Talk:Abortion

Reference no. 135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704

One person reverted my edit, and the second claimed it it disputed. That's two people. I claim that my edit adds value and clarification to the article. My edit is visible in the latest history. The source material is not clear on this respect as it generalises the research (135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704), and the research itself, as I said in the initial edit, does not make abundantly clear the criteria of selection of candidates. Thus, I added a small clarification that NightHeron now claims to be disputable. ("in this case your addition was unnecessary and didn't add anything of value") It appears to be a bit arbitrary. The person who reverted the edit did not seek a conversation, and thus I reverted it back. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust and peer-reviewed and vetted. That's called WP:OR and not allowed. If you have issues with the research, take that up with the researchers or the journal that published their work. If the paper gets retracted, than we won't use it as a source on Wikipedia anymore. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Naturally I don't.

All I seek here is to clarify the results of the research, and I am really surprised by the negative conducts towards this minor edit. This really is silly, as the case of semi-protecting the entire article - should be obvious to add. Relate to the edit, as I insist that it adds value to the entirety.

It is no surprise that the article was delisted from good articles list as any positive contribution is immideately reverted. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why you reverted does not go on par with what you said earlier. I do not yet challenge the results nor the method of the disputed research.

I think my edit fits exactly where you said "summarizes". Did I challenge anything with the sentence I added?

It is part of the summary, a short presentation of data that does not litter the passage in any way.

If you or @NightHeron claim that it is a pointless edit, then please justify. If not, please do not make arbitrary reverts. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

Does it make a consensus? TruthseekerW (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A disputed edit that changes the stable version of an article does need a consensus before it's reinserted into the article. That's explained in WP:BRD. NightHeron (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only what NightHeron said above, but if there is a new consensus, it is that your edit adding the sample size of the study does not belong in the article, because editors: myself, NightHeron,

Mathglot [1] "Revert editorializing. The source supports the content." and

Generalrelative [2] "That's just how opinion surveys work. If the source is reliable, they will have taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population."

have all reverted your addition, with essentially the same reasoning as that which I've stated above: "You don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust." - If the sample size was insufficient, that would have come up in peer-review, or as critiques from other researchers; you don't get to add your own IMPLICATION that this sample size is too small: per WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 This does not apply to my edit at all. My edit only expands on the summary of the study, and does not add any implications, other than the obvious statement that the study was conducted on such a number of women. Can you read what I wrote above again and with understanding? Everything I wrote is a conclustion boldly stated by the source

I have to yet again repeat that and kindly ask to relate to what I wrote and not attempt to twist the conversation in undesirable course.

@NightHeron my edit is not disputed. It was only challenged by @Generalrelative, and what that user stated was highly hypothetical language' which I don't see how it justifies his revert at all.

And finally, please relate to the sentence that I added and which does not imply anything else over than what was already written in the research. TruthseekerW (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

TS, you clearly have been ignoring my request that you carefully read WP:BRD and adhere to it. Any edit that changes the content of the stable version of an article becomes a disputed edit if it's reverted by another editor. Then it's the obligation of the person who made the edit (not the person who reverted it) to seek a consensus supporting their edit and not to reinsert it until most of the editors participating in the discussion agree that the edit (or some modified version of it) belongs in the article. You've not done that. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And I got the feeling that some people did not adhere to the rules as well, by simply disliking my edit.

I promise to adhere to the imposed rules and seek the consensus, but the issue is silly, and your reasoning weak (statement that my edit does not add anything - it just proves what I said).

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

Selection bias

More important than the number of women included in the longitudinal study is the method for their inclusion. Read [3] 2. Methods and you will see an obvious problem with selection bias. Stated simply, doesn't it make sense that women with some doubts about their decision to have an abortion will be less willing to subject themselves to years of follow-up questions about it? Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That it why it is crucial to note the number, and you made a good point that I have not been aware of yet. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Figures like "99 percent" tend to raise red flags. That's why I looked over the section on 2.Methods (the "methods" section that comes after the shorter "methods" section in the Abstract) to see if there was something off base about the selection of the subjects. Later I googled "abortion studies selection bias" and found this article: [4]. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That opinion piece full of speculation by an anti-abortion person is not what's meant by a reliable secondary source. You may agree with him, but putting that POV concerning the study in the article violates WP:NOR. Someone can almost always support their opinion by googling for an article that agrees. That's called cherry-picking, and it doesn't comply with WP:RS. NightHeron (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That way, the whole earlier stady violates it too, for the reason that the study was done by pro-abortion people, so it is extremely hard to call it a neutral article. It is easy, checking the profiles of people who made the research from the reference no. 135. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The source in the article that gives the results of the study is not an opinion piece, and it's not full of speculation, so it's not analogous to your source. A scientific or scholarly work can be RS even if the authors have a strong viewpoint on the topic. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As editors we select among the "reliable sources" that are used in Wikipedia articles. Because a source is eligible to be used does not, of course, mean that it must be used. The longitudinal study in question here does not have to be used as the key source article for the subsection as it is now. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"When done legally..."

