Talk:Abortion

This was discussed before; I'm still bringing it up due to WP:CCC.

Point 6. on the FAQ states It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens.. I'm not aware of any rule on Wikipedia that supports this -- in fact, obvious things are mentioned in articles (including FA) all the time:

Should Beethoven's article not state that he was a composer because it is well known and understood by everyone? Should the Trump article not state that he is the president because it is well known and understood by everyone? Should the article on rain not state that it falls down because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens?

Instead of excluding material because it is obvious, Wikipedia decides whether information is worth including based on WP:DUE and WP:V, which can be determined by whether it is covered in reliable sources: that is how WP:NPOV is achieved. Per this, plenty of RS mention that abortion results in the death of the embryo or fetus,^[1][2] and it seems no high quality sources challenge this. As such, I believe this information should be included.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That's for citations, not whether material itself should be included -- have you read that essay? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

What you're suggesting truly is redundant, because it's merely restating part of the definition of abortion itself. By restating something this obvious, you move into tendentiousness to some extent, which is not a good thing, and definitely also insult the reader's intelligence. The essay cited against the idea is still relevant for the general points it's making. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

removal or expulsion in the lead sentence seems to imply death already. I think that is what is meant in the FAQ - given what is already stated in the lead sentence, it is well understood what happens. Explicitly including death of the fetus in the first few sentences would place undue weight on the death, compared to the rest of the article which hardly discusses it. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal , expulsion , and death are all different things: to prevent redundancy, how about we put death instead of removal/expulsion, as it is more specific and is covered by major RS such as the World Health Organization?^[3] That way nothing is restated. It would also be shorter as it is one word rather than two. As for the UNDUE, expulsion/removal is itself hardly discussed in the body. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the locations of certain literal words. The main thing is that it's already obvious, and beating on an already obvious point turns the article into less of an article and more of a rant. And any hint of ranting in this article is an even worse idea than it would be in an average article.

Nobody is mistaken about what this section means the way it's already written. Please drop the idea of using facts the reader already knows to hit them over the head with. This kind of overdone writing might be excusable in an article about the fastest car ever, but in this topic it's a sign of biased editing and a terrible idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

In general, please remember that what's written on Wikipedia is never proof of anything important. More specifically, please remember that no matter what we put in this article, we're never going to change anyone's mind about it either way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If 'death' replaces 'expulsion/removal', then it's not adding on: it's making it shorter -- saying "expulsion or removal" itself is redundant, as one word is already enough. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Not true. If "expulsion or removal of" is replaced by "the death of" there'd be a 1-word reduction in length, but the sentence would then include stillbirth and miscarriage, contradicting the following sentence that says that the unmodified word abortion means induced abortion. So you'd have to say something like "causing the death of". It's clear why editors with an anti-abortion POV would prefer that wording -- not because it saves space (it doesn't), but rather because "expulsion or removal" sounds like a medical procedure, while "causing the death" sounds like a crime. NightHeron (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to emphasize one of NightHeron points. This article is not only about induced abortion where the fetus is killed, it also includes spontaneous abortion where the fetus has already died naturally. So changing from removal or expulsion to "death" would be inaccurate in the first sentence. Tepkunset (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If "expulsion or removal of" is replaced by "the death of" there'd be a 1-word reduction in length, but the sentence would then include stillbirth and miscarriage But aren't these forms of abortion as well? According to the article, a miscarriage is referred to as spontaneous abortion. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The main topic of the article is induced abortion, which, as the 2nd sentence in the lead explains, is the common meaning of the unmodified word abortion. The modified word spontaneous abortion or the word miscarriage is used for abortion that occurs spontaneously without being induced, but that is at most a minor subsidiary topic in the article titled (unmodified) "Abortion". Thus, the first sentence should not give a definition of abortion that includes miscarriage and stillbirth. NightHeron (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't removal or expulsion also include miscarriage and stillbirth? Wouldn't the fetus/embryo is removed/expelled after these as well? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The words removal and expulsion suggest a procedure (active intentionality), not a natural occurrence. NightHeron (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you think the way FAQ 6 is answered should at least be changed? What you're saying now is different from what is said on there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The answer to FAQ 6 seems fine to me. My comment supported the particular words removal and expulsion as preferable to "causes the death of". Why do you think there's a discrepancy between my comments and the answer to FAQ 6? I don't see any. NightHeron (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

FAQ 6 merely talks about obviousness and doesn't include what you said about it being phrased that way to avoid it including miscarriages and stillbirths... also, saying that mentioning it is POV of anti-abortionists in every case doesn't sound too accurate, even if you reject using that word. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

