Wikipedia

Talk:Abortion#arbitrary section break.2C for WP:VPT

Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

The opening definition includes normal child birth

[edit]

"Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus."

The termination of something is when it ends, and expulsion of the baby out of the mother's vagina is the normal method of giving birth. Perhaps a power-user could fix this mistake in the definition. It ought to be narrower so as to not include cases of regular childbirth.60.241.196.49 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word early to make it "early termination". Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is that definition any different than a premature birth? Also, what does early mean in this case? Because technically, abortions can occur later in pregnancy, though not prevalent. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The top of this talk page says this:
  • Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
    No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.
The second sentence of their explanation has no basis. The first and third sentences both presume that the reader already knows what an abortion is (which certainly is not the presumed in other articles, and I would argue not even presumed in this article because the first sentence, as it stands, is equally "well known and understood by everyone"). There's this thing on Wikipedia where if you point out the extremely obvious bias present, you'll just be slammed with WP:AGF and that's that. 24.126.12.35 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. It doesn't seem to be in good faith to set arbitrary rules that wouldn't apply elsewhere. Especially when the definition given is the exact definition of a premature birth. This should be about accuracy, not pushing an agenda. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the addition of "in which the pregnancy does not result in a live birth." This is apolitical, doesn't include death, and is an accurate definition of abortion. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, an established fact is not a point of view. It's not a perspective or a subjective understanding. 2407:7000:B102:8F00:7480:F4AD:314D:8DCE (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. If the inclusion of a fact is undue (contributes nothing to readers' understanding of the topic) and is inserted because it is commonly cited in arguments for a certain POV, then it's POV. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading into undue something that is simply not there. We avoid giving undue weight and detail to minority viewpoints (globally opponents of legalized abortion are now in the minority, but a significantly large one, and they are still a majority in a number of nations). A feature of a medical procedure isn't a viewpoint - majority or minority. We don't omit the established fact that modern abortion is safe on the grounds that it's commonly cited in arguments for the pro-choice POV. In the same way, we don't omit from the abiogenesis article the fact the abiogenesis has yet to be observed on the grounds that it's a favored talking point of the intelligent design crowd. That's not how this works. 2407:7000:B102:8F00:7480:F4AD:314D:8DCE (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you strongly believe that facts can not be viewpoints, consider the neighboring part of NPOV: WP:BALASP, which specifically discusses factual aspects of coverage. We still present them in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Discussion about balancing our coverage of facts is so commonly associated with DUE/UNDUE that it's often easier to (a) accept that as reasonable or (b) pretend they're actually referencing BALASP than it is to (c) nitpick. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the word "early" means that it would still include cases of premature birth or induced childbird, or caesarian sections. Thus as it stands the definition is wrong. Honestly for such a widespread and common practice in human society it's an indictment on this webpage that the definition is so inaccurate.
I suggest the problem stems from deferring to the euphemism "termination" to avoid stating in plain English what abortion is. A clearer definition would be something to the effect of, "Abortion is the killing and extraction of an unborn child whilst in the womb, through a variety of methods such as extraction via a vacuum device or crushing and dismemberment through specialised tools."
It seems that there is a common practice of referring to abortion as "termination" in the medical industry. Thus if you are using the sense of "termination of a pregnancy" = "abortion", then it provides no information to the reader by stating that "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy" as this is a tautology.27.32.96.157 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard "early termination of pregnancy" used to refer to premature birth. That's not how the term is used. NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Termination is a common English word, and abortion is a medical procedure. Defining a medical term using common words is not a tautology. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The English meaning of "termination" is for something to come to an end or to be ended. When a pregnancy ends, either the baby is born or brought into the world, or it dies or is killed. It is a frankly speaking unintelligible assertion that defining a medical term using common words is not a tautology, nobody said it was, and it is not remotely clear what you are asserting by stringing those words together.
Normal childbirth is the termination of a pregnancy, in so far as it is when it ends. Thus to define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus literally includes normal childbirth, and does not specify that the unborn child is killed in the process.
As a power-user controlling this article, could you please correct it so the definition does not include normal childbirth? 203.158.42.210 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2025

