Talk:Abortion

Roots of the term

Please add in the first lines of the page that "abortion" derive from the Latin abortus, derivative of aboriri, "to perish": composed of ab, "away from", and oriri, "to be born". 185.255.178.59 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm...I could see adding it to the history section, with an appropriate source. I wouldn't see etymology as important enough to add to the lead, though. Anyone object to finding a mention of this and adding it into History? Valereee (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Mirriam-Webster says it means to 'miscarry' in Latin. The roots of 'abort' are a bit more complex "in part borrowed from Latin abortus, past participle of aborīrī "to pass away, be lost, (of a fetus) miscarry, be aborted, (of a woman) miscarry," ". So the roots don't seem to enlighten much as the word had roughly the same range of meanings as present day.Pincrete (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Pincrete. It kind of sounds too vague, maybe? Roots are just in loss of pregnancy? Valereee (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the concept of “safety" in abortion articles be clarified as referring to the woman undergoing it?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure by an uninvolved editor: there is overwhelming consensus opposed to the proposal and there has been no activity for 2+ days. — GlowstoneUnknown 23:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

---

To better align with WP:NPOV, should each section that introduces the term “safe” or “safety” in reference to abortion include a brief clarification at first mention—specifically, that “safe” refers to the pregnant woman undergoing the abortion, not the embryo or fetus?

For example, take the current first mention of safety in the lead:

When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine.

This proposal would adjust that statement to something like:

When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine for the woman receiving it.

Feel free to vote and comment with one of the following options:

• Yes, Option A — The article should clarify, when safety is first addressed in each section, that it is addressing safety for the individual undergoing the abortion.
• Yes, Option B — The article should only clarify it two times: at the first mention of safety in the entire article, and at the first mention of safety in the "Safety" section.
• Yes, Option C — The article should indeed clarify it, but should do so in a footnote.
• No — The article should NOT clarify whose safety is being discussed.

DocZach (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments and votes

• Yes, Option A (as proposer) — My proposal here is consistent with how the term is used in medical literature, and I believe if implemented, it would better align the article with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. This is NOT an attempt to dispute the medical consensus that legal abortion is generally safe for women. It is, however, an effort to stop the article from adopting a point of view—namely, by using the term “safe” without specifying that the embryo or fetus is excluded from that evaluation. For many readers who believe that the embryo or fetus is a human being with moral weight, the unqualified use of “safe” can come across as dismissive and misleading. In such a contentious issue, calling abortion "one of the safest procedures in medicine" without addressing whose safety is being discussed is a dishonest and impartial attempt to dismiss the other impacted party of this procedure, the embryo or fetus.
  
  This proposal also addresses serious shortcomings in the 2022 RfC, which is often cited as the definitive consensus but had serious structural issues. The 2022 RfC was opened and closed by the same editor, contrary to WP:CLOSE’s guidance that closures be made by neutral or uninvolved editors. It was framed too broadly and has since been used to dismiss narrower, good-faith clarification requests—despite some supporters in that very RfC (e.g., WhatamIdoing) agreeing that a clarification like “safe for the woman” could improve clarity and avoid future disputes. DocZach (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• No: "Safe abortion" is an oxymoron. It is obvious that if we talk about safety, we are not talking about the safety of the human being killed but of others, and there's nobody else who could be at risk by the procedure. Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, yes, I would agree that "safe abortion" is an oxymoron on its own, and that's exactly what I was saying. The only person the abortion is relatively safe for is the woman, and to avoid clarifying that... when calling abortion among the "safest procedures in medicine" is to adopt a pro-abortion point of view in the article. DocZach (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• No It's extremely clear that we are talking about the birthing person, not the "safety" of an embryo. In some ways this is like asking if we should clarify that a gallbladder removal is not safe for the gallbladder. No reasonable person would be confused by what's being discussed. There's no need to complicate a page with unnecessary wording for something no one would be confused by and does not help the information of the page whatsoever. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Replies to InquisitiveWikipedian - debate on personhood, being and species membership

