Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:51, 20 February 2008 editIronAngelAlice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,988 edits →A harmless little experiment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:37, 19 December 2024 edit undoBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,067 edits Undid revision 1263898188 by 41.122.88.115 (talk)Tag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ab|style=long|1RR=yes}}
{{controversial}}
{{FAQ}} {{Calm}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{American English}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=26 December 2006 |action1date=07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Abortion/Archive 26#GA Passed |action1link=Talk:Abortion/Archive 26#GA Passed
|action1result=listed|action1oldid=96430492 |action1result=listed
|action1oldid=96430492
|topic=NatSci


|action2=GAR |action2=GAR
Line 14: Line 16:
|action2result=delisted |action2result=delisted
|action2link=WP:Good article reassessment/Archive 34#Abortion |action2link=WP:Good article reassessment/Archive 34#Abortion
|action2oldid=184179033


|action3=GAN
|currentstatus=DGA|
|action3date=02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|action3result=not listed
|action3link=Talk:Abortion/GA1
|action3oldid=647246416

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=NatSci
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |1=
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Abortion |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Top |selected=yes |translation=yes |reproductive=y}}
|2={{WPAbortion|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=High}}
|3={{MedportalSA}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Top}}
|4={{philosophy|ethics=yes|class=B}}
|5={{WP Sexuality|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=High |USGov=yes |USGov-importance=Mid |category=}}
{{WikiProject Women's Health |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid |ethics=yes |social=yes}}
}} }}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{todo}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Natsci|VA=yes|small=yes}}
{{Press
| author = ]
| title = Scholarly Authority in a Wikified World
| org = ]
| url = http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1202/Scholarly-Authority-in-a-Wikified-World.cfm
| date = 2012-02-01
| quote = Even controversial topics that are famous for generating warring submissions by opposing sides often do a remarkably good job of migrating toward shared middle ground. Compare Misplaced Pages's entry on 'abortion' or 'abortion debate' with Britannica's and ask yourself which does a better job.
| author2 = Ina Fried
| title2 = Misplaced Pages blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://www.axios.com/2022/07/15/wikipedia-blazes-a-trail-to-agreement-in-a-divided-world
| date2 = 2022-07-15
| quote2 = Of note are how many frequently cited "facts" are debunked as myths, including claims made by both sides related to the safety of both legal and illegal abortion.
}}
{{Notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 52
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Abortion/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{archives|index=Archive index |1=
'''Lead'''
*], ], ]
*]
*] (inactive)


'''Notable precedents in discussion'''
{| class="infobox" width="240px"
*]
|-
!align="center" |]<br>]
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Chronological archives'''
|-
|
*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
* ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|-
|
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Topical subpages'''
|-
|
*] (active) <br>Archives:], ], ], ], ]
*] (active)
|-
|
----
|-
| align="center" |'''Notable precedents in discussion'''
|-
|
* ]
*] *]
*], ], ], ] *], ], ], ], ],
*"Death" in intro (see ] & archives) *]
|} }}

== Abortion's effect on crime rates not sourced ==

This appears early in the article: "Aspects of this debate can include the public health impact of unsafe or illegal abortion as well as legal abortion's effect upon crime rates..." When I read this I became curious about exactly what effect legal abortion has on crime rates, but no links or sources are provided, leaving my curiosity unsatiated. Not very encyclopedic. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I found the subsection later, but a link to that subsection (or better yet, its article) would be convenient.

Also, I thought the last sentence in that subsection was out of place. "Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime. Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action — merely reporting data as economists.

Researchers have observed changes in heart rates and hormonal levels of newborn infants after circumcision, blood tests, and surgery — effects which were alleviated with the administration of anesthesia. Others suggest that the human experience of pain, being more than just physiological, cannot be measured in such reflexive responses."

It goes from economics, data, and studies right into fetal pain. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Needing Sources/References ==

I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --] (]) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

== Abortion Mental Health - More Balanced Revision ==

Below is what I would suggest as a more balanced summary of the controversy over abortion and mental health. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, you will see that I put in multiple, independent peer reviewed sources for all of the negative effects which have been shown to be associated with abortion. The multiple sources could be included in single footnote to clean up the text.

If anyone wants to help refine it, I created a draft page . In the meantime, I'm putting an unbalanced tag on the section in the article.

====Abortion and Mental Health====

The issue of abortion and mental health is very controversial. In 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reported that no definitive conclusions could be made regarding either the positive or negative mental health effects related to abortion because all available research at that time was too methodlogically flawed.<ref> THE NEW YORK TIMES January 11, 1989 </ref> A year later, a team of psycholgists with the American Psychological Association published their own review of the literature. They concluded that the "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women" but also noted that "case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." They also noted that certain groups of women were at higher risk of experiencing negative reactions, including: "women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand."<ref name="APA89">Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. Psychological responses after abortion. Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.</ref>

In a 1992 review of research on abortion and mental health lead editor concluded that "here is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion," and that the issues of disagreement are centered on (1) how prevelant negative reactions are, (2) the severity of negative reactios, (3) determination of what level of negative reactions consitutes a public or mental health problem, and (4) how severe reactions should be classified.<ref>Wilmoth G. 48(3):1-17 (1992).</ref>

