Talk:Abortion

Mention of death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc.

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, 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? 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)

i PERSONALLY Dont agree with Abortion, that doesnt make me an extremist does It? ~2026-37432-48 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If your disagreement with abortion means that you personally would never want to have one, then no, there's nothing extreme about that. If your disagreement means that you think that women who take abortion pills should be prosecuted and put in prison, then yes, that's pretty extreme. NightHeron (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37432-48 @NightHeron I would like to remind both of you to stay on topic. Article talk pages are designed to discuss how to improve such articles, not for general discussions about the topic. If there is a way you think the article could improve, state it here using sources deemed reliable for wikipedia, otherwise, please have the discussion somewhere else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I dislike the procedure not the Person whom Applies it ~2026-37432-48 (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Revision of FAQ item 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satanism

NightHeron The comment in your reversion was a fair point, but instead of unilaterally making a reversion I want to invite you to work on the content of this topic through this talk page. In case you have objections to the present addition feel free to respond here. Deomglor (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about the topic of Satanism and am not familiar with sources. But it's clear that your source is very U.S.-centric, and per WP:GLOBAL any statement about Satanism and abortion needs to be supported by international reliable sources, not just U.S. ones. It might turn out that there is no general Satanist view of abortion, that viewpoints differ from country to country, and that in some places there's no set viewpoint of Satanists on abortion. NightHeron (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it is so clear? TST is also present in the UK, Australia and several European countries, at the minimum. TST as a religion with rituals has overarching borders, their American website is a source for other countries as well. What I don’t argue for is a general viewpoint of Satanists, which, if there is variation, could also be described, but the TST position is clear. For that reason, since they are explicit about it, and the information is now explicitly referring to TST, I don’t see any objection. Deomglor (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The Satanism bit should have a WP:SECONDARY source to prove that Satanism's position is part of the literature on the topic of abortion. Otherwise it lacks significance to the topic, despite being demonstrably true. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Deomglor Your second source also explicitly deals only with Satanism in the U.S. Even limiting ourselves to the U.S., there’s no reason to assume that The Satanic Temple (founded in 2012) speaks for all Satanist groups when it discusses abortion. The largest Satanist group in the U.S. was the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey. Neither of the Wikipedia articles Church of Satan or LaVeyan Satanism has a word to say about any viewpoint on abortion despite extensive attention to their belief systems in both articles. Per WP:UNDUE, I don’t think a section on Satanism belongs in this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@NightHeron What in WP:GLOBAL do you understand to give right to remove the TST perspective? The point of WP:GLOBAL is to prevent biases by available sources, representation in sources and content. Since TST is a global organization, their tenets (especially the third) are adhered to in other countries as well. In the case of abortion, one can say without exception that abortion is permitted in TST but it is not actively encouraged or pusuaded. They do have rituals however. As for WP:UNDUE, the same point is to be made. It is now only a minority view, but practice, that is to be included, but not take up to many words. I think the little subparagraph was short enough. I would want to hear your thoughts on why to remove it anyhow. Deomglor (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Re "TST is a global organization", please read what The Satanic Temple#International followers says about this. It's not consistent with WP:GLOBAL to act as if an organization that is based in the U.S., directed from the U.S., and successful only in the U.S. is a global organization. And as I said, even if we ignore WP:GLOBAL and limit ourselves to the U.S., there have been major satanist groups that apparently have not had any policy on abortion, such as Church of Satan. NightHeron (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: On WP:GLOBAL: It's not about ignoring but understanding the guidelines correctly. On the link you provided: it points out that there are international followers and chapters, and the difficulties that arise with one schism up to today. TST remains international, as you can read in the lead: congregations have also formed in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, despite its being 'structured based on the assumption of operating in the US'. Nevertheless, this consequence of expansion and decentralization is a general challenge for religions and does not disqualify it. On the Church of Satan they do actually have a stance on abortion. With this information at hand, Satanism gains legitimacy to be treated and added on wikipedia, both TST and CoS. Deomglor (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No. You have not answered the requirement of a WP:SECONDARY source to show significance to this topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Binksternet Can you cite what you refer to? Secondary sources are required when analytic claims are made. Primary source are sufficient to make straightforward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I now have two primary sources of CoS and TST and for TST sufficient secondary sources are available. Deomglor (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to steer you in the direction of writing an encyclopedia rather than making a list of facts. Encyclopedias have the highest value to the reader when they supply context. Plenty of secondary sources are available to supply context for the way that the Satanists treat abortion. Many sources describe how the Satanists are activists in favor of abortion rights, purposely challenging local laws to make people aware of the hypocrisy of laws based on Christian beliefs applied to a population that includes non-Christians. Here's one by Tasin et al from 2023 which discusses the way that Satanism pushes for abortion rights. Here's a 2025 book from Corcoran which talks about how anti-abortion activists in the 1980s used scare tactics to define abortion as a tool of Satanists, which Corcoran calls the "Satanic Panic". Corcoran then covers modern abortion rights activism by TST to challenge local abortion bans. Pruitt's 2023 paper also describes the abortion rights activism of Satanists, with a challenge rising to the Supreme Court. Dickman's 2025 book goes into more detail about abortion rights activism of Satanists. Satanists don't have a passive position on abortion; they have a campaign. Lots more of these sources exist. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In other words, you try to point out that even though primary sources are allowed, the secondary sources contextualize it's place in history and society and the sources you found are examples that can be used for that. Is that right? I just had a look at the religion section. All in all, some subsections are messy and lack flow. I might propose a rewritten section in a couple of weeks on this talk page. Deomglor (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't cover other smaller religions which might also have as many followers as Satanism, like Wiccanism, either, and if we did, in my opinion, per WP:DUE, the quantity of text devoted to explaining their ideology should correlate with their percentage of followers (see graph) on the planet, so right now the Islam section should made larger. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok @Avatar317, it might be good to work on Islam, what would you suggest? In the case of WP:DUE, some religions have not developped a moral code or ethical stance on abortion. A short that be the case in Wiccanism? In any case, TST has been overt in their rituals and convictions and following WP:DUE their being a minority should also be represented. A general conclusion on Wicca and Satanism, is that they both place high value on souvereignty over own body and choice. But presenting this in a verified way, for anything different than TST requires more time than I'm willing to spend at the moment. Deomglor (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1) It would be ok to cover additional religions, under a heading "Other religions" with a statement like "Religion X,Y, and Z all support legal abortion because of bodily autonomy (or whatever reasons they give)" ..."Religions M,N, and O oppose legal abortion because of ..."

