone wanted to put up pictures depicting a rape. We're not here for that.--] (]) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Tznkai, would you please clarify what you're objecting to? Are you objecting to the two drawings pasted above?] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I object to those images, yes - not because they are graphic (they are not) but because they are tenuously related. I could find the average age of a woman/girl/what have you having an abortion performed and post a picture, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Unfortunately, this article lost its best graphics team a while back.--] (]) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::This article already discusses the incidence of abortion by gestational age, and additionally already contains some discussion about the age of women who get abortions (e.g. "This risk of spontaneous abortion is greater in those ... over age 35"). Might I kindly suggest to you that it would be unwise to include an image of a 35-year-old woman here because everyone knows what a 35-year-old woman looks like? In contrast, many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. Do you see no relevance or importance in showing readers what is being aborted? And were you objecting to my tone? If you are really saying that we should include portraying what is aborted as a blob, but should deliberately omit images which show otherwise, then I must conclude that something has gone seriously awry here at this article, yet again.] (]) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::A wikilink to ] or ] usually handles that sort of thing nicely. I believe gestation stages are also in the pregnancy article.--] (]) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::As I asked above, Tznkai, were you objecting to my tone or not? If so, maybe my tone is something that I should be working on.
::::::::Regarding your idea of wikilinking various different articles, those articles say nothing about what stage of development the average abortion occurs at, and of course therefore do not illustrate those facts. Moreover, this is a summary article, and therefore including some information from other articles is not only acceptable but necessary. I see that you are all well on your way to including the blob image, and excluding any realistic image of what is aborted, so I don't expect that what I say will make any difference. However, I sincerely believe that that is the path of censorship, and the path of misleading readers.] (]) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:Ferry, it's no use. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. : ) Anything that is remotely controversial and is prone to bandwagon is almost always reduced to POV-pushing. It always has, it always will. I know a few admins but even in the event that a picture is agreed upon, it will start a revert nightmare. We might as well trash the article all together if something so simple can't be implemented. Oh yeah, and sorry about my tone. I know the real-world can be quite "shocking." LOL. ] (]) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not sure the last time there was anything remotely funny about abortion.--] (]) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm grateful to Wikifan12345 for bringing up the subject of images again. And I certainly don't think his slight jest was anywhere near as inappropriate as I've seen at this talk page. And, please, let's not forget what it is about abortion that makes it not remotely funny: the reality of what is aborted (i.e. the reality that thus far has not been shown at this article).] (]) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::Eh, this bothers way too much. I think if we are going to start with the picture process, the FAQ needs to be discussed. According to the author of the FAQ, pictures that detail an in-tact fetus, aborted fetus, illustrations of a fetus or an abortion, are either shock images or POV pushing. I don't get the reasoning behind this. How does a picture of an aborted fetus, or perhaps an illustration of the abortion process (or frick, the tools used), constitute a violation of NPOV?
::It's just so arbitrary compared to other controversial articles that seem to have no issue including arrays of disgusting pictorials. So, if we solve the FAQ sheet, and come to a reasonable compromise over a picture, then this could get done.
::It's sad to see an article with so much popularity and potential to be in a lockless prison. This can be solved. ] (]) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The topic of certain types of images have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include those images then. That is all. Consensus can change. However, due to the VERY IMPORTANT issue of licensing, I suggest we work with specific images, instead of going around in circles about the types of images we may or may not allow. If you have a specific, freely licensed image in mind that you think would make this article even more encyclopedic, then please make your proposal, and hopefully the editors can discuss it on it's individual merits, not on some general vague notion regarding certain types of images. I really think this discuss needs focus, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps this will bring some focus, Andrew c: do you support or not support the flat prohibition on images in the FAQ? Simple question. Here's another: do you support or oppose inclusion of the images I presented above? Simple question.] (]) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for singling me out. 1. I support the FAQ as it is summarizing past discussions/consensus. I do not believe it is simply a "flat prohibition on images", so it's hard to answer a loaded question like that. 2. No I do not believe it would be appropriate to include either of those images from 3Dpregnacy.com. Hope this answers your questions!-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It certainly does, Andrew c, and your answers are exactly as I would expect. Thanks so much!] (]) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::The previous two pictures of embryos aren't sufficiently relevant. If a reader wants to see the images, they are easily accessible, a single click away.--] (]) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::One of the two images was not an embryo, and is not available in the article on ]. If a reader does manage to track down images of embryos and fetuses at Misplaced Pages, how is the reader then to determine which images are close to depicting what is aborted in an average abortion? I don't intend to mince words here. You are behaving like a censor and a propagandist. Feel free to criticize my tone all you want, but it's the truth. You allow images in this article of women, but not a single image showing what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. Instead, you favor inclusion of a blob image, that will be misleading to readers. I strongly disagree with your approach to this article, and wish you would reconsider. The exclusionary mentality at this article is unlike any other at Misplaced Pages, AFAIK. Except perhaps the ] article, which does not even include accurate picture captions, as you must know very well.] (]) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We are only going to be showing what happens to an aborted baby. That is not NPOV in my opinion. It is not pretty what happens to the baby, so why should we try to hide it. And before anyone asks, yes, I am ]. --''] ]'' 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:There is no such thing as an aborted baby. Please try to adhere to NPOV, even when discussing this topic. -- Ec5618 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Sigh, alright we're getting no where. I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise, and I think its unlikely I will be convinced otherwise. If we do so, we open the door for escalating pictures of aborted ZEFs (Zygote/embryo/fetus) side by side with images of coathanger abortions with the arguments fundamentally similar on both sides. That having been said, no one knows what D&X, vacuum aspiration etc. is, and some sort of visual would help. Where can we find compromise there?--] (]) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Double sighs. You said, "I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise....Where can we find compromise there?" Perhaps it would help if you would explain what you mean by "graphic images." Does that mean you're uncompromisingly opposed to any image in this article that accurately shows readers what is aborted in an average abortion, including both drawings and photos, and including both before-images and after-images? Does it make a difference to you whether a photo shows , as opposed to merely a ?


== Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025 ==
:::Although perhaps not the best analogy, I'd like to point out that the article on the ] has an image of the astronauts taken long before the accident. That image does not show them being blown up and ripped to pieces, but rather informs the reader of what they looked like beforehand. Hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles are the same way. But not this one.


{{edit semi-protected|Abortion|answered=yes}}
:::Another key to finding compromise might also be to not talk past each other, but rather to try being as responsive as possible. For example, you could explain to Miagirljmw why graphic images are forbidden at this article but permitted at virtually every other Misplaced Pages article; has a slippery slope argument like the one you gave above been employed successfully at any other Misplaced Pages article? Or, you could explain to me how a reader would be able to navigate to other Misplaced Pages articles to find out what a fetus or embryo looks like at the gestation of an average abortion, when those other Misplaced Pages articles do not say anything about abortion, either in the image captions or in the text (much less say anything about whether each image is before or after the average abortion gestation). I'd also be interested to know why you do not think ] applies here.
„When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage".“ is wrong because it marks e.g. a caesarean section as an induced abortion. Correction: „When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy by killing the unborn, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage".“ ] (]) 11:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 22:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Another possible solution would be to include an "inset" or two in Andrew c's image, showing what is actually inside the blob shape that is supposed to represent the fetus. An average abortion occurs at 7.5 weeks after fertilization, so I think it would be appropriate to have the inset be one of our images of an 8-week fetus, either a drawing or a photo. Or we could have two insets, one before the average abortion gestation, and one after.] (]) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Showing a ZEF is an emotional appeal and isn't otherwise relevant the article. Your very reasoning shows that it comes from an emotional pro-life knee jerk reaction to something being "torn apart." That is not an argument I am interested in having over a Misplaced Pages page. Find me a neutral reference source in the world that does that sort of thing.--] (]) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:21, 14 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
  1. Should we add or expand coverage of a particular aspect of abortion?
    It is likely that we have already done so. There was so much information on abortion that we decided to split it all into separate articles. This article is concise because we've tried to create an overview of the entire topic here by summarizing many of these more-detailed articles. The goal is to give readers the ability to pick the level of detail that best suits their needs. If you're looking for more detail, check out some of the other articles related to abortion.
  2. This article seems to be on the long side. Should we shorten it?
    See above. The guidelines on article length contain exceptions for articles which act as "starting points" for "broad subjects." Please see the archived discussion "Article Length."
  3. Should we include expert medical or legal advice about abortions?
    No. Misplaced Pages does not give legal or medical advice. Please see Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer and Misplaced Pages:Legal disclaimer for more information.
  4. Should we include or link to pictures of fetuses and/or the end products of abortion?
    No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed.
  5. Should we include an image in the lead?
    No consensus. Numerous images have been proposed for the article lead. However, no image achieved consensus and the proposal that garnered a majority of support is to explicitly have no image in the lead.
  6. Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
    No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.
  7. Are the terms "safe" and "safety" used correctly in this article?
    Yes - please see this RfC on the topic.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
[REDACTED] Abortion Top‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation / Reproductive Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject iconFeminism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen's Health High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
          Other talk page banners
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Abortion.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Archiving icon
Archives

