Talk:Abortion/Archive 49

Abortion and pre-term birth
(Previously named "Having an abortion dramatically increases the risk for preterm birth afterward. This in turn leads to greater incidence of maternal mortality, infant mortality, low birth weight, autism, developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy, etc.", complain at my talk page if you think it was inappropriate for me to rename it.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This article reads from start to finish like it was written by the director of an abortion facility, and leaves out so much science and so many facts (those that such a person would likely find troubling) that the biggest problem here is knowing where to even start. But let's start with this one, already present on the preterm birth article. People can of course disagree with whether abortion is morally defensible, but deliberately suppressing medical science to do so is absurd under any circumstance. This is especially true given the gravity of this issue, and the results it has already had on many people. Mechanisms include damage done to the cervix as it is forced open, knives pushed through, and the infant's body parts dragged or sucked out. The greater incidence of infections are also suspected here, which also lead to some women who undergo abortions never being able to carry a child to term again in the future.

"Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for Low Birth Weight and Preterm Birth, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB. "

http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract

"Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572

"Women with a history of induced abortion were at higher risk of very preterm delivery than those with no such history (OR + 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.0); the risk was even higher for extremely preterm deliveries (<28 weeks)"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x/abstract

"This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved." This study showed that women who gave birth between 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy were 40% more likely to have had a previous abortion, and mothers who gave birth to extremeley preterm infants from 22 to 27 weeks were 70% more likely to have had an abortion.

http://journals.lww.com/obgynsurvey/Abstract/2005/10000/Previous_Induced_Abortions_and_the_Risk_of_Very.3.aspx

"A consent form that simply lists such items as "incompetent cervix" or "infection" as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts"

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

"Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998979

"The latest statistics in the USA (2007) show a preterm (less than 37 weeks) birth rate of 12.6%. Of these, Early Preterm Birth (EPB—under 32 weeks, infants weighing under 1500 grams, or about three pounds.) is at 7.8%, the highest rate in the past 30 years of stats. As noted in the studies above, previous induced abortions’ have an inordinately increased association with “extreme” (<27 wk) and “early”(<32 wk) premature deliveries (compared to 32 – 37 week premature births.) Thus, it follows that abortion will also have an inordinately increased association with cerebral palsy and other disabilities linked to extreme prematurity."

http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-pre-term-birth/general-comments-on-the-increased-risk/

Of the first-time mothers, 10.3% (n = 31 083) had one, 1.5% had two and 0.3% had three or more Induced Abortions (IAs). Most IAs were surgical (88%) performed before 12 weeks (91%) and carried out for social reasons (97%). After adjustment, perinatal deaths and very preterm birth (<28 gestational week) suggested worse outcomes after IA. Increased odds for very preterm birth were seen in all the subgroups and exhibited a dose–response relationship: 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.44] after one IA, 1.69 (1.14–2.51) after two and 2.78 (1.48–5.24) after three IAs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22933527

Thirty-seven studies of low-moderate risk of bias were included. A history of one Induced Termination of Pregnancy (I-TOP) was associated with increased unadjusted odds of Low Birth Weight (LBR) (Odds Ratio 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval 1.20-1.52) and Preterm Birth (PT) (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.50), but not Small for Gestational Age (SGA) (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09). A history of more than one I-TOP was associated with LBW (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.45-2.04) and PT (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28-2.71). Meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates confirmed these findings. A previous I-TOP is associated with a significantly increased risk of LBW and PT but not SGA. The risk increased as the number of I-TOP increased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0028978/

The abortion/preterm birth link has been established in so many published studies that - here again - it is difficult to find a beginning and an end. There was a study published in the NEJM that suggested the link was false, but that study was very small, it's own data showed a small increased risk, and the methodology was completely flawed from the start because it did NOT count Danish women who had abortions before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Yes, it failed to consider that an American court precedent had no bearing on women in DENMARK - who had been having legal abortions for years before 1/73! Why this was the one study published in the NEJM medicine says much more about that publication than it does the actual science.

I suggest we start with this. Because it is at least tied with the most important omission in the article for anyone trying to get reliable and unbiased information on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourHumanRights (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your belief that induced abortion involves "knives pushed through" the cervix leads me to question your understanding of the procedure. And your belief that a pro-life advocacy group (AAPLOG) is more scientifically reliable than the New England Journal of Medicine leads me to question your understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines. But leaving that aside for a moment... our site guidelines on medical content generally discourage the selective citation of individual journal articles, as you've done above, because it is trivially easy to support all kinds of ideas by cherry-picking the medical literature. Instead, we look at how reputable expert groups have synthesized the evidence. Do you have some such sources you'd like to present? I understand that there's a political effort to publicize this idea, and that such political efforts often coincide with a drive to raise the visibility of an aspect of this topic on Wikipedia, but it's probably best to focus on what reputable expert groups have to say here. I'll give you an example to start the discussion. Guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state:  I haven't exhaustively reviewed other expert bodies (e.g. ACOG, the WHO, etc.), but I suspect they've reached similar conclusions given the conflicting literature (only one side of which you've highlighted above). MastCell Talk 20:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are unaware of what a curette is, it is an abortion instrument that has looped knives on the end of it to cut the infant off of the uterine wall. When necessary, these are also used to dismember him or her to ease removal from his or her mother. Knives are are sharpened metal blades used for cutting through flesh (in this case), and such knives are what is found at the end of curettes. Naturally, they must first be inserted through the cervix - which itself has been forced open in most all abortion procedures. I hope that clears up any confusion regarding the actual mechanics of the procedure.

AAPLOG is a group of over 2,500 OB/GYN's. If you doubt their honesty or the reliability of their work, or their meta analysis of the published literature on this topic, then by all means feel free to point out the errors they have made therein. I did so and pointed out a rather laughable flaw in one study published in the NEJM. I invite you to critique that as well. Suggesting that one group of doctors is dishonest but that others are not is one thing. Being able to demonstrate that is very much another. I have done my part. In addition to other peer reviewed published studies on this topic, I have included three meta-analyses. That is, detailed analysis of multiple studies. Here again, if all these META-analyses are completely wrong regarding the published science here, then perhaps you can share with everyone why that is? I invite you (and anyone else) to do so, as I am sure all those involved in those studies would as well. You understand that a meta-analysis is a far better determining tool in science than a single study, right?

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ACOG are both groups of doctors who advocate for abortion on demand, and indeed include many of the doctors who routinely perform them in two countries where abortion is commonplace. You can suggest that their conclusions are superior to those of other groups of doctors who have different political opinions, but here again that is merely an accusation made on your part that - so far at least - has no date or methodology behind it. But yet, the RCOG quote you included itself recognizes the link between abortion and preterm birth! The expert groups that you prefer are acknowledging the link, as are the ones you dismiss (without any scientific reasons to dismiss them beyond their political stances).

Again, I invite you or anyone to demonstrate why and how it is that both AAPLOG, RCOG, and the AAPS are all groups of doctors who have this issue totally wrong. Unless someone can do so, then this very important health risk needs to be included in this article. Calhoun, Shadigian, and Rooney have concluded from their meta-analyses of published medical studies on this topic that abortion can be attributed to an increase of 31.5% in the rate of early preterm births (less than 32 weeks gestation). Statistically speaking, it is thus probable that hundreds of thousands of children – at the very least – are now needlessly living with various mild to severe birth defects due directly to their mother’s previous abortion(s). Meanwhile, the total preterm birth rate for women in America prior to 1970 was approximately 6%; preliminary data for 2010 indicates a preterm birth rate of 11.99%.

I don't think that - especially given the gravity of these issues - that all the meta-analyses and doctors groups can or should be able to be kept quiet because some you or anyone has decided to dismiss them. Either you can demonstrate why and how they are all wrong, or it is you that is wrong. I think you are wrong, and the doctors groups and published science is correct. I invite you to show me and everyone else that I am incorrect. In the meantime, the abortion/preterm birth link has already been accepted on the page regarding preterm birth. And it should be included and accepted here on this page as soon as possible also. YourHumanRights (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what a curette is. It's quite different from a knife. For example, curettes are used to remove impacted earwax, but the procedure is not generally described as "shoving a knife into your ear canal". Furthermore, the vast majority of induced abortions in the Western world are not performed via curettage; they are either medically induced or performed via vacuum aspiration. Were you aware of that? Actually, don't answer that, it's irrelevant. Your posts are composed of 90% politically-charged rhetoric and 10% substance, which is a suboptimal ratio. Insofar as the substance of your post, you are free to make the case that ACOG, RCOG, or the WHO are unreliable sources of medical information. You are free to make the case that the New England Journal of Medicine is a biased and unreliable source of medical information. I don't think you'll get much traction, but it's your time. MastCell Talk 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sharpened metal edges used to cut flesh are knives, regardless of their configuration. Any further debate on such a topic is a nonsensical waste of time. It would be like debating if a knife handle was part of a knife, or of a scalpel was a knife or not. I can provide a link to videos of these knives in abortion action if anyone really wants me to, but I doubt anyone will find this particular tangent about knives interesting.

My posts have dealt very deliberately with the published science regarding this topic, and in particular with the meta-analyses thereof. Much as you would like to dismiss all of it and insult me personally for trying to make this being biased and incomplete article factually correct, I will remind you that even the RCOG guide you provided yourself said the following:

"Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions."

MastCell, you seem to be very keen here that people NOT be informed of any such thing in this article. So, it is YOU that is disagreeing with RCOG regarding this issue - not me. Furthermore, I challenged you to discredit the three meta-analyses that have been published - none of which have been challenged and unpublished. You clearly want no part of that. I have backed my claims up here with lots of published science. You have backed up your wish to keep this issue off of this page with a PDF from a doctor's group who themselves say that "Women should be informed.." So, you really haven't come up with ANYTHING to counter my claims here.

Because you think that you can simply declare that one group of doctors is unreliable and other groups are, that doesn't make any of your claims true. Again, if you can explain how and why all the meta-analyses on this topic are all completely wrong - please do so. If you cannot, then don't expect everyone else to simply take your word for it. That's not how science works. Science works by challenging the published and per reviewed literature, and clearly you cannot. I didn't say that RCOG was wrong, although they may indeed be bending as much as they can to keep the numbers and the risk as low as they can given their political position on the topic. On the contrary, I am trying to get what RCOG and other groups of doctors have had to say on this topic into this article. the bottom line is that the article gets much better if we include what the published science has to say..

YourHumanRights (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This thread is fringe nonsense written by someone unfamiliar (and seemingly uninterested) with how Wikipedia works (look at the length of the title!) and pushing a blatant, unacceptable POV. It should be at least hatted, or probably better, deleted right now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see one review article in the list and summary of it recommends caution. "This review concluded that the risk of a child having a low birth weight or preterm birth increased for women with a history of pregnancy termination compared with those without such a history. This conclusion should be treated with caution due to the presence of clinical heterogeneity, confounders, and publication bias between the studies." We typically just go with just high quality secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading this one article would give anyone a firm idea of how wikipedia works with regard to controversial topics. That is, one side will get to use the article as an advertisement, and the article itself will be "protected" from edits by those up the wiki food chain. We can attempt to twist words this way or that way, but I certainly am not doubting this medical science when one commenter after another fails to offer up anything whatsoever to refute it. Scientific debates usually involve quoting competing published studies, but nobody seems to be able to even come up with a meta-analysis that would attempt to make the other three vanish somehow. It seems those opposing including the published science here cannot find a single meta-analysis to henpick themselves..

I'll separate the three meta-analyses below. Please, anybody, post a meta-anaysis that refutes these conclusions if indeed you can find one. Please also have a look at the numbers regarding the increased risks inside these analyses of the published literature. Do they look "small" to you? If they do, I guess the next question would be what the definition of "small" is.. In my opinion, a risk that doubles is not a small increased risk.

"Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572

Thirty-seven studies of low-moderate risk of bias were included. A history of one Induced Termination of Pregnancy (I-TOP) was associated with increased unadjusted odds of Low Birth Weight (LBR) (Odds Ratio 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval 1.20-1.52) and Preterm Birth (PT) (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.50), but not Small for Gestational Age (SGA) (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09). A history of more than one I-TOP was associated with LBW (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.45-2.04) and PT (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.28-2.71). Meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates confirmed these findings.

A previous I-TOP is associated with a significantly increased risk of LBW and PT but not SGA. The risk increased as the number of I-TOP increased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0028978/

A literature review retrieved 49 studies that demonstrated at least 95 percent confidence in an increased risk of preterm birth (PB), or surrogates such as low birth weight or second-trimester spontaneous abortion, in association with previous induced abortions. A list of these studies, which probably does not comprise all such studies, is appended to this article. If these 49 statistically significant associations were the result of chance alone, as may happen in 5 of 100 tests, IA should be associated with a reduction in PBs, with P<.05, in an equivalent number of tests. Not one such instance has been found in the literature.”

"A consent form that simply lists such items as "incompetent cervix" or "infection" as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts"

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

YourHumanRights (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * YourHumanRights - please stop wasting your time and ours. The changes you're asking for are not going to get into the article. This is a reality. You may see this as some sort of evil conspiracy, and you are entitled to that view (I think you're wrong, of course), but whatever the reason, you're wasting your time. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the cited studies looking at curettage? The available methods differ greatly, and if curettage is folded into the statistics then such numbers are not relevant to aspiration or other methods. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And, once again, the opponents of the published science regarding this topic can offer no science of their - just personal insults and a very open and proud declaration that anyone actually presenting the facts here is wasting their time. Why would presenting scientific facts be a waste of anyone's time if this supposedly is a site dedicated to doing exactly that?

Binksternet, some of the studies do indeed separate the methods of abortion, but others do not. Indeed, we are speaking of surgical abortions here rather than chemical abortions that poison, kill, then expel the infant (and have occasionally also killed mothers such as Holly Patterson).

The latest published study on this topic comes from McGill College in Canada just a few months ago. They found the same results as just about everyone before them has in their study of 17,916 women's reproductive histories.

"Women who reported one prior induced abortion were more likely to have premature births by 32, 28, and 26 weeks; adjusted odds ratios were 1.45 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.90), 1.71 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.42), and 2.17 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.35), respectively. This association was stronger for women with two or more previous induced abortions."

http://jogc.com/abstracts/201302_Obstetrics_5.pdf

I have now provided TEN sources. Zero have been presented to refute these ten, and indeed none of them have been challenged and unpublished. Oh, and this will not be a waste of time - one way or the other.. I am well aware that the likelihood is that those who wish to keep women in the dark about this due to their affinity for abortion on demand will ultimately make this entire thread vanish. I hope that they realize what a cruel thing that would be to do and not do that, but I am keeping a careful record of every word posted here. In the event that those near the top of the wikipedia pyramid of editors want to use their delete buttons, there will be a detailed record of how this went down that I will be happy to share in the blogosphere.

YourHumanRights (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of the ten sources provided,
 * Five are WP:PRIMARY (1, 3, 6, 8, and 10).
 * One is a duplicate (4 duplicates 3)
 * Two are not WP:RS (5 and 7)
 * One includes spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage) (2 - "Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies.").
 * One includes a word of caution (9 - "This review concluded that the risk of a child having a low birth weight or preterm birth increased for women with a history of pregnancy termination compared with those without such a history. This conclusion should be treated with caution due to the presence of clinical heterogeneity, confounders, and publication bias between the studies.").
 * None show a causal link between induced abortion and preterm birth. As noted by the author of source 8,


 * Also...Holly Patterson was killed by a rare bacterial infection (C. sordellii) that is not specific to or caused by medical abortion (see this). Making such false, misleading, inflammatory, and unsourced statements is not helpful. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they took into account confounders like smoking? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So now we have 5 people who have responded to the medical science on this topic, and zero have offered up published studies to refute it. All we have is people making excuses, trying to dismiss meta-analyses, and pretending that forcing open a cervix and inserting steel knives through a vagina and into a uterus to cut and tear at flesh shouldn't have any negative affects afterward regarding whether that cervix can stay closed in a future pregnancy. The infection mechanism is also a VERY common sense mechanism here, but given the politics surrounding this topic, some not all) are squeamish about noticing the elephant sitting on the coffee table. Claiming that Holly Patterson's demise had nothing to do with the very powerful poison she took just a few days previous is a great example of the blinders people are willing to put on here.  I respect your right to disagree with me here, but that is really absurd.  Holly is not the only woman to have died from RU-486, but alas chemical abortions are not what we are talking about in this thread.  But we really don't know how many there have been due to the wanton unreliability of the abortion industry. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-16/news/ct-met-abortion-reporting-20110615_1_abortion-providers-fewer-abortions-national-abortion-federation But that is for another thread and another edit of this article - not this one. Alas, there is no evidence linking early chemical abortions to preterm birth later on. I included that fact in my edits on the preterm birth page. I am not the one here trying to include some information and repressing other information. The National Academy of Science is just the latest group to have finally given up the ghost on these facts, folks, although they too do what they can to diminish it's visibility. Have a look at what is listed third here as a cause of preterm birth:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625

But wikipedia editors atop the pyramid here know better, right? Reminder: Every peer reviewed, published study that has not been successfully challenged matters. There are indeed some that attempt to explain away their own numbers, but I invite anyone to find and link to a study that does not show higher preterm birth numbers for women who have had abortions in the past. Yes, that includes miscarriages, because of course that is a traumatic event for a human body also. This process is very similar to the one that transpired when the tobacco industry was first accused of hiding evidence that its products caused cancer. Then as now, sooner or later the science and the numbers will prevail. Does wikipedia really want to make a stand here, on this topic? If you have any doubts, here's some more facts from AAPLOG - an organization of over 2,000 OB/GYN's.. "The latest statistics in the USA (2007) show a preterm (less than 37 weeks) birth rate of 12.6%. Of these, Early Preterm Birth (EPB—under 32 weeks, infants weighing under 1500 grams, or about three pounds.) is at 7.8%, the highest rate in the past 30 years of stats. As noted in the studies above, previous induced abortions’ have an inordinately increased association with “extreme” (<27 wk) and “early”(<32 wk) premature deliveries (compared to 32 – 37 week premature births.) Thus, it follows that abortion will also have an inordinately increased association with cerebral palsy and other disabilities linked to extreme prematurity. The total prematurity rate for women in America before 1970, before abortion became legal and common, was approximately 6%. It is of interest to note that in Ireland, where induced abortion is illegal, the prematurity rate in 2003 was 5.48%, less than half the U.S. rate of 12.3%. Is there a message here?? Further very interesting statistics come from the Polish experience. Between 1989 and 1993, Poland’s induced abortion rate decreased 98% due to a new restrictive abortion law. The Demographic Yearbook of Poland reports that, between 1995 and 1997 the rate of extremely preterm births (<28 weeks gestation) dropped by 21%. Is there a message here??" The stubborn refusal of ACOG to accept the abortion/preterm link - from a doctor's group that includes the abortionists themselves - is perhaps the best example currently of politics trumping science..

YourHumanRights (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Four things: 1. Everybody, please be aware that a similar discussion is taking place on talk:preterm birth under both talk:preterm birth and talk:preterm birth. RoyBoy and YourHumanRights are posting similar lists of sources, and the preterm birth article contains claims of relation. 2. Because I wanted to refer to this section from elsewhere, I renamed it. The new name has the benefit of not being obnoxiously long and of being neutral. YHR, feel free to complain about this on my talk page. 3. If this entire section is meant to be closed for discussion, the declaration of that should be moved out of the list of sources and to somewhere more visible -- it's currently unclear if it applies to the section, or just to the list of sources. 4. Given that it's unclear, I just want to throw in my hat that YourHumanRights isn't even trying to approach this neutrally. YHR, if you were, you would not keep saying that "knives" are "pushed through" the cervix. It's like if I used trauma shears to take off someone's underwear and you said a knife was pushed into their genitals. It is not the case that anything with a sharp edge on it is considered a knife; when you use the word "knife," people will think of a handle attached to a free blade. A curette is very different from a knife. You could not put a knife into a cervix without damaging it. One can put a curette into a cervix without damaging it. If you were interested in having an actual discussion, you would not use misleading language to color the debate. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, YHR has done at least one useful thing here. He's made it obvious that the curette and dilation and curettage articles badly need improvement. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent textbook chapter, RCOG guideline, N.C. Senate bill
Sections of the following 4-year-old medical reference textbook chapter discuss several of the studies published prior to 2009 mentioned by YourHumanRights:
 * Hogue, Carol J Rowland.; Boardman, Lori A.; Stotland, Nada (May 11, 2009). " Chapter 16. Answering questions about long-term outcomes ", pp. 252–263, in Paul, Maureen; Lichtenberg, Steve; Borgatta, Lynn; Grimes, David A.; Stubblefield, Phillip G.; Creinin, Mitchell D. (eds.) Management of unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-7696-5. DOI: 10.1002/9781444313031.ch16.
 * Abortion and future reproductive health
 * Does having one abortion imperil the woman's future reproductive health?
 * Preterm delivery
 * If one abortion does not harm reproductive health, are multiple abortions also safe?

A section of the following 18-month-old RCOG clinical guideline discusses several of the studies published prior to 2011 mentioned by YourHumanRights:
 * Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (November 2011).  The care of women requesting induced abortion, 3rd revised edition. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7 . London: RCOG Press, pp. 44–45:"Chapter 5 Adverse effects, complications and sequelae of abortion: what women need to know 5.5 Future reproductive outcome Preterm birth RECOMMENDATION 5.12 Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions. However, there is insufficient evidence to imply causality. (Grade B recommendation). Evidence supporting recommendation 5.12. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Shah et al. in 2009199 reported that a history of abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of preterm birth, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.12–1.44) increasing to 1.62 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.07) with more than one abortion. A recent large Australian population study of 42,269 births200 comparing term with preterm deliveries supports these findings. Among women with no history of miscarriage or induced abortion, 7.1% had a preterm birth compared with 8.9% of women who had one or more induced abortion (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13–1.40). Among women with a history of one or more miscarriages, 8.4% had a preterm birth, which also represents a borderline increased risk (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00–1.23). However, these findings should be interpreted with caution since few of the reviewed studies controlled for important confounders associated with preterm birth (such as socioeconomic status), and the associations have not yet been shown to have a causal relationship. In addition, the Shah review was confined to surgical methods of abortion. Where medical (mifepristone and prostaglandin) and surgical methods have been compared, there has been no significant difference reported in the risk of preterm birth.201–203 Furthermore, evidence increasingly points to an association between miscarriage and preterm birth. While previous reviews have been conflicting,189,204,205 a recent systematic review206 suggests that the odds of preterm birth are similarly increased for both miscarriage and induced abortion. It has been postulated that the increased risk may be related to instrumentation of the cervix and uterus at the time of surgical evacuation. Further research is needed to understand this and other risk factors for preterm birth as well as abortion methods and gestation. 189. Thorp JM Jr, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. (Jan 2003). Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. Obst Gynecol Surv 58 (1): 67–79. . 199. Shah PS, Zao J; Knowledge Synthesis Group of Determinants of preterm/LBW births (Oct 2009). Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalyses. BJOG 116 (11): 1425–1442. . 200. Freak-Poli R, Chan A, Tucker G, Street J. (Jan 2009). Previous abortion and risk of pre-term birth: a population study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 22 (1) :1–7. . 201. Chen A, Yuan W, Meirik O, Wang X, Wu SZ, Zhou L, et al. (Jul 15, 2004). Mifepristone-induced early abortion and outcome of subsequent wanted pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 160 (2): 110–117. . 202. Virk J, Zhang J, Olsen J. (Aug 16, 2007). Medical abortion and the risk of subsequent adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 357 (7): 648–653. . 203. Gan C, Zou Y, Wu S, Li Y, Liu Q. (Jun 2008). The influence of medical abortion compared with surgical abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101 (3): 231–238. . 204. Henriet L, Kaminski M. (Oct 2001). Impact of induced abortions on subsequent pregnancy outcome: the 1995 French national perinatal survey. BJOG 108 (10): 1036–1042. . 205. El-Bastawissi AY, Sorensen TK, Akafomo CK, Frederick IO, Xiao R, Williams MA. (Mar 2003). History of fetal loss and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in relation to subsequent risk of preterm delivery. Matern Child Health J 7 (1): 53–58. . 206. Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Morriss FH Jr. (Feb 2009). Abortion and the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review with meta-analyses. J Reprod Med 54 (2): 95–108.."

A better example of "politics trumping science" may be North Carolina Senate Bill 132 : "An act to include instruction in the school health education program on the preventable causes of preterm birth, including induced abortion as a cause of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies." which passed the North Carolina Senate on May 13, 2013 by a vote of 48–10 (Republicans 42–0; Democrats 6–10), and was referred to the North Carolina House Committee on Health and Human Services on May 15, 2013 (Republicans have a 77–43 majority in the North Carolina House, so it looks like the curriculum in North Carolina from the 7th grade up will be revised beginning in the 2013–2014 school year). Bobigny (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Leslie, Laura (May 8, 2013). " Senate to debate abortion 'risk' bill ". Raleigh, N.C.: WRAL.com."But UNC School of Medicine Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology Dr. David Grimes called the bill 'unnecessary and uninformed.' 'Senate Bill 132 would establish a state-sponsored ideology,' he said. 'The statement is scientifically false.' Grimes formerly directed abortion surveillance efforts at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'The World Health Organization, the CDC, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Public Health Association all have uniformly concluded that abortion does not cause prematurity, ' he told the committee. 'How did they all get it wrong?'"
 * Bowden, Carol (May 16, 2013). " Senate bill controversy ". Goldsboro, N.C. Goldsboro Daily News.

The tangential discussion about whether a sharpened blade used to cut and tear flesh and remove limbs is a knife or not is perhaps not a waste of time at all. Perhaps it is indicative of the philosophical backflips that must be done in order to defend the violence of dismemberment in uetro. All manner of nonsense is game here, and that includes pretending that the procedure itself is *not* a violent and bloody one that always results in at least one dead body to dispose of. The comments of former abortion doctors on this topic are easily found online, and I need not repeat them here any more than I need to explain what a cranioclst is used for. But the image/diagram in this article is woefully inaccurate, and the deletion of an actual image of an infant at 8 to ten weeks gestation is further proof of how far the folks controlling this page are willing to go to keep people in the dark about things.

Back to the issue at hand, what we have here is a repeat of what the tobacco industries were up to back in the 1960's and 1970's. The doctor's groups who include OB/GYN's actually doing the abortions themselves have very keen interest in covering up the science here - for both legal and financial reasons. This includes the AMA, who went as far recently as to defend a woman in Alabama who had used many powerful illegal drugs while pregnant - arguing that nobody existed in utero - so there is no victim of what she did (Ankrom v. State of Alabama). ACOG used to publicly state that the abortion/preterm link did not exist also. That would come in handy if any of their abortionists got sued by a woman for being denied informed consent before having an abortion. The denial has since vanished from the ACOG literature, but not been replaced with a reversal to their earlier errors. Interesting, huh?

On the other side we have groups of doctors - AAPLOG, AAPS, etc. - who refuse to perform abortions and instead adhere to the Declaration of Geneva as reaffirmed following the Nazi Doctors Trial, The Nuremberg Code, and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child addendum to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These groups are slandered regularly on wikipedia. Just have a look at the AAPS page!

With reference to Senate Bill 132 in North Carolina, the same denials of the science regarding this matter have come into play by the folks doing the abortions themselves. (There is also a draft bill on this bouncing around the desks of the Virginia General Assembly, but it has not been introduced yet) The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill has recently started abortions in house, and will do them in the first AND second trimester..

http://www.med.unc.edu/obgyn/Patient_Care/specialty-services/Womens_Options_Center

Abortionists at colleges are just as aware as their colleagues in small private abortion facilities how explosive this issue could be for them legally and financially. At this point, all they can do is fall back on a few doctors groups that include the abortionists themselves claiming that the link doesn't exist in spite of all the evidence. But, just as we can see here, they can't come up with much of anything to thwart the meta-analyses and large studies such as the ones I have linked to here. If indeed these or any sources and published studies are from such corrupt organizations and that produced such flawed studies, then why can't anyone refute them or point out their errors? I know lots of people have probably been trying, but ZERO of them have been challenged to date.

This is a slam dunk, folks. It's just the folks with great interest in keeping it quiet, many who have very keen legal and financial interests in doing so, who are engaging in such childish philosophical backflips about study authors and causality who are trying so hard to deny women informed consent here. Not surprisingly, wikipedia's upper echelon of editors is doing everything they can to assist them. They should either post and present the alternative view in well done meta-analyses, or they should give up the ghost here and update this article to present the scientific facts. Looks to me so far that they have no intention of doing either, but instead fall back upon a childish "because we can" philosophy.

YourHumanRights (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point it is quite evident that you have little or no interest in crafting a serious, neutral treatment of this subject, and instead are intent on using this talkpage as a platform for your personal views on the subject, in violation of this site's guidelines. Your posts are a mix of false assertions (for example, the UN does not take an anti-abortion stance) and politically charged rhetoric which, I think it is fair to say, is aimed at provoking a strong emotional reaction from other editors rather than improving our article. I'm not willing to interact with you further, barring a major change in your approach, per WP:SHUN. MastCell Talk 17:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When advocates for a political position are confronted with scientific fact that makes that position less tenable, and they have great difficulty refuting, they can tend to want to change the subject. In this thread, this has taken the form of an entirely tangential discussion of what is and is not a knife - and now we have the accusation that I have made up something regarding foundational human rights accords. MastCell, you will be more familiar than most regarding these foundation human rights documents, as you intervened to delete them from the AAPS Page a few years back - even though the leaders of that organization were AOK to have them included on their page..

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity”

Hippocratic Oath Declaration of Geneva Following the Nazi Doctors Trial at Nuremberg

“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”

United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”

The Nuremberg Code

You can accuse me of whatever you want, MastCell. The record is clear that you have taken a great interest in this topic yourself, and have strong feelings about it. We disagree, clearly. The difference here is that you are threatening to censor someone who disagrees with you. I have no need to try and censor you. You have offered up absolutely nothing here to refute the findings of any of the large scientific studies and meta-analyses I have linked here. I could post more.. Perhaps you could be less personal and more scientific in your future responses?

Now then, BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC:

It seems that the University of North Carolina is experiencing an interesting battle between two of its doctors at present. Bobigny quoted one doctor at UNC above regarding Senate Bill 132. As an OB/GYM, he is perhaps the man actually performing the abortions at UNC. If so, the worry about the legal and financial ramifications of this issue certainly would come into play here - even if he is just defending his colleagues who are performing the abortions inside a publicly funded facility. As I said above, the tact he employed was again is to simply fall back on the larger organizations who have denied the link in the past. What he fails to mention is that ACOG has most recently removed the denial, but has not replaced it with a confirmation of the link. The RCOG and the National Academy of Sciences, both rather large organizations, have finally accepted that there is a link!

Here is the *other* opinion of a doctor at UNC that was absent from Bobigny's post above:

BEGIN

"UNC School of Medicine Associate Professor of Pediatrics Dr.Marty McCaffrey is a member of the state's Child Fatality Task Force. He spoke in support of the bill, calling the evidence that abortions increase risk of later preterm births "immutable."

Citing studies and meta-studies of data, McCaffrey said evidence shows abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth "dwarfs" smoking as a risk factor.

"It’s been estimated abortion may be responsible for 31 percent of preterm births in North Carolina," he told the committee. "It’s time to educate our young citizens about preterm birth.""

END

Note the crucial reference to "Citing studies and meta-studies of data,.."

Now then, can anyone *here* do that and demonstrate why and how myself, AAPLOG, the RCOG, and the NAS are all wrong about this??

YourHumanRights (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to the article quoted..

http://www.wral.com/senate-to-debate-abortion-risk-bill/12425226/

YourHumanRights (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Read and ignored per WP:SHUN. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Settled Science Here Should Be Added ASAP
Now that the opposition has come up with a basket full of zeros to refute the numerous sources, statements, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews statements I have provided, can anyone make sense of why the abortion/preterm birth link appears on the preterm birth page - but still does not on this one?? Considering the magnitude of the issues and risks we are discussing here (maternal mortality, infant mortality, low birth wight, cerebral palsy, autism, developmental disabilities, etc), what rationale can anyone offer up as to WHY this article remains PROTECTED from warning people about such things so they can perhaps be avoided to a greater degree by more people as we go forward??

