Talk:Late termination of pregnancy

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mparagas18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Reasons"
I renamed the reasons section, because it is mistakenly portraying itself as being "reasons why a late-term abortion is sought", rather than "reasons why an abortion is sought later on".

I also object to the use of "late-term abortion" in a technical, medical sense in that passage, as doctors have routinely criticized that term as nonsensical and non-medical. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What was wrong with this?
"Due to the risk of viability—and the corresponding legal implications that can come with a live birth"

Ref says "The role of inducing demise before dilation and evacuation (D&E) remains unclear, except for legal considerations in the United States when an intact delivery is intended."

https://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What is wrong is it completely misrepresents the article. Here is the relevant quote from the article "Patients and members of the medical care team prefer to avoid delivery of a nonviable fetus with signs of life when the original intent was pregnancy termination" V5REDwiki (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is very clear that the risk is not that a nonviable fetus becomes viable. The risk is of a nonviable fetus giving the false appearance of viability. V5REDwiki (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Risk of viability" is not found in any of the sources


 * Here is the relevant quote from one of the cited sources "Patients and members of the medical care team prefer to avoid delivery of a nonviable fetus with signs of life when the original intent was pregnancy termination" It is very clear that the risk is NOT of a nonviable fetus becoming viable. The risk is of a nonviable fetus giving the false appearance of viability. V5REDwiki (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes good point User:V5REDwiki. Have adjusted to "Due to the potential of signs of life in a non-viable fetus—and the corresponding legal implications" as mentioning the legal issue in the US is important aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess the internet has jaded me because I expected a much different response. Your rewording is much better than my version. V5REDwiki (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating legal section

 * Here is an article about cut offs in Europe.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This article has no "Criticism" section
For something as contentious as late-term abortions, many people have criticisms. For example, some think that late-term abortions are murder, especially if the fetus could be extracted from the womb and live outside of the mother. But this article has no sentences at all stating that many people criticize late-term abortions for basically being murder, since they consider the fetus to be a child. I've spoken with people who have this opinion, as well as people who are pro-choice, and the pro-life people sometimes give the example "If you removed the fetus from the womb, especially late in pregnancy (25+ weeks) when the fetus could almost certainly survive by itself, and then shot it in the head, why is that any different from aborting the fetus in the womb?" I'll find some sources discussing this, but there are major problems with this article not including any criticisms at all. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, just that both opinions needs to be listed. BobRoberts14 (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14


 * Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the topic. You can suggest a specific edit, which we will discuss.
 * I suggest that you use reputable sources, not things that you heard a pro-life person say one time. Remember that if you have a conclusion, and search for sources in support of it, that's cherry-picking and will lead you down the wrong path.
 * There's, I feel, adequate coverage of these issues at Abortion Debate. Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Updates
This page has been dormant for quite a while and needs significant updating to reflect advances in research. I updated the first two paragraphs to include more recent citations and made it more specific and accurate (for example, saying that a later abortion may occur in the second or third trimester). I updated the "reasons" section to reflect the various reasons documented in the literature for why people seek later abortions, and included updated information on safety. DataNerdMPH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted these changes, mainly because I'm concerned about trying to WP:PROMOte "later abortion" as a term to use. This seems to be advocated by a single organization.  Also, looking at the history for this article, I don't think it's fair to say it's been dormant.  Also, the changes you made were all the the WP:LEAD of the article.  This can be appropriate, but not always – the lead should be a summary of information in the rest of the article, not really a place to add new information.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was a big fan of the spirit of the changes made by User:DataNerdMPH. I think that "late-term" should be avoided, since "late term" is obstetrically defined as 41w0d to 41w6d.  At the same time, I agree that WP:PROMO has points.  What organization do you have in mind as advocating for "later abortion"?  I know some people who advocate for it.
 * I imagine the best thing is to avoid the issue; persistently call it "late termination of pregnancy" in the article, and have a section on "nomenclature" in which we address the cluster. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, discussing various terms that get thrown around in a separate section seems like a good approach. The PROMO was referring to was where "later abortion" was sourced to: link.  See especially their note on terminology at the very bottom.  If it's used elsewhere, it could be mentioned along with other terms that get used.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you reverted the changes. Now the article is inaccurate, again. There is no such thing as "postviability abortion." Saying "later stage of pregnancy" instead of "second or third trimester" is less specific and less accurate. Calling the person a "mother" when they may not be is inaccurate. Using the phrase "late term" is also vague. As I documented in my earlier changes, the most common reasons for second and third trimester abortions are not, as the second paragraph states, "when the mother's health is at serious risk," but because of delays in discovering pregnancy, barriers to care, etc, as I cited. DataNerdMPH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be responding to me, but you indented your reply under Tri's message, so I've un-indented your post by one level (see WP:THREAD for more info). Also, please sign your posts with exactly four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three or five, as those don't leave complete signatures. Thanks.  For some of this, I like Tri's suggestion for a nomenclature section above, and will respond there with more detail after I do here.  Using "mother" to refer to the pregnant woman is pretty standard, regardless of one's views on abortion – the main article at Abortion does so fairly frequently.  Trying to scrub "mother" from the article in this sense is a subtle form of WP:POV-pushing.  As for the reasons, I agree that could probably be updated some.  If you look in the body of the article, it already does give a more nuanced picture than the statement in the lead; this could be remedied fairly simply by updating the lead to reflect this (by the way, see MOS:LEADCITE for some relevant style here), but also by expanding what's in the body if appropriate (I haven't looked in tons of detail yet).  One question remaining: what's your objection to "postviability"?  By this article's nature, its coverage is going to be at least slightly vague, which it directly addresses.  If we go with some sort of "nomenclature" section as suggested above, I think moving this term down there would be appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, discussing various terms that get thrown around in a separate section seems like a good approach. The PROMO was referring to was where "later abortion" was sourced to: link.  See especially their note on terminology at the very bottom.  If it's used elsewhere, it could be mentioned along with other terms that get used.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you reverted the changes. Now the article is inaccurate, again. There is no such thing as "postviability abortion." Saying "later stage of pregnancy" instead of "second or third trimester" is less specific and less accurate. Calling the person a "mother" when they may not be is inaccurate. Using the phrase "late term" is also vague. As I documented in my earlier changes, the most common reasons for second and third trimester abortions are not, as the second paragraph states, "when the mother's health is at serious risk," but because of delays in discovering pregnancy, barriers to care, etc, as I cited. DataNerdMPH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be responding to me, but you indented your reply under Tri's message, so I've un-indented your post by one level (see WP:THREAD for more info). Also, please sign your posts with exactly four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three or five, as those don't leave complete signatures. Thanks.  For some of this, I like Tri's suggestion for a nomenclature section above, and will respond there with more detail after I do here.  Using "mother" to refer to the pregnant woman is pretty standard, regardless of one's views on abortion – the main article at Abortion does so fairly frequently.  Trying to scrub "mother" from the article in this sense is a subtle form of WP:POV-pushing.  As for the reasons, I agree that could probably be updated some.  If you look in the body of the article, it already does give a more nuanced picture than the statement in the lead; this could be remedied fairly simply by updating the lead to reflect this (by the way, see MOS:LEADCITE for some relevant style here), but also by expanding what's in the body if appropriate (I haven't looked in tons of detail yet).  One question remaining: what's your objection to "postviability"?  By this article's nature, its coverage is going to be at least slightly vague, which it directly addresses.  If we go with some sort of "nomenclature" section as suggested above, I think moving this term down there would be appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you reverted the changes. Now the article is inaccurate, again. There is no such thing as "postviability abortion." Saying "later stage of pregnancy" instead of "second or third trimester" is less specific and less accurate. Calling the person a "mother" when they may not be is inaccurate. Using the phrase "late term" is also vague. As I documented in my earlier changes, the most common reasons for second and third trimester abortions are not, as the second paragraph states, "when the mother's health is at serious risk," but because of delays in discovering pregnancy, barriers to care, etc, as I cited. DataNerdMPH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be responding to me, but you indented your reply under Tri's message, so I've un-indented your post by one level (see WP:THREAD for more info). Also, please sign your posts with exactly four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three or five, as those don't leave complete signatures. Thanks.  For some of this, I like Tri's suggestion for a nomenclature section above, and will respond there with more detail after I do here.  Using "mother" to refer to the pregnant woman is pretty standard, regardless of one's views on abortion – the main article at Abortion does so fairly frequently.  Trying to scrub "mother" from the article in this sense is a subtle form of WP:POV-pushing.  As for the reasons, I agree that could probably be updated some.  If you look in the body of the article, it already does give a more nuanced picture than the statement in the lead; this could be remedied fairly simply by updating the lead to reflect this (by the way, see MOS:LEADCITE for some relevant style here), but also by expanding what's in the body if appropriate (I haven't looked in tons of detail yet).  One question remaining: what's your objection to "postviability"?  By this article's nature, its coverage is going to be at least slightly vague, which it directly addresses.  If we go with some sort of "nomenclature" section as suggested above, I think moving this term down there would be appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You appeared to be responding to me, but you indented your reply under Tri's message, so I've un-indented your post by one level (see WP:THREAD for more info). Also, please sign your posts with exactly four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three or five, as those don't leave complete signatures. Thanks.  For some of this, I like Tri's suggestion for a nomenclature section above, and will respond there with more detail after I do here.  Using "mother" to refer to the pregnant woman is pretty standard, regardless of one's views on abortion – the main article at Abortion does so fairly frequently.  Trying to scrub "mother" from the article in this sense is a subtle form of WP:POV-pushing.  As for the reasons, I agree that could probably be updated some.  If you look in the body of the article, it already does give a more nuanced picture than the statement in the lead; this could be remedied fairly simply by updating the lead to reflect this (by the way, see MOS:LEADCITE for some relevant style here), but also by expanding what's in the body if appropriate (I haven't looked in tons of detail yet).  One question remaining: what's your objection to "postviability"?  By this article's nature, its coverage is going to be at least slightly vague, which it directly addresses.  If we go with some sort of "nomenclature" section as suggested above, I think moving this term down there would be appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DataNerdMPH we do not change refs like this

to

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Doc James. New editor here and I'm still getting my bearings. It sounds like my best course of action would be to integrate some of my prior edits into the body of the article so that it make sense to reference them at the top. Is that right? DataNerdMPH (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Best to start by suggestion what content you want to add based on what reference. Do this small bits at a time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there was some good material in the original edit by DataNerdMPH, including the brief paragraph about the reasons why women have second- or third-trimester abortions. That's relevant, and properly sourced, and belongs in the article and probably in the lead. It's true that the lead needs to reflect material in the body, but policy doesn't specify that the body must be improved before the lead. I don't think it's legit to remove good material from the lead because it's not mentioned in the body. If that's the only reason for removing the material, then the better approach is to improve the body to match the lead. DataNerdMPH also properly pointed out the potentially incorrect use of the term "mother". If other articles use the term incorrectly as well, that's an argument for fixing those articles, not an argument for using the incorrect term here. I'll take a shot at integrating some of the material. MastCell Talk 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MastCell. DataNerdMPH (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have trimmed the primary sources. Looking for high quality secondary ones. This is a review but not a very good one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mental health
Here are my proposed revisions to the Mental Health section. Would love your thoughts,.

Research finds that having a wanted abortion in any trimester is not associated with mental health harms. Overall, abortion does not increase the risk of experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety or stress in the short term or over five years. Having a later abortion is not associated with more negative mental health outcomes than obtaining a first trimester abortion. A previous history of mental health conditions, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence were strongly associated with experiencing negative mental health outcomes after the abortion.

DataNerdMPH (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Best to just stick with review articles. Have added a 2019 review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying meaning
Hey can you clarify what you mean here? no infants born at least than 22 weeks survived, at 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This refers to a study where infants were born prematurely. Do you think I should delete it since it's not specifically about abortion, but instead about viability in general? DataNerdMPH (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding the phrasing, really. "At least than"? I'm guessing it should either be "at less than" or "born at at least 22 weeks". They have two different meanings, though. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Typo! Should be "at less than." I'll fix. Thanks for catching it. DataNerdMPH (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3b goals
Expand on mental health section to further explore long-term mental health effects of late termination of pregnancy (if any). Potentially update legal restrictions of late termination of pregnancy in the United States (and globally) Maybe look into more methods/medical procedures associated with late-term abortions

--Dannymrowr (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

List of countries where abortion is legal
The section where the number of countries that have legal abortion is from 1998,why? I know at least one country (ireland) that has made it legal since then Himynameisslimshadyspuppy (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Adult abortion survivors
I have twice added mentions of people who have survived to adulthood following attempted abortions, in contrast to the present article's incomplete claim that "Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing surgical abortion after this gestational age sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly."

In my first attempt, I mentioned individuals by name and included news articles about the adults in question. It was reverted for the reason that "these sources aren't the kind we need to make a biomedical claim". I was not making a biomedical claim; I was making a historical claim: saying that named individuals have survived to adulthood following an abortion attempt. News sources are typically a reliable source of history, aren't they?

In my second attempt, I summarized congressional testimony by adult abortion survivors, and linked to the website of the US House of Representatives. One of the linked files included medical records, specifically a photograph of the person who testified from when she was a newborn (covered in chemical burns) and a birth record with her name and size, indicating how she survived. The revision was removed because "sources need to be reliable for the claims you're making". Are medical records and congressional testimony not reliable?

Does Wikipedia hold the opinion that the individuals who claim to have been born alive following an abortion attempt and survived to adulthood are lying? How much more proof can you need than medical records with the person's name, followed by the person with the same name giving testimony to Congress? How does that not prove that she survived to adulthood following a failed abortion?

Again, this is not merely a biomedical claim; it is a historical claim that can be verified.

What type of source would be accepted? Gavialisto (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)