The problem with User:Avatar317's preferred version is that the moral issue is already insinuated but not clearly stated in the current second paragraph. If the paragraph is strictly about the science of abortion why bring up the issue of legality? Legality would not be an issue except for the dispute over the morality of abortion. So if legality is raised as an issue it should be done so with a PRIOR mention of the dispute over the procedure's morality. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not true that illegality implies a moral issue. A drug or medical procedure might be illegal because it's unsafe. For example, if the falsehood propagated by the anti-abortion movement that abortion is unsafe for the woman were correct, then that alone could be a reason for legal restrictions or prohibitions. NightHeron (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in previous talks about the safery of abortion, the process is quite safe, if there is access to well-trained medical personnel and sanitary conditions. The risk is considerably highter, when these conditions do not exist. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding these points: Except, of course, in reality neither of those hypotheticals is the case here. Illegal abortions exist because abortion is either broadly illegal or significantly restricted in some places; and the anti-abortion movement exists, and would exist, regardless of the safety of legally done procedures. No, "done legally", rather than simply "done properly" is used here because of the moral/political dispute over abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Safety section

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't call it "unreliable" at all. It's widely asserted in the medical literature that modern abortion procedures are very safe for the woman, even with respect to future pregnancy and long-term health. When we balance viewpoints it's not exactly 50 percent of this view compared to 50 percent of that view. Instead, WP:BALANCE is achieved by summarizing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it balanced though?

According to this article, which analyzes many studies on abortion, the results were rather mixed, and largely inconclusive, especially when there are multiple abortions on the same woman:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507237/

This wikipedia article is certainly much more emphatic that abortions are healthy than that paper is, which to me is concerning. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part of the linked study which said "there is no association between abortion and secondary infertility," meaning that abortion is no more likely than childbirth to cause problems with future pregnancies.

I'm concerned that you are participating on Wikipedia for the purpose of trolling everybody here. Your comment at the Flat Earth page is worrisome. Wikipedia will never give flat earth nonsense a "balanced" perspective if that means ignoring obvious science. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? No, I did not miss that part. The article listed about a dozen potential issues with abortion, and around half of them it said the existing literature was not up to snuff, and therefore inconclusive. There were some cases (a minority) in which sufficient data was present, which did show - only for those minority of issues - that there wasn't a correlation. For women with more than one abortion, however, it showed some negative health effects, which is certainly concerning.

I did not post that article in an attempt to show abortion is dangerous (again, I am pro-choice, and I believe abortion is mostly healthy), but I am concerned that this Wikipedia article reads like a speech by Nancy Pelosi and less like the balanced viewpoint in the article I shared.

As for my comment on the flat earth page, I stand by that completely. If you read what I actually said, it was not that I think flat earth should have a balanced perspective, but that Wikipedia as an entity should not take a stance, and should just stick to the facts. Which is correct. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please make a concrete proposal to improve the article based on a reliable source. Otherwise, this discussion is finished and you should find another website to exchange opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem with opening sentence

The current definition of abortion in the opening sentence seems too broad: 'Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.' This could misleadingly encompass any end of pregnancy, including live births. To improve accuracy, it could for instance specify that abortion refers to termination before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. LennCali (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not have to give a dictionary definition. But even for a dictionary definition one can assume that the reader knows that a live birth is not an abortion. For example, in dictionary.com definition #1 of abortion is "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead amounts to a preemptive argument for legal abortion

After the first few sentences of its opening paragraph until its last paragraph, the lead is largely a defense of legal abortion. This starts with generally sympathetic listing of reasons why women seek abortions. The second paragraph goes on to note that when done legally. abortion is " one of the safest procedures" in the medical profession. How many other Wikipedia articles describe relatively routine medical procedures in like terms? It also notes that self-managed medication abortions are safe. Again, why the emphasis on safety without specifically raising the issue of safety in the first place? The third paragraph includes the World Health Organization's seal of approval for "access to legal, safe, and comprehensive abortion care... for the attainment of the highest possible level of sexual and reproductive health." This endorsement, however, has little to do with the science of the procedure and more to do with its place in society. It is sociological rather than medical and presented without any challenge. By the time a reader reaches the lead's last paragraph, a good case for legal abortion has already been made without the merest mention of anyone opposing it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The notional "argument" you describe is the result of multiple editors following proper WP:BALANCE found in sources. The safety of the procedure is listed by a great many sources, I'm sure as a response to opponents of legal abortion. I don't agree that we have any problem to solve. If you wish to provide a counterpoint to modern safety, you could elevate the mention of unsafe abortion, highlighting how illegal abortions are bad, flowing into how legal abortions are safe. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the editorial arguments on this Talk page for not introducing the moral/political debate over abortion earlier in the lead has been that the article should focus on the science of the procedure before delving into that debate. But, as you say, the safety of the procedure is listed as a response to opponents of legal abortion. If the safety of abortion is stressed in the lead because of that, and it undoubtedly is stressed, then the fact that there's a big debate about legal abortion should at least be mentioned first. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the abortion debate, which is of course explained in more detail in the main body. It's reasonable to assume that the reader already knows about the abortion debate, but does not necessarily know the medical background that comes earlier in the lead. So I don't see any reason why the paragraph summarizing the abortion debate has to come first. Note that in the main body the sections on medical issues (methods, safety, incidence) come first, and the sections that relate to the debate (history, religion, society, culture) come later. The organization of the lead is consistent with the main body. NightHeron (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, we have a SEPARATE ARTICLE for that subject: Abortion debate. THIS article is primarily for information about the procedure. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"One of the safest procedures in medicine"