YourHumanRights (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean something like "A history of spontaneous (i.e., miscarriage) or surgical abortion has been associated with a small increase in the risk of preterm birth, although it is unclear whether the increase is caused by the abortion or by confounding risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic status). Increased risk has not been shown in women who terminated their pregnancies medically. Pregnancies that are unwanted or unintended are also a risk factor for preterm birth. " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean something like the language written by the actual researchers in the meta-analyses and the systematic reviews of the published science. Bending over backwards to diminish and dilute their findings is dishonest - especially given the non reporting rate (40% - 60%) suggests that the already "significantly increased risks" are likely much greater in reality than they were observed in the dozens of studies - most of which had to depend on women telling the truth years later about whether or not they had had an abortion(s). Grasping instead for the comments of doctors groups who themselves support and preform the abortion procedures themselves is not as good as quoting from the actual published scientific conclusions. YourHumanRights (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The language proposed by DocJames mirrors almost exactly the guidance provided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and thus reflects expert medical opinion. MastCell Talk 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You could propose a version you consider preferable and then we could start a RfC to gather wider input. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of you were resisting any mention of this science being mentioned in this article just a few days ago. Now you are appointing yourselves in charge of updating it using the most diluted and biased language you can come up with? Your affinity for the opinion of a single doctors group in a single country that itself has ben forced to finally accept the link years after it was obvious should not make anyone at RCOG the go to source here. Again, these are the same folks doing the abortions themselves, and thus have a very big worry about what litigation they may face regarding informed consent. Even if that were not the case - and it is - this group publicly supports the political position of abortion on demand, and their statement on the topic does NOT reflect the findings of the published science in this matter! Since you were both against adding any mention of this link to the article, but now have given in regarding that, I don't think this qualifies either of you to write the update. Indeed, I am not suggesting I should be either. Nor am I insisting that AAPLOG or AAPS' (anti-abortion doctors groups) words on the update update the article.

WHY don't we just repeat, word for word, what the published meta-analyses and systematic reviews say??????????? I suggest Mikael Häggström have a go at it, since he was the one who updated the preterm birth page. He is qualified to do so, make a reasonable few sentences regarding what the published science itself says, and apparently has no strong position regarding these issues as the rest of clearly do. That is, other than believing that informed consent is a fundamental tenet of good medicine.

YourHumanRights (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No I have not resisted having mention of this issue in the article. What I was suggesting was wider input. We must paraphrase to avoid copyright issues. And the content suggested here is the same as on preterm birth. Happy to have Mikael involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been in contact by email with two of the researchers I have quoted above in the last few days. I am confident I can get their permission to repeat things, but alas I don't see how quoting a scientific study and promoting its findings would ever gather the ire of the people who published it. Same goes for a published article. It's hardly something they want to keep a secret (unlike some folks here). I have sent a polite request to Mikael's talk page. I do not know this man at all, and only know who he is because he updated the preterm birth page. We have never spoken or communicated in any way. He is a medical student in Sweden with an impressive edit history that gives no indication of strong feelings or bias regarding these issues. I move that he be allowed to edit the abortion article.

YourHumanRights (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * YHR, you just got invited to start an RfC with a proposed edit -- I'm confused why you're asking for somebody else to be allowed to edit. I'm especially confused because you support Häggström (tjenare Mikael! Vad tänker du?) editing the article because he edited preterm birth, while opposing DocJames suggesting almost the exact same wording that is on preterm birth.
 * I think that MastCell and DocJames have been perfectly reasonable. I've made an additional comment on your talk page about how your discussion style could be more constructive.
 * If you want to do an RfC, go for it. If Häggström wants to propose an edit, he should go for it.  You've made your case, you were very inflammatory about it, and I strongly recommend other editors that they practice WP:SHUN for your future comments in this vein, not because of what you're talking about, but because of how you're talking about it.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In order for the abortion article to begin to even appear as if it fair and unbiased (this will be the first addition that might make it so), the sections and subsections need to be totally changed also. "Risks of abortion" might be a good idea for a start, and make preterm birth the first one. I suggested Mikael because I am not optimistic about *any* of the other editors that have commented here will do anything other than try and dilute and soften the science here. Doc James' first go at it confirmed my pessimism in this regard. To be fair, I have to admit that I have strong feelings about this myself. So I suggested a med student review the science and craft something - rather than myself. But perhaps I can help Mikael by giving him a an alternate draft. This is a FIRST DRAFT that I am throwing together right now, sans citations. I am surprised that the folks opposing this have thrown in the towel and to be honest I was ill prepared to take Yes for an answer. At the end of the day, this new section should look similar to a section on smoking causing preterm births - or any less controversial connection to increased risk of preterm births.

BEGIN

A girl or woman having a surgical abortion dramatically increases her chances of giving birth preterm and extremely preterm later in life. This is turn leads to a increased risks of maternal death, infant death, and a large range of both moderate and severe developmental disabilities and other birth defects for her future children. These include cerebral palsy, autism, low birth weight, learning disabilities, intraventricular hemorrhage, transient hyperammonemia of the newborn, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), apnea of prematurity, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS or IRDS), chronic lung disease, hypoglycemia, feeding difficulties, rickets of prematurity, hypocalcemia, inguinal hernia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, anemia of prematurity, thrombocytopenia, and hyperbilirubinemia (jaundice) that can lead to kernicterus. (***Any more?***) All of these preterm birth related risks increase with the number of induced abortions she has in her lifetime.

Two well-designed meta-analyses in 2009 combined data from 41 abortion-prematurity studies. The results showed that after one abortion, the risk for a future preterm birth before 37 weeks increases by 36% and risk for a future very preterm birth before 32 weeks increases by 64%. When a woman has multiple abortions, risk for a future preterm birth increases by 93%. There are no meta-analyses that refute this association. The abortion-preterm birth link is settled science. With the non-reporting rate common with abortion related studies, these significantly increased risks may actually be approximately double those figures in reality. Even with the verified data as it is, about 31% of all preterm births can be attributed to previous abortions.

The link between surgical abortions and preterm birth has not been proven with regard to chemically induced abortions involving steroid injections or pills such as mifprestone/RU-486.

END

In a new section under risks, we can then add placenta previa, placenta acretta, and so on.

Regarding the other risk issues for which there is not conclusive scientific proof - or at least still a vigorous dispute, another section should be added entitled "plausible risks." The under-reporting of complications and even deaths from abortions needs to be considered throughout. None of the data in the article takes into account what the Chicago Tribune found in just one state's abortion records.

YourHumanRights (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your proposed text deviates substantially from the relevant expert medical groups, and misrepresents the current understanding of abortion risks. I'm opposed to it as written on the principle that we should not convey medical misinformation to our readers. I also think you should reconsider your current communication style, which appears to consist entirely of lengthy, angry rants. MastCell Talk 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed text is factually incorrect and misleading, to say the least. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose that text as it is not supported by the best available literature. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Preterm birth
In the wake of the recent topic-ban, I was thinking about rebooting a discussion of abortion and subsequent pre-term birth - hopefully a more serious discussion with fewer violations of Godwin's Law. After a quick look, I came up with the following in terms of secondary sources:


 * The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not list induced abortion as a risk factor.
 * The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) states that abortion is associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions. However, RCOG emphasizes that there is insufficient evidence to imply that induced abortions cause prematurity. That is, the association may reflect common risk factors which predispose to both abortion and prematurity.
 * The Centers for Disease Control does not list abortion as a risk factor for subsequent preterm birth.
 * The Mayo Clinic lists "multiple miscarriages or abortions" as a risk factor for preterm birth
 * Creasy and Resnik's Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice (6th edition, 2009, which I believe to be the current edition) states: "The magnitude of the risk of preterm birth related to elective abortion is small but appears to be real."

This list isn't intended to be comprehensive by any means, but rather a starting point. Additional sources would be most welcome. DocJames had suggested the following text:

"A history of spontaneous (i.e., miscarriage) or surgical abortion has been associated with a small increase in the risk of preterm birth, although it is unclear whether the increase is caused by the abortion or by confounding risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic status). Increased risk has not been shown in women who terminated their pregnancies medically. Pregnancies that are unwanted or unintended are also a risk factor for preterm birth. " MastCell Talk 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Motivation
Our article states, "The reasons why women have abortions are diverse and vary dramatically across the world." Is this actually true and does our article back it up with factual information? Of course, I think it goes without saying that the reasons are diverse, but do they really vary dramatically across the world? Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * that sentence was in the original article as the lead sentence in the section on "Personal and social factors". The word "dramatic" bothered me too but I decided to leave it - differences across countries for "health" as the reason do appear to vary dramatically.  I added the cites from that sentence to this sentence.   But I would not object to taking out "dramatic" because it is, well, dramatic.  Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have take it out. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for "dramatically". Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder about these sentences: Additionally, unintended pregnancy itself may be considered a disease.[96]:205-207 Feminists have described pregnancy as a disease.[97] I think they should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * They are both true and sourced. What is the basis in policy or guideline for removing them?  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:V for ref 96 and WP:RS for ref 97. I've removed the lot. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree but I will let the reversions stand. I don't intend to spend a lot of time on this article so probably will not be around much. Glad you are leaving the new structure and the broad description of what the health exemption means in US law.  I actually spent about an hour yesterday trying to find examples for what conditions come up in pregnancy that lead to decisions to abort.  Had a very hard time finding RS for that, but then came across the description of the decision on Doe v Bolton that I was ignorant of - so wonderful to learn about that.  But all that is a model where the unwanted pregnancy itself is not a condition that needs medical treatment -- you need some other condition to justify the abortion.   I think the "unintentional pregnancy is a medical condition that needs treatment" idea is really powerful.  I friend of mine "lives" there - super careful about contraception and every month she is again grateful to see her period  - she is very clear that getting pregnant would be a malady that she would want  - and deserve - the medical treatment of an abortion for.  It took me a while to understand where she was coming from and it was eye-opening, that unwanted pregnancy itself is a medical condition that requires treatment.  And as I thought about it, yes - public health agencies around the world definitely treat unintended pregnancy under the preventable disease model, like washing your hands and covering your mouth when you cough prevents transmission of infectious disease and exercising prevents CV disease. I especially disagree with the deletion of the public health content. I know Rush Limbaugh et al make political football of that but he is, well, a dick.    But like I said I am not invested in this article.  Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New resource
NYT reports on a new study about women denied abortions. Do you think this would best fit in this top-level article, or is there a sub-article where it might belong? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Abortion and mental health, I imagine, but also this one. I'm also surprised that The New York Times is reporting on this when the research has not been peer-reviewed yet. Dr. Foster seems like an eminently qualified researcher, but I would still hesitate to give this too much weight for now. NW ( Talk ) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * posted a news item about this study at Talk:Abortion and mental health back in November of last year, so it's been mentioned here and there. I tend to agree with NW; while this project is interesting, it hasn't yet generated any publications in the scholarly literature, at least not that I can identify, so I'd lean toward waiting to mention it. It may be notable on the basis of the coverage in the Times and elsewhere even without scholarly publications, but it seems too fine-grained of a topic to include in this top-level article on abortion. It might fit better at abortion in the United States, abortion debate, or abortion and mental health. MastCell Talk 17:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, we may as well wait. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, MastCell: I just happened to run into . That's from November 2012 (so it fits with around when KC originally posted), and in it, they say "We have recently presented preliminary results on the consequences of receiving an abortion compared to having an unwanted birth at the 2012 American Public Health Association meeting, and the publications of our findings are forthcoming." NW ( Talk ) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to add section
Could a controversy section be added? - Billybob2002 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redundant to abortion debate section etc. in the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Total abortion rate
This source which includes statistics on the total abortion rate is from 1999. First of all, is it too old to include, period? Some of the statistics for individual countries are verifiably different now. Next, the table is meant to be about countries where abortion is legal, but a) in at least one of the countries on the list, happening to be the first I looked up, the procedure is legal only in cases of risk to life, which presumably affects the statistics, and b) statistics on illegal abortions are also relevant. Given this, is it a good idea to include a low, a high and/or an average for countries? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of more recent publications, but not as many as I thought there would be. is cited in the article already, while  is not. A couple of the authors look like they are doing an updated version, but I don't see that the data has been peer-reviewed and published yet. NW ( Talk ) 20:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I took out the line about total abortion rate that your edit and reversion had left in, just because it seemed strange to have it hanging out by itself, since it doesn't seem to be a commonly-used statistic. I'd be more comfortable with the inclusion of such statistic if there were more recent sources using it; otherwise it seems strange to bring forward an outdated metric, as it were.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I had just merged it in from Total abortion rate, so I'm not sure how the removal of the material affects that situation now? I do think it might be worth a brief mention even without country specifics, since the measurement does appear to be used in various papers (sometimes however without the use of the term TAR/total abortion rate or TIAR/total induced abortion rate). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense, thanks (also explains the Google results I got for "total abortion rate." Maybe use something like, "one way abortion rate is sometimes presented is..."? Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I'll add a mention back phrased in the way you suggested. We can keep chatting about more specifics/sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Products of conception
I created the article. Pro-lifers seem to take issue with the term -- as a comment to that effect was added. I didn't see this term as part of the abortion debate -- but I suppose it undeniably is. I re-worked the article a bit -- to try an explain things from the medicine side of things, though I didn't go dig-out references. The article could probably use some more eyes. Nephron T|C 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. MastCell Talk 18:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Killling babies
I propose, the leade sentence be changed to "Abortion is the killing of an innocent, unborn child.". --Datu Dong (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, since that would be extremely biased, although I do still think (in spite of the change we made recently in this regard) that the introduction still underplays the moral controversies surrounding abortion, and concentrates too much on the medical viewpoint. The statements about safe and unsafe abortions are in themselves biased, since anti-abortionists would presumably dispute that a procedure that "kills a baby" can be called "safe", and that paragraph reads a bit like a detailed argument in favor of legalized abortion. I'm not anti-abortion myself, but I'm still a bit embarrassed by Wikipedia's apparent one-sidedness on the issue. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the notion here is that technically induced abortion is in fact a medical or veterinary procedure and that, as with other such procedures--even controversial ones--we lead with a plain description of the procedure itself. In the first paragraph we already have to mention that abortion can mean miscarriage--naturally occurring--or a medical or surgical procedure in humans or other animals, after all. It isn't until we reach induced abortions in humans that the issue of its legality/morality becomes relevant. An article on induced abortions in humans would be a different matter, as it could link 'abortion' to this article. But, there's never been much support for splitting the article despite all the ground it must cover (note section 7 of this article, which gets short shrift). JJL (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we have a separate article on Miscarriage, it surely makes sense for this article to concentrate on induced abortions, particularly since that is the primary meaning of the word in practical usage? I'm not sure that the description of the procedure is particularly "plain", either - it seems somewhat propagandic (perhaps unintentionally), hiding the fact that the embryo/fetus dies behind the jargon phrase "prior to viability". Then the second paragraph reads (as I said above) largely like an argument in favor of legalized abortion, while the widespread point of view that there's something ethically dubious about all this is relegated to a half-sentence at the end of the introductory section. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be difficult for a person who believes that "personhood" occurs at the moment of conception to accept that not everyone holds that belief. Thus, for those that believe that personhood begins when the fetus can survive on its own, at birth, or some later date, the question of death of a "person" does not apply.  If you were to look back through the numerous pages of discussion you would find that this has been discussed at great length without agreement--which is as it should be since society at large has not come to an agreement either.  I'm going to paste this section from the abortion debate article here:


 * Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person" is open to debate since the definition of personhood is not universally agreed upon. Traditionally, the concept of personhood has entailed the concept of soul, a metaphysical concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of human being. However, in the "modern" world, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered the domain of the "soul."   Thus, while the historical   question has been: when does the soul enter the body, in modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood.


 * Related issues attached to the question of the beginning of human personhood, include the legal status, bodily integrity and subjectivity of mothers and the philosophical concept of "natality," or "the distinctively human capacity to initiate a new beginning" which a new human life embodies. Gandydancer (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That a death occurs is contentious. (In particular, I would disagree.) It's been discussed here ad infinitum and the definition used--a consensus version of what appears in medical texts--has won out after a long and assisted discussion. The article does strongly concentrate on induced abortions, but the lede is more complete. Short of an article split, which has never gained any real traction, this seems like an acceptable compromise to me. We can't ignore miscarriage and induced animal abortions and still be encyclopedic. JJL (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What he's proposing isn't biased, it's straight fact. Does the baby live after an abortion ?  No.  Since something can't be both dead and alive (unless it's Schroedinger's Cat) it means the baby was killed.  Yes, I realize it's a loaded term and I would oppose it for that reason.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh  16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Killing" is far more neutral than "murder". The notion "killing" can be applied on a broader set of situations than "murder". You can get killed in a car accident. But nobody says, you are murderd by a car accident. The use of "murder" is far more restricted and far more loaded and must fulfill some criteria. Abortion complies with all criteria of a murder which would even then justify a lead sentence saying "Abortion is the murder of an innocent, unborn child." Actually, my proposal is far less loaded. --Datu Dong (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, it's false that abortion is considered murder in the U.S. JJL (talk)
 * But here again, what you are calling a 'baby' could be just a small clump of cells that is pharmaceutically aborted very early on. Not everyone would yet call that a fetus, let alone a baby--a distinction seen in the WP article on fetus, for example, which describes the fetal stage as post-embryonic. The medical consensus appears to be that a killing does not take place, and even that a death does not take place. Abortion has many facets but first and foremost it's a medical procedure (when induced). We don't report just on the medical viewpoint, but it's a good start for an article on a medical matter. All other issues are addressed in the body of the article. JJL (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see at least the phrase "prior to viability" explained in normal English, perhaps in a second sentence or an addition to the first. Some of the definitions quoted in the footnote do a better job than we do of explaining this in accessible language. And I don't think the medical world has any particular qualification to rule on ethical matters, such as whether a "killing" takes place - that's a matter for society (and in society, as we have all observed, there is no consensus). This is basically my objection to the present introduction: the medical viewpoint is overemphasized, while the equally significant and attention-worthy viewpoints within wider society are underplayed. Possibly giving an impressionable reader a sense that either the matter is pretty much settled (which is false), or that Wikipedia is trying to push a particular point of view on the matter (which is probably also false, but it comes out looking that way). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether and how to explain viability in the lede was discussed a lot, including whether or not it was too technical a term. No one could find a way to define it succinctly that was agreeable to all and so linking it to its own article was the choice. In my opinion the medical viewpoint is not overemphasized, but it does come first. We may be tempted to jump right to the debate that is so central to U.S. politics but from an encyclopedic point of view it is appropriate to define the term first in case someone does not even know what it is, then move to related issues. The whole first paragraph just defines the term (1st sentence), breaks it into the two separate cases that result in the same final outcome (2nd sentence), then prepares for the rest of the article by pointing out that we're probably talking about abortions are a.) induced, and b.) involve humans 3rd sentence). I can't imagine how we could do a fair job without hitting all those points first-off. The second and third paragraphs discuss the epidemiology and then the history and legal/religious/ethical issues, respectively. By word count, the social aspects, as covered in the 3rd paragraph, are probably getting more attention in the lead section than any other single topic. JJL (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding defining "prior to viability", what's wrong with "..., that is, before it is capable of surviving outside the uterus" (which is what some of the quoted source definitions say). It still seems to me that the very prevalent ethical arguments against abortion are being hushed up, while the second paragraph is allowed to trumpet how safe it is (an obviously biased statement, since only those on one side of the debate would consider it safe) and implicitly argue for the necessity of its legalization. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If memory serves--and this is a pretty specific detail, so checking the archives would be best--"surviving" brought about a lot of semantic issues about surviving with or without medical assistance, and what counted as medical assistance; additionally, there were some who felt it important to give a gestational age along with that and others who felt that to be impossible. Basically, there was a lot of discussion about whether viability was sufficiently clear but all attempts to clarify it succinctly foundered. Everyone saw a different special circumstance that didn't quite fit any brief definition. While you could start the discussion again, I myself am pessimistic it would fare better now. I understand your point w.r.t. the ordering of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs but for me it seems a natural progression: Define the procedure, discuss it as a procedure, then discuss reactions to the procedure. I could as well argue that jumping to the controversy shows a bias toward the claim that it is controversial. Part of the problem is WORLDWIDE: The extent to which this procedure is controversial varies considerably over the world and over history. It ranges now from broad acceptance in some countries to severe bans in others. Focusing on the controversy may be a U.S.-centric viewpoint. In some places it isn't controversial at all, whether because no one is exercised about it or because everyone agrees it's wrong. I should add that this was all tied in to ArbCom looking at naming issues related to abortion (abortion rights, anti-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life). JJL (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't find that the fact that abortion is not everywhere controversial affects my argument (and it certainly isn't only in the U.S. that it's a matter of significant ethical debate, even if the debate is perhaps noisiest in that country). We might say that worldwide there is no consensus on the acceptability of abortion (in some countries it's generally accepted as bad, in some it's generally accepted as OK, in others both views are prevalent and in conflict). This being the case, the second paragraph boasting about how "safe" abortion is remains egregious, as it implies (falsely) a social consensus that the fetus is not a subject whose "safety" can matter. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, never looked at it that way. However, I believe the explicit consensus is that the woman's safety takes precedent. - RoyBoy 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WPU, are you actually worried that someone will read the paragraph and be confused because they'll think that abortion is a safe procedure for the fetus? Or is this the hill you've chosen to die on as far as making the article rely less on impartial medical sources and more on POV sources? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get the allusion about dying on hills, but I would say that sources don't gain impartiality by being "medical". A doctor who writes that abortion is "safe" is almost certainly on the side of the debate which believes that abortion is ethically acceptable. To use this POV as the basis for our second paragraph, without a balancing paragraph putting forward the opposite POV, is clearly not neutral. Talking about abortion as "safe" in this unqualified and partisan way is really just as bad as it would be to talk about it as a way of killing little babies. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who writes about abortion being safe or not may simply be acknowledging that abortion is inevitable, whether legal or not. And illegal abortions are inevitably much less safe for the pregnant women involved. Because it's inevitable, society must do its best to make it safe for those who seek it. One doesn't have to think that abortion is a good thing to take this position. HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and I would take that position myself. But it isn't Wikipedia's role, in my view, to be taking such positions, especially when we know that they are highly contentious. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are plenty of instances of physicians who view the procedure as safe while opposing it--they acknowledge that the procedure as a medical procedure safely does as it is meant to do, whether they support it's use or not. The best example comes from C. Everett Koop and the [|Koop report]. Koop had written an anti-abortion book and it was an issue when he was nominated as Surgeon General, but he also declared abortion safe from a mental health point of view despite pressure to do otherwise. He separated out a moral issue for him from a medical, professional issue. Even in the case of surgeons who (safely) sterilized those deemed unfit to reproduce for decades, the procedure was highly unethical but it was both safe (generally) and effective. JJL (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So, can we please drop the position that "A doctor who writes that abortion is "safe" is almost certainly on the side of the debate which believes that abortion is ethically acceptable."?
 * Well, I said "almost" certainly, which hasn't necessarily been disproved... But regardless, nothing changes the main point, namely that the second paragraph of Wikipedia's article on abortion is blatantly taking one side of this very contentious social issue, with apparently nothing to counterbalance it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all, but as you say, it's contentious. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't see that "Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine", together with much of what comes after it, is effectively just expounding the pro-legalization position at it has been set out above? You and I may agree with that position, but as Wikipedia editors we oughtn't to be trying to promote it in WP articles at the expense of other widely-held positions, otherwise it's we who become the "POV pushing trolls". W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about the safety of a medical procedure, then the relevant reliable sources are medical expert bodies. The fact that abortion is a very safe procedure doesn't imply anything about its morality, which is a topic outside the realm of science and which we deal with separately in the lead. MastCell Talk 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree per MastCell. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But the bias lies in the very fact that we choose to talk right away, and in such glowing terms, specifically about its safety as a medical procedure (and not, for example, about its morality or legality, which is there but is hidden away and not really explained fully; or simply about methods by which it is done). I'm not objecting to the choice of sources, but the relative weighting of topics, and the language used. If talk of "death" and killing" has to be expunged because it might influence impressionable minds, then by the same token, the talk of "safety" should be treated similarly. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you just changed your argument. I was responding to your argument that a bias arises because the text "is effectively just expounding the pro-legalization position". My view on that point is the same as MastCell's. I do not have an issue with increasing the prominence in the lead of the text that begins "In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy...", for example by making it a third para in the lead in its own right, then having the history / legal stuff come after that. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why has this thread not been closed as a forum discussion driven by a blatant, POV pushing troll? HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It definitely started out that way, but the troll has been topic-banned and the discussion evolved into a serious, content-focused dialog between W.P. Uzer and JJL... so it seems appropriate to leave it open, at least to me. MastCell Talk 21:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Eyes at Category:Abortion
Should Category:Abortion be inside Category:Children and death? This seems obviously POV to me (and based on the same user's addition of "children's rights activists" to "pro-life activists", this isn't a coincidence); the user who has repeatedly added it responds that it is a "useful navigation tool." I was enough of a dumbass to only remember that it would be under 1RR immediately after reverting a second time, so I'm not reverting now even though it's more than a day later, but since it's a category it probably doesn't get watched much. Let's talk about it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, POV in both cases. Be— —Critical  04:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, a "point of view" that is very widely held in the real world. The abortion category is already under such categories as "preventive medicine" and "reproductive rights", which looked at from another angle could also be regarded as POV. Even though I don't subscribe to the view myself, I don't believe Wikipedia should be making such an effort as it does to suppress the fact that many people and societies consider abortion to represent the death (killing) of a child. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the one hand it seems very POV to me but on the other hand your point about a taking a worldwide view is important as well. I'm not sure. If the defn. in the lead sentence is indeed changed to the "prevent the birth of a baby" language or similar then that may change things. JJL (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it's an aside on this thread, but it does seem a bit POV to say "prevent the birth of a baby," just because the language is not clinical and puts the whole thought of a "baby" into play. Do you have any suggestions how this should be changed?  Be— —Critical  17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still in favor of the current language at this point not because it is great writing but because no other path has seemed able to avoid these pitfalls. Sidelining miscarriage into another article might help. I would probably have issues with 'baby' but that mostly leaves fetus, and fetuses may be viable or may be nonviable, with the latter category further divided into before and after fetal death (itself an ill-defined term, as is stillbirth). JJL (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you're right. What is really in the way of getting the wording right is trying to define miscarriage etc. at the same time as induced abortion.  Maybe we need to change this to Induced abortion and then redo the lead.  Or probably better, just say that this article is about induced abortion and give links as I guess was suggested above.  What do you think?  Be— —Critical  02:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've long favored an induced vs. spontaneous article split but I'm less convinced that Abortion itself should be anything other than a disambig. page, as Abort is. Of course, I don't doubt that most searchers are looking for induced abortion when they search on 'abortion' which does argue for changing this page's focus but not title. But either way that's a major change to a major article and we should seek broader discussion of it before making such a move, I think. JJL (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with it either way, so yes let's see what others think.  Be— —Critical  03:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That subjects been around a while, timeless. Literally. Last serious discussion was 2005, I might still vote wait for consistencies sake. Miscarriage can be shortened: An abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage) or be purposely induced. Defining it all in one go is tough... tonight I don't see a need to make readers click more. Unless article length could be an issue for a future GA nomination? - RoyBoy 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that per WP:COMMONNAME this article is in the right place, but need refocusing on just induced abortion, which seems to be where the article nearly is, and matches the structure of having a separate miscarriage article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Spontaneous abortion is still very commonly used and is technically correct. This aspect must remain discussed here, at least briefly. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article scope
This has been discussed previously - about whether this should only be about induced (medical or surgical) abortion, rather than including miscarriage (which has its own article).

Can anyone find a reputable source from the last 5 years where miscarriage (i.e. spontaneous) is described as 'abortion' without qualification? I can't seem to locate any, and that would seem to be strong evidence that 'abortion' is no longer used to describe miscarriage.

OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty in Google scholar if you search for 'spontaneous abortion'. Here's one: . That having been said, a reconsideration of scope of these articles is not unreasonable--I'm not sure why it's never gained momentum before. Veterinary abortions (spontaneous and esp. induced) do need to be covered somewhere also. JJL (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kind of my point - there are plenty with the modifier 'spontaneous', but I can't find any which use only 'abortion' without qualification. This leads me to believe that 'abortion' probably isn't used on its own to describe miscarriage, so anyone coming to this article is unlikely to want information on it, and each article should only cover one topic. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and even if there are some people coming here to learn about miscarriage, we know that they are in the minority. It seems like it's within our purview as editors to separate the subjects.  Be— —Critical  16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED.com entry 1.a is instructive:


 * If we accept their footnote as correct in regards of "generally refers", then the policy at wp:COMMONNAME would apply. This article should then address induced abortion, and about hatnote linkages to miscarriage and abortion (veterinary medicine) (or whatever title variation) would address the other main meanings. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused; this article is already (almost) only about induced abortion. There is one small section on miscarriage, which opens with a link to the main Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your response until now. All I meant was that if the intended scope of this article is to be reduced to just induced abortion in humans (which change I support), then it should get an article-level hatnote (right at the top of the page) to say that, and to steer readers who are interested in the other meanings. That would be something along the lines of
 * Does that clear it up? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that clear it up? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Absurd reverting policy
Can I just remind everyone of what ought to be well-known - you do NOT HAVE TO USE THE TALK PAGE to make changes to the article. You use the edit function - that's what it's there for. If you don't like someone else's edits, then revert them and SAY WHY you disagree. Saying "use the talk page" is no reason whatever. And to revert a change which is totally in line with what's been being said on the talk page, with the injunction to "use the talk page", is absurdity to some huge power. This sort of behavior is ridiculous and harmful to the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a gentle reminder to everyone, this article is subject to a 1-revert restriction. It's correct that one doesn't need prior authorization to make a change to the article. At the same time, the wording in question has been subject to extensive discussion and is the stable end product of a long, contentious process. A "bold" change to such wording is never going to stick without extensive talkpage discussion, although there's nothing wrong with trying it once. There's really no point (and no cover under WP:BRD) for repeatedly changing the wording after being reverted. In any case, we should be at the "discuss" phase by now, regardless of how we got here, so let's have the edit-warring end and the discussion begin. MastCell Talk 19:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been going on for ages, just above here. Surely you can see that? (And surely you can also see that it's not an end-product, and that it's only stable because there's a group of people who keep reverting to it.) We aren't doing this talking and editing just for our own amusement - we want (or at least some of us want) to improve the article as a result. It makes no sense to revert changes that have come out of the discussion, without even contributing to the discussion by explaining what you object to. And then to top it all, LECTURE OTHER PEOPLE through patronizing edit summaries about some made-up requirement to discuss before changing anything. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that the discussion has been going on for ages. That's why I'm mystified as to why you think you can edit-war your preferred text into the article, despite the lack of consensus for it. If the DISCUSS phase is active, then it's time to stop the BOLD and REVERT phases. MastCell Talk 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you have been rudely stopped in your bold tracks, to ensure the stability of a core controversial article lead, not exactly "anything". The existence and ongoing participation in talk pages is an acknowledgement in itself the article needs work. For that work to bare fruit you need patience, compromise, building to a broad consensus. Without it, your / our works can be undone next month by someone else with good or bad intentions. The wild west is thankfully long gone from established articles. - RoyBoy 07:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is technically wrong as I have explained above. You need consensus. Edit warring will just get you banned. I would try a RfC if you think there is support for your changes. Thanks Mast for the warning on the one revert. I had forgot about it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Prior to viability
This was mentioned just above, but the 'before viability' statement in the lead is not true, doesn't match the full range of citations, and probably most importantly isn't an accurate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Whilst a number of the referenced texts do include viability as a measure, it seems that an equal amount don't, and the article does discuss abortion post viability.

In either case, viability is not a fixed point in time (apart from in a legal sense), leading the inherent confusion of the article apparently not applying to the termination of a 22 wk pregnancy, which could technically now be viable. Now, in many cases late termination is due to foetal abnormality (at the 20 week scan, for instance), and the article does cover this, but for some reason, there appears to be this POV in the lead.

I have read the past talk, and the last discussion of this in 2012, a user laid out some very clear reasons why it wasn't appropriate, but the talk just fizzled out (with no real valid objections).

I suggest that remove the mention of viability from the first sentence of the lead would be more accurate, a better summary of the article, and probably also more credible.

OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus settled on this, the defn. used by a strong majority of medical texts surveyed, but some notes were later added/edited that give the incorrect impression of a 50/50 split that was not what was actually found. This is the medical defn. We were unclear whether other uses were non-technical; whether despite being done later than usual these late-term abortions were still being done on non-viable fetuses; or whether despite the obvious set-theoretic argument it is not the case that 'late-term abortion' was to be parsed in such a way as to be a type of abortion but was perhaps being used as its own separate term that can't be broken down into its parts (e.g., a minor planet is not a planet). JJL (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hardly think the three words can simply be removed (since that would leave even live birth apparently covered by the definition), but perhaps some way of rewording it could be found so as to indicate that precise definitions vary. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would strongly disagree that this is necessarily the medical definition - i think this is strongly influenced by the socio-political narrative around abortion. Late-term abortion is still abortion, and is covered in the article.  The lead needs to be an accurate summary of the article, and it fails at this.  Other reputable reporting sources, like NHS Choices, say "not resulting in a live birth", which seems more accurate.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to that, the fact that a good number (not just a WP:FRINGE) of texts do not include a viability test, that it should at least be mentioned, including as part of the lead. Otherwise that is WP:UNDUE - even at 2/3 - 1/3 prevalence. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lastly - it is well worth reading the argued case here in the talk: . OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we just say "not resulting in a live birth", wouldn't that imply that stillbirth is included in the definition (which I presume it is never intended to be)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, this is exactly the path we went down. Other defns. tend to allow too much in or exclude miscarriage. It's the clear medical majority defn. and so it suits the lede; details and qualifications are addressed later on and/or in linked articles. I'm not suggesting others shouldn't try to make changes but I do think this is why you're seeing relatively little response here--we had this discussion recently and at great length and with many editors representing all sides and having much history here. This version is stable for a reason. JJL (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, political correctness. What reason(s) were you thinking of? - RoyBoy 21:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Stable, but because of what appears to be a hard revert policy (not that I disagree, due to the inherent emotive aspect to the topic). That said, replacing "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability", with "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo not resulting in a live birth", more accurately reflects the article, and doesn't change the level of inclusion or exclusion of miscarriage. I wasn't even going to start on the bit about whether miscarriage should or should not be included.

Surely, we can't countenance a clearly untrue statement in the very first sentence, regardless of how stable it makes it? If an abortion is conducted at 32 weeks due to foetal abnormality or maternal risk, it is still an abortion - specifically precluding it is POV.

Apathy also isn't really a good reason to stability - just because it has been previously discussed doesn't make it a taboo subject. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposed sentence would still be untrue, I believe, for the reason I've already given - it would imply that stillbirth is a kind of abortion - or are you saying it actually is? W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time this discussion goes around again, I am more convinced that Abortion should be simply a disambiguation page, primarily directing to Induced abortion and to Miscarriage, each of which can be reasonably argued to be the main meaning. Still, as we seem to be stuck with the present structure, we should ask ourselves whether "prior to viability" should not instead simply read "non-viable", which is more pertinent and neatly avoids this entire dilemma.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say "induced abortion" is definitely the main meaning, is the subject of this article, and has the common name "abortion", so I don't have any problem with the present titling and scope. I don't see how "non-viable" avoids the dilemma. It even makes it worse, since a stillborn baby is presumably non-viable (but would not under any normal use of the word be said to have been aborted). W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Best solution I can think of for this is to leave the first sentence as it is (I would still like to see the meaning of "prior to viability" written out, but that's not the topic of this thread), and to add another sentence after it, reading (not necessarily these exact words): "The term can also include some late terminations carried out at a stage when the fetus may be viable." W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. Be— —Critical  18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that the topic of this page is induced abortion, rather than miscarriage, so how about "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, not resulting in a live birth". This has the dual benefit of clarifying the pre-viability piece, and clarifying that the article is about deliverate intervention.  Other words could be used instead of 'induced', including 'deliberate', 'medical or surgical', or 'intentional'.  Thoughts? 08:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal seems to exclude spontaneous abortion in order to bring late-term abortion into the lede. (Note that late-term abortion redirects to Late termination of pregnancy right now, meaning the editors there have chosen a different term than 'abortion' as the primary way to refer to this procedure--going to the notion that calling it 'abortion' may be more colloquial than technical and the notion that the defn. here correctly captures 'abortion' as used in a medical context.) Not including spontaneous abortion under Abortion would indeed be a change. The difference in perspective seems to be between technical usage and everyday usage. JJL (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to try to cover all bases - to note that the term abortion sometimes includes interventions at the viability stage, as Owain is proposing, without losing the information that it sometimes includes spontaneous miscarriages. Neither of these has to be in the first sentence, though. I still think Owain's latest suggestion fails to make it sufficiently clear that stillbirth is excluded (assuming we agree that it should be excluded). W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The miscarriage/spontaneous section of the article is a bit of an orphan within the article, given that it has its own article at miscarriage (and the related article at stillbirth), and really that creates the overall confusion that we experience. The article is 90%+ about induced (i.e. deliberate) abortion, yet it still tries to cover all bases.  The lead should follow the article, as an accurate summary, so really the 10% part about the dual use of the term doesn't belong in the first sentence.  I'm not at all convinced that late termination of pregnancy should be in its own article - it would be better in this article as a holistic view. I don't think this article needs to be at a DAB page/induced abortion split, as i would suspect that people looking for spontaneous instances are not searching on 'abortion', but an otheruses template at the top would make it crystal clear.


 * As for principles of that lead sentence, would editors agree that it should (a) include all deliberate termination of pregnancy, regardless of term (b) not be confused with stillbirth or miscarriage. In the lead somewhere, we should also clear up the dual use of abortion vis a vis miscarriage? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with (b) w.r.t. miscarriage--spontaneous abortion is a type of abortion--and am not ready at this point to agree with (a). Previous discussion has raised doubts in my mind as to whether late-term abortion is a form of abortion or a term used--possibly for the purposes of political posturing, possibly merely by lay users--for what is more correctly termed late termination of pregnancy. I could possibly be convinced on (a) but I think it would take some reorganization and possibly re-titling to bring me along on (b). Miscarriage in humans and animals fall under the current heading, to my mind. I do agree that the current article is tilted toward induced abortion in humans but another way to go is to improve the article in that respect and then possibly branch out an article on induced abortion in humans. It's complicated; people sometimes self-induce miscarriage in themselves via injury or in others via violence, and I think of these as cases of causing a miscarriage rather than an induced abortion; yet, they don't seem to fit the defn. of spontaneous abortion despite resulting in an aborted fetus. JJL (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think our first duty is to say how the term is used (by various reliable sources), without making any judgment as to which way of using it is "correct". Not all in one sentence, but this should probably be the aim of the first paragraph. In fact, aren't medics more likely to talk of "termination" rather than "abortion" for any such procedure, regardless of term? (Genuinely asking.) Anyway, at the end of that paragraph we can say what abortion normally refers to (as we already do), thus hinting that that is what readers can mainly expect to read about in this article. It seems unnecessary to split off "induced abortion" or "abortion in humans" into separate articles, since this is what readers can and expect to read about in this article. If anything, "abortion in animals" might constitute a separate article (and non-induced abortion already is, at miscarriage). W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is some interesting discussion at Spontaneous_abortion of how the usage has changed as far as physicians speaking to patients, but I haven't looked at its sources. But I do worry about having too many conflicting defns. in the lead. For some while there was serious discussion about having the lead sentence read "Abortion is medically defined as the termination..." instead for this sort of reason. But that was wordy, and seemed to be not in line with the style for similar articles, and other defns. weren't as readily sourceable--everyone "knew" what the term meant to them but apart from it referring in political discourse to induced abortion in humans there was disagreement. As you note, we do mention that last fact in the lede. JJL (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I participated in discussions long ago over this same issue. It is obvious, that given the utter unreasonableness of asserting that the term "abortion" cannot be used on termination of a pregnancy after viability (especially because the age of viability differs per the sources) and also the fact that the sources do not always place a time limit on "abortion," that we should not state that an abortion is only an abortion prior to viability. Be— —Critical 18:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that viability is difficult to reduce to a single number does not mean it isn't well-defined. The fetus either can or cannot survive on its own outside the womb at any given time--if it were to be removed it would quickly become clear whether or not it had been viable. Placing times to viability is not an inherent part of the notion of viability, which is the notion used overwhelmingly by medical texts. JJL (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with general WP policy, if RS disagree on a subject, we should explicate the disagreement. Therefore, it might be appropriate to have a small section in the article discussing the issue of time limits on the term. It is both obvious that the term is used without a time limit, that some of the sources use it with a time limit, and that some of the sources use it without a time limit. Since it's an issue, it might be best to write a small section about it, and then reflect that section in the first sentence/lead. Be— —Critical 18:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is broken out and discussed at Late termination of pregnancy and Abortion links to it. We could certainly expand on it here but as we're talking about less than 1% of procedures, in many of which the fetus is not viable, and in a situation where the term is used informally in a way that is counter to the prevailing medical defn., it's unlcear to me that it needs to be crammed into the first sentence. JJL (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Accuracy. Also, because it's not a big change.  The question is, why stick with an inaccurate definition when there's no reason to do so?  "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, almost always prior to viability."  This takes all sources into consideration and has the advantage of being accurate.   Be— —Critical  20:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's inaccurate--it is the actual definition of the term. An article with this "Induced abortion Classification and external resources" sidebar that clearly emphasize induced abortion as a medical procedure should give the corresponding medical defn. The medical sources imply that if a termination of pregnancy occurs post-viability then it is a Late termination of pregnancy but not an abortion per se. This was the reasoning that went into the lede and is reflected in the note for the lead sentence. JJL (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a fact that can be verified. Can you give me the source saying that if an induced termination of pregnancy occurs post-viability it is called a "Late termination of pregnancy" and not called an abortion?  I think what you said is very important, and it is a verifiable fact, so I would like to see the source for it.  (Also per the source I'm asking for, we can justify taking the term "abortion" out of the Late termination of pregnancy article.)  Be— —Critical  00:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim isn't made in the article. JJL (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What, you don't have any sources? But you just said "This was the reasoning that went into the lede."  Are you saying that the lede is based on original research?  Or is there actually a source that makes the distinction you are trying to make and on which you say the article lede is based?  (If we have a source that makes the distinction, we can merely note the distinction in the article and keep the current first sentence of the lede- you know "terminations after viability are called...")  Otherwise, of course, we have to note the ambiguity in the sources.  Be— —Critical  03:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be treating this seriously, so I'll simply refer you to the Talk archives. JJL (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On that basis, the current lede seems to be WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of reputable sources using 'abortion' for late termination, especially amongst the UK resources I use. Just a few include public information sites: NHS Choices (NHS England official informaiton site), British Pregancy Advice Service, British Medical Journal: Ethics of abortion. There are hundreds of US reputable press articles which also use it in this way. I think there is plenty of evidence that it is used in this way, and there is by no means a clear consensus in the defintions referenced. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the arguments for some sort of change to the opening sentence pretty convincing. There is clearly widespread variation in use of the term, and no one single privileged definition that would make pre-viability an absolute requirement. I would agree with Owain that late terminations are more likely nowadays to be called abortions than miscarriages are, so a change of emphasis in that direction is certainly required. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The current lede was not synthesized--it represents what is by far the most common medical defn. The consensus at the time was to go with the medical defn. in the lead sentence and expand further down the article, or in other break-out articles, as necessary. Every attempt to put everything into the first sentence, or even the first paragraph, caused a new problem for every one it removed. This is not to say that it cannot possibly be improved but I think there's an assumption here that such changes were not considered. This was a very long discussion with editors representing all viewpoints. Legal dictionaries were also consulted, for example, but the medical defn. won out. JJL (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the past talk, and the list of citations in the article, i think "by far" is an exaggeration and probably WP:UNDUE, given the amount of sources that don't mention it. And given that there are plenty of medical, as well as legal/sociological sources (plus the bulk of the media corpus) using the alternative, this is prescriptivism which ignores a huge part of the reputable sources.  I don't believe that this lede sentence should be impossible to construct.  Looking at some other reference resources, some good starting points:
 * "abortion is the medical process of ending a pregnancy so it does not result in the birth of a baby" (NHS Choices)
 * "Abortion is the early ending of a pregnancy... by getting surgery or taking medicine." (Web MD)


 * I think we could definately learn from this straightforward approach. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, given the parallel dicussions, how is this for a straw man:

Abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a live baby. This requires a deliberate action, differentiating it from miscarriage (also sometimes known as spontaneous abortion) which occurs without intervention. Following the termination of pregnancy, the fetus or embryo will be expelled or removed from the uterus.

Thoughts? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is on abortion, and specifically induced abortion. Leaving sources aside, we know that induced abortions can and do rarely occur post-viability.  Taking sources into account, we have good sources which state that abortion only occurs prior to viability.  We also have good sources which call post-viability terminations "abortion."  We have good sources which place no time limit on the term "abortion."  Even though we all know that this conflict is some artifact of medical textbook writing, we do have to take into consideration exactly how to convey to the reader that there is a conflict in the sources.  If we don't convey it, then we'll have the same problem for the article we do now, which is that it will be unstable (it keeps being challenged because it's obviously wrong, and the wording keeps being retained because some of the sources support it).  Keeping this in mind, we have the capacity to use a common sense definition which does not conflict with any sources, much as OwainDavies does above.  However, we do need to come back and say something like "Some medical texts define the term 'abortion' as termination of pregnancy only prior to viability, while other texts place no such limitation."  We can do that in a footnote or in the text of the lead.  Thus we limit our own definition to one which is supported by all the sources, and we perform our duty as WP editors to convey all the RS.  Be— —Critical  16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. Obviously above, i've concentrated on the first paragraph, but I think it would be entirely mete to include something along the lines of your suggestion in the second paragraph (and obviously within the appropraite part of body text). OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that the prevailing meaning should lead, and that the text should provide properly-referenced accounts of the variation in the word's meaning. It should not refer to "live" baby, as that is inaccurate and deviates from the more general, plain, language of the NHS example on which it is modelled. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the word "baby" should be avoided, but I'm not sure what else to put in? Be— —Critical  02:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the word "live" I objected to, rather than "baby" - if one wanted to avoid baby, then one would switch to the Web MD-style formulation quoted above. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see... okay you prefer just "baby" like this?

Abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a baby. This requires a deliberate action, differentiating it from miscarriage (also sometimes known as spontaneous abortion) which occurs without intervention. Following the termination of pregnancy, the fetus or embryo will be expelled or removed from the uterus.

But a question... how is a fetus expelled from the womb and it not be "birth?" Is a cesarean not a birth? If expulsion from the womb is always "birth," then the word "live" is relevant. Be— —Critical 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * interesting semantic point. Later abortions generally have to undergo labour, but I think birth is specifically (and i'm quoting from the WP article here, with knowledge of its limitations etc. etc.) "the explusion of one or more newborn infants from a woman's uterus" - by the time this occurs post-termination, it is no longer an infant. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is going in a good direction I think... But I'm wondering about "following the termination of pregnancy...". In at least some cases, is it not in fact the expulsion/removal itself that terminates the pregnancy, i.e. the statement is only true if "will be" is interpreted as denoting a state rather than an event (and it seems more natural to read it as meaning an event - English passive voice). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "As part of the termination process, the fetus..." would work? You're right that for aspiration, the removal is the actual method of termination, but in others, it is a step taken after the termination of pregnancy, but still part of the process.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also the case of a Dilation and curettage procedure, which may uncommonly be used to perform an abortion but also commonly used post-miscarriage to remove remaining fetal tissue that was incompletely expelled (from the link: "to remove retained tissue (also known as retained POC or retained products of conception) in the case of a missed or incomplete miscarriage"). That removes the embryo but is not an abortion. JJL (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Labor is also fairly likely in the case of stillbirth, where there is medical intervention but not a live birth. Stillbirth generally is defined as occurring when the fetus was post-viable, whereas abortion is where it is pre-viable. What about the case where another party uses physical violence to cause an abortion--is that an induced miscarriage or an induced abortion? If miscarriage is to be split off then it matters where that goes. Is the aggressor performing an abortion in such a case? JJL (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is, rightly, covered in the article under 'other methods'. I think it should probably be mentioned in both articles, with intent probably being a strong indicator (the difference between an assault to cause an abortion - the deliberate act - and an assault which causes a miscarriage - an unintended consequence).  As for stillbirth, you're right, but i presume that you mean 'miscarriage' pre-viability and 'stillbirth' post viability.  There will inevitably be crossover between the articles, and suitable use of daughter articles will help explain this (for example the article on dilatation and curretage should mention both its use as an abortion method, and its use to remove POC from miscarriage), but there's no need to mention both uses in this article or the miscarriage article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you post a revised suggestion for the lead so we can more easily see what we're talking about? Be— —Critical  18:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/new wording
OK, from comments above, suggested wording as below:

—————

Abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a baby. This requires a deliberate action, differentiating it from miscarriage (sometimes also known as spontaneous abortion) which occurs without intervention. As part of the process, the fetus or embryo will be expelled or removed from the uterus.

Some medical texts define the term 'abortion' as termination of pregnancy only prior to fetal viability (when the fetus could survive independently of the mother), while other texts place no such limitation, and term is in common usage for deliberate terminations at any stage of pregnancy.

—————

This includes a proposed second paragraph, as suggested, to cover the differing opinions on viability or not. Thoughts? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me, but I would suggest combining the two paragraphs and perhaps deleting the part from "while other texts..." onwards (somewhat redundant, and we should try to be fairly brief in the introduction). Also maybe the explanation ("when the fetus...") is not entirely clear - it should perhaps read "that is, before the fetus..." W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * PS (a further thought, could be done at a later stage): we could also lose the "As part of the process..." sentence, instead using a similar sentence to begin the following paragraph, which would briefly summarize the methods used to perform abortions. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In, say, an ectopic pregnancy, there is usually no possibility of a live birth and the termination is performed to save the live of the mother, not "so that it does not result in the birth of a baby" which could not have occurred anyway. If this procedure is an abortion then the wording should cover it too. JJL (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph doesn't need to mention motivation, and I think it covers all types as is (feel free to disagree), although this clearly does need to be covered in the article. I will look again at WPU's suggestions a bit later. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point relative to ectopic pregnancy, but since ectopic pregnancy sometimes can result in a live birth, but not when aborted, it seems perhaps we're scraping by on the terminology. What do you think of "Abortion is a procedure used to terminate a pregnancy, and is most often used to prevent the birth of a baby.  Abortion is different from miscarriage (sometimes also known as spontaneous abortion) which occurs without intervention.  As part of the process, the fetus or embryo will be expelled or removed from the uterus."   Be— —Critical  04:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion:

"Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo.[FOOTNOTE: Medical texts often define abortion as occurring prior to the viability of the fetus. However, the term is used in common speech, in legal texts, and in some medical sources without any reference to fetal viability.] Abortion is different from miscarriage (sometimes also known as spontaneous abortion) which occurs without intervention."

I'm suggesting this as a minimal change from the current version, which avoids potentially POV terms like "baby" and "live," but still gives a full accounting of the ambiguity of texts. And keeps WP's definition within all the sources. Be— —Critical 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the footnote idea could be good. The current note 1 is essentially a discussion from the Talk page carried into the article, and this summarizes it. Unfortunately, labor induction medically terminates pregnancy by inducing expulsion of the fetus from the womb, and Caesarean section surgically terminates pregnancy by removal of the fetus from the womb. (This is not just a semantic issue: Compare the language used in the lede of childbirth.) The defn. also includes medical intervention in the case of stillbirth, which involves a (no longer viable) fetus. The second sentence could be in the right direction depending on how exactly the article scope discussion goes. JJL (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting from that is that killing the fetus (as opposed to the death of the fetus as in miscarriage) is an essential part of the term's definition. Can you think of any NPOV wording to convey this?  Be— —Critical  22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the current lead sentence it's implicit in the viability part: By definition, pre-viable means it can't survive outside the womb and abortion represents expelling it or removing it from the womb, and before viability also implies that viability is still a possibility in the future. That's NPOV for the medical defn. of the term and includes cases where no live birth could ever occur but the embryo/fetus must be removed for the health of the mother. The statement that it's sometimes used without regard to viability is not inaccurate but is open-ended--it doesn't specify when that happens. Trying to capture those cases more precisely may be problematic, esp. in the absence of widespread agreement on what is and is not included (different people use it in different ways). I think getting the article scope issue settled first is a good idea so we know if spontaneous abortion is still to be considered an instance of abortion. I think an article split to induced vs. spontaneous abortion is good but I'm less sure whether I think it should be as suggested--this article becomes induced-only--or a disambig. page to those two articles and perhaps others (see Abort). JJL (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Be— —Critical  03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd kind of discussed this already - anyway, my opinion is that induced abortion is nowadays the primary meaning of "abortion", and "abortion" is the common name for induced abortion; therefore the article Abortion can without any problem serve as the article on induced abortion, as it effectively (almost) does at the moment. We should not confuse readers by making them click around disambiguation pages to find the article they almost certainly want, just because of some semantic quibbling on the talk page. We just need to mention, as is proposed, that the term is sometimes used to include miscarriage. I think I prefer Owain's original suggestion or Be-Critical's 04:07 suggestion rather than Be-Critical's latest one - the thing about viability appears in enough definitions to make it important enough to appear in the text, not be consigned to a footnote; and I don't see anything POV about the words "baby" and "live" ("survive") in the contexts in which they would appear here. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about making this article about induced abortion, but I'm mainly focused on making the text accurate. Here are various versions:


 * Minimal change, adding the word "usually":


 * Making the article exclusively about induced abortion:


 * The problem I see with the one above is that abortion does result in birth just as a cesarean, just not a live birth. So we need:


 * A combination for minimal change but to correct the current version (the error about "prior to viability") and change the focus of the article exclusively to induced abortion:

Personally, I would put the second paragraph in a footnote. Be— —Critical 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I favour the third option above, with the corrected focus, and I agree that the second paragraph woul actually be best as a note. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Third option seems fine by me too, but I think something about pre-viability (basically the first part of the second paragraph, up to and including the parenthetical) should remain in the text itself, as long as a large percentage of the definitions we find impose such a condition. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The language "so that it does not result in the birth of a live baby" has some issues. In many cases of abortion for the health of the woman, abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy and preserve the woman's life, and a live birth may well have been very desirable but not achievable. The purpose is not to prevent live birth--that's an effect, often unwelcome. (Similarly, in selective abortion for reduction of a multifetal pregnancy, say from quads to twins, the state of pregnancy is not terminated and a live birth is still expected to occur--for some of the remaining fetuses. Live birth has not been prevented. This is better dealt with by the current language but still not fully included.) Again, an ectopic pregnancy is almost never viable (and a molar pregnancy is never viable, though that's a more semantically complicated matter) and so the pregnancy termination is certainly not to prevent a live birth but rather to prevent a maternal death. Looking just at the language used in the definition, intentional feticide is intervention to prevent a live birth--but is not usually considered an abortion procedure, even though the fetus, if pre-viable, is indeed aborted. The current language focuses more passively on processes within the woman's body without regard to reasons and which may be spontaneous or induced, but switching the focus to active intervention for a purpose, as suggested here, raises other issues. Adding intention is a challenge. Of course, 'baby' remains somewhat emotional language here. JJL (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that once one has said, "Abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy", to then add, " so that it does not result in the birth of a baby" is not necessary as it is very obvious that there will be no eventual birth of a baby. I'd like to add, as delicately as I can, the fact that in some cases a pregnant woman that desires to end the pregnancy does so not to prevent the birth of a baby, but of a "thing" that she (and I) do not consider to be a human baby.  I say this with some authority because I have worked in settings where these terribly deformed babies have been  born, and I have worked in places where the ones that lived longer than a few hours grew into extremely mentally and physically handicapped adults, never able to talk, eat on their own, walk, etc. These are not Down syndrome children/adults who are quite able to lead a good life and be a joy to their parents.  I'm aware that many people feel, "but they're still a baby!", and I can accept their position, but I feel differently. Since we don't have to include it in the definition, I feel we should not include it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could say "such that" rather than "so that", making it clear that we are talking about result, rather than intention (but are we, though? I'm not sure.) I don't think that the position that a deformed living human is not a "baby" is any kind of mainstream position, so doesn't really need to be taken too much into account (in fact a baby doesn't even have to be human - we talk of baby animals). I don't understand the point about feticide - is that not just something abortion might be called in contexts or jurisdictions where it's illegal? W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well feticide, "is intervention to terminate a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a live baby" in cases where a man, say, does not want the woman he has impregnated to give birth and hence intentionally causes her injury with the goal of preventing the birth of a child. It may be that he intentionally causes fetal death but the fetus is not expelled from the body and hence an abortion or similar procedure is required afterward--meaning there would be two abortions? (Note, the language is "intervention to terminate", not "intervention that terminates" a pregnancy. I read the former as "intervention (intended) to terminate".) Even if he does immediately terminate the pregnancy and the fetus is expelled, that meets this definition--whereas the law will distinguish between legal intervention and criminal intervention. This defn. does include feticide in the sense of "fetal homicide" but neither medical nor legal texts would consider that an induced abortion--though it may be that the injury results in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) or stillbirth. This language fails to make a distinction upon which medical, legal, and informal usage concur. JJL (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "in such a way that it does not result in a live birth" instead of "so that it does not result in the birth of a live baby." Another possibility is to keep the current wording and just add "usually" so as to get around the pre-viability wording problem. I would also agree with Gandydancer that we could use merely "Abortion is intervention to terminate a pregnancy" and leave it at that. JJL brought up some other good points. Let me go over them:


 * We can't have anything indicating that there is any desire to prevent a live birth if one had been possible.
 * The case of selective abortion, where a live birth is not prevented: but in fact if was prevented for the aborted fetus. The problem here is with the word "pregnancy," because the pregnancy was only partially terminated.
 * Not all abortions are for preventing live birth, but can be to prevent maternal death.

Taken together I think these are sufficient to prevent us from using the wording as proposed, and also the wording currently in the article.

So:


 * Minimal change, adding the word "usually":

This is problematic because not all abortions terminate pregnancy.

The word "expel" doesn't seem necessary: expulsion is just a method of removal. Be— —Critical 20:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The second version once again includes C-sections and induced labor when the intention is (live) childbirth. The first version could be seen as WP:SYNTH: It melds together (or averages out) different usages, but an issue raised previously was that the weight of WP:RS seemed to say strictly pre-viable and using a different defn. is synthesizing a defn. (in light of WP:UNDUE--it's not that no source would give such a defn.). It's more that abortion is usually defined as pre-viable than that it's defined as usually pre-viable. The current language doesn't handle selective reduction very well but does handle other cases. I am inclined to agree that a change of scope to induced abortion makes sense here--I've suggested it before--but defining it is challenging. JJL (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your objections above are all for rare cases. Just adding the word "usually" seems to solve a lot, "Usually in order to prevent a live birth."  The words "live" and "birth" are somewhat emotive but only tangentially so, and they also seem appropriate so I wouldn't call them POV.

That's also rather informative in that it brings out that there are other purposes as well, which the reader might have only in the back of their consciousness. Be— —Critical 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * However, that "definition" is contradicted by several sources. E.g.,
 * — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point, the second sentence could be changed to reflect that.
 * Yes, good point, the second sentence could be changed to reflect that.

And keep this article about induced abortion. Be— —Critical 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is confusing as to whether or not spontaneous abortions form a subset of all abortions--spontaneous abortion is not a medical intervention, so it doesn't qualify under the first sentence; but the second sentence makes it sound like it should. To my mind medical (in the sense of pharmaceutical) intervention typically causes the expulsion of the embryo, while surgical intervention is intended to remove it, so I do see value in keeping both terms (expel/remove) or making a passive construction ("causes the removal of"). An abortificent doesn't 'remove' (take out) anything but rather causes it to be expelled (push out). JJL (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't have to have a full definition in a single sentence necessarily. To fix it we could either change Abortion to Induced abortion and have this as a disambiguation page, or just say that this article is about induced abortion per COMMONNAME.  In that case, we could remove the miscarriage sentence and use the  template as first suggested above by OwainDavies.   Be— —Critical  03:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is showing that a full, watertight, rigorous, single-sentence definition is going to be impossible, particularly since different sources say contradictory things. I still think it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (not the wisest choice of metaphor, sorry) to start renaming the article and making disambiguation pages, but I think we need to look for a "vaguer" first sentence (something like the suggestions that have been made incorporating "usually") which can then be expanded on in the remainder of the first paragraph, which could summarize the various uses of the term. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like everybody kind of abandoned this? I thought we were getting somewhere but it requires participation. Be— —Critical 02:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems people have so far been unable to come up with an entirely satisfactory solution. The present text is of course unsatisfactory as well, and isn't made any less so by the editorially irrelevant fact that "it's been stable". How about, as we await further inspiration, we apply the proposed minimal change, simply adding "usually" before "prior to viability"? (With sources added to the footnote to demonstrate that sometimes that condition doesn't apply.) And perhaps also (though this is an independent matter) add an everyday-language explanation of that phrase? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been busy IRL so haven't been contributing as much as possible. I think we have to make a common sense decision here because of the contradictory sources.  My suggestion is that the decision is effectively taken (given the 90% content bias, and existence of the miscarriage article) that this article covers only induced abortion, and we should make sure it reflects that.  I think that we do need to address the inconsistencies and conflicts in the lede, otherwise it will end up coming round again.  My revised suggestion is below:


 * Some of the key differences:
 * removed 'medical' because not all abortions can really be described as medical
 * tried to think in common sense terms about it, so came up with the fact that all abortions prevent pregnancy from continuing, and in doing so prevent a live birth. This doesn't have any bearing on motivation, but is a fundamental part of the process.


 * Thoughts? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrasing of the third sentence still sounds somewhat contradictory to me--that abortion is different from (a type of) abortion. Induced abortion is different from spontaneous, and induced is the primary meaning here, but the actual phrasing sounds odd. Also, repeating 'deliberate' is stylistically awkward--can a synonym be used in the third sentence? . Would there still be a hatnote for miscarriage? I still prefer removed (by a physician) or expelled (by the woman's body) to just removed. Due to 'live birth' it still doesn't handle ectopic pregnancies or selective abortion, but the current lede suffers there also--though less so, in that terminating an ectopic pregnancy doesn't generally prevent a live birth. I still find more intentionality--motivation--in this version than the current one. The current version says what it is but in trying to say why it's done this one does open up more doors. I could say that many abortions qualify as deliberate intervention to prevent a pregnancy from continuing to protect the life of the mother. Of course that does prevent a live birth but preventing a live birth is not the reason why it's being done. Removing viability from the language still allows for other cases, as well--if someone injures a woman one day before her due date in hopes of preventing a live birth and does indeed terminate the pregnancy, it qualifies here as an abortion; if someone injures a woman one day before her due date for reasons unrelated to her being pregnant and incidentally terminates the pregnancy, it does not. Should either of those be considered an 'abortion' in this sense? The current language is not perfect here either but it doesn't leave open cases like this. Putting in reasons for the procedure is tough. JJL (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree on most of your points. I still don't follow the logic about an abortion to save the mother's life not being to prevent the baby being born - the two are linked, and motivation hasn't been discussed as yet.  Try this one?:


 * This is a rewrite which I hope addresses almost all those points you made? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The language "from continuing development" nicely includes ecptopic pregnancies and selective reduction. For "unintentional"--which still seems to imply some human action--a word is needed that indicates that nothing at all may have been done. Can we justify "normally" (which implies more often than not)? JJL (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have objections to this rewrite. My largest objection is to "normally to ensure a live birth does not occur."
 * I think that it's strange to imply that it's *abnormal* for an abortion to be performed for another reason; for example, if there are fetal abnormalities that will likely result in a late-term fetal demise, abortion would be performed not to avoid a live birth but to reduce maternal risk.
 * Even if we switch "normally" to "usually," I think that it's a bit strange to put any intention on the procedure. Motivations for abortion are extremely varied (as the article appropriately covers), and there's a subtle but important distinction between preventing a live birth and avoiding carrying a pregnancy to term.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When genetic testing shows that the fetus is profoundly deformed and will die before birth or be considered not viable after birth, the mother almost certainly chooses abortion to end the pregnancy rather than to carry a nonviable infant to term--not to prevent a live birth. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should use a template to state that this article is not about miscarriage, so we can leave out that sentence. BTW the language still might leave something to be desired... a relative's girlfriend just recently has baby with no heartbeat, and the doctor told her if it doesn't come in two weeks they'll take it out... what is she having?  It's not only a miscarriage and not exactly an abortion.  The wording we have would at least be accurate with only the addition of "usually."