Lead

Notable precedents in discussion


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

very short on graphics

why so few photos? there are plenty of public domain photos that can be obtained to provide actual abortion photos. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Valereee (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
In it, it says: "No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed."
But if the actual abortion photos are described as "shock images" then why is abortion called a standard medical procedure?
Does it not shock you? TruthseekerW (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
An article talk page isn't a forum. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that either more photos or cartoons/drawings would make a lot of sense, as that is the norm in articles such as this, and I think it would help people understand what an abortion is. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: inform well about the topic at hand. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Safest procedures in medicine

This statement should be removed. It is obviously incorrect as there are safer procedures like palpation, auscultation, blood pressure, etc.. The reference that supports the claim is a 2006 study that has a bit of biased/opinionated wording in some parts and this is one example. A superlative statement should need to be quantified/supported with data and whilst there is data that it is safe, there is none that show it as being the safest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're misquoting the article. It says "one of the safest" and "among the safest", which is indisputably correct, and does not say "THE safest". NightHeron (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Palpitation and blood pressure measurements aren't surgical procedures. That's an important distinction. 108.65.79.31 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Abortion isn't necessarily a surgical procedure. Also that distinction is not made in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Surgical abortion is very safe compared to other surgical procedures, as is non-surgical abortion compared to other non-surgical procedures. So "one of the safest" and "amopg the safest" is correct. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No it isn't, there is only a single WP:MEDRS stating that. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
There is plenty of room for disputing it. The idea that surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures is extremely questionable. We could start with sebaceous cyst incision, punch biopsy, toenail wedge resection and easily find another thirty safer surgical procedures. We could do the same for non-surgical abortion and other non-surgical medical procedures. Non-surgical abortion certainly has its complications (please see the article Medical Abortion) and is not 'one of the safest' when compared to many diagnostic and rehabilitative procedures. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if your estimate of thirty surgical procedures is correct and you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for it, that wouldn't refute the statement "one of the safest" about surgical abortion, since there must be hundreds of surgical procedures that doctors perform. In addition to being correct, the strong wording in the section on safety is necessary to set the record straight, in view of the disinformation by the anti-abortion movement claiming that abortion is unsafe and that abortion bans protect women --- despite the massive evidence since the reversal of Roe v. Wade that women suffer mightily from such bans, and despite the high maternal mortality in parts of the world that ban or severely restrict abortion. NightHeron (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
All that is needed to convey that is a simple 'safer than uninduced parturition' Traumnovelle (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The wording 'one of the safest procedures in medicine' is not 'necessary' as it is wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting wart removal, ear syringing and nail splinting on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients (for both surgical and non-surgical). I'm not going to attempt to edit the wording but perhaps you might see sense to. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
" wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting ear syringing on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients ." From Earwax: "...complications included otitis externa (swimmer's ear), which involves inflammation or bacterial infection of the external acoustic meatus, as well as pain, vertigo, tinnitus, and perforation of the ear drum. Based on this study, a rate of major complications in 1/1000 ears syringed was suggested," followed by a citation to the BMJ. I'm not the one who's being "ridiculous" here. The stable version of the wording appears to be supported both by sources and by a consensus of editors. NightHeron (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, have I accused someone of being ridiculous? I have labelled the current wording as ridiculous. It is. By definition diagnostic tests such as measuring blood pressure, performing mammograms, ophthalmoscopy and reflex tests are all medical procedures, as are applying a plaster cast or administering a vaccine. Abortion is simply not one of the safest procedures in medicine.