[edit]

There is a typographical error. When listing countries that first legalized abortion (Iceland, Sweden, Nazi germany, and Japan) there is an improper period after “Japan (1948).” causing confusion and incomplete sentences. Victoriastewartprice (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by reworking the sentence a bit. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innapropriate photo

[edit]

I feel like the photo of the vancouver bus ad is too innapropriate Caughtintheweb (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored.IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 10:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused, what photo are we talking about? CFCF (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feticide and “See Also” Section

[edit]

The see also section has links to several articles pertaining to topics on abortion. I feel linking the article “feticide” (which the article of redirects to abortion) is a fair inclusion using Wikipedia’s own internal logic. Merriam-Webster’s thesaurus seems to avoid any inclusion of the ethical/medical definitions of abortion.

also the inclusion of a link to “my body my choice” seems pointed and politicized. I feel like a more appropriate set of links would to link to articles relating to opposition to abortion and support of abortion rights. Using the neutral terms “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”. BigCheddah (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke in my removal edit summary, but it remains unclear what the point is: that article is a logical superset of this one, but no argument has been made why the material would be of particular interest to readers of this one, which is why those links are there, not to win some shadowboxing match. Topics on abortion are linked because, get this, they're about abortion. Remsense 🌈 论 06:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I can be honest, the only possible motivation I can really identify is the target article title has potentially neutral but also potentially negative connotations to readers, so contributing to some ephemeral sense of "fairness" that has very little to do with how to serve readers of the article. Articles have actual content too, not just titles and links to other articles. Remsense 🌈 论 06:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
most articles pertaining to the laws of abortion not already linked have bias issues that frankly I believe lead the reader down echo-chamber like info holes. As to the point of it being a logical superset, “feticide” also covers the situation in which an abortion is forcefully induced by a party other than the mother against her will, this is a crime in many jurisdictions where voluntary abortion is legal. (I know the term mother is loaded language in some abortion debates now, I wouldn’t know what other words to use).
This type of abortion is not covered in this article, and is not the main focus of “forced abortion” which is in the “see also” section of this article and has “feticide” it’s own see also section.
If “feticide” is a “see also” topic for forced abortion (itself a see also topic of “abortion”) it is relevant to the reader reading the abortion article as well, as this particular aspect of abortion is not covered directly in this article.
furthermore I fail to see how “my body my choice” (a slogan used by pro abortion activists and end of life care, anti vaccine, and anti circumcision activist) not sufficiently covered as a topic in the parts of this page discussing abortion rights activism already. Perhaps it would be better off not being in the see also section and being hyperlinked in the main text of the article already. To me it would be like linking the article to neonatal encephalopathy something tangentially related to a topic already covered with significant coverage in the article (that being a fetus).
It seems to me the reader would still benefit from a “see also” to feticide, as the topic is given a particularly short mention in a section that is primarily focused with the moral debate on abortion and not given focus to its use as a definition of induced abortion in places where the practice is illegal or more importantly as a definition for a type of forced abortion that is illegal even in jurisdiction where abortion is primarily legal.
I believe my edit would have helped the reader and was in line with the spirit of WP:SEEALSO in the related topics spirit of the guidelines, because even if it is hyperlinked it is hyperlinked in a large article where it is practically buried as a subject. BigCheddah (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • caveat, this type of forcefully induced abortion is covered, albeit in a manner so brief that I feel including it in the see also section would benefit the reader and is in spirit with WP:SEEALSO
BigCheddah (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the See also section is to include a limited number of relevant articles that aren't already linked in the body. Since feticide is linked in the body, it should definitely not be included in See also (see MOS:NOTSEEALSO); the spirit is followed by excluding the link. I don't think there's a good spot to include "my body, my choice" in the body, since the article's sections on history and debate are appropriately broad overviews. A specific slogan is too minor a detail for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is more of a concept/slogan akin to right to life than just a slogan even though I have referred to it as a slogan. I find the two equivalent (that being right to life and my body my choice) because they are both slogans/concepts that can be used to apply to totally different topics (that being for right to life- animal rights/anti police cruelty/terry schaivo type situations and for my body my choice - anti-vaccine, right to die, and anti-circumcision movements) BigCheddah (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FireFangledFeathers that the slogan "my body, my choice" "is too minor a detail for inclusion" in the main body. And I agree with BigCheddah that it's a POV slogan of the reproductive rights movement. In my opinion it's a terrible slogan because, as BigCheddah points out, it can be used by anti-vaxxers, opponents of masking mandates during a deadly pandemic, and others who claim the right to undermine public health measures and in that way endanger the lives of millions of vulnerable people. I thus have no objection to removing "my body my choice" from "see also". NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Remsense's removal of the "see also" that goes to the redirect from Feticide to Foeticide, an article that deals primarily with death of a fetus as a type of homicide. That article is tagged for inadequate sourcing, and the section on etymology of the spelling makes it clear that the non-standard spelling was introduced as part of the anti-abortion movement's promotion of the notion of fetal personhood. Thus, the "see also" does not help the reader, but rather appears to be an attempt to score points for the anti-abortion POV. NightHeron (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feticide is simply the American English spelling, Foeticide is the British English spelling. The manner in which it spelled is not relevant to the meaning or message of the word.
Furthermore, “my body my choice” seems to be related more to the abortion rights movement rather than abortion itself. Linking political slogans in the see also section seems to be scoring points for the abortion rights movement, rather than actually aiding the reader.
The Slogan’s pro-life equivalent, “right to life” (also a concept that can be applied to other issues) is present in the article. Perhaps moving “my body my choice” in a sentence adjacent to the abortion rights advocacy side on the issue of bodily autonomy would be a relevant place to put it.
in regard to other articles on controversial topics-
Gaza War contains a link to Do you condemn Hamas? in the see also section, this too seems slanted and not “common sense” helpful to the reader. BigCheddah (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism section should include more diverse (inc. frum) sources