In the subsequent ten years, case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment<ref name=cmaj>Reardon DC, et al, Psychiatric admissions of low income women following abortion and childbirth. CMAJ 168:1253-6, 2003.</ref><ref>Coleman PK, et al. State-funded abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over five years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002, Vol. 72, No. 1, 141-152.</ref><ref name="berkl"
>Berkeley D, Humphrey PL, Davidson C, Demands made on general practice by women before and after an abortion. JR Coll Gen Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.</ref><ref>Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services, 1977)pp.313-321.</ref> anxiety,<ref name="NZ">Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM, Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 47:16-25, 2006.</ref><ref>Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. J Anxiety Disord. 2005;19(1):137-42.</ref><ref>Ellen W. Freeman et al., Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions, 55 Obstetrics & gynecology 630 (1980)</ref> depression,<ref name="NZ"/><ref>Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort. Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CR105-12.</ref><ref name=cmaj/>alcohol use,<ref>Drower SA, Nash ES, Therapeutic abortion on psychiatric grounds. S. Afr Med J 54:604-8, 1978.</ref><ref>Reardon DC, Ney PG, Abortion and subsequent substance abuse. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 26:61-75, 2000.</ref><ref name="subst1">Priscilla K. Coleman et al., History of Induced Abortion in Relation to Substance Use During Pregnancies Carried to Term, 187 Am. J. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1673 (2002);</ref><ref>Elizabeth R. Morrissey & Marc A. Schuckit, Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen At a Detoxication Center, 39 J. Stud. Alcohol 1559, 1567, 1570 (1978);</ref>, post-traumatic stress disorder,<ref name="majorcoz">Major B, Cozzarelli C, Cooper ML, Zubek J, Richards C, Wilhite M, Gramzow RH. Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;57(8):777-84.</ref><ref>Suliman S, Ericksen T, Labuschgne P, de Wit R, Stein DJ, Seedat S (2007). "Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation". BMC Psychiatry 7: 24.</ref><ref>Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women.Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.</ref> drug use,<ref name="NZ"/>,<ref>Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Cougle JR. Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Am. J. Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2004; 26(1):369 - 383.</ref><ref name="subst1"/> increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health,<ref name="berkl"/><ref>Ney PG, Fung T, Wickett AR, Beaman-Dodd, Effects of pregnancy loss on women's health. Soc Sci Med 38: 1193-1200, 1994.</ref><ref>Truls Ostbye et al., Health Services Utilization After Induced Abortions In Ontario: A Comparison Between Community Clinics and Hospitals, 16 Am. J. Med. Quality 99 (2001).</ref><ref>Warren B. Miller et al., Testing a Model of the Psychological Consequences of Abortion, in <I>The new civil war: the psychology, culture, and politics of abortion.</I> 235, 244 (Linda J. Beckman & S. Marie Harvey eds., 1998).</ref> suicidal thoughts<ref name="NZ"/><ref>Christopher Morgan et al., Suicides After Pregnancy: Mental Health May Deteriorate as a Direct Effect of Induced Abortion, 314 BRIT. MED. J. 902 (1997).</ref> completed suicides, <ref>Gissler M, Hemminski E, Longuist J, Suicides after pregnancy in Finland. BMJ 313:1431-34, 1996.</ref><ref>Reardon DC, Ney PG, et al, Deaths associated pregnancy outcome; a record linkage study. Southern Med J. 96:834-41, 2002.</ref> and child maltreatment.<ref>Coleman PK et al, Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low income mothers. Acta Peadiatr 94:1476-83, 2005.</ref><ref>Ney PG, Fung T, Wickett AR, Relationship between induced abortion and child abuse and neglect: four studies. Pre and Perinatal Psychology J 8:43-63, 1993.</ref><ref>The quality of caregiving environment and child development outcomes associated with maternal history of abortion using the NLSY data. J Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2002; 43(6):743-57. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Cougle JR.</ref><ref> M. Benedict, R. White, and P. Comely. Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse, Child Abuse and Neglect, 9:217-224(1985).</ref>

Self-esteem scores are not significantly affected by abortion.<ref>Russo NF, Zierk KL. Abortion, childbearing, and women's wellbeing. Professional Psychol Res Pract. 1992;23:269-280.</ref> Students who abort an unintended pregnancy are significantly more likely to complete high school than similar classmates who choose to give birth.<ref>Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Abortion among young women and subsequent life outcomes. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007 Mar;39(1):6-12. </ref>

It is has not been conclusively shown if the mental health problems staistically associated with abortion are directly caused by the abortion itself, by experiences associated with the unintended pregnancy, or if the abortion related experiences may only serve to aggravate, trigger, or in some manner contribute to pre-existing mental health problems.<ref name="NZ"/> An alternative explanation is that the statistical associations between abortion and psychiatric illnesses are entirely incidental. Along these lines it has been proposed that women who already have mental problems are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.<ref name="majorcoz"> A number of studies, however, have found that higher rates of post-abortion emotional problems persist even after controlling for prior mental health history.<ref name="NZ"/><ref name=cmaj/>

Uncertainty and controversy persist because no studies have been able to demonstrate a direct causal connection between abortion and mental illness. But such studies ethically impossible since they would require case-control samples of women to be impregnated and randomly assigned to either have abortions or uninterrupted pregnancies.<ref>Major B. Psychological implications of abortion highly charged and rife with misleading research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 13, 2003; 168 (10).</ref>

Post-abortion counseling programs are offered by a wide number of peer support groups and professional counseling services. Many programs reflect a pro-choice perspective which attempt to help women deal with negative reactions while validating the choice to abort. Others reflect a pro-life perspective which includes an element of repentance for the abortion choice.<ref>Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?, by Emily Bazelon. Published in the New York Times Magazine on January 21, 2007; </ref>

The controversy over abortion and mental health is fueled by the potential effects this issue may have on the political and judicial debate over abortion. In it's most recent ruling on abortion, <I>Gonzales v Carhart</I> the majority opinion indicated that abortion was "fraught with emotional consequences." The minority opinion, however, while acknowleding that "for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision" insisted there is no reliable evidence that women who regret their abortions suffer from "evere depression and loss of esteem."<ref>Gonzales v Carhart. 2006</ref>