Were I so inclined I might respond to your lack of civility in kind and accuse you of being ridiculous for attempting to draw equivalence between those 1/1000 major complications of ear syringing and the 1/1000 of abortion - sepsis, damage to or infection of the womb, injury to the cervix, very heavy bleeding and pelvic inflammatory disease. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
We get it, you think the sources are wrong on this. But since this is Misplaced Pages, we're going to keep following what the sources say regardless. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The majority of sources do not make this specific claim. One source, supports the claim whilst others just don't mention it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, trying to maintain my ability to admin here, so I'm going to try to thread this needle with a simple explanation of policy. @Traumnovelle, I'm not sure how much you've worked on articles subject to WP:MEDRS, but MEDRS has extremely high sourcing requirements which this article must follow. Even a single MEDRS-level source is likely to be seen by those at that project as good enough for such a statement unless another MEDRS-level source disputes it. If you have a MEDRS-level article that disputes this assertion, you can bring it here to talk. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
If 1 source makes a claim and 100 sources don't make the claim why do we use the source that is in the minority? Most sources will state things like 'relatively safe' for example instead of using superlatives and other emotionally charged language. It is source cherrypicking to use this one Lancet article whilst the majority of sources do not state that. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
If a source is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that that source disagrees with that point. Being in the minority means that the majority of sources are in dispute, not silent. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
That is not at all how it works, or else any fringe theory is fair game. If the majority of sources state 'the sky is blue' but one states 'the sky is red' we won't write 'the sky is red'. Calling abortion 'relatively safe' is directly contradicting the idea that it is the 'safest'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
'Relatively safe' does not contradict 'one of the safest', so your comparison is not apt. If you want to undercut the cited source, you'll need sources in real, direct contradiction. Something like 'Abortion is not safe'. That a fact is not often reported does not equate to it being fringe. Maza, North Dakota was for many years the least populated city in the US. Most sources about the US or cities did not mention that. But nonetheless, it is true and saying so is not fringe. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
you forgot to mention the fact that in some cases it may cause inability to bear or carry a child later on. perhaps there should be a page on the mental and physical consequences of abortion; since our American society seems to put the ability to do what we want above safety and humane treatment.@Effects of abortion on mental health DarlingYeti (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
You forgot to cite a relaibale source for your claim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
its common knowledge. I'm just stating the obvious. its in the forms they hand you before you get an abortion in a clinic, I mean lets be honest. I'm not going to post it here because no matter how reliable the source, someone will take it down. its a waste of my time when you can find it on any legitimate medical site. DarlingYeti (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
If it's common knowledge, you should be able to readily find a source and bring it here. This is an article that is subject to WP:MEDRS. We can't use "common knowledge".
@DarlingYeti, I do very strongly recommend you read that link so that you understand what MEDRS requires. This is a contentious topic, which is really a terrible place for a new editor to learn. This is not the place to be making your newbie mistakes. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I simply thought this was a talk space, I haven't done any edits on the article itself and was just making a suggestion. I would do it myself, but don't quite have the time. of course I'd hate to make any "newbie mistakes", next time I'll come with a source. DarlingYeti (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
You should also be aware that this issue has been discussed before, and the consensus of editors has been that the current text is correct, and that WP:NPOV requires that we don't give a WP:FALSEBALANCE with the disinformation spread by the anti-abortion movement about safety. NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It isn't a false balance to provide non-emotional neutral language in favour of an extreme superlative used by a single journal article. I'd suggest you don't imply everyone opposing your view as anti-abortion. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@DarlingYeti, the contentious topics policy covers article talk pages and discussion in other spaces as well as articles themselves.
Don't worry about making newbie mistakes. Everyone does when they're newbies. The point is that it's best not to make them at contentious topics. There are 6 million articles (and their associated talk pages) where newbie mistakes get much, much more leeway, where people will be actively happy to help a new editor learn. At contentious topics, many editors won't have the time, patience, or energy to help you learn. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