[edit]

Although the information in this section is not wrong, I think it would be helpful to include sources from an orthodox/haredi perspective since they make up 15% of the Jewish population (in Israel, 25% and rising) and halacha (Jewish law) will influence their beliefs and decisions more than for other groups of Jews. Any of the statements in the paragraph could easily be followed by an orthodox source, since they are all true statements about Jewish law.

However, I think some perspectives are also missing. Although abortion is technically halachically "legal" until birth, it is very strongly discouraged after a similar time period as the 40 day one mentioned in the Islam section. You would be hard pressed to find any orthodox rabbi willing to rule in favor of an abortion after this time period in any case except one where the mother's life is at risk (in which case pikuach nefesh applies. A concept which I think would be good to mention in the article, although I understand why it may not be included.)

I also think the mention of supporting "the legality of abortion on religious freedom grounds" should be qualified with some statement like "in some countries with religious freedom laws" (someone else can phrase it better). It is clear that an American wrote this, because most countries do not have freedom of religion laws. If using halacha to argue for the legality of abortion on the grounds of religious freedom is something US-specific (I'm not an expert), this should be made clear.

Additionally, the Islam section includes a sentence about abortion laws in Muslim majority countries/regions (because these laws are influenced by religious law). There should also be a sentence about abortion law in Israel or other Jewish communities (in some religious communities, the laws of that particular community may be VERY different than the laws of the country in which it's located) as it's influenced by halacha.

Links provided for understanding (: Haplodiploid75 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for needed information

[edit]

Shouldn't there be information in this article on the approximate total number of human pregnancies in a year?  To make the other numbers more meaningful. Pwbitoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]