<references/>


===Please see ] page regarding Strider===
Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the ] and ] pages. Please see the for more information on this, and also note .--] (]) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I was highly concerned about creating a disparity between the summary section and the main article. Specifically, it is inappropriate to have content here that isn't in the main article. There is nothing mentioned of "counseling" in the main article, nor about the SCOTUS case ''Gonzales v. Carhart'', so the last two paragraphs need to go. Also, the Wilmoth info is nowhere to be found in the main article. High school isn't mentioned anywhere. I could go on... I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable to have so much content in a summary section that is not mentioned, let alone explained in fuller detail in the main parent article. How about this as a compromise. '''I propose''': to replace the current summary section with the lead from the current ]. And once there are stable changes that are made to that lead, we can always update the summary section here. That way we make sure that the content here is actually at the main article, and we avoid bypassing consensus on the main parent article.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::Agreed.--] (]) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:::The lead from the "main" artice on Abortion and Mental Health is totally inaccurate and biased. Reliable sources, such as the Wilmoth summary, have been consistently deleted by POV pushing editors. I'm all for including this material in the "main article," but IronAngel, MastCell, and MarginRed continue to disrupt the addition of any material that does not agree with their four preferred sources. Over the last six months the PAS / Abortion Mental Health has been, to use the words employed by the editors advocating it, "purged" of over 22 references to peer reviewed studies which document the links between abortion and mental health problems. The current distorted summary from the "main article" should not replicate or spread inaccuracies.--] (]) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

((])) Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the ] and ] pages. Please see the for more information on this, and also note .----] (]) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Strider, please consider the ] options. You may just need a RfC for more eyes on the subject, or perhaps things need to go to mediation. However, I strongly feel that we need content to be consistent across wikipedia. You can't move on to another article and try to insert content which was rejected at another forum. Who is to say that they won't simply follow you here and prevent that content from showing up here (looks like IAA is involved already). Please don't bring conflict here, but instead try to settle all disputes at the parent article first. And keep in mind your dispute resolution options. I'd be glad to discuss this further on my talk page, but I don't want to fill up more space here discussing issues you may be having with other editors on other articles. Thanks.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::I understand your interest in consistency. But that is also a reason to tag both the main article and the summary in this overview. The main article has become totally unbalanced following the relentless purging of all peer reviewed articles and citations to experts, even pro-choice experts, whose opinions do not conform with the "deniers" POV. Literally scores of reliable peer reviewed sources I have added have also been relentlessly deleted for violating the WEIGHT which MastCell insists must define the article. Due to a policy of aggressive reverts, all editors critical of abortion, except myself. I'm not familiar with the mediation or arbitration process. But clearly it can be seen that the summary material in the article is totally out of line with the summary material and sources I have been TRYING to include. Perhaps you can recommend a pro-life oriented editor who has worked well on the abortion articles to mediate. Or have pro-lifers generally been driven out of all these pages?--] (]) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure of individual editor's political positions. The best bet is to go for a RfC to draw in users who typically don't edit this subject matter, or likewise go for mediation (and ask for mediators who have edited abortion related topics to recuse themselves). Just read up on the ] page to see and weigh your options. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

==FAQ==
The FAQ at the top of this talk page has info about images. Several prior discussions are linked, regarding so-called "shock" images. So, I think it is pretty well-established that there has been a consensus not to include any images here of aborted fetuses, or to even include any links to where an interested person can find such images. However, those linked discussions contain little (if any) discussion about whether it would be appropriate for the present article to include an image of an intact fetus ''before'' it is aborted. I clarified this point in the FAQ, and was reverted. Maybe such an image will someday be included in this article, and maybe not, but the linked prior discussions have not settled the point.] (]) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Is there a particular image you have in mind? Personally, I think the appropriate place for intact fetuses is over at ] or ] both of which are linked to from here. --] (]) 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
::I wasn't looking to get this argument going right now, but rather just wanted to straighten out the FAQ. As I mentioned previously at this talk page, Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) : "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of , and I think this situation needs some balancing. Probably the best way to do it would be to calculate the average gestation at which women get abortions, and include an image shortly before and shortly after that point, simply to illustrate what it is that's being aborted.] (]) 05:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, didn't we have this exact conversation already? I recall you making the exact same argument not long ago. We also had this discussion on the ] page where the images already exist. There is no need to also post them here in order to make a political statement. The fetus page gives us more of an opportunity to qualify the images. For example, while we show an 8 week old fetus that has the beginnings of eyes and feet, we can also inform the reader that a fetus doesn't feel pain, can't control motor function, is not sentient, etc. We also talk about the length of the fetus at 8 weeks (30 mm or 1.2 inches). In short, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the fetus images here. Fetus images here make a political statement, not a medical one.--] (]) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:IAA, I am not interested in pursuing this subject with you now. I merely corrected the FAQ to reflect that this issue has not yet been definitively settled. Frankly, though you frequently accuse others of bias and politicization, I have never encourntered any editor at the abortion-related articles who is more biased and politicized than yourself, but I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with it right now.] (]) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So sorry Ferrylodge. I completely jumped the gun in a rush to celebrate Valentine's day.--] (]) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone who cares: I was recently reverted by an editor, whom I subsequently contacted about the FAQ.] (]) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

==Abortion Counseling==
In ] there is an entry for ] that is red-lined. Was there an article? Should there be an article, or appropriate text here? ] (]) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:See ].-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you, you're correct that is the best article name. However, it doesn't appear anywhere in the ] article. How should we put it in? ] (]) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