On the contrary, there is plenty wrong with this wording. How safe does a procedure have to be to be rated among of the safest in medicine"? Are there official updated ratings of the safest? Is it in the top five? The top twentyt? It is plainly Peacock phrasing and an example of things that make the lead as I noted before, a preemptive argument for legal abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fair paraphrase of the source: "legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice, with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death."

As well as "Conclusions: The safety of induced abortion as practiced in the United States for the past decade met or exceeded expectations for outpatient surgical procedures and compared favorably to that of two common nonmedical voluntary activities."

Your failure to want to believe what experts conclude is not our problem. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Avatar317. which source contains the description "one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice"'? I didn't notice that specific wording. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Noticing the British spelling now, I suspect it's The Lancet which has a reputation for being opinionated and controversial, not the ideal source here if one wants to keep the phrasing neutral. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#List_of_core_journals. If you feel The Lancet isn't a neutral source, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) would be the place to discuss. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The question is not whether The Lancet is a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia; it is; or whether it is a neutral source on the subject of legal abortion; it isn't. The question is whether in this case its wording is a good one to model. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the either the first or second most prestigious medical journal, depending on how one measures such things. There is no evidence that it has any neutrality problems on this or is not the ideal source here as you claim - in fact it is difficult to conceive of a source that would be more ideal. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie: This is what the summary of The Lancet source article says [5]. Access to safe legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion are not blood and infection but, rather apathy and disdain toward women. Now does that sound as if The Lancet is neutral on the subject of legal abortion? Pleeze! Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That you personally disagree is not evidence that the source is not neutral. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, we don't require sources to be unbiased, as you well know. And Lancet's valid viewpoint is widely held. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I don't dispute that this Lancet and other Lancet articles can be used. I'm saying that in this particular case the Lancet phrasing shouldn't be the basis for our description. "A comparatively safe procedure" is preferable to "One of the safest procedures in medicine". The latter has an air of trying to convince people in an argument. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with The Lancet's wording. The relevant part of Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV is the section WP:FALSEBALANCE. Although opposition to abortion, whether motivated by religion, morality, or misogyny, is not a fringe viewpoint, some of the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement contradicts medical science, i.e., is flat-out wrong -- notably, claims that abortion is unsafe for women. One of the tasks of the medical profession is to circulate correct information on this subject in order to counter the misinformation of the anti-abortion movement. The Lancet is a MEDRS source whose reporting on this is obviously reliable. The strong wording of the conclusion when countering egregious misinformation is justified and is consistent with NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it has the tone of trying to convince people in an argument. But the issue hasn't even been raised yet in the article. Sorry, but my wording is better for the lead, "a comparatively safe procedure". Later, in the body we could give the Lancet description which probably should be identified as such. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact in a extremely reliable source. Sometimes the facts favor one side of a dispute. That does not mean we water them down to reach some sort of false balance. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, The Lancet has been involved in a number of relatively recent factual controversies. You can get up at noon once you have the reputation as an early riser. More to the point, the wording "a comparatively safe medical procedure" is quite factual and no doubt supported by numerous "reliable sources". We are in no way required to use The Lancet's verbiage here. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to try at WP:RSN, but you're not going to get anywhere by attacking the Lancet. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet as a MEDRS source has not been deprecated. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS here as it does everywhere, and The Lancet's abortion article has not been questioned for accuracy by anyone. Give it a rest; this is growing tiresome. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give it a rest but not before noting that of all the many sources talking about how safe legal abortion is, editors here have opted for one which essentially accuses the other side of having "disdain for women". Goodtablemanners (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As an outsider reading this, it is blatantly obvious the editor here is gatekeeping his bias. What grants such power, that one user can control the page? How many people need to object before a change is made? 2600:1006:B32D:ACD4:81A9:28AB:3EC:55C2 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Which editor is gatekeeping his bias? And what on Earth does that statement mean? HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Update translation of old Soviet poster

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

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