The problems pointed out with the various drafts have all been along the lines "it doesn't cover this," or "it leaves that out." It would be hard to write a draft that wasn't subject to such objections... that's why words like "usually" have been suggested as fixes. So the above is an attempt to take all the various permutations of abortion into account by stating specifically that there are a lot of different possible reasons. And by putting the most usual and obvious reason first. Triacylglyceride doesn't want us to state intent, but "unwanted" is broad enough to cover everything up to the various medical reasons. Be— —Critical 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I also object to "unwanted." The wanted/unwanted status of a pregnancy does nothing to the abortion/nonabortion status of a medical procedure.  It seems to me that your proposed definition above is only improved by removing the word "unwanted"; do you agree?  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

New proposal: deliberate intervention to end preg w/o live birth
I've spent the last few days going over the archived discussions on the lede -- I have a 3,000 word document of notes, and I started at archive 43. There has been a lot of conversation. (More on that in a different section.) The point that has stuck with me the most is that we are defining a topic, not a procedure (thanks, RoyBoy!).

After reviewing a lot of debate on death vs. viability vs. live birth, and medical definitions vs. common use, I would like to propose the following.

Below are my reasons for settling on this particular definition. I include them not to rehash the past two years of talk pages, but to try and avoid unnecessary rehashing in any feedback to my proposal.


 * Death vs. viability vs. live birth:
 * Death: a lot of people are fans of the "death consensus" of 2006-2011 ("An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death"). I am not.  I'm not afraid of the word death (although I recognize concerns that it can be unpalatable), but I think it is strange to define abortion by the removal or expulsion of an embryo; it interacts strangely with the terms missed abortion and incomplete abortion.  I think it is also strange because I think abortion is best-defined by its primary goal of ending a pregnancy.
 * Viability: while it is necessary to recognize that this is part of medical definitions, it is definitely not part of common use, even among medical professionals referring to induced abortion.
 * Live birth: some have called this weasely; a way to avoid saying "death." I disagree; I think that it is a necessary way to differentiate abortion from the other way one could end a pregnancy.  Even if one is using the word "viability," a 20-week pregnancy could hypothetically (and gruesomely) be delivered alive and allowed to die outside of the uterus; I do not think that would reasonably be considered an abortion.


 * Ending pregnancy: some concerns have been stated that "ending a pregnancy" is inappropriate in light of selective reduction. Although the verb "to abort" is applied to embryos in "selective reduction," UpToDate, on review of the evidence, does not consider it abortion.  Similarly, loss of one of two twins does not constitute a "spontaneous abortion."


 * This inconvenience, where you can abort one of three gestating embryos, but it isn't an abortion, occurs because medicine's top priority is not always producing a coherent set of clearly-defined words for us to use. The use of "abortion" in medicine is evolving and contains contradictions, and cannot be solely relied on.


 * Termination of pregnancy: a lot of definitions use "abortion is termination of pregnancy./pregnancy...". I dislike these, because it passes the buck.  We could just as easily say "termination is abortion of pregnancy."  They are two fancy words that mean stop.

Again, the above discussion was not meant to trigger rehashing the past two years of talk pages. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This tries to do too much and I find it awkward. I don't agree that we are defining a topic vs. a procedure because I think the topic is a procedure (or event, in the spontaneous case); after all, Abortion debate, for example, is a separate, albeit related, topic, and it needs to be able to rely on a definition of 'abortion' here. JJL (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have an undefined antecedent. Do you mean that my post tries to do too much, or my proposed lede?  Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed text starts off well, and I don't quite understand JJL's objection as yet (can he make it more explicit?) But are we quite sure that the difference between the two terminological approaches (spontaneous included and late-term excluded, or vice versa) is one of medical versus common use? The impression I got from the discussions that it's more one of older versus more recent use. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that it is not 'medically defined' as being pre-viability - some sources do so, but others do not, bringing us full circle on this debate. This article is sitll firmly about induced abortion, and the lede needs to reflect that, whilst giving the appropriate chance for people to go to miscarriage.  I would include both the hatnote and the sentence in the lede to make sure this is clear.  I've put another draft below, based on my earlier one (which the only objection to was about the focus on live birth), and taking in to account what was written just now.


 * For me, I think the inclusion of fetus and embryo at the first point does make sense in terms of clearly defining the topic. This touches on what you said about death vs live birth above - i.e. what actually is this topic about.  It also has the useful side effect of negating the argument about selective abortion, as it focuses on the actual crux of the topic (i.e. about the termination of a fetus/embryo - not about the ending of a pregnancy per se).


 * This also sidesteps your excellent point about abort and terminate being synonyms, and again makes sure that we are being unambiguous, avoiding tautology. Thoughts? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * *Waves* No prob Triacylglyceride. I don't understand the need for the word "deliberate", that can come later when defining induced abortion. Abortion generally speaking can be accidental, its almost as inaccurate as un-viable; which indeed should be contained or dumped... but only if it improves the lead's accuracy/scope and therefore its stability. - RoyBoy 23:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the clear consensus has been that this article is about deliberate/induced abortion, with spontaneous abortion covered at miscarriage. There is the use of non-viable (not un-viable) to describe instances where an abortion takes place of a fetus which would not otherwise reach term (and a live birth). OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * True, however consensus / inside knowledge cannot interfere with basic narrative; meaning the reader doesn't know this until the article informs them. - RoyBoy 06:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

'''With no further discussion seemingly forthcoming, I have put the above version in to live, as everyone seemed broadly happy with it. Obviously, further edits can now be done either on the live page, or from further discussion here, but thought it was important to capture the key change so far'''. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have reverted. I find the new wording clumsy. This is less clear "The unintentional termination of a pregancy, also sometimes known as spontaneous abortion, is miscarriage." than "An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage". Would recommend a RfC to get further opinions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a particularly unhelpful way to edit - you could have commented on the talk at any time, rather than reverting when the change is made.  The previous version had signficantly bigger problems than one sentence that you consider "clumsy", so I have restored that per consensus, and we can discuss a further reword as required.   OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording has undergone a great deal of discussion. I do not see a clear consensus here to change it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. There was no consensus to make a change--especially not of both article scope (which I do agree with) and lede wording (which, as I indicated in discussion here, I do not agree with--changes suggested address some problems but do not improve the lede overall). Changing it during a discussion, with lack of consensus, to your version is "a particularly unhelpful way to edit". I direct your attention to WP:DEADLINE. There is plenty of time to seek consensus and, as suggested previously here, get more eyes on the issue, possibly via an RFC. JJL (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is as much consensus as there were people discussing. Your late 'swoop' in to the article at the point of change doesn't mean the chance to discuss wasn't there. Maybe review WP:OWN in light of your actions. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I am the only one with concerns, simply start a RfC and you will have things solved in a week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All well and good, and I am happy to have an RfC, but it should be from the new version, not the old, otherwise we will carry back round the same loops we've been doing for a month. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not how it works. The whole thing with a discussion is that it is supposed to be closed by an independent editor. As you are involved in the discussion you do not get to claim that you have consensus and close the discussion in your favor. Some of us were out of country the last few weeks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how you go about a WP:RFC. JJL (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As much consensus as there were people discussing? No, I was actively discussing the issue and did not agree that your lead sentence was better--there was less consensus on that than there were people discussing it. I do agree with the change of scope but have also pointed out that on both these issues a larger discussion with more people would be necessary. Making a WP:BRD change is one thing, but we were in the "discuss" phase and you should have polled for consensus to change among those present at the very least. JJL (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc James and JJL. If you want to change this article, start a RFC. You may think people are "swooping in" at the last minute, but believe me there are many eyes on this article and the Talk page. Just because many have discussed this topic before and are taking a wait and see approach, doesn't mean they are "swooping in". I call for editors who want to change the article to start a RFC, and not make any edits until consensus from a RFC is achieved. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous and quite contrary to Wikipedia's ethos to insist on a formal RfC before every change. Don't we want to improve the article? It seems that some people here are more interested in controlling it than in making it better. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous to suggest that this is just any change. It's the most contentious section of a highly contentious article, with permanent warnings in the line itself and on the top of the Talk page about that fact. Further, it was mentioned in the discussions. I don't understand how this could've caught you by surprise. Build consensus and verify it. That's how it works on contentious issues. That's the point, in fact. JJL (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears not to work here. Invent a consensus and enforce it with reverts and patronizing comments, seems to be how it "works". Result: more contention, substandard article, no progress, no improvement. Is that really what you want? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an "invented" consensus. As you were told, it was the result of a long, drawn-out, detailed, highly contentious discussion that lasted for many many months...and the consensus before that, I understand, was even more hard-won. You're facing the same challenges anyone else does with a well-established, major article. It should be not-too-easy to make significant changes. JJL (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The wiki-circle is complete. :) Hard-won indeed. - RoyBoy 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical versus lay definition
Most medical sources use "before viability" in the definition. Some lay sources use a different definition. We could add the lay definitions to the first paragraph such as:

"Abortion is technically the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. Some also use the term to refer to terminations after viability." or some such wording.

Simply put their is not one definition but a number of definitions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is what I just tried to do, except I got reverted (and probably will be again by one of the gang of page-controllers). I don't see the point of changing back to a version that long discussion has shown to be inferior. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As you have been told and reminded here previously, the discussion that led to this consensus and to the one preceding it were very long indeed. I have repeatedly written in response to the current discussion that while parts of many of the suggested changes had advantages, other parts had weaknesses and that no recent suggestion has been, on balance, an improvement over what's currently here. The lede itself includes a hidden comment that the first sentence is highly contentious. That you made a unilateral change and it didn't succeed was entirely foreseeable. As I previously said, it was necessary to get more eyes on this issue. You are not being persecuted. JJL (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus about the present introduction. What are you talking about? Just because there was a long discussion about it in the past, doesn't mean that it has no faults, or that it can be claimed to have consensus when it clearly doesn't. In fact, it seems to have more faults than most, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, so the past discussion doesn't seem to have been very effective. What was you objection to my change? You still haven't said. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find in the archives many straw polls, votes, etc. related to the current consensus first sentence. It took much longer than you have been willing to invest here. JJL (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not exactly true. This is true "Abortion is technically the removal or expulsion of a fetus before viability." Non technically the term is used in other ways. These other uses do not change the technical use of the term. I have no concerns with adding the non technical use of the term to the first paragraph of the article. But these non technical uses do NOT change the technical definition of abortion. We cannot combine these into one overall definition as this does not exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is patently not true. In some literature that is the definition, but other reputable literature doesn't include a viability threshold, and further literature supports the position that 'abortion' without further qualifier or modifier is induced abortion, not miscarriage.  The bias is in NA medical literature towards your viewpoint, failing WP:GLOBAL, WP:COMMONALITY, and WP:UNDUE.  You are seeking to define prescritively, based on your individual bias OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there other medical procedures on Wikipedia that are described first in terms of what people think they are rather than what they actually are? JJL (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, a few things there. Firstly, that is a bit of a fallacious argument - we are talking about this article.  Secondly, it is not necessarily a medical procedure. Lastly, we have reliable sources saying that 'abortion' on its own is no longer used to describe miscarriage, so this would be the correct application.  Definitions are formed by reporting, not prescription, and the use of unqualified 'abortion' to describe miscarrige is becoming rapidly archaic.    The applicable policy is WP:COMMONNAME which says to use "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources".  Now, abortion is not just a medical topic, but a social sciences, anthropolological, and moral/religious one.  There are certainly other medical articles which follow the eponymous name, rather than the formal construct (Down syndrome for instance), and of course miscarriage is at the informal term, rather than something more medicalised.


 * So, the policy says that the article title should be recognisable (check, as above), natural (again, certainly the media used definition), precise (again, with sources agreeing, seems to be the case, espeically with strong DAB to miscarriage), concise (yes, definately the concise term), and consistent (seems to match things like miscarriage). OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha! Actually are? Stop confusing sterile/legal medical consensus with reality. Abortions can/are done on viable fetuses, the rarity, extenuating circumstances, even specialized procedure labels, doesn't negate it. At least Owain is focused on defining what they actually are. - RoyBoy 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

While if you want I can come up with the version I feel is best. You can come up with the version you feel is best. We can than present it to the community through a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your desire to jump straight to RfC rather than discuss here is perverse. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you would of course prefer to attempt to edit war the content into place without consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I would prefer to discuss on the talk page in the first instance (which we did), rather than jump through RfC needlessly. I know this is your tactic of first resort, and by no means the only article you've done it to, and it principally seems to be a tactic to get your own way through blocking. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is strange. So many editors do not want further opinions on what they are trying to do. Anyway there are a number of us who oppose the attempt to combine the technical and lay definitions as it cannot be done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Map
I think, needs a separate color for jurisdictions where abortion can be mandatory. For instance, in China mandatory abortions are sometimes incorporated as part of a population control program. Any thoughts on this? Pass a Method talk  22:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that the map currently has a very good gradient of legality, and state-sanctioned coerced or forced abortion is not on a gradient with abortion availability on demand.  For example, it has historically coexisted with both legal abortion (China) and illegal abortion (Nazi Germany).
 * I'm also curious, what countries other than China would fall into this category? Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidence - use of single country figures, and quality of source
The "incidence" section of this article talks about abortion worldwide (as the article does in general). In this edit, User talk:BillMoyers added information about the incidence in the United States from a 2013 article in New York magazine.

I reverted this, suggesting in my edit summary that we should not include single-country data, and suggested the user raise it here. Bill reverted my revert, arguing in his edit summary that other individual countries are named in the section, and suggested that I be the one to raise it here. So I have.

I have three objections to the edit. First, it includes incidence in an individual country. The only reason other countries are named is in the context of outlining the range of incidences. The actual incidence in any particular state is not relevant per se and is not included except for this purpose. Second, the text is misleading. It states "This report was partially updated with statistics from the United States reported in the 18 November 2013 issue of New York magazine..." This glossy magazine cannot possibly "update" figures from a refereed medical journal. Third, NY magazine canot be considered a credible source for statistics, least of all when it does not cite where it got them from (and this article does not). Given the one-revert sanction in effect here, can another editor/s please express a view here ASAP and revert if that is consensus? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Hamilton, Your recent comment has placed two questions concerning the new edit which are, first, the verifiability of the source of the citation, and, second, that data on single countries is not important to this wikipage. On the latter issue, as already indicated, there are multiple examples of statistics on individual nations in this subsection (Germany, Estonia, Swiss) as well as throughout this wikipage, whenever such data provides a norm informing the discussion of the issue of global statistics. Whenever data of individual nations informs the discussion of the global question, then it has been and should continue to be included within this wikipage. On the issue of the verifiability of New York magazine, this is an established weekly magazine which covers national politics and regional events, including interviews with leading national political figures. No editor at Wikipedia is supposed to question or impugn a reputable author from an established magazine for not being "credible". This is a living author who is responsible to her magazine Editors and whose reputation depends on accuracy. Unless you have a citation which contradicts her, no editor at Wikipedia can ignore published data from established sources because of personal preferences. The current edit is notable and reposted according to the request of another editor to alter the wording. BillMoyers (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Magazine is not an appropriate reference. I am sure the United States Government is not releasing results initially in the "New York magazine" as implied. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And if as written "This report was updated" then why are we not using the updated report? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit is misleading in several ways: (1) The report from the Lancet was not updated by New York magazine, (2) the title supplied in the cite is incorrect (most likely because the actual source used is National Right to Life's website), and (3) it's just an excuse the get "abortion is murder" into the article. The edit should be removed with prejudice (i.e., kill it with fire). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Jmh649, There is a distinction being made between sources for demographic statistics as originating both in medical journals and in social science journals. If you have a citation from a medical journal to either support or dismiss the edit, then there is no reason not to post it. For WP:Medrs there is no difficulty deferring to a medical journal citation if you have one. In the absence of such a citation, then the statistics from an established political source (New York magazine is strongly established in the United States for over ten years) reporting social demographics is acceptable from a reliable source. The new edit is notable as it tells us that for a broad demographic cross-section (the United States in this case), that a planned pregnancy is twice as likely to come to term than one which is unplanned. Certainly notable, and the edit should be re-edited for reposting. BillMoyers (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While New York magazine is in general a decent source, I don't think it's particularly appropriate as the main source for these sorts of epidemiological statistics. Separately, as others have noted, the text seems to give undue weight to a fairly local and obscure point, and seems out of place in the more general context of the paragraph. MastCell Talk 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Article reinstatement push
I've been reviewing the Good Article delisting of January 2008 (article at time of instatement:[], delisting:[]). The most consistent reason for delisting was failures of WP:LEAD.

I would like to discuss two things:

1. What could be done to move this article towards reinstatement as a good article? The three concerns at the time of delisting were: - The lead. I feel that the lead, ignoring the opening line, is improved with respect to being concise and reflecting the content of the article. I think it could be improved a little more, and have a draft that I'll propose once I see how people like my first paragraph. The first paragraph of the lead has been under constant debate for a decade, but was the same at the time of listing as at the time of delisting. - NPOV. At the time, this focused on removal of the sections covering speculation of negative health consequences of abortion. Former versions of the article had more discussion of breast cancer, depression, and fetal pain (all with the same accurate conclusion of: the evidence does not support this). - non-neutrality of sources. An article was cited that had an NYTimes article on failed disclosures of authors, but was included without comment. I have not found which article this was.

It has been almost six years since the delisting and the problems may be different. I think it's time for a serious push to re-achieve good article status. What steps do people think are necessary?

2. How can we improve discussion long-term?

This may sound like a crazy idea, but can we have a talk sub-page that is devoted entirely to lede debates? Or archive them separately, somehow? There are a lot of them, and I think it diverts a lot of time and energy from other improvements and maintenance. Having it interspersed with other debates makes it more difficult to search through archives for them.

Other suggestions for how to improve stability and discussion long-term are welcome.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about a separate subpage for lede debates but archiving them separately is a good idea in principle. How easy is i to do this? I agree that it's now a (pretty) good article but I don't know how to go about getting it relisted. The current lede has been stable for about 2 years. Since the lede is always the issue here, changing it then asking for a relisting might not be well received until others see it being stable as editors not involved in the current discussions drop by. JJL (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In terms of what needs to be done (mapped against the FA criteria):
 * well written - The writing isn't too bad, but could do with a single copy editor reviewing (after everything else is done) to give it consistent tone and phraseology. There are a couple of glaring aspects of poor writing and structure, notably for me around the incidence and motivation section, where the hierarchy is confused with maternal and fetal health not being a subset of 'motivation'.  There is also a split of information that belongs together between the legal and motivation sections.
 * comprehensive - I think there are things missing here, even if they are only discussed in order to debunk or close them off. One example of something that isn't mentioned is selective abortion, and i appreciate the varying thoughts around this, but we do need to make sure things like this are mentioned, even if only in brief with a link to a main article.  I think the motivation section is missing some elements, although this may be beacuse of the way it is written.
 * well researched - this seems to be good, as a lot of the effort has gone in to finding suitable citations
 * netural - reasonable on this front, although things such as the pre/post viability debate are not necessarily neutral
 * stable - the important caveat here is "except in response to the FA process" - this means that we can do a push to FA status with multiple edits. The concern is more around edit warring.
 * good lead - in progress above
 * appropriate structure - as noted above, some of the sections are not put together very well within a hierarchy, particularly the incidence and motivation section
 * consistent citations - yep, think this is ok
 * media - for this, we are a bit light on images, and i don't think this is a green light to the type of shock images some people want to see, but a greater use of diagrams, illustrative graphs etc. would probably benefit the article
 * length - the length is reasonable, with good use of daughter articles.

I think it is achieveable. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are 3 subpages, starting at 2006 cataloging lead discussions and consensus re-building. I'm curious who removed the links from here? Someone should create a 2012-14 page. - RoyBoy 04:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and Talk:Abortion/Lead image. - RoyBoy 06:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I found it! [|Here] is the edit where Chris Gualtieri set up Miszabot to malfunction. After that, the infobox never recovered.

Fixed now. I feel so good. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sweeeet! Thanks Triacylglyceride! - RoyBoy 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

BMJ clinical review
Here's a good recent review article in the BMJ. The UK perspective is slightly different from the US:

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.f7553 Clinical Review Abortion BMJ 2014; 348 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7553 (Published 6 January 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:f7553 Patricia A Lohr, medical director1, Mary Fjerstad, director of medical affairs and pharmacovigilance2, Upeka DeSilva, independent consultant3, Richard Lyus, surgeon1 --Nbauman (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

spontaneous abortion?..
The term spontaneous abortion?... is it needed? I mean it kind of makes the lead in confusing.. after all what's the difference between a spontaneous abortion and a miscarriage?.. and is a birth a spontaneous abortion? It's inclusion here is very confusing.. I mean if I wanted to do research on spontaneous abortions surely I would be better served on a page about miscarriage... I've never heard the term spontaneous abortion until today but the way this article reads the term is just as common for miscarriage.. has anyone here known of a woman who had a miscarriage and stated they had a spontaneous abortion? It just seems weird to have a whole section on miscarriages in an article about a medical practice... it would be like calling the act of vomiting as a spontaneous stomach pump... Nickmxp (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be "like" that if that was a term used in piles of scholarly literature for vomiting. But that's not the case. I really don't see the problem here; it says right in the first paragraph that the term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy and follows it up with two paragraphs and almost the entire rest of the article about induced abortion. Did you really come here looking for induced abortion and think you'd somehow got the wrong page? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, "spontaneous abortion" is a fairly common term for a miscarriage in medical jargon in some parts of the world. Remember that this is a global article, and not just about how the language is used in one part of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * but this is an English article and while I am inclined to agree that the term is used in medical jargon I'm pretty sure there is enough usage of the word miscarriage to render it's usage as fringe.. my whole point is that if I was a medical jargon using kind of guy and wanted to learn about spontaneous abortion I would rather be redirected to the miscarriage page... of course if I wanted to learn about a medical procedure known as abortion.. this information would just be distracting... Nickmxp (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If we replaced the word spontaneous abortion with the term miscarriage it would seem this information isn't relevant to the article... it's only correlation to the topic at hand is it contains the same letters... Nickmxp (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to what your concern really is. Firstly, I was only talking about English language usage. And secondly, do you want no mention at all of miscarriages OR spontaneous abortions in this article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Spontaneous abortion" is the correct medical term for a pregnancy spontaneously ending in the first 3 months. That is the term doctors will put in one's medical records, and use to discuss it. It's not by any means "fringe". Miscarriage refers to a pregnancy spontaneously ending in the second trimester. Colloquially, many people refer to the end of a pregnancy as a "miscarriage" no matter when it happens, but that doesn't make it correct, and it's not the medically appropriate term. That you've never head the term before just means you don't know anything about this topic, so this might not be a good entry for you to be editing. If a person wants to do research on spontaneous abortion, then they are best served by reading a page that provides correct information about spontaneous abortion, not a page about the wrong term. As it is, the argument you're making here is that we remove the medically appropriate term so that the article repeats your own lack of understanding instead. That is not a good attitude for a Wikipedia editor to have. Here, we strive to include the correct information rather than bringing others down to one's own level of ignorance. Nor do we use a poll to determine the correct answer to questions here--we use verifiable facts.QuizzicalBee (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * my concern is that this article is about abortions.. yet the types of abortions sections has more information on spontaneous abortions than actual abortions.. then the rest of the article talks about regular abortions.. the spontaneous abortion section seems off topic... especially with the other subsections... i mean what are the motivations for a spontaneous abortion? .... I think the term spontaneous abortion and associated section would better serve the miscarriage article and poorly serves this one... sure they share the same word but these are two different topics... it doesn't take a medical degree to recognize that.  Nickmxp (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * according to the first section of this talk page.. one of the biggest problems found with this page was thel lead... i was just trying to make a suggestion to improve the lead... Nickmxp (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the final two posts in that thread about the lead are "Fixed now. I feel so good" and "Sweeeet! Thanks", I don't think there's an ongoing problem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * These are common misperceptions. If you read the lead you will notice a key term "before viability". So if the fetus is lost before this time it is know as an abortion (if happens without intervention it is spontaneous, if with intervention it is induced). If the loss occurs after viability it is not technically an abortion. If the loss results in a live baby it is a delivery. If the loss is non induced and the fetus is dead it is a still birth. Anyway all well discussed in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * well then why do we have an article on miscarriages? and why is the only information about spontanous abortions used in the types of abortion section? shouldn't more information on spontaneous abortions be included here or have the miscarriage page merged with this one? That is why the term seems off topic... it's given prominence in the lead and types of abortion sections but then ignored in the rest of the article... the article starts off like it's gonna discuss both types but then only focuses on one... it's off topic... the topic being covered is about the history, social/legal impact, and different procedures of abortion... again.. two seperate topics... it would make more since without the other subsections but then would read like a dictionary rather than enclopedia... but with all subsections that are enclopedic in nature are discussing the topic rather than the term.. it would seem the main sections should also reflect the topic over the term Nickmxp (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ec)) "it would seem the main sections should also reflect the topic over the term" - As they do. Can we close this thread now? This user is clearly not interested in making constructive changes, and this is only sucking time away from productive endeavors by other users. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}It's commonly mentioned in scholarly work on abortion. About 1/3 conceptions end in spontaneous abortions. It's important in determining rates of abortion of distinguishing naturally occurring abortions from induced ones. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As you noted it is important to distinguish the two.. since this article focuses primarily one one it would be better to just simply state that for information on a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage go to this page.. but have no worries I wasn't intending to make any changes... just offer a suggestion.. given the evaluations to my intelligence and calls of ignorance for said discussion... I apologize in advance to anyone that my suggestion offended.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "my concern is that this article is about abortions.. yet the types of abortions sections has more information on spontaneous abortions than actual abortions."
 * I think the confusion here is that you believe that spontaneous abortions are not a type of abortion and that the word "abortion" only refers to induced abortions. While this may be true in common parlance, it is not strictly accurate. Unfortunately, since the terminology is used inconsistently, there is no "correct" solution that will make everyone happy. We just have to explain the various uses of the term and hope that it isn't overly confusing. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, in my country at least, medical statistics do not differentiate between different kinds of abortion. Any official count of the number of abortions that have occurred includes both kinds. That has the side effect of somewhat weakening the numerical claims of anti-abortion campaigners. Unfortunately, some show no concern about (mis)using the total figure, and even worse, these meaningless figures obviously become part of global figures used by anti-abortion campaigners elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * my suggestion was based on the observation that this article is about induced abortions...making the section on spontaneous abortions irrelevant... for analogy, imagine having an article about suicide bombing ... the whole article talks about people who strap bombs to their chest.. but the article makes a distinction about suicide bombing and kamikazi pilots in a types of suicide bombing section .... the section on kamikazi pilots would be considered off topic...because the remainder of the article is about a method commonly referred to as suicide bombings... if this article is about all types of abortions it would seem their is undue weight on the topic of induced abortions, as they are less common than spontaneous abortions... of course since this article is about induced abortions the section on spontaneous abortions is undue...Nickmxp (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A careful re-read of the first sentence says that you are wrong when you say that this article is about (only) induced abortions. Note the word "expulsion". HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

after the types of abortion section what is covered on the more common spontaneous abortion in this article?Nickmxp (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

in short the lead states this article is about all types of abortion... the types of abortion section encompasses all type of abortion... the remainder of the article is purely on induced abortions.. and the infromation provided is completely incompatible with the most common type of abortion... it's only relevant to induced abortions.. .Nickmxp (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not as one-sided as you make it sound. The last section, for example, is about abortions in other-than-humans and focuses more on spontaneous abortion than on induced abortion. The issue of spont.-vs.-induced on this page has been brought forward before but there has never been consensus on a good way to split the article. Feel free to expand coverage of spont. abortion here if you think that's best. JJL (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

it also makes things confusing when induced abortion is not specifically designated throughout the article..there is a map of abortion laws that states it's illegal without exception in some countries.. but i'm pretty sure spontaneous abortion would be an exception...it would just seem more cohesive to have at the top of the page a statement that reads this article is about induced abortions for information on sponataneous abortions (miscarriages) go to this page...and remove the references to spontaneous abortions in the lead and types of abortion section..Nickmxp (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You refer to "the most common form of abortion". Which form is that? (Sources please.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

spontaneous abortion... according to this article... Nickmxp (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC) six out of eight sections in this article are devoted entirely to induced abortions... which this article says happen a third less often than spontaneous abortions... and the only section devoted entirely to spontaneous abortion is the last section which talks about miscarriages in other animals... Nickmxp (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article almost entirely is, and should entirely be about induced abortion, with all miscarriage information on that page, with appropriate links. I did change this with some consensus a little while back, but Doc James thinks he owns this page, and did a late revert, otherwise this confusion will always arise.  I haven't been on much since then due to bgeing busy IRL, but still intend to come back and gain the consensus to stop this unhelpful structuring. OwainDavies {{sup|(about)}}{{sub|(talk)}} edited at 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's to be exclusively about induced abortions, the article title must change. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? If you clear up the ambiguity at the beginning it shouldn't be an issue... as it stands right now the word abortion is mentioned 470 times in this article and only specified as induced 64 times and spontaneous 28 times... leaving the other 368 mentions of the word ambiguous...if this article was purely on induced abortions the term "Abortion" would be understood as induced.... When the topic is about an expulsion of a fetus and the sub topics are about a specific form of explusion then the distinction must be made... since the spontanous abortion is rarely mentioned in this article and incompatable with topics that mention only the term abortion...it would seem better to let the miscarraige article talk about spontaneous abortion and let this article talk about induced abortions... Given that induced abortions are less common than spontaneous abortions.. if this was an article about abortion in general it would have given induced abortion undue wieght in relation to other forms of abortion... I would also suggest (if it hasn't been done already) that a search for spontaneous abortion redirects to the miscarriage article... else we would need a spin off article on induced abortions and trim this one down dramatically to give each type of abortion it's due weight... or expand this one dramatically to give the more common spontaneous abortion it's due wieght.. personaly i think it would be better to remove the section and a half on spontaneous abortion and then due wieght isn't an issue.Nickmxp (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't change per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both those comments are based on a position of ignorance. Not a good position for a serious encyclopaedia to take. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignorance of what? it should be noted that Ad hominem is not a good position for a counter argument to take.. This article is so unduly weighted towards induced abortions it would be reasonable to remove the small segments on spontaneous abortions and redirect to miscarriage for information on that subject... even the lead states that the term abortion most commonly refers to induced abortions, so the rational for making this a page about induced abortions is already stated in the article.Nickmxp (talk)