Because a gallbladder is not a human being. An embryo or fetus is. This isn't a matter of "opinion," it's a biological fact that a human being exists after fertilization occurs. Whether you consider this human a person is a matter of philosophy and ethics, but it is objectively true that we are speaking of a human being (that is, an organism of the human species). To compare an unborn human with a "gallbladder" is disingenuous and inappropriate. When we speak of safety, we are speaking of the safety of the individuals involved in the act. A gallbladder is not an individual. The individuals are the mother, and the unborn human(s). DocZach (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I agree that it makes no sense to compare an embryo to a gallbladder, but despite your claim that "it's a biological fact that a human being exists after fertilization occurs," it's not a biological fact. You might want to read: Gilbert, Scott F. "Pseudo‐embryology and personhood: How embryological pseudoscience helps structure the American abortion debate." Natural Sciences 3.1 (2023): e20220041. Here's a copy. (See Scott F. Gilbert for his developmental biology bonafides.) If you believe that all zygotes are human beings, it must be disturbing to you that most zygotes die natural deaths prior to implantation, just as it's disturbing to me that the infant/child mortality rate is so high in some places. "an organism of the human species" There is no agreed on biological definition for organism, but the ability to maintain homeostasis is often considered a necessary feature. Embryos cannot maintain homeostasis, nor can pre-viable fetuses. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Well yes, it is a biological fact. I provided multiple sources in one of my statements below. A prenate does exhibit homeostasis from conception—regulating intracellular pH, ion balance, metabolism, gene expression, and cell cycle activity. These are fundamental aspects of biological homeostasis appropriate to a single-cell organism. Like other dependent organisms (e.g. neonates), prenates don’t need fully autonomous systems to meet this criterion. A zygote is a whole, living human organism—genetically distinct, self-directing, and of the species Homo sapiens. That’s standard embryology, not “pseudoscience.” Gilbert’s 2023 article critiques public rhetoric, but does not overturn basic developmental biology—he himself has written extensively about the embryo as a coordinated organism. He is making an argument based on personhood, not based on being a biological human being. High embryo loss doesn’t negate biological status. Many human beings die early due to environmental conditions. Mortality doesn’t determine species membership or organismal identity. I'm sure you'd agree that the fact that infant mortality rates are high in some places doesn't suddenly mean that infants are no longer human beings because they die frequently. DocZach (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC) No, it's not a biological fact. That you can find texts that agree with your view doesn't imply that there's consensus about this among those who have the relevant expertise (embryologists / developmental biologists). I gave you counterevidence written by someone with relevant expertise. And if you think your article with the survey shows consensus, note that there was no attempt to limit the sample to those with relevant expertise (it was a survey of all sorts of biology / life science academics), and even among those surveyed, more than 1/3 responded that biologists were not those "most qualified to answer the question 'When does a human’s life begin?'" "A prenate does exhibit homeostasis from conception" Some zygotes exhibit cellular homeostasis, but many do not, which is a reason that so many human zygotes die prior to implantation. Moreover, cellular homeostasis is distinct from organismal homeostasis. Cells in our body maintain cellular homeostasis until those cells die, but that doesn't imply that they're organisms. "A zygote is a whole, living human organism" You can keep insisting that it's an organism, but that doesn't imply that there's consensus about this among those with relevant expertise. "genetically distinct, self-directing, and of the species Homo sapiens" I'm not sure what you mean by "self-directing," but lots of cells in a human body are genetically distinct (e.g., due to copy errors and chimerism) and of the species Homo sapiens, but that doesn't mean that they're organisms. "[Gilbert] has written extensively about the embryo as a coordinated organism" Maybe, but in the article I linked to, he also pointed out: Several investigators have concluded that neither the mother nor the fetus has a separately delineated anatomy, immune system, or physiology. In fact, this contemporary perspective on pregnancy shows that neither the mother nor the fetus is a traditional biological “individual.” Rather, this scientific perspective proposes that we view the fetus and the mother as a single organism, the gravida, wherein the fetus is a component that is fully integrated anatomically and physiologically with the mother. (emphasis added) "He is making an argument based on personhood, not based on being a biological human being." I take it that you didn't pay attention to the places in the article where he says "human being" rather than "person." "I'm sure you'd agree that the fact that infant mortality rates are high in some places doesn't suddenly mean that infants are no longer human beings because they die frequently" Yes, I agree with that, but you ignored my point: is it disturbing to you that most zygotes die natural deaths prior to implantation? are you as concerned about that as you are with embryo/fetal deaths from elective abortions (many more embryos die of natural causes than from elective abortions)? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC) There is an overwhelming biological consensus that a human's life begins at fertilization. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. (emphasis added) The zygote is a living, genetically distinct, self-integrating member of the human species. This is standard embryology—not philosophy—and is affirmed in textbooks, including Gilbert’s own earlier editions. Your quote from Gilbert’s 2023 article reflects a systems-level view of pregnancy and a critique on public discourse, not a denial of the embryo's organismal status. And even if Gilbert would deny that the embryo is a human being, that would not be reflective of the consensus that is present among biologists. Claiming that some zygotes fail to maintain homeostasis does not refute their classification as organisms. Many early organisms die; that doesn’t make them non-organisms. Homeostasis is context-dependent—zygotes regulate their internal environment (e.g., pH, metabolism, gene expression) appropriate to their stage. Dependency doesn’t negate organismal status—newborns and parasites are also dependent but clearly organisms. Yes, some organisms fail to meet homeostasis and thus die from natural causes. And yes, it is indeed a very disturbing and unfortunate reality that a substantial percentage of prenatal humans die before birth. However, that does not negate their status as members of the human species. Torchia, M. G. (2024). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (12th ed.). Elsevier. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (p. 11) Arey, L. B. (1965). Developing Anatomy. W.B. Saunders. "The formation, maturation, and meeting of the male and female germ cells are all preliminary to their actual union which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." (p. 25) Jacobs, S. A., & Issues in Law & Medicine. (2021). The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins. National Library of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ Moore, K. L. (2016). Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (9th ed.). Elsevier. "Embryology is concerned with the origin and development of a human being from a zygote to birth. [...] The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half are derived from the father. This mechanism forms the basis for biparental inheritance and variation of the human species." (pp. 1, 23) (emphasis added to each of these) DocZach (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "biological consensus" Do you accept that the vast majority of biologists are not experts in human embryology? (Most biologists do not study humans, period.) Do you accept that a large fraction of the sample in that survey stated that biologists were not those "most qualified to answer the question 'When does a human’s life begin?'" Based on your comments, I don't think you've read Gilbert's entire article. Because you're not describing it accurately. You and I disagree about a number of things, but based on the exchange so far, I doubt that we're going to make any headway, and it also feels to me like we're in WP:NOTFORUM territory, so I don't expect to respond further about this here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC) I agree, we are getting off-topic. It was nice conversing with you though. DocZach (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Here's a suggestion: Why not simply add the words before it can survive outside of the womb to the end of the article's first sentence? Then it is clear at the outset that the safety of the fetus during the procedure is a non-issue. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• No - It is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. 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 point of the procedure is to kill the (embryo, fetus, child, unborn human, whatever you want to call it). We don't mention the mortality or morbidity risk for non-human animals at slaughterhouses because mortality is the intended outcome, even though some people think animals should have the same rights as humans. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  If the point of the procedure is to kill the unborn human, then why is that not mentioned in the article? As an adjacent comparison to your slaughterhouse reference, even the article on hunting explains that the practice of hunting involves the killing of an animal. So, why is it not included somewhere in this article that abortion is the direct killing of an embryo or fetus? DocZach (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is almost identical to this RfC from two years ago: Talk:Abortion/Archive_52#RfC_on_use_of_the_words_safe_and_safety. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging the (non-banned and non-retired) users that participated in that discussion: @MastCell @NightHeron @Talpedia @Binksternet @Ozzie10aaaa @Headbomb @Dimadick @My very best wishes @Cygnis insignis @Roscelese @PaleoNeonate @Xurizuri

  (Sorry if I missed anyone, I did this manually and that discussion was long!) CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  You left out @WhatamIdoing, one of the people who voted yes but also expressed support for the clarification at least once in the article. DocZach (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  My view has not changed since the discussion three years ago. Adding a small clarification could stop drama. Stopping drama is a worthwhile goal for the community.

