Talk:Abortion

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

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


 * First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.
 * The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies. It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.
 * I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?
 * In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

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


 * I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.
 * I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.
 * Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
 * University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from  academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96%   affirmed the fertilization view.
 * Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.
 * So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data.  The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts.  The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university.  The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey.  Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps.  I hope this perspective is helpful!  Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.
 * Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition.  Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium).  This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories.  My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point.  From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs.  When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization.  Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg.  This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.
 * This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications.  Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines).  In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells.  On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph.  If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word.  Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells).  Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore.  Best wishes to all of you!  Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.
 * 1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.
 * 2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.
 * As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.
 * For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.
 * Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any further discussion here should concern the "issue" of adding one to the opening sentence. There has been no replies since my last explanation. TruthseekerW (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic keeps getting archieved, and edits keep getting reverted. It's very hard to believe in a good will of other people under some circumstances, but I will be calmly trying. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By no stretch of the imagination have you obtained a consensus to insert the word "human". In this thread, I count one editor who agrees with you and three who don't. Adding long repetitive texts won't substitute for getting a consensus in favor of changing the lead in the way you want. NightHeron (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightHeronAnd where exactly it this "long repetetive text" if I may kindly ask?
 * There is a large number of people who agree but keep quiet, but I'm sure they will come and share their viewpoint very soon. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TruthseekerW I hate to break it to you, but you probably will never be able to implement any changes to this article. Wikipedia and its editors have a strong left-wing bias, and they have been particularly progressing and working to having a more pro-abortion POV in this article and others alike. For years, the article mentioned that abortion results in the death of an embryo or fetus. That was then removed to reflect a more soft and progressive article on abortion.
 * My personal advice to you would be to leave this article alone for a while, and perhaps come back when matters (such as abortion) in society are less polarizing and politically contentious as they are right now. Because as of now, it appears impossible that anyone will be able to fix the article to reflect an NPOV without it getting reverted over-and-over again. DocZach (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's perfectly fine. If I can't do that, that's fine. Maybe somebody will achieve it some day. TruthseekerW (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus means others ACTIVELY agreeing with you. Non-response is NOT a substitute for agreement, which is why this thread keeps getting archived.  This might be helpful for you to read: WP:DTS --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TruthseekerW You should also read WP:IDHT and, if you're thinking of inviting other anti-abortionists to come here to support you ("I'm sure they will come and share their viewpoint very soon"), you should first read WP:CANVASS. I glanced at your talk-page (the part you recently blanked), and see that you've been repeatedly warned. After a while, tendentious editing becomes simply disruptive, resulting in sanctions. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightHeronAnd you should refrain from personal attacks. Saying that I'm sure the will come and share their viewpoint does not mean I will urge somebody and post a wikipedia notice that "I'm loooking for other people to share my viewpoint". As it states there "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
 * It is impossible to be impartial in these kind of topics, and if you shall call me an anti-abortionist, then I will call you an abortionist. Stop making false accusations. I cannot make anybody to share my opinion.
 * Either we will be calling each other names, or strive to make any positive changes. If positive changes are blocked, than you are not contributing and neither doing any good. But I will not argue with wiki rules, which I have read. Thank you for the links.
 * And adding "human" to the opening sentence does not indicate that somebody is, what you call, an "anti-abortionist". Both "abortionists" and "anti-aborionists" can acknowledge this basid biological fact. TruthseekerW (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a "personal attack" for an editor to warn a new editor about the consequences of repeated violations of Wikipedia rules and policies. Your blanked talk-page shows that multiple editors have already warned you, and you've already been blocked once. NightHeron (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is not a threat, I do not know what is. Please refrain from making logical errors. This is strictly ad personam. I am aware that I have been warned. Thank you. And there is a good reason why the page does look differently now. That reason is that I've come to understand how Wikipedia works. The person who shared my viewpoint on the reasonable edit that I pust explained it thoroughly. And thank you from your information from 11:21. It spoke to me louder than a thousand words. You've said more about you than you could in an essay. I appreciate that. Now, be aware that if you continue to edit articles in your favor, but not to pursue the truth (as I percieve it, according to my true, not archived talk page), you will -might- face much worse fate than what could happen to my account. And I mean in in a religious aspect, as you may suspect (not meaning any harm). Believe in what I say. Please try not make any furher logical errors and focus on answering tough questions that I asked earlier and nobody answered for months. If I debunked all the false theories intended to stop this one sentence from being corrected and nobody argued, I took it as an invitation to edit. I am positive that many more people share this viewpoint, but they may not necessarily be interested in editing this article, seeing how it degraded, and does not have prospects of becoming any better (more factual). These people do find it more useful to carry real help to women in need - not feeding them lies of multinational corporations that are only interested in money. I only wonder what your agenda is. TruthseekerW (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TruthseekerW, I think you're saying God will punish those who refuse to include the word 'human' in the lead sentence? Valereee (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee No. Let only the interested party be part of the discussion and watch if you like. Maybe if you read more, you will understand more. I do reccomend other sources. Adding one sentence, I will clarify: surely, God will punish everyone according to their deeds. Keeping evil agenda is cerainly not a good deed. I try not to judge people. TruthseekerW (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've read the entire wall of text. You said you will face much worse fate than what could happen to my account. And I mean in in a religious aspect. I asked for clarification. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's "hell" for believers, and nothing for non-believers. As I deeply believe that there is only one truth, that whether you believe in Heaven and hell or you are an atheist, does not change the fact that it exists, and is filled with people who didn't believe in its existence during their lives. Is that clear enough? You've ignored the next sentence which clarifies it enough. Now, come back to the main topic and keep out of somebody else's conversation please. TruthseekerW (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to any replies relating to the issue TruthseekerW (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on content here, just here as an admin keeping an eye on a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely. So I would recommend to you reading other sources - other than articles on wiki. This here article is in very bad shape.
 * @NightHeron if you have anything to add, feel free to do so on my user page. It's for everyone. I might update it.
 * Now, I would delete the above passages, but think I cannot do that, since it contains replies of other people. I could say the same in private conversation.
 * In the meantime, maybe let's hear some other opinions on the issue of the opening sentence. Or the topic gets archived again. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't delete even your own posts on an article talk if anyone has replied to them. You can strike through your own posts like this if you wish to retract a comment. You can collapse a portion of a conversation you feel is extraneous, but if someone uncollapses you shouldn't revert. We keep conversations intact so that other editors can easily follow them. Valereee (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with NightHeron's first response on this matter. This is such a non-starter that I encourage advocates of adding "human" drop the stick and move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be great to hear why is this a "non-starter", because for me it is a "big starter", it is a fact that must be acnowledged. Such as the one that @DocZachsaid earlier, the initial version informed readers, that abortion meant precisely death of fouetus or an embryo (both meaning a child). Over time, for absolutely no reason other that political corectness, the definition was changed to "expulsion".... Now, I wouldn't call ripping somebody's body apart (by pulling out limbs and crushing head) an "expulsion". It's crucial to note that abortion relates to human. In most cases. TruthseekerW (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a non-neutral POV here. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. This comment is not neutral. But most of the above arguments (in favor of changing the opening sentence) respect neutrality IMO. TruthseekerW (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference no. 135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704
One person reverted my edit, and the second claimed it it disputed. That's two people. I claim that my edit adds value and clarification to the article. My edit is visible in the latest history. The source material is not clear on this respect as it generalises the research (135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704), and the research itself, as I said in the initial edit, does not make abundantly clear the criteria of selection of candidates. Thus, I added a small clarification that NightHeron now claims to be disputable. ("in this case your addition was unnecessary and didn't add anything of value") It appears to be a bit arbitrary. The person who reverted the edit did not seek a conversation, and thus I reverted it back. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, you don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust and peer-reviewed and vetted. That's called WP:OR and not allowed.  If you have issues with the research, take that up with the researchers or the journal that published their work.  If the paper gets retracted, than we won't use it as a source on Wikipedia anymore. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Naturally I don't.
 * All I seek here is to clarify the results of the research, and I am really surprised by the negative conducts towards this minor edit. This really is silly, as the case of semi-protecting the entire article - should be obvious to add. Relate to the edit, as I insist that it adds value to the entirety.
 * It is no surprise that the article was delisted from good articles list as any positive contribution is immideately reverted. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why you reverted does not go on par with what you said earlier. I do not yet challenge the results nor the method of the disputed research.
 * I think my edit fits exactly where you said "summarizes". Did I challenge anything with the sentence I added?
 * It is part of the summary, a short presentation of data that does not litter the passage in any way.
 * If you or @NightHeron claim that it is a pointless edit, then please justify. If not, please do not make arbitrary reverts. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightHeron "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."
 * Does it make a consensus? TruthseekerW (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A disputed edit that changes the stable version of an article does need a consensus before it's reinserted into the article. That's explained in WP:BRD. NightHeron (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only what NightHeron said above, but if there is a new consensus, it is that your edit adding the sample size of the study does not belong in the article, because editors: myself, NightHeron,
 * Mathglot "Revert editorializing. The source supports the content." and
 * Generalrelative "That's just how opinion surveys work. If the source is reliable, they will have taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population."
 * have all reverted your addition, with essentially the same reasoning as that which I've stated above: "You don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust." - If the sample size was insufficient, that would have come up in peer-review, or as critiques from other researchers; you don't get to add your own IMPLICATION that this sample size is too small: per WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Avatar317 This does not apply to my edit at all. My edit only expands on the summary of the study, and does not add any implications, other than the obvious statement that the study was conducted on such a number of women. Can you read what I wrote above again and with understanding? Everything I wrote is a conclustion boldly stated by the source
 * I have to yet again repeat that and kindly ask to relate to what I wrote and not attempt to twist the conversation in undesirable course.
 * @NightHeron my edit is not disputed. It was only challenged by @Generalrelative, and what that user stated was highly hypothetical language''' which I don't see how it justifies his revert at all.
 * And finally, please relate to the sentence that I added and which does not imply anything else over than what was already written in the research. TruthseekerW (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TS, you clearly have been ignoring my request that you carefully read WP:BRD and adhere to it. Any edit that changes the content of the stable version of an article becomes a disputed edit if it's reverted by another editor. Then it's the obligation of the person who made the edit (not the person who reverted it) to seek a consensus supporting their edit and not to reinsert it until most of the editors participating in the discussion agree that the edit (or some modified version of it) belongs in the article. You've not done that. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I got the feeling that some people did not adhere to the rules as well, by simply disliking my edit.
 * I promise to adhere to the imposed rules and seek the consensus, but the issue is silly, and your reasoning weak (statement that my edit does not add anything - it just proves what I said).