First sentence/definition update

I tried to change it to: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus, but different from a C-section or labor induction because in an abortion there is no intention for the embryo or fetus to remain alive." or similar. With these changes I've heard it's not constructive or no one is confused about this. It's constructive because it helps make this Misplaced Pages article encyclopedic... This is not about confusion, it's about making Misplaced Pages encyclopedic. Our goal is not to assume that people already understand a topic. Kids could be coming to Misplaced Pages for the first time to understand what abortion or anything else is: if we don't make it clear and differentiate abortion from other procedures, we are failing at our encyclopedic mission. Someone who does not know what abortion is would be confused by how it was defined in the Misplaced Pages article before the edit I made, because based on the definition that was given a c-section would be considered an abortion. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We write articles WP:ONEDOWN, meaning a level of understanding below that at which the subject is usually studied. For articles about medical procedures, we should be writing for a college-level audience. Incidentally, both induction and c-sections have been used in abortions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
But that would be called a c-section abortion, not a c-section. Even at college level, we cannot assume that someone understands what happens in an abortion even at a basic level. It's not very well known, perhaps because of the taboo nature of the subject, which is why clear, simple language that does differentiate it from other procedures is needed. If I could get a source at the college or high school level that differentiates it, I think that would be useful in framing the language in a NPOV. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The writing should be at the level of an average college student, not one who's so out of touch with the world as to confuse "abortion" with C-section or live birth. Note that at the end of the sentence a handy reference is given to other definitions, in case the reader wants that. NightHeron (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
But like I said about this topic being taboo, I wonder where the in-touch high schooler would have learned that the given definition here is not accurate? What's the source? Without a source I'm afraid there's nothing verifiable that differentiates the procedure for people. It seems to flow in this sentence "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage"." ... that we could, after "end a pregnancy" add words like "and to terminate the embryo or fetus". So that people understand what an abortion is and differentiate from many other things that end a pregnancy. I think a lot of people here are assuming that "end a pregnancy" is a well-known euphemism for terminating a fetus, so that it differentiates from things like a normal c-section and labor induction, but to base an encyclopedia on a euphemism does not seem encyclopedic or helpful to me. I can't think of a more watched or edited article where we're basing it on a euphemism and assumption of understanding in this way. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The wording is not a euphemism; the purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy. And the topic is not taboo; there are many discussions in the news media and elsewhere of the abortion controversy (e.g., in coverage of the US presidential election), the increasing use of abortive pills in early pregnancy, and other such matters. NightHeron (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but you can end a pregnancy with c-section or induction of labor for live birth, so how are we differentiating this from that? Also, what about girls and woman who are pre-teen or teen considering an abortion? Should we make it clear to one step below them (elementary schoolers) what an abortion is? I think this article should. ... meaning in needs to clearly differentiate between and abortion and the many other ways to end a pregnancy, including natural labor and birth as well. Am I missing something? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, you're trying to solve a problem that simply does not exist. MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I just described a ton of problems that simply do exist and there was a famous one in the news lately. But I can only try to help so much! I highly recommend that we make the abortion article encyclopedic and not assume that people know what it is. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps if you brought in this news source, it'll clarify what you're referring to. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
https://apnews.com/article/harris-abortion-death-trump-georgia-f9c65fb7019938f0fff18e61d4f2d84a U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
And here is a 10 year old rape victim, sadly. Clearly this article (the abortion article) should be written with very young people in mind, not just the average college educated person, since very young people deal with abortion at a very real level: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/indiana-doctor-defends-actions-in-10-year-old-rape-victims-abortion U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, @U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, so I'm not trying to be obtuse, but how are those articles support for what you're arguing to add? Valereee (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Wait, you're arguing that this should be written for 10-year-olds because they can be raped and impregnated and might not understand what abortion means? OMG. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, yes, you're right. I wish it weren't true, but young people need to know what abortion is not just because of rape, but also because young people have sex, and that can cause pregnancy. Also, sadly, some young people do not have parents or do not want to confide in parents when trying to learn about abortion or when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. So we need to make sure this article is understandable to those young people, particularly the beginning of the article which may be helping to define abortion for them for the first time (if even through Google's AI or a Google Snippet). U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
So maybe should be creating Pre-teen pregnancy? Valereee (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, but clearly some experts in the subject think that it needs to be defined differently. I think we should try to mimic the CDC's definition: 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
You can try to gain consensus for that, but first if I were you I'd go through the archives, starting with the most recent first, and look to see what consensus was formed for the current language and when. This is a WP:CTOP with 52 archives, which is unusual even at a CTOP, and administrators are quite likely to find it disruptive if editors new-to-the-topic come in to start relitigating points that have already been decided multiple times and/or recently. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I get it. But if a new argument is made that is logical and impossible to refute, they would be happy to reconsider, I'm sure. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