  Beyond that, editors should be clear about facts (e.g., a first-trimester surgical abortion is typically safer for the pregnant woman than childbirth) but not try to cram the word "safe" in as often as possible to push a point. Editors should also be particularly careful to not add "safe" when they are making global statements (e.g., in places with no modern medical care, in places where abortions are performed by untrained people). None of this should sound surprising to any experienced editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DocZach, my bad I thought you pinged them in your !vote since you mentioned them. Also I noticed you keep alluding to multiple editors expressing that view, but I don't see anyone else saying that. Am I missing someone? CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oops, missed @Generalrelative too CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Avatar317 I already addressed above why that 2022 consensus was improperly handled and conducted. It was opened and closed by the same editor, it was overly broad, and the way the question was framed basically provided a blanket exclusion to any disputes over a specific usage of the word "safe" from that point forward. DocZach (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  I posted this because I didn't feel new editors would CLEARLY see that we HAD a previous RfC on this topic. Not all RfC responders read ALL comments, so people may not have seen your link to this. Separately, you said opened and closed by the same editor - please see this advice "Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. ... Do not list discussions where consensus is clear." - I felt like the consensus was quite clear on that previous RfC, so I think that close was appropriate. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• No - We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that abortion is safe. They don't tack on something about whose safety they're talking about because, like all medical procedures, they are obviously talking about the safety of the patient. The way it is currently written is how it is written in the overwhelming majority reliable sources. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• No - DocZach in responding to Cambalachero says: The only person the abortion is relatively safe for is the woman. The notion that there's a second person besides the woman whose safety is a matter of concern is the POV of the anti-abortion movement, and it's based on the belief in "fetal personhood" (and embrionic personhood, and zygotal personhood -- that is, personhood from the moment of conception). Wikipedia edits should not cater to the POV of fetal personhood, which, if taken literally, has horrible implications for pregnant women who develop life-threatening complications, as we see in some U.S. states, which forbid terminating a pregnancy before the fetal heartbeat stops, even if waiting that long would make death of the woman more likely. NightHeron (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  With all due respect, as editors it's not our concern whether a statement does or does not reflect the point of view of any particular movement, nor the potential positive or negative implications of that statement. Our only concerns are clarity and the accurate reflection of reliable sources. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Replies to NightHeron - debate on personhood, being, and species membership

Nobody has proposed that this article should adopt the view that unborn human beings are people. Personhood is a different concept than being a human. It's a scientific fact that an embryo or fetus is a human being. Whether they are people (that is, individuals recognized with certain rights) is a contentious matter of ethics, philosophy, and law. Currently, however, the article does exactly what you caution about in the complete opposite way. As the article stands, it eliminates consideration of the unborn human entirely when discussing safety, and thus adopts a point of view that blatantly rejects prenatal personhood. The article should neither support nor oppose prenatal personhood. DocZach (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC) No, it's not a scientific fact that an embryo or fetus is a human being. It is a value judgement. I would perhaps look up the definition of "being" if I were you. CFCF (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC) It is indeed a scientific fact that an embryo or fetus is a human being. A human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens." Torchia, M. G. (2024). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (12th ed.). Elsevier. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (p. 11) Arey, L. B. (1965). Developing Anatomy. W.B. Saunders. "The formation, maturation, and meeting of the male and female germ cells are all preliminary to their actual union which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." (p. 25) Jacobs, S. A., & Issues in Law & Medicine. (2021). The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins. National Library of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ Moore, K. L. (2016). Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (9th ed.). Elsevier. "Embryology is concerned with the origin and development of a human being from a zygote to birth. [...] The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half are derived from the father. This mechanism forms the basis for biparental inheritance and variation of the human species." (pp. 1, 23) Whether the prenatal human being is a "person" is a matter of philosophy, ethics, and law. Human being is often related to, but not the same concept as personhood. DocZach (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC) No, and these are not definitions. CFCF (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Rao, P. N. Suman; Shashidhar, A.; Ashok, C. (2013). "In utero fuel homeostasis: Lessons for a clinician". Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 17 (1): 60. doi:10.4103/2230-8210.107851. ISSN 2230-8210. PMC 3659908. PMID 23776854. Jacobs, Steven Andrew (2021). "The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins". Issues in Law & Medicine. 36 (2): 221–233. ISSN 8756-8160. PMID 36629778. "Human being definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary". www.collinsdictionary.com. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2025-04-08. Before we get any further down this needless side dispute: A (human) zygote/embryo/fetus is human, in the sense that it is not a cat or a dog. This is a simple fact and not a value judgement. Whether a human embryo is morally significant is a value judgement. Some (but probably not most) people use human as a biological word and human being to indicate that the human in question is morally significant (to them/according to their values). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Human (or Human Being) = A biological member of the species Homo sapiens. Person = An individual recognized by society or law as having certain rights, protections, and moral or legal status. DocZach (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC) No, and I agree with WhatamIdoing - the important point here is not to show that there are some that use the term in the way you describe it . Rather it is that fundamentally it is not a scientific statement, but essentially a philosophical and semantic value judgement (on which there is a dispute). The dispute itself is irrelevant, but we can't go around saying it's scientific fact, when it's not. CFCF (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• No because it's stupidly obvious who we're talking about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's also "stupidly obvious" that apples are fruits, but the apple article mentions that regardless. DocZach (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. The only safety that is ever discussed in the sources is the safety of the patient undergoing the abortion procedure. That's the only safety ever measured. Wikipedia must follow the sources, not take off wildly in another direction. The safety aspect is implicitly understood to be about the patient, and does not need to be clarified. Any "clarification" discussing the "safety" of the doomed fetus would be a sop to the activist agenda. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• No - as there is No risk for confusion. I have a bunch of analogies that I am holding back on, but this is just a non-sensical issue. CFCF (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. But WhatamIdoing makes an excellent point that we also should not be mentioning how "safe" competently done abortion is at every possible opportunity, which is the tendency in this article mainly, I think, to bolster the "pro-choice side of the debate. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, Option A — The article should clarify, when safety is first addressed in each section, that it is addressing safety for the individual undergoing the abortion.

  I think that's a valuable and helpful clarification. Gillispie007 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, Option B - I think it should be added, but only at first mention of the word "safe." It would be generally understood throughout the article that the word is referring to the woman. AstralNomad (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• No, of course not. Per CambrianCrab, we report what RS say, end of story. The entire premise of this RfC is deeply flawed, because it is clear from the comment of the proposer in the next section of this very page that they do not understand how articles in this field are supposed to be written. Instead of taking a step back and wondering why there is so much that seems to differ from their interpretation of how this article (and others related to abortion since it seems to be the core focus of their activity) should be, they directly conclude that they are in an ideological battle against all that is wrong with Wikipedia and its hopelessly biased editors base. This WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality leads nowhere useful and is a waste of time for everyone. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• No - Per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• No, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This RFC is also slightly malformed but whatever. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTSOAPBOX; there is not realistic potential for confusion here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explain how this is related to that policy? DocZach (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think because there seems to be an agenda, and your proposal is completely WP:OR without any support in sources I can see (or any presented) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agenda is right. Sheesh. Go away Doc Toboggan or Zach or whoever the heck you are. This is a tired agenda. Instead of POV pushing here, you could always go watch The Handmaid's Tale and fantasize about a better world. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Watch your behavior, read over Wikipedia:Civility. DocZach (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• No, of course not, but something about "fetal personhood" should be added to the "Abortion debate" section, looking through Google Scholar it’s certainly due Kowal2701 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• No The only safety that is ever discussed in the sources is the safety of the patient undergoing the abortion procedure. That's the only safety ever measured. Wikipedia must follow the sources, not take off wildly in another direction. The safety aspect is implicitly understood to be about the patient, and does not need to be clarified. Any "clarification" discussing the "safety" of the doomed fetus would be a sop to the activist agenda. per Binksternet. Pincrete (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Replies and discussion