 * There is absolutely no Ad hominem there. You saying that there is is closer to an attack on me. Ignorance is a state of not knowing something, and for Wikipedia to act as if "abortion" means only "induced abortion" would be supporting ignorance rather than knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

my suggestion was to redirect spontaneous abortion to the miscarriage page.. that's not acting as if abortion only means induced.. in fact i also suggested the article clarify it's topic is on induced abortions... encyclopedia are based on topics, not terms. As stated in this article the term abortion commonly refers to induced abortion...and the reader shouldn't be ignorant of that fact... I don't see how this article would better serve someone looking into spontaneous abortions than the miscarriage article would.. which should also state that a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion... in other words it would promote the focus on knowledge of the topic being searched for... an article on spontaneous abortions commonly refered to as miscarriage and an article on induced abortions which are commonly referred to as abortions.... again this article has way too much information on induced abortions to be called an article of general abortions,,, and I don't think that trimming the article to give each type of abortion it's due weight is the best course of action... an article on pipes doesn't have to be all inclusive.. it could have a seperate article on tobbacco pipes for example... it wouldn't be a play on ignorance.. it would just be a topic focus based on commonality of terms used...Nickmxp (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You will have to work hard to convince me that "the term abortion commonly refers to induced abortion." Perhaps it does to those primarily involved in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but not everywhere. And by everywhere I mean the whole world, or at least the English speaking part of it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the definitions . It is clear that the most common understanding of the term "abortion" is "induced abortion".  People don't post on Facebook that "my baby was aborted" when they had a miscarriage.  Please demonstrate that it is not used in a similar manner elsewhere in the world.
 * That said, I am neither supporting nor opposing Nickmxp's suggestion. HiLo48's comments are simply combative and obstructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Facebook? LOL. We have to to better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE states the term is primarily used to describe induced abortions... in the very first paragraph....Nickmxp (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So why not go for complete clarity and use "Induced abortion" as the title? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

you could but it's not neccessary... when the term abortion is used by itself it is generally considered induced... a spontaneous abortion is generally not an understood type... if someone said they had an abortion.. i don't think the assumption would be a spontaneous abortion occurred... it's understood as induced when not specified..Nickmxp (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Where? And by whom? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I showed you the dictionary entry. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Google the term abortion -induced -spontaneous and you will see a plethora of article that when using the term without a modifier in front of it are articles about induced abortions... Nickmxp (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Googling something is by no means a valid source. You need to study up on Wikipedia policies and procedures. You need to find valid sources. Not only are google search results not a valid source in and of themselves, but it's frankly poor performance for you to not even bother to actually find any medical or scientific sources that support what you said, but rather just to say that it's somewhere on google and other people can just look it up. That's no better than saying that people you know have said something, therefore it's true... which is a technique you tried earlier, and that was rejected.QuizzicalBee (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I'm doing this but...
 * Dictionaries' first definition is always induced abortion (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
 * The WHO, NIH, CDC, and UN (to name a few) refer to induced abortion as "abortion" (WHO, NIH, CDC, UN).
 * Pro-life (1, 2, 3) and pro-choice (1, 2, 3) groups both acknowledge that "abortion" typically refers to induced abortion.
 * News media outlets use "abortion" when referring to induced abortion (ABCNews, Washington Post, Reuters, USA Today, Fox News, BBC, AP, NYTimes, and NPR).
 * There is a whole article about how it's defined (Definitions of abortion)
 * Now please, stop. Nickmxp's initial issue was valid, or at least worth bringing up.  But some editors derailed this and refused to get the point.  It was common sense that "abortion" refers generically and primarily to induced abortion and now I've spelled it out for you.  Per the dictionary definitions it makes sense that we have at least a hat note for miscarriage/spontaneous abortion if not a section for it on the page.  But using WP:COMMON, it makes perfect sense that this article is primarily about induced abortion.  This horse is now a bloody pulp. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm on a cell phone... copying and pasting links is not an easy task... I figured since this was a talk page and apparently the argument that this article states abortion commonly refers to induced abortions wasn't good enough I figured it would be more helpful for those interested to see that the majority of writings posted on the internet that use the term abortion as induced abortion unless they specify spontaneous... I've pointed out how in this article when the term abortion is used without specifying induced is incompatible... but there is an insistence that abortion is more commonly used to describe all types rather than one... which is patently false... according to the miscarriage page there is even a push in the medical field to go to the word miscarriage,it apparently helps relieve the stress of patients when it is referred to as miscarriage... I'm now curious is there a counter argument of actual substance that the claim made by this article and many other articles that the unspecified term abortion commonly refers to induced abortions... Nickmxp (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anger is not an effective discussion tactic. Sadly, this thread began with some editors not even knowing what spontaneous abortion is. Now they're trying to justify their ignorance. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at this from the perspective that this article is about abortion in general.. what does the motivation section have to do with abortion in general? What does the abortion debate have to do with abortion in general? What do abortion laws have to do with abortion in general? If the topic of this article is about abortion in general then these and a few other sections need to be removed and merged into an article about induced abortion... would they not? Nickmxp (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are a few issues being intertwined here. The primary question is whether this article should solely be about induced abortion, which I believe it should, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and all the references EvergreenFir identified above, with a strong DAB at the top, as was previously proposed.  Once we settle that, then we can look at naming conventions etc. OwainDavies {{sup|(about)}}{{sub|(talk)}} edited at 11:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would feel a lot better about these proposals if those who had never heard of spontaneous abortion at the beginning stopped acting defensively, apologised for their initial ignorance, thanked those who had educated them, and THEN said "OK, given the broader true definition than I originally realised, here is some real evidence that "induced abortion" is the most common meaning everywhere in the world." HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The difficulty here is that by accepting an AmEng COMMONNAME as justification to co-opt the name "abortion" for the narrower-scope article on the sub-topic of induced abortion in humans, one artificially creates a nomenclature gap, with no suitable name left for the broader-scope article. This is why wikipedia has, and uses, wp:HATNOTEs and wp:Disambiguation pages. However, @HiLo, I'd suggest abandoning any idea that people should apologize "for their initial ignorance". We all start out that way on every topic: it isn't something to apologize for, it's best to simply accept that they've learned and move on. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|LeadSongDog}} From what I could tell, "abortion" is used to refer to induced abortion in British English as well. Is it not used that way in other forms of English?  I agree we should take a global perspective, but from what I could tell it is the COMMONNAME in most forms of English.  If it's not, then def. need some hatnotes or something. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not knowing something is nothing to be ashamed of... just as it is not a good base for a counter arguement... in civil disagreement it's often better to focus on the idea being presented than the presenter of the idea.. . as for a sutible name for a broader scope article i would suggest "pregnancy termination" which could focus purely on the general aspects of all types of abortions... I think the name Abortion is best suited here because to the average reader the unmodified term "abortion" is understood as induced and it's non medical prevelance in society ought to justify it's use  as meaing induced... Society created the understood term abortion as meaning an induced abortion... who are we to fight that? I think it would be more encyclopedic to reflect it... espescially when the scope of information we present to the reader on the topic of abortion isn't limited to the field of medicine...Nickmxp (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I should rephrase my criticisms. Not knowing something is not inherently a problem. But certainty and arrogance associated with that ignorance is. Now, what we're left with is a lot of declarations that the induced abortion meaning is by far the most common, but no formal evidence, (Google hits don't count as evidence, especially with more than single word terms.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did my large list count for nothing? This is a clear case of WP:IDHT.  Please stop.  This is getting out of hand. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What criteria would be satisfactory to show commonality? this article lists abortion over 300 times in relation to induced abortions without using the prefix. In the Legal field field the term Abortion is also used in the manner... news groups also rarely specify induced abortion in reporting... is there any evidence outside the medical field that abortion is commonly used to refer to both induced and spontaneous abortions? even the world health organization released a book called "The clinical practical handbook for safe abortions"... .... the google suggestion wasn't to count results returned but a way for you to peruse documents that use the word abortion without any prefix in order to show that it is commonly used to describe induced abortions without using the word "induced"... what would be considered a good source for the commonality of the context of a word?Nickmxp (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}This is a rambling discussion with no apparent goal except to express anger at the topic. If somebody wants to change the title of this article, start a WP:Requested move, though you should know past requests did not work, and nothing has changed in the interim. If somebody wants to change the focus of this article, start a WP:Request for comment, one with a clearly stated question, with at least two clearly stated options from which to choose. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

that sounds reasonable.. I posted a RFC but didn't include two choices for fear that would created a false choice dilemma... of course if that isn't kosher i welcome anyone to add a second option...Nickmxp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also curious if anyone can explain the rationale behind this article's Table of Contents in the sense of general abortion? Admittedly I could be missing something but I would like to know what that something is...

Contents 1 Types (induced and spontaneous)
 * 1.1 Induced (induced)
 * 1.2 Spontaneous (sponataneous)

2 Methods (induced)
 * 2.1 Medical (induced)
 * 2.2 Surgical (induced)
 * 2.3 Other methods (induced)

3 Safety (induced)
 * 3.1 Unsafe abortion (induced)

4 Incidence (induced)
 * 4.1 Gestational age and method (Induced)

5 Motivation (induced)
 * 5.1 Personal (induced)
 * 5.2 Societal (induced)
 * 5.3 Maternal and fetal health (induced)
 * 5.3.1 Cancer (induced)

6 History (induced)

7 Society and culture (induced)
 * 7.1 Abortion debate (induced)
 * 7.2 Modern abortion law (induced)
 * 7.3 Sex-selective abortion (induced)
 * 7.4 Anti-abortion violence (induced)
 * 7.5 Art, literature and film (induced)

8 Other animals (spontaneous)

Nickmxp (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Admitting that I have not read ALL the comments above, I can't see that the most logical (to me) solution has yet been suggested.
 * I submit that we need three abortion articles. First a relatively short "parent" article called Abortion. Then two forks where the "other animals" section of course goes in the Abortion (spontaneous) article.  The other fork is called Abortion (induced).
 * --Hordaland (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be noted there is already an article on the spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) which links to the page if the reader types in spontaneous Abortion. the rationale for leaving this as just abortion would be that commonality of the term has been established in the article to refer to induced abortions and commonality of the term miscarriage has been leading readers to information on spontaneous abortions already... we essentially have two forks already... we just need to recognize the  abortion article's true scope to formalize it...as for a page on both types of abortions I would suggest an article on pregnancy terminations which would take the sections topic from this page and can be a place both articles to mention for information and statistics on both situations combined...statistic is also a pressing issue with this article.. if the reader wants stastics on induced abortions they could go here and if they want statistics pregnancy terminations in general there would be a page as well...Nickmxp (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I neglected to consider the article Miscarriage, sorry 'bout that.  I agree that miscarriage is the most common word used for spontaneous abortion, at least in the USA.
 * I can't see a need for an article called Pregnancy termination; that would just mean the same as abortion. That would lead to discussion of the commonly understood meaning of that term.
 * So let me rephrase my suggestion:
 * I submit that we need three abortion articles. First a relatively short "parent" article called Abortion. Then two forks named  Miscarriage and Abortion (induced).  --Hordaland (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest Abortion (General)... Leaving the abortion and miscarraige articles under the same name.. and giving a link to Abortion (general) one both pages... I feel that most people who would type in abortion on a wikipedia search will be looking for information regarding induced abortions more often than abortions in general.. and of course if they are looking for abortion in general then there will be a proper link with the common name rationale for the current name of the article.. It should satisfy a continuing cohesion of the broad topic of abortionNickmxp (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

concerning the term abortion... to say it is a term to describe both induced and spontaneous abortion.. that only appears to be true from a medical perspective... from a legal perspective the term is understood to mean an induced abortion, from a philosphical perspective it means induced, from the perspective of media it means induced... It's is degrading to the scope of wikipedia to limit the term with just one aspect...but in my humble opinion wikipedia not a medical encyclopedia, it's a community built encyclopedia... okay I've said to much on this topic...like I said at the start (although I think it's a good one) it's still only a suggestion... Nickmxp (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

US Poll
Given the 1RR on this article, I felt I should give my rationale for my revert (see this edit). I re-added it as it seems relevant and in the appropriate section of the article. The source isn't the best, but it does accurately summarize the findings from the primary source (I checked). Moreover, the polling is decent; decent sampling methods at least. The questions seemed okay too at first glance. It is about the US, but there's nothing keeping us from adding more about public opinion from other surveys or in other countries. I think it should be kept and improved instead of removed. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, the appropriate place for public-opinion polls is at abortion debate, or (for US polls) possibly at abortion in the United States. There are dozens of public-opinion polls on abortion every year in the US alone - most of them by actual reputable polling organizations - and it would swamp the article to cite them all, to say nothing of polls conducted yearly in other countries. I think this level of detail belongs in sub-articles. Separately, these aren't good sources - the Washington Examiner is a partisan paper without a strong reputation for journalism, and the poll was conducted by the Knights of Columbus - a Catholic pro-life advocacy group without any background in polling or public-policy research. Citing this poll alone is a severe violation of WP:WEIGHT, and I don't think the response of "just cite some more polls" makes sense since that level of detail belongs in the relevant sub-articles. MastCell Talk 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know KoC are bias, but the survey group was independent from what I can tell. But I agree those other articles do sound like better places in retrospect.  Will self-revert.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Evergreen. I agree with Mastcell's points. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Initially, I was right there with EvergreenFir and we shared similar arguments but after discussing the issue at hand with MastCell, he/she made a number of good points and the content deserves to be placed in a sub-article. Is anyone going to add it in? Meatsgains (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummmh . . . it is a Knights of Columbus Poll only because that organization sponsored it. The polling itself, however, was done by the Marist Institute of Public Opinion which, as all of us should know (or have found out), is a very well known and highly respected polling organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Country-specific text
This article is about abortion, not abortion in the United States. Text that is relatively detailed and country-specific keeps getting added to this article from time to time. The most recent example is this (which I have just removed - it was also in the wrong section of the article in any case): The abortion rate in the United States dropped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure. According to a new study performed by Guttmacher Institute, long-acting contraceptive methods are having a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. According to a paper published in 2011 by Guttmacher Institute, there were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. That is a 13 percent decrease from 2008's numbers and slightly higher that the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. The study, released 3 February 2014, showed "after a plateau from 2005 to 2008, the long-term decline in the abortion rate has resumed. The rate has dropped significantly from its all-time high in 1981, when there were roughly 30 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. The overall number of abortions also fell 13 percent from 2008 to nearly 1.1 million in 2011." The report is expected to be publish in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. In a different study conducted in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the results were very similar; they found a decline in abortion rates after the plateau from 2005 to 2008. I don't doubt editors' good intentions, but we must keep the article focussed on its subject and not get weighed down in undue detail on particular points. Happy to discuss here. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * U|Hamiltonstone, I completely agree with what you are saying and I do not have a problem with your removal of my recently added text. The content I added belongs on the Abortion in the United States page. However, if we are going to keep the article focussed on its subject, "a global perspective on abortion," then wouldn't you agree we need to remain consistent throughout the whole article? There are multiple times when the US is referenced when we are trying to stay away from country-specific content. Below are a couple examples.
 * In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).
 * The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the US during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.
 * In the US, abortion was more dangerous than childbirth until about 1930 when incremental improvements in abortion procedures relative to childbirth made abortion safer. By 1930, medical procedures in the US had improved for both childbirth and abortion but not equally, and induced abortion in the first trimester had become safer than childbirth. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade acknowledged that abortion in the first trimester was safer than childbirth.
 * This is well-reseached and credible information that deserves to be on Wikipedia but I'm not sure if this article is the place for it. We can't be selective with what we allow and what we don't allow on the page - we need to be consistent. Let me hear you thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to say something about the safety of induced abortion in the lead, per WP:LEAD, and these are the most relevant sources I've found. (If there are better or more global ones, or if you have other suggestions for how to present information on the safety of abortion concisely in the lead, then please feel free to present them). I think that a single sentence is probably reasonable on abortion incidence in the US (as opposed to the detail-laden paragraph above), but I also think that there are good sources describing global trends in abortion incidence which would be more appropriate for this article. MastCell Talk 17:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do talk about safety, then we need to distinguish between abortions performed by medical professionals and those not performed by medical professionals, since so many are not performed by medical professionals when abortion is illegal. It will be misleading to just say that abortion is safer than childbirth because it will imply that any abortion is safer, when in fact abortion as performed outside the law is quite dangerous.QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Fortunately, the article mentions this distinction both in the lead ("Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[1] However, unsafe abortions result in approximately 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million hospital admissions per year globally.") and at greater length in the body (see Abortion, where the first sentence explicitly contrasts safe vs. unsafe abortion). The section Abortion further expands on this distinction. MastCell Talk 01:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just going back to Meatsgains comment above, I agree with Mastcell's response: where the only data we have is from a single country, we should include it if it is a key type of information in relation to the subject, but replacing them once we find global or multi-country data would also be a good idea. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Annual number of deaths discrepancy
The lead currently says "However, unsafe abortions result in approximately 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million hospital admissions per year globally.[2]" while the body of the article says "Unsafe abortions are believed to result in millions of injuries[1][68] and approximately 37,100 deaths annually as of 2010,[69] accounting for 13% of all maternal deaths.[70] This is down from 56,100 deaths in 1990.,[69]"

I haven't taken a close look, but all of the sources appear to be of pretty high quality. I don't have time right now, but if one of you does, would you be able to look into why the numbers vary by almost a factor of two? NW ( Talk ) 00:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch NW. I have taken a look at those sources that I can fully access, including the latest WHO report on the subject, which was not included in the article. I have dropped the 2010 estimate because it comes from a very broad study of all causes of mortality globally - i have favoured reports that specialise in this specific topic. I then revised the figure in the lead, to the one from WHO's latest report, and which apparently reflects a new methodology underpinning the estimates.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The GBD is one of the largest epidemiological efforts ever. Have updated the lead with a 2014 review from the BMJ. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Question of Viability
I know this was discussed before so I'll explain myself differently. When discussing the topic of abortion we must take the whole world into consideration and look into what laws are in effect and what is actually practiced in all countries. The lead of this article states abortion is performed before viability (set at the 28th week) but is that always the case all over the world? Fetuses born prior to the 28th week may, in many occasions, survive. You may argue they may only survive with medical assistance but fetuses born at the 28th week or even the 30th week would need such medical assistance too. Israell (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of 'viability' here is actually from medical texts--it's the overwhelmingly most common medical defn. of abortion, and is indeed used worldwide. Legal standards on when abortion may be performed (if at all) do indeed vary, but the medical defn. is quite well accepted. Note that the lead itself says nothing about 28 weeks, and the number given is usually around 24 weeks (and/or a certain weight) for viability as a purely medical matter. See Fetal viability. JJL (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How then is the term used when applied to late-term abortions or 3rd trimester abortions? Many of the refs in the note make no mention of viability in the definition. It appears that an exclusive vs. inclusive definition was chosen for the lede.Mirboj (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this article focus on the term abortion to mean induced abortion?
Given the main focus of content in the article is primarily related to induced abortions rather than abortions in general (sponatneous abortion) and covering many topics incompatible with spontaneous abortion from issues outside the field of medicine... Should the two subsections on sponatneous abortion be removed and have a redirect on miscarriage placed for information regarding sponatenous abortions?Nickmxp (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose suggested change The article is well balanced the way it is. We need to deal with the different aspects of a term here as it puts the topic into context. We follow the lead of the best available sources which we currently do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support- I feel in terms of style this article is primarily about induced abortions, if the topic is to be all encompassing on the aspects of abortion in the general sense then undue weight is being given on the issue of induced abortions. of course the problem at the moment is that this article is primarily about induced abortions (and rightfully so given that the term "abortion" when unspecified is understood to mean an induced abortion in many areas outside the field of medicine that are covered in this article) and this topic structure makes the subsection and a half that refers to spontaneous abortion undue...Nickmxp (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Very weak oppose - I see the value in both, but I feel the article is fine the way it is. A few section could use "see also", but otherwise it seems well balanced.  The bulk of the article is clearly induced abortion, reflecting the general use of the term "abortion" I noted in the previous section. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This request exists because until a few days ago some editors had not heard of "spontaneous abortion", so they need to believe it's uncommon globally, and not just in the circles they move in. "Spontaneous abortion" is a very real thing and very real language. It's not just medical jargon. (I'm no medico, and I'm familiar with it!) Removing it from this article is dumbing down the encyclopaedia. I will never support that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see any problem that needs fixing. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is nice and balanced now. The Banner talk 00:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't care. Fix either the scope or the title, but they should be the same. If someone can suggest another way to do so, please do. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did just suggest another way to do it, at the end of the section just above:
 * I submit that we need three abortion articles. First a relatively short "parent" article called Abortion. Then two forks:  Abortion (spontaneous) Miscarriage  and Abortion (induced).  --Hordaland (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence my use of "another" way. I'd prefer the standard wp approach of a disambiguation page for the ambiguous term, then unambiguous pages "Miscarriage", "Induced abortion", etc. each with a hat note "This article is about the spontaneous/induced termination of pregnancy. For other uses please see Abortion (disambiguation)". But I'm looking for whatever can be made to work. LeadSongDog come howl!  01:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this particular way of addressing the issue. Neither form of abortion is less a form of it than the other. A split is reasonable but I'd prefer a brief main article followed by two split-out articles...assuming the main article could be kept brief, which concerns me. JJL (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unreasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Suitable starting point? Abortion (General). Nickmxp (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The distinction is an important one and needs to be made clear to people. We should not be dumbing down articles so that they reflect a misunderstanding. They should be providing the correct information.QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Spontaneous abortion is already covered under miscarriage and strong disambiguation in the lede would help people find the right article. This hasn't come about because of people having not heard of spontaneous abortion, it comes about because the articles should reflect what people are looking for information on.  Happy with the three way split (although it seems clumsy).  This isn't about dumbing down, or creating misunderstanding, but there are two distinct concepts - induced abortion is very different to spontaneous abortion, and each has clear scope for its own article.  Conflating two ideas in one article does not do service to either concept. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article currently seems seems well-balanced, neutral, and clear.  I don't see any strong evidence of undue coverage or fringe usage of the term.  It looks fine as-is, though certain aspects could conceivably be spun off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope this doesnt come off as defensive but...can anyone here list one fact about abortion in general that is in this article? That is a fact, about neither induced nor spontaneous abortions, but abortions in general ...as for evidence of fringe use, I ask how many times does the article mention the word abortion without specifying induced in the context of general abortions.. as for evidence of primarily a medical term I'll again point to this article's own exhaustive list of definitions for the term abortion which shows that most medical encyclopedias and dictionaries define it one way and most non medical encyclopedia and dictionaries define it another way...as for undue coverage, spontaneous abortions in humans don't even have a section ...this is a pretty well balanced article on induced abortions and that is the rationale for this suggestion...Nickmxp (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , OPPOSE Oppose. I have spent many hours on this article.  It is perhaps one of the most difficult WP articles of all.  I have read nothing new in this latest string of posts that would make me decide that there is a better way to handle it.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to shout. If we are to take your "OPPOSE" literally then you emphatically oppose the existing state of the article, which is focussed on induced abortion, and instead want it to change and be inclusive of spontaneous abortion. Yet your following statement would imply the reverse. Which is it? LeadSongDog  come howl!  22:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to shout and have struck the caps version. I oppose any changes at this time.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can tell you not too much time has been spent on Abortions in general in this article... where is information about complete and missed abortions? cumilative statistics on abortions in general?(doing rough math it would seem like almost half of all pregnancies end in some type of an abortion) I don't see what makes this article any different than any other article on wikipedia, It should be well sourced, nuetral and on topic... I don't think two out of three should be considered good enough...Nickmxp (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Late termination of pregnancy
It's really hard to find in the article what happens if pregnancy is over 28 weeks. At least it's better to add this sentence to the lead sentence "Late termination of pregnancy is the term usually used for later uterine evacuation." --Taranet (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't currently discuss what happens if pregnancy is less than 28 weeks so it would be WP:UNDUE to add the over 28-week discussion there. Discussion of surgical procedures at different pregnancy times is found in the methods section. Ca2james (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Taranet, I actually think is a very valuable journal article. I have added it to the (very long) first note. NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes agree adding a link to late termination of pregnancy for those that occur after viability would be useful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in lead regarding viability and abortion
Adding notes does not seem to justify using statement which can be verified by multiple reliable sources as incorrect. Abortions can and do occur post fetal viability. This needs to be corrected (and not with a note). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been extensive discussion about the wording of the lead. I suggest you search the talk page archive (search bar in the infobox at the top of this page) for "definition" or "lead".  If you don't find your answer, come back here and re-initiate conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed talk page and didn't see anything which justified use of statement which can be verified as incorrect. Honestly, having trouble even imagining any possible compelling argument for such. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age." That's a major medical dictionary, cited in the article, that is stating that definition. Now, they might be at odds with generally accepted terminology or might even be incorrect. But I think we can all agree that it's an unusually straightforward reliable source for this context. But I don't want to spend this time relitigating all of this. You might not see anything on this page, but if you go back 5-10 archives, you'll see this discussion hashed out over and over again. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:24, 18 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that a medical dictionary may have defined it that way at some point (this is clearly accurate regarding spontaneous abortion - otherwise it would be preterm birth). However, it's a simple matter to find multiple reliable sources regarding induced abortions past viability, and information regarding the legality of this, and restrictions based on fetal disability and health of mother etc. Induced abortions can and do occur post viability. It seems the reason this is being discussed "over and over again" is we should not include info on Wikipedia that can be verified as factually incorrect.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless Wikipedia considers induced pregnancy termination beyond the point of fetal viability not to be abortion, then BMC is clearly correct here. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of making up new meanings. Wikipedia should just neutrally present info. BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it should be plenty easy to come up with an adequate definition : How about: Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus for the purpose of ending its life. ? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. That would also do, I think. Yeah, the notion of having a definition of abortion that does not fit the way the word is often used (pregnancy terminations beyond the twenty-sixth week are regularly called abortions, even by physicians) is clearly unsatisfactory. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine the way it is and well supported by references. This has been discussed extensively before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And our present definition is "perfectly fine" despite its glaring flaw because . . . because . . . ?? Sounds as though you just like it? If a doctor, or a barber for that matter, terminates a 27 week old pregnancy is that an abortion or isn't it? Badmintonhist (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that is not an abortion. And our article makes this clear. As do the sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahh . . So when Doctor George Tiller, to use a well known example, was extracting fetuses or incipient human beings (take your pick) in the late second and third trimester, performing what this Slate article calls "post-viability abortions", they weren't really abortions at all. Instead they were . . . ? But, of course, Tiller was/is routinely described by his supporters, his opponents, the press, and, yes, our own Wikipedia as someone who did late term abortions. Why should we keep a definition that clearly cuts against the way abortion is commonly understood, including the way it is understood in the rest of Wikipedia, to satisfy folks who want make it a modern day obstetrician's term of art? Hell, most folks who have performed them haven't even been obstetricians. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Badmintonhist's recently reverted edts with add of word "medically" seemed accurate and supported by the ref. Reverted this reversion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, noticed again reverted. It's clearly supported by ref and no need for the redundancy Badmintonhist removed. You clearly have no consensus to be redundant, as at least 2 editors agree on that, Until you get such consensus, seems reasonable this should be reverted again. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Umhh . . . No Nuclear/Mayhem, "After viability the relevant procedure" is not normally referred to as a "'termination of pregnancy.'" It is far more often referred to as an abortion. Where did we get the idea that we needed to follow the preference of some physicians rather than the Wikipedia policy of WP:UCN in this article?? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea comes from following the sources. WP:UCN is about article titles not definitions. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean sources such as the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary which defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." Nothing about "viability" in that one but there is something about "death." Which of those concepts comes more frequently to mind when most folks think of abortion? WP:UCN implies common definitions of common terms, the ones that a person would find at his desk dictionary not the ones Doc James has (probably quite recently) become aware of. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do mean sources such as Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary along with the other thirty sources found in Note 1 that don't happen to mention "death."
 * I have no idea what concepts "to mind when most folks think of abortion."
 * I don't agree that WP:UCN implies anything of the sort.
 * Please see WP:NPA.
 * — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that we have a definition of abortion in this article that is at odds with the way the word is used in most of Wikipedia, the way it is commonly understood, and the way non-specialist dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Oxford define it. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral statement in introduction
The statement in the introduction "Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[2] Uncomplicated abortions do not cause either long term psychological or physical problems.[3]" is not neutral. It is hotly contested in the world-wide abortion debate. Following are several links to support this: http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/  http://americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/abortionemotionaleffects.html   http://www.abort73.com/testimony/. This means that part of the statement is simply untrue and the rest (or all) of it should be moved to the abortion debate article. The Pro-life movement would also argue that abortion is not a safe procedure because it kills the baby/fetus. Thus this statement is not neutral and regardless does not belong in the introduction. T.alphageek (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) T.alphageek
 * Those are not WP:RS from what I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * T.alphageek is right about the general article that seems a little closer to one side of the debate. I am not looking into this specific case T.alphageek brought out.
 * However experience shows that trying to put correct reliable sourced Neutral material on these kinds of articles, are more often than not removed by POV pushers. You then need to spend a few weeks proving your point. Caseeart (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir I realize that the references I posted are technically not of the caliber for inclusion in the article I just linked to them here to prove my point. For example, the third one is testimonies collected from women who posted them to that website freely; obviously, we're all on Wikipedia and can agree that crowd-sourced information is legitimate :). So my main points are: #1 The statement about psychological health has been continually debated for many years and is thus not neutral, #2 Even if it was neutral it doesn't belong in the introduction #3 Due to the chosen content of the main abortion article it does not belong in the article at all and should either be deleted or moved to with a rebuttal to the abortion debate article T.alphageek (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This article will be written based on reliable sources rather than written based on one editor's personal take on the matter, supported by a few primary sources from activist websites, which fail WP:RS. Any suggestion here about changing the text should make a direct reference to a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It summarizes the Safety section which says that it is safe physically and psychologically. It belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. I'm sure if you look through the talk archives there's been discussion on the wording for both sections. My guess is that info on safety has been limited to medical sources and that the controversy part is put in the controversy section. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Homicide vs. Murder and Human vs. Person
Isn't a fetus objectively a human (i.e. a member of the species Homo sapiens)? And doesn't that make abortion objectively homicide (i.e. the killing of a human by another human)? In my understanding, the statements, "A fetus is a human," and, "Abortion is homicide," are empirical statements, not normative ones. People who say abortion is immoral claim that abortion is murder, not homicide, and that a fetus is a person, not a human, right? (These are normative claims.) I could be wrong, but if not, I would like to update the language of this article accordingly (e.g. the last sentence of the introduction). Michipedian (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is far too complex and issue to go into here, and certainly too complex to resolve like you are proposing. Here are some links to start reading: Beginning of human personhood, Beginning of pregnancy controversy, Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All that I'm proposing is that we make the language in this article consistent with the other articles, like the one on the beginning of human personhood. That is, human should be used in the biological sense and person in the moral, philosophical sense.  I don't really see that as too complex of a distinction, but I understand that the language around this topic has been subject to a long history of debate. Michipedian (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "A human" (noun) and "human" (adjective) don't have quite the same connotations - a human skin cell is human, but it isn't an individual, and likewise pro-choice advocates will frequently argue that an embryo or fetus, that has not been born and thus separated from the woman's body, is not an individual, which is how "human being" is generally used. Likewise, homicide refers to killing an individual person, whether or not such killing turns out to be culpable (eg. self-defense, war?). I don't think the statements that you claim to be empirical are in fact empirical. That said, in order to more accurately depict the mindset of anti-abortion advocates, I wouldn't rule out the changes you suggest. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, you are right about the connotations of "human" and "human being". I'm trying to think of a neutral term, such as Homo sapiens (which is the singular form), "member of the species Homo sapiens", or "biological human being".  My point is that it is empirically true that a human zygote is a very primitive form of a biological human being, which makes it different from a human skin cell, which is not itself an entire biological human being but rather only part of a biological human being. This is not debated in science; rather, the status as a philosophical human being (or as a person or an individual, as you said) is the matter of debate. This article seems to suggest that there is debate over whether a fetus is a biological Homo sapiens, which to my knowledge, there is not. Michipedian (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this already been discussed here? --Ca2james (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add an additional voice, I oppose adding this. The example "member of the species Homo sapiens" isn't clear. To make use of the arguments above: You would never refer to a skin cell as a "member" of anything, except possible the skin. I don't see how it is empirically true that a "a human zygote is a very primitive form of a biological human being" or homo sapiens. A cell or a culture of cells would never be referred to as a member of a species, possibly to be of a species. There is philosophical debate over whether a fetus is a human, and to instead as whether it is a homo sapiens and related questions becomes a matter of reductio ad absurdum. Additionally Wikipedia doesn't operate on what we consider empirical, but should instead use common terminology. Anything else would be original research. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Michipedian, I think that the distinction you discuss is valid and present, but I don't think the language change you insinuate would communicate it. We have the challenge here of writing an article that will be neutral when read by somebody who takes the literal definition of every word, but also neutral to the typical reader.
 * For a separate example, I would find it strictly consistent with imaginary friend, imagination, and character for God to be described as an imaginary friend. But I think that would make Wikipedia worse.  Self-consistency is nice, but if it makes an article more contentious and gets in the way of a reader's ability to learn more about the subject, it's not worth it.
 * This conversation is somewhat limited, because you haven't suggested a specific edit. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exceedingly well put Triacylglyceride; its so good it may form the basis of a new FAQ line. Anyone seconding? - RoyBoy 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just edited the bit where it says people against abortion describe it as being homicide. I've changed it to say murder as I've never heard someone who is anti abortion refer to abortion as being homicide. I have heard them plenty of times refer to abortion as being murder. Alans1977 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That statement, just as much as any other needs to be sourced. I believe the change was made back during this discussion though, so I'm not removing it, but you should keep that in mind Alans1977. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying about being sourced. But if we were going to go down that track we'd delete the whole sentence. I'm sure most people have heard some passionate anti-abortionist refer to abortion as murder. Alans1977 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at this edit summary, yes, I am following you around, Alans1977, to see what other articles you may be drunkenly editing. The "homicide" wording has stood since September 2013 and has therefore gained consensus. You should seek consensus here before changing the article, apparently based on no more than your own personal opinion. --Pete (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "To see what what other articles you may be drunkenly editing". Do I need to remind you of WP:GF? Now if you wish to have a conversation about this, when have you ever heard someone who is 'pro-life' equate abortion to homicide? Have you perhaps heard them equate abortion to murder? If you really want to push this then please provide sources. Alans1977 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the time - early Sunday morning here in Australia - your inability to grasp policy, the circular nature of your arguments, the lack of coherence here and elsewhere, and based on long years of experience as a night cabbie, I'm standing by my assessment. The simple fact is that changing the longstanding wording in the lede to something more contentious, based on nothing more than your personal feeling, and then edit warring against WP:BRD isn't persuading me to change my assessment. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you type in 'abortion is homicide' into Google, three of the top five responses will be about how 'abortion is murder'. This is not about being emotive in the use of language, but about accurately portraying the argument from those who purport to be 'right for life'. As for you formerly being a cabby, please explain the significance of that to anything at all. Alans1977 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It led me to the conclusion that arguing with drunks was rarely productive. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will once again remind you of WP:GF. Alans1977 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will suggest can just be true to the cites. "Those who are against abortion" predominantly say "murder", so text can just report their wording rather than work over what wording should be. See


 * Catholic Library - procured abortion,
 * Efferaenatum of Pope Sixtus
 * Catholic News Agency - The Catholic Church and Abortion
 * National Right To Life
 * Familiy Reseatch Council
 * American Life League
 * Americans United for Life - exception, uses homicide more
 * Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * that's WP:OR. Need secondary sources that use it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir, here are some I can find
 * - Abortion: Murder, or Medical Procedure?
 * - The politics of abortion: America does not have a pro-life party
 * - What do 55 million people have in common?
 * Alans1977 (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alans1977 -- those seem to somewhat support 'murder' as the wording used by cites -- the Huffington editorial does side-comment about the pro-life view being murder; and the Fox one is a contributor's opinion piece or a one-person example saying 'murder'. (The ABC one is not speaking to the pro-life wording of homicide vs murder.)   I'm also wondering -- what part of this article is this line of summary supposed to be summarizing ?  Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, the article currently says "Those who are against abortion generally posit that an embryo or fetus is a human with the right to life and may equate abortion with homicide" without referencing that statement. Now personally I've rarely heard someone who self identifies as being 'right to life' compare abortion to homicide. I have often heard them refer to abortion as murder. I think that most people can agree on this and now there there are some sources for this, where as there are none for 'homicide' I believe it should change. Alans1977 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir, I think you are confused -- this is WP:TALK and pointing that last bit about drunkeness back towards being about some actual article section and recommending WP:VER of just use what cites say.  Certainly that is not any WP:OR construction.  The CNA and Library are reasonable secondary sources for the line being discussed, the others are just websites not specific articles. Markbassett (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Average abortion gestational age of 9.5 weeks is a misleading WP:OR miscalculation
On September 16, 2007, Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs): On average, abortions are typically performed at about 9.5 weeks' gestational age, which is near the point where an embryo becomes a fetus. Here is some brief information about the developing human at this point, when the risk of miscarriage decreases sharply. All major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, though they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional. The fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length, and the heart is beating. The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Some fingerprint formation can be seen from the beginning of the fetal stage.
 * added a misleading WP:OR miscalculation of "average" mean abortion gestational age to the Data section of the Wikimedia Commons File:UK abortion by gestational age 2004 histogram.svg figure that had been created on August 1, 2007 by Omegatron (talk | contribs) based on: • Government Statistical Service (July 27, 2005). Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2004 . London: Department of Health, United Kingdom.
 * then added "Average is 9.5 weeks." to the caption of the histogram figure in this article,
 * then proposed in a new talk page section New paragraph and technical language to add the following paragraph to the article: [[Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg|thumb|right|Fetus at 10 weeks' gestational age.]]