You can find information on how to format an RfC correctly at WP:RFC. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, I notice this in the FAQ above: 'Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.' As mentioned previously, we need to differentiate this not from a transplant, but rather from normal delivery and birth, delivery by induction, and delivery by c-section. This is not clear in the current article and I think we can make it clear without using the word "death". Scientifically something does die, on that scientists agree, but we of course would not say it's a person because that's not NPOV, but to not say "death" is perhaps in itself taking a POV. Separately but related to the personhood debate, I'm surprised that there isn't a specific morality section in this article, since there are multiple commonly held views. Not sure what it should be titled, though, to remain NPOV. Perhaps "Ethical Perspectives"? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think readers are confused about whether abortion and miscarriage are the same as delivery or birth. This strikes me as a WP:BLUESKY argument and feels WP:POINTY. Valereee (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I doubt there is no confusion, because the CDC works hard to make it very clear. I would consider them authoritative, and I recommend we try to get our definition of abortion in line with theirs particularly in the first sentence or two: : 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no requirement that Misplaced Pages align with the CDC. For one thing, that's US-centric, which right off the bat is going to probably be a nonstarter. Valereee (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Notice how Misplaced Pages defines "miscarriage": "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion, is the death and expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive independently." Notice how they use the word death when defining it. You could say the exact same, thing: "No one is confused." But of course it is part of the definition. This isn't just the CDC, this is Misplaced Pages itself being extremely consistent (except in the case of the abortion article as far as I can tell) in defining things clearly and succinctly, while leaving little room for ambiguity. A definition in line with the CDC's or even Misplaced Pages's miscarriage article would get us to the clearness goal, I believe. If the word "death" is too non-NPOV for this article, I suggest we lean more toward the language that the CDC uses. But I stand by my logic that the definition at the top of the article, as it stands for "Abortion", is indefensibly ambiguous. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
We don't really care what other articles say; they may be incorrect and in need of work. But again, you can see if you can gain consensus for what you want. Valereee (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Great, here's what I'm thinking, not based on another article but mostly based on the abortion Misplaced Pages article. A first sentence change should be in order to avoid ambiguity with so many other procedures, but also to get in line with what I believe is a sound definition and as NPOV as this article is looking to achieve. Also avoiding the word "death". Please let me know if this is good to go: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus that does not result in a live birth." Update: see here for a source for this new language: https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-024-01745-w/tables/4 ... this language is used in many sources, but I tried to find one that was sufficiently neutral. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC) U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Probably not good to go. You can certainly try to make that edit, but if anyone reverts, it means you need to come back here and get consensus for it. Here at this CT, that likely is going to require an RfC. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
How about I just wait for more commentary here? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, you can also do that. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that your proposed wording could easily be interpreted to imply that a live birth was the desired outcome. NightHeron (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! So how about: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus where a live birth is not the desired outcome. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the word "death" here would make it more clear... as in the miscarriage article, but the above avoids that. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we could even simplify this to say: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy where a live birth is not the desired outcome." U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Or: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that makes a live birth impossible." U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
To me it looks like you are just trying to tar the topic with negative wording. Your suggestions don't fit with the literature on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The goal is to differentiate our current definition from regular live delivery, live induction, and live c-section. hoping not to make it sound negative. Or how about: Abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy to prevent a live birth. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Here's a "common definition" according to an Oxford Law article: "Abortion is commonly defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause the death of the embryo (embryos and embryonic stem cells) or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus. I know this uses the word "death" so it needs to be tweaked. How about?: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Using the literature to come up with something less ambiguous and hopefully not negative. I worked with ChatGPT to create this one: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy with the intent to end the life of the embryo or fetus." Please let me know what you think! U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
One consequence of WP:V and WP:NOR is that consistency between articles is considered a poor argument here - sourcing and context on one topic may differ from sourcing and context on another, and we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source for itself. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Consistency in encyclopedicness is what I'm espousing for among all articles. But that specific article in this case does make some enlightening parallels, in my opinion. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Suggest then that the article needs some vigorous pruning in order to conform with WP:ONEDOWN. 'An induced abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy', 'Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions', 'there remains debate with regard to moral, religious, ethical, and legal issues'. 'The rate of legal, induced abortion varies extensively worldwide'. The average college student will be aware of these things. The article could be quite a bit leaner. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm feeling this one. I'll stick it on the article and if no reversions perhaps people are happy with it? "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Before publishing I noticed the current first sentences uses an embryo instead of the embryo, so I made my edit consistent with that, here it is as published: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus." U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, your edits to the lead sentence of this article have been reverted three times over the past three days by three different editors. Please don't edit it again without gaining consensus first. Valereee (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I did what I could. I definitely think we need to change the first sentence definition so that it defines itself away from live birth c-section, live birth inductions, live birth just generally. I see people don't want to use the word life or death. That's fine, it just needs to be conveyed somehow as seen in various literature. Without an update this article fails at being encyclopedic. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence should include word "human" as well, don't you agree? 91.189.141.116 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