• Comment: Since this is a CONTENTIOUS issue, I am requesting that this RfC not be closed by anyone involved who commented here and the closure be done through the Wikipedia:Closure_requests Noticeboard, after the appropriate time has passed: "There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure.") Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  If there is overwhelming consensus it is fine despite your request. CFCF (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: I agree with CFCF, especially in a case like this, where there was no real need for a new RFC on this topic. Having RFC's on a topic every few years makes sense if new information is becoming available that strengthens the case of those opposed to the earlier consensus. But on the question of safety of the abortion procedure (if done by qualified health providers in conditions of legality) the opposite is occurring: statistically, it's becoming even safer than before because of the large fraction of medical (meaning just taking pills) rather than surgical abortions. The strained logic opposing the current wording is becoming even less tenable with time (unless one believes in the extremist POV of embrionic personhood). NightHeron (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with both you and CFCF; my request was a request. My hope was that this RfC would be more participated in and more solidly conclude than the last one and therefore have more enduring strength; specifically so that we wouldn't have to keep revisiting this so often. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't mean to be so abrasive, but speaking from experience, it can be hard to find uninvolved closers - and this seems to be quite an overwhelming consensus. That is both with regard to arguments, and in count (apart from the initial proposer and two entirely new accounts.) CFCF (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The overwhelming "no" result proves the "enduring strength" of this RfC. A strong consensus has definitely emerged. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Debate on personhood, being, and species membership

Respectfully, @NightHeron, I don't think your contributions to the article have been neutral or fair, and I think your edits are highly influenced by your personal ideological beliefs on abortion. You have repeatedly insinuated that anyone who believes unborn human beings are persons is an "extremist", alluding to the idea that nearly half of the population is part of an "extremist" movement. I think that's very disingenuous and inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC) I think what is disingenuous and inappropriate here is alluding that half "the population" (what population?) holds the view that you do, with no backing for this statement whatsoever, and that, as you repeatedly have stated above - value judgements on what constitutes "a being" - are scientific facts. Both those things are disingenuous and inappropriate. CFCF (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Being = existence. An embryo exists as a member of the human species. Human being is the longer way of saying human. Personhood is a separate concept. Hope this helps. DocZach (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC) You did not respond to the questions - and you are again ignoring the central point that there is a philosophical, semantic, legal, and moral value judgement in your equation. This is so much a frustrating non-sequitur, but it must be made clear that if you go to the definition of it, choose whatever dictionary you want (e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being), and you will see multiple definitions with different meanings (that is why there are multiple definitions, otherwise we would only have one). Words can inherently have multiple meanings, and you seem to be ignoring that. "Being" itself can be the totality of "existence", as can "human being" be the totality of "human existence", which is why "human being" can be different from "an existing human". Per your interpretation, you're just conflating poor semantic arguments with the same philosophico-legal debate of personhood that has been mulled over again and again, with a disingenuous veneer of this "being scientific". CFCF (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC) I’m not ignoring semantic range—I’m clarifying that, in this context, "human being" is a biological term, not a philosophical or legal one. Standard embryology and biology texts describe the human zygote/embryo as a living, whole human organism—i.e., a human being in the biological sense. That isn’t a value or metaphysical judgment; it’s a taxonomic classification. When I refer to an embryo as a "human being," I mean it in the biological sense: a living member of Homo sapiens. That is not synonymous with claiming legal personhood. DocZach (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Granted, you may do that - the majority here won't, and the article shouldn't. But you do realize that your following argument that a fertilized embryo is a "member" of a species is precisely the contention. By the same definition, a skin-cell is a member of the species, as are perhaps more aptly the very living leukocytes which you sneeze out every day. Whether you wish to call any cell a "member" of a group or species (or not) is still a value judgement. CFCF (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC) And I never said the article should do it. Our discussion right now has nothing to do with the original topic, which is whether or not a clarification should be present on whose safety is being discussed. DocZach (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Our present discussion is pointing out that a fundamental premise of your argument is false. Stating that your opinion is scientific fact is false. CFCF (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Precisely what premise of my argument is false? How does the personhood debate have anything to do with the RfC? You are going off-topic completely. DocZach (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Despite having clarified this - what exactly is false, is that you claim you make scientific statements on "being" or "species membership" - when it is not a scientific statement. CFCF (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Because you are re-hashing the personhood debate in different words, and suggesting that it is a different debate about "being" or "species membership" not "person" - then using that to motivate that one should consider safety of said "being" or "species member". CFCF (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC) The RfC concerns whether the article should clarify that the term "safe" refers to maternal safety only—not prenatal safety. That’s a content issue about neutrality and clarity, not about personhood. Redirecting the discussion into a semantic or philosophical debate over "being" or "membership" distracts from the actual editorial question. I will no longer engage in this with you per WP:NOTAFORUM. DocZach (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Whether to consider "safety" relevant derives from the view of personhood, being, or species membership - as well as a bunch of other things. This I think you make clear, by repeatedly bringing it up. That debate has been covered many times and there is consensus. However, I do think the fact that you at least 3 times brought it up - as an argument for inclusion of wording to consider safety - is indicative that this is central to your point. CFCF (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• DocZach, re: your statement that "it would better align the article with ... WP:MEDRS," do you have a MEDRS-compliant source that addresses the safety for the embryo/fetus? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Here is my opinion (re-framing) of DocZach's conjectures in this RfC: (using "fetus" for brevity, rather than zygote/embryo/unborn human)

1) The MEDRS sources (and medical establishment) ASSUME that readers will understand the fetus will die in an abortion procedure. (MEDRS sources don't explicitly mention the death of the fetus.) - I think that this is a point we all agree on.

2) The medical establishment's ASSUMPTION (that readers will understand the death of the fetus in an abortion procedure) IS WRONG - (The person on the street doesn't think fetuses die in abortions).

