Talk:Abortion

Revision of FAQ item 6

I propose revising item 6 of the FAQ. It states that anyone who wants to explicitly mention "death" is "POV of anti-abortionists". This phrasing may violate WP:AGF. Also, section 6, while made to enforce WP:NPOV, arguably violates the very policy it's trying to protect. It also makes a strawman argument regarding "artificial placentas" to avoid addressing the actual terminology debate. Also "everyone knows" as a rationale is not supported by WP:V or WP:DUE. We routinely state basic, obvious facts as an encyclopedia. I am not saying to remove item 6 necessarily - but if the community consensus is to not use the word "death", it should just say that. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 02:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This was just RE-discussed in the top discussion on this Talk page. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to change the article itself, just the wording of FAQ item 6. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree; even if a fetus is not a human being (I think it is but some people disagree), it is still "dead" in the sense that a group of cells is dead. Paleorganizer (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, Planned Parenthood is an abortion facility, so it is almost certainly biased. Paleorganizer (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

bump Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 18:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The word "child" in out of place in the statement of the question, since standard usage (except possibly among those with an extreme anti-abortion POV) is that the word "child" applies only after birth. NightHeron (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Well yes. The point is to stop people from doing POV edits. It can use POV terms (which arguably aren't even POV, just WP:UNDUE) to explain why not to use them. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 14:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The word "etc." can cover "child", "baby", "unborn child", "person", and any other POV term that a passionate anti-abortionist might use with "death". NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The FAQ is supposed to help people understand consensus and what to do/what not to do. Having "child" in there helps with that, regardless of what POV it might represent. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 16:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Pregnancy vs. conception

"Abortion occurring without intervention is known as spontaneous abortion or "miscarriage", and occurs in roughly 30–40% of all pregnancies."

Isn't pregnancy technically the attachment of zygote to the uterus? So, conception is not pregnancy, and a fertilized egg ("blastocyst?") that never implants and is lost in the next menstrual cycle never results in a pregnancy. If my understanding is correct, there's some misinformation in this article, in places that equate conception and pregnancy, and especially that equate miscarriage and abortion with the loss of a fertilized but non-implanted egg. For example, if pregnancy is equated with conception, then the percentage resulting in miscarriage is, I think, a lot higher than 30-40%. Mevsherd (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

See Beginning of pregnancy controversy. The key thing is to know which definition was used when the statistic was created. It's entirely possible for the correct answer to be 30% using definition A and 70% using definition B.

I think that this article should be about "induced" abortions, and therefore not include information about early pregnancy loss (a category that includes implantation failure). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Need Images

It is important to include imagery, when possible. There are no images on this page. KnoxWS (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. See the FAQ. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The second to fourth paragraphs in the introduction are written in a tone that suggests abortion is inherently good

For example, it seems to use a lot of exceptions like "done safely in industrial societies" which leaves a lot to interpretation. KnightsAreNotHorses (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The qualifier “when done legally in industrialized societies” (note your typo — the word is legally) is necessary, because it would be wrong to say or suggest that abortion is always safe. In societies where abortion is illegal (and as a result often performed by unqualified people) it is one of the main causes of maternal mortality. NightHeron (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. The second paragraph contains this chilling sentence: "In contrast, unsafe abortions performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities cause between 22,000 and 44,000 deaths and 6.9 million hospital admissions each year—responsible for between 5% and 13% of maternal deaths, especially in low-income countries." The third paragraph says 45% of abortions are unsafe. The fourth paragraph says some people consider abortion to be murder. Each of these paragraphs contain some unsettling negative connotations. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

"unsanitary facilities" Do we really need to describe that practically any medical operation in unsanitary conditions has a high risk of infection? It seems like common knowledge, the staff we were told by our teachers in primary school. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

I spent a couple hours working to make this page more formal and generalized. I can go in a lot more detail on why I did it but I want you to do the same please. There is a lot of repeat information that you find in later subsections. For people finding this page for the first time, they should only learn about what abortion is, its statistics, how bad unsafe ones are, and the fact there is considerate debate on its legality.

The sentence about drugs in the second paragraph was too specific to mention this early in the page. I moved it to the safety subsection. Saying abortion doesn't result in mental or physical consequences is on the other hand not specific enough and would confuse readers, as it doesn't explain why that's the case. Again, a later subsection goes into more detail on this with statistics.

In the third paragraph, I moved the sentence about how there's different limits to how late abortion is allowed to the fourth paragraph, where it also talks about where it talks about how legal it is in different countries. This was a no brainer to put this info in the same place, I have no idea why you reverted this edit of all things.

The intro still gives the most important statistics, it still says the WHO supports legal and safe abortions, it still says it can be either safe or unsafe, it still says why they are performed. I didn't actually remove any information, I just moved it to places where it's allowed to be more specific. To be honest, I don't think you looked hard at my edits. If no one responds to this, I'll probably just revert this back to my edit. Thanks.

Zufux (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You removed large amounts of relevant, informative content from the article’s lead. You removed the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 7^th sentences of the second paragraph and the 3^rd, 4^th, and last sentences of the third paragraph. The lead was not too long. A major article typically has a lead as long or longer. Wholesale shrinking of the lead to this article is not justified. According to Wikipedia policy (see MOS:LEAD): “The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read…. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic…. The body is allowed to repeat points from the lead, since the lead summarizes the points of the body and the body provides elaboration on those points, which are usually reiterated.”

Please note (see WP:ONUS): “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content.” In order to make the extensive changes you want in the lead, you need to seek consensus on the talk-page. If there’s no consensus for the changes, then the status quo version remains. Insisting on restoring your edits without a clear consensus of editors would be edit-warring (see WP:EDITWAR): “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming ‘My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring’ is not a valid defense.” NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

First sentence, second paragraph is unspecific without facts to back it up, unlike the safety subsection where it does. I'd say either give it supporting evidence in the intro or move it solely to safety subsection. Alternatively, the first and seventh sentence can be combined with its similar content. Mentioning the medication effects on the contrary is too specific and makes the paragraph sound more like a how-to in my opinion, which I also just moved inward.

Third sentence, third paragraph is confusing with that statistic, because it implies many more women can still legally receive an abortion under more restrictions. It also gives off the idea the world should work to 'make the number higher', which I don't get that feeling often on Wikipedia. I moved it to the History subsection because that section was already pretty short.

Fourth sentence, third paragraph should be moved or combined into the fourth paragraph, where both mention its varying legality worldwide, which I did. Again, it was a no-brainer, and exactly something that should have not been undid. It makes it less bloated instead of purposely long for the sake of being long. If I want any edit to stay, it was that, and I'm willing to only allow that to be changed. Also, the final sentence on history should either be removed or moved to the top of one of the paragraphs, that's far more professional.

I didn't actually remove any content, I only moved it. One of those sentences you say I deleted was actually kept in the intro (moved from third to fourth paragraph), and the others I just mentioned were moved to subsections. I'd like some more input from other editors too, in case it's an impasse with us two. Zufux (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The lead is long not “for the sake of being long,” but rather in order to include important information for a reader who reads only the lead. Concerning your edit about which you say “If I want any edit to stay, it was that, and I'm willing to only allow that to be changed,” my apologies for not noticing that the 4^th sentence of the 3^rd paragraph was just moved rather than removed. However, it doesn’t belong where you moved it. To see why, let’s think about the two consecutive sentences in your version: “Nations or regions that permit abortions have different limits to how late it is allowed during pregnancy. Among them, some allow women to make the choice about abortion, while in others, abortion is legal only in specific cases such as rape, incest, fetal defects, poverty, and risk to a woman's health.” The words “among them, some” and “others” refer to “nations or regions that permit abortions.”  But a country that forbids abortion except in cases  of rape or incest is not classified as a “nation that permits abortions.” So the sequence of sentences does not make logical sense. NightHeron (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright then Zufux (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

What you did to the page was correctly reverted. You tried to remove the very widely cited fact that abortion is "one of the safest procedures in modern medicine". That fact has been hammered out by many discussion participants here in years past. You don't get to decide unilaterally that our readers should not be made aware of the fact. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I did not actually remove it, I moved it to the Safety subsection. But if you both want it to stay in the intro section, then that's majority consensus. I also just suggested to give it more statistics or evidence or anything else like it did in the Safety subsection.

What about my other three arguments? Zufux (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Zufux, the lead section is supposed to summarize the other sections. It is intended to repeat the most important content that is covered in greater detail within the sections.

I've left a contentious topics alert on your talk, but it's worth clarifying here that this is one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia. At contentious topics, it's best not to make non-minor edits (that is, anything more than fixing typos, grammar, punctuation -- anything that changes content) without first opening a new section here on talk and discussing what it is you want to change. This is true for each change you're proposing. As you can see from the header on this talk page, the talk page has generated over 50 archives. Over 1500 editors have posted to this talk, and over 3500 have made edits to the article. It is highly likely that any change you'd like to make has been discussed previously.

FWIW, contentious topics are a terrible place to learn how to edit. Even highly experienced editors end up in trouble at contentious topics. Other editors at a contentious topic often have little patience for helping newer editors learn. I'd strongly suggest you go spend a few thousand edits working in the other 7 million articles that aren't within contentious topics before you start editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Changed FAQ

I changed FAQ item 6 (no one challenged my argument above, so WP:BOLDly changing it, so instead of assuming bad faith and attacking a strawman it just point to RS. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 14:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)