Coming back to the topic, I cannot see any problem with presenting the number of people involved in an opinion poll. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Selection bias
More important than the number of women included in the longitudinal study is the method for their inclusion. Read ''2. Methods'' and you will see an obvious problem with selection bias. Stated simply, doesn't it make sense that women with some doubts about their decision to have an abortion will be less willing to subject themselves to years of follow-up questions about it? Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That it why it is crucial to note the number, and you made a good point that I have not been aware of yet. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Figures like "99 percent" tend to raise red flags. That's why I looked over the section on 2.Methods (the "methods" section that comes after the shorter "methods" section in the Abstract) to see if there was something off base about the selection of the subjects. Later I googled "abortion studies selection bias" and found this article:  . Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That opinion piece full of speculation by an anti-abortion person is not what's meant by a reliable secondary source. You may agree with him, but putting that POV concerning the study in the article violates WP:NOR. Someone can almost always support their opinion by googling for an article that agrees. That's called cherry-picking, and it doesn't comply with WP:RS. NightHeron (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That way, the whole earlier stady violates it too, for the reason that the study was done by pro-abortion people, so it is extremely hard to call it a neutral article. It is easy, checking the profiles of people who made the research from the reference no. 135. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source in the article that gives the results of the study is not an opinion piece, and it's not full of speculation, so it's not analogous to your source. A scientific or scholarly work can be RS even if the authors have a strong viewpoint on the topic. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As editors we select among the "reliable sources" that are used in Wikipedia articles. Because a source is eligible to be used does not, of course, mean that it must be used. The longitudinal study in question here does not have to be used as the key source article for the subsection as it is now. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. This study is both misleading and insufficient. Looking forward to more editors inserting more actual studies.
 * As far as the topic goes, I agree with what @Goodtablemanners said on April 12th. If the figure like 99% is supposed to stay in the place, it should be noted that the research did not cover 99% of the whole population, as some less educated readers may think. TruthseekerW (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The reader would have to lack both education and common sense to think that the source's statement about 99% means that the researchers surveyed 99% of the whole population of women who'd had abortions. NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and we can't be 100% sure that it isn't the case... in many cases, can we? ;) TruthseekerW (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Safety section
The safety section seems disproportionately about "mortality rate", perhaps to paint abortion in a more positive lens?