I think that for DocZach to show that 2) is true will require sources, like public opinion surveys asking people about this question, to prove that everyday people don't think fetuses die in abortions. Without any such sources, I think there is no reason to challenge the assumption the medical field uses when they describe this procedure.---Avatar317^(talk) 17:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you remove/please stop using typography for emphasis in discussions? That tends to degenerate into everyone emphasizing their own opinions to make them STAND OUT via typography. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Realizing I should have pinged @Avatar317, it's a long convo, easy to miss. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. While I don’t think the core proposal depends entirely on this empirical question (it’s also about clarity and neutrality in encyclopedic writing), I do believe there is some evidence that a portion of the public may not fully grasp what abortion entails—particularly in early gestation. People have very frequent misunderstandings about abortion. So while it's reasonable for medical professionals to assume a baseline level of understanding among their peers or patients, Wikipedia reaches a broader, non-expert audience. Clarifying that “safe” refers to the woman undergoing the abortion, and not the fetus, could help reduce misunderstanding and avoid taking a moral stance on the issue. DocZach (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can find MEDRS sources that discuss this, we can include it. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@DocZach, as I asked above, re: your statement that "it would better align the article with ... WP:MEDRS," do you have a MEDRS-compliant source that addresses the safety for the embryo/fetus? As an aside, the survey in you link did not ask whether people know that abortion leads to fetal death, and the fact that people have misunderstandings of some things does not imply that they misunderstand this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's an example of a medical study that distinguishes between maternal v. prenatal (aka fetal) safety:

While side effects (including uterine hyperstimulation, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea) and safety (particularly rare complications such as uterine rupture) are important considerations for the woman, issues related to fetal wellbeing are not. [...] Concerns about fetal safety and avoidance of toxicity are not relevant in the situation of induction of labour following fetal death or to effect termination of pregnancy in the second and third trimester. However, issues of side effects and safety for the woman remain. [...] However, important information regarding maternal safety, and in particular the occurrence of rare outcomes such as uterine rupture, remains limited.

(emphasis added)

Here's an amicus brief to the Supreme Court by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that also clarifies it:

[A] physician begins every D&E intending to perform acts necessary to evacuate the uterus in a way that is safe for the woman. The physician also knows that such acts, which include cutting the umbilical cord or dismembering or compressing a fetal part, will result in fetal demise.

(emphasis added)

@Avatar317 @Valereee @FactOrOpinion DocZach (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that an amicus brief is considered MEDRS-compliant, but perhaps it will help you find a MEDRS-compliant source (I don't know, since you didn't link to the brief or identify the case). Re: the first, it would support a claim that fetal safety is not a concern in the use of vaginal misoprostol to induce labor to terminate a pregnancy in the second or third trimester. It cannot be used to support a statement about the fetal safety of abortions in general, as it doesn't discuss that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What both of these address is the distinction between maternal v. fetal safety in the context of abortion. I'm not even saying we should mention "fetal safety" in this article, that would not be necessary. I am only saying that, at least for the first mentions of safety in the entire article and in the Safety section, safety should be clarified as being "maternal safety" or "safe for the woman." There is no need to mention fetal safety, but there is a need to attribute the claim of safety to whose safety is being discussed. Even a footnote would be appropriate, just to clarify the usage of safety in the article. DocZach (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's the link to the amicus brief:

https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/amicus-brief-ACOG.pdf#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20a%20physician%20begins%20every,safe%20evacuation%20of%20the%20uterus DocZach (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That a source addresses something does not imply that it's MEDRS-compliant. I continue to doubt that an amicus brief is MEDRS-compliant, but the brief identifies some relevant literature (on pp. iii-vi), so you might investigate those. I don't have a problem with adding a footnote making it explicit that discussions of safety refer to the safety for the patient, though I think that people generally assume that when they read about the safety of a medical procedure, it's talking about the safety for the patient. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We already have a note section in this article. I think an easy way to resolve this dispute would be to add one footnote to the first mention of safety, which can state:

"Safety" in this article refers to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman undergoing the abortion.

DocZach (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd replace "woman" by "patient," since the people who obtain abortions include girls as young as 10 and trans men. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

"Safety" in this article refers to the health and well-being of the pregnant individual undergoing the abortion.

How about this? DocZach (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, not follwoing @DocZach...are you suggesting some sort of hat for the article or a section? I tried to read back through and figure this out. Valereee (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh? A hat? I am suggesting a footer, like a note. DocZach (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You've taken the first quote out of context by not including the paragraph before it or the subject of the study. Here's the title of the study and the full quote:

Title: Misoprostol for induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second or third trimester for women with a fetal anomaly or after intrauterine fetal death

The Cochrane reviews assessing misoprostol for the induction of labour at term in the presence of a live fetus (Alfirevic 2006; Hofmeyr 2003) concluded that there was considerable variation in both the dose and frequency of misoprostol administered to induce labour, and that at present the optimal dosing regimen is uncertain. There have been calls to further investigate the lowest effective dose of misoprostol, thereby minimising side effects and maximising safety for both the woman and her infant (Alfirevic 2006; Hofmeyr 2003). Why it is important to do this review The issues related to the use of low doses of misoprostol are a little different for women who are having labour induced to terminate their pregnancy because of fetal anomalies or after intrauterine fetal death. While side effects (including uterine hyperstimulation, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea) and safety (particularly rare complications such as uterine rupture) are important considerations for the woman, issues related to fetal wellbeing are not."

This context is WHY that article mentions the fetal wellbeing; it is comparing use of misoprostol for delivery of live birth vs. its use in non-live birth. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317, I think you're saying misoprostol can be used in situations other than abortion, so it's not necessarily associated with fetal death, which means...I'm not actually sure what you're saying it means for this article? Valereee (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear, and for my typography. Misoprostol#Labor_induction can be used for labor induction, and of course in those situations the health of the infant due to effects of misoprostol are important.

My point for this article is that DocZach's quote to support mention of medical literature referencing fetal harm with respect to abortion is not supported by that source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

For a little more clarity, the standard medical abortion regimen involves two similarly named drugs: mifepristone (RU486) followed by misoprostol. That study was regarding the second, misoprostol. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317 I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying, but to address the fetal harm part, I never proposed that we explicitly specify in this article that "safety does not apply to the fetus." Instead, I am saying that we should specify that safety applies to the pregnant women, which is a simple and neutral clarification that could even be done in a simple footnote. DocZach (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Even as a pro-life advocate I think it would be unnecessary to add "safe for the woman." this phrase would call for very specific statistics on how safe it was for the woman; besides this the entire purpose of an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy, i.e. kill the embryo or fetus. if that isn't obvious to whoever is reading the article, they obviously need to refer to a more thorough website than Wikipedia. DarlingYeti (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually supposed to be much more readable and understandable to a much broader audience than other sites are. Most people use Wikipedia to learn about a topic they are hearing for the first time or that they lack knowledge on, and with that, there is a need to be clear and clarifying when addressing certain topics such as safety. DocZach (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

We should also take into account the arguments in the above section of this talk page as well. This discussion is separate, but the discussion we had earlier also outlines a few problems with the current phrasing of abortion safety. This is why I think it is ever the more necessary for there to be a clarification of maternal safety.

I think @Traumnovelle said it perfectly:

There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead.