::I suggest that under '''<nowiki>== Health considerations ==</nowiki>''' we add the simple section:
:::<nowiki>=== Abortion counseling ===</nowiki>
:::<nowiki>{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}</nowiki>
::This will inevitably mean a battle and semi-protecting in that article, but I can't see ducking the issue. ] (]) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


::Alternatively, we could make a subheading:
:::<nowiki>== Abortion alternatives ==</nowiki>
:::<nowiki>{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}</nowiki>
::My ultimate goal is to somehow lead the reeader to alternatives such as . While I take no side in the debate, that such alternatives and opportunities exist is of encyclopedic interest. ] (]) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:::First of all, wikipedia shouldn't try to lead readers, per ]. Second, I'm pretty sure that the external link you suggest wouldn't fit anywhere in this article. That said, I think an internal link to ] in the see also section would be great, and even if we could come up with some prose to explain the topic a little better (no more than a paragraph I don't think), that could be placed somewhere. Though we have to keep in mind, this being the top tier article, we need to make sure our content is international. I'm only familiar with pregnancy option counseling in the states. I'm not sure of the extent of that sort of counseling in other countries. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::::I do see your points; yes, the link by itself was significantly spammy even if it's a charitable organization - it was the concept that such options existed that I thought was (in conjunction with other options) encyclopedic. But let's start with the wikilink and let things grow. I'm afraid I'm not adept with prose, but how about, as a first conceptual cut, something like:
:::::<nowiki>== Abortion alternatives ==</nowiki>
:::::The possible alternatives to abortion center basically on four options: keeping the offspring with the mother or a close relative of hers, putting the offsping up for ], placing the offspring under state supervision in a setting such as a ] or an ], or the increasingly rare ]. The decision is also increasingly being made by the mother, often with ] by professionals (see ]) or with input and/or offers of assistance by charitable organizations or directly from couples seeking to adopt. ]s are now also common, although sometimes governmentally discouraged.
::::I didn't provide any cites for the above text, but I believe the perceptions to be correct and that they could be found. Feel free to rewrite as appropriate. ] (]) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::It should be noted that I've suggested additions regarding this to ], ], ] and ]. It would appear to be germane to all four. How should we approach this? Is a "Main" article called for? Do we have someone competent to write one? ] (]) 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::::On second thought, that last line should be broken out into:
:::::<nowiki>=== International adoptions ===</nowiki>
:::::<nowiki>{{main|International adoption}}</nowiki>
::::] (]) 11:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

==A harmless little experiment==
This article was recently edited to say the following:

{{cquote|Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop, who is self-described as pro-life, conducted a review of the medical and psychological impact of abortion on women while he was in office. Koop summarized his findings in a letter to President Ronald Reagan by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective.}}

This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever. Here's what Koop said before a few of his words were yanked out of context by the people who control this article:

{{cquote|'''Mr. Weiss.''' ou refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective. '''Dr. KOOP.''' From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming.}}

''Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion'', Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books and .

As I said, I won't try to correct this article now. I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways. And incidentally, the cited sources do not say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Pres. Reagan; but, who cares about accuracy, right?] (]) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::Ferrylodge, your penchant for the dramatic and over-stated is engaging. I don't see how Koop is misquoted here. He plainly says that from a public health perspective, negative effects of abortion are "miniscule." Koop's charge is public health - not personal health. In other words, if a woman (or even several hundred women), say she suffers from post-abortion syndrome, the job of the Surgeon general isn't to rush out and proclaim a public health emergency. Please consider the following:
* http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0DF163FF932A15750C0A96F948260
* http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8
* http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html

::The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the ] of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."
--] (]) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Rather than including pro-choice NY Times editorials in this Misplaced Pages article, and misrepresenting what those editorials say because they are not pro-choice enough to satisfy you, perhaps you might instead spend a minute finding out what the job of the Surgeon General is.] (]) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::Well, I don't think it was I who included the ''New York Times'' article on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page where the paragraph originated. Of note, there are two other references that say pretty much the same thing, and those aren't editorials. You may want to focus on those articles. Also, see above with regards to the charge of the Surgeon General. And if you look on the website you just provided, you will see that the the Surgeon General is charged with "public health," and nothing else is mentioned.--] (]) 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Nothing else is mentioned? Try the first sentence: "The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury." There is nothing about "public health" in that sentence. Koop testified under oath to Congress in his official capacity that there are overwhelming psychological problems associated with abortion, even though the public health aspect of this problem is miniscule. But you only want to mention that last, miniscule part of what he said.] (]) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'''''Attention Admins''''': Would you mind pointing out to IronAngelAlice that the article should not contain unsupported and unverified statements? None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is '''''dishonest''''' to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles; I may well be criticized for pointing this out, but such is Misplaced Pages. It appears to be Misplaced Pages policy for admins to look the other way.] (]) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::That wasn't the argument you were raising. The changes you made to the article were substantive and changed the meaning of what was said. Whether Koop said what he said in a congressional committee or in a is not relevant to the over-all meaning of the sentence, and a small mistake about the setting where Koop made his claim is easily fixed without discussion. FL, you are getting a bit over-the-top here in your accusations. Let's get reasonable.--] (]) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not over the top to say that when Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Misplaced Pages should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is '''''dishonest'''''. And it's also not over the top to mention that a ''NY Times'' editorial is not a neutral source. You put it into this article, not me. It's no excuse that you copied it from some other Misplaced Pages article.