I do not see much description about the downsides of abortion from health perspective, especially with the ability of the woman to have kids in the future, or other long term health issues that may arise (even if the operation itself does not end in death).

All it mentions is "scientifcally unsupported" issues such as a link to breast cancer.

As someone who is pro choice, I find this article unreliable - I do not believe the authors are seriously trying to balance both viewpoints, but rather trying to defend the right to choose. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it "unreliable" at all. It's widely asserted in the medical literature that modern abortion procedures are very safe for the woman, even with respect to future pregnancy and long-term health. When we balance viewpoints it's not exactly 50 percent of this view compared to 50 percent of that view. Instead, WP:BALANCE is achieved by summarizing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it balanced though?
 * According to this article, which analyzes many studies on abortion, the results were rather mixed, and largely inconclusive, especially when there are multiple abortions on the same woman:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507237/
 * This wikipedia article is certainly much more emphatic that abortions are healthy than that paper is, which to me is concerning. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You missed the part of the linked study which said "there is no association between abortion and secondary infertility," meaning that abortion is no more likely than childbirth to cause problems with future pregnancies.
 * I'm concerned that you are participating on Wikipedia for the purpose of trolling everybody here. Your comment at the Flat Earth page is worrisome. Wikipedia will never give flat earth nonsense a "balanced" perspective if that means ignoring obvious science. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the article? No, I did not miss that part. The article listed about a dozen potential issues with abortion, and around half of them it said the existing literature was not up to snuff, and therefore inconclusive. There were some cases (a minority) in which sufficient data was present, which did show - only for those minority of issues - that there wasn't a correlation. For women with more than one abortion, however, it showed some negative health effects, which is certainly concerning.
 * I did not post that article in an attempt to show abortion is dangerous (again, I am pro-choice, and I believe abortion is mostly healthy), but I am concerned that this Wikipedia article reads like a speech by Nancy Pelosi and less like the balanced viewpoint in the article I shared.
 * As for my comment on the flat earth page, I stand by that completely. If you read what I actually said, it was not that I think flat earth should have a balanced perspective, but that Wikipedia as an entity should not take a stance, and should just stick to the facts. Which is correct. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please make a concrete proposal to improve the article based on a reliable source. Otherwise, this discussion is finished and you should find another website to exchange opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the base material.
 * https://www.cantstaysilent.com/assets/pdf/09LA2022_CSS_Report-Digital.pdf TruthseekerW (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That source is very far from satisfying WP:MEDRS. Its obvious extreme political slant (starting out by characterizing abortion as "violence against children") is an indication of its unreliability. NightHeron (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Update translation of old Soviet poster
The "Miscarriages induced by either grandma or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." is mistranslated. Word 'бабка' in the poster doesn't mean "grandma" but rather "self-taught midwife" (Ref: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BA%D0%B0#Etymology_1), and 'акушеркой' is а female version of 'accoucheur', i.e. a non self-trained obstetrician (Ref: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%80#Etymology).