And @Elisha'o'Mine said:

The idea that surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures is extremely questionable. We could start with sebaceous cyst incision, punch biopsy, toenail wedge resection and easily find another thirty safer surgical procedures.

DocZach (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@NightHeron help us DarlingYeti (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The important distinction is not between surgical and non-surgical, but between early and late abortions. In situations of legality and access to qualified abortion providers, the vast majority of abortions are early abortions, and there are no significant risks. Abortion late in the pregnancy does carry significant risks, such as the possibility that in the future the woman will be unable to carry a fetus to term. However, those abortions are normally done because of difficulties in the pregnancy, where the risks of abortion so late in the pregnancy must be weighed against the risk to the health, and possibly the life, of the woman if the pregnancy is continued. Increasingly, most early abortions are either medical (pills) or else vacuum aspiration, especially in places with legality and easy access, with D&C no longer common (D&C is technically a type of surgical abortion, but is very low-risk when done by a qualified person). NightHeron (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether "very low-risk when done earlier in pregnancy, but higher risk for those late in pregnancy" = "among the safest procedures in medicine" / "one of the safest procedures in medicine." There are many very low-risk medical procedures, and given the significant difference in risk between routine abortions and those late in pregnancy, it probably makes sense to include that qualification instead of characterizing the safety of all abortions as one group. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really related to the RfC though. This RfC isn't about whether abortion is safe (that would require another RfC), this RfC is about whether or not the article should clarify, at least somewhere, that the safety being discussed is that of the pregnant woman. Because as the article currently stands, it implicitly rejects and erases any consideration of the embryo or fetus, thus taking on a point of view that there is no concern of safety or life for the embryo or fetus. DocZach (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You're the one who chose to quote Traumnovelle and Elisha'o'Mine about it.

As for the article ignoring the lack of safety for the embryo, that's because there is only one patient in an abortion, and MEDRS discussions of the safety of abortions focus on the safety for the patients. But again, I have no objection to a footnote saying something like "'Safety' in this article refers to the health and well-being of the pregnant patient undergoing the abortion." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't want to make this any more of a time sink, and it probably isn't going to be useful for this RfC, but I found some sources that discuss fetus safety in the context of abortion.

• The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion (2024): It provides guidelines that focus on the distinctive elements of pregnancy and childbirth, ensuring the safety and health of both maternal and fetal patients.
• Beyond Abortion: The Consequences of Overturning Roe (2022): After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands...
• SOCIO-JURIDIC ANALYSIS OF ABORTION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 75 OF LAW NO. 36/2009 CONCERNING ON HEALTH AND LAW NO. 35/2014 CONCERNING ON CHILD PROTECTION (2022): ...where the intended abortion is an abortion that is indeed as the last way for the mother’s and fetus’ safety.
• Development of Ectogenesis: How Will Artificial Wombs Affect the Legal Status of a Fetus or Embryo (2009): To decide otherwise would force a woman to risk her own or her fetus' safety by refusing a..

Sorry for not giving full quotes, I didn't have access to some. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Off the back of this, maybe a note saying {{efn|"Safety" in this article refers to the health and well-being of the patient undergoing the abortion.<ref>Sources that use ''safety'' to also refer to the fetus: [sources here]</ref>}}. But I suppose we'd need another RfC for that? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a closer look at these and they don't justify the suggested change.

The first is referring to "The professional responsibility model for obstetricians-gynecologists". The immediately preceding sentence is:

Specific to obstetrics and gynecology, this framework outlines the moral and professional obligations healthcare providers owe to expectant pregnant patients, fetal patients, clinical colleagues, and society.

i.e. It is in the context of obstetrics and gynaecology generally, not in the context of undertaking an abortion procedure.

I couldn't access the full text of the second, but the quoted section is actually an excerpt from the judgment in Casey which seems to be quoted somewhere in that article. It reads:

Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking.

Again, it is not in the context of an abortion procedure.

The third is an article from an Indonesian legal journal whose abstract starts with the sentence "Children are often become victims of sexual crimes that cause the pregnancy." I'm not discounting that the source might be reliable and useful in its content in some circumstances, but it's probably not going to be controversial to say it shouldn't be a go-to for guidance on English language medical terminology.

The fourth is talking about risk to the foetus from carrying a pregnancy as opposed to undergoing a hypothetically safer foetal transfer:

Just as the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy would likely weaken were an artificial womb created, it is even less likely that a potential father would have the right to disconnect an artificial womb following a fetal transplant. The mother has put herself at physical risk and taken on various burdens in carrying the pregnancy as far as she has, even if she makes the decision to have the fetus transplanted to an artificial uterus. To decide otherwise would force a woman to risk her own or her fetus' safety by refusing a fetal transplant out of concern that the potential father's interest in not procreating could outweigh her interest in procreation.

Again, not in the context of an abortion procedure.

The fact that so many sources about abortion turning up the phrase 'fetal safety' or similar are so consistently not talking about abortion when they use it I think is a pretty strong indication there's no change necessary here, if that was still needed. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed, was scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these Kowal2701 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

All sources I've found in text searches for "fetal safety" or otherwise similar terms do not mention it in the context of an abortion, when enough of the source material is read to understand the true context of phrase's use in the source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the opening sentence...

why is there an the unwillingness to say that abortion kills the embryo or fetus? This is particularly odd since the second of only two listed sources for the sentence, Oxford Constitutional Law, ''says exactly that''. Establishing at the outset for the benefit of a nine-year-old reading about abortion for the first time, that this is very different from a premature birth or a Caesarean Section does no harm. More importantly for the above discussion, it means that the fate of the "doomed fetus" as Binksternet puts it, has already been explained. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The answer to this is that Wikipedia has a pro-abortion bias, and so do many of the sources that Wikipedia classifies as "reliable." We did previously mention that abortion induces the death of an embryo or fetus (even many reliable sources account for that), but there are quite a few very passionate editors who are adamant about keeping this article as sanitized and vague as possible to avoid going into the nitty gritty of abortion and what distinguishes it from a miscarriage or preterm birth.

Notice how there's not one mention of "kill" or "death" regarding the embryo or fetus (except one mention of "fetal death" in a paraphrase of the CDC) in this article. There is no mention of pro-abortion violence. There is no mention of abortion survivors. There is little to no coverage on prenatal rights. There are conveniently no real images of these procedures being performed, nor images of the aftermath of such procedures. The article makes it seem as if abortion is the same as getting your teeth cleaned, as if the embryo or fetus is just bacteria getting wiped away. One editor in this talk page, in fact, called the unborn human a "monster" to be killed.