:::You also put Koop into this article, on February 14. Copying material from other Misplaced Pages articles without checking it for accuracy is wrong, and against Misplaced Pages policy. I pointed out that the material you inserted inaccurately described a letter from Koop to Reagan, and you subsequently edited this article without bothering to correct that glaring inaccuracy. This is a replay of what has occurred at the ] article, where you have resisted correction of even the most glaring errors. I don't intend to spend much more time at this article in the near future. There is insufficient willingness here to provide balanced, neutral, and verifiable information.] (]) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It is also unfair, counterproductive, and against Misplaced Pages policy to edit your comments after they have already been replied to, by adding huge amounts of new material. Try inserting such material after the latest response.] (]) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Because there has been so much back-and-forth and editing conflict, I simply misplaced the paragraph on the surgeon general - which you characterized as "adding huge amount." It seems to me unproductive to be making personal attacks, and creating drama around truly tangential issues. And if that is what this "discussion" has boiled down to, I see no further reason to respond to you, FL. At least not until you can come up with substantive arguments about the topic at hand.--] (]) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::::You should not regard it as a "personal attack" when someone asks you to comply with guidelines. "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." Kind of like quoting a Surgeon General out of context.] (]) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issue with deleting the NY Times article. But that wasn't your original argument, and now you are trying to insert a bunch of claims that weren't in your original argument. If your contention is that the article should say "congressional committee" rather than a "letter to Ronald Regan" - no problem! It's been fixed. If you would like to delete the NY Times article, fine, but there are two other non-editorial references that are proper. The fact remains, you initially tried to change the meaning of the sentences about Koop's findings. However, the reliable resources don't support your claims.--] (]) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


== very short on graphics ==
:As you can easily verify, I have been objecting to use of the NY Times editorial all along. You inserted into this article in the first place, I removed it, and you restored it. Now that you have finally agreed to its removel, I will remove it again, and hopefully it will stay removed.


why so few photos?
:Regarding the incorrect description of the letter from Koop to Reagan, you also inserted that into this article. I removed it, and you restored it. I specifically objected to it at this talk page, and you edited the article without removing it. Now that you have finally corrected it, thanks.
there are plenty of public domain photos that can be obtained to provide actual abortion photos. ] (]) 03:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


:See FAQ. ] (]) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:Regarding inclusion of the rest of the Koop quote, when Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Misplaced Pages should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is '''''dishonest'''''.] (]) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::In it, it says: "No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed."
::But if the actual abortion photos are described as "shock images" then why is abortion called a standard medical procedure?
::Does it not shock you? ] (]) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::An article talk page ]. ] (]) 12:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that either more photos or cartoons/drawings would make a lot of sense, as that is the norm in articles such as this, and I think it would help people understand what an abortion is. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: inform well about the topic at hand. ] (]) 03:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


== Safest procedures in medicine ==
::::Your characterization of what happened is not accurate. I reverted your edits because they changed the meaning of what was being claimed. I don't care about a single NY Times article, or whether Koop said what he did in a letter or Congressional Committee. Your changes were disruptive to the meaning of the article, not just changes to honest mistakes made on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page - which, btw, is where we've collectively decided to get the text for this, the "Abortion," article.