2) But we would need SECONDARY sources for this. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 1) OK 2) Wikipedia guidelines do not require secondary sources for straightforward descriptive statements. The secondary sources are required for analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims. With that in mind, this source stance on abortion can be refered to as well, together with the TST ritual.] Deomglor (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Whether a mention of abortion on a small religious sect's website is due or undue is not a "straightforward descriptive statement." Decisions about what's due or undue on Wikipedia require evaluation and interpretation. An editor who decides that without backing from reliable secondary sources is engaged in OR. NightHeron (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So you are applying Wikipedia:SECONDARY to WP:DUE? Where is your way of understanding this written? Deomglor (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says: "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV issues." Note that undue weight (such as might result from using websites of two small religious sects and no secondary sources) is one of the things that, per NPOV, the use of secondary sources helps to prevent. NightHeron (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not met, and generalizing from the official site of The Satanic Temple to all Satanism doesn't make sense. The whole point of TST is to counter what it perceives as an erosion of separation of church and state in the US by trying to play the same game with a separate religion. Its abortion rights advocacy is prominent enough that it might mention a single sentence, based on secondary sources, in the US-focused article, but not here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Where would you have it cited? Deomglor (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Pregnancy vs. conception

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

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

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

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

Need Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone fix the typo I left out in the second paragraph, where it says ' unsafe.s'? I also made some big changes to the intro paragraphs if you wanna discuss that too.

My edit is not going through to fix it myself. Zufux (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)