I'd like to believe that most editors are here in good faith. I'd also like to believe that fairness and neutrality are possible to achieve here. It's getting harder and harder to believe those things, but for the sake of assuming good faith and affording others the same respect that I would wish to receive, I do. It may be a while, however, before this article can ever be improved and reach the standards of neutrality, especially with how divided society is on this very heated issue. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

the unwillingness to say that abortion kills the embryo or fetus Is there? I see a revert by someone due to ongoing discussion. I don't recall -- though I'm not a close watcher of this page -- a big discussion articulating justification/sourcing/options for including such an edit.

WP:MEDRS is a good summary of why the article looks the way it does. In medical articles more than perhaps anywhere else on Wikipedia, editors are extremely picky about sourcing and careful about including perspectives not represented in the best sources (WP:FRINGE). Also following WP:WEIGHT to determine, in general, how to balance perspectives that do appear in the best sources. Yes, one person who has made exactly one edit to this article ever made an inflammatory "monster" comment, and someone else responded with an equally unhelpful comment about "hatred of the unborn humans". Peppering every comment with accusations of "pro-abortion" bias (a term only used these days by anti-abortion activists) is also unhelpful. If you think specific editors are chronically violating Wikipedia's rules like WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, etc., that is a good case for WP:ANI or WP:AE (since this is a contentious topic), but bear in mind those venues typically scrutinize the behavior of the person making the report, too.

Arguing about controversial subjects on Wikipedia takes a certain amount of perseverance and detachment (and also, effort to understand how the policies/guidelines work, determining where there is/isn't consensus and "choosing your battles"). In a way, articles like this one are less controversial than some other topics having to do with politics, borders, wars, etc. because MEDRS really limits the scope of the argument, though I also understand that the primacy of MEDRS can be frustrating when applied to a socially fraught subject like this. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, I don't know where you got the idea that "pro-abortion" is only used by anti-abortion activists, but that's completely false. Pro-abortion doesn't mean you love abortion, it means you support the legality and accessibility of abortion. Even Planned Parenthood has embraced and adopted the phrase "pro-abortion" to describe themselves. DocZach (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@DocZach, where does PP describe themselves as pro-abortion? Valereee (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Typically it’s people who are supportive of abortion rights who [oppose the usage of the phrase pro-abortion], but they both imply that abortion is a bad thing. It’s 100% fine to support abortion — be proud to be pro-abortion.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-keystone/services/abortion-services/abortion-stigma DocZach (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood Action:

It’s time to retire the phrase “pro-choice, not pro-abortion” for good. [...] So what can someone say instead of just “pro-choice”? You can absolutely say: pro-abortion, pro-abortion rights, pro-abortion access, or pro-abortion equity — abortion isn’t a dirty word. [...] It’s time to use language that reflects what we’re fighting for: access to abortion for everyone, without apology.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion DocZach (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's taking it way out of context, @DocZach. That's not PP describing themselves as pro-abortion. That's PP quoting someone discussing the term as stigmatizing. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, it's a Planned Parenthood website advocating for the usage of the term "pro-abortion." I'm not sure who you think they are quoting. They are writing for themselves. Regardless, this is unrelated to the RfC. DocZach (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a PP site quoting people discussing the term. This page actually has a 'quote' avatar. The other is describing destigmatizing the term. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a tangent and I regret drawing attention to it (not because I'm convinced otherwise, to be clear, but because it's not helping move discussion forward). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Their 2022–2023 annual report has a headline on page 6 that says "Unapologetically Pro-Abortion".

See also their 2022 press release, "launching Brands Against Bans, a campaign to empower pro-abortion businesses to leverage their platforms and publicly support sexual and reproductive health and rights". It's a little odd to say that they're starting a public relations campaign for "pro-abortion businesses" but they're somehow not pro-abortion themselves. See their 2024 candidate endorsement request form, which says "it is more critical than ever that candidates endorsed by Planned Parenthood identify as pro-abortion and are able to articulate what it means to be pro-abortion". If they're not pro-abortion, why would they only endorse candidates who are pro-abortion?

I don't favor this term, because I think it is needlessly ambiguous, but I also don't think we need to claim that they don't ever self-apply that label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's them describing themselves that way lol... Valereee (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with your assertion that Wikipedia has a pro-abortion bias. You consistently preach neutrality and good faith, but I don't think the way you talk about these "passionate" editors instills me with confidence that you actually believe or follow those principles - especially with your consistent over-reliance of scare quotes when arguing your points.

To the "monster" comment, I've searched the archive and this page for the word "monster" so I could see what you're talking about and I can't find it anywhere. Based on the follow-up comment from another editor, I think that means that comment was made in the article itself at some point. But just stating vague claims in your quote marks that don't give any more information whatsoever (e.g. has this person edited a lot, a little, been reverted immediately, was engaging in vandalism or not, is often listened to as an expert or not, did this a long time ago or recently, etc. - things very unclear from the context) seems to just be subtly (or not always so) implying or building a case that your are in some persecuted group of editors against the big bad abortion lovers, which just isn't the case.

(This is also true of you putting scare quotes in your comment I'm replying to around the word "reliable" despite WP:MEDRS coming up several times in these conversations, so the word reliable is reasonably well defined and probably shouldn't be presented in scare quotes, or the other day on the misinformation related to abortion page where you put quotes around people calling you a "tiny, baseless" minority. When I pointed out no one had actually said that, you did apologize which I appreciated, and you said you were quoting in general what policy papers have said (although I've never personally seen that phrasing in a policy paper, so I don't even know which ones you meant). And I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was just a mistaken use of quotes without attribution. Normally, I would not re-bring up something that had seemingly been resolved, but I'm now seeing this less as a one-time mistake and more as part of a pattern. In reading more of your comments, I think you do clearly know what quotation marks mean and how to potentially use them to build your case that you seem to think you are being persecuted as a "baseless" minority (that's me actually quoting you), even if that's not really what's happening, as far as I can see it.)

You very clearly have just as strong of a POV, if not more so, than most others on this page, which is your right - to state your opinion and try to shift consensus if you can to what you, in your seemingly anti-abortion stance, think is a more fair framing of everything. But I don't appreciate the way you consistently paint the situation. Being a little more subtle or vague, or not using exact names when talking about other editors doesn't mean you're not casting general aspersions or letting the conversation drift a little from the topic at hand to the people discussing it, which is what you keep preaching you don't want to happen.

I've tried over the last day or two to stop checking my notifications on abortion-related pages and to stop commenting on these pages, because it's honestly not good for my health to wade into such contentious waters. I hate the conflict and stress (but am passionate about keeping Wikipedia what I believe to be neutral and not leaning to a anti-abortion slant). So, while I am trying my best to generally step back from all this, I felt it necessary to say something because I'm just really quite tired of the framing.

And I know, I know, you've made it extraordinarily clear in a conversation we had on a talk page recently that you don't care about my "comfort," or if I'm "exhausted" by the way these conversations go, and there I go, quoting just like you do, but nonetheless, just because you don't care about other editors comfort levels - (And in your defense, it is ultimately up to us ourselves to look out for our own selves if we're feeling too exhausted by these conversations) - but just because you don't care doesn't mean that within the etiquette and ideal Wikipedia world you seem to claim to want, that you shouldn't try to avoid making an already contentious topic more contentious than it needs to be (and I also think just in service to your own goals that you might have better conversations with people when things aren't handled in such an exhausting way, although maybe the strategy is if you exhaust people enough, they'll give in to what you want, which we've seen work sometimes in life, so what do I know). All this is just my two cents, obviously take any of it or leave it. (And I'm gonna try to step back again, and take a bit of a break from all this.) InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, users who exhaust the community's patience may be blocked as tendentious editors. It's not good for Wikipedia to allow a few activist users to exhaust the many neutral ones. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Binksternet If your idea of Wikipedia is to propose and threaten for an individual to be blocked because you disagree with their editorial opinion or approach, then you should reflect on whether you are here for the right reasons. The "tendentious editors" page that you linked is an essay, not a policy, and you aren't even applying it appropriately in this situation anyway. DocZach (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a possible support line to help InquisitiveWikipedian avoid exhaustion. There's a pathway to follow for people like InquisitiveWikipedian who are feeling overwhelmed by battleground-oriented editors. The essay is useful as explanation even though it's not hard policy. The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, persistent violations of which will certainly lead to a block. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

People get blocked with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing listed as the reason all the time. There is no rule that says the rationale for a block must always be a page that say "policy" at the top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@InquisitiveWikipedian, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts—especially given how strenuous these discussions can be. I’ve stepped back from them myself at times, so I respect your decision to do the same. That said, I do want to respond directly to a few points.

First, I stand by my broader concern that Wikipedia’s abortion coverage—particularly in lead sections—often omits key clarifications that would help maintain neutrality. That’s not a claim of persecution; it’s a content-based critique, and raising such concerns is well within the scope of good-faith editorial engagement.

On the quotation marks: I take your point. I’ve used them at times to signal contested or rhetorically loaded terms (e.g., “reliable” when discussing potential bias in sourcing). But if it came across as dismissive or insinuating bad faith, that wasn’t my intent—and I’ll be more mindful going forward.

Regarding the "monster" comment, it's located in one of the collapsed threads above, marked “Unhelpful.”

Lastly, I don’t claim to be completely neutral—none of us are. But I do work to ensure that Wikipedia articles, especially on morally complex issues like abortion, reflect neutrality through clarity and balance. There’s a real difference between caring about a topic and trying to skew its coverage. In my view, the current article downplays the moral gravity of abortion and alienates readers who see the embryo or fetus as more than, to quote you, a “gallbladder.”

We may not agree on everything, but I hope we can agree that articles on contentious topics deserve precise, transparent, and balanced language. My intent isn’t to push ideology—it’s to ensure Wikipedia doesn’t quietly adopt contested positions through omission or ambiguity.

Thanks again for your message. I do value the dialogue and hope future conversations remain focused, civil, and productive. DocZach (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You said: My intent isn’t to push ideology—it’s to ensure Wikipedia doesn’t quietly adopt contested positions through omission or ambiguity. - That's NOT how Wikipedia works. The FACT that the earth is round (spheroid) is CONTESTED, by believers in Modern flat Earth beliefs, but due to Wikipedia policies, their contestation does not change our coverage of the scientific consensus of the earth's shape. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think flat earth theory is comparable here because flat earth theory is a fringe conspiracy that can be easily disproven. And the discussion here isn't over whether abortion is relatively safe for the woman (it generally is), the discussion here is whether it is appropriate to clarify whose safety is being discussed. DocZach (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Inquisitive, I think DocZach is correct both in his assessment and with the reason he gave for it: Wikipedia has a pro-abortion bias, and so do many of the sources that Wikipedia classifies as "reliable." I would change the wording only slightly. It would be more accurate to say that "Wikipedia has a pro-abortion bias, because so many of the sources that Wikipedia classifies as "reliable" have a 'pro-abortion' bias." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia has a pro-science bias, and science can and is used to determine morality, which works much better than people believing arbitrary contrived beliefs/morals with no method of distinguishing which belief/moral works better for humans and humankind. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is relevant, because Wikipedia is not in the business of telling readers whether abortion is "moral" or which morals "work better for humans". We aren't even in the business of telling people what it would mean for a given moral tenet to be "better" for people than some other moral tenet.

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. That includes reliable sources that are in non-science fields (e.g., art, history, cultural studies, moral philosophy, journalism, etc.) as well as those in natural and applied science fields (e.g., biology, genetics, medicine, engineering, etc.). Wikipedia is not supposed to have its own bias – not even a pro-science bias. We are supposed to have only a follow-the-reliable-sources bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

We are meant to have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS though, if a POV isn't present in scholarly sources, it probably shouldn't be included. WP:BESTSOURCES also leans into this Kowal2701 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• The medical literature overwhelmingly uses "termination of pregnancy", and that is what we will stick with. Other words are more value loaded. This is a matter of long-standing consensus, and the "Society and culture" section is already quite fleshed out. That's the end of it. CFCF (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

References

The opening definition includes normal child birth

"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)

I added the word early to make it "early termination". Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reversion due to phrase "Termination of Pregnancy" being indicative of no live birth

@ZergTwo I get where you're coming from, but medically speaking, termination of pregnancy (TOP) is a broader term than abortion and doesn’t always mean the fetus is dead or that there won’t be a live birth. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) says that if a fetus is born alive after a termination, it must be registered as a live birth. It talks about how feticide isn’t always performed, meaning sometimes a termination leads to a live baby. There’s also a large study from Dutch hospitals published in BMJ Open that reviewed 177 cases where pregnancies were terminated for serious maternal health reasons between 22 and 27 weeks. And in nearly all of those, the fetus was alive when the process started, and some even survived and developed normally, meaning the lavel of termination doesn't mean death. Also Taber’s Medical Dictionary defines abortion as “the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age”, which shows that abortion is just one kind of termination, and one that’s specifically defined by the fact that it doesn’t result in a viable (live) birth. So saying that abortion “ends a pregnancy without resulting in a live birth” is just a way to be more medically precise, while avoiding emotional politicized language, and lines up with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDMOS. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Abortion is listed on the Killing disambiguation article

It was on there without context, but I recently added (readded, since the language is from an earlier version of the article) some context. Basically "it's considered killing to those who believe it's killing". Anyway, just bringing it to attention. Maybe someone wants to discuss it. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yours is a good addition. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)