Talk:Abortion

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)

Recent edits

I spent a couple hours working to make this page more formal and generalized. I can go in a lot more detail on why I did it but I want you to do the same please. There is a lot of repeat information that you find in later subsections. For people finding this page for the first time, they should only learn about what abortion is, its statistics, how bad unsafe ones are, and the fact there is considerate debate on its legality.

The sentence about drugs in the second paragraph was too specific to mention this early in the page. I moved it to the safety subsection. Saying abortion doesn't result in mental or physical consequences is on the other hand not specific enough and would confuse readers, as it doesn't explain why that's the case. Again, a later subsection goes into more detail on this with statistics.

In the third paragraph, I moved the sentence about how there's different limits to how late abortion is allowed to the fourth paragraph, where it also talks about where it talks about how legal it is in different countries. This was a no brainer to put this info in the same place, I have no idea why you reverted this edit of all things.

The intro still gives the most important statistics, it still says the WHO supports legal and safe abortions, it still says it can be either safe or unsafe, it still says why they are performed. I didn't actually remove any information, I just moved it to places where it's allowed to be more specific. To be honest, I don't think you looked hard at my edits. If no one responds to this, I'll probably just revert this back to my edit. Thanks.

Zufux (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You removed large amounts of relevant, informative content from the article’s lead. You removed the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 7^th sentences of the second paragraph and the 3^rd, 4^th, and last sentences of the third paragraph. The lead was not too long. A major article typically has a lead as long or longer. Wholesale shrinking of the lead to this article is not justified. According to Wikipedia policy (see MOS:LEAD): “The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read…. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic…. The body is allowed to repeat points from the lead, since the lead summarizes the points of the body and the body provides elaboration on those points, which are usually reiterated.”

Please note (see WP:ONUS): “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content.” In order to make the extensive changes you want in the lead, you need to seek consensus on the talk-page. If there’s no consensus for the changes, then the status quo version remains. Insisting on restoring your edits without a clear consensus of editors would be edit-warring (see WP:EDITWAR): “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming ‘My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring’ is not a valid defense.” NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

First sentence, second paragraph is unspecific without facts to back it up, unlike the safety subsection where it does. I'd say either give it supporting evidence in the intro or move it solely to safety subsection. Alternatively, the first and seventh sentence can be combined with its similar content. Mentioning the medication effects on the contrary is too specific and makes the paragraph sound more like a how-to in my opinion, which I also just moved inward.

Third sentence, third paragraph is confusing with that statistic, because it implies many more women can still legally receive an abortion under more restrictions. It also gives off the idea the world should work to 'make the number higher', which I don't get that feeling often on Wikipedia. I moved it to the History subsection because that section was already pretty short.

Fourth sentence, third paragraph should be moved or combined into the fourth paragraph, where both mention its varying legality worldwide, which I did. Again, it was a no-brainer, and exactly something that should have not been undid. It makes it less bloated instead of purposely long for the sake of being long. If I want any edit to stay, it was that, and I'm willing to only allow that to be changed. Also, the final sentence on history should either be removed or moved to the top of one of the paragraphs, that's far more professional.

I didn't actually remove any content, I only moved it. One of those sentences you say I deleted was actually kept in the intro (moved from third to fourth paragraph), and the others I just mentioned were moved to subsections. I'd like some more input from other editors too, in case it's an impasse with us two. Zufux (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The lead is long not “for the sake of being long,” but rather in order to include important information for a reader who reads only the lead. Concerning your edit about which you say “If I want any edit to stay, it was that, and I'm willing to only allow that to be changed,” my apologies for not noticing that the 4^th sentence of the 3^rd paragraph was just moved rather than removed. However, it doesn’t belong where you moved it. To see why, let’s think about the two consecutive sentences in your version: “Nations or regions that permit abortions have different limits to how late it is allowed during pregnancy. Among them, some allow women to make the choice about abortion, while in others, abortion is legal only in specific cases such as rape, incest, fetal defects, poverty, and risk to a woman's health.” The words “among them, some” and “others” refer to “nations or regions that permit abortions.”  But a country that forbids abortion except in cases  of rape or incest is not classified as a “nation that permits abortions.” So the sequence of sentences does not make logical sense. NightHeron (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright then Zufux (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

What you did to the page was correctly reverted. You tried to remove the very widely cited fact that abortion is "one of the safest procedures in modern medicine". That fact has been hammered out by many discussion participants here in years past. You don't get to decide unilaterally that our readers should not be made aware of the fact. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I did not actually remove it, I moved it to the Safety subsection. But if you both want it to stay in the intro section, then that's majority consensus. I also just suggested to give it more statistics or evidence or anything else like it did in the Safety subsection.

What about my other three arguments? Zufux (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Zufux, the lead section is supposed to summarize the other sections. It is intended to repeat the most important content that is covered in greater detail within the sections.

I've left a contentious topics alert on your talk, but it's worth clarifying here that this is one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia. At contentious topics, it's best not to make non-minor edits (that is, anything more than fixing typos, grammar, punctuation -- anything that changes content) without first opening a new section here on talk and discussing what it is you want to change. This is true for each change you're proposing. As you can see from the header on this talk page, the talk page has generated over 50 archives. Over 1500 editors have posted to this talk, and over 3500 have made edits to the article. It is highly likely that any change you'd like to make has been discussed previously.

FWIW, contentious topics are a terrible place to learn how to edit. Even highly experienced editors end up in trouble at contentious topics. Other editors at a contentious topic often have little patience for helping newer editors learn. I'd strongly suggest you go spend a few thousand edits working in the other 7 million articles that aren't within contentious topics before you start editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)