FAQ 6 has the advantage of brevity. I too objected to replacing removal/expulsion with "causing the death of" because the latter wording is strongly POV (suggesting that abortion is a sin or crime, whereas the current wording is appropriate for a medical procedure). It's true that the point I made about "death" being inaccurate because it would include miscarriage and stillbirth was not mentioned in FAQ 6. I don't think it's necessary to add it there. NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I had hesitated to bring this up, except as obliquely as I could manage, but it's in the open now. @Wikieditor662, the change you've suggested (and your degree of insistence on it) is of a very particular type, though I can't think of the name of the type right now. It's where a person says (or writes) something that gives the outward appearance of being a simple fact, but they say it using particular words that are calculated to persuade readers to their biased point of view. To some extent, in this case, Appeal to emotion seems to be part of the aim, but it's the attempt to cloak the persuasion as a plain fact that I'm noticing - and perhaps the reason I'm noticing is that the readers were already given the plain facts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it: If getting the facts across was really all you were after, you would have dropped this topic as soon as it was pointed out to you that this fact you're concerned about has been in the article all along. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I vehemently reject the implied notion that I'm doing this due to an agenda. I noticed FAQ 6 said information was omitted due to being "obvious", which seemed weird to me. I'm doing this to ensure NPOV, not the other way around.

you would have dropped this topic as soon as it was pointed out to you that this fact you're concerned about has been in the article all along. I've responded to every response with one of my own: I don't have a "side" here, I'm just trying to understand the situation better.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

why are you accusing people of having an agenda? I think what we all want. Is this article to give an accurate description of what abortion is, and the lead to be as clear as possible. Cannolorosa (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. it is important that the article uses language that is clear and leaves as little room for misinterpretation as possible, especially in the lead. We live in a world where a lot of people get their news from headlines. I believe the death should be mentioned because it is frankly more concise. also, I do believe that we should reconsider the decision not to include the results of an abortion as a image or images in the lead. Cannolorosa (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

As it's currently worded it implies death while not using potentially charged and imprecise wording like death. Also, while the results of an abortion would potentially be fitting somewhere in the article, putting it in the lead wouldn't be since this is an article on abortion in general and not specifically the results of said abortion, so using it wouldn't be very representative of the article as a whole mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

the results of an abortion would potentially be fitting somewhere in the article interesting thought, is there a reason it hasn't been so far? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, for the same reason we don't mention the death of the UN-fertilized egg and the death of thousands if not millions of cells from the uterine lining during menstration. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that just WP:OTHER..? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean charged an inprecise. The current wording is charged and inprecise. Infact “ slaughter” would be a more appropriate word Cannolorosa (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to be familiar with the core policy WP:NPOV, and so you think it would be okay to turn Wikipedia into a forum for anti-abortion extremism. NightHeron (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I am very familiar with that policy, abortion is slaughter. I don’t understand why this article uses sanitized language of big abortion or why this article does not really talk about the effects of abortion on the baby Cannolorosa (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

as it stands right now, this article is anything but neutral Cannolorosa (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cannolorosa - I don't think NPOV means what you think it means. Also, "big abortion"? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

so now you’re just making claims without evidence Cannolorosa (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

NPOV means we neutrally reflect what reliable sources say and give due weight. It does not mean we give equal weight to both sides or that we alter language to sound value-neutral. No reliable sources call it "slaughter". Based on your reference to abortion as such and desire to add images of aborted fetuses, it would seem you are here to right a great wrong. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The reliable sources are all alluding to slaughter, they’re just using sanitized language Cannolorosa (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Our personal beliefs on it don't matter. That's NPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

there’s no need to bring personal beliefs into this, I literally am saying the article should reflect what the sources are saying in the most direct way possible Cannolorosa (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We use the language the sources use, not what we think they should be using EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Why does this article have no pictures? What's the matter? Don't like looking at abortion? I've got lots of photos of aborted babies we could use. There's one with the baby's head chopped off, there's one of a baby that's been dismembered with his guts spilling out, there's a picture of a tub filled with arms and legs and hands. We should include a picture of it if we want to be honest. Wikipedia is not censored. You can't get a sense of what abortion is without seeing it. Put up a picture, let the world see what abortion is. Here's some you can use: Pictures of aborted babies — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-11591-18 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree I believe it is. It’s very appropriate to include pictures of aborted babies. Cannolorosa (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

however, in order to use the pictures you want to use we would need permission from live action. Cannolorosa (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Images need to be free of copyright and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which does host relevant images c:Category:Abortion. The images you describe would only be appropriate for a section on illegal/clandestine abortions as actual surgical/medical abortion does not result in what you describe. I did try to add an image of a fetus following a therapeutic abortion but that was reverted by NightHeron Traumnovelle (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see FAQ #4 at the top of this talk-page. This issue has been discussed several times over many years, and there has never been a consensus to add such a picture. NightHeron (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A 2009 consensus that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED 'shock images' is a weak justification for excluding encyclopaedically relevant images. Any other medical article includes a similar picture when freely available. See hemolytic disease of the newborn for example Traumnovelle (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Over the years there have been many discussions on closely related matters -- see FAQ #4, 5, and 6 -- none of which ended with a consensus to include the disputed material. Of course, anti-abortion editors -- such as the one who opened this thread with an angry, emotional, accusatory screed -- can keep trying to insert their POV into articles on abortion. But there is no reason to believe that they will succeed in getting a consensus for that any more now than in 2009. NightHeron (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it be a lead image, just included. The 2009 discussion was about an image of a fetus, not an image of an aborted fetus which is the one I included and FAQ#5 is on a lead image, not whether an image can be included at all. The surgical aftermath of a procedure is a valid thing to include. An image of an abortion being performed would be ideal to include too but there does not appear to be a free image of such.