First sentence again

Please edit the first sentence to conform to a NPOV. The not neutral sentence, as it is: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus.

The neutral sentence that good encyclopedias strive to include is: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in its embryonic stage.

(In other words, the American "Right to Life" PAC's political platform needs some other outlet than this encyclopedia.) 116.66.195.178 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit was made today by U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z against consensus. I've restored the status quo. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
p.s. I wouldn't call that sentence consensus, I'd simply call it majority rule. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, in Misplaced Pages policy, consensus is complicated. It's more about policy arguments and discussion than it is about a pure vote, but it's also not an attempt to gain unanimity, and depending on the question and whether or not it's a policy question, the fact there's a majority in favor on one thing vs another, the fact there's a majority may be considered very important, although there are discussions that are closed in favor of a compelling minority opinion. In the end, if needed, a closer assesses the strengths of arguments and may discount those that aren't policy-based. Valereee (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
In here, the discussions all rely on the number on people in favour of not changing the biased parts of this pseudoarticle. That's what I witnessed, and that is what is still happening. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Safety and gestational age

under safety and gestational age, it says that complications are rare... speaking from a educated standpoint that's wrong, and I believe that it should be replaced with a simple "complications can include... but usually only occur in blank% of abortions using this method." DarlingYeti (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

„When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage".“ is wrong because it marks e.g. a caesarean section as an induced abortion. Correction: „When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy by killing the unborn, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage".“ 87.183.100.85 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: PianoDan (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions Add topic