This statement should be removed. It is obviously incorrect as there are safer procedures like palpation, auscultation, blood pressure, etc.. The reference that supports the claim is a 2006 study that has a bit of biased/opinionated wording in some parts and this is one example. A superlative statement should need to be quantified/supported with data and whilst there is data that it is safe, there is none that show it as being the safest. ] (]) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Again, FL, if you can't form an argument around what you want this article to say using reliable resources, I think this conversation is done.--] (]) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:You're misquoting the article. It says "one of the safest" and "among the safest", which is indisputably correct, and does not say "THE safest". ] (]) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead. ] (]) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Palpitation and blood pressure measurements aren't surgical procedures. That's an important distinction. ] (]) 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Abortion isn't necessarily a surgical procedure. Also that distinction is not made in the article. ] (]) 07:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Surgical abortion is very safe compared to other surgical procedures, as is non-surgical abortion compared to other non-surgical procedures. So "one of the safest" and "amopg the safest" is correct. ] (]) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::No it isn't, there is only a single ] stating that. ] (]) 09:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::There is plenty of room for disputing it. The idea that surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures is extremely questionable. We could start with sebaceous cyst incision, punch biopsy, toenail wedge resection and easily find another thirty safer surgical procedures. We could do the same for non-surgical abortion and other non-surgical medical procedures. Non-surgical abortion certainly has its complications (please see the article Medical Abortion) and is not 'one of the safest' when compared to many diagnostic and rehabilitative procedures. ] (]) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Even if your estimate of thirty surgical procedures is correct and you have a ]-compliant source for it, that wouldn't refute the statement "one of the safest" about surgical abortion, since there must be hundreds of surgical procedures that doctors perform. In addition to being correct, the strong wording in the section on safety is necessary to set the record straight, in view of the disinformation by the anti-abortion movement claiming that abortion is unsafe and that abortion bans protect women --- despite the massive evidence since the reversal of Roe v. Wade that women suffer mightily from such bans, and despite the high maternal mortality in parts of the world that ban or severely restrict abortion. ] (]) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::All that is needed to convey that is a simple 'safer than uninduced parturition' ] (]) 10:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The wording 'one of the safest procedures in medicine' is not 'necessary' as it is wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting wart removal, ear syringing and nail splinting on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients (for both surgical and non-surgical). I'm not going to attempt to edit the wording but perhaps you might see sense to. ] (]) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::"{{tq| wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting ear syringing on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients ."}} From ]: "...complications included otitis externa (swimmer's ear), which involves inflammation or bacterial infection of the external acoustic meatus, as well as pain, vertigo, tinnitus, and perforation of the ear drum. Based on this study, a rate of major complications in 1/1000 ears syringed was suggested," followed by a citation to the ]. I'm not the one who's being {{tq|"ridiculous"}} here. The stable version of the wording appears to be supported both by sources and by a consensus of editors. ] (]) 13:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, have I accused someone of being ridiculous? I have labelled the current wording as ridiculous. It is. By definition diagnostic tests such as measuring blood pressure, performing mammograms, ophthalmoscopy and reflex tests are all medical procedures, as are applying a plaster cast or administering a vaccine. Abortion is simply not one of the safest procedures in medicine.
::::::Were I so inclined I might respond to your lack of civility in kind and accuse you of being ridiculous for attempting to draw equivalence between those 1/1000 major complications of ear syringing and the 1/1000 of abortion - sepsis, damage to or infection of the womb, injury to the cervix, very heavy bleeding and pelvic inflammatory disease. ] (]) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We get it, you think the sources are wrong on this. But since this is Misplaced Pages, we're going to keep following what the sources say regardless. ] (]) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The majority of sources do not make this specific claim. One source, supports the claim whilst others just don't mention it. ] (]) 20:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay, trying to maintain my ability to admin here, so I'm going to try to thread this needle with a simple explanation of policy. @], I'm not sure how much you've worked on articles subject to ], but MEDRS has extremely high sourcing requirements which this article must follow. Even a single MEDRS-level source is likely to be seen by those at that project as good enough for such a statement unless another MEDRS-level source disputes it. If you have a MEDRS-level article that disputes this assertion, you can bring it here to talk. ] (]) 21:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If 1 source makes a claim and 100 sources don't make the claim why do we use the source that is in the minority? Most sources will state things like 'relatively safe' for example instead of using superlatives and other emotionally charged language. It is source cherrypicking to use this one Lancet article whilst the majority of sources do not state that. ] (]) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::If a source is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that that source disagrees with that point. Being in the minority means that the majority of sources are in dispute, not silent. ] (]) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is not at all how it works, or else any fringe theory is fair game. If the majority of sources state 'the sky is blue' but one states 'the sky is red' we won't write 'the sky is red'. Calling abortion 'relatively safe' is directly contradicting the idea that it is the 'safest'. ] (]) 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'Relatively safe' does not contradict 'one of the safest', so your comparison is not apt. If you want to undercut the cited source, you'll need sources in real, direct contradiction. Something like 'Abortion is not safe'. That a fact is not often reported does not equate to it being fringe. ] was for many years the least populated city in the US. Most sources about the US or cities did not mention that. But nonetheless, it is true and saying so is not fringe. ] (]) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::you forgot to mention the fact that in some cases it may cause inability to bear or carry a child later on. perhaps there should be a page on the mental and physical consequences of abortion; since our American society seems to put the ability to do what we want above safety and humane treatment.@] ] (]) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You forgot to cite a ] for your claim. ] (]) 00:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::its common knowledge. I'm just stating the obvious. its in the forms they hand you before you get an abortion in a clinic, I mean lets be honest. I'm not going to post it here because no matter how reliable the source, someone will take it down. its a waste of my time when you can find it on any legitimate medical site. ] (]) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If it's common knowledge, you should be able to readily find a source and bring it here. This is an article that is subject to ]. We can't use "common knowledge".
::::::::::@], I do very strongly recommend you read that link so that you understand what MEDRS requires. This is a contentious topic, which is really a terrible place for a new editor to learn. This is not the place to be making your newbie mistakes. ] (]) 19:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I simply thought this was a talk space, I haven't done any edits on the article itself and was just making a suggestion. I would do it myself, but don't quite have the time. of course I'd hate to make any "newbie mistakes", next time I'll come with a source. ] (]) 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You should also be aware that this issue has been discussed before, and the consensus of editors has been that the current text is correct, and that ] requires that we don't give a ] with the disinformation spread by the anti-abortion movement about safety. ] (]) 10:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It isn't a false balance to provide non-emotional neutral language in favour of an extreme superlative used by a single journal article. I'd suggest you don't imply everyone opposing your view as anti-abortion. ] (]) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@], the contentious topics policy covers article talk pages and discussion in other spaces as well as articles themselves.
::::::::::::Don't worry about making newbie mistakes. Everyone does when they're newbies. The point is that it's best not to make them ''at contentious topics''. There are 6 million articles (and their associated talk pages) where newbie mistakes get much, much more leeway, where people will be actively happy to help a new editor learn. At contentious topics, many editors won't have the time, patience, or energy to help you learn. ] (]) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== First sentence/definition update ==
(undent)As I said at the beginning of this section, I want this article to include Koop's clarification, instead of cutting him off. Here's what Koop said:


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


:We write articles ], meaning a level of understanding below that at which the subject is usually studied. For articles about medical procedures, we should be writing for a college-level audience. Incidentally, both induction and c-sections have been used in abortions. ] (] / ]) 02:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
''Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion'', Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books and .
::But that would be called a c-section abortion, not a c-section. Even at college level, we cannot assume that someone understands what happens in an abortion even at a basic level. It's not very well known, perhaps because of the taboo nature of the subject, which is why clear, simple language that does differentiate it from other procedures is needed. If I could get a source at the college or high school level that differentiates it, I think that would be useful in framing the language in a NPOV. ] (]) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The writing should be at the level of an ''average'' college student, not one who's so out of touch with the world as to confuse "abortion" with C-section or live birth. Note that at the end of the sentence a handy reference is given to other definitions, in case the reader wants that. ] (]) 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::But like I said about this topic being taboo, I wonder where the in-touch high schooler would have learned that the given definition here is not accurate? What's the source? Without a source I'm afraid there's nothing verifiable that differentiates the procedure for people. It seems to flow in this sentence "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage"." ... that we could, after "end a pregnancy" add words like "and to terminate the embryo or fetus". So that people understand what an abortion is and differentiate from many other things that end a pregnancy. I think a lot of people here are assuming that "end a pregnancy" is a well-known euphemism for terminating a fetus, so that it differentiates from things like a normal c-section and labor induction, but to base an encyclopedia on a euphemism does not seem encyclopedic or helpful to me. I can't think of a more watched or edited article where we're basing it on a euphemism and assumption of understanding in this way. ] (]) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The wording is ''not'' a euphemism; the purpose of an abortion ''is'' to end a pregnancy. And the topic is ''not'' taboo; there are many discussions in the news media and elsewhere of the abortion controversy (e.g., in coverage of the US presidential election), the increasing use of abortive pills in early pregnancy, and other such matters. ] (]) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Ok, but you can end a pregnancy with c-section or induction of labor for live birth, so how are we differentiating this from that? Also, what about girls and woman who are pre-teen or teen considering an abortion? Should we make it clear to one step below them (elementary schoolers) what an abortion is? I think this article should. ... meaning in needs to clearly differentiate between and abortion and the many other ways to end a pregnancy, including natural labor and birth as well. Am I missing something? ] (]) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, you're trying to solve a problem that simply does not exist. ] (]) 13:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I just described a ton of problems that simply do exist and there was a famous one in the news lately. But I can only try to help so much! I highly recommend that we make the abortion article encyclopedic and not assume that people know what it is. ] (]) 14:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps if you brought in this news source, it'll clarify what you're referring to. ] (]) 15:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::https://apnews.com/article/harris-abortion-death-trump-georgia-f9c65fb7019938f0fff18e61d4f2d84a ] (]) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And here is a 10 year old rape victim, sadly. Clearly this article (the abortion article) should be written with very young people in mind, not just the average college educated person, since very young people deal with abortion at a very real level: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/indiana-doctor-defends-actions-in-10-year-old-rape-victims-abortion ] (]) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay, @], so I'm not trying to be obtuse, but how are those articles support for what you're arguing to add? ] (]) 22:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait, you're arguing that this should be written for 10-year-olds because they can be raped and impregnated and might not understand what abortion means? OMG. ] (]) 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sadly, yes, you're right. I wish it weren't true, but young people need to know what abortion is not just because of rape, but also because young people have sex, and that can cause pregnancy. Also, sadly, some young people do not have parents or do not want to confide in parents when trying to learn about abortion or when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. So we need to make sure this article is understandable to those young people, particularly the beginning of the article which may be helping to define abortion for them for the first time (if even through Google's AI or a Google Snippet). ] (]) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So maybe should be creating ]? ] (]) 11:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Perhaps, but clearly some experts in the subject think that it needs to be defined differently. I think we should try to mimic the CDC's definition: 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion ] (]) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You can try to gain consensus for that, but first if I were you I'd go through the archives, starting with the most recent first, and look to see what consensus was formed for the current language and when. This is a ] with 52 archives, which is unusual even at a CTOP, and administrators are quite likely to find it disruptive if editors new-to-the-topic come in to start relitigating points that have already been decided multiple times and/or recently. ] (]) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I get it. But if a new argument is made that is logical and impossible to refute, they would be happy to reconsider, I'm sure. ] (]) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You can find information on how to format an RfC correctly at ]. ] (]) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Also, I notice this in the FAQ above: 'Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
::::No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.' As mentioned previously, we need to differentiate this not from a transplant, but rather from normal delivery and birth, delivery by induction, and delivery by c-section. This is not clear in the current article and I think we can make it clear without using the word "death". Scientifically something does die, on that scientists agree, but we of course would not say it's a person because that's not NPOV, but to not say "death" is perhaps in itself taking a POV. Separately but related to the personhood debate, I'm surprised that there isn't a specific morality section in this article, since there are multiple commonly held views. Not sure what it should be titled, though, to remain NPOV. Perhaps "Ethical Perspectives"? ] (]) 03:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think readers are confused about whether abortion and miscarriage are the same as delivery or birth. This strikes me as a ] argument and feels ]. ] (]) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::As mentioned previously, I doubt there is no confusion, because the CDC works hard to make it very clear. I would consider them authoritative, and I recommend we try to get our definition of abortion in line with theirs particularly in the first sentence or two: : 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortion ] (]) 11:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There is no requirement that Misplaced Pages align with the CDC. For one thing, that's US-centric, which right off the bat is going to probably be a nonstarter. ] (]) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Notice how Misplaced Pages defines "miscarriage": "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion, is the death and expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive independently." Notice how they use the word death when defining it. You could say the exact same, thing: "No one is confused." But of course it is part of the definition. This isn't just the CDC, this is Misplaced Pages itself being extremely consistent (except in the case of the abortion article as far as I can tell) in defining things clearly and succinctly, while leaving little room for ambiguity. A definition in line with the CDC's or even Misplaced Pages's miscarriage article would get us to the clearness goal, I believe. If the word "death" is too non-NPOV for this article, I suggest we lean more toward the language that the CDC uses. But I stand by my logic that the definition at the top of the article, as it stands for "Abortion", is indefensibly ambiguous. ] (]) 12:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::We don't really care what other articles say; they may be incorrect and in need of work. But again, you can see if you can gain consensus for what you want. ] (]) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Great, here's what I'm thinking, not based on another article but mostly based on the abortion Misplaced Pages article. A first sentence change should be in order to avoid ambiguity with so many other procedures, but also to get in line with what I believe is a sound definition and as NPOV as this article is looking to achieve. Also avoiding the word "death". Please let me know if this is good to go: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus that does not result in a live birth." Update: see here for a source for this new language: https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-024-01745-w/tables/4 ... this language is used in many sources, but I tried to find one that was sufficiently neutral. ] (]) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Probably not good to go. You can certainly try to make that edit, but if anyone reverts, it means you need to come back here and get consensus for it. Here at this CT, that likely is going to require an RfC. ] (]) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::How about I just wait for more commentary here? ] (]) 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sure, you can also do that. ] (]) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think that your proposed wording could easily be interpreted to imply that a live birth was the desired outcome. ] (]) 14:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks! So how about: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus where a live birth is not the desired outcome. ] (]) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think the word "death" here would make it more clear... as in the miscarriage article, but the above avoids that. ] (]) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think we could even simplify this to say: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy where a live birth is not the desired outcome." ] (]) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Or: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that makes a live birth impossible." ] (]) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::To me it looks like you are just trying to tar the topic with negative wording. Your suggestions don't fit with the literature on the topic. ] (]) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The goal is to differentiate our current definition from regular live delivery, live induction, and live c-section. hoping not to make it sound negative. Or how about: Abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy to prevent a live birth. ] (]) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Here's a "common definition" according to an Oxford Law article: "Abortion is commonly defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause the death of the embryo (embryos and embryonic stem cells) or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus. I know this uses the word "death" so it needs to be tweaked. How about?: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus. ] (]) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Using the literature to come up with something less ambiguous and hopefully not negative. I worked with ChatGPT to create this one: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy with the intent to end the life of the embryo or fetus." Please let me know what you think! ] (]) 21:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::One consequence of ] and ] is that consistency between articles is considered a poor argument here - sourcing and context on one topic may differ from sourcing and context on another, and we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source for itself. ] (]) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Consistency in encyclopedicness is what I'm espousing for among all articles. But that specific article in this case does make some enlightening parallels, in my opinion. ] (]) 13:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::Suggest then that the article needs some vigorous pruning in order to conform with ]. 'An induced abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy', 'Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions', 'there remains debate with regard to moral, religious, ethical, and legal issues'. 'The rate of legal, induced abortion varies extensively worldwide'. The average college student will be aware of these things. The article could be quite a bit leaner. ] (]) 09:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:I'm feeling this one. I'll stick it on the article and if no reversions perhaps people are happy with it? "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of the embryo or fetus." https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e67#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20commonly%20defined%20as,embryonic%20stem%20cells)%20or%20fetus ] (]) 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::Before publishing I noticed the current first sentences uses ''an'' embryo instead of ''the'' embryo, so I made my edit consistent with that, here it is as published: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus." ] (]) 05:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@], your edits to the lead sentence of this article have been reverted three times over the past three days by three different editors. Please don't edit it again without gaining consensus first. ] (]) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I did what I could. I definitely think we need to change the first sentence definition so that it defines itself away from live birth c-section, live birth inductions, live birth just generally. I see people don't want to use the word life or death. That's fine, it just needs to be conveyed somehow as seen in various literature. Without an update this article fails at being encyclopedic. ] (]) 11:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The first sentence should include word "human" as well, don't you agree? ] (]) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== First sentence again ==
This article presently excludes the last sentence. Koop said that there is an overwhelming psychological problem associated with abortion. When Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarified by the speaker, it is not honest for Misplaced Pages to omit the clarification.