The calculation of an "average" (median or mean) abortion gestational age is WP:OR because:
 * the cited source for the histogram does not calculate an "average" (median or mean) abortion gestational age
 * the cited source for the histogram does not contain the detailed raw data needed to accurately calculate an "average" (median or mean) abortion gestational age (the number of abortions reported in a gestational age range band are unlikely to be spread evenly throughout every gestational age range band)

Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant's WP:OR miscalculation of an "average" mean abortion gestational age is based on a misreading of Table 5 in the cited source.
 * e.g.: the 47,230 abortions reported in the 6–7 weeks gestational age range band are those performed beyond 5 complete weeks gestation (35 days) through 7 complete weeks gestation (49 days), so the mid-point is 6 complete weeks gestation (42 days), not 6.5 weeks gestation (45.5 days).
 * e.g.: the 59,934 abortions reported in the 8–9 weeks gestational age range band are those performed beyond 7 complete weeks gestation (49 days) through 9 complete weeks gestation (63 days), so the mid-point is 8 complete weeks gestation (56 days), not 8.5 weeks gestation (59.5 days).
 * this systematic error in Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant's WP:OR miscalculations inflates their "average" mean abortion gestational age from 9.0 weeks to 9.5 weeks using 2004 statistics.

Defining the "average" abortion gestational age as a mean rather than a median is not what most people would consider the "average" abortion gestational age
 * a mean gestational age gives undue weight to later abortions
 * e.g.: if 9 women have abortions at 4 weeks gestation, and 1 woman has an abortion at 24 weeks gestation, the mean abortion gestational age would be 6 weeks; whereas the median abortion gestational age would be 4 weeks
 * a WP:OR calculated "average" median abortion gestational age would be 8.4 weeks using 2004 statistics

The 2004 abortion statistics for England and Wales in the figure are nine years out-of-date and do not show the significant shift since then to earlier gestational age abortions facilitated by the increasing use of early medical abortions as discussed in: • Government Statistical Service (June 12, 2014). Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2013. London: Department of Health, United Kingdom.
 * a WP:OR calculated mean abortion gestation age would be 7.6 weeks gestation using 2013 statistics;
 * a WP:OR calculated median abortion gestation age would be 6.7 weeks gestation using 2013 statistics.

"Average is 9.5 weeks." should be removed from the caption of the figure in this article and in the Late termination of pregnancy article; and Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant's WP:OR miscalculations should be removed from the  section of  Wikimedia Commons file. Bobigny (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working through all that. I haven't dived through the data as much as you have, but intuitively your statement seems broadly correct. Furthermore, as this is a single statistic derived from old data in just one medium-sized country with fully legalized abortion access, I'm not sure what it really adds to the article. I agree that we should remove it, and should consider trimming the paragraph of such week-by-week detail unless we can support it for many industrialized and/or developing countries or globally.. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Whew. Bit overkill, but okay.  Could just say "it's too old".  The numbers seems about right from the WP:CALC (which is not WP:OR) on the images, but really didn't add much to the images themselves.  Really the images should be updated, as you've said.  As for choice of central tendency, means are the most commonly used and there's not a huge issue of skewedness since the right tail is truncated (unlike income or wealth where median is clearly preferred).  I really don't see an issue with mean in this case.  If we can find newer data, I would think it still useful to mention the mean.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  03:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have just said "it's too old", if the only problem with Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant's misleading WP:OR miscalculation was that the data it used was too old. A misleading, skewed mean average abortion gestational age has never appeared in any national statistical report on abortions, and is inappropriate for inclusion in this article. According to WP:CALC, routine calculations do not count as original research only when there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. There is no such consensus at this time.

I agree that detailed week-by-week gestational age statistics should be removed from the text of the "Gestational age and method" subsection. It would be good to update the histogram created by Omegatron seven years ago using 2004 England & Wales statistics and 2003 United States statistics ago to use the most recent statistics. Abortion statistics for England and Wales in 2013 have 25 gestational age range bands; abortion statistics for the United States in 2010 have 12 gestational age range bands, but are incomplete, in that they exclude 15 states with 40% of the U.S. population.

One problem with the "Gestational age and method" subsection focusing on abortion statistics of the United States and England and Wales is that they are not representative of other developed (or developing) countries with respect to abortion methods used at varying gestational ages. For example: second trimester abortions in the United States are almost all surgical abortions, and second trimester abortions in England and Wales are 75% surgical abortions, but second trimester abortions in the Nordic countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland are almost all medical abortions. Another problem with the "Gestational age and method" subsection is its U.S.-centric discussion of Intact dilation and extraction "partial-birth abortion", which has questionable relevance worldwide. Bobigny (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Legal induced abortions"
I don't think that the statement that "Forty percent of the world's women have access to legal induced abortions" is correct. For two reasons. Firstly, it should be "legal abortions" not "legally induced abortions". Abortion is carried out by various means, inducement being only one. Secondly, it is a meaningless statement. Whether an abortion is legal or not depends on circumstances. An abortion with the same woman age state of fetus can be legal or illegal depending on country and circumstances. So is this meant to say 40% of woman live in countries where abortion on demand in any circumstances is legal?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, legal abortion in the Arab Emirates is completely different from in Denmark for example. Both give access to legal abortion, but the UAE only does so in cases when the woman's life is at danger, and Denmark allows free choice for up to three months post-conception. Even if the statement is correct it is completely pointless.-- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the statement on induced abortions. This terminology is used to differentiate from spontaneous abortion or miscarriage (not the use of drugs to induce an abortion as opposed to surgical abortion) . Maybe this distinction should be clarified in the lede? -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is pretty clear what 40% refers to: "Only 40% of the world population can access abortion without restriction as to reason, within gestational limits 13. Everywhere else laws restrict access to safe abortion to a lesser or greater degree 14." I think that's reasonable to keep in the article as a broad statement. Maybe we can clarify just a little by quoting the language used in the source? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me that sounds perfectly reasonable, and that formulation clears any misunderstanding. Just might be relevant to note that both of those links are dead...-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more complete references in the article besides just the URL, which I can send to you if you're interested in tracking them down. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should then be changed to use the same wording as in the reference - the statement that "Forty percent of the world's women have access to legal induced abortions" is not the same as "Only 40% of the world population can access abortion without restriction as to reason, within gestational limits". I would however omit the "only", as that is POV.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral statement in introduction
The statement in the introduction "Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[2] Uncomplicated abortions do not cause either long term psychological or physical problems.[3]" is not neutral. It is hotly contested in the world-wide abortion debate. Following are several links to support this: http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/  http://americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/abortionemotionaleffects.html   http://www.abort73.com/testimony/. This means that part of the statement is simply untrue and the rest (or all) of it should be moved to the abortion debate article. The Pro-life movement would also argue that abortion is not a safe procedure because it kills the baby/fetus. Thus this statement is not neutral and regardless does not belong in the introduction. T.alphageek (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) T.alphageek
 * Those are not WP:RS from what I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * T.alphageek is right about the general article that seems a little closer to one side of the debate. I am not looking into this specific case T.alphageek brought out.
 * However experience shows that trying to put correct reliable sourced Neutral material on these kinds of articles, are more often than not removed by POV pushers. You then need to spend a few weeks proving your point. Caseeart (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir I realize that the references I posted are technically not of the caliber for inclusion in the article I just linked to them here to prove my point. For example, the third one is testimonies collected from women who posted them to that website freely; obviously, we're all on Wikipedia and can agree that crowd-sourced information is legitimate :). So my main points are: #1 The statement about psychological health has been continually debated for many years and is thus not neutral, #2 Even if it was neutral it doesn't belong in the introduction #3 Due to the chosen content of the main abortion article it does not belong in the article at all and should either be deleted or moved to with a rebuttal to the abortion debate article T.alphageek (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This article will be written based on reliable sources rather than written based on one editor's personal take on the matter, supported by a few primary sources from activist websites, which fail WP:RS. Any suggestion here about changing the text should make a direct reference to a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It summarizes the Safety section which says that it is safe physically and psychologically. It belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. I'm sure if you look through the talk archives there's been discussion on the wording for both sections. My guess is that info on safety has been limited to medical sources and that the controversy part is put in the controversy section. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement is indeed non-neutral but more importantly the sources provided do not back up the statements. On the contrary research findings reveal the exact opposite. The phrasing "among the safest procedures in medicine" is false, intolerable and can be harmful. It is a personal opinion and not a medical statement.

Also "Uncomplicated abortions do not cause either long term psychological or physical problems.". There are thousands of women experiencing long term post abortion psychological problems. Again based on Medical research and not personal opinions. "Study Shows Stress and Anxiety From Abortion Up to 5 Years Later" Salynn Boyles, Louise Chang, MD.Maria e-pedia (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The material is well referenced and has consensus for it's inclusion given how long it has been there. "I don't like it" doesn't constitute a Wikipedia policy for removing content. AlanS (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
I changed the lead to "Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it has achieved an ability to survive on its own."

There was not change in meaning just a simplification of terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ending is a simple way to say ''termination
 * forced out is a simple way to say expulsion
 * ability to survive on its own is a simple way to say viability


 * A little wordy, but this might be the best definition of "abortion" I've ever seen. I see a GA in the near future! - RoyBoy 00:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:RoyBoy. Just concentrating on leads of articles as part of WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_Task_Force Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Completed above: ending is a simple way to say termination, per User:Doc James and definitions in Note1. - RoyBoy 00:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, instead of: "embryo before it has obtained the ability to survive", change to: "embryo before it is able to survive" - RoyBoy 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I like it. It's simpler, with no apparent loss of meaning. Always a good thing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it, too, and agree that it just may be the most NPOV definition I've ever read. Well-done!  AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I may have been premature with the GA talk. /Lead_2006, the use of the word "survive" was discussed quite a bit in the past. This is why viable was also found wanting in years past; as it may not be universally true such as "late term" abortion. But as I see in the definition they are called "late term" precisely because of possible viability; so I guess we're cool after all? - RoyBoy 01:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree simplier. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email)

medically referred to vs officially referred to
"Medically referred to" is more accurate that "officially referred to". There has been no determination of who is the "official" decider of terminology. For example, in legal debates, late terminations are referred to as "abortions", and that is also an official word use.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay agree. Changed to medically known as. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call User:BoboMeowCat (great username BTW)... given the inconsistency in terminology use, is our new abortion lead defendable / stable? I've emphasized in past lead debates the Abortion article isn't just about a medical procedure. - RoyBoy 20:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Good article re-nomination
Any objections / notes for submitting Abortion to be a WP:Good article again? - RoyBoy 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. No objections. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Compulsory abortion
Found this under "To do" by User:Kyd, why didn't this get added to "Society and Culture" section? It's pretty good stuff. - RoyBoy 16:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds good to me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we merge with Abortion and tweak header? - RoyBoy 16:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Absolutely. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

More Contraception Means Fewer Abortions, Study Finds
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-23/for-less-abortion-look-to-contraceptives-not-laws-study-finds.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Speciation
The article is devoid of any mention of changes in speciation that occur before during or after fertilization. Many presumably human zygotes are not comprised of fully human genetic materials. There appear to be changes attributable to Speciation As a result there are a large number of zygotes that do not live past the first trimester. For that reason there is a stage before/during/after creation of a zygote where speciation occurs. If the gametes contain flawed genetic materials before, after or during fusion of the haploids then the diploid can be a different species. (other sources estimate that 42 percent of conceptions are genetically flawed) Russell Crawford (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused about the concept of speciation. Humans may be born with various forms of aneuploidy (that is, an abnormal number of chromosomes). But their genetic material is human; it is simply present in abnormal amounts or ratios. If you think about this for a moment, it should be obvious. People with Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, or any of the other common forms of aneuploidy are clearly human and members of our species, despite the fact that they don't have 46 chromosomes. I have no idea what you mean when you say that many zygotes "are not comprised of fully human genetic materials". MastCell Talk 04:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes in the DNA (chromosomes) of the human species that alter its ability to function as a human imply that the "altered zygote" is the start of a new species, not the continuation of the existing species. The change is a sign of speciation. If the alteration in species is unable to live as homo sapiens because of excessive genetic flaws, it is not homo sapiens but the start of a new species. (For example there is a 95-99 percent genetic match among chimps and humans. A one percent change in genetic makeup is sufficient to change Chimpanzee too human.}

With regard to the Downs humans: The changes that occur in some Downs humans in non-disjunction are only a small fraction of those possible. Some non-disjunctions lead to living Downs humans and others do not. Further, there are an unlimited number of errors that can occur in DNA replication. Those errors frequently cannot produce human life. In fact as many as 42 percent of conceptions are so flawed that they cannot produce human life. It would seem to me that any errors in replication or other flaws that do not lead to human life, are not in fact human life, but examples of speciation.

The importance of speciation cannot be over emphasized. The current model of the beginning of human life "assumes" that there is "only" human genetic materials at fertilization. Of course that is false. The fact is that the zygote is more likely to produce non human life than an eventual born human life. Some sources indicate that 70 percent of conceptions fail in the first trimester and of those that fail, 60 percent die due to genetic flaw. This means that the idea that conception is the "0" point of life is false. The correct point would be when the life can first be proved to have sufficient human genetic materials to produce human life, at birth.

Please furnish a citation for this claim: "or any of the other common forms of aneuploidy are clearly human and members of our species, despite the fact that they don't have 46 chromosomes."Russell Crawford (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A brief search of the literature shows me that there is no support for your view that speciation is a significant element of the topic of abortion. I don't think there is any need to add text about speciation. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you were searching "speciation and abortion", you will not find any information. However this page deals with the issue here: "Generally, the former position argues that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, making abortion morally the same as murder." So the issue is presented on the site with no mention of opposing views that scientifically disprove that claim. There are large numbers of people that believe the zygote is no more than a "clump of cells" and their position is supported by scientific evidence of speciation. It is a scientific fact that every instance of conception contains genetic flaws that alter the DNA of the zygote. Those changes are being hidden within the text of your article. I am fine with not calling the changes speciation if you have a more acceptable explanation. But to imply that the fetus is without dispute human is wrong. And in fact the oldest and most important argument against abortion is that the fetus is not a human life. The false argument currently espoused by the pro life side is that there is universal agreement that the fetus is "always" human life. The scientific evidence is that it is not. The use of this source to propagate and advertise a false statement is simply deceitful. If this page is to remain neutral it should present a balanced view. The scientific papers I have cited prove that all DNA is altered and that the result of the alterations can lead to speciation. Russell Crawford (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about proposing an edit, complete with wp:MEDRS sources? That is after all the purpose of this talk page. LeadSongDog  come howl!  17:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Anne Sexton
Yo, let's talk about this poem. Anne Sexton is obviously a significant poet. If that alone does not merit adding a mention of the poem here, how much critical literature on the poem would justify adding it? (There is some, see GBooks.) I have no real position one way or another, but let's actually talk about the standards we're trying to meet. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A significant poem with respect to abortion? I would say its presentation here was undue weight. Maybe on a subpage. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well thank you, Roscelese, very much, for raising the subject. To the Doctor I must say that I'm a bit surprised because when I first entered the material regarding the Anne Sexton poem, you simply said that I needed a better source than the literary blog that I had used . Now you say that its presentation is "undue weight." Is that because using important literary figures rather than lightweight ones gives the section too much weight? I rather suspect that it is precisely because of the weight, or impact, that Sexton's words might have on the reader that you object to my edit.


 * To the editor who last deleted my edit, Binksternet, I was wryly amused at his description "a little known Sexton poem." Perhaps elsewhere among his apparently mass-produced edits he has complained about references to minor Shakespearean dramas, obscure Dickens novels, and insignificant Velazquez portraits. It would seem to me that in an article that talks about a man exhibiting a human fetus with wings as art, and a "writer" having 15 abortions in 17 years (or was it 17 abortions in 15 years), there should be enough room for a poem by Anne Sexton. KatieHepPal (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that I must have copied the wrong URL address for DocJames's deletion of my edit. Sorry, but it should be easy enough to find. KatieHepPal (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What would be a better source would be a review of the literature on abortion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Doc; the source that I've provided is an excellent one, a website created by the New York University School of Medicine for medical humanities . In contrast, many of the other "art, literature, and film" entries in this article are referenced only to the work itself (primary rather than secondary sources) or are simply linked to Wikipedia articles. KatieHepPal (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a notable poem by Anne Sexton on topic of abortion does not seem to constitute undue weight in the Art, literature and film section of this article. It seems every bit as relevant as an episode of Law & Order or the movie Dirty Dancing, if not more so.  However, the ending line of poem "this baby that I bleed" seemed too POV to include in main article about abortion, so I trimmed that part. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of literature works tackling the issue of abortion. If we are going to include any of them, we should be talking about the context rather than simply quoting the work. The context should be telling the reader something about how the abortion issue was seen by the writer or by society. We can say, for instance, that Sexton wrote about masturbation, menstruation and abortion in the early 1960s when it was quite unusual, or we can group Sexton with Jan Beatty, Adrienne Rich, Gwendolyn Brooks and Lucille Clifton to give an example of pioneering writers who covered abortion. Or we can say that various pieces of abortion literature are used to acquaint medical students with the feelings that have been expressed about abortion. Or we can say that certain poems lamenting abortion have been considered a form of personal mourning by writers who are pro-choice. What we must not do is just quote a piece of literature for its shock effect, which is my impression of KatieHepPal's original contribution. I classify that as WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @ BoboMeowCat. I really don't disagree with your revision of my last article edit. I did not include the "baby . . . bleed" quote when I first introduced the Sexton poem, but the second time around the new source that I used had emphasized it.


 * @ Binsternet. I don't at all see my edit as "pointy", young man. As I've just read it, "pointy" would mean doing something disruptive based on an understanding, or misunderstanding, of Wikipedia policy. For example when DocJames asked me to find a better source for my edit, had I then removed everything in the "Art, literature, and film" section that did not have a bona fide secondary source (many of them don't), THAT would have been "pointy." Instead, I simply found a better source as he had instructed. When you subsequently removed my edit based on your bizarre notion that the "little known Sexton poem is not significant," had I then removed everything in the section that I found insignificant, THAT, TOO, would have been "pointy." Instead, I joined the discussion that Roscelese had opened on the issue, and when you apparently were uninterested in defending your edit, I restored the one that I had made. No, young fellow, the only disruption that my edit caused was to your political sensibility.


 * That being said, I am glad to see that you NOW seem to have ambitious plans for a section of the article that you might not have been formerly interested in, telling us that "our job is to determine what are the main points, the most important parts of the literature" on abortion. That is good, because prior to my edit, the section had rather been sitting there like an unappetizing mulligan stew of randomly selected "factoids." I can now take consolation in the prospect of you incorporating your impressive knowledge of the literature on abortion to improve the section and article. . . if you can tear yourself away from what seems like an obsession with bad music and bad musicians. We will all be looking forward to it . . . ready to deliver praise and/or potshots as your work so merits. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Chill, please, both of you. The point about finding secondary sources for the stuff that's already included is worth taking. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be buffaloed
Unconstructive personal attacks redacted –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the substance here, of course, Sexton's poem is pertinent. She is probably the best known literary figure to be introduced into the article. To keep everyone happy (except Binksternet, I suppose), you should probably find some rather innocuous material about the poem from your source, rather than those powerful quotes, and add THAT to the section instead. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think I should have to make an innocuous edit for a poem that is not innocuous. Other entries in this section convey a point of view. The Cider House Rules entry presents Dr. Larch's moral justification for performing abortions. The Braided Lives entry emphasizes the dangers of illegal abortion. The material on This Common Secret reflects the author's belief that she is involved in a noble calling. Therefore, the unpretty picture that Anne Sexton paints of what was probably her own abortion should be conveyed to the reader.


 * Looking back in the history files for this article I see that the Arts section was added in August of 2010 without much Talk page discussion. At the time, Roscelese recommended some additional literary references to abortion that mighthave been added but they were not. Over the past several years a rather vague introductory sentence was removed. A reference to the movie Alfie was added. An episode of the TV series Law and Order was mentioned. That seems to have been about all. Until I added the Anne Sexton material no one, and certainly not Binksternet, seemed concerned with determining "the main points, the most important points, of the literature" for this section. And now Binksternet, having temporarily foiled my edit, seems about as interested in improving this section as he was before, i.e. not at all. I think we have tolerated his dog-in-the-manger attitude long enough. As with any editor he is free to add material on the literature of Jan Beatty, Adrienne Rich, Gwendolyn Brooks, Lucille Clifton, or any other properly referenced author as he sees fit. I am restoring the edit as BoboMeowCat left it. KatieHepPal (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that whole arts and misc. junk section severely violated undue. It was just a bunch of haphazard trivia gathered from the internet by WP editors, and has no equivalent in reliable secondary sources. It violated WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * KatieHepPal's straight reversion today was disruptive as it adopted none of the changes we discussed here, especially regarding context versus straight quotes. If we are ever to have a paragraph describing poems about abortion, a better solution would be the following:
 * This can be brought into a new article titled Abortion in literature, which can then be summarized here. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be brought into a new article titled Abortion in literature, which can then be summarized here. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be brought into a new article titled Abortion in literature, which can then be summarized here. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The section as it existed might have been trivia, but that doesn't mean that a section on fictional/artistic depictions of abortion would be inherently so. A number of scholarly books exist on this subject. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy to see the section removed and I agree that it would be better addressed in a separate article. Gandydancer (talk)


 * What proportion of the total coverage in reliable sources on abortion consists of material pertaining to art, literature and films? A gazillionth, a bizillionth? In any case, it pales in comparison to the total, and devoting a section to it in this top level article violates WP:WEIGHT. Basically, just about any mention of this material would qualify as trivia in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Angkor Wat
As I mentioned in the second paragraph of "Removal of section" above, the statement about the Angkor Wat relief carvings now in the "History" section of the article lacked any anthropological context. My addition taken from the same source was intended to provide some. That source stresses that religious nature of the carving; it does not shy away from it. The issue is not whether my addition was "necessary" but whether it enhances our article. I think it does. If other editors disagree, here's the place to discuss it. KatieHepPal (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Arts section
What happened to the section on abortion in movies and books? I came here looking for the name of a movie, only to find the section gone. It was there the last time I checked out this article a few months ago. The section was a little rough, but it was very useful and informative. Why was it removed? It doesn't make sense. Someone should put it back in the article. Unfortunately, I can't do it myself since this article is locked. Red Phoenix Blaze (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See discussion above. - RoyBoy 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of section
I find it very interesting and very revealing that the "Art, literature and film" section of the article has now been removed with little protest or comment. It had been in the article for about four and a half years. During that time none of the above editors seem to have taken much notice of it except Roscelese who thought it was a "great idea" at the time. Of course, that was when the entries in the section were either innocuous or implicitly pro-choice, and if you doubt the "implicitly pro-choice" comment take a look at the descriptions of the books Cider House Rules, Braided Lives, and This Common Secret. It was only when I tried to mention the Sexton poem, and give a bit of its flavor, that editors such as Binksternet and Doc James saw any entry as having undue weight or else lacking in sufficient context, or that editors such as Dominus Vobisdu and Gandydancer found the whole "Art, literature and film" section to be unworthy of the article.

Speaking of context, I notice that Doc James has salvaged the material on the Angkor Wat relief carvings and added it to the History section of the article. What was not included in that information when it was in the Art section of the article, and what is still not included in it, is any mention of their primary anthropological significance. According to scholars they were made either to show people the tortures of hell, or, more likely, to show people actions that would put them in hell. KatieHepPal (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for heads up User:KatieHepPal. Yeah, if I recall I just Googled notable examples; unsure if the website I relied on or "art" generally leans to the progressive. Probably both in this case. If the section was going to be fossilized pro-choice leaning (though Citizen Ruth isn't exactly glowing on abortion or its advocates), perhaps its best to be left out... at least during the GA review. My first instinct would be to refactor into a shorter section saying "abortion has appeared numerous times with variable consequences" with an abundance of footnotes. - RoyBoy 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:KatieHepPal, I think you're looking for a conspiracy that isn't there. The section has always contained numerous negative examples. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I am not looking for a conspiracy, Roscelese. I don't think that the above mentioned editors are passing emails or text messages to each other about blocking my edits. Rather, what I am seeing is an interesting confluence of interests at play. Editors such as Binksternet and Doc James are so determined not to have any meaningful quote from the Sexton poem in the article that they are quite willing to see the whole section jettisoned, though they had no qualms about it prior to the dispute.


 * As for your "numerous negative examples" ("negative" about abortion, I presume), where are they? I really can't count the "writer" who claims to have had fifteen abortions in seventeen years because this is more of a Ripley's Believe It or Not! kind of item, interesting because of its obvious excessiveness. The only other item I saw was the rather milquetoast reference to the film Alfie which was added after the RoyBoy original. If I remember correctly, he calls himself a murderer after seeing the aborted fetus, whereas our article merely says "he was deeply affected" by it or some such thing. So, no, I really can't agree that the section has always had negative items about abortion. KatieHepPal (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the point of this. Are you interested in collecting secondary sources in the hopes of rebuilding a section or article in the future, or do you just want to use the talk page vent about "liberal bias"? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Vent about liberal bias"? My Fabian forebears would be either amused or appalled. Please don't make unwarranted assumptions. My politics tend to be moderately liberal outside of certain issues concerning the family unit.


 * As for the removal of the arts, literature and film section, my concern is probably more about the manner of its removal than about the fact of its removal. I'm not sure that I agree that this section was a "great idea" but I do think that it was at least an acceptable idea. Dominus Vobisdu complains that it "has no equivalent in reliable secondary sources," but, of course, that is true of any material of any length here unless it has been plagiarized. Facts and opinions from a variety of sources are paraphrased and combined to form something new.


 * It is unlikely that any particular source will provide an all-encompassing commentary for "abortion in art, literature, and film," but, as Binksternet's above sample shows, individual sources can provide commentary for parts of the topic. Binksternet was utterly wrong, however, in opposing the use of quotations from poems. This, of course, is standard critical practice in literature. I raise the point here because if the section is revived, this will surely be an issue again. Take Care. KatieHepPal (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You used an orphaned quote, devoid of context or analysis, to deliver your negative view of abortion. An orphaned quote presentation is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think that the quotation was "orphaned" then you certainly had the means of providing it a home. Instead you eliminated it. A metaphor for the issue of abortion, perhaps?


 * Looking at your sample paragraph above above, you tend to speak around Sexton's poem rather than about Sexton's poem. The "very likely drawn from her own experience" is fine, but the "early 60s when abortion was rarely mentioned in poetry" is filler, and the "fairy-tale style poem" though coming from your source is quite misleading. We associate fairy tales with happy endings. This is more of a very dark folk tale in style. Mentioning Rumpelstilskin only helps if the reader knows or is told that Rumpelstilskin gave gold and took babies in exchange. KatieHepPal (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to ask you again to put the brakes on the dramatic rhetoric. Stick to the content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately didn't get'er fixed enough for GA push. Can we put back the section? When I read back, an orphaned quote isn't sufficient cause to remove a whole section, although poetry does seem to be notable abortion subtopic. What should done... notable pro-life, pro-choice, pro-conflicted mentions? - RoyBoy 19:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Cost
This "In 2007, the average cost of a first trimester abortion was $372. "

Depends on where and it depends on what method is used. A paragraph in the body of the article is needed first before putting it in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Doc James assessment. The sentence by itself is too specific to one moment in time and place to tells one very much. If it can be put into a wider context that would be more useful to a reader. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth control
The sentence "Birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices can be started immediately after an abortion" in the lead looks counter-intuitive. I propose changing it to something like "Birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices can be used in some cases to avoid abortion". Brandmeistertalk  20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is not the meaning of the sentence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The contraceptives and the birth control in general are by definition designed to be used before abortions, not after. From what I see, the article makes a very brief mention of the abortion prevention, so it would be better to mention it in at least two-three sentences. Brandmeistertalk
 * No, they can be used following an abortion. That sentence is not about abortion prevention, it's about use of birth control devices after abortion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New York. First state to legalize abortion for convenience or not?
I always thought New York was the first state to legalize abortion. Maybe I thought this because the Governor who signed the legalization, Nelson Rockefeller, was so closely identified with the pro-abortion or pro-choice movement. But I read in a book on google books about Ronald Reagan that California Governor Reagan signed legislation legalizing abortion in 1968, that was two years before Rockefeller did, so I changed my reference to New York being the first state to legalize abortion for convenience. Was New York the first state to legalize it or was I mistaken when I put that edit in?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

History, society and culture
By the end of the forth paragraph of the lead section, the article says ''Those who are against abortion generally state that an embryo or fetus is a human with the right to life and may compare abortion to murder. Those who support abortion rights emphasize a woman's right to decide matters concerning her own body as well as emphasizing human rights generally.'' 1- Those who are against abortion generally state that an embryo or fetus is a human with the right to life (...). Not only do anti-abortion supporters state that an embryo or fetus is a human, but also many books of embryology confirm that human life begins at conception as a science fact (I've already got the sources and they're all reliable). If we include this information, the right to life of embryos and fetuses is more understandable. Without it, their right to life seems to be just an excuse that busybodies have to prevent abortions. 2- Those who are against abortion (...) may compare abortion to murder. I don't think this information is relevant. But it is well sourced anyway. In my humble opinion, it wouldn't be neutral to say that and ignore what I suggest including in point 1. 3- Those who support abortion rights emphasize a woman's right to decide matters concerning her own body as well as emphasizing human rights generally. Why would you say that pro-abortion supporters emphasize human rights and remain silent as regards anti-abortion supporters? Those who are against abortion are concerned about one of the more fundamental human rights. And, even when it is deductible, I have a reliable source of anti-abortion supporters compromised with human rights. So I would change the last part to include that both groups are concerned about human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanxv (talk • contribs)
 * [H]uman life begins at conception as a science fact ... that's a moral statement. Cells begin dividing at conception. "Life" is a different matter.
 * Why is it not relevant?
 * Fetus' "right to life" is already mentioned. Not sure why mentioning pregnant person's rights is a problem?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding my signature.
 * 1- A life being has necessarily a body. Life without a body doesn't exist. What you called "cells", is the body of a life being.
 * 2- Mentioned in that context, and without knowing the reasoning behind that idea, one could see it as an exaggeration of those who support anti-abortion position. That's why I consider necessary to include their scientific justification.
 * 3- It's OK to mention it. The problem is what follows. Saying that pro-choice supporters emphasize human rights is irrelevant because you don't need that information to define them, or to differentiate them from the pro-life supporters. It is like saying "and they're the good ones". I would remove that part, but it's sourced. Then, in order not to remove it, I would add that both groups (prochioce and prolife) emphasize human rights.Germanxv (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A foetus is not capable of independent life at conception. The belief that this life is separate form that of the mother is a philosophical, not a scientific one. Scientifically, the early stage foetus is essentially a parasite. As an aside, I find it remarkable how little the pro-lifers care about the life of the child once it's actually born, the point at which scientific consensus for independent sentient existence becomes unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A foetus is not capable of independent life at conception. Neither is a child after being born, to some extent. And if a foetus is not an independent life, it does not mean it is not a living being.
 * The belief that this life is separate form that of the mother is a philosophical, not a scientific one. I have many reliable sources that says the opposite.
 * Scientifically, the early stage foetus is essentially a parasite. Supposing that you are right, a parasite is a life form.
 * As an aside, I find it remarkable how little the pro-lifers care about the life of the child once it's actually born, Please, I invite you to read my sources. Maybe you were unlucky and found bad prolifers. I can assure you that there are also good ones. But whether you like them or not, it does not change the validity of the information I propose adding to the article.Germanxv (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources provided though. Also let's stop having philosophical debates.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your beliefs already, from context. The issue is that you edited the article to include: "Those who are against abortion are based on the scientific consensus about the beginning of human life at conception". That is scientifically incorrect since no such consensus exists. It's also factually wrong since they form their position based primarily on religious belief and appeal to science is post-hoc rationalisation. The same people are very often anti-evolution, which tells you everything you need to know about the importance of scientific consensus in their decision-making processes; they also frequently cite the long-debunked abortion-breast cancer myth. A tiny minority of pro-lifers might form that view based on science, but for the majority there is no evidence that science is considered relevant at all other than as a tool by which to try to justify their pre-existing views. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The point of this talkpage is to discuss changes. Without identified sources the discussion goes exactly nowhere, as above. Please identify the sources you contemplate citing. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * These are the sources:
 * About scienftific evidence of the beginnig of human life at conception:
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And, please, let me invite User:EvergreenFir and User:JzG to continue this discussion in my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv, I find it fascinating!Germanxv (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, permit me to update those listed refs a bit for starters (though the page numbers may not be quite right in these editions):




 * About prolifers supporting human rights:




 * Condic and the Bioethics Defense Fund are clearly prolife advocates, and should be treated as such. Numbers 2-10 appear (at first look, anyhow) to be credible scientific sources, though several are rather old per wp:MEDDATE. Now, what quotes in those sources would you use to back your assertions? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I checked the online version (and latest edition) of "Before We Are Born" and it's slightly different. But I can use one of its cites. I also checked Silver's book again and I can't use any cite. So, his book should be removed from the list. These are all the cites:
 * About scientific evidence of the beginnig of human life (or a human being, I suppose that both expressions mean the same in this context) at conception (or fertilization):
 * Condic (Summary): Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.
 * Moore (Essentials of Human Embryology): Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.
 * Walters: Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.
 * Langman: The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.
 * Considine: Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism (...) 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 (...) The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.
 * Sadler: The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.
 * Moore (Before We Are Born): Human development begins at fertilization when a oozyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Development involves many changes that transform a single cell, the zygote, into a multicellular human being. Embriollogy is concerned with the origin and development of a human being from a zygote to birth.
 * Larsen: Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed (...) The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.
 * Carlson: Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote) (...) The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.
 * About prolifers supporting human rights:
 * Yoest (p. 12): To be “pro–life” is to be “pro–human rights”, and the reverse is true as well: to be “pro–human rights” means one must be “pro–life”.Germanxv (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yoest cannot be considered a reliable source, as she is a pro-life activist with an agenda.
 * "Life" begins before conception, as the sperm and the ovum are alive—they each have a form of life, though they must combine in fertilization to develop into a human being. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're discussing about the validity of the changes I proposed. Please, for debate, go to my user talkpage User talk:Germanxv.Germanxv (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that your proposal is not valid because "life" has so many meanings that "science" cannot be used to validate your stance that science says life begins at conception. I am not interested in debating on your talk page as I am only concerned that this article stay neutral. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, I will appreciate your sources.Germanxv (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Germanxv, this is the wrong article for a discussion on personhood. This article is not intended to cover the various thoughts about when life begins. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I mention personhood? Please, note that I already explained why I think it is necessary to include this information. Germanxv (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the latest edition of Sadler's book and his cite about the beginning of human life has been modified. Now it says Development begins with fertilization (...). It never says whose development this is (and the reason is clear to me but is not the talkpage's purpose analyzing that). So, I also removed his book from the list. But luckily, I found another cite that I can use in the latest edition of Larsen's Human Embryology. I also realized that I mistakenly typed "Larsen" instead of "O'Rahilly" before. Finally, I added all the URLs and quotes and the sources are these: For us to get anywhere with this discussion you would need to come up with one concrete suggestion as to what in the article you would like to change/add/remove. As of now I cannot understand what you are suggesting other than listing a number of sources of varying quality. Might I suggest you pick one at a time and try to explain why you feel it mertis inclusion in the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 22:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A new human being starts to exist at the moment of fertilization:
 * Prolifers supports human rights:
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prolifers supports human rights:
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prolifers supports human rights:
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prolifers supports human rights:
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prolifers supports human rights:
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Germanxv (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying Those who are against abortion generally state that an embryo or fetus is a human with the right to life and may compare abortion to murder. Those who support abortion rights emphasize a woman's right to decide matters concerning her own body as well as emphasizing human rights generally., the article could say Those who are against abortion are based on the scientific consensus about the beginning of human life at conception, and then they support the right to life of any zygote, embryo or fetus. Some of them compare abortion to murder. Those who support abortion rights emphasize a woman's right to decide matters concerning her own body. Both groups emphasize human rights generally.
 * Justification:


 * 1) There is a section explaining the health risks associated with illegal abortion, but there is not an explanation for the prolifer's viewpoint.
 * 2) Prochoicers support a women's right to decide matters concerning her own body with the same emphasis that prolifers support the right to life of any zygote, embryo or fetus. Both rights are human rights, then both groups emphasize human rights.Germanxv (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue with your text is that there is no scientific consensus of when "new life" begins. The egg was alive before conception, and so was the sperm, so we are very much having a philosophical debate here.

-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't want a debate, please, don't initiate it affirming debatable statements. I would really appreciate a scientific source with another explanation for the beginning of human life.Germanxv (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientific sources don't explain the beginning of human life as it isn't a scientific question. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 04:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We know at least one version of the content Germanxv wants to include: "Those who are against abortion are based on the scientific consensus about the beginning of human life at conception". To date he has failed to establish that any such scientific consensus exists, and has not even attempted to show that this is a meaningful source of motivation to anti-abortionists. As I pointed out above, a substantial proportion of anti-abortionists are also anti-evolution, there is no evidence at all that anti-abortionists are driven by science, rather, they seek to provide a sciencey-sounding justification for their prior beliefs. Just like creationists, in fact, and for exactly the same reason. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Germanxv (...) has not even attempted to show that this is a meaningful source of motivation to anti-abortionists. I did not realized that it was necessary. Here you are (both authors are prolifers, as it was indicated).
 * Condic's book: It is sometimes said that the abortion debate is about “values” rather than “facts.” An honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on facts. If we don’t get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins. (page v). Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? (page ix).
 * Yoest's book: Defenders of law in a Colombian case about abortion decriminalization argued that From the very moment of conception, the unborn is an individual of the human race, different from its mother, on whom it depends only accidentally (environmental dependence). Moreover, it is widely accepted by the scientific community that a being formed by the union of an ovum and a spermatozoid is an organism genetically different from its parents and clearly belonging to the human race. (page 84). Against an Argentine criminal code draft bill, it was argued that It is beyond the objective of this work to give an extensive biological explanation of the moment when human life begins. However, it is enough to mention that, in the scientific community, the fact that the beginning of life takes place at the moment of fecundation is indisputable.(page 142). Germanxv (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view
This article is non-neutral. Saying that &#8220;Abortion in the developed world has a long history of being among the safest procedures in medicine when allowed by local law&#8221; is clearly promoting the view that abortion ought to be legal. Indeed, the authors of the first cited source reveals their bias when they accuse their opponents of &#8220;apathy and disdain toward women.&#8221; (See also the conflict-of-interest statement at the end of the article.) Surely, unsafe abortion is both dangerous (by definition) and preventable, but the idea that &#8220;Legalisation of abortion is a necessary but insufficient step toward eliminating unsafe abortion&#8221; is a partisan point of view. The other cited source is more factual in nature, but judging from its abstract, its purpose seems to be to support the view that &#8221;new legislation restricting abortion is unnecessary.&#8221; Wikipedia should not select sources that support one side or the other, but should be completely neutral.

Furthermore, the statement that it is &#8220;safe&#8221; is written from the point of view that the fetus is not a person, because otherwise, a procedure performed for the purpose of destroying the fetus could hardly be said to be &#8220;safe&#8221; for the fetus. (By way of analogy, if I were to say that, in war, &#8220;air-strikes are among the safest methods of accomplishing military objectives,&#8221; then unless I cited to a source showing that airstrikes also reduced civilian casualties, the use of the word &#8220;safest&#8221; would be from the attacking nation's point of view.) In conclusion, Wikipedia should  describe points of view, rather than adopting them as its own. Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Statements are well sourced and reflect those sources. You accuse bias in the sources themselves, but that's not for us to judge (see WP:BIAS). Further, use of "mother" is inappropriate here as the person getting the abortion may or may not be a mother.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is we simply state the positions of the best available sources. These sources are described / defined by WP:MEDRS.
 * So disagree with the concerns mentioned. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bias is in both the selection of &#8220;best&#8221; sources and in the point of view from which the article is written, as well as the weight given to different sub-topics. WP:MEDRS, which is designed most especially to help us weigh factual evidence, supplements but does not replace WP:NPOV, which imposes a completely separate obligation to be neutral both in selecting sources and in writing. There is a difference between describing what the sources say and adopting their point of view. Bwrs (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources are very much not required to be unbiased; see Identifying reliable sources. We are instead asked to present a fair and proportionate summary of the highest quality reliable sources. Is your position that there are high quality reliable sources that are not represented in this article? Or that certain sections should be expanded? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My position is that unbiased sources are better than biased ones, but more fundamentally, WP:NPOV requires that the writing itself be neutral. Currently, as written, the section on &#8220;safety&#8221; reads like a polemic supporting the legality of abortion, while relatively short shrift is given to the arguments against abortion. Bwrs (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The safety arguments against abortion (that it allegedly causes complications, breast cancer, etc.) are discredited. The belief that abortion is morally wrong because it prevents the birth of the embryo/fetus is discussed elsewhere in the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone finds a biased source and transcribes it into the article is OK, I guess. But if someone else is capable enough to rewrite it in order to make it neutral, his edition should be preferred.Germanxv (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are suggesting? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 19:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The user says that a part of the article is biased. I propose him to rewrite that part to make it neutral using the sources given.Germanxv (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is one of En Wikipedia's most controversial articles. It is the way it is after extensive discussion. There is also an editing restriction of 1RR on this article.
 * Changes typically require a great deal of thought and a great deal of discussion. Often a RfC is required. Happy to hear proposals. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bwrs, the problem here is that science does not give a toss about the ethical and religious concerns, science is only interested in whether a statement is true or not. It is absolutely true that legal abortions are generally safe, and illegal ones are generally very unsafe. The reason most states with abortion laws, have them, is because the desire to abort an unwanted pregnancy is an inevitability and always has been throughout recorded history; if it's not possible to do this legally then people do it illegally, and there is an immense body of evidence regarding the risks of backstreet abortions and an equally immense body of evidence on the safety of pregnancy termination of numerous kinds, precisely because they are contentious medical procedures.
 * The paper to which you object is in the World Health Organization journal of Sexual and Reproductive Health. It is extensively referenced, and shows sources and rationale for its claim that complications of unsafe abortion are motivated at least in part by disdain. It is technically true to say that advocating legalisation of abortion is partisan, but since the only alternative is to stop women wanting abortions in the first pace, something that has never been shown to be even theoretically possible let alone likely to happen, it is in fact a scientifically correct statement. The WHO advocates access to legal abortions because it is the only solution known to reduce the appalling morbidity and mortality inherent in unsafe abortions. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion/FAQ should be WP:Abortion/FAQ
Please see this thread to comment - thanks. Wnt (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy... before it is able to survive on its own
What, then, is the ending of pregnancy after it's able, or when survival is possible but uncertain? 173.217.158.22 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Termination. Read the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Motivation: Societal" issue
I think that the sentence starting with "[t]hese might include the preference for children of a specific sex or race" is misleading. Especially because the citation for the "specific sex or race" comment goes to a suspect law review article on the Nuremberg trials. I think this needs to be addressed. I'd prefer to not address it myself, or delete the citation myself, because to do so would look like a "conflict of interest." SMaeglinReproRights (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Readability
As this is a very important article we have to make sure the readability is as good as possible, especially for the lede. I have done some editing today to reduce the average reading grade level required from 11.7 to 9.9 according to https://readability-score.com/

The most difficult word left is socioeconomic, and I'm not sure it is needed. Does anyone have any input here? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 02:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I hit 9,3. "Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8." -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 02:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

section reorganization
Suggest we change from this organization:


 * Types
 * Induced
 * Spontaneous
 * Methods
 * Medical
 * Surgical
 * Other methods

To this organization:


 * miscarriage (unintentional)
 * medical accidents (unintentional) ... I don't think this sub-type is covered at all right now in mainspace?
 * unintended pharmaceutical side-effect
 * unrelated surgery that mistakenly aborts
 * invasive (intentional)
 * surgical, 1st trimester
 * surgical, 2nd trimester
 * surgical, 3rd trimester
 * coat hanger, knitting needles, etc (deprecated)
 * medicinal (intentional)
 * pharmaceuticals
 * folk medicinals (deprecated)
 * other (intentional)
 * abdominal trauma
 * post-birth abortion (infanticide)
 * other non-medicinal non-invasive mechanisms.

See edit-history for (now-elided from this talkpage by request) longwinded rationale. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:MEDRS before commenting and using dictionaries as references. We are very aware that the readability of this article could be better and if you were to express consice comments of what could be done please do so. Right now it is very difficult to understand what you mean. (Also fixed the section of the lead with incorrect plurals.). -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment made more concise. You understand my proposal now?  This is not a medical article.  It is a combination-article, with both medical and political impact.  Right now, the writing is heavily tilted toward the medical jargon, as if this were a subject that will only be of interest to chemistry grad students and surgical interns.  That is the wrong way to write an encyclopedia article, in general, but it is particularly wrong for an article that we know has a general readership.  I'm not using the medical dictionary as a "reference" here; please don't be silly.  I'm pointing out that 'induced abortion' is medical jargon, only found in medical dictionaries, not general readership dictionaries.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand, but it is in its entirety a medical article as it is a medical procedure. All the politics surrounding abortion are also medical in nature, and politics often touches upon medicine - they are not independant subjects with a clear line between one or the other. As an encyclopaedia we must attempt to appease all sides by being as accurate and concise as possible. Induced abortion is the correct term, but the article states that "the word abortion is often used to mean only induced abortions". Whitling this down further causes it to be factually incorrect.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first rather than the second. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James, what is the rationale for your preference please? User:CFCF, wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, right?  Are you trying to tell me, that no WP:SOURCES exist, which treat abortion as a religious-slash-theological issue, and/or as a political-slash-partisan issue, and/or as a moral-slash-ethical issue?  That every single WP:RS out there, with anything WP:NOTEWORTHY on the topic of abortion, treats it solely as a medical procedure?  Come now.  Why did you spend all that effort, getting the prose down to grade-9-level comprehension, if you believe that it is a medical-procedure-article?  It is an article for the general readership, because it is a medical procedure with political implications, religious connotations, and deep philosophical concerns.  We can have medical articles on vertebroplasty, which if I'm not mistaken Doc James knows something about, but you cannot be trying to tell me you see no difference between the political impact of the medical procedure of vertebroplasty (small but non-zero e.g. whether the procedure is covered by government-backed funds), and the political impact of the medical procedure of abortion (which I cannot believe you are asking me to WP:PROVEIT as an incredibly significant aspect of abortion).
 * p.s. Please move comments on the use of 'induced abortion' versus the seemingly-a-synonym 'abortion' in the section below, about that specific issue; I deleted my original multiple-issues-combo-comment here in this subsection, so that this part of the talkpage could be purely about section-organization. I'm not proposing any content-changes here in this subsection, just suggesting we move the existing sentences around, to the new section-titles.  The material currently in the "Type:Induced" section of mainspace, could be relocated to the introductory paragraphs, or where appropriate, some of it could be moved to the Abortion section, which is already birfurcated into safety-of-professional-medical-professionals versus safety-of-coat-hangers paragraphs.   75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never heard the terms "invasive (intentional)". The current article has been stable for some time. I am not a big fan of "folk medicinals (deprecated)" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we can title the subsections with whatever terminology makes sense; what is the terminology that refers to induced surgical abortions (EVA/IDX/etc), and induced coat-hanger (etc) abortions? Would you be happy if we called the section "surgical (intentional)" and then covered the three surgical procedures divvied up by trimester, and then had the fourth subsection be called "unsafe pre-surgical techniques" or perhaps "unsafe proto-surgical techniques"?  As for the folk medicinals, again, what do you suggest?  We can say something like "unsafe folk medicines" or maybe to parallel my earlier suggestion "unsafe proto-pharmaceuticals" for instance.  I'm not hung up on the particular terminology (with the exception of think that 'induced abortion' is too much a technical term to be needed in this top-level article).  I do think it is awkwardly artificial, though, to separate the ingested-abortion and the "invasive"-abortion (not the best term I agree) mechanisms into modernPharmceutical + modernSurgical + otherGreyMarketAndHistoricalStuffCatchAll.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical error
I believe that I found a grammatical error in the second sentence of this article. "An abortion which occur spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage." The word occur should intact have an 's' at the end of it. "If an abortion were to occur spontaneously..." or "An abortion which occurs spontaneously..." would both be more correct examples. ShadowLeviathan (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too; we're revising the first paragraph bit by bit, see above. I suggest:  "Abortions which occur spontaneously are also known as miscarriages."  Or somewhat better to my wiki-eyes:  "Abortions which occur spontaneously are typically called miscarriages."  But there is an ongoing discussion about whether this article should default to the medical-dictionary-meaning or the everyday-language-meaning of 'abortion'. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have corrected per User:ShadowLeviathan Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mental Health: Correlated not Caused
I changed the first sentence of the section on Risks: Mental Health in order to allow this article to discuss some risks that are acknowledged by the major medical bodies about abortion and mental health. Previously, the sentence read that "Evidence shows that abortion does not cause mental health problems." But there have been correlations shown between some abortions and mental health problems. So the sentence now has the weaker form using the term "correlation" to express the result of the research instead of the word "cause," which carries a higher burden of proof. SocraticOath (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the sources. No reputable medical body views mental-health problems as a "risk" of abortion, so it is not really appropriate to talk in those terms. The view of reputable medical bodies is that abortion is, in general, no riskier from a mental-health perspective than carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. The data are strongest for absence of risk with a single first-trimester abortion; they are much less definitive for multiple or later-term abortions (in part because these are quite rare), but in no case is there actual positive evidence that abortion increases the risk. I think it is worth being a little bit clearer in the language we use, to avoid contributing to the prevalence of false or misleading information about abortion on the Internet and elsewhere. MastCell Talk 18:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The APA's most general statements do not apply to women who have more than one abortion, or have a late term abortion...


 * "The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy." (from the 2008 APA report, Executive Summary)


 * "The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more equivocal. One source of inconsistencies in the literature may be methodological, such as differences in sample size or age ranges among samples. Positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health (e.g., Harlow et al., 2004) also may be due to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems.


 * Terminating a wanted pregnancy late in pregnancy due to fetal abnormality appears to be associated with negative psychological experiences equivalent to those experienced by women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or experience a stillbirth or the death of a newborn." (from the 2008 APA report, Conclusions section)


 * I want to point out that in evaluating the 2004 Harlow et al report on multiple abortions, the APA does not try to contradict the facts uncovered during that study. But it stresses that we should all use appropriate caution when talking about this study, because the researchers did not tease causation apart from correlation.


 * Regarding "late abortion" (or "termination of pregnancy", preserving the medical sense of the word "abortion") related to fetal abnormality, the APA is very clearly cautionary. SocraticOath (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have simplified it to "There is no relationship between most induced abortions.." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Extended this sentence to provide the necessary background to understand the statement: unplanned pregnancies have similar mental health outcomes as first-time, first-trimester abortions. SocraticOath (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Due to fetal abnormalities: mental-health outcomes
I re-wrote the sentence about women who choose abortion due to fetal abnormalities after the first trimester. Previously the article said that such women are "not generally thought" to have negative mental health outcomes, but I did not feel that this statement was supported by either of the sources given: not the 2008 APA study and not the 2011 Steinberg study (I only read the abstract of this pay-to-read article). Because the Steinberg study's abstract did not contradict the cautionary findings of the 2008 APA study, I am not comfortable reversing the position from the 2008 APA study (i.e. that such women have negative mental-health outcomes similar to women who lose a wanted pregnancy due to stillbirth, miscarriage, etc). What the 2011 Steinberg study did say was that the research does not prove causation to a degree they felt sufficient for the making of major policy; this is reflected by the Wikipedia voice which now says that more rigorous research would be needed to show this conclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

first few sentences of lede
This is an improvement, thanks. So now we have:


 * Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.
 * An abortion can also occur spontaneously and is then known as a miscarriage.
 * An abortion may also be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion.
 * The word abortion most often means only induced abortions.
 * A similar procedure after the fetus can survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".
 * Modern methods use medication or surgery for induced abortions.

I suggest this is simpler:


 * Abortion (specifically referred to as induced abortion in medical terminology) is the ending of pregnancy by intentionally removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.
 * Miscarriage (sometimes called spontaneous abortion) has a similar end result, but is distinct because it was unintentional.
 * An abortion can also occur spontaneously and is then known as a miscarriage.
 * An abortion may also be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion.
 * The word abortion most often means only induced abortions.
 * A similar procedure An abortion which is performed after the fetus can plausibly survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".
 * Modern methods use medication or surgery for induced abortions.

Is there a case, in the article prose right now, where the phrase 'induced abortion' cannot be simplified to merely say 'abortion' instead? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added 'plausibly survive' per the talkpage question up higher. Not sure if the adverb makes the phrase controversial or not; added word not a big deal to me. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording above is more complicated and thus I do not see it as an improvement. We should try to use shorter sentences per WP:MEDMOS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentences are longer, I agree. But I think the new the wording is less complicated, because we don't introduce the terminology for "induced abortion" except parenthetically.  So let's try to rewrite the suggestion#2 above, into suggestion#3 with shorter sentences.


 * s3A == Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by intentionally removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.
 * s3B == (Abortion is specifically referred to as induced abortion in medical terminology.)
 * s3D ==      An abortion may also be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion.
 * s3E ==      The word abortion most often means only induced abortions.
 * s3C == An unintentional abortion can also occur spontaneously, and is then known as  which is called a miscarriage.
 * s3F == A similar procedure An abortion which is performed after the fetus can plausibly survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".
 * s3G == Modern methods use medication or surgery for induced abortions.

Analysis: s3A adds one word to an exiting mainspace sentence, going from 22 to 23 words. s3B has eleven words; it replaces mainspace's s3D of fourteen words, as well as s3E of nine more words. s3C is 11 words, which replaces mainspace's 13 words. s3F goes from 18 to 21 words; I don't have strong feelings about that sentence one way or the other, and in particular, I'm not sure 'plausible' is correct (or even that 'abortion' is an umbrella term that can cover 'late termination of pregnancy' as well as the earlier trimesters... mainspace right now implies that 'late termination of pregnancy' is *not* a kind of abortion, but is 'a similar procedure' instead). Finally, s3G removes a word, going from 9 words to 8 words, and all future sentences ... I believe but have not confirmed exhaustively ... can also remove the 'induced' qualifier. If we are able to do so, we can then likely structure the top-level article, so that we can use the simpler 'abortion' term in the rest of this intro-article, with any luck. (The doctor-oriented subsidiary articles ... as opposed to the ethical-and-political-oriented subsidiary articles ... can use 'induced abortion' as distinct from 'spontaneous abortion' but doing so in the general-readership-article seems wrongheaded to me, doubly-especially if they are basically synonyms.)

So at the end of the day, suggestion#3 has five sentences of 23+11+11+20or21+8 words, and only mentions the terminology of 'induced abortion' one time parenthetically, in s3B. Mainspace right now has six sentences, with 22+13+14and9+18+9 words. Is this getting closer? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the addition of "intentionally" this is not needed as spontaneous abortions are still abortions and they are not intentionally.
 * This is not true "(Abortion is specifically referred to as induced abortion in medical terminology.)"
 * After a fetus can possibly survive on its own is not called an abortion.
 * So I oppose these changes as they are not correct Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay: Oh, I agree that "spontaneous abortions are still abortions" in medical-jargon dictionaries. Most layman do not consider miscarriage to be an abortion; neither do most general-readership dictionaries (m-w.com "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus"). If you lose a baby unintentionally, due to miscarriage, it is not commonly-used-English to say "I (or my spouse) just had an abortion" and then clarify that it was not the induced kind. I agree that wikipedia needs to use the correct terminology, but if we are not VERY careful to explain to the readership that this top-level general-readership article uses medical jargon exclusively, it will be confusing. We are using medical jargon, in mainspace right now. We are not carefully explaining it, and not pointing out that almost nobody in real life will use such words with the meanings mainspace is assuming. But my bigger point is that we do not need to use medical jargon, in cases when normal English is just as good, yet we are. Why are we saying that 'modern methods use medication or surgery for induced abortions' as if to imply there was correspondingly a list of 'modern methods and techniques that might be used for spontaneous abortions'.
 * s3A == Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by (intentionally or unintentionally) removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.
 * s3B == ( Intentional abortions are specifically referred to as induced abortions in medical terminology.)
 * s3D ==      An abortion may also be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion.
 * s3E ==      The word abortion most often means only induced abortions.
 * s3C == An unintentional abortion can also occur spontaneously, and is then known as  which is called a miscarriage.
 * s3F == A similar procedure after the fetus can possibly survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".
 * s3G == Modern methods use medication or surgery for induced abortions.

The conflation is medically "proper" per medical dictionaries, but goes against the normal use of english by people outside the medical profession, and to me does so in a pointlessly complex fashion. Wikipedia needs to make it clear that miscarriages are medically a kind of spontaneous unintentional abortion. Wikipedia needs to make it clear that intentional coat-hanger abortions are unsafe for the mother. Wikipedia needs to make it clear that intentional aka induced modern surgical and pharmaceutical techniques are relatively safe for the mother, with important qualifications about mental health and about the trimester in which they are performed (e.g. first vs third). Wikipedia needs to explain that at a certain point, when it is possible/plausible that the fetus could survive outside the womb, the medical terminology changes to late-termination. (I also think that we need to discuss the classification of accidentally induced abortions, which were not intended, but happened as a side-effect; mayhap that is better done in a subsidiary article, but which one?) If we can do all that, without needlessly introducing excess medical jargon, then that will improve the article.

Anyways, per your advice about s3F I have changed plausibly to possibly, and gone back to the late-termination definition as "a similar procedure" rather than a type-of-abortion. (I suspect that this is another area where normal English does not map to wikipedia's medical jargon but it seems less likely to cause extreme confusion, versus the insistence that miscarriage==type-of-abortion-how-could-anyone-be-confused-about-it.) I have also added "or unintentionally" to s3A, and correspondingly added "Intentional" to s3B. Do these changes meet the correctness-standards, now? If so, then perhaps we can get to the heart of my question, which is whether using the awkward 'induced abortion' in the top-level article, when simple 'abortion' will do, is wise. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did the last two. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Okay, thanks. So now we have:
 * s4A == Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.
 * s4B == An abortion which occur spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. (grammar bug, please fix)  Abortions which occur spontaneously are also known as miscarriages. (prefer 'are typically called')
 * s4C == An abortion may be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion. (parallel sentence-construction to fix above)  Abortions may be caused purposely; these are called induced abortions. (or perhaps 'are also called')
 * s4D == In everyday English, [t]he word abortion is often typically used to mean only induced abortions. (or 'almost always' instead of 'typically' if you prefer)
 * s4E == A similar procedure after the fetus can possibly ✅ survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".
 * s4F == Modern methods use medication or surgery for induced ✅ abortions.
 * Which is getting a bit closer to ease-of-readability. However, before I suggest anything further, we need to come to consensus (at least a two-way consensus since we seem to be the only ones interested at the moment) about which kind of language-slash-terminology to prefer by default; do you think the top-level article should use the induced-abortion terminology, as normal?  If so, then I want to revise s4D, and move it from the 4th sentence to the 2nd sentence, and to very carefully emphasize to the reader that in everyday english 'abortion' is almost always specifically talking about intentional abortions, but that wikipedia prefers to use the medical jargon, which is 'induced abortions' for roughly that same concept.  Then, the rest of the article will not have (as high) a likelihood of causing confusion.
 * My actual preference, for ease-of-readability by the general readership unfamiliar with the medical terminology, is that we explain (in the first paragraph somewhere), that 'induced abortion' is not an uncommon terminology (and what it specifically means), but then go on to use the everyday terminology of plain 'abortion' here in the top-level article, with the normal meaning thereof, namely, 'abortion'=='induced abortion' unless otherwise specified. That does not mean we cannot still speak of 'spontaneous abortion'=='miscarriage' in the top-level article, since the qualifying-adjective is a form of Otherwise Specified.
 * So, at the moment, are folks here on the talkpage 1) strongly/somewhat/weakly in favor of sticking with the medical terminology 'induced abortion' throughout the top-level article? And also, are folks here on the talkpage 2) strongly/somewhat/weakly in favor of converting most of the top-level article (paragraph#1 notwithstanding) to use the everyday terminology 'abortion'=='induced abortion' throughout the bulk of the top-level article?  s4F proves it can be done, but I think we need to pick a consistent per-article meaning, then stick with it.  What is the default-meaning-as-used-by-this-wikipedia-article, that folks here prefer?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Doc_James, mainspace still has grammar errors, can you please correct? See s4B and s4C.  And I'm still hoping we can either switch to everyday terminology by eliding 'induced abortion', or failing that , make it perfectly clear to the reader that this wikipedia article is using the medical jargon and *not* the normal everyday language.  Right now we have a mix.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with the grammar other than the lack of (s) but then am no expert. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, thanks User:Doc_James. (But it's irking to have the bad grammarz live in mainspace, all the same.)  On the other issues, are you intending to remain silent on what you think the terminology should be w.r.t. the use of simple 'abortion' as the everyday synonym for 'induced abortion' in this top-level article, or are you still thinking over what your stance is?  s4F was changed, but the overall conflation is unchanged.  My goal is that we pick a terminology-style, and then revise the prose to *consistently* follow that terminology-style, which is not the case in mainspace right now.  Bad grammar is an annoyance, when is doesn't impact the clear meaning of the sentence, which in this case it didn't; imprecise use of language, and/or confusing use of language, is bigger hindrance to the article methinks.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting we change may of the instances of "abortion" to "induced abortion"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a clear position. User:CFCF has a clear position.  Ping User:Doc_James, I'm asking you what your position is.  Outside the first explanatory-paragraph, do you want to specifically use medical terminology 'induced abortion' with the medical meaning?  Outside the first explanatory-paragraph, do you want to specifically use everyday 'abortion' terminology with the everyday meaning?  Right now we do both, which is a mess.  I'm happy to suggest fixes, but we need to get the direction we're headed straightened out.  "Turn left" is not a useful suggestion, if the destination is to the righthand side.  "Turn right" is not a useful suggestion, if the destination is to the lefthand side.  What is the destination here, that you envision?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Also, if you understand my suggestion about nbsp-insertion into the botched table in the subsection below, I'd appreciate that rendering bug getting fixed. :-)         75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see the current format as an issue. We define the terms. We state spontaneous abortion to mean miscarriage. We use abortion to mean induced abortion before viability for brevity's sack in the rest of the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We do define the terms, but we write as if people will expect to read what we are writing. :-)      Then, after defining the non-layman's terminology, we go on to use... a mishmash of layman's and medical terminology.  Once again, with little emphasis on which one we are picking for the article, because, we aren't picking one... we're doing a bit of each type.  I can see how careful consistency of terminology would not be essential, for an article that was written using language in the way the untrained average readership would tend to see everywhere else in the media, but it just rubs me the wrong way, that right on the tin we say "here are the medical terms that we'll be using", as if everybody talked that way, when not even doctors talk that way (though I definitely agree they often-but-not-always write their textbooks thataway), and in some cases go on in wikipedia's voice to then 'accidentally' fall back into everyday language, before the medical terminology reasserts itself, briefly at least.  Anyways, thanks for stating your position, which seemed distinct from both mine and CFCF's, though I couldn't figure out how exactly.  Now it is more clear to me.  I'm unhappy with the state of the article, but I'll have to do a userspace revamp and then figure out how to get some multi-wiki-project consensus before revisiting the terminology question, as it is a bit too subtle.  I will probably start with the section-organization first, rather than the consistency-of-terminology issue, since I think the section-organization question is easier to understand, and will give us some insight into how the other wikipedians see the terminology-question, broadly speaking.  Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see new section below including the word "Jabberwocky" for today's continuation of this discussion.(talk) 16:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Grimes/Stuart "Abortion Jabberwocky" Article about terminology

 * For those not familiar with the piece, here is a preview of the first page. http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824%2809%2900415-6/abstract, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia editors, it looks like you have taken up the project of the 2010 'Abortion Jabberwocky' article by Grimes and Stuart and placed its central message firmly in the lede paragraph of this article. Considering the way the public talks about abortion, the way laws and policies are written, the way news is written, and really everything about the subject outside of the 1% in the medical profession for whom the term 'abortion' has a specific medical meaning, don't you think that the message of this 2010 article ought to be couched as an item of the conversation rather than absorbed and regurgitated? I would suggest simply stating in the lede paragraph something like, "while popular media uses the term 'abortion' to mean ..., medically speaking an 'abortion' only occurs ...." Or there could be a very brief section in this general article with the heading of 'terminology'. This is certainly justified by the presence of the outlandish "Note 1" that appears in the lede now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that the dual definitions for abortion are not something to be buried in the reference group of Note 1. I will add the following sentence to the first paragraph by EOW unless somebody has a good reason not to...
 * Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.[note 1] When An abortion which may occurs spontaneously it is also known as a miscarriage, and when it is caused purposely it is called induced abortion. An abortion may be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion. The word abortion is often used to mean only induced any abortions ending of pregnancy that is caused purposely. A similar procedure Medically, after the fetus can possibly survive on its own this is called a "late termination of pregnancy" rather than abortion. SocraticOath (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's how it looks:
 * Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.[note 1] When abortion occurs spontaneously it is known as a miscarriage, and when it is caused purposely it is called induced abortion. The word abortion is often used to mean any ending of pregnancy that is caused purposely. Medically, after the fetus can  survive on its own this is called a "late termination of pregnancy" rather than abortion. SocraticOath (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello User:SocraticOath, 146.23 noticed that I was working on this terminology-and-jargon question with User:Doc_James further up the talkpage, and pinged me to take a look here. I have been working offline, on some revisions, which are not yet ready for prime-time, that I may propose later.  For the moment, I will note that WP:JARGON guideline seems applicable, specifically to this top-level article about abortion the general concept (political and philosophical and ethical and social as well as medical), if not necessarily to the detailed articles about specific medical procedures (for those WP:TECHNICAL definitely applies... and for the parts of *this* article that are unavoidably technical because they summarize the subsidiary technical articles, the guideline to "strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible" most definitely also applies).  I will try to peek in here from time to time, please ping my usertalk if something specific comes up I may be able to help with.  The fundamental difficulty here is that, language as used in the WP:SOURCES is imprecise, and it will be difficult to make our wikipedia-article simultaneously easy-to-understand for a general readership, yet retain 100% accuracy.  I do think we ought to try, of course.  :-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Am happy with User:SocraticOath changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Doc James, Would you take a look at the section above, 'defining abortion' for the change I'm proposing next? I think that 75.108 might be happy with this change after the expression of frustration above highlighted by the emoticon :).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Two notes, on wiki-technology. First of all, User:SocraticOath, is it safe to assume that you are the same human as User:146.23.*?  If you are NOT the same person, my apologies, but since you are both from California, and both have the same interest in this page, I am guessing you are a single human who is just using multiple devices, and sometimes forgetting to login to your wikipedia username.  If that is the case, since you have a wikipedia username, please get in the habit of fixing any comment you make while not logged in, so that it says "SocraticOath" at the bottom of all your comments.  Make sense?  It can get confusing, especially on a busy talkpage!
 * And the second wiki-technology-note, is that when you want somebody to look at another part of wikipedia, you should bluelink their username, and you should also wikilink to the place you want them to look, like this: User:Doc_James, you have been pinged by User:SocraticOath, who asks that you please look at Talk:Abortion, when you have a moment.  Thataway, DocJames can just click the wikilink you provided, rather than hunting around for what you might have been referring unto, make sense?  The trick to making things blue is to put brackets around them, see WP:WIKILINK for the helpdocs, or just click 'edit' on this talkpage-section and look at what I did to make the bluelinked things turn blue.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

medical-mechanism-chart looks wrong in firefox
Please change this upper-chart-wikitext:

To this lower-chart-wikitext:

I'm also seeing | down in the caption area, "suspended in mid-air" all alone to the right of the caption text. Not sure where that rendering-bug is coming from, or how to fix it.

The revised version here (lower-chart-wikitext) mostly tweaks the names, so that they fit inside the colored boxes, without wordwrapping or extending outside the bounds, which makes the captions now in mainspace (upper-chart-wikitext) mostly-unreadable. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing this as well and moved it to Abortion methods. This code shouldn't be in the article but at a template. I'll see if I can fix anything

... -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – Pseudoimage calls on Magnify icon which doesn't seem to be working. It's not only Firefox, same issue on Safari. Simply got rid of it. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF, I'm no longer seeing the extraneous punctuation, thanks, but I'm still seeing improperly-wordwrapped-footers. In the   footer, the word 'weeks' is getting shoved out of the green box, and overwrites part of the caption ("Gestational age...").  Similarly, the orange box cannot contain the   caption, once again the word 'weeks' is improperly-wordwrapped to mess up the caption ("...may determine...").  Suggest abbreviating the outer two footer-strings, and adding three nbsp entity-refs, so that the captions look roughly like this:
 * (old version doesn't work in firefox at least)
 * (new version with suggested fixes looks okay in firefox at least)
 * Note that I used 'nbspx' rather than the correct 'nbsp' to force the stuff to be visible... nowiki apparently doesn't de-HTML-ize nbsp! See the fixed-chart-example above, which has already picked up your magnify_icon fix, and can prolly be copy-pasted as-is, if the render looks good in Safari/IE/Android/Chrome/etc.   Also, while we're messing with the chart-layout, suggest abbreviating Hysterotomy to instead something shorter:  the '...my' is outside the bluebox, in my browser, so I suggest Hyst. as a guaranteed-to-fit replacement, that is still properly wikilinked (people can see the full target-name 'Hysterotomy' by hovering their mouse over the wikilink in a popup-tooltip).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding a bat-signal. This is a purely-formatting-related request:  please change chart#1 above to chart#2 above.  May not be broken in all browsers, but rendering is most definitely broken in firefox.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still partially-broken-looking in Firefox. Here is the current problem:
 * current table-footers: 0-12 _____ | 12-28 weeks | 28-40 _____
 * current caption-stuff: GesWtEEaKtSional age may determWiEEnKeS ...
 * correct table-footers: 0-12 wks | 12-28 weeks | 28-40 wks
 * correct caption-stuff: Gestational age may determine ...
 * For aesthetic reasons (text runs outside the bluebox), it would also be nice for "Hysterotomy" to be abbreviated to "Hyst." but this is less crucial. In all three rendering-bugs, the problem is that the fontface renders text which is too long to fit in the allocated box.  Inserting the nbsp magic, and also abbreviating the words, together bugfixes those rendering-issues, without needing to resize the overall table.
 * p.s. As an aside, it is conceivable to fix the rendering-issues without abbreviating, if anybody prefers to upsize the size of the boxen rather than abbreviate, that is an alternative solution, but since size of the boxes, have specific meaning here, the entire table would have to be upsized (simply changing the size of the hysterotomy-bluebox alone, to fit the unabbreviated-text-size, without adjusting the sizes of the rest of the table, would be The Wrong Thing).  Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, not seeing the errors under firefox–what resolution are you running? Do you think you could provide a screenshot? Anyway the actual code is at Abortion methods, which isn't protected (yet). Go ahead and make the necessary changes. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 03:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * CFCF replied to user semi-protected request, closing request until reopened by 75.108.94.227. JustBerry (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Abortion methods
 * Error fix
 * Embarrassingly, I just assumed the template would also be protected. :-)    WP:SOFIXIT has been accomplished, ping User:CFCF, please verify I didn't mess anything up in other browsers and OSes.  p.s. Screen resolution 1920x1080, plenty of space.  Firefox 38 ESR, reasonably modern.  Some kind of issue with default fonts, maybe?  If you can test in an android browser or two, that might be worthwhile.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary section break, for WP:VPT
Okay, I'm running Firefox 43, though at 2560x1080 and never had any errors. On the other hand when I run it up on my phone I'm getting some issues with android that seem to have to do with the font. This is a LG G4 running Firefox 38. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, your android screenshot is similar to what I'm experiencing, although on my system the text-glyphs don't stick out below the bottoms of the blueboxen. I only just noticed (i.e. today) the wrapping of "Induced Miscarr." onto two lines, which my browser also experiences.  However, because the colored-background-boxes line up 'properly' on my system, the wrapped portion is non-visible:  in my browser I only see "Induced" within a blue box.  Below that blue box, there is a yellow box containing "12-28 weeks" without visible problems.  However, the wrapped bit (the text "Miscarr.") is invisible, since it is layered beneath the yellow box.
 * On your android phone, because the pixel-positioning of the boxes is messed up, "12-28 weeks" sticks out the bottom of the yellow box, and "Miscarr." sticks out even further, almost messing with the captions. Anyways, we can jam some nbsp stuff in between the wrapped phrases that I didn't catch earlier due to CSS layering obscuring them without me noticing.  So instead of saying "Induced Miscarr." which wraps improperly we could say "Ind. Miscarr." that will likely fit inside the bluebox, on desktop systems anways.  For similar reasons, we should use "Intact D&X" with the nbsp stuck in there.
 * But those tweaks won't solve the pixel-positioning and box-size issues, for android phones (not sure the problem is applicable to all versions). There also might be other pseudo-image templates being used in other articles on the 'pedia, which are similarly rendering poorly on smartphones and tablets and such.  So I suggest we ping some people that might know more template-and-CSS-stuff, that might be able to troubleshoot with us (plus have access to additional test-systems so that we can get a handle on how badly broken the rendering-output is on other platforms).  Any objection to moving this to WP:VPT, or to the talkpage of the template(s)?  I don't think the rendering-problems are specific to the abortion-article.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, in doing a bit of testing, I can see the buggy behavior of the template from my laptop PC, simply by visiting the mobile-version of wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Medical, whereas I don't have problems with the colored boxen lining up when visiting the non-mobile version of wikipedia from the same exact laptop PC running the same exact firefox , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Medical -- User:CFCF, what happens when you visit the en.m.* website, from your 2560-pixel screen? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that causes the same issues as one my phone. Lost as to what causes it, haven't done much work on mobile-friendly templates. Could ask at WP:VPTECH... -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 23:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is specific to the abortion-page, and yeah, the mobile templates are a world all their own, I've got a WP:VPT question open already about the 2016 presidential campaigns, where the mobile-bluebox was not working AT ALL and so readership on tablets and smartphones could not see the endorsement info for candidates... and now it is forced open by default so that people with 4" screens have to scroll through a bazillion endorsements! :-)      Sigh.  Anyways, I'll open a thread about this pseudo-image-bug when viewing on mobile devices, and maybe they'll fix up the template to automagically insert nbsp rather than wrapping by default, too?  We'll see.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, ping User:CFCF, opened WP:VPT question over here which was moved to over there .  Ping User:Mdann52, this is probably CSS related, unfortunately, but it is also making a fairly vital article look buggy on mobile devices, thus might be worth your while to investigate, if you wish.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed by increasing the size of the image. There was no code errors as such, but the resolution was too low before for mobiles, hence it was compressed. It now looks ok, on IE mobile view at least. Mdann52 (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Template seems fixed. I tweaked one of the bluebox-labels for length, and the table-chart now looks okay on my PC in both mobile-view and normal-view.  I note that some of the substantive lengths of the blueboxes have been adjusted, for instance the meaningful width-parameter of the IDX bluebox formerly spanned ~16 weeks to ~30 weeks and now spans all the way to 40 weeks.  Not sure if that was on purpose content-fix, or a byproduct of the bugfixing work.  However, when I looked deeper into the meaningful-width-tweaks, it turns out that most of the blueboxen seem to be inaccurate, so, on that matter please see new talksubsection below.  Or maybe, the bluebox-timespans are accurate, and the subsidiary articles are inaccurate?
 * In any case, the technological problems with templates seem to be 100% solved, I am able to adjust the sizes of the boxes properly now, and as long as nbsp is utilized in multiword bluebox-labels, no unwanted wordwrapping occurs. My thanks to User:Mdann52 for the sizefix and to User:TheDJ for the missing curlycurly.  Ping User:CFCF, can you please test in android once more, and if anybody has an iDevice, a spot-check there would be appreciated.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

bluebox timespans may be wrong
I'm seeing new 'lengths' for some of the blueboxen. Not sure if this is a bug-in-the-bugfixing, or just a previously-undetected-flaw-in-the-params-being-passed-to-the-template, which have now manifested themselves as a side-effect of bugfixing. In any case, the hysterotomy-bluebox now in mainspace spans from ~20 to ~40 weeks, whereas before the bugfix(es), the hysterotomy-bluebox spanned from ~20 weeks to ~30 weeks. This shorter-versus-longer rendering, can be seen -- or at least *I* can see it in my browser -- at the "hardcoded" charts, occupying the uppermost position inside this toplevel-talkpage-section (the more-compact blueboxen with the ~30_weeks_endpoints are also visible in the mobile-device-screenshot). Now, in point of fact, both 20-to-40 and 20-to-30 are apparently wrong, for the hysterotomy bluebox. (The wikilink was also wrong, I changed it from hysterotomy to now point to hysterotomy abortion.) That subsidiary article claims that 12-to-24 is the accurate timespan, in the infobox there.

Digging a bit deeper, it looks like we have inconsistent claims for *most* of the bluebox-lengths, and since it is probably a controversial change, I figured I would bring it up here. Note well, I'm not sure whether this chart is the problem, or if the spinoff articles are the problem. But I'm sure they disagree on the timespan during gestation at which the various methods are applicable.


 * here: left 50 right 100 Hysterotomy
 * there: left 30 right 60 Hysterotomy (also changed wikilink)


 * here: left 15 right 30 EVA
 * there: seems correct as of 2007, but not sure about nowadays


 * here: left 7.5 right 20 MVA
 * there: seems close to correct as of 2007, but not sure about nowadays


 * here: left 40 right 65 D&E
 * there: left 30 right 60 D&E


 * here: left 15 right 37.5 D&C
 * there: left 10 right 30  D&C


 * here: left 50 right 100 Intact D&E
 * there: left 40 right 100 Intact D&E


 * here: left 7.5 right 30 Mifepr.
 * there: left UNK right 22.5 Mifepr. often w/ prostaglandin (always?) presumably
 * other: left 30 right 60 Mifepr. w/ Gemeprost (suggest we add this bluebox to the table-chart)


 * here: left 40 right 100 Induction abortion
 * there: left 30 right 100 Induced labor (also changed wikilink && wikitext)

These numbers are the 'percentage' numbers used in the Template:abortion_methods code. Each week is equal to 2.5% of the chart-width, so MVA from 7.5 (percent) to 20 (percent) is the same as 3 weeks to 8 weeks. Our spinoff-article vacuum aspiration (we have 'unified' the MVA and EVA articles and stripped out the detailed differences unfortunately) does not specify when MVA and EVA are typical, but looking in the history, as of 2007 it was typical that MVA might be used from 3 to 7 weeks, aka left 7.5 right 17.5 -- however, see next paragraph.

But what about off by one errors? In the 2007 language, when they said '3 to 7 weeks' for MVA, most likely what they actually meant was '3 to 7 weeks *inclusive*' for MVA. In other words, MVA was typical from any time between the *start* of the 3rd week of pregnancy, through the *end* of the 7th week of pregnancy. If that is the correct interpretation, then the MVA timespan shown on our table-chart, would be left 7.5 right 20 for MVA, aka any time between the *start* of the 3rd week of pregnancy, through the *start* of the 8th week of pregnancy.

So, can some people who are familiar with the wide variety of modern surgical and pharmaceutical mechanisms, and the typical timespans in which they are used, or at least, familiar with what the WP:SOURCES say about such things, please cast a critical wiki-eye upon the sizes of the blueboxen here? Ideally, I would like to know how many *days* into a pregnancy each technique is useful; the table-chart is not actually incapable of displaying arbitrarily exact info (subject to rendering-limitations related to pixel-size in practice but theoretically almost unlimited). To avoid the accuracy-trap of speaking about the ambiguous "3 to 7 weeks" type of language, I would rather we attempt to encode the dataset into the table-chart using less-granular "21 to 49 days" (for '3 to 7 exclusive') or more likely "21 to 56 days" (for '3 to 7 inclusive'). Does anybody have these numbers on tap, as it were? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mental Health Outcomes
This article differs from Abortion and mental health in reporting on abortions carried out because of defects; also, it makes no mention of the mental health effects observed when women have a second-or-more abortion. Both of these negative trends were acknowledged by the 2008 task force of the American Psychological Association, which was upheld by the 2011 UK review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Today's edits reflect the proposed changes. Thanks! SocraticOath (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * user:cfcf, you reverted changes to the wording of the section on mental health in this article. I changed the wording to account for the limited set of circumstances under which abortions are shown by the references not to cause mental health problems.  I'm concerned that while new mothers are screened for 'post-partum depression', even with wanted children, women who have abortions may never be screened for mental health issues even though everybody agrees that they have the same chance of having issues.
 * These are the conditions for no-additional-risk, each of which is plainly shown in the reports. Any deviation from these circumstances showed a correlation with negative mental health outcomes.
 * Only one abortion was performed.
 * The patient had never had an abortion before.
 * The abortion was performed in the first trimester.
 * The mental health outcome of the abortion was compared against the outcome for women carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
 * For women having an abortion who have had an abortion before, there is a correlation with negative mental health outcomes. This is why I wrote 'first abortion' rather than 'single abortion'; practically all procedures are 'single abortions', but many of those are not a woman's first abortion.  Even though the APA 2008 report disallows calling this a causal correlation, suggesting that reasons for wanting a second abortion are often causes for mental health problems, this is no reason for anybody to overlook the concern about the woman's well-being.
 * In addition, the studies show a correlation with negative mental health outcomes when the abortion was due to fetal abnormalities, stating that such women are about as likely to suffer this way as women with spontaneous abortion of a wanted pregnancy. It would be pretty reckless to hide this information, in my opinion.SocraticOath (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Defining Abortion
The definition of abortion in the lede might be misleading as follows: in the US, women have the right to terminate pregnancy past viability unless so banned by individual states. But if the reader of this article uses the definition given (limiting abortion to actions on a pre-viable pregnancy), she would need another word besides abortion even though all the news and all the policy are written for abortion before and after viability. Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to use the more general term and be more-in-line with the more common usage of the term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Dictionary states that the more-specific definition (before viability) is a medical term, and the general definition is used outside of the medical world. This sounds like a good way to clear up the ambiguity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Judging by comments above, it seems that Wikipedia would be comfortable reversing the position on the first-sentence definition of abortion from the strictly medical definition to the common definition. The new first paragraph would be shorter and appear as follows:


 * Abortion is the ending of pregnancy, not resulting in live birth. When abortion occurs spontaneously it is known as a miscarriage, and when it is caused purposely it is called induced abortion.  Medically speaking, after the fetus can survive on its own this is called a "late termination of pregnancy" rather than abortion.[1][2][note 1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I am suggesting similar things, further up the talkpage, myself, please do not assume that a couple-few wikipedians makes a crowd. In other words, as you probably know, this page is about a very sensitive topic, and the current form of the page has taken a long while to appear.  My main interest is twofold:  first of all, I want to have wikipedia using internally consistent terminology, on each page as appropriate, and second of all, I think that on *any* page where we use the medical definitions, we need to be extra super-careful to explain exactly what terminology we are using (since everyday usage is vastly different), and then be especially diligent about never straying from said explanation.  Anyways, I am glad to see this type of proposal being made, but I do caution you that it will probably not be approved in short order; it will take time to build consensus, that what is being proposed is truly an improvement, and not just a sideways-step.  We have a *lot* of parts of the page that depend on how things are defined in the first paragraph, and a lot of WP:SPINOFF subsidiary articles which also have terminology, and may depend on the readership having come here for the terminology-lesson.  So we must proceed with WP:BOLDness but not stray into recklessness, since the real-world-terminology-usage is contentious, and the real-world-topic is controversial, that makes it extra-tough to do the right thing.  Make sense?  I'll try to help out if I can, feel free to ping my userpage if you want a quick opinion.
 * But my quick opinion of the suggested revision, here, is that it won't be satisfactory to User:CFCF, and maybe not to User:Doc James (please pardon the double-ping DocJames), either. For my part, I think it is moving towards an improvement in satisfying the principle of least astonishment and complying with WP:JARGON, but we need to take some thought for the repercussions that such a change will have elsewhere in the body-prose of this article, and maybe of subsidiaries.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but such a procedure is known as a Late termination of pregnancy, not an abortion. If you want to change it you're going to have to provide quality sources that indicate wide-spread use of your definition. CFCF   💌 📧 10:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Carl, I appreciate your purist stance toward the terminology. Of course this is critical in Wikipedia--- how many fights could we avoid by simply using language correctly?  But I don't think it's right in this case to take a hard line toward technical language, especially language that's explicitly debated in the journals (see the Jabberwocky article).  But I don't see anything even close to a consensus that abortion is a term for terminating a pregnancy before viability, especially now that viability is also a fiercely debated topic.  What I do see is that sociology and medicine follow the use that everybody is used to of the word: abortion can mean anything other than live birth... and practically nobody refers to miscarriage as a kind of abortion outside of strict medical terminology.
 * A pie graph quantifies the small proportion of abortions performed after 20 weeks.
 * A policy document describes the legal environment regarding abortion throughout pregnancy.
 * A national report of abortions in Sweden gives statistics for abortions occurring after 18 weeks gestation (see Table 4).
 * An American ob-gyn authority publishes a practice bulletin for abortions in the 2nd trimester.
 * An online resource reminds the public that miscarriage is not an abortion in the common definition of the term, and uses the term 'late miscarriage' for events after 20 weeks.
 * A US national health organization gives statistics for abortions occurring after 21 weeks.


 * I'm going to re-correct the definition page with a caveat about medical terminology, which is what was done at WebMD as well. If you want to continue this discussion, please bring your references to the table.  SocraticOath (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside, a technology note ... User:SocraticOath, I have risked angering the wiki-deities by editing your comment. This is almost never a good idea, especially on contentious pages, but I figured you would not mind, since it was just a formatting-fix.  I moved the reflist-talk thing up a bit to make it "inside" your comment, and moved your signature to the end of your text, so that the newline would not cause it to de-indent.  Feel free to revert me if you don't like the outcome.  :-)      Rather than following my risky lead, and editing the comments of others, I strongly urge just leaving them a note on their user_talk page.  In particular, whilst it is always excellent practice to fix grammar and spelling errors in *articles* on wikipedia, some folks get very annoyed if you fix their grammar-and-spelling mistakes in talkpage-comments, so as a rule, never edit comment by other people.  See WP:WIKIQUETTE for some helpdoc-tips.
 * p.s. Most of the needful definition-related-sources are in the article already, methinks, it is a question of which lingo to utilize where. I am also a linguistic-purist, but of a different sort from CFCF ... whatever policy-backed convention we end up with, I want to make sure we are consistent in applying that convention (at least article-by-article internal consistency).  There is a reasonable case to be made that 'miscarriage' has a specific well-defined meaning (reasonably-non-contentious ... though in fact some textbooks refuse to use that term!) but the other terms we are dealing with here are very loaded.  Readability concerns and WP:NPOV concerns are both crucial here; in particular, careful application of WP:UNDUE is needed.  The nutshell-argument for using the medical-textbook-terms is that they are the 'best' sources and will maximize precision; the nutshell-argument for carefully using everyday-language-terms (with explanatory prose whenever some subpopulation of the readership might reasonably be expected to be confused) is WP:JARGON and the WP:NOT (wikipedia is a general-readership encyclopedia and not a medical textbook), and using everyday-terms in a reasonably-precise extremely-well-explained fashion is less likely to confuse the readership.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources being cited use the term "induced abortion" at first and then stick to only abortion–in the same way we do. I don't see the need to add induced everywhere, nor the need to exclude the proper terminology from the lede. CFCF  💌 📧 23:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:cfcf, thanks for cleaning up the references. Yes, I am glad of tech-fixing here, especially when doing it wrong makes the whole thread impossible to follow.  While it's true that I'm the one proposing a change to the definition of 'abortion' here, it seems clear that the change is in the right direction.  Just a casual look reveals that 'abortion' is not limited this way in the literature except the "abortion jabberwocky" article, written explicitly on this subject, and which supports the view that the term is used many different ways.  Did you look at any of the references that I provided in this thread?  Here are a few more.
 * I was not under the impression that Wikipedia can change the way words are used, and there are others in this talk page who don't have any objection to removing this specification. Out of respect for 1RR on this page, I won't change it back.  But anybody else could by changing the words "A similar procedure called..." to "In medicine, this is called..." as needed in the first lede paragraph.


 * SocraticOath (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I have placed the alternate term for "late termination of pregnancy" at the end of the paragraph. This usage is supported most strongly in law.  I just noticed that the text of Roe v. Wade provides a US legal definition using the broad, 'common' definition for abortion, which excludes spontaneous abortion and includes post-viability abortion.SocraticOath (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is much better, and you nailed it in that the issue is with using "in medicine", because it is a medical procedure and all discussion includes the medical. As for terminology we should strive for a global view and not only include the American legal view. CFCF   💌 📧 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015
Cwil353 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Induced miscarriage
The infographic for which method is used at what gestational stage includes an item for "induced miscarriage." Until edits that I made today, this term was not introduced anywhere in the text in Wikipedia although a simple Google search yields plenty examples of its use. Since the term straddles legal, social, and technical boundaries I suspect it will be extremely hard to define properly. For this reason I am entering it as follows: This or that is "sometimes called 'induced miscarriage'". Comments? -SocraticOath (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Late termination of pregnancy
As we have an article on it, all the names for this procedure do not need to go in this article IMO. Thus I have moved them to that article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! -SocraticOath (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RU-486
Should be mentioned once IMO. This is like acetaminophen versus paracetamol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Add Mifepristone (or RU-486) used as an abortifacient and as "the morning after pill." Paracetamol, (is also known as acetaminophen or APAP). <font color="DarkOrange">... <font color="DarkOrange">Checkingfax <font color="DarkGray"> ( Talk )  00:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, fine by me (I deleted it), but we should only have it once, and not after every mention of mifepristone as was introduced. CFCF   💌 📧 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed removal
I suggest removing "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as good as surgery during the first trimester" from lead per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:MEDICAL and "As of 2008, 40% of the world's women had access to legal abortions without limits as to reason" as potentially outdated statement (I've currently hid that). Brandmeistertalk  15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agreed with this proposed removal and did it. -SocraticOath (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is important information. It is well supported by the ref in question. And thus is a statement of fact rather than howto. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

2008
This "As of 2008, 40% of the world's women had access to legal abortions without limits as to reason." is based on a 2010 ref which is 5 years old. It is not like this is an actively studied area. If their is a newer estimate we can add it. But do not see justification for its removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040829013142/http://www.medicinenet.com:80/Miscarriage/page1.htm to http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/page1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050405202853/http://archfami.ama-assn.org:80/cgi/content/full/7/6/559 to http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/559
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101206002417/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697 to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003133834/http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12715.pdf to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12715.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718170925/http://af.czu.cz/~bartos/publications/pdf/Pluhacek_Bartos_2000_AB.pdf to http://af.czu.cz/~bartos/publications/pdf/Pluhacek_Bartos_2000_AB.pdf

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

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikilink: Feticide#Use during legal abortion
Hi WP editors, there's a section in the article Feticide that talks about its use during legal abortion, but there's no link to that article here. Why not? -146.23.3.250 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because this article has a long standing NPOV problem. Mentioning feticide would hardly conform to the "don't mention killing or death of the fetus" zeitgeist. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * link to feticide is here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but feticide is also sometimes employed in the process of late-term surgical abortions in order to prevent the occurrence of a live birth. It is in this context that we won't dare to mention feticide in this article, lest the reader should conclude that abortion is intended to kill the fetus. This article should not be censored to protect a pro-abortion ideology. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have an article on late termination of pregnancy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

RuSHA Trial
I'm aware of what's being referred to in the source, but the statement you added is not true. If you want to include that, you need to include reliable sources, which, because they're not Liberty University, point out that the defendants were being tried for genocide and that their promotion of abortion was restricted to Slavs. The idea that the Nuremberg trials found voluntary abortion to be a crime against humanity is egregiously false. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To quote more broadly, this is what Rita Joseph, Human Rights and the Unborn Child says: "Historian Dr. John Hunt, in a recent series of research papers on the Nuremberg Trials involving abortion, has established that condemnation of abortion was not simply limited to the practice of forced abortion but extended to voluntary abortions. James McHaney, the prosecutor of the RuSHA/Greifelt Case, in his summation called abortion .... a crime against humanity". RuSHA_trial also says basically the same. Brandmeistertalk  17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you or do you not acknowledge that the body of sourcing on this trial recognizes the obvious fact that the defendants are being tried for ethnic cleansing? Incidentally, I can't substantiate the claims that the primary sources refer to abortion as an "inhumane act" or a "crime against humanity", but Rita Joseph is, presumably intentionally, omitting some extremely relevant text from her other McHaney quote: "protection of the law was denied to the unborn children of the Russian and Polish women in Nazi Germany". McHaney also noted earlier in the same paragraph that "Abortions were prohibited in Germany...[and]...After the Nazis came to power this law was enforced with great severity"! (PS. Don't cite Wikipedia. If our article on the trial contains errors, they must be fixed, not propagated for the sake of nonsensical consistency.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110926235733/http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/er765.pdf to http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/er765.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324101905/http://www.guttmacher.org:80/pubs/FB-AIU-summary.pdf to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-AIU-summary.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111020135329/http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-AIU-summary.pdf to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-AIU-summary.pdf

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)