Talk:Abortion/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Discussion continued: Removed section (Unintended live birth)

Please see below for the referenced version of today's revision to the proposed new section. I kept an old article which focuses on ethics that I considered quite relevant (but still not required for the sentence), and found a good reference from the American authority, ACOG. -SocraticOath (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Live birth despite attempted abortion

Although it is uncommon before viability, women sometimes give birth in spite of an attempted abortion. The incidence of livebirth in abortion patients varies according to procedure; it is unlikely in D&E but occurs in up to 50% of labor induction abortion procedures. If medical staff observe any breathing, heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation, or confirmed voluntary muscle movement, they are often required to report live birth regardless of gestational age. To avoid this, doctors are sometimes advised to induce fetal death before abortion procedures after 21 weeks gestation, especially when performing induced labor abortion.

References

Please see the previous talk subject, Removed section, for the open questions and current answers on this topic. -SocraticOath (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I inserted the word "sometimes" in the last sentence to show that the advice to induce fetal death is not coming from the Wikipedia voice but is sometimes heard in the literature. I think this makes this sentence more acceptable for this article. -SocraticOath (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Section placed into the article. I would not consider this >1RR because the questions raised in the talk page have been addressed. Is this correct? Please revert and place additional questions here in the talk page if this is not acceptable. -SocraticOath (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I re-named the section to avoid confusion with garden-variety unintended pregnancy that results in birth, but in which there is no attempt at an abortion. -SocraticOath (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with this - and one of them is whether it should at all be included here or at late termination of pregnancy, and if so what terminology it should use. We never had enough time to go through the issues in the last iteration, so please discuss before introducing anything this controversial, we're in no hurry, and it might require an RfC. CFCF 💌 📧 00:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether "Unintended live birth" should be taken up here or under Late termination of pregnancy is a splendid example of a needless, self-inflicted Wikipedia problem. If ALL terminations of pregnancies were put under THIS article as they should be per WP:COMMONTERM there wouldn't be an issue. Motsebboh (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be confusing to separate this section from the pre-viability article Abortion. As shown in Non-viable delivery at 20–23 weeks gestation: observations and signs of life after birth by Macfarlane, and as specified by law in the US, parts of the UK, and by the WHO in the ICD-10, (see instruction manual, section 5.7.1 at page 151 here: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICD10Volume2_en_2010.pdf?ua=1) a non-viable pregnancy can still result in live birth, though the child usually dies. Wouldn't you say that knowing this would be an important part of attaining a comprehensive knowledge of this article's subject, given its legal consequences and non-trivial incidence? -SocraticOath (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a "before viability" qualifier to the first sentence... does this clear anything up? -SocraticOath (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In support of including it in Abortion, I would like to draw your attention to the RCOG guideline (ref 1), directly advising medical practitioners to discuss the unlikely case of live birth with patients obtaining abortions earlier than 21 weeks, and to make sure that staff are prepared for this eventuality. -SocraticOath (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Viability" is occasionally taken as 20 weeks when it comes to abortion. And data that this occurs before 20 weeks?

Additionally we need to use high quality secondary sources not primary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To include live birth in the Abortion article, it wouldn't be necessary to show incidence for all cases before viability but only in some cases before viability, right? -SocraticOath (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation described by the phrase "transient fetal survival" in the Labor Induction Abortion Clinical Guidelines by SFP is clearly the same situation as non-viable live birth, for which the incidence is given for pregnancies 18 weeks and on. -SocraticOath (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:MEDRS feedback! I re-wrote the sentence on incidence around a secondary source rather than a primary source: the Society of Family Planning / Contraception Clinical Guidelines for Labor induction abortion in the second trimester. None of the sentences now depend on a primary source.-SocraticOath (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If there was some concern about placing a reference to a law directly here, I have now included a book chapter on ethics for this reference. -SocraticOath (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any remaining controversial issues with this proposed new section for the Abortion article? -SocraticOath (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

After 21 weeks it is late termination of pregnancy. There are still a lot of primary sources used in that text. The rate of occurrence after 18 weeks is somewhere between 0% and 50%. So we still do not have data that this occurs before 20 weeks. So text still needs work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If we clear out all the primary sources, we remove #2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 and are left with 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Let's move this change to a new section to preserve the previous collection references in the context of the talk page. -SocraticOath (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's late termination of pregnancy after 21 weeks, then why does the article say that it's abortion before the fetus can possibly survive on its own? Uncertain data of incidence under 20 weeks isn't sufficient reason to exclude this section from the Abortion article. -SocraticOath (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, if we choose definitions of terms that exclude live birth from happening before viability, then aren't we saying that there's no such thing as hopeless resuscitation? Excluding this section from the Abortion article would be divergent from the literature on the subject. -SocraticOath (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to making appropriate edits, would you please raise any other controversial issues in the next section, which contains today's revised set of sources? -SocraticOath (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued 2nd time: Section removed (Live birth despite attempted abortion)

Delivery and resuscitation

Although it is uncommon before viability, women after 18 weeks gestation sometimes give birth in spite of an attempted abortion, either because of unexpected preterm labor onset from cervical preparation (before a D&E abortion) or simply because the fetus survives labor (as in labor induction abortion). The reported incidence of livebirth in abortion patients varies according to procedure; it is unlikely in D&E but occurs in 0 to 50% of some labor induction abortion procedures.

If medical staff in the US, England, Wales, or Scotland observe any breathing, heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation, or confirmed voluntary muscle movement, they are often required to report live birth regardless of gestational age, and to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not. To avoid this, doctors are sometimes advised to induce fetal demise before abortion procedures after 21 weeks gestation, especially when performing induced labor abortion.

References

Not using 'death' means abortion cannot be clearly defined differently from delivery or partruition. This introduces ambiguity into the article at it's first step.I also feel that while both sides of the abortion debate (and everyone imbetween) uses language to incite emotion, clinically correct terms such as 'embryo', 'fetus' and 'death' should be used in preference to politically neutral terms.
— [[User:→ Spaully°τ 15:14, 1 April 2006 (GMT) Look through all the individual articles on the different methods of abortion. How many mention death? Take this sentence from Suction-aspiration abortion for instance "This vacuum then aspirates out the uterus and the pregnancy tissue is removed." What would it do, in terms of POV, if we added the clause "thereby causing the death of the fetus"? It is also clear that vacuuming out "the embryo or fetus as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissue" does not result in a live birth. It would be like adding "thereby causing the death of a cow" in the beef article. While both ideas are completely factual, it is a POV that these aspects of the topic are significant. It isn't a matter of hiding factual information. It's a matter of deciding which facts are significant enough to go in the first sentence. While for some people, the death of the fetus is the most important part of abortion, that is clearly a POV and shouldn't be introduced in the first sentence (maybe abortion debate, but not here). Because a large number of cited sources can unambiguously define abortion without calling on the 'd-word', I do not see how using that clause adds clarity instead of POV.--Andrew c 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ]]

Please allow me to draw your attention to this discussion snippet from nine years ago from the talk archives about using the word 'death'. Now I have added major secondary sources on the subject of inducing fetal demise. These major secondary sources use combinations of the words survival, avoid ... possibility of live birth, feticide, lethal, transient fetal survival, and fetal demise to describe this situation in medical terms. I have changed the word death in the section to demise to reflect the usage in the literature and avoid this wikipolicy / (N)POV issue. -SocraticOath (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The first ref states "At gestational ages when a live birth is possible, these injections avoid that possibility, including in patients who experience labor following cervical preparation."

That means after viability not before viability.

Ref two states "Feticide should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation". Also a "late termination of pregnancy"

This content belongs much better on the other article and is undue weight here

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't due weight, because it isn't involved in the normal procedure of abortion. Neither were the very controversial additions given enough time to be discussed before reintroduction multiple times. Several of the linked articles do not use the terminology that was added. CFCF 💌 📧 12:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For me, the glaring example of undue weight in this discussion is the pettifogging point as to whether information about unintended live birth following abortion and/or late termination of pregnancy (which almost every person on the street calls an abortion) belongs in this article or in the Late termination of pregnancy article. The section that SocraticOath has added here is quite modest in length and can easily be modified to avoid the precious "late termination of pregnancy" distinction that some are so eager to make. Moreover, there is no reason a similar section cannot be added to the Late termination of pregnancy article. "Abortion Jabberwocky" indeed. Motsebboh (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're spouting fallacies – your everyday person on the street is unlikely to have heard of late termination of pregnancy because it is pretty rare. That isn't an excuse to use incorrect terminology and mix up different procedures to make it easier for the lay-man. Writing an encyclopedia is about presenting information and educating the reader – we can't ignore what's true and just give the reader what is closest to his/her expectations. CFCF 💌 📧 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

What fallacies? That most people, including plenty of MDs around the world, refer to "late terminations of pregnancies" as abortions? Those "late terminations" are perhaps a little more frequent in the United States than they are in Europe, because in the States serious fetal abnormalities are not required for the procedure to legally take place. Plus, in the States there has been all sorts of political controversy about "late term abortion" which commonly means terminations both after fetal viability and shortly before it. But I suspect that the average European would still tend to call a termination at 24 weeks an abortion. Finally, As I stated before there is no reason not to have a short section on the topic in both articles just as we would cover certain unusual situations that occur in childbirth. Motsebboh (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We use medical terminology for medical articles because often lay terminology is none specific. A specific complication that only occurs in a subset of cases belongs in the article on that case.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought that SocraticOath's reason for placing it here is that it doesn't only occur in cases of Late termination of pregnancy. A live, at least for the moment, human being never results from a termination prior to 150 days of pregnancy? Motsebboh (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC). By the way, the opening sentence of Wikipedia's Late termination of pregnancy article reads: Late termination of pregnancy (TOP), also known as postviability abortion, late-term abortion, later-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, ITOP, or simply abortion are terminations of pregnancy which are performed during a later stage of pregnancy.

References

But, heaven forbid, we would never want to put any material having to do with LToPs in our article on abortion. Motsebboh (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article already states "Unlike D&E, labor induced abortions after 18 weeks may be complicated by 0% to 50% occurrence of brief fetal survival, which may be legally characterized as live birth." So yes SocraticOath does not get to emphasis one of the percentages in the sources in question and add the same text to this article twice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the choice, I would take the statistic out of the section on labor induction abortion and put it into the new section, live birth despite attempted abortion- especially now that I have learned D&E is not proof against such complications (when cervical preparation results in unintended preterm labor). -SocraticOath (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the words "in the US, England, Wales or Scotland" to specify the geographical origin of the ethical standards that are referenced in this section. (The UK isn't the right name because it includes N. Ireland, which has a different rule). -SocraticOath (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Are there any open areas of controversy on this section or questions that weren't addressed satisfactorially? Is there any other impediment to placing this section in the Abortion article? -SocraticOath (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The impediment to putting it in this article is that it does not belong in this article. It is simply WP:UNDUE. The refs you have provided are primarily about after 20 weeks. I hope that we can all agree on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you entertain a brief discussion about the subject? I would begin with this question: according to the SFP guidelines, when is it important to do something to avoid futile resuscitation efforts? Thanks, -SocraticOath (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, could you please write here which of the items in the proposed addition are most vulnerable to bias, or mostly represent minority views? -SocraticOath (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean should we have a section here called "Late termination of pregnancy" were we have a brief discuss of it and than link to the main article on the topic? Yes I think that would be a reasonable idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, right here in the talk page! But that does sound like a good idea, though it doesn't help address futile resuscitation. Which article do you think is more appropriate to address futile resuscitation, the post-viability article or the pre-viability article? -SocraticOath (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, attempts at resuscitation could be mentioned, however briefly, in both articles. While editors Doc James and CFCF seem determined not to allow any mention of issues that apply only to terminations after fetal viability in this Abortion article, the gestational time parameters of the the Late termination of pregnancy article overlap those of this article, extending from a few weeks before to long after fetal viability. Thus the issue of futile resuscitation could be mentioned in this article, and the issues of both futile and possibly successful resuscitation could be mentioned in the Late termination of pregnancy article. Motsebboh (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Motsebboh I would appreciate that you try NOT to speak for me as that is NOT my position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that viability for an individual pregnancy near the transition is determined in the US by a doctor acting within the appropriate legal and medical framework, not by an ultrasound technician, a pharmacist, or the patient... merely knowing gestational age is not sufficient for a determination of viability near the transition time. Nor should we forget that gestational age is practically always estimated, not measured (IVF nonwithstanding). And the estimate may be subject to "how many weeks ago was that?"-memory mistakes or even falsification by the individuals, concerns not lost on doctors and researchers. -SocraticOath (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for the post-viability time period to be included in the Abortion article in order to address futile resuscitation in the Abortion article, because if the attempt at resuscitation is after viability, then what would make it futile? Futile resuscitation is an important possibility for infants with signs of life who really can't survive on their own. This is the concern of the first bullet in the RCOG guideline quote: Live birth following medical termination of pregnancy before 21 6 weeks of gestation is very uncommon. Nevertheless, women and their partners should be counselled about this unlikely possibility and staff should be trained to deal with this eventuality. -SocraticOath (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I will delete the live birth section from "labor induction abortion" in parallel with adding this section, in order to maintain the balancing aspects of the overall article. -SocraticOath (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add it again without waiting for a response. As it currently looks there are serious concerns whether inclusion is due at all. I find that if it should be anywhere it is at Late termination of pregnancy, but I would prefer a better title than the one you currently have, which is convoluted to say the least. CFCF 💌 📧 23:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

References

So it seems that the open questions are:

1. Does this section belong in the Abortion article?

2. Does including this section in the Abortion article hurt NPOV?

3*. If the section were to be included, how should it be titled and placed in the outline of the article?

Answering 1: if futile resuscitation is a possibility following an attempted abortion, then this section must be included in the pre-viability article. Futility is a distinguishing mark of live birth following a non-viable pregnancy.

Answering 2: please state which aspects of this section are prone to bias, imbalance, minority viewpoints, or any other condition of WP:UNDUE.

Answering 3*: This section does not belong under Safety because safety is only with regard to the woman. It does not belong under the various methods only because it may occur in all the major methods with the same outcome, though it is less common with some methods than others. It doesn't fit with any of the other sections. Perhaps if the section on Safety were renamed "Complications", or another broad category, then this could be included there. Furthermore, if the article were divided somehow between 1st and 2nd trimester abortion, as is commonly done in the medical guidelines, then these things would become less annoying for people of different legal scenarios. In Europe, most countries allow abortion under 18 weeks only (or 12 weeks!), but in New York a woman can get an abortion at the Margaret Sanger Center at 24 weeks, presumably without any kind of doctor's note about deformities, etc. -SocraticOath (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I added words to show the two kinds of care that may be offered for a preterm infant: emergency medical care or palliative care... this should make the subject a little more clear for the reader. Otherwise, the section may be begging the question of what is supposed to happen if an infant is born alive with a negative prognosis. -SocraticOath (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In reference to WP:IAR, let's talk about whether it's good to include this section or not. I think that one of the really bad outcomes would be for somebody to be going through an abortion, or supporting one, and not to be prepared for the possibility of seeing signs of life. Don't you think that could really freak somebody out the first time they are confronted with it, especially if they would have handled the situation differently in retrospect? This section helps to avoid that bad outcome. -SocraticOath (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I gave the proposed section a new title, Delivery and resuscitation instead of Live birth despite attempted abortion. This shows the subject of the section more clearly: if a child is born, which may happen, should he or she be resuscitated? -SocraticOath (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: and @CFCF:, please let me know if you would prefer not to have an RFC on this proposed addition. Thanks, -SocraticOath (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with RfCs is that they near on demand binary questions, and there are too many parameters here for an RfC to be helpful. This is a controversial claim and very much a balancing act. I don't yet know if it should be included here, but I think we're getting somewhere by drafting here at least.

Since the topic is controversial we need very high quality sources: I would start off by adding pages for statements from books - so that we can fact-check properly (I looked in the first book, but couldn't find it - I'm not saying it isn't there, but its not easy to find). Also I would request that we clarify when inducing fetal demise is relevant instead of just stating "sometimes". As far as I can make out the guidelines you've linked state which circumstances it should be performed under. CFCF 💌 📧 22:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Re the first source, the book, if you use Google Books to search for text within the book, using an appropriate search phrase, it reveals the sentence in question on one of the pages that is not part of the preview. On my workstation this is the automatic result of clicking the URL provided right now. -SocraticOath (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Issues:

• Although it is uncommon before viability, women sometimes give birth in spite of an attempted abortion, either because of unexpected preterm labor onset from cervical preparation[1]

What do you mean? Do you mean that the products of conception pass through the "birth channel" or do you mean long term survival of a fetus? And to which procedure does this refer? And at what time periods?

• or simply because the fetus survives labor (as in labor induction abortion).[2][3]

This is also unclear. Do we have cases of long term survival? One of the ref you use is about "Termination of Pregnancy for Fetal Abnormality" so I guess we would. If someone was requesting termination of pregnancy for trisomy 21 or 17 there could be long term survival.

• The incidence of livebirth in abortion patients varies according to procedure; it is unlikely in D&E but occurs in up to 50% of some labor induction abortion procedures after 18 weeks gestation.[4]

The ref actually says 0 to 50%. Taking the high number and just presenting it is not appropriate IMO. This key bit "transient fetal survival after expulsion" should be better summarized as "brief survival of the fetus after passage through the birth channel" maybe. Livebirth is not a good summary.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• "After cervical preparation" is in reference to the D&E procedure. I have added an explanatory note in the proposed section to clarify this.

All I have found indicates it's not really a risk before 18 weeks gestation. I have now made this clear in the proposed new section.

• In this context, I'm using the words "fetus survives labor" to describe a situation in which there are legally recognizable signs of life easily visible to the woman, the doctor, and the staff. Does it seem like this sentence is implying that signs of life are a substitute for the prognosis about whether a preterm infant at this level of development will survive more than a few hours?

• I have made the Wikipedia version of the incidence with labor induction abortion match the wording in the ref: "0 to 50%."

Using the term livebirth is the result of the legal reporting requirements that I thought were copied pretty straightforwardly here for the US, England, Wales, and Scotland. Do you know if they are different for Canada? -SocraticOath (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Followed-up... in Canada, "Section 233 of the Criminal Code clearly states that a child becomes a human being only once it has completely proceeded from the body of its mother." http://canadianbioethicscompanion.ca/the-canadian-bioethics-companion/chapter-4-ethical-issues-at-the-beginning-of-life/

37. Criminal Code of Canada. R.S.C. 1985, c C-46, as amended; Section 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.

This is not as specific as in the US and England, Wales, and Scotland, so I won't include Canada in the list of places with this requirement. -SocraticOath (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if there are any outstanding impediments to including this section in the abortion article! -SocraticOath (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued 3rd time: Section removed (Delivery and resuscitation)

Periabortion delivery and resuscitation

Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing abortion after 18 weeks gestation sometimes give birth, either because of preterm labor onset from a D&E abortion (observed less than 1 in 250 cases in one study) or because the fetus survives induced labor (occurring 0 to 13% or 0 to 50%, depending on the method).

Regardless of gestational age, if medical staff observe signs of life, they are often required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not. Doctors often induce fetal demise before abortion procedures after 20-21 weeks gestation to avoid this.

References

It seems like the open questions for this proposed section addition for the abortion article are:

• Using the term 'livebirth' seems incorrect or POV.

Here is my response to this question:

• In order to maintain verifiability for this article, I identified several legal references that provide terminology for what happens in these situations. In the US, and also in the UK-but-not-N. Ireland, the law is written such that when a person sees specific signs of life, they report those signs of life as belonging to a person who is born. These requirements are legally separated from the prognosis about whether the person will live very long, which may be based on viability, gestational age, birth weight (< or > 400 or 500 g), presence or absence of abnormalities (lethal or non-lethal), etc. -SocraticOath (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In N. Ireland, it seems that law recognizes such a thing as an "unborn child", making the question of the transition from fetus to child moot. This can be seen in this 1994 judgment of a case referred to as "A": “The doctor’s act is lawful where the continuance of the pregnancy would adversely affect the mental or physical health of the mother...The adverse effect must, however, be a real and serious one and it will always be a question of fact and degree whether the perceived effect of non termination is sufficiently grave to warrant terminating the unborn child”.

References

Thank you for bringing your concerns and criticisms to this discussion, @CFCF: and @Doc James:. If you will, please make any appropriate changes to the section in the live article. I have appreciated your time in reviewing and improving the proposed addition. -SocraticOath (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Once more I have restored you, but I agree the changes are moving in the right direction, even if there is a long way to go. I don't approve of having it outside the safety section, because that is exactly what it is about, and otherwise we give it undue weight. Unfortunately, whichever way you look at it the added content was many times more than what was discussed here, and even what was discussed here was lacking in many aspects. I think several others missed the extremely long reference comments, which in general we don't use except for very short, very notable quotes. Maybe it's better to go at the additions sentence per sentence:

• Although it is uncommon before viability, women after 18 weeks gestation sometimes give birth in spite of an attempted abortion, either because of unexpected preterm labor onset from cervical preparation (before a D&E abortion)

It's not uncommon - it is extremely rare, bordering on so rare that we don't know whether to include it at all in this article. I'm still ambivalent as to whether is belongs at all, but am beginning to think that if we are to include anything it should be a single or a few sentence stating incidence (in %) and the recommendation to induce fetal demise to avoid it. CFCF 💌 📧 20:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the length of the quotes amounts to WP:COPYVIOLATION. CFCF 💌 📧 20:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the longer quotes from the references. Are we clear of WP:COPYVIOLATION or do I keep cutting? -SocraticOath (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the word "very" to the first sentence. -SocraticOath (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As for making the section shorter, I have been attempting to balance the need for specificity against the issue of weight and balance, not to mention verifiability, in keeping it short. Please suggest words to cut and I will probably have no issue cutting them. -SocraticOath (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be OK putting it under 'Safety' if the others agree to this. Keep in mind the implication: Safety now applies to newborns as well as women seeking abortion under this arrangement. -SocraticOath (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How often does this happen, anyway? In this study (http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/04000/Second_Trimester_Abortion_for_Fetal_Anomalies_or.4.aspx?sessionEnd=true) out of 263 D&E patients, all between 16 and 19 weeks gestational age, one went into labor instead of having a D&E procedure ("conversion to labor induction"). -SocraticOath (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I shortened a bunch of the sentences in the proposed addition. Would you immediately revert this shorter section, with the shorter refs, under Safety and with the duplicate data deleted from the labor induction abortion section? -SocraticOath (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

4th interaction

Extended content

Live birth Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing abortion after 18 weeks gestation sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly (occurring 0 to 13% or 0 to 50%, depending on the method and gestation). Longer term survival is possible after 22 weeks. If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not. Induced fetal demise before termination of pregnancy after 20-21 weeks gestation is recommended to avoid this.

Have edited it to the above. We should not be using primary sources. Terms like "doctors often" should not be used as they have the wrong tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Inducing Fetal Demise and How Common is Unintended Live Birth?

Hi, I just found a clinical guideline, by the Society of Family Planning (Publisher of Contraception) regarding induced fetal demise that could help to shed some light on under what conditions an abortion procedure results in unintended live birth, and how common it may be. http://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf Does this sound relevant to today's article about the Supreme Court and the Texas law? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/abortion-at-the-supreme-courts-door.html?_r=0 Thanks 146.23.3.250 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source, specifically addressing what happens if the procedure depends on inducing fetal death but it doesn't work: http://jme.bmj.com/content/16/2/61.short -146.23.3.250 (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Watershed: studies about this phenomenon are more likely to refer to the procedure as "termination of pregnancy". Thus we have this study, in which there is quite a significant occurrence of live birth among abortion patients between 20 weeks and 23 weeks gestation: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01279.x/full -146.23.3.250 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I placed some facts about this subject in this article. Before we automatically reject the changes and send the information to Late termination of pregnancy because of the definition of abortion, remember that some of the live births are indeed of babies who were not viable... but who were legally alive, and subject to birth and death certification and palliative medical care. -SocraticOath (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that some of the sources are about abortions in cases of fetal abnormality. Do the other editors feel this is an important point to show in the article? -SocraticOath (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I used the combined word livebirth intentionally because this is sometimes the word used in the medical / scientific literature. Not a typo! -SocraticOath (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I´m aware that abortion is a big issue and I hope you enjoyed my position on this topic. Have a great life!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.232.36 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 

ICD-10 Code 96.4 data from CDC: Filtered for newborns only?

File:WONDER.cdc.gov---ICD-10 P96.4 Description.png

@Snow Rise: In obtaining the number 531 from CDC, a person selects the code from the list shown above. The code and description given there for P96.4 is "Termination of pregnancy, newborn" which has already removed any fetuses from the count which would otherwise be included under the WHO definition. Cheers! -SocraticOath (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Most babies are aborted during the second trimester of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyfoster12 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

edit request for neutral language

Currently the introduction says "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as good as surgery during the first trimester." Surely nobody thinks abortion drugs are "good". Can an editor please use the word "efficient", so: "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as efficient as surgery during the first trimester." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.238 (talk • contribs)

Concur with the editor above that good may be construed as implying a moral judgement, which we should not do under WP:NPOV. However, I believe that effective is a better choice than efficient. I will make the change to use effective. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with effective. Please implement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.141 (talk • contribs)

We should use easier to understand language in the lead. How about "works as well as" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I still prefer "effective" from a stylistic point of view. You can informally say "a drug works well", but it is in my view not proper English to say "a surgical procedure works well" (in the case of the drug, the drug itself is the agent, whereas in the case of the surgery, the surgeon is the agent). It is possible to say "a surgical procedure went well" - perhaps that is confusing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.141 (talk • contribs)

Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Efficiency all mean related but different things. I have never seen the last one used in medicine. However, I am not educated enough to know what the data really support the statement "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as effective as surgery is during the first trimester" (citing PMID 23261233 and PMID 22071804). If they do, I would be okay with that or as it is. NW (Talk) 15:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. Both those papers extensively use the terms "effective" and effectiveness", and not "good". So effective is the appropriate word here, and I retract my initial preference "efficient". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.141 (talk • contribs)

"...as effective as surgery..." does not seem hard to understand to me - it's my preference. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have reached consensus. Gandydancer - would you like to implement it? (I would but cannot, as I am not registered). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.219 (talk • contribs)

No full consensus, as Doc James prefers (and implemented) 'well'. I prefer 'are as effective' since more neutral language in such a controversial topic is to be preferred over (slightly) clearer language. Gap9551 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Per this editor's statement, You can informally say "a drug works well", but it is in my view not proper English to say "a surgical procedure works well" (in the case of the drug, the drug itself is the agent, whereas in the case of the surgery, the surgeon is the agent). It is possible to say "a surgical procedure went well", I believe that Doc James should revert his edit. Gandydancer (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James:, aside from the above, the problem with saying that A "works as well as" B is that it can be read in different ways by different readers. It can mean "A is not inferior to B", or "A is equal to B", or just "A works and so does B". I think your suggested wording in this case could constitute unnecessary oversimplification. We have the space to be clear.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned we have "Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Efficiency" and all mean slightly different things. As most people do not know the subtle differences between them we should really try to use simple language to explain it.