Proposed label is "Miscarriages induced by either self-taught midwives or obstetricians not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." 91.105.17.149 (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This has been corrected by a member of WikiProject Russia, thank you IP for bringing it up. Valereee (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia for explanation. - Altenmann >talk 04:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to 's comment at WikiProject Russian section (copying over: @Altenmann, @Valereee. The English-language meaning of the revised translation is very different from the meaning of the Soviet poster. The background for the poster is that in 1925 abortion was legal in the USSR. (The history section of the abortion article mentions the Soviet legalization of abortion in 1920.) The poster warns women against the use of informal abortion providers, namely, midwives and what (in the African American dialect of English) are sometimes called "granny midwives" (older women who perform some midwife functions). Nothing in the Russian indicates "self-taught", which in current English usage means learning from books or videos. Typically they were not self-taught, but rather learned from the older generation of midwives, through woman-to-woman instruction or apprenticeship. Nothing in the Russian indicates "professional" or "obstetrician", both of which in current English usage indicate accreditation by the recognized medical establishment. The Soviet poster was not a warning about abortion performed by credentialed doctors, that is, obstetricians.
 * Please note that, according to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the stable version of the caption should remain while this matter is being resolved here or on the article talk-page. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection to restoring if you disagree with the second translation; you probably don't need to quote policy to people who haven't even disagreed with you or reverted you yet. :D Perhaps we should for now just say "1925 Russian poster warning of the dangers of abortion by non-obstetricians" or something? Valereee (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @undefined My correction was mistranslation of "babka" as "grandmother" and "akusherka" as "obstetrician". In this context "babka" is an abbreviation of "povivalnaya babka", i.e. NightHeron's "granny midwife" is literal, word-by-word, equivalent (originally I thought of "old hag midife", because 'babka' is not at all a term of endearment such as "grammy" - an objection akin to yours gains "self-taught"). Hovever "akusherka" is literally "midwife". I thought the text "old hag widwifes and midwifes" looks strange, therefore I distinguished them with epithets. The most recent translation misses "akusherki", who are actually midwifes with credentials (and yes not obstetricians). I don't think an English reader knows what a "ganny midvife" means. Therefore I suggest it to at least modify it to  "by folk and professional midwifes" or "by midwives, both folk and professional", or something elese along the lines I described. - Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In English this is simply a "lay midwife", no? 213.191.231.235 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an article that already describes exactly this term, it is Traditional birth attendant and could be linked to. 213.191.231.235 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The folk practitioner in the poster is not shown to be a lay midwife or traditional birth attendant. We have no idea what have been the woman's previous activities regarding pregnancy or childbirth. All we see is one panel where the woman is standing and pointing while holding on to a flask with brown liquid, and a long, sharp tool. For all we know, her only involvement with pregnancy is as an abortionist. Let's not make assumptions and saddle the woman with unsupported career titles. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with Binksternet's version (the current version) that has a shorter caption. If others think we should include a translation of the warning at the top of the poster, I'd favor "Miscarriages induced by midwives or folk healers not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." That would preserve the original meaning and make sense to English speakers. NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I like Binksternet's version, or your version would be acceptable to me also. It seems that this is a hard translation to get clear given then context and meanings and changed times. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my phrasing tweaks
Edits: I'm working to improve the readability of articles on contentious topics without involving myself in content disputes. I didn't intend to change the articles meaning, and I'm appreciative that noticed my initial edit (unintentionally) also changed the meaning. Any editor who prefers the old wording is welcome to either directly revert or ask me to self-revert. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) My first change Special:diff/1234751342
 * 2) 's revert Special:diff/1234763684
 * 3) My second change Special:diff/1234767399
 * Thanks, I appreciate that your edits are obviously in good faith. Your second change also changes the meaning, since "home medication" (like the term "home remedy") suggests that it's a medication designed to be taken at home, which in this case is not true. In fact, regulations in some jurisdictions require that the medication be taken at a clinic or doctor's office. Please self-revert. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still feel the dangling modifier is bad for readability. Is there any verbiage you would suggest? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does my edit just now fix the problem? NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)