I agree that the original proposal is obviously POV and those images wouldn't be appropriate maugre copyright concerns, but we shouldn't let that be a reason not to improve an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

But the focus on the aborted zygote, embryo, or (much more rarely) fetus already reflects an anti-abortion POV. If we wanted an image with a pro-abortion-rights POV, we'd look for a picture of a woman who received an early abortion and is beaming with pleasure now that she now longer has to fear childbirth at her young age or the consequences of unplanned and unwanted early motherhood (dropping out of school, no time for friends, financially under water, possible medical issues). In line with WP:NPOV the best route is to avoid images with either POV. NightHeron (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

An image of the aftermath of a procedure is not POV, an abortion is a medical procedure that targets a zygote, embryo, or fetus so there will have to be some focus on that, just as there is focus on the person undergoing the procedure. NPOV means representing all major viewpoints neutrally, not excluding information because it may support a view. You could include the a photo of a woman who had just received an abortion, although I cannot find even a non-free image showing this. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, so we should make a deal: I won't try to insert a photo showing how wonderful abortions are if you don't try to insert a photo showing how terrible they are. NightHeron (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You're assuming everyone making a change you dislike holds an opposite POV to you and that every dispute is a battleground. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@NightHeron and @Generalrelative please read through WP:MEDRS, primary sources are inappropriate biomedical claims and this article is a primary source published 6 years ago, which is plenty of time for better secondary sources to have been published. The study itself includes its own limitations such as self-reported, uncertain generalisability, whether the cause of the health concerns were caused by child-birth or other factors, and 41% loss of follow-up. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Lots more information about this study, and its significance, in the book The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion. It's not technically a secondary source because the book's author is one of the authors of the study, but its publication speaks in favor of WP:DUE weight. See also this review of the book and this one too. As to the study's limitations, we already make clear that this is a single study, published in 2019, that tells us about what a group of women self-reported. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources are biomedical and nothing about those sources change the inherent issues with relying on primary sources for biomedical information. A small scale single study is weak evidence overall and does not belong in a broad article like this, which should be based on secondary sources, ideally from meta-analyses. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally speaking, that's correct. It seems however that the author, Diana Greene Foster, is one of the foremost experts on the topic (e.g. being listed as one of the Nature's 10 for 2022), and has published numerous studies on the same dataset. It really does look to be both notable and reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

We would expect all medical sources to be authored by relevant experts. Foster's background would matter with different types of sourcing but ultimately do not amount to anything when it comes to evaluating a primary study, the same flaws and limitations (which the authors acknowledge) that apply to primary studies apply to this one and there is nothing in the WP:MEDRS guideline that suggests this should be one of the (very rare) exceptions. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The relevant line in the guideline for my argument is:

Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge.

The single sentence we currently have seems to fulfill these requirements. Others may disagree that it is really DUE, and that will come down to editor discretion, but the guideline does clearly permit the use of primary studies like this from time to time. I'm not committed to dying on this hill, but thought you deserved an explanation for my reversion of your removal. I'll step back now and let others weigh in. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the passage is DUE because it points to a motive for abortion, namely, the woman's fear of likely health consequences of childbirth or of the burdens of unplanned motherhood. NightHeron (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Due weight would be established by secondary biomedical sources, MEDRS even mentions this 'When writing about any health effect, assessing evidence quality helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight,' and 'Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The study is properly attributed as a study (not stated in Wikivoice as a well-established fact) and one sentence is not Undue weight for one study. I also agree with Generalrelative's quoted line from the relevant guideline. Additionally, if you want secondary sources, that study was WIDELY covered in secondary sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What (medical) secondary sources cover it? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting that the opening sentence of the page be changed from:

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

To:

“Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus with the expected result of embryonic/fetal cessation.”

The wording currently on the page could be applied to viable birth, which is inaccurate under current common understanding of the definitions of “spontaneous abortion” and “induced abortion”.

Thank you for your time and consideration. ~2026-14505-28 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would also request that the second sentence of the page be changed from:

”The unmodified word abortion generally refers to induced abortion, or deliberate actions to end a pregnancy.”

To:

”The unmodified word abortion generally refers to induced abortion, or deliberate actions to end a pregnancy by termination of the embryo or fetus.”

…again, for reasons of removing ambiguity. Every act of medical care on a pregnant person is geared towards the end of the pregnancy; “induced abortion” specifies actions with different aims than that of maternal medical care working towards the outcome of a viable neonate. Describing medical procedures in vague terms increases stigma and fear of the topic. ~2026-14505-28 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Jack Frost (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)