We want to use the term "effective" it appears. So what does that mean? It means that it "results in the desired outcome as often as surgery". Would people be happy with that?

I see nothing wrong with taking a bit of time to discuss this. While the medical literature is written for professionals we are written for the general populous and thus should use different language than our sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

An abortion procedure which "results in the desired outcome" sounds a little gross to me. Think about it...

Let me rephrase my comment:

An abortion procedure which "results in the desired outcome" sounds unwittingly graphic to me.

I agree that "results in the desired outcome" is not the best wording per both above comments. We need to be very careful to avoid wording that sounds like its coming from anti-abortion activists. In this case it is best to keep a somewhat professional tone, such as using the word "effective". Surely simple English includes this word. Gandydancer (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see an issue with describing what "effective" means, at least in the lead. This keeps people from getting it confused with efficient.

How would you describe the meaning of the term? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc James: I am guilty of having suggested efficient before retracting it in favour of effective. Please do not conclude from this that effective and efficient is in any way confusing for the general public. I had simply not read the two references (where effective is explicitly used). I find the terms efficient and effective very easy to distinguish (most likely because British politicians and business leaders in the 1980s euphemistically referred to budget cuts as "efficiency drives"...). And I do not think anyone else here on this forum has voiced a problem with understanding "effective". I admire your dedicated Wikipedia work in general, but in this case I think you may be slightly presumptuous regarding the average reader's English skills. Or you may have had some personal negative experience with "effective" - tell us about it.

As recommended by WP:MEDMOS I am simply trying to write the leads of our articles using easier to understand English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at the other editors that have made comments and what they've had to say, it is my impression that they are aware of WP:MEDMOS concepts. You seem to believe that they are not, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc James is entirely correct in supporting usage of plain English, and avoidance of jargon - and correct that "effective" is a medico-scientific term with a specifically defined meaning. In this case, however, I believe that the plain English term for the medico-scientific term "effective" is also "effective", and that we are not overly "jargonal" in using it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have now perused WP:MEDMOS. As far as I can see, it says nothing specifically about leads. It does say however:

"When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first followed by the jargon in parentheses. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." So this is the procedure that Doc James should be following if he feels "effective" is too difficult for the reader. I however still think effective is best. Nobody wants to read in the lead about desirable/undesirable things coming in or out of bodily orifaces, to put it bluntly...

I was thinking this bit "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe neither?

Do either of the sources we use here specifically convey the idea that mifepristone and prostaglandin "work as well" or "are as effective as" surgery during the the first trimester? Can't say that I actually saw this in their summaries. Motsebboh (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of the sources that we reference for that sentence appears to lean heavily on "effective". See the Main results, Author's conclusions Safe and effective medical abortion methods are available. Combined regimens are more effective than single agents. & Plain English This review of trials found that medical methods for abortion in early pregnancy can be safe and effective, with the most evidence of effectiveness for a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol (a prostaglandin). sections here: Kulier, R; Kapp, N; Gülmezoglu, AM; Hofmeyr, GJ; Cheng, L; Campana, A (Nov 9, 2011). "Medical methods for first trimester abortion". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (11): CD002855. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub4. PMID 22071804.
At the Abstract level, the second reference, while an important study, doesn't appear to be as relevant to article text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay but, again, don't see where it specifically compares the use of these drugs (either separately or in combination) and says that the are just as effective as, or as good as, surgery. Motsebboh (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I see your point now. And concur. I was focused on the "terminology" aspects, and completely missed it. You are correct - the study linked above compares medical methods with each other, but does not make a comparison with surgical methods. There may, however, be something more supportive in the sources for the "Medical abortion" section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref says "A systematic review that compared medical and surgical methods for first-trimester abortion (≤14 weeks) found that medical abortion is an effective alternative to surgical abortion". So yes should reword as agree slightly different. Have reworded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I think we might have an issue with the referencing in the article; as I see them, the doi links that are in the references for that sentence do not contain that phrase. I am looking at: [1] & [2]. Are these the same as the reference mentioned above? If not, would it be possible to share the link (url) that you are looking at? Alternately, given that I am looking only at the Abstracts, is this something in the study itself? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is in the full text of this paper [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James; that makes it clearer. Motsebboh, what are your thoughts on this source as verification for the sentence? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to and this is not a major point

I notice that Gandydancer has reverted my deletion of the statement in the lead that birth control "can be started at once after an abortion" without bothering to cite policy. I see two problems with it which I briefly cited in my edit comment. [1.] It runs against WP:NOTHOWTO and [2.] it is a detail, not a major point on the general topic. Motsebboh (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There are three stages of care for every medical procedure: Pre-care, care during the procedure, and after-care. According to the WHO, this is a standard part of aftercare:

Before leaving the health-care facility following the surgical abortion procedure or administration of medical abortion pills, all women should receive contraceptive information and, if desired, the contraceptive method of their choice or referral for such services. [4]

Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So what?! This is an article on the topic of abortion broadly speaking. It is not an article on the before and after protocols of the medical/surgical procedures of abortion. You are missing the point. Motsebboh (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Let's see if any of the others have any suggestions. Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is an important part of aftercare. I see nothing wrong with mentioning it. It is a statement by a major medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps mentioning it in the body of the article but not the lead. Can you imagine Britannica putting a tidbit that had more to do with the topic of contraception than it does with the topic of abortion in its lead paragraph on abortion? Motsebboh (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, but a medical encyclopedia definitely would. We aren't trying to copy Britannica, we've surpassed them long ago. CFCF 💌 📧 12:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As to Britannica, you sound like Donald Trump. Don't kid yourself. We are basically a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs. Back to substantive point. The article, and particularly its lead, is about the subject of abortion in its general social context. Medical advise about birth control after abortion is a WP:NOTHOWTO that doesn't belong in the lead. Motsebboh (talk)

No, there are qualitative studies comparing Wikipedia and Britannica [5][6][7][8]. Claiming that a well-researched fact is a how-to is inane. CFCF 💌 📧 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an article on the topic of abortion broadly speaking - The article is about abortion. Abortion is "the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own". It is not "the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own and all of the social, political, and religious discussions around that action." It is a medical procedure that is the subject of significant social, political, and religious discussions, but the subject is still the act/procedure. We have whole other articles which focus on the non-medical aspects (see Template:Abortion). Should we cover non-medical aspects of the subject in this article, too? Of course, but while it's about "abortion broadly speaking", the main subject is abortion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias in lead

Language such as the following passage to the lead sounds a lot to me like pro-choice advocacy:

When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is and has long been one of the safest procedures in medicine. Uncomplicated abortions do not cause any long term mental or physical problems. The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women. Every year unsafe abortions cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions.

I see strong bias in the lead, the sources for which are largely gleaned from individuals and organizations firmly committed to the availability of the procedure. This bias relates to the choice of facts selected for the lead (and facts left unselected) and, in an instance or two, the wording of those facts. For example, I suspect that the sentence "Uncomplicated abortions do not cause any long term mental or physical problems" (presumably for the patient) is an overstated and oversimplified summary of findings that don't show a general significant statistical link between the two, which is not the same thing. Drinking eight cups of coffee a day may help some people, hurt others, and be an overall statistical wash in studies. While debates over the morality of abortion are mentioned toward the end of the lead I notice that the firm opposition to abortion of the world's largest religious organization, the Roman Catholic Church is not. On the other hand the World Health Organization's endorsement of of "safe and legal abortions" is presented in the second paragraph. In summary, I think the lead needs some work. Motsebboh (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't share your concerns. In the lead we have no choice but to make only one statement of one or a few sentences regarding the major topics related to the article. For instance while you say, "While debates over the morality of abortion are mentioned toward the end of the lead I notice that the firm opposition to abortion of the world's largest religious organization, the Roman Catholic Church is not.", we also know that:

The percentage of American Catholics that believe abortion should be legal in "all or most cases" is approximately half, with 47-54% giving this as their position.[10][12] When posed a binary question of whether abortion was acceptable or unacceptable, rather than a question of whether it should be allowed or not allowed in all or most cases, 40% of American Catholics said it was acceptable, approximately the same percentage as non-Catholics.[11] Some 58% of American Catholic women feel that they do not have to follow the abortion teaching of their bishop.[63]

This is very complicated and far from black and white. We mention religion and that's the best we can do for the lead, IMO. BTW, I reverted your article deletion - this will need discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:Gandydancer. The situation among Catholics and abortion is complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the situation among individual Catholics is complicated, much like the situation among individual MDs worldwide is complicated. However, the position of the Roman Catholic Church is rather clear-cut, much like the position of the (vastly smaller) World Health Organization is clear-cut. Motsebboh (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty misinformed, both the WHO and the Catholic church have very varied views—it depends on who you ask within those organizations. The WHO endorses access to safe and legal abortions, it does not comment on the morality as such. The Catholic church has a myriad of opinions, and as far as I know no single official opinion. CFCF 💌 📧 12:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you shitting me? Of course the Roman Catholic Church has an official position on abortion. Talk about "pretty misinformed"! Motsebboh (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that—there has been no official position since 1992. Considering the other massive policy changes after John Paul's papacy I don't think its proper to cite his Catechism. CFCF 💌 📧 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) 

The size of the WHO is irrelevant. It is a scientific body. The Catholic Church is a religious body. So one bases its views on evidence, the other on dogma. The two are not equivalent. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article, as I have said numerous times now, is about abortion in its broad social context; not simply in its narrower scientific/medical context. Moreover, WHO's position on abortion, properly understood, is not a scientific factual finding but a moral position in the same sense that the RC Church's position is a moral position. The lead, as it now stands quite appropriately brings up the moral debates about abortion. In that context the Catholic Church's official opposition to abortion is certainly worth a mention. Motsebboh (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC) More worthy of mention in the lead than the fact that it is medically safe to start contraceptive techniques right after an abortion. Motsebboh (talk)

I agree that it's reasonable to remove the WHO's position on abortion from the lead, as we don't mention the positions of any other major bodies, and I've gone ahead and done so. On the other hand, I've retained information on the safety of abortion, as this is a key aspect of the topic that we are required to cover in the lead, per WP:LEAD. MastCell ^Talk 01:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Well done. Motsebboh (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a statement by the WHO and it is a medical procedure. Disagree that their was an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see it removed and believe it should be put back. Of all of the health institutions, the WHO is the most familiar to our readers. Furthermore it is used again and again in not only this article but many of our other articles as well. Gandydancer (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, WHO's recommendation of universal abortion rights COULD go into the lead, and so COULD RCC's condemnation of abortion. They also could both just go into the body. It is a mistake to think that WHO's opinion deserves pride of place here. Like the RCC's position on the issue, WHO's position represents a MORAL stand. It means that in its appreciation of all abortion rights' possible consequences for the world, Who thinks that the world is better off allowing women to freely access "safe" abortion. RCC, on the other hand, thinks that the world is worse off allowing women to freely access "safe" abortion. Motsebboh (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The WHO position is not a recommendation of abortion rights it is a recommendation of safe abortions when abortion is legal, unlike the church's position, which is a moral pronouncement. The WHO's position is directly related to abortion safety issues which MastCell claims do belong in the lead. Again, I believe that it should be returned to the lead. Per their latest guideline I'd suggest this wording or similar: "Where they are legal, the World Health Organization recommends safe abortions be available to all women."[2]Gandydancer (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, While its wording tends to tap dance around directly calling abortion a human right, all of WHO's argument leads in that direction. Prefacing the statement by adding "Where they are legal" is misleading because WHO is quite obviously advocating that they be "legal and safe" everywhere. Motsebboh (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored it as a relevant position of one of the if not the most authoritative medical body there is. RCC's 1992 Cathechism by Pope John Paul II is not similarly authoritative today.CFCF 💌 📧 22:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "authoritative body" on whether or not abortion should be legal. It is a subjective opinion, whether it be WHO's opinion or the Vatican's. Saying that the RCC's 1992 Catechism "is not similarly authoritative" to WHO's position is intellectual gibberish. Motsebboh (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The WHO is responsible for the health of all women, including the ones who desire an abortion but do not have access to a provider. They explain their concerns saying:

"In countries where induced abortion is legally highly restricted and/or unavailable, safe abortion has frequently become the privilege of the rich, while poor women have little choice but to resort to unsafe providers, causing deaths and morbidities that become the social and financial responsibility of the public health system." Gandydancer (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to our discussion here. Motsebboh (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC) For what it is worth (which isn't anything as far as this discussion is supposed to be concerned) richer people quite generally have a better chance of breaking the law without incurring onerous consequences. Motsebboh (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining my view more fully; I haven't been very active here in general. Briefly, I view the WHO as an outstanding source for the medical and public-health aspects of abortion, which are the focuses of the second paragraph of the lead. I view the question of advocacy for abortion rights (or for their restriction) as separate, and we cover that topic briefly in the final paragraph of the lead without mentioning any specific organization's position. I do understand the point, raised by others above, that the WHO's position is nuanced and predicated on abortion safety, but personally I would still prefer to keep medical/public-health aspects separate from advocacy as much as possible.

Given the extensive promulgation of misinformation about abortion (c.f. PMID 21557713), my personal priority for this page is that it present accurate medical information. Separating advocacy arguments from medical content helps with this goal, in my view. (As a gentle reminder, this page is subject to 1RR; I think there have been a couple of violations recently, but nothing that should require more than a quick reminder going forward). MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 14 January 2016

(UTC)

The relevance here is "bias in lead". Looking at WP:NPOV, the specific views of the WHO carry a great deal of WP:WEIGHT. Is there any similar health body with contrary views based on medical science which we have left out? That would be bias. Otherwise we're comparing apples to oranges. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Pete. The question of whether abortion should be a woman's right is a moral question, not a medical one. The WHO and any other medical organization is free to express an opinion on this moral question but, then so is the RCC. Motsebboh (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't you oppress me, now. Our lede doesn't couch it in such terms, unless perhaps you feel that our wording, "The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women…" should be extended to add "…and all men." --Pete (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

. . "Don't (I) oppress you now"?? Sorry, don't know what you're talking about. Motsebboh (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you didn't have a classical education. Here you go! --Pete (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. Motsebboh (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Medical abortion

Our Medical abortion article states:

There is little, if any, difference between medical and surgical abortion in terms of safety and efficacy. Thus, both methods are similar from a medical point of view and there are only very few situations where a recommendation for one or the other method for medical reasons can be given. (WHO)

Our abortion article states:

Medical abortion regimens using mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog are the most common methods used for second-trimester abortions in Canada, most of Europe, China and India,[41] in contrast to the United States where 96% of second-trimester abortions are performed surgically by dilation and evacuation.

And yet the lead for this article states:

Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.[2] The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are a reasonable alternative to surgery during the first trimester.[2][3] While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects.[3][5]

To merely call medical abortion a "reasonable alternative" during the first trimester and then to further state it "may work" in the second, though with a higher risk of side effects, does not seem to match what I found when I did some further reading. Furthermore, as written the article seems to suggest that the rest of the world is wrong in its approach while the US has taken the route most beneficial for women, which I doubt. I think we need to reword the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the WHO ref. How do you propose we summary it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Existing copy reads: Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.[2] The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are a reasonable alternative to surgery during the first trimester.[2][3] While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects.[3][5] Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be started at once after an abortion.[3] When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is and has long been one of the safest procedures in medicine.[6][7] Uncomplicated abortions do not cause any long term mental or physical problems.[8] The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[9] Every year unsafe abortions cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions.[8][10]

Suggest: The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[9] Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions; in terms of safety or effectiveness there is little to no difference in either method. Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be started at once after an abortion.[3] When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is and has long been one of the safest procedures in medicine.[6][7] Uncomplicated abortions do not cause any long term mental or physical problems.[8] Every year unsafe abortions cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions.[8][10]

I would gladly use some other word than "effectiveness" but I can't come up with one that works as well. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple of comments, it is the medication combination that works aswell at least in the first trimester. In the second trimester things are more complicated. Thus IMO we should state the meds and discuss the second trimester first trimester difference. If most people are set on using effectiveness we can of course.

"The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[9] Modern methods use either medication or surgery for abortions. In terms of safety and effectiveness there is little difference between the medications mifepristone and prostaglandin and surgery in the first trimester. While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects.[3][5] Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be started at once after an abortion.[3] When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is and has long been one of the safest procedures in medicine.[6][7] Uncomplicated abortions do not cause any long term mental or physical problems.[8] Every year unsafe abortions cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions.[8][10]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I have found in my reading:

• Although women treated with mifepristone and misoprostol reported significantly more pain than those undergoing D&E, efficacy and acceptability were the same in both groups (per one study). This is from the WHO wherein they said they used a Cochrane review but the review could find only two studies that met their criteria and one used prostaglandin rather than mifepristone and misoprostol, which I understand is the preferred method.

• The WHO concluded: Only two studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both of them had been conducted in the USA and had a small number of participants. There are no evidence-based data from developing countries such as China, India and Viet Nam where there are more second trimester abortion than in developed countries. Trials of adequate power are needed from such settings to compare currently used medical (mifepristone combined with misoprostol, misoprostol administered by vaginal or by sublingual route and intra-amniotic administration of ethacridine lactate) and surgical methods of abortion for termination of pregnancies in the second trimester.

• The medical method is used almost 100% of the time in both Finland and Sweden and 25% of the time in the UK for second trimester abortions. I find it hard to believe that they would be using a method that they believe to be inferior to the surgical method. Info from [9]

With these facts in mind, I believe that it is misleading to say "While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects.[3][5]". To say that they may work means that sometimes they may not work, which is clearly not a reflection of what the information says. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that medical and surgical are equal in the first trimester.

The ref for second trimester abortions states "Many studies reported the need for surgical evacuation. Indications for surgical evacuation include retained products of the placenta and heavy vaginal bleeding."[10]

The other ref says with respect to second trimester abortion "Fewer women experienced adverse events with D&E compared with mifepristone combined with misoprostol (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01–0.76), although there were no differences in efficacy between the two groups."[11]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So per "To say that they may work means that sometimes they may not work" I do not think this was the intention but tried to reword to address the concern as in both trimesters medical and surgical methods are equally effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, however the first ref that you offer above compares several forms of medical abortions, not medical compared to surgical, and it is well-known that some forms do not produce favorable outcomes and present various complications. According to Cochrane there is yet only one study that compares the preferred medical method with the preferred surgical method. It seems to me that we are left with the only sure statement being "surgery may have lower risk of side effects." Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Do you mean to state that you do not feel the literature supports equal effectiveness of medical and surgical methods in the first or second trimester. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, here is your suggestion: Modern methods use either medication or surgery for abortions. In terms of safety and effectiveness there is little difference between the medications mifepristone and prostaglandin and surgery in the first trimester. While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects.

I think that is good wording except for this:While medical methods may work in the second trimester,[4] surgery has lower risk of side effects. because when surgery is matched up with the use of mifepristone and prostaglandin (in the second trimester), we have only one study to look at, and not a very good one at that. For this reason I feel that it is more accurate to say "surgery may have a lower risk of side effects." Thus I propose In terms of safety and effectiveness there is little difference between the medications mifepristone and prostaglandin and surgery, although in the second trimester surgery may have a lower risk of side effects. (Even though I would prefer to just leave the reference to the second trimester out of the lead entirely.)

This quote: "Using the same published safety data, countries have developed policies and practices that are almost opposite from each other, as demonstrated by the predominance of surgical methods in the United States and the predominance of labor induction abortion in many other countries." from here: [12] is helpful. I hope this helps... Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would split it into two sentences In terms of safety and effectiveness there is little difference between the medications mifepristone and prostaglandin and surgery. Although in the second trimester surgery may have a lower risk of side effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Some changes have been made and I just went with them as they do not need to use effectiveness which I know you did not care for. It now reads: The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin work as well as surgery during the first and second trimester.[3][4] During the second trimester surgery may have a lower risk of side effects.[4][5] Are we all happy? I am. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gandydancer. Looks good to me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That phrasing looks good. The only suggestion I would make is to add than medical abortion to the end. I think there a possible misreading which infers that the comparison is between surgery in the second trimester & surgery in the first trimester; not between the two methods. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an important issue for all women but perhaps especially important for women in countries with less well-developed medical systems such as Africa where skilled medical providers are not available, or in the U.S. where women do not receive free medical care and may have to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket. We need to get this right and we must not make statements in the Wikipedia voice that are not strongly backed with RS. After several days of discussion an agreement was reached which I implemented. It was reverted by Motsebboh with an edit summary of Reverted change that was not an improvement and not agreed to on the Talk page. Greater risk of side effects doesn't square with = effectiveness. I restored my edit suggesting that Motsebboh should have taken part in the discussion if s/he had any concerns and s/he replied with the edit summary I did take part in the discussion by adding the "Maybe neither" subtopic to it. You and Doc don't own the article. Actually the "Maybe neither" suggestion is from another topic, not this one. I've waited a day to give Motsebboh a chance to respond but s/he has not done so. I'm going to revert to the wording that was decided on in this section. I will use good faith and trust that Motsebboh does not want an edit war. Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Ah, I see it's been fixed. Thanks CFCF. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, With respect, the discussion above agreed a wording including the phrasing work as well as (which I take to speak to effectiveness); what was implemented includes a phrasing as safe and effective as (which I take to speak to both safety and effectiveness). Given the sources around side effects, Motsebboh concerns w.r.t the safety aspect may be valid in this regard, and I would support a move back to the works as well as phrasing, as agreed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to both ways of putting it. Doc never did get much agreement, if I remember correctly, and he did say he was ready to step aside if the others saw it differently. I think that MastCell did prefer the safety... phrasing. See what I added below and see what you think? Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a number of problems with the present wording of the lead's second paragraph. First, the most effective drug-induced technique, as I read the sources, is mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin, not the two separately. Just saying "mifepristone and prostaglandin" does not adequately convey this idea. Second, I don't see where either of the two sources used here actually says that surgery and drugs work equally well. Each is described as working acceptably well, each is "legit" by the standards of the medical profession, but I don't see where either source says that one is as good as the other. Third, relating to Ryk's point above, it doesn't make much sense to say that surgery and drugs are equally safe and effective and then immediately after this say that drugs may cause a greater risk of side effects. If something has a greater risk of unwanted side effects then I don't think of it as equally safe and effective. Socio-political considerations, such as wanting to give poorer women greater access to safe abortion, should play no role in how we interpret the sources. Motsebboh (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will amend the article to state "in combination with" as you suggest.
• Regarding your second concern, the information is there and it is not reasonable for you to ignore the discussion only to now state a disagreement once the information has been added to the article. I did a lot of reading and presented it here and two other editors followed it and we came to an agreement.
• Re your statement "If something has a greater risk of unwanted side effects then I don't think of it as equally safe and effective", it all depends. For example, reading the article that I mention above it says, "In contrast to surgical abortion, complication rates [for a medical method] do not appear to increase with advancing gestational age" along with dozens of other facts on the safety and effectiveness of both methods. Also, there are hundreds of medications with side effects that are a lot more concerning than the ones mentioned here that are never-the-less called safe and effective. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC) However, to add, I do not believe that our sources support the statement "During the second trimester, surgery may have a lower risk of side effects.[3][4][5]", but I'm not going to try to argue it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should argue it, because I still think that it makes no sense for our article to say in consecutive sentences that Method A is just as safe and effective as Method B but that Method A may cause a greater risk of side effects. That's a head-scratcher. Motsebboh (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

I want to help your page by adding up to date facts about abortion.

2601:601:8200:190A:A008:6476:716B:AA4E (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Majora (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Does surgery have a lower risk of side effects?

The article states, "During the second trimester, surgery may have a lower risk of side effects.[3][4][5]" but I can't find good RS to support this statement.

The abstract from the first ref offered says only: Routine use of cervical preparation with osmotic dilators, mifepristone or misoprostol after 14 weeks gestation reduces complications; at early gestational ages, surgical abortions have very few complications. Perhaps there is more in the article but this seems quite straight forward re safety.

The second abstract says: Based on existing evidence, the Society of Family Planning recommends that, when labor induction abortion is performed in the second trimester, combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol is the ideal regimen to effect abortion quickly and completely. but does not compare it to surgical abortion.

In the third ref Cochrane compared different forms of medical methods but did not compare them to surgical methods.

According to the 2006 WHO Frequently asked clinical questions about medical abortion, regarding factors that should be taken into account when counseling a woman about her choice between medical and surgical abortion: There is little, if any, difference between medical and surgical abortion in terms of safety and efficacy. Thus, both methods are similar from a medical point of view and there are only very few situations where a recommendation for one or the other method for medical reasons can be given.

References

I would like to remove the info that states that surgery has a lower risk of side effects. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref says "Fewer women experienced adverse events with D&E compared with mifepristone combined with misoprostol (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01–0.76), although there were no differences in efficacy between the two groups." in reference to abortion after 12 weeks.[13]

But there was not much data to base this on. And it than concludes "Evidence for comparing surgical versus medical methods of abortion in the second trimester is limited primarily because many women are not willing to be randomized between surgical and medical methods." So agree and trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wording of opening sentence

It appears that things are getting overly complicated. We may need RfCs / clear consensus before making changes to this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence has been stable for some time and extensively discussed in the past. I have restored the easier to understand wording. Please get consensus before changing it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "MY First Encyclopedia" for elementary pupils, Doc. "Before it can survive on its own", [14], is just bad wording; informal as well as inaccurate. Motsebboh (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur, this isn't WP:SEW. Both "womb" and "can survive on it's own" are poor verbiage choices, inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia, and in addition, "survive on it's own" was rightly criticized by another editor earlier in an edit summary as being completely inaccurate. There's nothing wrong with "viable"; it's linked if anyone requires clarification. And it's simply pandering IMO to pipe "uterus" to "womb". Do you also pipe "vagina" to "female parts"? KillerChihuahua 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How is this change "simplifying"? It is adding verbiage which is much wordier and less clear in one place, and piping a perfectly acceptable and accurate word in another. I suggest you have complicated rather than simplified the sentence by your revert. KillerChihuahua 01:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I definitely prefer KillerC's version which was an improvement on my own. Motsebboh (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Viable means "able to survive independently" so there is nothing wrong with it. I have no preference between womb and uterus. I think womb is more of a British term. Per WP:MEDMOS we recommend the writing of the lead using easy to understand English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "viable" was discussed in one of the marathon type discussions that we tend to get into here and it lost out. I think it's the best term. As for womb, nobody uses that term anymore and uterus is better, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually lots of people use the term womb but uterus is better, more clinical. I'm more concerned with "survive on its own" which is just about the worst way to word it. Twenty-two-year-olds just out of college may or may not "survive on their own", someone lost in the forest may or may not be able to "survive on his/her own", but neither a fetus aborted at three months nor a healthy new born infant can "survive on its own". Motsebboh (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears we are agreed on uterus as preferable (or in one case, not less preferable) to womb, yes? KillerChihuahua 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay uterus it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. How do we stand on "survive on its own"? I prefer "viable" which is the term linked. As had been noted, there are accuracy issues with "survive on its own", so even if you don't care for "viable", please brainstorm and try to suggest alternate verbiage. Just toss out ideas at this point, no need to get to committed to any specific phrasing. Let's see what we can work out. KillerChihuahua 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We mean literally "survive on its own" rather than figuratively like college students surviving on their own. I guess we could have a RfC if people wish. I am not a big fan of "viable" as it also have multiple meanings and is fairly complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No, healthy, full-term babies cannot "literally" survive on their own, either. That's why the existing phrasing is poor. Healthy, full term babies can survive outside of the uterus . . . they are viable, in that sense, unlike a 12-week-old fetus. But unlike the new born of many species, they do not have the instinctive abilities to "survive on their own." They need all sorts of direct outside help. Motsebboh (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this a real issue or are you just trying to find something to argue about? Wasting time arguing semantics is pointless, by that logic you would also have a hard time surviving "on your own" without "direct outside help" from supermarkets, plumbing and electricity. CFCF 💌 📧 08:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 

How about "by removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it can survive outside the uterus" or "by removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it can survive separate from the mother"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the first one, but it could be shortened to "by removing a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it can survive outside the uterus" — I think where it is removed from is implied and shouldn't cause any misunderstanding. CFCF 💌 📧 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 

Sure would be happy with that aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF You and I and most "normal" adults have the wherewithal to do the things, including intelligently seeking all kinds of help, to likely stay alive. Full term babies don't, though the new-born of many species do. "Survive on its own" is just bad phrasing here. That being said, I rather like your new formulation. Motsebboh (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted. Feel free to overrule me but that wasn't an improvement. The new wording has "the removal" without specifying wherefrom. It is possible to remove ectopic pregnancies but that is not an abortion. Also use of "the fetus" suggests there is a single fetus. Is it not possible to remove one of multiple fetus or just multiples at once? As for womb/uterus, it's the same thing with different etymologies. The Latin root always sounds more clinical, but the meaning is the same. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"A fetus" would also mean just one, though the use of either A or THE isn't really an issue for me. However, "survive on its own" certainly is. Very imprecise phrasing. "REMOVAL . . before it can survive OUTSIDE the uterus" pretty plainly tells the reader what the fetus has been removed from. In any case, using "uterus" or "womb" twice in the sentence is far better than saying "survive on its own". Motsebboh (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not have strong position regarding which. Ever do you have a proposed wording? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this is beating a dead horse, but I can't help but note that if we defined abortion the way that almost everyone uses the term: as the removal of the fetus from the uterus in order to cause its demise at any time during gestation, then we wouldn't have run into this problem. "Survive on its own" is terrible phrasing. Motsebboh (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Slanted subsection

The "Maternal and fetal health" subsection currently looks US-slanted, with two paragraphs dedicated solely to the US. I think we can either replace something there with info on other countries or trim some text. Brandmeister^talk 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Access to contraceptives and abortion rates

Currently the article lead says "Abortion rates changed little between 2003 and 2008, before which they decreased for at least two decades due to better access to family planning and birth control."

References

I don't see where the source actually says this. Rather, I see places where the source hints at or suggests that greater access to modern contraceptives has or may eventually lead to lower abortion rates, or notes that it has "coincided" with declines in abortion rates in an area of the world, but nowhere do I see the source flatly saying that it caused an overall two decade long decline in abortions. Motsebboh (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed the text from due to to along with. This is the type of thing that may be hard to prove, and as such I don't really mind changing it, unless someone finds a quality source that does state this. CFCF 💌 📧 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In all due respect, English syntax is neither your strong suit, Carl, nor Doc James's. As worded now : "they (abortion rates) decreased for at least two decades along with better access to family planning and birth control", it sounds as if BOTH abortion rates and access to family planning and birth control decreased at the same time. I'll work on it. Motsebboh (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the word "better" is included in the sentence. Unless you are implying that our readers believe less access to family planning and birth control is better—insulting others only serves to create an adversarial environment. CFCF 💌 📧 22:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Atmospherics aside, I agree that "along with" doesn't really work as a conjunction here, as the sentence is currently structured; in that it does not convey the meaning that is intended, and does convey a meaning which is not intended. That said, the whole of the sentence structure is strange, following neither a chronological nor an importance order; it may be better reworked completely. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be a good project for you, RyK. @ CFCF Within all due respect, I was not trying to be insulting. I was trying to be accurate. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I was never a hurdler or a long distance runner and, unlike you and Doc James, I know next to nothing about medicine. However, I think I can spot unsatisfactory prose pretty well. Best Regards. Motsebboh (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

With increased access to family planning and birth control, abortion rates decreased over the two decades prior to 2003; they have remained constant from 2003 to 2008. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better Ryk. I would replace "birth control" with "modern contraceptives", since abortion really is a form of birth control. Frankly, I have doubts about linking increased access to contraceptives with declining abortion rates but our source pushes the idea. "Constant" may be a little too strong a word. Motsebboh (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

With normal language usage abortion is not really a form of birth control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, Doc. And with "normal language usage" late terminations of pregnancies are really a form of abortion, but we all have our quirks. Motsebboh (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Safe and effective"

In "The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy" the words "safe and effective" imply that we take a stance on abortion, in contradiction to WP:IMPARTIAL. I suggest replacing them with something neutral or rephrasing the sentence somehow. Brandmeister^talk 17:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of a smiley face way of talking about a procedure that disposes of an incipient human, even though we all know that "safe and effective" is referring to the patient. I suppose we could actually place "for the patient" after "safe and effective." Motsebboh (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We are comparing one to the other. Therefore regardless of how one interprets the terms it is accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"Safe and effective" in that context is a relative phrase, as this issue also involves the fetus. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes and endorse a particular point of view, as such a clarification is appropriate. Brandmeister^talk 12:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see it as an issue. Also this is the terminology our sources use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

These sources, being medical, may take a pro-abortion stance, while we are encouraged to write impartially, without endorsing a particular point of view. Per WP:NPOV policy, "even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." I propose the wording "safe and effective for the mother", if the phrase "safe and effective" is to be retained. Something like this would make it more neutral, without pro-life flavor, methinks. Brandmeister^talk 13:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This takes the stance that our readers are idiots who do not understand that the fetus does not survive an abortion. This is against policy.CFCF 💌 📧 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It does sometimes. Actually, on a number of occasions. Brandmeister^talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would we write about the safety of a medical procedure to someone other than the patient? Some medical procedures carry risks to doctors and nurses too, but that's not the common understanding of the phrase; when we talk about the safety of a vaccine we don't write "safe and effective for the patient" just because a medico could get stuck with a needle and contract an illness like HIV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister I have some sympathy for the the general point you are making but I must say that the phrase "safe and effective for the mother" drives me up the wall because the woman is probably getting the abortion because she doesn't want to be a mother or, at least, a mother with another child. Motsebboh (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a provisional suggestion. It's possible to offer some other wording. Brandmeister^talk 07:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• When we talk about the medical aspects of abortion, we talk about their safety and efficacy. That's how medical treatments are discussed. This doesn't constitute "taking a pro-abortion stance"; it constitutes following the best available sources on the subject, which we are bound by site policy to do. I don't really give a shit what you all choose to do in the sections devoted to arguing pro-choice or pro-life politics, but I do care deeply that the medical information we present is accurate and consistent with the best available sources (all the more so given the prevalence of misinformation about abortion). I'm not willing to compromise between accurate, concise, source-based descriptions of the medical aspects of abortion on the one hand, and the personal opinions of a couple of partisan Wikipedia editors on the other hand. MastCell ^Talk 02:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When you shave in the morning, MastCell, you see a partisan Wikipedia editor. The fact of the matter is that the second paragraph of the lead has largely been structured to endorse abortion rights. Motsebboh (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm comfortable that my record on medical articles speaks for itself. Any text that describes the medical aspects of abortion accurately and neutrally is likely to appear, to some editors, to "endorse abortion rights". That's the price of doing business in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; we've been down this road before, and will be again, I'm sure. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Your edit summary, MastCell: Please stay off any highway that I happen to be on. Motsebboh (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

After some consideration, I propose "in this regard", either in the form "In this regard, the drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin..." or in the form "appears to be as safe and effective in this regard as surgery..." This clarifies the perspective and appears more smooth and neutral. Brandmeister^talk 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't add anything, and certainly does not "clarify". CFCF 💌 📧 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister. I think what bothers you here is the abrupt, clinical tone of the statement about abortion techniques, which comes before any acknowledgment of the huge moral controversy over abortion. Perhaps the opening paragraphs of the lead could be reworked so that this controversy is acknowledged BEFORE we talk about medical versus surgical abortion. Motsebboh (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd support that. As it stands, "appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy" appears to violate WP:NOTHOWTO, encouraging women to take mifepristone and prostaglandin if they want an abortion. The policy explicitly advises against an article that reads like a medical manual. The addition of "in that regard" to the sentence would clarify that this is about medical abortion method wikilinked in the preceding sentence. Brandmeister^talk 09:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Motsebboh: Per your suggestion I've moved the "When allowed by local law" sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph without modifying the rest. Brandmeister^talk 09:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Yes, that's a good edit. But I think even earlier in the lead some mention should be made of the moral controversy surrounding abortion so that the basic reason that abortion is not always allowed by law is clearer to the reader. Motsebboh (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate in the lead

This was added to the lead "Historically, abortion has been the subject of moral and legal debate, particularly from the latter decades of the 20th century when it was legalized in many countries."

While we already had "In many places there is much debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion."

Not sure we need to say it twice and therefore trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad move, Doc. The moral debate over abortion should be mentioned very early in the lead. It should certainly be mentioned before the modern day technical comparison of medical versus surgical abortion. The second paragraph of the lead begins "When allowed by local law . . " The uninitiated reader should therefore be given a cue as to why the procedure is sometimes not allowed by local law. Moreover, look at the big picture here. The whole reason we have MANY lengthy articles about abortion in Wikipedia is because of the great controversy surrounding abortion. We do not have articles on cardiac surgery in Canada, the Philippines, Ireland, the Netherlands, etc, as we do on abortion because cardiac surgery is less medically important than abortion. We do not have them because they do not present the moral and political controversy that abortion does. Thus the main article on abortion should acknowledge this controversy up front. Other items in lead can then be modified as we see fit. Motsebboh (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We do in the 4th paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not responsive to my points above. Motsebboh (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead follows the same sequence as the body of the article. I do not see justification to move it. Doc James (talk · contribsemail) 11:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see where WP:LEAD tells us that items in the lead must be presented in the same order as they are in the body but maybe it's there. However I did see where WP:LEAD tells us that the lead should "explain why the topic is notable" and, more specifically, that the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the lead "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances that surround it." The most important set of circumstances surrounding abortion is that the procedure is controversial. That's why this comparatively basic procedure has such a huge article on it here in Wikipedia and why there are dozens of subsidiary articles on it. I hope this helps. Motsebboh (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree that the most important bit is that it is controversial. The most important bit is what it is and than how it is done and its safety. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make war on reasonable assumptions no one is going to stop you. But I will tell you that this is exactly what you are doing. The Wikipedia articles on other controversial procedures in medicine such as lobotomy, conversion therapy, circumcision all mention the controversy or debate that they entail earlier in their articles than we have done here. Yet the amount of controversy over abortion in modern times dwarfs all of these combined. You might take a gander at the listings of abortion related Wikipedia categories (each containing its own abortion related articles articles) [15] and ask yourself what small fraction of these would exist were abortion not controversial. Motsebboh (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The importance of a subtopic is not calculated by adding up the number of pages Wikipedia has on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And your calculation would be what? As the lead now stands, the second paragraph twice alludes to the fact that abortion is sometimes not legal. Yet the reader has not been given a clue in either the first or second paragraph as to why. The reader should be given an idea of WHY abortion might be illegal in certain places before its illegal status in some places is mentioned. Motsebboh (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Excessive repetition does not improve the lede, nor does moving this to the first paragraph help the reader understand what abortion is. It is sufficient to mention it in the fourth paragraph, there is a very clear order starting with an overview of what abortion is, then to safety and epidemiology etc. CFCF 💌 📧

I agree that excessive repetition doesn't help the article. But superior placement of material does; like telling the reader that a procedure is highly controversial BEFORE telling the reader that it is illegal in many places. We aren't writing detective stories here . . keep reading and we will tell you why! Motsebboh (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Abortion Facts

Abortion became legalized in the United States in 1973 and is the cause of more than 13% of all deaths among pregnant women. There are approximately six million unplanned pregnancies each year and about half of those pregnancies end in abortion. That means more than 40% of women will end their pregnancy by abortion. Abortions are the most common of the medical procedures performed within the United States each year. According to emedicinehealth.com, “Abortion is one of the most visible, controversial, and legally active areas in the field of medicine.” (emedicinehealth.com) Abortion is not racist and claims the lives of 53% white, 36% blacks, 8% of another race and 3% of an unknown race but is highest among twenty to twenty-four year old women. Life begins at conception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.17.230 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Late term abortion

Is NOT the same thing as late termination of pregnancy. Late term is simply after 17 weeks[16] to 20 weeks and before viability.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc, the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on late termination of pregnancy gives FIVE other names for the procedure All describing it as a kind of ABORTION! Don't you think we might tell the reader HERE this this procedure is also commonly known as an abortion?? Use your common sense. Motsebboh (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes the late termination of pregnancy contained stuff not supported by the references in question. I have corrected some of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now the first sentence of the late termination of pregnancy article only lists THREE other names for the procedure, ALL of which call it . . guess what . . AN ABORTION! Motsebboh (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure and we state "A similar procedure after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb is known as a "late termination of pregnancy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and why bother to do that if the article is about ABORTION, not LATE TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY, unless lots of people who are not Doc James routinely call the latter procedure an abortion?? Hence, a sentence such as " A similar procedure performed after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, though often called an abortion, is medically known as a late termination of pregnancy. "Though often called an abortion" alerts the reader as to the reason for this information. Motsebboh (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

When false beliefs are widespread it is better to educate than to pander to ignorance. Unless you find applicable WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for your statements it is merely opinion, bearing no weight. CFCF 💌 📧 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean the "false beliefs" of many MDs who also call "late termination of pregnancy" abortion? Here's the FIRST SENTENCE of the article on Late termination of pregnancy since Doc James got a hold of it TODAY and eliminated as many of the synonyms calling it "abortion" as he could find justification for doing.

Late termination of pregnancy (TOP), also known as postviability abortion, ITOP, or simply abortion are terminations of pregnancy which are performed during a later stage of pregnancy.

Note that this sentence says also known as . . . It DOES NOT say falsely known as . . . or known to the ignorant as . . . So, to answer your question, Carl, the "applicable compliant sources" which make it more than merely my opinion are right in the first sentence of our article on Late termination of pregnancy. Motsebboh (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

References

findlaw.com is a legal site, which uses broader non-standard terminology. As I said, find me a WP:MEDRS source, not just any source. CFCF 💌 📧 00:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 

Guttmacher is already used as a source in Late termination of pregnancy but here 's a brand new article (Feb 1, 2016) where it uses the term "postviability abortion" (first page of source) rather than "late termination of pregnancy". I guess it decided to pander to the ignorant. [18] Motsebboh (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm growing very tired of this nonsense, that is a completely different term. CFCF 💌 📧 21:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A completely different term from what? Do you know what this discussion is actually about, Carl?? I'm getting the impression that you don't. Motsebboh (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I admit that I find reading text with random capitalization and excessive exclamation marks tiring, but we're not getting away from the fact that you are incorrectly consolidating three terms: "late termination of pregnancy"; "late term abortion"; and "postviability abortion". CFCF 💌 📧 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed this in a number of your comments here and on other Talk pages. You sometimes don't seem to quite get the gist of what is being said. I am not recommending that we change the title of the article Late termination of pregnancy to " _____-_____ abortion." If that were the case, I would be arguing on that article's talk page, not here. Nor am I saying that a term such as "postviability abortion" is just as good, or as clinically correct, as "late termination of pregnancy. What I'm recommending is that just as Late termination of pregnancy quickly alerts readers that there are other commonly used names for the procedure (usually "_________ abortion"), the abortion article should quickly alert the reader that, though the term abortion is often used for a "similar procedure" after the fetus is viable, "late termination of pregnancy" is the "official" name for it. Motsebboh (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an overview. All the other specific names belong on the subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sez you. In an article about ABORTION why bother to mention a procedure that isn't abortion (in the opening paragraph, no less) unless lots of people call it abortion? And if lots of people call it abortion then why not note it? You are actually working at cross purposes with yourself here. You want folks to know this procedure as "late termination of pregnancy" rather than abortion, but when they use the link to go to late termination of pregnancy the FIRST THING THEY SEE is that it is also known as ABORTION. Thus they are perfectly entitled to think that abortion is just as a good a name for it as late termination of pregnancy. Motsebboh (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You could try a RfC. I disagree with presenting the wrong term for late termination of pregnancy in the lead of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You disagree with presenting the wrong term for late termination of pregnancy in the lead of this article on abortion, but you agree with including info on the wrong procedure in the lead of this article on abortion. I have trouble with your reasoning there. 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs)

I agree with Doc James, try an RfC. CFCF 💌 📧 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous and/or misleading sentence in the lead

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead: "When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine." seems off to me. For example, it seems implausible that having an abortion is safer than having your X-ray taken or taking an aspirin. So I would want to know what the word "procedure" is supposed to mean here. In the second citation it appears they are referring to surgical procedures. So I would have added the word "surgical" to the sentence, except that (a) this is not supported by the quote from the first citation ("By contrast, legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice, with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death.") and (b) the subsequent sentences say that abortion can be either a medication or a surgery, so it wouldn't make sense to say that it is the abortion as a whole (either medical or surgical) is one of the safest surgeries. The first citation doesn't seem to argue for its claim that abortion is one of the safest procedures (it is about the safety of abortion but doesn't compare it to other medical procedures), so I don't get any clue from there.

If there is a commonly-accepted definition of "medical procedure" that it seems likely the first citation is using, then could someone edit to make that more clear? I don't have the expertise to assess that. Otherwise, it seems that the best choice might be to add the word "surgical" as mentioned above...

David9550 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That it "seems implausible" means nothing without looking at the actual evidence, which supports this statement. CFCF 💌 📧 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 

Where is the evidence that abortion is safer than X-ray and aspirin? Or did you mean that it is safer than most "medical procedures"? What is a "medical procedure"? David9550 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Abortion is safer than childbirth. Aspirin and x-rays have nothing to do with it. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well why don't we just say that then? (The sentence currently says that abortion is "one of the safest procedures in medicine", and I don't think that whether it is safer than childbirth is relevant to that claim. But I think it would read fine as "safer than childbirth".) David9550 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That there are procedures that are safer than abortions does not mean it isn't among the safest in medicine. If you're questioning the claim I would suggest checking the source, and also I suggest reading up on the real dangers of both Aspirin: e.g. Reye syndrome, Analgesic nephropathy, Upper gastrointestinal bleeding & X-rays: e.g. Radiation-induced cancer. CFCF 💌 📧 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did look at both sources and summarized what I found in my original comment. I did not find any real argument or data analysis supporting the claim, just pure assertion, and that without any clarification of definitions. (The source does cite a different article (Hogberg Joelsson 1985) which I can't seem to find a copy of, but it is not really clear what it is claiming that this article says, and based on the abstract it seems unlikely to support the sentence the way it is currently phrased in Wikipedia. If you know how to get a copy of this article then I will look at it.) I am aware that X-rays and aspirin are not without their dangers (that's why I used them as examples), but this does not change the fact that there is no reliable source comparing them with abortion. David9550 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And why would we need a source to compare aspirin and X-rays with abortion? Looking up the 1985 source won't change anything—Wikipedia does not engage in peer review and we have no reason to doubt the veracity or strength of the current cited article.

So, again, either refute the statement with a similar high quality source, or explain how the source doesn't support the claim in this article — your previous argument which arbitrarily split medical and surgical procedures is not only wrong, but terribly misinformed (see medical procedure). CFCF 💌 📧 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 

I should clarify that I meant to say "there is no reliable source comparing them or a reference class containing them with abortion". I agree that it would be silly to ask for a source that specifically talked about aspirin and X-rays.

I think the statement from the source is taken out of context, as the original sentence says "with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death", suggesting that these are the claims that the data really support, and that the "one of the safest procedures" remark is just a POV way of summarizing these claims. The way it reads in the Wikipedia article makes it sound like the claim is a summary of data comparing abortion versus other medical procedures, which a reading of the sources suggests is simply not true.

The split into surgical and non-surgical procedures I suggested originally is not arbitrary; it was based on the fact that the second source is a comparison of surgical abortion against other surgical procedures.

I don't think that Wikipedia's definition of a "medical procedure" is clear enough to distinguish boundary cases in a way that would make an assertion like "abortion is safer than most medical procedures" meaningful.

Can I make the alternate suggestion "When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is very safe according to a number of metrics, including being safer than childbirth"? That seems to be a fair summary of the evidence to me. David9550 (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130218233122/http://www.painthorsejournal.com/pastissues/pdfs/byahair-mar04.pdf to http://www.painthorsejournal.com/pastissues/pdfs/byahair-mar04.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130727105037/http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/NEBAbortionSummary.pdf to http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/NEBAbortionSummary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Paper Abortion

There is a new Wikipedia article about Paper Abortion. Paper Abortion is about giving men the right to not refuse to become a father in the period of time, where women can have an abortion. It is highly debated and some countries (Sweden/Denmark) think of legalizing it. PS! It's not about giving men the right to force women to have an abortion or not. It is about giving men the right, as women have, to not become a parent. The women's right to her own body is not touched. I think you maybe could link to it? Or tell me which article it should be linked from? --Momo Monitor (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, never. A "paper abortion" has absolutely nothing to do with an abortion. I've taken a look at the article that you just created, and I think that it should be deleted. I'm very troubled that the Aftonbladet article that you cited specifically said that a subgroup of LUF had proposed the measure, but the claim that you made in the article was that LUF supported it. LUF does not support it, and the Aftonbladet article made that clear.

That is the only source that I checked, just because I noticed that it was Swedish-language and thought that was strange. I'm concerned that if I were to check additional sources I would find additional stretching of the truth. However, even if I didn't, I don't think that the material should be covered under the name "paper abortion." Not least because what you are discussing -- disavowing paternal rights and responsibilities during pregnancy -- has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not an alternative to parenthood, it is an alternative to pregnancy. If the material that you want to discuss ultimately finds an article (which, I sincerely hope, will be under another name), it might perhaps be appropriately linked to from articles like child support and deadbeat parent. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting statistics interpretation on miscarriage

The rate of spontaneous abortion in this page says "Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester." Meanwhile, on the miscarriage page, the rate of MISCARRIAGE is 30%-50% (section Epidemiology). This seems likely to be a misinterpretation on one of the two pages. Can anyone clear this up? 98.25.155.224 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to history of abortion

Have moved this template[19] as IMO it is undue weight here. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary source

Have moved this here as it is a primary source "A 2004 study estimated that modest abortion restrictions reduced the abortion rate by about 25%, and found no evidence that maternal mortality increased as a result of these restrictions."

We should be using recent secondary sources per WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it your contention that there are no other "primary sources" currently used in this "Abortion" article Doc James? No other research-presenting articles from scholarly journals?? Motsebboh (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

My position is that we should be using high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Studies aren't primary sources. Raw data is a primary source. Studies are secondary, and generally reliable unless thoroughly discredited by peer scholars. Given that this is in a University of Chicago Law School scholarly journal, I'd say that it's fine unless anyone can dig up some convincing, non-WP:FRINGE, widely accepted sources to debunk it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a primary source from a non-peer reviewed journal. Per WP:RS we should be using secondary sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that it is a non-peer reviewed journal, ArtifexMayhem? I'm under the impression that such articles in faculty-produced law review articles are routinely peer-reviewed.

The article in question is substantially cited in other academic works. Research-presenting articles from academic journals abound as sources in Wikipedia. Additionally, the wording in our article presents it as someone's finding, not as absolute fact. Motsebboh (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Which academic work cites it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

From a Google search: [20] Motsebboh (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay looked through it and found a good secondary source by WHO [21]

This summarizes the evidence as "Whether abortion is legally restricted or not, the likelihood that a woman will have an abortion for an unintended pregnancy is about the same. Legal restrictions on abortion do not result in fewer abortions, nor do they result in significant increases in birth rates (4,5 ). However, a lack of legal access to abortion services is likely to increase the number of women seeking illegal and unsafe abortions, leading to increased morbidity and mortality (6–9 ). " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it is "substantially cited" means nothing, it may just as well be cited a lot because it is bad that people are refuting it. Wikipedia does not use primary sources for controversial statements, and this is most assuredly a primary source. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We specifically do not use primary sources (let alone old primary sources) to refute secondary source per WP:MEDRS. This statement is supported by multiple secondary sources "Countries with restrictive abortion laws have significantly higher rates of unsafe abortion (and similar overall abortion rates) compared to those where abortion is legal and available." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

"A reason for suicide"

Recently Doc James added this sentence to the end of the "Mental health" subsection of the article "Not having access to abortion is a reason for suicide among those who do not want to be pregnant." [22]. From what I can gather this edit is based on a single sentence from the source here [23] : "Maternal suicides are known to happen in the context of undesired pregnancy, inability to access abortion, and postpartum depression." The problem is that this statement does not represent a formal finding from the study. Rather, it is a parenthetical; part of an explanation of the difficulties in quantifying maternal deaths. The authors say that deaths under these circumstances sometimes are, and sometimes are not, classified as maternal deaths. They never assert, much less demonstrate, that "not having access to abortion" is a significant cause of suicide. Thus I am removing the edit in question from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is based on a high quality review from the Lancet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It exaggerates the claim the source makes. "Happening in the context of..." does not make "undesired pregnancy" a reason. The source only stated correlation; it did not claim causation. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And we have "This is consistent with other reports that increasingly young people resort to unsafe abortion or even commit suicide because of unwanted pregnancy"[24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I gather this wasn't cited in the article before the claim was removed. However, the original studies that drew that conclusion should be cited if available, to avoid the possibility of the study that mentions them misinterpreting their results. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

James is correct here, this is a valid source for the statement and also highly relevant to the article. If you have concerns with the specific paraphrasing you can lift that, but it needs to be paraphrased, we can't use the same wording as the review article. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: Sorry, but a shift from correlation to causation is entirely unacceptable as a "paraphrase"—it's dishonest. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 02:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Regarding your "This is consistent with other reports . . . " quotation -- this comes, of course, from an interview with Namibia's Minister of Health and is therefore anecdotal. You've presented no reliably sourced evidence that lack of access to legal abortion causes a notable number of suicides. A "pro-life" advocate could just as easily claim that remorse following abortion was a cause of suicide. Actually, I suppose, more easily [25] Motsebboh (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

We do not play peer-reviewer to academic sources. A review in the Lancet is a MEDRS, and meets requirements of WP:V. Lifenews is not MEDRS and the parallel is a poor one at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion thread here?? Jujutsuan and I are not saying that Lancet is an unreliable source. We are saying that Lancet does not support what Doc James claims it supports. Saying that suicides have been known to occur in the context of lost tennis matches is not the same as saying that lost tennis matches are a significant cause of suicide. Motsebboh (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, unless lack of access to legal abortion can be shown to be a significant cause of suicide it should not be mentioned at all. Otherwise editors are really engaging in pro-choice polemics -- putting as much material into the article as possible that might bolster the "pro-choice" case and leaving out as much material as possible that might bolster the "pro-life" case. In the instance under discussion, Doc James cherry picked one sentence from a lengthy article and then used it improperly. Motsebboh (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I read a little slower this time. I was more replying to your critique of the source. The jiasociety source seems good and does explicitly support Doc James' edit. You appear to be arguing that the edit is WP:UNDUE though... that it's not a commonly discussed effect of abortion restrictions. So we'd need to establish that suicide something that sources regarding effects of abortion or restrictions thereof talk about in some significant way. (Am I summarizing your position correctly?) Regarding polemics and political positions, I imagine most of us here has a position, but I don't want to assume that the intent of the edit here or those discussed in other sections is meant to further a particular political agenda (i.e., I'm trying to AGF). So let's see if we can find more secondary MEDRS that support this statement. If not, exclude it. If so, include it with additional sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we're on the right track now. In the meantime, can we please get rid of the sentence until/unless a good source comes up and we can all agree on it? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 03:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed it as I agree the Lancet piece does not adequately support the statement. For the record, the removed material can be found in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not finding much, but what I found is:

• Sabia, Joseph J.; Rees, Daniel I. (2013). "THE EFFECT OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS ON YOUTH SUICIDE". Economic Inquiry. 51 (1): 620–636. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00440.x. ISSN 0095-2583.
• [26]

Again, not my area of expertise. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212405/http://www.sogc.org/jogc/abstracts/full/200912_WomensHealth_1.pdf to http://www.sogc.org/jogc/abstracts/full/200912_WomensHealth_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111121431/http://www.jogc.org/abstracts/full/200611_WomensHealth_1.pdf to http://www.jogc.org/abstracts/full/200611_WomensHealth_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

how old is the legality of abortion diagram?

New Zealand is marked as illegal, and its totally legal here see http://abortion.org.nz/abortion-procedures 120.136.5.85 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

70.71.96.101 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Animals

One step to getting this back to GA status would be to get rid of the Animals section - should be moved elsewhere --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

Diegoxlon (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide a reason to edit the page. --DashyGames (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

things to be improved on

1. I found that the "mental health" category was not that informative. the points made were good but lacked a lot of important information. 2. some of the percentages and facts are out of date, every year it changes and needs to be updated. Beccawhisenant (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We need high quality sources to update. Which fates do you have newer sources for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922152349/http://www.prochoice.org/education/resources/surg_history_overview.html to http://www.prochoice.org/education/resources/surg_history_overview.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/ub/view/Tabers/143003/37/abortion

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017

please mention that abortion is the murder of an unborn baby, the killing of an innocent human being, the taking of the life of another; because this is what it truly is. RexMiles (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: That is not the universal legal status of abortion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Abortion technically refers to what we call "abortion" (clarified as "elective abortion") as well as miscarriage ("spontaneous abortion") and "another procedure" called "late termination of pregnancy". Since the term "abortion" includes miscarriage, your request isn't resolvable directly.

Furthermore, although Wikipedia is neutral on controversial subjects, it is committed to wording that is defensible legally as well as through the most universally-acknowledged theoretical basis. The current wording reflects the consensus of pro-choice nations and not the law in places like Ireland. I believe that Wikipedia would be better if this article were written with wording that both pro-choice theorists and their political opponents agreed upon. If you would like a specific sentence added or changed, please make specific suggestions for the auto-confirmed editors to review and keep in mind Wikipedia's neutrality commitment, which you can read about here: WP:NPOV. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

It says that the Church did not vigorously condemdn abortion till the 19th century but this isnt true, the Church condemned abortion since its beginning https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM 123.231.124.180 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable source, rather more independent than the Eternal Word Television Network to prove this. At times, the church has even condoned genocides, for instance, of Jews, Muslims, indigenous peoples, and other Christian sects. See Crusades and Conquistador. Don't believe everything you read from one source, particularly when that source is trying to convince you of one viewpoint. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You should reference the Didache, a first-century teaching of Church which forbids abortion. I'll leave it to you to come up with a wikipedia-acceptable sourcing of the text, but here's one: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42053/42053-h/42053-h.htm 50.58.161.98 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The early Christian person Tertullian wrote in his "Apologia" [27], in chapter 9 (page 32 on website referenced), that abortion had already been banned among Christians no later than 240 AD:

″But Christians now are so far from homicide, that with them it is utterly unlawful to make away a child in the womb, when nature is in deliberation about the man; for to kill a child before it is born is to commit murder by way of advance; and there is no difference whether you destroy a child in its formation, or after it is formed and delivered. For we Christians look upon him as a man, who is one in embryo; for he is in being, like the fruit in blossom, and in a little time would have been a perfect man, had nature met with no disturbance.″ 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Page 3 of the reference given [28] makes it clear that the Catholic Church has pretty much always denounced abortion, although the Catholic church has been divided about whether to treat abortion the same as murder or not. I think correctly using the existing reference per this reading would satisfy IP user 123.231.124.180's request. 208.76.28.70 (User:208.76.28.70) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a better source [29]. John Wiley and Sons are a well respected publisher. Book was published in 2009.

It specifically says "The Catholic church tacitly permitted earlier abortions, and it did not take a highly active role in antiabortion campaigns until the 19th century." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Joffe is not an historian. Her Wikipedia article specifically describes her as an abortion rights advocate.

Okay do you have a better source? "Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia" is not one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

On page 3 of "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker, University of California Press (August 4, 1985), [30] we read that the Catholic Church has pretty much always denounced abortion, although the Catholic church has been divided about whether to treat abortion the same as murder or not. Luker is Elizabeth Josselyn Boalt Professor of Law (Emerita), Professor of Sociology, and Faculty Director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law, University of California, Berkeley. This is not the work of a LifeNews blogger.208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your source does not support the edit request stated above. The source says, "...it is true that the early Christian church denounced abortion (along with other barriers to procreation, such as contraception, humosexuality, or surgical sterilization); but it is also true that the church's sanctions against abortion were almost never as severe as the penalties for the murder of an adult person. Moreover, throughout most of the history of Western Christianity, abortion early in pregnancy, though verbally chastized, was often legally ignored." So the request to remove "did not vigorously condemn abortion" is against the suggested source which affirms the lack of "vigorous" condemnation. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Binksternet Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe IP user 123.231.124.180's concern is not that the sentence is incorrect, but that the sentence is misleading. The chapter title is History and Religion, covering ancient China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Islam, the Catholic Church, and modern Europe and the US. You would expect Wikipedia to articulate in as few words as possible, what the Catholic Church has stood for regarding abortion. This is what it says: "In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[158] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[13]" While it is correct that the Catholic Church was not vigorous in its opposition throughout history, Wikipedia fails to show that the Church's division regarding abortion is between people who oppose abortion and people who criminalize abortion... an uninformed Wikipedia reader might read this paragraph and understand the Catholic Church's history to include many people for whom abortion was perfectly acceptable.208.76.28.70 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous comment dated 6 June 2017 by myself asserts that the current wording is misleading although not technically incorrect. Request status changed to "not answered". 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Humph. Reference given for comment about Pope Sixtus V doesn't have anything about any Popes. I propose the following change to satisfy ip user 123.231.124.180's request and this broken reference: "Throughout history, the Christian Church has denounced abortion, although its position has not been consistent as to whether abortion should be punished as severely as murder.["Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker, University of California Press (August 4, 1985), [31], page 3] The Catholic Church's current vigorous opposition to abortion did not begin until the 19th century.[13]" 208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous talk post by me says that this article has reference issues regarding the History section, which are specified. Since the reference issues have not been resolved, I reset the "answered" parameter to "n". 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit does not have obvious consensus, a necessary criterion for |answered=n. I have set it back to y. --Izno (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see... thanks for this clarification. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

History section on Christianity missing references

Hi Wikipedia editors, the reference given where the article comments on "Pope Sixtus V" does not seem to relate to this person. I suggest either finding a reference that does or removing this sentence. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102030744/http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm to http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830045057/http://home.uchicago.edu/~eoster/dasgupta.pdf to http://home.uchicago.edu/~eoster/dasgupta.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/658tiVCq0?url=http://embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:123948 to http://embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:123948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151028182953/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/a1/ to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/a1/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Image replaced by video: no talk consensus

Hi there, I noticed that there was a video instead of an image at the top of the article this morning. The video has many words and lasts several minutes. For what it's worth, it seems to me that placing this video at the image without talk consensus was in error, especially considering that the video's placement was over a wiki-textual note saying not to replace the image with a new one without talk page consensus. I hope this comment finds you, Wikipedia editors, well. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I had placed the video down of infobox but User:Doc James has placed it in infobox. The video is suitable for the article and if have any issues with it do discuss it here --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As there was no image in the infobox putting the video there is perfectly appropriate. We do this in a number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Violence

Why is there a paragraph about anti-abortion violence, but none about pro-abortion violence? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that show this pro-abortion violence? If you can find any, then by all means bring them to the discussion page.Crazymantis91 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is left extremist violence which e.g. includes riots against pro-Life laws like the black monday riots in Poland or specific anti-Erdogan riots in Turkey. 212.186.7.98 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Black Monday in Poland wasn't violent as far as I can tell-- it involved striking and marching, which hardly qualifies as 'rioting' or 'violence'. The anti-abortion marches in Turkey were also nonviolent. I'm not saying that this means that they were 'better', and I don't mean to support one side or another here, but nothing you've brought up qualifies as violence. If you can give me an actual link to a legitimate source showing pro-abortion violence, I'll put it in. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's the repeated anti-anti-abortion violence that happens when a left-leaning Argentine women's march passes a national Catholic center in San Juan de Cuyo, reported here: [32], and which was reported in local news in 2013 here: [33]. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's funny... I guess that fellow IP 212.186.7.98 is either working on the article about Pro-abortion rights violence or has unknowingly fallen into an existing Wiki-debate... see this subject here: [34]. Note that the debate at the other page didn't show my infobae.com news source, which corroborates pretty much all the claims by the hotair.com article. Also note that many of the claims are pretty much copied from videotape and not hearsay. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Decreeing that "violence" included the burning of an effigy would require an enormous reworking of Wikipedia's handling of the topic. Currently we discuss, under that heading, murder, attempted murder, arson/bombing, and kidnapping. Even if we decided to define protest as violence, it would be impossible to add in this demonstration without discussing, with far greater weight, the combative and hostile nature of regular anti-abortion protests. Are you offering to take on this large task? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to protesters spray-painting the counter-protesters, not the burning of the effigy. The headline about the effigy helps to identify the two sides of the protest, but it's not violence... I agree with that. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you that the definition of "violence" must be protected if the encyclopedia wishes to retain its value. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

According to this follow-up article at infobae.com[35], counter-protesters also had their T-shirts ripped off by protesters ("Durante la marcha hubo enfrentamientos con integrantes de un grupo católico que rezaba en la vereda de la Catedral, mientras algunas manifestantes exhibieron sus torsos desnudos y a quienes rezaban los pintaron con aerosol, les arrancaron las remeras e insultaron."). Is this different from violence? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the handling of the definition of 'violence', it doesn't seem to be the subject of debate around the 2017 Berkeley protests whether it was violent, although I think that none of the things reported there are exactly within the four categories you mentioned. Even though nobody was reportedly hit or punched in Argentina 2013, I think that if the Berkeley protests can be called violent, it should follow that the 2013 Argentina protests can as well because of the spray paint onto persons and rough handling of clothing. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What I said before still holds true - you'd have to be willing to do some massive reworking in order to ensure due weight, given the much larger volume of violence on that level by anti-abortion protesters. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that pro-abortion violence is not limited to public displays and protests. The best example is forced abortion in China, which has a news-roundup on LifeNews.com here: [36]. Another example is forced abortion among sex trafficking victims, which occurred to over 25% of respondents interviewed in a series of focus groups given around the US by Laura Lederer, according to her testimony to the US House Energy & Commerce Committee on Sep 11, 2014. [37][38] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, no one's forcing women to have abortions as an expression of how pro-choice they are. If you don't have any real plans for improvement of the article, Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for this discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice paradox: forced choice! But liberalized abortion policy is first of all decriminalization of abortion, and only sometimes protection of women's right to choose, as evidenced by the two-child policy and by abusers of the US system. Your point is well-taken that forcing an individual woman to abort has no plausible direct political consequence, and can't be understood as "violent pro-something action". 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Argument by the pro-choice side

Doubtlessly, the most important argument of the pro-choice side is that at the point of abortion, the fetus is insufficiently developed in order to constitute a life form. Note that I didn't mean to include this as a statement in the article, but merely to state that this is the opinion of the pro-choice side (which it doubtlessly is). @Triacylglyceride: Hence the re-inclusion. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, sorry for missing this in my comment on your talk page.

The statement "the fetus is insufficiently developed in order to constitute a life form" is, in my experience, how the pro-life side summarizes the pro-choice side's view. In my experience, it's summarized that way because it is very easy to refute. A "life form" is vaguely defined -- an amoeba is a life form, after all, and a fetus is more "developed" than an amoeba.

I am aware that this is me drawing from personal experience. However, when something is stated without evidence it can be refuted without evidence. If you have a source -- perhaps a definitive pro-choice source that uses that as their argument -- I would be interested in reading it.

I would like to assume that you are editing in good faith. Please consider an argument other than "doubtlessly, the most important argument of the pro-choice side," and please do not revert back to your edit without allowing time for the disagreement to be resolved on the talk page. I'd also like to suggest that you cannot call your edit a "citation," as you did in your edit summary, and that a statement about the opinion of the pro-choice side is itself a statement.

I find the current phrasing of general description of the pro-choice and pro-life arguments to be an adequate representation of both sides. It may be reasonably inferred by the reader that both sides disagree with the other's core tenets; or at least disagree that they hold sufficient weight compared to their own tenets. If you feel that the personhood aspect of the pro-choice side must be expanded upon, I would suggest dramatically different wording.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Triacylglyceride: I have now slightly reworded the half-sentence in order to address your concerns with regard to alleged imprecise wording. In fact, one of the world's leading moral philosophers, Peter Singer, has recorded a video on the issue: See this video. Finally, note that the largest part of the main article deals precisely with the argument I attempted to include into the summary of the same in this article. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I continue to find your wording non-neutral. This is a contentious subject and I would recommend you reach a consensus here on the talk page prior to introducing further edits. I'll watch the Peter Singer article later; however, I'm not sure that a single philosopher's summary of the subject is adequate for the scope of statement you're proposing. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I share Triacylglyceride's concerns about the wording. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

History section on Christianity misleading

Hi Wikipedia editors, the article today implies that in the history of the Christian church, it had been unclear whether abortion is OK or not in Christian teaching for a long time until the nineteenth century. But this implication is incorrect: various sources, including "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker, report that abortion was already not allowed according to Christian teaching at a very early time, no later than 300 AD. It is true that punishment for abortion has not always been consistent, varying from murder to not murder, but this is not because the Church ever taught that abortion is OK. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's self-written history names various times when they have condemned the act of abortion and specified more or less lenient penance for women who procure abortions. Pope Sixtus V (16th century) is mentioned here in section 7, between the Decree of Gratian (12th century), Thomas Aquinas (13th century) and Pope Innocent XI (17th century).[39] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

History section on Christianity missing references

Hi Wikipedia editors, the reference given where the article comments on "Pope Sixtus V" does not seem to relate to this person. I suggest either finding a reference that does or removing this sentence. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You could use this: [[40]] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

See his article. But it doesn't say homicide or first. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Should that replace the ref given presently in Wikipedia's article? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Need updated map

Chile now allows abortion in some cases, as of last month. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/americas/chile-abortion-court.html?mcubz=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.233.24 (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Thissecretperson (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

video

The video blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Benjamin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually reading the EN WP article but with illustrations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin may be noting that it leaves out the two penultimate sentences, leaving the coverage of the abortion debate uneven. Sizeofint (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Very uneven indeed. It's obviously pro abortion, with not even the slightest mention of the other side. Benjamin (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This may be easily adjusted. I have pinged Ilya at Simpleshow Foundation at Commons:File talk:Mysimpleshow Abortion.webm. Sizeofint (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think that it's fair to say that the coverage is uneven. It discusses several objective facts about abortion. It mentions neither the pro-choice side nor the pro-life side. I'm not sure why you call it pro abortion. If there were a similar video about fistula surgery, or joint replacement, would you call it pro fistula surgery, or pro joint replacement? Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You think it is okay for the video to include Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body. without including Those who oppose abortion often maintain that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life and may compare abortion to murder.? Leaving out one of the two sentences summarizing why abortion is controversial seems a fairly significant omission to me. Sizeofint (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be perfectly honest here; I either didn't see or didn't process those lines at the end, and I misread "penultimate" as "ultimate". Mea culpa, slash I wish OP had described why it was a violation in the first place.

I agree that either the last "segment" (a section between two hand-wipings-away) should be removed (probably with the legality "segment") or the balancing segment should be added. Or we should get rid of the thing entirely. I dislike it and its illustrations (using a stork with a baby to illustrate a pregnancy?). Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sufficient reason to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is incorrect to assert that the video doesn't require comments section consensus per the agreed-upon rules for this controversial article, claiming that it is no more and no less than the words on the article already: the video has illustrations. Since when do illustrations, especially new illustrations, not merit comments section consensus? 208.71.156.130 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

While at this point it has been in the article for more than two months. You could start a RfC to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ilya hasn't responded. I don't think the video adds anything substantial and would support removing it, at least until it is fixed. Sizeofint (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the objections here I don't see there is consensus to keep the video. A few months is still a relatively short period of time so I am not sure the silence before this point should be interpreted as affirmation. Sizeofint (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple of weeks maybe but with 900 people having the article on their watch list I think a couple of months is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we should invite them to speak. Any of the ~900 people watching this page, you are invited to lend your insights to this discussion. Sizeofint (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

None of these page watchers has decided to comment. Their WP:SILENCE is all we have to go on at this point. I'm not seeing there is consensus to keep the video. Sizeofint (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing consensus to remove the video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides you, I don't see anyone else in this discussion arguing to keep it. Four contributors here have found the video flawed for one reason or another. You don't consider this a consensus? Sizeofint (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No I do not. I have started a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

1992 WHO ref

Doesn anyone mind if I update ref 67 with a new version from WHO which can be found here?

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

Here are some samples of what I would like to see as woman in singular possessive form spelled out in its plural possessive form.

• a women's personal preference.
• a women's history of previous spontaneous abortions
• clinician judgment or a women's request

Misterbister (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Took me a moment to parse your comment, but fixed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding video

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

---

Video in question

Should we keep or remove this video that describes abortion? The video is more or less based on the lead of our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep video

• Keep Many people learn better with video / wish video. Also it is someone reading our content which improves accessibility. No more controversial than article article itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• keep the video adds to the articles information positively...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The video is excellent and the very minor issues voiced above are not enough to remove it. It is unwise to remove things, just because they aren't perfect. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This video came from simpleshow, described at Wikipedia:simpleshow. The general concept of this sort of video is called an "explainer video", which I tried to document at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Explainer Videos. I have been a fan of this project since about 2013. Anyone can make videos like this one through the tool at https://mysimpleshow.com/. The organization behind this has attempted to license the art and music to be compatible for Wikipedia. They have attended 5 Wikimedia events including a couple of Wikimanias to do outreach and seek partnership. Video editing is complicated but I think that it is part of the future of Wikipedia and that we ought to support pilots of new technology like this. I am not ready to support a total rollout of these videos in many articles, but this particular video has content which matches the community reviewed text in this article's lead so the information shared ought to be acceptable. Also, the wiki community does have the option to edit this video. Making changes could be a 15 minute effort, which I think is a reasonable to ask considering how such ease is a technological miracle breakthrough in video production. Not everything about the video is perfect but it is still impressive quality from both a production and content perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The user who is suggesting the video's removal is claiming that the present version is not a match to the community reviewed text in the article's lede... if this were corrected, the present argument would probably lose its legs, IMO. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried to access this video through the third-party website, but there seemed to me no mechanism for my account to see the work of another user. This is consistent with what's explained for the WP community at WP:simpleshow: simpleshow videos are "stable media items" that cannot be edited like Wikipedia articles. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The seed of the video is the text of the script. Anyone with the text should be able to change the video by changing that text, uploading it and generating another file. The intent is to be as easy to edit as possible. I can confirm that as with any experimental technology, it can be challenging to new users. This video is definitely experimental technology in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep It seems matter-of-fact, and I think it would be good to keep in the article (the question of the RFC). Does it belong in the info box of the lede? That is a different question (not the RFC). I have no opinion on that. Attic Salt (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That the video seems matter-of-fact is a reflection on its particular tone. Being "matter-of-fact" does not make something WP:NPOV. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Reflecting more on the tone, it seems to me that matter-of-fact epistemology is quite incorrect for Abortion... if that were a good way of knowing things about abortion, then there would be practically (get it?) no arguments here, folks. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As it stands it does no harm and for some readers it could be helpful. It might be improved, in which case more strength to those who could do it better than I could (not my line at all, so I am not getting involved, but some items such as the diaphragm seemed likely to be a bit opaque to some watchers, or removed too abruptly for them to understand what they see). But granting that perfection is not in us, I say keep it as it is till we have something better; do not scrap what we have just because someone might someday come up with something better. JonRichfield (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would need to be proved here that the video does no harm. The talk page discussion is presently evaluating claims that the video is not WP:NPOV and that it has an incorrect WP:Tone, both as a medical / ethical subject and regarding the personal sensibilities of editors who have commented. Why have no folks who want to keep the video gone to the trouble of saying why the sentences were removed that were removed? Why is it OK not to use formal tone (see WP:Tone) regarding the cartoons and sound effects? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep might not be perfect but a nice addition (we should have more videos not less).--ChristopheT (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now until we get something better. It is not wonderful, but it is unbiased and reasonably informative. The cartoon mode is a bit problematic as it inherently tends to trivialise the subject and the illustrations may not be the best options available. Iconisation is an inexact science, some of the line art may not carry the intended message accurately to all viewers. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I will replace it with a better one as soon as it is made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Trivialization is bad. I will add this to the list of claims against the video. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove video

• Remove at least until fixed. As discussed above, the video does not adequately summarize the lead. It leaves out, among other things, one of the two sentences in the lead that explains why abortion is a contentious issue. The lead here has presumably been hard fought over so why should a new video that essentially reads the lead be allowed to ignore large parts of it? To the accessibility point Doc James raises, between listening to this video or using a text to speech application to read the lead, I think the TTS application would better inform the reader. Finally, in my opinion, the illustrations themselves add little to the text being read. Sizeofint (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFIXIT Add the sentences that are missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you fix it? I don't think that I can, and if you can't either, then it's not really fair for you to discount someone else's POV by saying that you think they should do what you're unable to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • But should we really remove the entire video just because of this? We'd be making Wikipedia worse by removing the video, and I don't see the issues raised here. There are other things from the lede that aren't mentioned in the video, it seems like nitpicking to remove it on these grounds, and is frankly the definition of WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
        • From my reading of WP:Pointy, the user who seeks to remove the video because it overlooks some selected sentences or words of the lede is not doing the thing WP:Pointy always entails: making edits they do not personally agree with. I believe that that user would indeed prefer not to have the video, because either the user cares enough about WP:NPOV to remove POV material or because the user's own personal POV is the one that loses when the specified content is missing. I assert that removing POV content "makes Wikipedia better" even if re-working the content would "make Wikipedia even better." 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
          • • Could I fix it? Yes I could. But I do not see it as critical enough to spend the time required to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Remove User Gandydancer suggested below in "discussion" a thought that reflects my original feeling about the "video", though I couldn't quite put a finger on it: the cartoons and swooshes. No, I do not believe that the cartoons and swooshes are appropriate for this subject. Would you want cartoons and swooshes on the outcome of the 2016 US general election? Climate change? The Constitution? Amputation? Abraham Lincoln? Pol Pot? Penicillin? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point as it helps one to consider why a cartoon may be appropriate for some issues but not others. As a woman with two daughters I know how it feels to carry a baby inside of myself. It would have been a devastating experience for me to have had to have an abortion. Like an amputation, but much worse and I don't think that we'll be having a cartoon that shows a leg swooshed away. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We have "cartoons" on some 275 medical articles now and they are getting millions of views. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say that "cartoons" are never appropriate. But I am curious -- how many medical articles do we have? Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This says 6,800[41] condition related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this article is cross-referenced both as medical and religious, I think it's appropriate for it to receive special consideration in contrast with other medical articles. Furthermore, I personally can't imagine that there are any other medical articles with as many pages of Talk archives as this one, reflecting the peculiarity of this article. For that reason, adhering strictly to standards like formal tone (per WP:TONE) here but not in the other 275 articles doesn't seem like a problem to me.

(Correction: the third sentence above should read "for these reasons" instead of "for that reason")...208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google search for <<< "Medicine portal" "Religion portal" site:wikipedia.org >>> revealed about 150 hits, with the only medical procedure showing up being circumcision. This to demonstrate the peculiarity of the article about abortion and its ethical significance. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Speaking as a woman who has long strongly supported a woman's right to choose and yet being fully aware of the emotional struggles that some pregnant woman may go through when they decide to abort a fetus, I strongly object to this cartoon about abortion. I've been involved in this article for many years and have always felt that it handled this most delicate issue in a fair and unbiased manner. As a Wikipedia editor I have even "bragged" to my woman friends about how this article has managed to present an unbiased review of the issue. I want an article that even Pope Francis, who I disagree with but deeply admire, would find acceptable. This abortion cartoon would change that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  What do you think is wrong with it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  It is not necessary in gaining consensus for any given voter to justify his or her decision, although of course it's hard to persuade others to your position without explaining your decision. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yes I am aware of that. And if no answer is provided it is not a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc, as I said elsewhere I feel that this cartoon is demeaning to women and that abortion is probably not a good candidate for a Wikipedia video of just a minute or so in length. To be more specific, I can't see that most of the images are appropriate if their intent is to make abortion more understandable. I'll mention a few: 1) The opening image should not be of a pregnant woman since this is about abortion and not pregnancy. Abortions are not done on obviously pregnant women and a pregnant image may suggest that to a less well-educated person. 2) A stop sign and a stork with a cute little baby is like something from a children's book. 3) The uterus looks more like a vegetable to anyone that actually needs a simple pictured abortion explanation, IMO. Most people don't know that a uterus and tubes, etc., look more or less like the image. 4) I don't think the "he's got the whole world in his hands" image is appropriate to show the whole world. 5) While a symbol of death, I don't like the skull and crossbones in a short presentation on a medical procedure. 6) Of the five women that represent women not one has dark skin. 7) There are two symbols, one looks sort of like a caduceus and the other one is a shield of some sort. If I don't even know what they are I can't see how they would add to the understanding of a person less well-educated than I.

Clearly my views are in the minority here so it may well be that I am being too critical. In the past I've trusted the group decisions for this article, so this would be the first time that I find myself in disagreement. Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested in working with them to make a better video? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(Doc, we had an edit conflict) To add, I just quite by accident watched the Breast feeding video and I JUST LOVED IT! It's the first medical video (other than this one) that I've seen. No weird pictures of a placenta (like our weird uterus picture) and such. Why can't we have a video like that? Then you could include information such as that contrary to what the people that are advocating against a woman's right to choose, women do not become depressed after an abortion but most women just feel relieved, etc. IMO the weird images that are being used to explain our article just make it next to impossible to really cover this issue in a fair and unbiased manner. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree that Osmosis does better work. I will request that they make a video similar to the style of the one you see at breastfeeding for this article. Here are all 273 they have made for us so far.[42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They have put it on their list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Trivialization is a problem identified with the present video. If the consensus is that trivialization is not bad in medical communication, I will contend that trivialization is not NPOV for an ethical issue. And I would be surprised if there was no consensus around the ethical nature of this article. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - As much as I appreciate the effort, this video just has too many problems (e.g. the upbeat jazz music, the silly clip art, the overall tone). Also, are we sure all the clip art in that video is freely licensed? Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yup those who make these say they are under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove For a number of reasons. Mostly the style / tone, I think the jazz / cartoon thing has a trivialising / overly simplistic effect that is not appropriate to the subject matter. The premium version of this video making website includes colour, which makes a huge difference to the part of the video that says – "The World Health Organisation recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women." – makes the women look as though they are white and then they are quickly swooshed away. Finally, this video highlights the difference that exists between what is okay in text and what is okay in a video. In text the eye can dwell on the final sentence "Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body." In the video it is an express train sentence slapped onto the end. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove The video fails to explain much of what would be important to someone trying to understand what abortion actually is. My personal reaction varied, but the worst moment was when the narration mentioned "force" and showed a closed fist. It was very jarring and cemented the impression I got from this video that abortion is something that happens to someone who is pregnant, lacking a sense of autonomy for that person. Several other things, like the image that appears to be almost a 9 month pregnancy (not the time most people are considering such a thing), and the fact that everyone appears to be white, together equal too many problems than this video would solve in its attempts to explain abortion. heather walls (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Heatherawalls I also had a very strong emotional reaction to the male fist, yes very jarring indeed and I did not like it at all. I thought that maybe it was just me and I feel better to know that I was not alone in my thinking. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I think the above comments of Gandydancer quite reflect my own opinion. The image of a pregnant women is not adequate, neither the stork or the image of the world in the hands, which has a religieous connotation IMO. Plus the trivalisation is problematic: this is a very serious topic, the tone is not appropriate. --Nattes à chat (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. I think that things like the punch, the stork, and the very pregnant abdomen all don't belong on this page. Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. Wow, what an awful video. First, the sound is horrible; I could barely understand it, speaking English as my first language, and having a pretty good idea of what it would say, on a high-speed connection using a computer with superior audio/video capability. The pictograms are not much better - most have no generally accepted meaning or appear out of context, and the heavily pregnant abdomen (honestly, it looks like a woman almost at term, when almost no society considers abortion to be acceptable) is completely discordant with the article itself. One more thing - it really makes the article load time slower on less-than-ideal connections. I don't think this video does anything good for the article, and in fact I think it dumbs down the subject so much that it is unsuitable here. Risker (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Adding: Why is the narrator male? Risker (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• On the fence(see below) - Thinking about this as a bigger question than just this one instance, for better or for worse. As far as I can tell, this video is text-to-speech audio of our lead combined with very basic clip art corresponding to specific words/phrases in the lead. It is not the sort of explainer video that adds greatly to understanding in a way that only video can do. In other words, it seems like it used the Wikipedia article and generic clip art for the sake of creating a video rather than creating a video for the sake of explaining. There is something to be said for the fact that some people learn better from visuals, but wouldn't a script that just scans for phrases in an article and adds little diagrams from Commons be the same as what we have here? I think there's potential here, to be sure, but I feel like it's problematic to start adding videos based on Wikipedia content that do not add meaningful explanation beyond what we could already do with editable content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Support including a link to the file on Commons, Oppose embedding. Perhaps we could develop a template along the lines of "a version of the lead, supplemented by graphics, is available on Wikimedia Commons" (ok that wording is pretty dreadful, but you get the idea). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think Rhododentrites's solution is a good one (and would note in the link the date of the version the video is based on). Link if people feel the video is truly helpful, but do not embed. I think embedding a video that is directly adapted from Wikipedia's article, but which does not allow for the same editing process as Wikipedia's article, is very unwise - it has the drawbacks of self-sourcing/circularity without the benefits of the collaboration and refinement process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree. This is a really awful video, trivializing a serious subject, with a cheery male voice. As Heather Walls says above, it makes it seem as though abortion is something that happens to women. And the near-term appearance of the abdomen is incongruent with the content of the article. I'm not even convinced this video belongs on Commons; it doesn't belong here. Everyone, please get over the obsession of including media in all articles. Risker (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• On the fence - I agree with the above -- I don't like the video not because of any unfairness or balance issues, but because I don't feel it adds much to the article. I would favor a different picture. Pending a suggested replacement, I would keep it. Triacylglyceride (talk)

I have been compelled by the above arguments and am now for remove. Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• • User:Triacylglyceride happy to consider other images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Here's a suggestion: [[43]] I bet a dollar that PPUSA would be glad to license this for Wikipedia. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • That looks like a stock photo. Sizeofint (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
        • IMO, a stock photo would be great. I thought it should somehow remind people of a woman having a medical interaction, whether in a waiting room or in a private medical office (as shown). 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
          • However, it would probably be a bad idea to forget the consensus around this article's notably absent photo which was identified Jan-Feb 2011. [[44]] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not speaking to the fair/unfair to abortion opinions issues just yet, but I hate the video. We should not be treating such an emotionally charged issue with cartoons of storks and what not with wooshing sounds as they are swept away, etc. I see it as very demeaning to women. Gandydancer (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• This RfC invites the broader question about whether a summary video enhances visitors' understanding of the topic and, if so, what are the consensus-generated editorial, creative, and technical guidelines regarding any video which may appear in the lead section of this article. The zeitgeist I sense is yes, a video may enhance visitors' understanding about the topic, just not necessarily this particular video. Which leads to the bigger picture (no pun intended): what rubric can we, as a community, rally around governing the production of any video which would appear in the lead section of this article? For instance, how closely should the script, narration, and text within the video match the lead copy—if at all? Should the video only use images already in the article (thus minimizing objections), or can new artwork be incorporated? If new artwork is permissible, should producers only use vector artwork or are pictures acceptable? What about other languages? How do technical constraints e.g., video file size and cross-platform video production compatibility, affect editorial choices? Of course, these are rhetorical questions intended to elucidate the sort of thoughtfulness any such video production deserves. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a robust set of principles, policies, and guidelines along with a vibrant community to help us as we think about how to apply them to creating videos for and maintaining videos on Wikipedia. (The OP's concern is that the deviation from the lead copy verbatim violates WP:NPOV. Suppose technical reasons, such as a certain length or file size, is why the two sentences were omitted: how do we reconcile such limitations with WP:NOV?) My suggestion? Decide whether this particular article is improved by a video animation of the lead, as opposed to a spoken version of the article instead. If so, let's setup an ad hoc group to draft editorial, creative, and technical guidelines (perhaps in a sandbox?) which is then presented to the broader community here for feedback, refinement, and endorsement. Then, answer this RfC and/or create an alternate video consistent with that vision. Finally, consider the ongoing level of effort, logistics (software, media storage, etc.), and review oversight required to maintain consistency between the article and the video. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the present decision needs to hang on all the technical details for Wikipedia's incorporation of simpleshows in general, although that's clearly a need. Excitingly, since the video production is a structured process, the makers of simpleshow.com (sp?) could, with the right funding, produce a system that compiles wiki into video, just as the present system compiles wiki into formatted text, templates, and images / sounds / content with links. Having editable wiki that gets rendered with each edit would be the gold standard for simpleshows, in my opinion, and would lead to an explosion of new videos on Wikipedia. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought of a way to further automate these simplevideos... perhaps improving the quality, perhaps not, but at least ensuring that there is already consensus and rights for all the images used in each first draft: the new code for making simplevideos could parse the wiki and use whatever wikilinks are present to find images to include. For instance, the auto-created video for Hair transplantation would have these three images in the first sentence: [45], [46], [47], [48]. Just a brainstormy idea! 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, I've started a discussion about the copyright status of the videos on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with some of the other comments that the video is odd. For instance, how the fist icon pops up when it says abortion can be accomplished with violence -- it seems cheery and comes off as really very insensitive. It's somewhat the use of the icons, but it's also the text-to-speech issue. A human narrator would know to make their tone more somber in this area. Overall, I think it reduces the professional feeling of the article. On the other hand, the accessibility issue is a good point. I'd be fine with either decision, but I'd prefer if the video could be fixed ASAP. Re-narrating it would be a good first step. Mvolz (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• What with several editors now in agreement that the present video is quite inappropriate I think that it should be removed while we wait for a final decision or until a new video for our article is made. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The first sentence.

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

---

The first sentence of this should say that the procedure kills the fetus. It's really confusing and misleading the way it's written, because it makes it sound like abortion is a way of inducing labor. Saying "before it can survive" does not make it any clearer because there are a lot of NATURAL reasons a fetus wouldn't be able to survive at the end of 9 or 10 months (complications), but the reason here is because they are forcibly taken out. I think they can re-word this and make it less confusing. It makes it sound like the fetus will still be alive afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.200.122 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, I agree with you but disagree that it's incorrect: at any given stage of development, in cases when feticide is not administered or executed, there is no reason to doubt that the fetus will still be alive once removed. I would bet you a quarter (US 25 cents) that less than 5% of people who work in abortion clinics have ever taken a peek inside the tub of an abortion vacuum machine within one hour of a procedure, ever. Also, I don't know if they fill that tub with chlorine or Windex or something, in which case we can probably guess whether the fetus was alive before it dropped into the tub. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's obviously the case if you have already decided that the "fetus" is "not alive" until it's a person. But remaining ambiguous on the issue of whether "it" is "alive", supposing that a developing fetus "is" alive, then I don't think this is obviously false, or even probably false. When do you suppose that a "living" fetus "dies" along the course of a 1st-trimester abortion? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This section is getting contentious and strange. I'm with Doc James and Binksternet on both the "disagree" and "uh, no" viewpoints here. Talk pages are not place to conjecture wildly on what goes on in abortion clinics.

The lede of this article has been extensively reworked. We are always open to suggestions on how to modify it, but our responses will reflect the fact that it took a lot of work to get where we are now. Please read through those discussions and make a suggestion rather than lodge an objection. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Link rescue working?

Hi, I noticed that this action... 08:04, 7 November 2017‎ InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (154,000 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6) (Mr. Guye)) ...didn't result in a link [49] that works in my web browser. Is that link something that only institutional web users may access? If so, is that OK on Wikipedia? Thanks, -208.71.156.130 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a dead link. The archived version seems fine, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The bot edit broke the existing archive link so I have reverted it. —PaleoNeonate – 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Eighth and ninth sentences: remove

Hi Wikipedia auto-confirmed editors and Talk: page collaborators, it seems to me that the eighth and ninth sentences of this article come awfully close to medical advice. Here they are excerpted:

The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion.

References

The article is approximately 7,000 words, and before the reader has read 150 words the reader has received medical information with the expressions appears to be as safe and as effective and can be used immediately. By providing immediately self-applicable sentences in the lead paragraph, Wikipedia runs into the risk of telling a person "birth control is OK" without finding out one of the other reasons why birth control might not be OK for them. Also, only a person's doctor knows whether the drugs mentioned are as safe and effective as surgery for any given patient: this is not lead-paragraph content. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it's adequately clear that these statements are being made generally. Comparing this article to other articles, such as Aspirin, I find the content unobjectionable. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Critically, the difference between Aspirin and Abortion is in that aspirin is over-the-counter and abortion is through doctors. I think this is a deep difference that requires a very different approach by Wikipedia. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To other Wikipedia editors: If you don't feel qualified to execute an improvement that is verifiable and NPOV because you are not a doctor, then wouldn't that indicate that the article is too similar to medical advice? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sixth sentence: "Early abortions are" not "Abortion is"

Hi auto-confirmed editors and talk: page collaborators, I want to offer a beneficial re-write to the article's sixth sentence, which reads:

When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.

References

The sentence would be better if it read:

Where allowed by law, early abortions in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine.

References

This change clarifies several things: first, that abortion is not a procedure---- it is the outcome of a range of procedures, each of which carries its own risk profile. Second, since later abortions are not among the safest procedures in medicine, it is good to add the word "early" to "abortions", distinguishing between procedures with different risk profiles.

Now, if it seems unnecessary to use "early" here because that's implied in "abortion", given that a "later abortion" is not "an abortion" but a "late termination of pregnancy", keep in mind that the reader by the sixth sentence does not have enough information to parse this distinction. The reader would have to know 1) when viability is, 2) that "late termination of pregnancy" is not regarded as "abortion" in spite of that usage in Roe v Wade, political discourse, and indeed, at Late termination of pregnancy; and 3) that abortion is not one procedure but a range of procedures. Furthermore, since viability varies by region according to development, Wikipedia risks being wrong on this point in places where viability is later.

If there is an NPOV, RS, verifiability, NOR, WP:UNDUE, etc. issue with this change, please show me because I don't see it. If this change wouldn't make Wikipedia better, please say how that is so. Thanks, -208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I rotated the clauses for clarity. Also, I think "where" is better than "when" since this is an infrastructure issue. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with edits. Is that you, Berkeley? Why don't you make an account? ...and why does this article allow IP editors?

I have half a mind to ask you to guess why I disagree, in keeping with your prior discussion style.

Your first reason is inapplicable, partly because "abortion" is commonly understood to also mean the procedure, and partly because your edit doesn't actually address the concern you express. Your second reason is inapplicable because abortion overall is one of the safest procedures in medicine. Breaking it down into safer and less safe portions is not necessary in the lede. How about abortion in the setting of placenta previa? Placenta accreta?

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect you've exhausted our desire to discuss edits further. If I do not elaborate further on my opposition to your edits, please don't mistake silence for consensus. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first objection, that abortion is commonly understood to mean the procedure, I think that the ambiguity of the word abortion removes the expression the procedure farther from a good definition than would be necessary for the objection to stand. For example, is a medication abortion included? What about abortion after the 24th week in New York, which is regarded as pre-viability? Also the ambiguity about the distinction against late termination of pregnancy really should not be disregarded at the sixth sentence of the article.

Regarding your second objection, that it's not necessary to break abortion down into safer and less safe portions, I think this is not supported by the literature on the matter. The abstract of the 2004 Linda Bartlett article [50] makes it clear that risk is very highly correlated with the time during pregnancy that a woman chooses abortion. This is also reflected in the Grimes 2006 article (Gestational age at abortion is a simple predictor of risk: later abortions are associated with increased risks for the woman.)[51].

Only the 2014 Raymond article doesn't explicitly repeat this point in the abstract, and as we remember from Dr. Grimes' 2010 article "Abortion jabberwocky: the need for better terminology",[52] there is a major confusion available when the distinction between abortion and late termination of pregnancy is left unexplained... without reading the 2014 Raymond article (I don't want to spend the $35! Sad!) I don't know if that article defined "the procedure" that has a 0.7 mortality per 100,000 rate as abortion before viability, "legal abortion", anything called abortion (including late termination of pregnancy, up to the 39.9th week as the term was used by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade), or any other distinction. For that reason, unless a Wikipedia collaborator knows something that I can't know without spending $35, I don't think that your objection to my second argument stands, either.

Regarding your mention of abortion in the problematic presentations of the placenta, I don't take this as a reason to generalize, but as a reason for specificity... such as distinguishing between different stages of pregnancy. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this article does not allow edits by IPs. Hence, talk page proposals, not BRD. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that my concern isn't addressed by the proposal... the expression "early abortions are" shows that this word, "abortion", is a collective word to my satisfaction. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I speculate that you, Triacylglyceride, disagree with this proposal for the following reasons: 1) you believe that improving access to abortion is good, because it reduces the harm to women of bad procedures; 2) you believe that messaging about abortion is critical since there is so much opposition to your stance on access; 3) you believe that Wikipedia is to be evidence-based in its approach to ethical issues, which means that it's OK for Wikipedia to come out as opposed to the opinions of religious folks; 4) you believe that because of the content of my edits and my anonymity, that even an edit that I suggested which seemed innocuous will inevitably serve to undermine access to abortion in some way that you don't need to foresee in specificity to oppose rationally. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on this talk page. I have read the whole talk page.
The only suggestion I would not personally object to would be the addition of early somewhere. On the other hand, giving birth is itself risky. Moreover, statistics show that late abortions, or late termination are exceptions, not the norm. I have the impression that the other concerns were addressed correctly.
I understand that it must be difficult to have multiple suggestions declined, especially with low talk page participation. On the other hand these "content disputes" should also not become personal. Dismissing personal beliefs and motivations allegations: 1) true (not a belief), 3) controversies when notable belong in their own sections or articles and should be presented as neutrally as possible (i.e. a previously seen "does not have a right to live" is unacceptable except as a notable attributed quote followed by an explanation on why it is misleading) and in due weight; if the weight of the material in the article is then considered high enough to warrant it, a sentence summarizing that section could be part of the lead.
A last note about anonymity: many accounts are anonymous using pseudonames, including mine; good contributions are usually recognized, no matter who does them. Advantages of having an account (anonymous or not) include: watchlist, preferences, stable talk page, user sandboxes, user permissions, hiding one's IP address/location publicly, etc. Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 04:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate... I was hoping for this kind of feedback, and I appreciate your sensitivity to the possibility that this was being taken personally. As I said before, I have a lot of respect for the tireless folks who want to provide a free encyclopedia and I'm kind of privileged by education and English and WP-welcoming-policy to have a voice here at all. In reflection, I think my biggest single concern is regarding the absence of the well-sourced notion that each additional week of pregnancy diminishes the patient safety of an abortion procedure, so I would be very pleased if "early" were added to the sixth sentence in some due fashion. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The exclusion at the lead paragraph of the notion that early abortion is safer than later abortion is a problem that should be corrected. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's the graph: [53] (taken from this [54]) Note that the death rate for typically legal (in the US) abortions ranges from 0.3 to 11.9 per 100,000 abortions depending. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a fascinating graph on the mortality rate of abortions between '72 and '87, a time period that includes the legalization of abortion in the United States and actually saw a great improvement in abortion morbidity as practitioners got better at them.

I notice that it includes a "total" number, that might be the most relevant for the question "is it accurate to say that abortions are among the safest procedures in medicine?" That total is 1 in 100,000. That's the mortality rate for abortions between '72 and '87.

For comparison, a colonoscopy has a mortality rate of 20 per 100,000.

I think your graph supports my point. My view continues to be not to change the language, and I am going to try not to discuss it further unless other people get involved. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That our citation provides a "total" figure does nothing to resolve Wikipedia's lumping question. If we fail to distinguish key safety differences in the safety sentence in the lead paragraphs, we're granting undue weight to the lumpers over and above the splitters. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading content re: history section, Christianity

Hi, the article implies that it had been unclear whether abortion is OK or not in Christian teaching until the nineteenth century. But this is incorrect: various sources, including "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker, report that abortion was not allowed at a very early time. It is true that punishment for abortion has varied from murder to not murder, but this is not because the Church taught that abortion is OK. The Catholic Church has always condemned the act of abortion but has specified more or less penance as punishment at different times.

 [55] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You raised this on 15 June 2017. Nobody was interested. You again raised the issue on 5 September 2017. Nobody was interested. The tread was archived on 19 October 2017 to Talk:Abortion/Archive 50. The agreed time before a dormant thread is archived is 30 days, so your concerns have been more than well-aired. You must not revert the archiving without good reason, nor should you interfere with an archive. Now, take a hint. There has been zero interest in your thesis and that is understandable because frankly it's WP:UNDUE for this article. Please don't think that your attempts to keep this on the talk page is going to result in a different outcome. It will simply result in your disruptive editing attracting sanctions for you. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine WP:UNDUE would be more applicable if I wasn't raising a concern about the present content being actually false/misleading. Is WP:UNDUE also a guideline as to what deserves to be discussed on the talk page? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, but WP:REHASH is. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To that end, I thought it would be helpful for me to make my point in much fewer words than before. Maybe now folks will find it easier to evaluate the claim and say something about it. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, maybe it would be helpful at this time to just say that "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker is the secondary source (numbered 5) that supports an identical statement in Wikipedia's reference 14, Joffe 2009: 'Early Christian thought was divided as to whether abortion of an early “unformed fetus” actually constituted murder.' 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When you say "much [sic] fewer words," you mean 8 fewer words. Your almost-identical post previously was 105 words. This one was 97 words.

Regardless, your claim that the article is unclear and that a clarification is necessary is incorrect. The article states "the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century." That in no way implies that they ever thought it was "OK."

Abortion and the Catholic Church has its own article where finer details can be discussed in more detail than that. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't agree with your assessment of the implication of the sentences there about the Christian position on abortion. While it's clear from History_of_abortion#Christianity what Christianity's position was back then, it's not reproduced faithfully at Abortion#History_and_religion. If you were trying to find out if early Christians, Greeks, and Muslims were permitted to get 1st trimester abortions, what would you think after reading Abortion#History_and_religion? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we shut this down? Fruitless discussion, a time-waster for all involved. It's clear that our IP friend from Berkeley is repeatedly sapping the community of its energy. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I am really hard-pressed to find a source to justify the word "divided" regarding Christian teaching on abortion. It's not supported at Joffe other than to reference Luker. It's not supported at Luker other than to reference "Contraception" by John Noonan. And "Contraception" reads at page 88 that "the Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide." Without investigating whether author John Noonan means pregnancy to be part of the "life-giving process", it's clear that Noonan reports a clear stance by Christians regarding abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As you, @Binksternet:, kindly quoted on 5 June 2017 of the Luker source, "...it is true that the early Christian church denounced abortion (along with other barriers to procreation, such as contraception, humosexuality, or surgical sterilization); but it is also true that the church's sanctions against abortion were almost never as severe as the penalties for the murder of an adult person. Moreover, throughout most of the history of Western Christianity, abortion early in pregnancy, though verbally chastized, was often legally ignored." This does not support Wikipedia's present answer to the question, "whereas Aristotle and Islamic tradition allowed early-term abortion, was this allowed by the early Catholic Church?" ...which by implication is, "yeah, I guess so." Failing to prosecute early abortion as murder doesn't justify this answer by Wikipedia either! Let's not forget that the Catholic Church had absolutely no political power during its early years in Rome. 208.76.28.70 (talk)

So I propose this re-write. Instead of...

In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[159] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]

...We should have...

Early Christian leaders did not permit abortion at any stage in their community except as required to save a mother's life. Much later, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) declared that abortion is homicide[159], but still the Church did not begin politically opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]

References

208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What text in this is supporting that line of text?[56]

We do not need to use references before the 1990s really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That reference is shown as number 28 on History of Christian thought on abortion... the author contrasts Judaism's nuance and flexibility with the black-and-white position he sees the Christians holding at the time in question (approx 150 - 350 AD if memory serves). 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For Didache we could use

References

208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For a general feeling on the subject, it seems that other sources (John Riddle, "Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance" and also the reference I made to Kristin Luker, which was a source for "Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy", 2009 Blackwell publishing / John Wiley and Sons) keep going back to John Noonan's book "Contraception", which I referenced above. (Yes, two IP addresses... sorry) 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you quote the exact text from this ref that you feel supports that line of text?[57] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It's the inset from History of Christian thought on abortion.

As early as the time of Tertullian in the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected in favour of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fetus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward.

References

208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That book references this quote pronouncing the Catholic perspective on this history:

Abortion was wrong to the early Christians, and this was what concerned them, not what penalty it deserved... One finds in the early Church, then, simple, clear condemnations of abortion without any attempt to distinguish or classify.

References

208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So more like "Many early Christian leaders did not approve of abortion at any stage." That ref does not comment on the "save the woman's life" bit

Than followed by "Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[159] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the sources would support Wikipedia saying, "Early Christian leaders did not approve abortion at any stage." ...I would like this better. But what you wrote is an improvement. I can't remember where I read that they allowed exceptions for the life of the mother... I'm OK dropping that clause here. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay will give others a couple of days to comment and than will add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What's the new proposed text, exactly? I got lost in all of the suggestions above, and it's a little disheartening when suggestions lack support in the citations. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is to add this line "Many early Christian leaders did not approve of abortion at any stage.[58]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it's quite that simple. History of Christian thought on abortion Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of this text. It makes it sound like some early Christian leaders approved of abortion at some stages, and it sounds from looking at the History of Christian thought on abortion (HCTA) article that it is more complicated, and relates to abortion as a sexual crime/sin more than as a murderish crime/sin.

I'm not sure that this section needs to change significantly. I think that our Berkeley friend's hypothesis, "the article implies that it had been unclear whether abortion is OK or not in Christian teaching until the nineteenth century," is untrue. It's untrue in a couple of ways.

First, the article states that the Pope called it murder in 1585, so I don't know how our Berkeley friend got the nineteenth century from that. Second, the article does not contain the implication. It is silent on the matter. Finally, taking a look at the HCTA article... I kinda think it *is* unclear what Christian teaching was on abortion in the 100-300AD range. Is it a sex sin/crime? Is it a murder sin/crime? Is it okay in cases of adultery (as, y'know, described in the Bible?).

This is a small section in the article dealing with abortion over almost five millennia. There is a single paragraph that deals briefly in religious approaches: some philosophy, some Catholicism, some Islam, well-documented stuff. That's appropriate. Getting into detail (or vagueries) about what early Christians thought seems unproductive. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Triacylglyceride good points. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Triacylglyceride, while I acknowledge that this is a short paragraph, I think that is not a good reason for it not to receive particular attention as to its content. In the Aristotle / Christianity / Islam paragraph I count at least fifteen individual points that would need to be corroborated by their sources, and for the living traditions (assuming Greek paganism to be dormant) each point should be handled with a standard of verifiability, NPOV, and NOR equivalent to WP:BLP. It is well-documented that early Christians did not allow abortion: why the resistance to my proposed added sentence? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I found that source that supports this sentence: "Many early Christian leaders did not approve of abortion at any stage except as required to save the life of the woman." This is reviewed contemporarily here.

References

208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's call "do they approve of early abortion?" question A, and "is there any ambiguity or nuance to their stance?" question B. It seems to me that the paragraph answers question A for pagans and Islamic tradition, but not for Christianity. Instead, the paragraph emphasizes areas in question B where Christianity is more ambiguous. By this selective exclusion and re-emphasis, I contend that the paragraph is misleading: sources are clear for Christianity on question A. Additionally, it seems to me that question A is more important to answer than question B because as everybody knows, most abortions are early abortions.208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Triacylglyceride, I bet you are referring to the Ordeal of the bitter water when you say that abortion was permitted in the Bible in cases of adultery. Given that, I think it would be fair to rejoinder that in case by this method a woman were found guilty of adultery, Lev. 20:10 would be applied and she would be put to death. Also, it seems to me that this "ordeal" did not usually apply to pregnant women, since it's only to be used if she had not been found out in the normal way per Num. 5:13: being pregnant would kind of eliminate the demand for such a procedure. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like some scholars dispute that she would then be put to death, some think the physical effects resulted in her death, some think that she would be stoned as I suggested... and yes, some think that it results in abortion. [[59]] Not at all clear, though, for the purpose of saying "the Bible doesn't just condone abortion, it tells you how to do it!" 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's the current proposal:

Early Christian leaders did not permit abortion at any stage in their community except as required to save a mother's life. Much later, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) declared that abortion is homicide[159], but still the Church did not begin politically opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]

References

-208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Will review sources this weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triacylglyceride (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement with page on Miscarriages?

"Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester" disagrees with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage "[Miscarriage] rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%."

I don't have access to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#cite_note-Gabbe.2C_Chp_24-34 but the two references on the miscarriage page agree that the rate of miscarriages is up to 50%: "as many as half of all fertilized eggs may spontaneously abort", "Thirty to forty percent of all conceptions result in miscarriage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.125.140 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's start by reading this [60], which provided the source for the rate given by this [61].

From this [62] we get a rate less than 40% of early pregnancy loss and spontaneous abortion combined.

From this article [63] we have a total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, of 31%.

So, putting all this together, the Q&A says "How many people are affected by or at risk for pregnancy loss or miscarriage? The estimated rate of miscarriage is 15% to 20% in women who know they are pregnant, but as many as half of all fertilized eggs may spontaneously abort, often before the women realize they are pregnant." How did they arrive at "as many as half"? Well, here are studies that show between 31 - 33% of implanted human embryos / zygotes / blastocysts that die due to natural causes.

Going back to "Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregancies", 5th ed, which is supposed to support Wikipedia's statement that only 30% of conceptions may progress past the first trimester, I can't find this in the 7th edition. Instead, we see that "Spontaneous abortion occurs in 15% of clinically established pregnancies."

References

So I think that Wikipedia/abortion is wrong: the 30% - 50% figure is the rate at which they die, not the rate at which they survive. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

With no dissenters, it seems that the proposal has it: this should be rewritten. I suggest the following: Only 50% to 70% of conceptions progress past the first trimester. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable and accurate. I agree. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

False: not one of the safest medical procedures when Propaedeutic and Diagnostic procedures are included.

Hi Wikipedia editors, I'm sorry that this is coming so long after the statement was added to this article, but it seems to me incorrect that abortion is one of the safest procedures in all of medicine according to a technicality: Medical procedures include "Propaedeutic" and diagnostic procedures which do not incur any risk whatsoever, like taking blood pressure and doing a urine test. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You might think so, but Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not personal analysis from interested users. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Raymond source for Wikipedia's claim explicitly compares abortion with other outpatient surgical procedures, not "medical procedures". The Grimes source makes the superlative claim without any source to back it up or provide clarification on whether "procedures in medical practice" would include or not include propaedeutic and diagnostic procedures, with which there is substantially lower risk than with abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I contend that "medical procedure" does not have a rigorous and precise definition; its use in Medical procedure is descriptive and exhaustive, but in common use it is frequently used in ways exclusive of blood pressure or urine tests. "I'm going to have a medical procedure tomorrow," as an English phrase, would not lead any listener to the conclusion that the speaker is having their blood pressure and urine checked the next day.

I think that the meaning is clear and oppose an edit to it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I added surgical as I agree that procedure alone was too vague. —PaleoNeonate – 09:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed surgical as that is too specific; the article is discussing both surgical and medication abortions. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The statement as it stands is visibly false on technical grounds hinging on the word "procedure". 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have previously responded to this assertion of yours. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The statement as it stands is also false on the grounds that a collection of procedures cannot be coherently be described as "one", especially when the collection includes things with meaningful differences when disseminating accurate information makes a difference for people's choices. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have also often meditated on the difference between one thing and multiple things. Can a vacuum aspiration be called one procedure, or is it a different procedure if it's done with a vacuum or electric? Is a manual aspiration one procedure, or is it a different procedure if it's done with a flexible or rigid cannula? Is taking somebody's blood pressure the same procedure on the left and right arms? They test the pressure of different vessels, in a way that can be significant in subclavian steal syndrome. It sometimes makes me think that the difference between one thing and multiple things is a human invention; that outside of the Euclidean planes and mathematically perfect realities we construct, the universe of real things laughs at the human idea that a line can ever be drawn between singular and plural.

However, for the purposes of this article, I find the current phrasing to be adequately accurate and concise for the opening paragraph. Your concern is that readers might somehow be left with the impression that abortions are safer than giving a urine sample? Or that they will be left with the impression that abortions are a monolith, consisting of one invariable procedure, applied by some automaton? I do not find these to be realistic concerns. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

While it seems silly for somebody to think that abortion would be safer than looking into a kid's mouth with a tongue depressor, actually that's what Wikipedia is saying right now. And I am concerned that people will confuse the safety of one method with the safety of another... you and I both know from our reading that the gestational age and the method have a very great impact on the safety of "the procedure", and as you pointed out before, this isn't an article about surgical abortion only: it also includes medical abortion.

I meditated on this phrase, "abortion is one of the safest procedures" and realized that this phrase in our language implies the expression, "abortion is one procedure" even though that is not written. Again, you and I know that this is incorrect, and could be misleading enough to surprise somebody later who didn't realize, for instance, that around the time of viability nowadays the morbidity risk of having an abortion becomes equal, then worse, than the morbidity risk of carrying the pregnancy to term. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Abortion is morally wrong. Ending a human life should not ever happen. That's why we have strict rules for murder. 142.112.236.147 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Added words contrasting Catholics and Evangelicals

Hi! I noticed that a sentence has been added in the history/ religion section which contrasts current behavior of Catholics with Evangelical Christians. While the comment may be well-sourced, I think it would be best to evaluate whether it fits in the context of that paragraph. I personally (not speaking as a Catholic) find that the sentence is a bit out of place without some introduction or analysis in the history paragraph, juxtaposed as it is with commentary about Catholic leadership. Is it relevant to abortion that we know whether people who identify with any particular religion actually follow church doctrine? -208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Safety: specify that safety pertains to the patient. Need not be inflammatory.

Hi Wikipedia auto-confirmed editors and talk: page collaborators, I would like to propose the following wording to appear whenever the article introduces the subject of abortion's safety... instead of "The health risks of abortion depend principally upon..." and "When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine" I would like to see, "The health risks to women from abortion depend principally upon..." and "When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest medical procedures for women."

My first correction does not change the meaning of the sentence. The second correction improves the sentence's accuracy with regards to both of its references, which do not make comparisons against procedures for men.

Thanks, 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is one of the safest procedures in medicine regardless of the person's sex or gender. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My suggested edit is non-controversial related to the medical facts of the matter, and has no impact to the article's message about safety. It causes Wikipedia to reduce slightly its scope, which improves accuracy. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

When reading safety statistics for a medical procedure, the idea that it is the safety of the patient, rather than anyone else, is always implied. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to convert this implication into a specification, especially here since the cost of doing so is the addition of so few words. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any need to implement the suggested change. The sources confirm that the medically approved methods of abortion are among the safest medical procedures, with no other procedure identified as significantly safer one for women or men. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you speculate as to any way in which the statement, "When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine" could be construed as POV? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley, we all know what you're getting at; we're not new here. But you should still say what you're getting at, rather than invite us to guess at it.

That said, no. I am opposed to this edit. People who are not women get abortions, such as transmen, gender-non-conforming people, and girls. It is unnecessarily constricting the statement, as it is one of the safest procedures in medicine for people to undergo, not just for women to undergo.

You call them corrections, but there is nothing to correct. The statements as they stand are already correct. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair point that it's not a correction as much as an improvement that I'm seeking with this proposal. I think that reducing perceived NPOV to others is an improvement. So here's a re-working that I believe would improve your impression of my proposal: "The patient risks from abortion depend principally upon..." and "When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest of all medical procedures for women or men." To your other point, I see many many examples of the word "woman" used unqualified/unexpanded with regards to abortion, including ~22 in Abortion. 208.71.156.130 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fair of you to request me to state my intention, so here goes: I'm here to influence Wikipedia articles such that accuracy and NPOV are improved while compromising neither, on subjects where I think I am informed enough to do this. And hopefully, to benefit the folks I'm communicating with in some way. I'm focusing on this talk page instead of getting autoconfirmed because I acknowledge that this article doesn't just get edited. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose edits. I'll discuss it further when Berkeley stops beating around the bush and says why they think the edits should be made. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the proposed edits will improve Wikipedia by "improving perceived NPOV by others". In order to specify which others and in what way POV, we need to speculate a little as to the readership, and I think it's also helpful to take a little inventory of our own objective here. So here goes: According to a January 2017 Pew Research article [64], 44% of Americans have some kind of moral issue with abortion, and according to the 2011 "MORI poll" [65], 37% of women in the UK think that "too many women do not think hard enough before having an abortion." So there is a significant population of English-speaking men and women for whom abortion has some kind of moral or ethical weight. Now these people are either right, wrong, or POV. If they're right, then Wikipedia should really define "safety" differently: abortion can't be as safe as Wikipedia says. If they're wrong, then it would be great for Wikipedia to correct the record and assure them there's nothing to worry about with abortion. And if they're POV, then Wikipedia should take appropriate steps to neutralize its own POV so that these POV readers get minimally confused by the article.

Now I believe that it is outside of the scope of this talk page to establish whether these people are right or wrong. But if their position is merely POV, then I believe Wikipedia will become better if it takes appropriate action to improve NPOV with relation to these people, and I think that my proposed edits related to the words health risks and safest medical procedure are both appropriate regarding RS, NPOV, NOR, etc. ...and an improvement to NPOV with regards to the aforementioned poll respondents. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... the 37% of women in the UK might also be concerned about a non-ethical issue. But this would still highlight "safety" and "health risks" for an NPOV review. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, no. The safety of the medical procedure is not changed or even challenged by the opinions of English-speaking poll participants. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course there's no difference to the safety of the medical procedure. But there's a difference in point of view related to what is meant by safety: that's why I think it's an improvement. There is no RS, NOR, or POV loss if Wikipedia uses the expressions "patient risk" and "safest of all procedures for women or men" instead of the present language. (note: I corrected "patient health" to "patient risk")208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why, Berkeley, whatever do you mean "a difference in point of view related to what is meant by safety"? This is the first you've mentioned it, and I can't imagine what you mean. Maybe you'd like to say what you mean explicitly, and stop beating around the bush, so we can engage with your argument and waste less of our time. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My argument is clear. My POV should be pretty easy to guess. I don't understand why this is holding up my proposal. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just found this: [66]. I hope other attempts in this vein haven't poisoned the well: I have plenty of respect for you folks, and I hope you can see I'm willing to put in effort at working on the source, instead of being the kind of talk-page gadfly who doesn't understand what would have been required in order to get the pet suggestion done. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Berkeley, I continue to decline to 'guess' what your POV concerns are.

Out of curiosity, have you seen other edits get made where the people suggesting the edits explicitly decline to describe their concerns, and instead invite other users to guess at what they are? This is strange behavior. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not safe for the fist patient (the mother). There are risks depending on trimester, not to mention the risks of damaging the reproductive system or serious long-term mental health effects. Also, abortion is not exactly safe for the other patient (the baby) either.38.64.241.23 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So your first allegation is incorrect and I oppose your edits on those grounds. The risks of injury to the reproductive system and serious long-term mental health effects are sufficiently low (or, in the latter case, no evidence is present as to their existence) that the statement as it currently stands is accurate. Even if your allegation were true, it wouldn't be addressed by your proposed edit.

As to your second allegation, I am confused. Babies don't get abortions, as they can't get pregnant. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I (208:76:28:70) believe that it is an improvement to the article to do my suggested changes, because they limit the possibility of being confused about safety and risk for people of "both" POVs. I think this is a good time to pause and restart: would you, Triacylglyceride, be willing to limit this discussion to asking whether the changes I proposed cause problems with verifiability, NPOV, and NOR? If we can agree on whether the changes cause these kinds of problems, then it would be easier to evaluate whether they improve Wikipedia. 23.118.252.62 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

One week and 1,500 words later, when you've almost said the reason behind your edit, and now you're asking to... restart?

I'm punching out of this strange discussion, which I probably should have done a long time ago. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course the abortion is NOT SAFE for the fetus – but in the places where we tell the reader about safety of the medical procedure for the pregnant woman, we're not going to cater to the anti-abortion platform with your suggested wording change. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In changing the expression "health risk" to "patient risk", the Wikipedia article would in no way become less NPOV, and there would certainly be no reason to think that Wikipedia is making anti-abortion statements. Likewise, by re-writing that sentence "among the safest of all medical procedures for women or men", or perhaps "among the safest of all procedures for women or men in medicine", in no way is Wikipedia beginning to smell of anti-abortion rhetoric: the exclamatory / superlative tone of the present sentence is still vitally retained. 23.118.252.62 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If we imply that the procedure is also safe for men we are making the encyclopedia appear ridiculous. If we say that it's safe for the "patient" then we are raising the unstated question about for whom it may NOT be safe: the doctor? nursing staff? the soul? society at large? the fetus? All of that is irrelevant when the sources emphatically say it's safe.

Please drop the stick. A rational scan of this talk page shows no consensus for your suggested change. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the sentence I am proposing doesn't imply the procedure is safe for men. By writing, "safest of all procedures for women or men in medicine" we are using different words to say exactly the same thing... but improving the article as I mentioned above. The expression "patient risk" is perfectly common in medical writing, and will not raise any questions... but it will improve the article. -23.118.252.62 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's an article in which the concept of safety applies to the fetus.

References

-208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is another one:

References

-208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

...and here's one more:

References

-208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Inspired partly by Gandydancer's comments about the pope above, I think this idea should be considered again (in general/not necessarily with the exact words proposed). I know people whose reaction to "abortion is safe" would likely be snorting in derision and saying "not for the baby, it isn't!" A truly NPOV article is written in a way that is not just factual, but that lets all (significant) sides see that their POV has been recognized as existing and having been fairly (although not necessarily flatteringly) described. If we write "Abortion is safe", rather than "Abortion is safe for the pregnant woman", because we don't want to even mention that some people think that the effect on the embryo matter, then we're not really achieving the ideal of NPOV.

BTW, at Talk:Pregnancy and related pages, a few years back, we discussed the gender-inclusive approach, and we rejected it. I don't think that consensus has changed. Partly this was because all pregnant people are women, even if they're children or have a different gender identity, according to some definitions of woman (especially the ones that focus on puberty as the key demarcation point. Mostly, though, I think it was because pregnant trans folks are statistically uncommon. Additionally, transmen are less likely to end up pregnant or getting an abortion than cis folks, because most transmen are attracted to women, with the obvious effect on fertility. IMO it is particularly inappropriate to use that marginalized group as an excuse for not adding the 82nd mention of the word woman to this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

208, the article does indeed mention the POV of those who do not agree with a woman's right to choose and would "likely be snorting in derision and saying "not for the baby, it isn't [safe]!" We write: ...Generally, the former position argues that a human fetus is a human person with a right to live, making abortion morally the same as murder. As for what Pope Francis may think, we are not writing an article to confirm his opinion or mine, we are writing an article that presents all sides to the issues related to abortion and IMO we've done a very good job of it, and I see no reason to change the wording to what you are suggesting. Gandydancer (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI I'm not the writer of that previous post--- it's somebody else. The point that writer made was that a significant POV in Wikipedia's audience would find the present statement on safety problematic---that POV is not seeking confirmation of their opinion, they are seeking information about abortion. As it stands, the sentence has a weakness along the lines of WP:Jargon. -208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gandydancer! It's good to see you again.

I really do think that we should specify that the safety being measured is for the pregnant woman. The POV that the the woman is the only person whose safety matters is just that – a point of view. I think it would be very reasonable of us to acknowledge the existence of different POVs by specifying that we're specifically talking about the woman's safety. I think that a good model to follow is the phrase in the ==Safety== section, which says "making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth". We could just as equally say something like "Medical abortion is safe for women and effective...", and I think that would be more within the spirit of NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, actually I still follow these articles but have become more turned off by WP politics as time has gone on and I don't edit them much anymore. About your suggestion, that was my first inclination as well - why not?, what would it hurt? But on the other hand, my emotional irritation at 208's people "snorting" about it got the best of me and made me dig my heels in. And even more so when it followed mention of Pope Francis who would not be snorting at all but rather sincerely concerned and not be fooled for one minute that just adding "safe for women" helped in the least. But Waid, as always I respect your most excellent judgement and am aware of how emotionally charged my reaction was. I agree with you that the change you suggest would be good or the article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118094034/http://www.stakes.fi/tilastot/tilastotiedotteet/2011/Tr09_11.pdf to http://www.stakes.fi/tilastot/tilastotiedotteet/2011/Tr09_11.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

please add in brackets after "embryo" (scientific term for unborn baby), because this will give more understanding to people who may not know or understand the term, and yes I know that they can click on the link to foetus or embryo and find out for themselves but it is more convenient for them because they do not have to leave the page and can continue reading without getting side-tracked, thank you --The Rightful Judge (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) The Rightful Judge (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a link between this request and your insistence that evolution is pseudoscience? I won't refuse this but It's not necessary and I can't see why we should do it for this and not for most wikilinked words or phrases. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done I'll decline it. There are two issues: the simple one is that there's no need to add extraneous text to the lead — it's linked right away and is implied; the second is that this is not a neutral request. It would be more accurate to say "the early stage of development of a multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism" as our article does, but that's not the point of this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources are poor

"Recent scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties. However, modern users of these plants often lack knowledge of the proper use and dosage. The historian of medicine John Riddle has spoken of the "broken chain of knowledge," and historian of science Ann Hibner Koblitz has written,

U.S. women of European descent have perhaps become particularly ignorant about the wealth of herbal remedies that previous generations accumulated over the centuries. And sometimes their fumbling attempts to recover the knowledge can be disastrous.

For example, in 1978 one woman in Colorado died and another was seriously injured when they attempted to procure an abortion by taking pennyroyal oil."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The first source is not by a major publisher.[67]

The Ann Koblitz book is also not a major publisher but is self published.[68]

Why are we using a single case study[69]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding bar urls such as <ref>http://www.guttmacher.org</ref> when it does not say anywhere that "Others favor legal and accessible abortion as a public health measure." is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Morbidity and disability are the same more or less. No need to state both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

The first source is published by a major publisher in India, though not a major publisher in the West. It is a large compendium of scientific studies conducted in India and elsewhere.

The third source is a scholarly book that, according to the author's Wikipedia page, won a university award (see https://ihr.asu.edu/content/sex-and-herbs-and-birth-control); it was favorably reviewed in Isis, the journal of the History of Science Society (Tim Daniels, Isis vol. 106, no. 3 (2015), p. 691-692).

Is Wikipedia against using a single example as an illustration of something? In this case it illustrates a case where (probably reasonably well-educated) Americans fell victim to a misguided use of a plant for abortion.

The Guttmacher Institute is a place where many people work on advocacy for safe abortion as a public health measure, as stated clearly on their website. The point of my edit here is that, in addition to the "right to make decisions about her own body" motivation, many people are also motivated by public health concerns (and I think it's fair to say that in many parts of the world -- perhaps not North America -- the public health concerns are more paramount than the individual rights concern). If you don't like the Guttmacher url, would the article https://www.scielosp.org/pdf/bwho/v78n5/v78n5a03.pdf be a better source? Or perhaps the fact that some people are motivated by public health concerns is so completely obvious that it doesn't need a source?

Both "morbidity" and "disability" were there before -- mine was only a language edit. If one is dropped, I'd prefer to drop "morbidity", which is a less broadly understood term.

NightHeron (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Abortifacient herbs

@NightHeron: It seems to me like the new material you added is better suited for Abortifacient than for the main abortion article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Thanks for the suggestion of adding to Abortifacient. The added material is short (except for a fairly long list of sources), and the justification for adding it here is that what was there before -- stating that physicians recommend against the use of herbal abortifacients -- was definitely inaccurate, overstated, Eurocentric, and not supported by the one source given (which is why I moved that source earlier in the sentence to support the statement about toxicity, which is what the source relates to). In some parts of the world (such as Cuba) physicians are generally not opposed to the use of herbal contraceptives and abortifacients. NightHeron (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect to "Modern scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties."

First ref is is not pubmed indexed[70] and is from 1966 Second ref is from 89 and is a small primary source in rats.[71] Third ref is in mice and from 1976.[72]

Please follow WP:RS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: I've added 4 more references from 1990, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Please note that "modern" does not mean "recent" (in the sense that you defined "recent" for me in your message to my user page saying that I should not use sources from before 2008). "Modern" in the sense of "modern science" or "modern scientific studies" is commonly understood to include the 2nd half of the 20th century. The sentence you question does not speak of clinical studies of effectiveness and safety on humans, but only of sources for the plants' abortifacient properties. Is there anything wrong with citing studies that were done on animals? I thought that such studies were a common way to verify that substances have certain properties. By the way, I've looked in vain for anything in the Wikipedia help pages saying that I should only use sources from within the last 10 years. NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not generally involve myself in medical related issues so have very little experience. (Came across this while checking out the medicine wikiproject.) This article has a tiny section on abortions on other animals. If you feel that info on abortifacients in mice and rats belongs there you can try and justify its inclusion. The section is so small that I don't see why you feel it belongs though. I don't see any reason why you'd want to include info on abortifacients in non humans in the rest of the article which deals with abortions in humans. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for your query. The reason the references belong in this section is that observation of effects on animals is a standard way to detect properties (such as abortifacient properties) of substances (because it would be dangerous/unethical to try them out on humans). For example, the Riddle reference (the last one) is entirely concerned with humans, not animals, but cites experimental studies on animals. NightHeron (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken, detection of the properties of substances in non humans is ultimately only useful in determining properties for non humans. In some cases, for example with toxicity, the evidence from non humans may be sufficient to suggest limits for humans, but you cannot say the property applies to humans if you do not have further evidence that it applies to humans. There is a difference between saying 'it's possible this has property X in humans and therefore', and 'this has property X in humans'. In other words, if your only evidence is from non human animals, then you cannot say that these plants have abortifacient properties in humans. (I would add that there are different animal models used for different purposes. Some models are much more useful than others depending on your ultimate goal.) I have not read the source you refer to, but if it is claiming that something definitely has abortifacient properties in humans based solely on animal studies this suggests it's a thoroughly unsuitable source. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I did not say that the evidence is based "solely" on animal studies. Riddle's book is a reliable source published by Harvard University Press; the author is a prominent historian of medicine and pharmacology. It cites animal studies, but it also discusses the anthropological evidence from many parts of the world that women have been using these substances for fertility control purposes for hundreds if not thousands of years. NightHeron (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Add synonym for Abortion and change MedlinePlus article

Hi, I'd like to add the synonym 'termination of pregnancy' to the Infobox of the article. Since this article is so heavily debated I thought I'd discuss it here first. I also think we should change the MedlinePlus code from 002912 to 007382. As 007382 is more the medical abortion which uses medication and is for early whereas I thought I could add 002912 to Late termination of pregnancy as it focuses more on the surgical abortion aspect.

As such, based on my suggestions above infobox code will look as follows:

{{Infobox medical intervention
| name = Induced abortion
| synonyms = Induced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy
| image =
| caption        = 
| field          = [[Obstetrics]] and [[gynecology]]
| ICD10          = {{ICD10|O|04||o|00}}
| ICD9           = {{ICD9|779.6}}
| DiseasesDB     = 4153
| ICDO           =
| OMIM           =
| MedlinePlus    = 007382
| eMedicineSubj  = article
| eMedicineTopic = 252560
| MeshID         =D000028
}}

Thanks, Waddie96 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Waddie96 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding "termination of pregnancy" is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussing sources

Because I'm an inexperienced editor and the issue of sources is so important on Wikipedia, I'd like to carry over some comments and questions about the sourcing of the abortion article that I sent to Doc James' user talk page, so as hopefully to get some responses from other editors as well:

Thank you for sending me Wikipedia's "guidance for new healthcare editors." As a newcomer to editing, I have not yet adjusted to Wikipedia reference style and have been using standard scholarly style without the template (and without ISBN numbers, which are generally not used in scholarly style), but I'm of course willing to change and use whatever style is preferred. If you don't mind, I'd like to initiate a discussion of sources, since you have questioned the sourcing for my edits of the abortion and Margaret Sanger articles.

I understand the need for very strict and high standards for medical sources (described in the guidelines you sent me), because of the real harm that can come from outdated or poor sources if people consult Wikipedia for medical information (similar to Wikipedia's policy on potentially libelous edits). However, large parts of the two articles in discussion are not about medicine, but rather relate to history, history of medicine, sociology/psychology, etc. The standards in the non-sciences are not the same as in medicine. For example, sources need not be "recent" (and journal articles don't have PMIDs). Also, sources are often published by less established publishers (niche publishers, very small publishers, nonprofit organizations, small professional associations, etc.). There's also some flexibility in using online non-print sources. Sources should be judged on their own merits, sometimes on a case by case basis.

I do not have any medical background, and my edits are generally non-medical (except for the general assertion, which I didn't think was controversial and for which there are numerous sources, that some plants have been shown to have abortifacient properties). However, I have to question the statement in the form that you restored that "The use of herbs...is not recommended by physicians"[64]. The reference is a very interesting one: "A descriptive retrospective survey was conducted on the calls received by the Montevideo Poison Centre between 1986 and 1999 concerning the ingestion of herbal infusions with abortive intent" (from the abstract). The study is consistent with my edit, which concerns the indiscriminant use of those plants -- in this case in a country (Uruguay) which in those years banned abortion. The statement about "not recommended by physicians" suggests that no physician would ever recommend herbal abortifacients. Is this true? Even if it is true in North America, is it true internationally? In Cuba? In India? In China?

Sorry I've gone on at length. I'd welcome hearing your views. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron: It does seem to me that the statement should be given some qualification-- even if no modern, "Western" doctor would ever recommend herbs. Wikipedia is supposed to cover broad understandings of things, and it seems perfectly legitimate for this article to discuss instances where "doctors" (in any country) did recommend herbal treatments for an abortion, even if that was medically inappropriate for them to do and even if it did not have the intended effect, so long as the details of what happened are made clear. In other words, we don't want Wikipedia to come off as suggesting that women should try taking herbal supplements to induce an abortion, but I think it is equally problematic to make blanket statements suggesting that herbal treatments have never been recommended by any doctor anywhere. This is not a medical journal, this is Wikipedia, and we should cover topics like this broadly and without Western medical prejudice limiting that discussion. So long as we are also very clear about what that breadth means. A loose noose (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A loose noose I have no objection if you want to insert a qualification such as "in general" or "in the U.S." or "in the West", but I would suggest making the qualification as mild as possible to as not to get objections from other editors who have an extremely negative view of any treatment they see as falling outside mainstream medicine.NightHeron (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@A loose nose: On second thought, there already is a qualification in the sentence, namely, "indiscriminate use". In other words, the statement is that physicians do not recommend indiscriminate use of herbal abortifacients. It does not preclude the possibility that in some parts of the world physicians do recommend careful, knowledgeable use of such methods. NightHeron (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Role of ultrasound/medical advances on views

This article should acknowledge the role of medical advances in changing abortion views.

Omission of this information causes several sections of the article to come across as misleading. For example, under the "History and religion" heading: "...In fact, several historians have written[177][178][179] that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion..." reads totally differently, taken away from the context of medical advances of the time.

It is interesting that a search for the word "ultrasound" does not find any matches on the entire abortion page. TTrueGoodBeautiful (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)his seems like a major oversight.

Perhaps you are holding the mistaken belief that women seeking abortion might change their minds after viewing an ultrasound. Such a notional belief is part of the pro-life platform, but it's completely wrong. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2014, 15,575 abortion patient records were analyzed to find that 1.6 percent of the women decided not to have an abortion after viewing the ultrasound. And these women were already members of the 7.4% who were waffling about the decision – they talked about other reasons for changing their minds such as learning the fetus's gestational age. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take your dogma elsewhere. This is not the place to push your views. And remember that this is a global encyclopaedia, not one for just the 5% of people who live in one of the world's most religiously conservative countries. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would see ultrasound as part of a broader package of tools available to women today to assist them in making such decisions. Maybe you could broaden the proposal to include others, with appropriate referencing of course. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Tools? The women who decide to go to an abortion clinic have largely made up their minds. 99% get the abortion they came for. 98.4% of the ones viewing the ultrasound get the abortion they came for. The very small percent who decide not to get the abortion are the ones who were already lacking confidence in their decision. So as a tool it is very weak. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion on abortion is obvious, and probably unhelpful when it comes to improving this article. Your statistics are, I'm guessing, about only one country. Your guesses on what goes on in the minds of others are no better than that, pure guesses. Please limit your comments to things that are related to improving this global article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ultrasound cannot show much (to a non-specialist) until late in the pregnancy (see Obstetric ultrasonography), past the first trimester. So according to sources cited in the article Late termination of pregnancy, ultrasound is irrelevant as a "tool" for women in over 90% of abortions in the countries where statistics are available. In the U.S. (I'm not sure about other countries) ultrasound is in fact a "tool" but almost never (as User:Binksternet points out) for the woman. It's a tool for those opponents of legal abortion who have adopted the strategy of making the abortion process as lengthy, costly, and unpleasant as possible. As such, perhaps it belongs in an article such as Anti-abortion movements, but not in this article, in my opinion. Ultrasound can also be a tool for the doctor who uses it to detect fetal abnormalities that might lead to a decision to abort, but that is already covered in Obstetric ultrasonography#Abnormality screening. NightHeron (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

as an addendum to my original post, my underlying intent was not that people will change their minds based on ultrasound, but that embryology was not well understood at all when early historical opinions were formed, and the way the "History and religion" section is written doesn't acknowledge this . Medical advances (including ultrasound.... did not realize this was such a trigger for some people) were a significant factor in how people in general approached the issue. Some of this is already discussed in the Main article, "History of abortion," yet gets very little treatment in the summary on the Main article "Abortion." TrueGoodBeautiful (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The "History of abortion" Main article currently reads: "There were a number of factors that contributed to this shift in opinion about abortion in the early 19th century. In the United States, where physicians were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, advances in medical knowledge played a significant role in influencing anti-abortion opinion. Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. On a logical basis, many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.[64]"

I would propose brief summary of this point to be: "A number of factors contributed to the shift in opinion about abortion in the early 19th century, including scientific discovery that conception initiated human development and that quickening was a realtively unimportant step in gestation." Reference: (using the same source; although, I am sure there are others) James C. Mohr (1978). Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy. Oxford University Press/. pp. 35–36TrueGoodBeautiful (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for calling our attention to that passage in History of abortion#Criminalization, which I edited just now to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy on editorializing and undue emphasis. An editor can say that, according to a certain source, in the early 19th century some physicians made a certain argument to justify their advocacy of criminalization. But an editor should not state as a fact that the doctors' advocacy was based on science and logic. If you really believe that the pro-criminalization doctors of the early 19th century were led to that position by following science and logic, then how do you explain the fact that by the mid-20th century most American doctors were in favor of legalization? Were they less aware of science and logic than doctors in the U.S. in the early 19th century?NightHeron (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

source?68.5.92.23 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For the first part WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. For the last statement one source (among many) is Koblitz's book (reference [72] in the article), p. 157:

In the course of the first half of the 20th century physicians in many countries began to speak out in favor of decriminalizing abortion, if only in the interest of moving authority over abortion from the courts to the medical profession.

NightHeron (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that information. Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Claim of redundancy of last sentence in lede

That sentence was not redundant and should not have been deleted. This part of the lede describes viewpoints pro and con on legalization. The pro-legalization viewpoint in many parts of the world (such as Latin America) is not based primarily on the "right to make decisions" argument but rather on public health arguments. It would be misrepresenting the pro-legalization viewpoint and it would be inconsistent with WP:Global to summarize the pro-legalization viewpoint using only the previous sentence.NightHeron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

Change Ireland's status on abortion to a sort of pending. Navajoin (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm assuming this is actually a request to update the map displaying the status of abortion legality in various countries. This image is actually hosted on Wikimedia Commons, a sister project, and requests for updating it is already under way at commons:File_talk:Abortion_Laws.svg#Ireland Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Women on Waves

I added a paragraph about the NGO Women on Waves to the section on medical abortion. AnaSoc (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph I added about the NGO Women on Waves as providing medical abortion in regions where the procedure is illegal was removed without discussion. I'm going to add the material back. Please discuss here if there are objections.AnaSoc (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely no objection here. I saw your addition. Thought it was good. Hadn't noticed the removal. Yes, put it back, please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved the content to Abortion#Modern_abortion_law. This is not about how a medical abortion is preformed but about access and getting around laws against abortion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Timing

ADAM is really NOT a good source. Medical abortions can done beyond 7 weeks depending on what agents one has. And we already say with better refs that it can be used in the 1st and 2nd trimester. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"A medical (medication-induced) abortion can be done within 7 weeks from the first day of the woman's last period, while the most common surgical technique involves dilating the cervix and using a suction device to remove the fetal and placental tissues from the uterus, and is effective at any stage of pregnancy."

References

Left the surgical stuff with a better reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation issues

Motivation/Societal

In the Societal section, Oster 2005 is used to cite the claim that sex-preference and compulsion are motives for abortion. The article primarily discusses imbalances in sex-ratios within certain nation. It does not discuss abortion at all; at most, it mentions infanticide in passing, ruling it out as a major imbalancing influence. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Change the definition

This should be changed,"Abortion is the ending of pregnancy due to removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus." Children have survived as early as 5 months of age. In the Unites States abortion can be committed up until the day before birth. There was actually a "partial Birth Abortion", where they pulled the baby out but left the head in and snapped the spine to murder the baby. George Bush made this illegal. So the reality is, abortion is ending the life of a baby/fetus at anytime during pregnancy. If you insist on having this language in there, then it should say "In the USA babies can be aborted up until the last day of pregnancy". Everything I just said is common knowledge. But perhaps not for the world at large, in that case I can provide citations for anything. thanks. Disciple4lif (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Disciple4lif

Not done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS, please. —PaleoNeonate – 09:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Disciple4lif, there are many problems with your suggested edit. Please review prior discussion of the definition, which was written through an extensive debate process. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Abortion in Venezuela

• Abortion in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, I am a college student currently working on the article "Abortion in Venezuela." Please feel free to let me know of any revisions or additions I should consider making. I would greatly appreciate input on how to make the article better. Thanks! Natsz72 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Feticide

This does not appear largely different than abortion, it may in fact just be synonymous(since one cannot occur without the other). For destruction of children which have been born, that would be infanticide, so this can only be pertinent to the period between conception and birth. Ethanpet113 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No merge Yup it is different per Feticide#Use_during_legal_abortion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No merge they are not synonymous, and feticide can occur without induced abortion (for example, in a selective termination of one of a pair of twins). Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No merge I agree that a merge would not be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the merge template from both articles, no consensus to do this merge. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello my friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.90.130 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording of argument on reproductive rights

How should the sentence in the lead about reproductive-rights based arguments for the legality of abortion be worded?

The original wording is as follows: Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.

Previously, I edited the lead to say: Those who favor the legality of abortion often argue on reproductive rights grounds. User:Doc James partially restored the original wording, but kept the verb "argue" instead of restoring "hold".

Since this is a controversial topic, I suggest that we try to obtain consensus. User:Doc James's edit comment states "simplified"; I understand why the user might see the original wording as simpler, as the original wording explains what "reproductive rights" means. However, I believe the original wording may have potential NPOV pitfalls, as it could be interpreted to imply that anti-abortion activists believe women never have the right to make decisions about their own bodies (although it is clearly not the intention of the sentence), a negative association. The use of "women" could also be questioned (intersex and transgender individuals can also become pregnant), but it's a far smaller problem because the MOS permits the use of gendered nouns for situations where the vast majority of people involved are a certain gender.

My proposed wording also has potential NPOV issues, as it does not state specifically what argument abortion-rights activists are making on reproductive rights grounds, while the original wording does. --Leugen9001 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list of possible alternative wordings:

Those who favor the legality of abortion often argue that legal abortion facilitates women's reproductive rights.

Those who favor the legality of abortion often argue that banning abortion violates women's reproductive rights.

Those who favor the legality of abortion often argue that legal abortion facilitates reproductive rights.

Those who favor the legality of abortion often argue that banning abortion violates reproductive rights.

Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that it is part of a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

--Leugen9001 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of reproductive rights is not well known and we should try to use terminology that is better understood per WP:MEDMOS. The question is how do we explain what "reproductive rights" are. The concerns about people reading things into Wikipedia which we do not say is not a serious concern IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sex selective abortion

Hi, I noticed that the ref for sex-selective abortion was removed... here's an alternate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552518300938 204.136.186.144 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Source removed

In this edit a source was removed a the second time from a paragraph marked with at least one sourcing issue (a "fail verification" tag) by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), citing "removed soapy". Removing sources from poorly sourced controversial content is inappropriate. JzG (talk · contribs), the original editor, did remove the entire poorly source paragraph along with this edit. Genericusername57 (talk · contribs) then reverted the edit here.

Please discuss here whether the paragraph is appropriate for the article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 04:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Zfish118, I checked the source marked "failed verification" and found that the url and doi led to different documents: the doi corresponded to the main article on sex-selective abortion and female infanticide, but the url went to someone else's follow-up comments about hepatitis, with little relevance to abortion. So I found a link to an accessible version of the main article and reinserted the ref; I assumed it had been flagged and removed by people looking at the wrong link.

I didn't reinsert the ref called "remove soapy": that one was about a purported link between naziism and the promotion of abortion; I agree that it was not a good source for "race-selection" as a societal factor. (Other than forced abortion of ethnic minorities, I haven't found any discussion of "race-selective abortion" in high-quality sources.)

I think that some sort of societal-factor paragraph should be included, but that the reasons need to be sourced individually. The sources used in the personal section also list some of the reasons in the societal section, but the sources don't group the reasons into these two categories. I added a ref to support in general the notion that societal factors may influence or limit a woman's choices; I've been looking for individual refs to verify the reasons listed. Cheers, gnu57 06:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the societal motivations section again, it seems to me that the second paragraph (about contraception use and minority women) should fall under incidence rather than motivation. Would there be any objection to my moving it? Cheers, gnu57 00:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Short summary

"Medical procedure to end a pregnancy"

Well sometimes it is not a medical procedure but a surgical one.

And often it is not a procedure but simple the taking of medications to end pregnancy.

"Intentionally ending pregnancy" was thus better to separate it from a "spontaneous abortion"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

Should indirect abortion be added as a section? Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

False definition

"before it can survive outside the uterus" This is objectively false. Abortion can include termination of a fetus AFTER it can survive outside the uterus. What do you think "late term abortion" means? Whoever wrote this article, is misinformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:87F:B32F:91C6:50BD:16B7:5EE1 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically "late term abortion" isn't an accurate term, since after the fetus can survive independently outside of the mother, it is called "late termination of pregnancy", not abortion. Bob Roberts 05:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article you linked to. "late-term abortion" is one of the terms. Meters (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Abortion Criticism

This article has one sentence in the lede that described the criticisms of abortions, but there is far more to this issue than that. Saying any unborn fetus being aborted is one thing, but saying that a 21 week old baby getting aborted is murder is more scientifically proven, since the fetus can survive independently in many cases. This article does not address the differences in fetal age and their associations with murder. Abortion in early pregnancy is completely different from a late termination of pregnancy, which many more people equate to being murder. Bob Roberts 05:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. There is an entire paragraph in the lead on the legal and ethical implications, and more extensive discussion in the the body of the article. We link to Late termination of pregnancy but do not discuss it in depth because that is not what this article is about. Meters (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not fora; we're not here to discuss the subject in general. You may suggest a specific change. While abortion is a massive part of the abortion debate, the abortion debate is not a massive part of abortion, and I think that the abortion debate subsection takes up an appropriate amount of the article. Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"You may suggest a specific change." He already did. He feels that the lede is insufficiently summarizing an aspect of the article. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is only one sentence in the lede that says some people criticize abortions. For a topic that is so political and has so many opponents/proponents, I do not think one sentence in the lede is enough... Bob Roberts 09:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article. We have most of one full paragraph about the ~"abortion debate". Look at the table of contents -- how much of the article is on that subject? Beyond that, we have entire articles on the subject, e.g. abortion debate and anti-abortion movement. If either of those disproportionately focused on the medical aspect of the subject, you would have a point. Regardless, if you feel the lead doesn't accurately summarize the body of the article, you're welcome to propose specific suggestions. Just saying "more criticism" isn't going to result in much, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019

Given the 2016 FDA update to the label for mifepristone, please change "The most common early first-trimester medical abortion regimens use mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog (misoprostol or gemeprost) up to 9 weeks gestational age" to "The most common early first-trimester medical abortion regimens use mifepristone in combination with misoprostol (or sometimes another prostaglandin analog, gemeprost) up to 10 weeks (or 70 days) gestational age" UCDEBS (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Question: @UCDEBS: have you a reliable source please? NiciVampireHeart 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see: UCDEBS (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 17:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

Remove: "late termination of pregnancy" Replace it with: "later abortion"

Source: http://laterabortion.org/ Particularly: "The terminology used to discuss abortions after the first trimester varies enormously. There is no agreement in the law or in the medical community about what constitutes the limit of the second trimester, for example. In scholarly journals, these abortions are variously referred to as “mid-trimester abortion,” “second-trimester abortion” (which is used to describe abortions up to 24 weeks or up to 27 weeks, depending on the writer or the state law) and late abortion. Within the mainstream media, the phrase “late-term abortion” is often used in articles about abortion policy and advocacy. These competing terms do not provide accurate clinical descriptions or contribute to public knowledge about abortion care and the differences at various stages of gestation. It is for this reason that we do not use the phrase “late-term abortion” here, and recommend against its use. Instead, we use and recommend the phrase “later abortion” to identify any pregnancy termination after 18 weeks of gestational age." DataNerdMPH (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:PROMO; this seems to be a term that a single organization is trying to promote. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarify that abortion is physically safe

The statement in the second paragraph that "When allowed by law and performed by trained personnel, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine" should be clarified to refer to physical safety alone. This is because the psychological safety of abortion is at best controversial. See The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities. This is a 2018 review article on this topic.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the "Mental health" section. The WP:LEAD is a summary of the important points of the article, so that section would be the first to rework if its current conclusions are contested. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health issues or psychological problems. There is a great deal of scholarly work on this topic; the article cited here, by David C. Reardon, is an extreme outlier and is not representative of mainstream scientific thought on the topic. Perhaps we do need to clarify the lead language to expressly describe the absence of mental-health risk, though, since there's a significant amount of misinformation on the topic and many people (for example, the original poster) have incorrect impressions. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I am not opposed to that, but my proposed edit was negative in character such that it doesn't require any other changes in the article. In other words, I intend to add the words "considering only the physical and not the psychological risks" or something similar to describe safety. MastCell, I understand your position on this topic, however, the review article I linked to above establishes that the mental-health safety of abortion is controversial and that two opposing positions are held within the scholarly/medical communities. This is different from the physical safety of abortion, in which there is less controversy and more evidence that it is safe. As it stands now, the language in the lead is too vague. I am proposing to clarify it so that readers do not mistakenly think both physical and psychological safety are asserted. In particular, both sources #4 and #5 only establish the physical safety of abortion. The summary of them should reflect the sources cited. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

When characterizing medical or scientific knowledge, it's important to recognize that an individual paper does not necessarily reflect mainstream thought. Some papers express minoritarian, fringe, or even completely discredited points of view. Since our goal is to represent accurately the current sum of knowledge, it's useful to look at how reputable expert bodies have synthesized the available literature. In the case of abortion and mental health, every reputable major medical/scientific expert body that has examined the literature has reached the same conclusion: that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems, compared to the alternative of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Specifically:

• The U.S. National Academy of Medicine concluded that abortion "does not increase a woman’s risk of depression, anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder." ([73]).
• The American Psychological Association found that "the best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy." [74]
• The U.K. Royal College of Psychiatrists found that "the rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth." [75]
• The U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends that "women with an unintended pregnancy should be informed that the evidence suggests that they are no more or less likely to suffer adverse psychological sequelae whether they have an abortion or continue with the pregnancy and have the baby." [76]

So there is a clear scientific consensus that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems. As editors, we have a responsibility to convey that expert consensus—and, as is evident from your post, there is some confusion (and a great deal of misinformation) on the topic, so I will draft some appropriate language to make sure we're accurately informing readers. If we suggest, imply, or state that abortion carries mental-health risks, then we are promulgating a false and misleading medical claim, one with potential real-world harm, which would be deeply irresponsible. That's something I take pretty seriously. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, see the 2018 review article I linked to above; the issue is controversial with two camps represented in the medical/scholarly literature. You are providing sources representing one of the two camps.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm throwing my hat in the ring and saying that I agree with User:MastCell. When there are two camps, and one has the National Academy of Medicine, the APA, RCOG, the Royal College of Physicians, and ACOG while we're at it... well, that might be the right camp to represent on Wikipedia. One single-author review paper does not beat multiple accrediting bodies. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the issue of representing two camps, there is the related question of whether the "areas of agreement" between the two camps are sufficient to merit qualification for the contested assertion in the lead. From the abstract of the above review article, even the "right camp to represent on Wikipedia" agrees to (or perhaps concedes?) these things:

Still, both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women; (c) there are risk factors, such as pre-existing mental illness, that identify women at greatest risk of mental health problems after an abortion; and (d) it is impossible to conduct research in this field in a manner that can definitively identify the extent to which any mental illnesses following abortion can be reliably attributed to abortion in and of itself.

The statement in the lead "When allowed by law and performed by trained personnel, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine," which is backed in citation by only physical safety scholarship, appears to contradict this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a global article in a global encyclopaedia. I feel that in this discussion I am seeing only the concerns of some people in one country with less than 5% of the world's population. In most of the world, the views of one of the abovementioned "camps" is far more routinely accepted than the one that sees this issue as controversial. Abortion is not controversial in most of the world. Let's not make this a US centric article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In theory at least, the issue of side-effects or possible complications to a medical procedure can be considered separately from controversies related to the procedure (such as is the case with the receipt of organs). I think we can do the same here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm being clear, because I think something is getting lost here. There is a scientific and medical consensus that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems. I presented numerous sources above demonstrating that consensus. A handful of anti-abortion activists dispute the scientific consensus, as part of an effort to portray abortion as more harmful to women than the evidence would suggest. In the same way, a handful of contrarians claim that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS. But we don't suggest in our articles on HIV or AIDS that there is an actual medical or scientific controversy, because there isn't—just as there isn't here.

The controlling site policy is WP:WEIGHT. We have a responsibility to honestly and accurately reflect the prominence and level of support (in reliable sources) for various viewpoints. It would violate WP:WEIGHT to pretend that there is a meaningful controversy about the effects of abortion on mental health, when in fact experts in the field are unanimous. More to the point, I am not OK with false or misleading information making its way into medical articles, much less on a topic like abortion where medical misinformation is already widespread on the Internet. I hope I'm being clear. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 20 June 2019

(UTC)

This shouldn't have anything to do about activists... just that there is a single sentence in the lead that is too general and could be clarified, even with just one word, "physically" added into it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As it seems (over one week later) that there is no objection to my above proposal to add just one word to the unclear phrase, I am going to edit the article to add the word "physically"--regardless of the politics, I think we can agree that after my edit the article will more closely reflect the two sources at the end of the sentence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Literally everyone else who commented here objected to your proposal. Pretending otherwise and inserting the material anyway is poor form. As explained above, with reference to numerous high-quality sources, there is a medical and scientific consensus that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems. You are cherry-picking individual low-profile papers to try to "debunk" clearly expressed expert opinion on the subject. Your edit inserts misleading medical material into a high-profile article and is deeply inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with you adding the word "physically" to the lede. Your first suggestions was "The statement in the second paragraph that "When allowed by law and performed by trained personnel, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine" should be clarified to refer to physical safety alone." and we all disagreed with that, so I'm not sure how you thought that the edit you made was any different from what you had asked about and gotten a resounding "no" to. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As it seems (over one week later) that there is no objection...The following seemed like a very clear objection to me: There is a scientific and medical consensus that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems. I presented numerous sources above demonstrating that consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The article as it now stands does not reflect the references. This is wrong for us to do as it misleads the reader. As for your or others' concerns, they were addressed by reducing the change to just one word. Moreover, no one had responded to the the one-word-change proposal in over one week, see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also register my opposition to "physically" because it falsely implies that there is a psychological risk. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Benefits of Pregnancy Abortion?

Are there benefits of becoming pregnant (1 to several times), followed by abortion? Versus never becoming pregnant?

For example, does it affect cancer risk, cardiovascular risk etc?

--ee1518 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. I am a family planning specialist ob/gyn and I am not aware of any literature on this. It would be very hard to do this study since 1/4 of all women (in the US at least) have had an abortion, but the majority have also had full term pregnancies. So it would be hard to isolate the health benefit of one abortion. NastywomanMD (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)NastywomanMD

Second paragraph updates

I'd like to edit the second paragraph of this article to reflect updated citations and language that's consistent with those citations. See below for my suggested changes. DataNerdMPH (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. It is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, which has a 14 times higher risk of death in the United States. Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions. The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin, often misoprostol, is as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. The most common surgical technique involves dilating the cervix and using a suction device. Contraception, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion. When performed safely on a person who desires it, abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems. In contrast, unsafe abortions (defined by the World Health Organization as a procedure done by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not meet medical standards, or both) cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year. The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all.

References

This bit "Properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine." As poorly done it kills 10s of thousands of women a year.

Also why did you duplicate all the reference meta data and give all the references new names? It makes it unclear what you have changed.

Have restored to how it was before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattarox.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for Methods section, surgical abortion

Hello,

I suggest substantial revisions to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the surgical abortion methods section.

The paragraph begins with a range of gestational ages "from 15th to 26th weeks" that do not reflect clinical practice. Surgeons can use D&E as early as 12 weeks and can use EVA alone up to 16 weeks; there are no hard and fast rules as the clinical situation will determine the approach. Instead, I use a range when clinicians start the D&E approach, from 12 to 16 weeks. D&E and D&X techniques can be used flexibly later in pregnancy; there is no gestational age to suggest as a cut-off.

The section on intact D&E needed substantial revision. The technique is not used until the 18th or 20th week; I have revised accordingly. Intact D&E is not referred to as "intrauterine cranial decompression". That procedure can, but does not always occur, and is part of the whole procedure not descriptive of the entire procedure. I deleted that description since describing the individual parts of the operation are beyond the scope of this article which includes a more broad overview. The correct acronym is D&X, not IDX, I have changed this as well.

I revised to delete the reference to "partial birth abortion" which is a non-medical term. This section is about methods, not bans. The banned procedure described in that statute doe snot map to a distinct medical procedure. Further, the law that bans "partial birth abortion" is only relevant in the U.S.

To support these changes I cite a standard textbook on abortion for medical professionals previously cited in this section (ref 63, Hammond and Chasen chapter on D&E, in Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy).

You can review my proposed changes in my sandboxRach1997 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I support the changes you've enacted and the ones you propose. However, I think that the political phrase "partial birth abortion" may have relevance in this encyclopedic article due to its political significance. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I suggest adding "Partial birth abortion, banned in the United States, does not map to a standard surgical technique." Rach1997 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rach1997: Could you make the wording a little easier to understand? I'm not sure what "maps to a...technique" means. Do you mean something like "...is not a medical term, and does not refer to any particular surgical procedure"? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It means that there are multiple ways to do it, such as the method I discussed above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Safer than carrying a pregnancy to term

I have concerns about the "safer than carrying a pregnancy to term" sentence. Even if true, this makes the second paragraph overtly POV and encourages to perform abortion instead of carrying to term. Per WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:MEDICAL suggest removing that sentence. Brandmeister^talk 07:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your concern is extremely hypothetical, since there is no evidence that women who have normal pregnancies (when the woman does not suffer from a condition that makes the pregnancy dangerous for her) would choose to have an abortion because of fear of the health consequences of childbirth (and there has been much written about the actual reasons why women choose abortion). The sentence in question, which is true, is necessary because much misinformation about this has been spread by the anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Such additions, particularly in a debated topic, should be balanced against WP:NPOV in general. The sentence makes the paragraph overtly biased and partisan which is against policy. The straightforward implication of this sentence is having abortion rather than full-term pregnancy which is unhelpful to say the least. Brandmeister^talk 14:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You're welcome to join the discussion if you have concerns. Note that per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized". So it's not about liking, but neutrality and balanced tone. Brandmeister^talk 09:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Safety is clearly relevant in the context of the current political debate, since anti-abortion activist States in the US cite safety as a reason for erecting ever higher barriers to licensing of clinics providing abortion services. The same States have the highest rates of maternal and neonatal mortality in the developed world, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest rates of medical coverage for pregnant women. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't take a side in this debate which is clearly prescribed by WP:NPOV. Such statements may be ok for medical publications themselves (where authors express their own opinions), but Wikipedia has its own policies. Effectively claiming that abortion is better than full-term pregnancy is an explicit POV and encouragement to have it instead of pregnancy. The sentence opens a can of worms and is prone to faulty interpretation because "safer" = "better". Brandmeister^talk 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a misconception that abortion is unsafe. When looking at the safety of options one must compare them. When one is pregnant there are really only two options and thus this comparison is perfectly reasonable. This has nothing to do with "taking sides", this is simple stating facts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph already explains safe and unsafe abortions with statistics. We should not compare healthy pregnancy and abortion at the expense of the former. "Looking at the safety of options" and "compare them" is explicitly against both NPOV and WP:MEDICAL when it comes to abortion vs pregnancy. Other than that, this effectively amounts to a statement that people should stay at home rather than outside because being outside is more hazardous. All facts in this contentious topic should be checked against NPOV policy and the sentence is question does not pass it. The lead has been relatively stable without that problematic sentence which seems to be a recent addition. Brandmeister^talk 17:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not a valid analogy, because there's no active movement spreading false claims that staying at home is dangerous and should be discouraged. When there's a movement that's spreading misinformation designed to discourage people from making a decision that would be in the interest of health (physical or mental) -- such as getting one's children vaccinated or getting an abortion for reasons of the physical or mental health of the woman -- then it becomes important for Wikipedia to include the correct information from RS. NightHeron (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That sentence adds intelligent context concerning RELATIVE RISKS. (I came back to this article because it dawned on me that if that comparison wasn't in the lead, I would add it.) As Doc James says, a woman who finds herself pregnant has two options; this states the relative risk of the choice.

I propose adding more context to that, by some concise part of the statement for the lead: In the US from 2000 to 2009, abortion had a a similar or lower mortality rate than running a marathon. [80] (Already in the "Safety" section.) Putting risk in context to activities people routinely engage in helps people understand risk. Many women CHOOSE to get pregnant and have a child, this puts the risk of abortion in perspective relative to that choice. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Such statements could be ok to make for a medical professional or for a Wikipedia editor with medical background, but, as explained above, in encyclopedic terms it is an evident bias and a violation of neutrality (being an explicit promotion of one view to an average reader) in the abortion debate. It's not Wikipedia's mission to advise a woman what choice to make by comparing a healthy pregnancy and abortion. By doing so we effectively engage in an abortion debate which violates NPOV in general and WP:IMPARTIAL in particular. Further expansion would be a larger POV and I'm mildly shocked that this basic isssue of neutrality persists. Brandmeister^talk 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stating reality is not a POV issue simply because there is a political movement to deny it. Just as it's not a POV issue to lay out the basic evidence for Evolution in the article's lede, or to state unequivocally that Vaccination has proved effective in that own article's lede. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Brandmeister is correct that this line appears to lack an impartial character, based on my impression when reading it. For reference, one could also see the older, related issue above on this talk page when I pointed out that a related line was inconsistent with the cited sources, other users repeatedly tried to turn the discussion into a political one and talked past me with boiler-plate style reponses, not once addressing the statement/source inconsistency within the subsection. As goes the talk page, so goes the article. One difficulty is that information a medically-trained person reads in a scholarly article is liable to be perceived differently when reproduced in summary form and read by the average lay reader. For example, any expert reader will add in the background knowledge that marathons don't cause Asherman's syndrome, but many abortions can and do. Most non-expert readers will not consider the risk of significant and potentially life-altering though non-lethal side effects.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, due to different national abortion laws and accessibility of safe abortions this comparison and relative risks are globally inappropriate (and potentially dangerous). In some countries abortion is not safer than pregnancy simply because a woman would get into conflict with the law. Brandmeister^talk 06:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Abortion carried out by qualified doctors is safer than childbirth. You're basically saying this is not true because a back street abortion in Kenya is more dangerous than childbirth in a country with universal healthcare. Back in the real world, reliable sources reflect what we say right now, and the only sources I can find that say the opposite are anti-abortion activists (I can find one source that disputes the size of the difference in risk, which appears also to be written by someone opposed to abortion).

Here's an interesting source on risks of abortion: [77]. Spoiler: claimed risks are illusory, but that doesn't stop anti-abortionists from continuing to assert them. Interestingly, the risks of abortion in the US specifically appear to have declined dramatically from the mid-1970s. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The source you quoted is related to legal abortions ("Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday"). And the source for the disputed sentence in the article is titled "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States". In other words, the statement is true only for countries where abortion is legal and is not true in absolute terms. The same paragraph already says that "When performed legally and safely on a woman..." So stating that "It is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term" does not account for all the complexities of this debate and is redundant to what the paragraph already says. Brandmeister^talk 09:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it is not the case that "the statement is true only for countries where abortion is legal." Indonesia is the largest country in the world (264 million population) that outlaws abortion except in extreme cases. It's estimated that in Indonesia 16% of maternal mortality is due to abortion, and also that there are about 2 million abortions (almost all illegal) each year, and 5 million childbirths. That means that of the women who undergo one of the two procedures about 30% have abortions and 70% give birth. But of those who die from the procedure about 16% die from abortion and 84% from childbirth. I'm not proposing this information for the article, but just citing it to provide context and make the point that there's no evidence that the U.S. and U.K. are atypical in abortion being safer than childbirth. NightHeron (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that when an abortion is legal it's typically safe, as legalization also normally entails medical safety. So from that perspective it's redundant to state that an abortion is safe in a given country where it's legal. For countries where it's illegal abortion is obviously not safe both from legal and medical point of view (due to underground practices). Brandmeister^talk 21:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In the "It is safer..." sentence, "it" refers to the previous sentence "Properly done, abortion..." and so the sentence you're disputing is supported by the source. NightHeron (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC) only

I don't dispute that. I wrote that the source is related only to a single country with legal abortion and associated access to safe abortions. That's one of the issues, as in addition to NPOV, country bias comes into play. So the sentence is problematic in multiple ways. Brandmeister^talk 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a single country; from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the U.K. see [78]. NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I've clarified all the issues with that sentence by now. The sentence better suits Abortion in the United States and indeed it's already there. All other country-specific statements of abortion safety should be in relevant subarticles, not in the general article. Brandmeister^talk 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you're not clarifying issues. You're making a fallacious claim, namely, that a sentence must be omitted from the abortion article because the available studies that we've found described in RS to support it come from two countries (the U.S. and U.K.). Are you going to go through the article now and call for the removal of all material that's sourced from those same two countries? NightHeron (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The sentence is better ommitted because of all concerns I and User:Epiphyllumlover mentioned above in this thread, not merely because it comes from two countries. And that's why I'm proposing to leave such statements in relevant country-specific articles instead of this article as a solution to this dispute. Brandmeister^talk 19:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion. Others differ. That includes me. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because you can endlessly generate ever-changing "reasons/concerns/arguments" why you believe that some content should be suppressed from inclusion in Wikipedia, even when validly sourced, does not mean that you will get consensus for it.

As I've stated previously, I STRONGLY support having that statement in the LEAD, which by the way in the Abortion in the United States article, the safety of abortions is not discussed at all in the lead, so your claim that it is "already in that article" is false/misleading. The article on Abortion should provide an overview of the whole subject, while the AitUS article concentrates on specifically US issues. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why this question has been asked, since the cited sources are as clear as they can possibly be. According to this large-scale US government study, childbirth killed 8.8 women out of 100,000 while legal abortion killed 0.6 out of 100,000. The difference is HUGE, that is, 14 or 15 times more women die in childbirth than they do in legal abortion. We should most definitely emphasize this fact in the article body and in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And in response to editor @Epiphyllumlover: who stated that we are only listing "mortality" and ignoring "morbidity" from the above study (which is also the one used as a reference for the statement in the article - Raymond & Grimes 2012): from the abstract: In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion. And from the text: Common maternal morbidities were defined as conditions either unique to pregnancy or potentially exacerbated by pregnancy that occurred in at least 5% of all pregnancies. Every complication was more common among women having live births than among those having abortions (Fig. 1). The relative risks of morbidity with live birth compared with abortion were 1.3 for mental health conditions, 1.8 for urinary tract infection, 4.4 for postpartum hemorrhage, 5.2 for obstetric infections, 24 for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 25 for antepartum hemorrhage, and 26 for anemia.

We could also include the statement: "Pregnancy-related complications are always more common with childbirth than with abortion."

(I almost always include quotes with references, so that editors can easily see specifically which statements in the reference MOST support the statements in the article, and so readers can have some confidence that the references are being reasonably summarized/paraphrased. Maybe these quotes should be added to the reference.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The safety and legality of abortion varies by country. Picking one country where abortion is legal and safe to state that it's safer than pregnancy introduces POV. We already state that "When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems". There is no need in repeating the same in POV language related to one country. Brandmeister^talk 05:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about a medical procedure. It makes sense that the content will be about the medical procedure. The fact that there are commonly used unsafe versions of the procedure is a reason to discuss them, but not a reason to dilute the main article. In fact, reliable sources on unsafe and illegal abortions are virtually always discussing them in the context of safe and legal abortions in the same or other countries for the sake of comparison - it is most certainly not treated as a separable subject. So actually, this article is currently presenting content in the same viewpoint as most reliable sources, and thus is already using the neutral point of view. Overall, I think you are confusing "NPOV" with "non-partisan". The goal here is obviously not to pick a side in a partisan debate, but it's definitely not to seek some mystical balance between partisan viewpoints. And that's because NPOV doesn't care about partisan viewpoints - it cares about the viewpoints in reliable sources. I'm not saying that this article was written in a partisan way, but it is simply true that one side of the partisan debate happens to line up very well with the viewpoint of reliable sources. That is not a problem for NPOV. The prevailing viewpoint of medical authorities doesn't become unacceptably biased just because a lot of people are upset about it. "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The safety and legality of abortion are strongly correlated. Around the world, the inescapable conclusion is that the only alternative to safe, legal abortions, is unsafe, illegal abortions. But as always you're ignoring the point. Abortion is safer than pregnancy because in most cases it's done early. In fact most abortions are spontaneous, a fact that is often missed. The claims of "morbidity" from abortion derive almost exclusively from people opposed to the procedure, and in some cases, such as the claim of a breast cancer link, they turn out to be pure invention. You're arguing "I know X" versus sources. That rarely works on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that the the goal here is obviously not to pick a side in a partisan debate. But there's no false balance because, unlike evolution or flat Earth, abortion still has different legal, scientific and ethno-cultural interpretations around the world. If you look at the map, roughly half of all countries worldwide have various legal restrictions on abortion. Furthermore, I'd encourage to have a look at Fetal rights#Modern regulations. So it's not that only "one side of the partisan debate happens to line up very well with the viewpoint of reliable sources". The opposite side also happens to line up well with multiple reliable sources, including medical authors. That's basically why the abortion debate still persists. With that in mind, to state that NPOV "cares about the viewpoints in reliable sources" is an oversimplified misinterpretation. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized".

Considering the above, unsafe, illegal abortions are not "the only alternative to safe, legal abortions", as claimed by Guy (JzG). That's merely the opinion of the opposing camp. So let's leave the "It is safer than carrying a pregnancy" sentence to country-specific abortion articles only. Hope that helps. Brandmeister^talk 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If that's the best argument you have then you're done here. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Stating that abortion is safer than childbirth is impartial because it is true, as established by sources. Wikipedia is concerned with the real world, not an idealised one in which women deprived of autonomy become happy to carry every pregnancy to term. You may be looking for Conservapedia, where reality takes second place to ideological consonance.  Guy (Help!) 22:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: It is clear from the commenters here that the consensus is clearly against you. You are free to open an RfC if you like. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Brand, if you think there is another side to "safe and legal abortions are safer than childbirth" that is supported by reliable medical sources, then it's clear you're just deep into fringe territory, so I won't bother further. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I see we agreed to disagree by now, so it will be the community's turn to decide. Brandmeister^talk 07:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

They already did. Consensus here is very clear. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's sad that you once again removed the disputed tag, considering that Epiphyllumlover also provided their opinion, so it's not 1AM. And even if it is, it's not a policy and is against established process. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed it exactly once, I have no idea if anyone else has done so. The statement itself is not in dispute, your only issue is whether it's generalisable, so addition of the tag is disruptive, especially in the context of a rather clear consensus here that inclusion is warranted. You have been wanred about the discretionary sanctions, I suggested two ways forward. I think that is an end of it. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the first time it was Avatar317. End by now. Brandmeister^talk 07:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the neutrality of the abortion's lead

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

I'll provide more comments in the next section, where different options were discussed in greater detail, but briefly, some of the concerns here were around the specific 14x description based on a US source, and favoured broadening the scope of the sentence to discuss other studies about the safety of abortion. I don't find a consensus here that the sentence breaches any neutrality policies and should be removed. I will close the subsequent RFC below as well (but briefly here, version 2 was the preferred version). Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Does the sentence "It is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, which has a 14 times higher risk of death in the United States" in the article's lead constitute a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL specifically? Brandmeister^talk 08:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. It's an accurate reflection of a reliable source, and the claim itself is entirely unsurprising. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view specifies: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Omitting it would be a violation. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The key phrase there is "without editorial bias". And further below the policy says: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)... Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed". Also, this talkpage's FAQ clearly says we should not include expert medical advice about abortions per WP:MEDICAL. Brandmeister^talk 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Medical advice: This is in NO WAY including "expert medical advice." Expert medical advice is "Should *I* take this drug/have this treatment/surgery?" Current statement is presenting facts of averaged risks across all persons; your individualized risk may be greater or lesser. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This is kind of an unsurprising factoid, but the source is not-great being old, primary and American-specific. From a quick look on PUBMED I don't see that much (any?) secondary literature couches discussion of safety in an "abortion vs full-term" manner. It might be better just to say that abortion is generally very safe and adverse events rare (which is easily sourced from strong WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a long-standing area of research - this form 1982, for example, this looking at legal aspects, HuffPo repeating the 14x number in 2015, this from the UK (independent data) - and virtually all pushback is form anti-abortion groups. I can't find any medical sources that contradict this claim. Note also that when sources discuss the "contentious" risks of abortion to mental health, the actual science shows that these purported effects are not a risk. Whatever we say - whether we include relative risk or not - it is clear that we should be stating that abortion is a very safe procedure. That 2016 study notes that "Induced abortion is among the safest outpatient procedures performed in the United States" and, in conclusion, "This study describes the physical health experiences of women after birth and abortion. Our results reinforce the existing data on the safety of induced abortion when compared with childbirth, and highlight the risk of serious morbidity and mortality associated with childbirth after an unwanted pregnancy."

A Grauniad article in August 2017 notes that the US has the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world, and it disproportionately affects black women. It's an important topic, and there are a lot of sources discussing abortion and pregnancy which make this point - that for me is the compelling fact, Wikipedia would be following a significant number of other sources in noting that the risks of abortion are lower than those of pregnancy. Limiting Access to Abortion Could Cause Maternal Deaths to Rise, May 31 2019, for example, or USA Today making the same statement of fact we do based on the same source in June 2018, or the NYT in May 2019 saying "Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives." Guy (Help!) 09:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The developed world is not the entire world. Maternal death rates vary significantly in the world and per CIA factbook, as of 2015, 94 out of 184 countries had a maternal mortality rate for 100,000 live births at around 50 or lower, which is small. And Poland, where abortion is notably restricted, had one of the lowest rates, merely 3 (three) per 100,000 live births (alongside Finland, Iceland and Greece). So choosing one country from a developed world to argue that abortion is better than full-term pregnancy in the lead is a cherry-picking of sources under biased criterion which is explicitly discouraged. That's also why I proposed to leave it to Abortion in the United States. Brandmeister^talk 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you intending to hector every dissenting voice? If so, we can save time and go straight tio WP:AE. You tried that argument above, it failed. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, those are just two important remarks to make things clearer. I will not discuss in this RfC further. Brandmeister^talk 10:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Why we SHOULD include the comparison: What does "safe" mean for a medical procedure? everything involves risks and trade-offs. Are opiates "safe"? Would the medical profession say that automobile usage is "safe"? In my opinion, to not include the comparison of abortion risk vs. pregnancy-to-term risk would be to hide facts from the reader by over-simplifying the article. Without meaningful and easily understandable numbers and relevant comparisons, a "safe medical procedure" doesn't convey much information, other than an argument from authority that someone has deemed it safe. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. This fact is an important one to note in the lead, especially since opponents of abortion have spread misinformation about the safety of abortion. The safety of abortion, even compared to childbirth, is quite general and is not restricted to the U.S. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the U.K. has come to a similar conclusion, and the greater likelihood of death from childbirth than from an abortion is even true in Indonesia, a developing country that severely restricts legal abortion. NightHeron (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but . . . the article should say that abortion is generally safer for the mother than carrying a child to term. My objection is not to the inclusion of the concept; it's to the overly specific nature of the sentence. Why are we limiting it to the United States? What if a different study found a different ratio? Additionally, I have no opinion about whether or not the less specific statement should be in the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The figure is coming from a single 2012 study based on 1998–2005 data in the US only. It's a very selective figure. It would be fine to include "according to a 2012 study on US birth data" to "neutralize" the statement. --Masem (t) 13:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Also from what others have said, it would better to summarize the other studies than focus on the 14x number, which is what throws this off. "Multiple studies have shown abortion to be from 6 to 14 times safer than childbirth" (Assuming that's the number range). But using one study based on 1st world data and an older set to boot is a problem. --Masem (t) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the 14x out and citing a wider range of sources, e.g. from the UK. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. A widely cited statistic from a large-scale study can never be "a breach" of neutrality. Brandmeister is wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Statistics can breach neutrality. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." – Levivich 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• No.Presenting all facts as we know them (published in reliable sources) is not a breach of neutrality, and the statement neither endorses nor rejects any particular point of view. The statement has no "Point of View"; it is about facts found in a medical study. As I stated in a reply earlier in this RfC section, to claim "safety" without stating relative risks amounts to nothing other than an argument from authority that X procedure is "safe." By stating hard numbers we allow the reader to think for themselves, and better understand the risks. Also, there are many statements in Wikipedia sourced by only one medical study, because that is the current state of human knowledge. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Adoring nanny and Masem. The current sentence is cherrypicking from a single study; it's actually factually incorrect. Abortion isn't exactly 14x safer than pregnancy; it's misleading to claim that sort of accuracy. I'm not opposed to the general sentiment, but it needs to be broadened in scope, beyond just one study in the US, as suggested above. – Levivich 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yup, so we drop 14x and include the other sources that show it to be safer, and that fixes the problem, right? Guy (Help!) 07:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yup, more or less. – Levivich 06:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as abortion is a medical procedure this needs a secondary source and needs to explain the study rather than stating it as factual per WP:MEDRS --[E.3][chat2][me] 04:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. If you wanted a global figure, as of 2015 the global abortion death rate is 63 per 100,000 abortions, while the maternal death rate is 213 per 100,000 live births [79]. However, citing the situation in the United States to compare safe abortion to no abortion is actually pretty common (see, for example, [80]. The death rate from unsafe abortion varies pretty wildly around the world, from as low as 20 to as high as 540 per 100,000 abortions [81], and the total death rate from pregnancy also varies significantly (first reference). There is some difficulty in that the papers presenting death rates are rarely the same ones presenting abortion rates, the very act of gathering this data is extremely difficult in many countries, and some of the best datasets aggregate information in a way that prevents this type of comparison [82]. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes In particular, safety is left vague, as the individual risks to life, complications, and mental health are left ambiguous. In particular, the last is controversial in the current academic literature as linked to in an earlier discussion and the article should reflect this fact.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• No - Especially as clarifying that the "14x safer" figure is from the U.S. seems to have fixed the issue. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• As others have suggested, one solution is simply to say that abortion, when performed by trained personnel in settings where it is legal, is substantially safer than childbirth. This is a) true, and b) gets away from the US-specific "14x safer" number. The arguments that is it somehow "POV" to present well-sourced, accurate medical information about the safety of abortion—or that such information should be suppressed because it may lead women to make choices that individual editors disagree with—are inappropriate and, frankly, should disqualify the people making such arguments from editing this article. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• No - it is a neutral statement of fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Wrong question The question, as E.3 notes, should be about sourcing. This is a single paper from 2012 and is not sufficient for the claim being made. petrarchan47คุก 04:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. Setting aside discussion on the best wording, the comparative safety of abortion vs continued pregnancy is abundantly supported by sources, and it is clearly pertinent and noteworthy in relation to this article/topic. An accurate summary of pertinent and noteworthy information does not become advocacy just it is inconvenient for a subset of advocates who believe fraud or FUD on some particular point might benefit their cause. The text is not a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, or any other policy or guideline I can think of. Alsee (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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