Please edit the first sentence to conform to a NPOV.
Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased. ] (]) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The '''not neutral''' sentence, as it is:
''Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the '''life''' of an embryo or fetus''.
The neutral sentence that good encyclopedias strive to include is:
''Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in its embryonic stage.''


(In other words, the American "Right to Life" PAC's political platform needs some other outlet than this encyclopedia.) ] (]) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::There is no consensus for inclusion of the misleading and out-of-context quote from C. Everett Koop. Normal Misplaced Pages guidelines would therefore not allow inclusion in this article. However, normal Misplaced Pages rules apparently do not apply at the abortion-related articles.] (]) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


:Yeah, that edit was made today by {{u|U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z}} against consensus. I've restored the status quo. ] (]) 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
(repaste from above)
::p.s. I wouldn't call that sentence consensus, I'd simply call it majority rule. ] (]) 11:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the ] of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."<ref> by Nancy Adler</ref>
:::Well, in Misplaced Pages policy, consensus is complicated. It's more about policy arguments and discussion than it is about a pure vote, but it's also not an attempt to gain unanimity, and depending on the question and whether or not it's a policy question, the fact there's a majority in favor on one thing vs another, the fact there's a majority may be considered very important, although there are discussions that are closed in favor of a compelling minority opinion. In the end, if needed, a closer assesses the strengths of arguments and may discount those that aren't policy-based. ] (]) 18:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::In here, the discussions all rely on the number on people in favour of not changing the biased parts of this pseudoarticle. That's what I witnessed, and that is what is still happening. ] (]) 10:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== Safety and gestational age ==
Furthermore, the quote we use is pretty much directly from the investigative Mooney article:
* http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8


under safety and gestational age, it says that complications are rare... speaking from a educated standpoint that's wrong, and I believe that it should be replaced with a simple "complications can include... but usually only occur in blank% of abortions using this method." ] (]) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
And the general information comes from this source:
* http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html
--] (]) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:37, 19 December 2024

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

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

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

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


Archives

Lead

Notable precedents in discussion


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

very short on graphics

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

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

Safest procedures in medicine

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

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

First sentence/definition update

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

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

First sentence again

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

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

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

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

Safety and gestational age

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

Categories: