Talk:Abortion

Archives
Archive Index
Topical subpages
Lead Lead: 2006, 2007–10, 2011 Lead image To-do items (inactive)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Pictures, 2, 3, 4, 5, Use of "Death"

RfC on use of the words safe and safety

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.

Consensus clear that the article's use of the terms safe and safety in connection with abortion is okay. NightHeron (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Are the terms safe and safety used correctly in this article? NightHeron (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion and yes or no votes

• Yes as OP. Some editors have raised objections (see Talk:Abortion#"Safe" is subjective above), but those terms are used extensively in RS and MEDRS sources. As in other medical procedures, safety for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman, has been widely studied and is often evaluated in comparison with alternatives (namely, continuing the unwanted pregnancy). NightHeron (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Based on the comments above, and on your own clarification ("safety for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman,"), it would probably be appropriate to change one instance of the word "safe" in the article to "safe for the pregnant woman", and maybe also one instance of "unsafe" to "unsafe for the pregnant woman". Presumably this should be a sentence towards the beginning of the ==Safety== section. IMO repeating that phrase within the section would be unnecessary. The clarification could also appear in one sentence in the lead. My thinking is that this change would avoid unnecessary disputes about "but it isn't safe for the baby!", and that adding four words to limit the scope of the sentence is better than having these repeated discussions.

  That said, what level of risk counts as "safe" is a subjective, personal opinion. Lots of things are relatively safe (e.g., a competent first-trimester surgical abortion is less likely to produce a dead adult than competently managed childbirth) without being absolutely safe (anesthesia sometimes kills people, even if you are having an abortion; surgical abortions have a tiny risk of causing permanent health problems, such as an inability to carry a pregnancy to term in the future). I'm more satisfied with the sentences that say "safer than childbirth" than the ones that baldly assert that "it's safe". I do not find the sentence comparing it to marathon running to be an indication of safety (I consider running marathons to be a borderline dangerous activity), but I did find it to be informative.

  As for specific uses, I think most of them are okay, but:

  • The word "safe" probably doesn't belong in this sentence: "In jurisdictions where abortion is legal, certain requirements must often be met before a woman may obtain a safe, legal abortion". This seems to imply that in some jurisdictions where abortion is legal, there are no requirements if you are seeking an unsafe-but-still-legal abortion, and AFAIK that is not true.
  • The word "safe" in the sentence about conservatism in the 17th century fails verification. The source says that it prevented "discussion and dissemination" of [all] abortion techniques – not just the safe ones. Also, it says "the medical profession", not specifically physicians. At that time, physicians and surgeons were separate professions in many countries, and physicians have never been the entire medical profession.
  • It might be worth reviewing how many of the sentences about "safe abortions" actually mean "abortion performed by a trained healthcare provider". That could be a bit of a euphemism, and we could be more direct.

  Overall, I think my view is that it's not bad, but that we could probably do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Unsafe abortion" has a specific, reliably source definition, so in my view it makes sense to speak of "safe abortion" as its opposite, although I agree perhaps we could better define the term here. As for safety "for the pregnant woman", no reliable source that I'm aware of uses such language, so including it feels more like a sop to the agenda of a handful of insistent Wikipedians rather than a policy-compliant, encyclopedic wording change. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Kermit Gosnell was a trained health care provider, but not safe.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  We generally don't define the safety of medical procedures by citing damage caused by incompetent or malicious outliers. For example, we don't define the safety of spinal fusion surgery by citing the work of Christopher Duntsch. More generally, this kind of intentionally inflammatory nonsense degrades the level of discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Gosnell was an outlier, but even the general makeup of the abortion-provider profession doesn't exactly inspire great confidence. See Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges:

Nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least 1 malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action, or criminal charge. Half (50.6%) of the abortionists reported hospital privileges, but only 32 (37.6%) admitted at least 1 patient to a hospital. Seven physicians accounted for 68.2% of all the admissions, and 79.6% of all admissions were related to a live birth.

What causes this? Maybe the general shortage of abortion-clinic doctors has something to do with it. Even as outliers, Duntsch's crime-spree/career lasted two years, compared to Gosnell's crime-spree/career lasting 32 years. If spinal surgeons operated independently in their own clinics and there was a longstanding shortage of them, maybe Duntsch would have lasted as long as Gosnell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you are pushing a personal agenda here rather than identifying and following the best sources, and further concerned by your apparent inability to assess source quality. The paper you cite is non-credible, unscientific, and produced by an anti-abortion lobbying group rather than a legitimate scientific body. Its poor quality should be evident from its constant use of the term "abortionist"—a term used solely by anti-abortion ideologues and not one that would be found in a serious, scientific study of the topic.

Separately, the paper's conflation of malpractice claims with criminal charges is dishonest and misleading, as these are not remotely comparable. Also dishonest is the omission of the background rate of malpractice claims in American medicine: 99% of American physicians in high-risk specialties (such as OB/GYN) will face a malpractice claim by age 65 (NEJM, 2011). That essential context not only demolishes the paper's (and your) insinuations, but even suggests that perhaps abortion providers have a lower likelihood of being sued than the average OB/GYN.

That said, there is no doubt a shortage of abortion providers in the US. That probably has a lot to do with the anti-abortion movement's successful decades-long effort to doxx, harass, threaten, and in some cases murder physicians who perform abortions. I'd welcome your advocacy in pushing back against that, at least. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This comment is belated because earlier I didn't notice your previous comment; it (and any follow-up) should not count towards deciding when to close this: I came across this paper by doing a generic literature search; it was the first and most recent study I found. It is published in a reputable journal by the authors without financial support; the authors list their affiliations. Most are affiliated with two different anti-abortion groups. If Guttmacher Institute is to be allowed as a source, their affiliations should not disqualify this paper either. I agree that OB/GYNs face high malpractice claims; that gives context to this study but does not exactly overturn it; rather than showing that those doing the abortions are safe this calls into question the safety of OB/GYNs as opposed to midwives. The common factor in both abortion clinics and (U.S.) maternity wards is a greater tendency towards medical intervention what is preferred by midwives. It should not be surprising if they both have higher malpractice rates than midwives since they have more opportunities for iatrogenesis to occur. I quickly looked for malpractice figures in midwifery and found this and this; from this it seems they have lower malpractice figures. I think the correlation with criminality found by the authors is at least partly due to criminal records unrelated to abortion. A criminal record can make some medical professionals nearly unemployable; they may turn to an abortion provider for employment; they may still be hired given the shortage. Yet it still has implications for abortion's safety, depending on the particular crimes involved. As for use of the term "abortionist", it is used today in academic literature in a non-pejorative sense, see this. With respect to advocacy, an editor who in the past frequented this talk page got taken to ANI and lost on the basis of WP:NOTFORUM, so I can't in this context.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, my words for the patient, in this case the pregnant woman were directed at the editors who objected and were not intended as wording that needs to be added to the article. My point was that in medical procedures the default meaning of safe is safe for the patient, not safe for the health care provider and certainly not safe for the virus or pathogen. Please also see the response to question 6 of the FAQ at the top of this page. NightHeron (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed the two occurrences of safe that Whatamidoing identified as being out of place; hopefully that removal won't be controversial. NightHeron (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Usage in this article does appear to be consistent with WP:RS. All medical procedures involve some risk, but some are relatively safer than others, and abortion –– at least when performed by qualified doctors in a modern medical facility that is able to operate legally –– appears to be considered by the medical community to fall squarely on the "safe" side. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, and RfC's can't overrule fundamental site policy. Wikipedia requires that we accurately and honestly reflect the best available sources. These sources discuss the safety of abortion in both qualitative and quantitative terms, which our article reflects. We cannot discard extensively, reliably sourced wording and content simply because it conflicts with a handful of editors' personal preferences or viewpoint, regardless of the outcome of any RfC. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is nice rhetoric, and for a lot of bad content entirely explains the problem and how to fix it. But in practice the question will often which source (and which fields source) is the best source. Whether the language used is likely to mislead the reader or be most easily understand. Talpedia (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we have pretty clear definitions of the best sources for medical content—they include position statements and guidelines from reputable expert bodies as well as prominent textbooks and such literature. None of these, to my knowledge, discuss the safety of abortion using "for the pregnant woman" phraseology. So I think it's a lot less murky than you're making it out to be, and it misleads the reader (to echo your concern) if we insert clunky caveats that don't appear in reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps. In my head, I'm thinking about, say, psychiatrists saying antidepressants are "perfectly safe", or people talking about comestic surgeries. I can see that "for the pregnant woman" is potentially divisive. I'm more concerned with the word "safe" itself! Talpedia (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm hesitant about arguments that extend "use the terminology of an article" to common language words like safe. I feel like the concept of "safe" should be owned by considerations about language, and if there is disagreement by general discussions about risk rather than the literature on abortion. There are academics who spend all their time thinking about such things (https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/about/people/). It would preferrable to use such sources, if they discussed abortion directly, or if their approaches and terminology have been applied in another good source.

I second comments about subjectivity.

I think there should be some caution about the conflation of "illegal" and "unsafe" abortion. The article seems to do a reasonable job of this though. The most likely source of contention here is black-market self-administered medication (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZolJBIKqck8J:https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/05/abortions-are-becoming-safer-and-easier-to-obtain-even-where-they-are-illegal&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0 ) Talpedia (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• No There are two ways the article could improve-- it define "safety" and related terms in a medical context and use it that way, or define "safety" and related terms in an everyday context and use it that way. The meaning of "safety" which is chosen for use could even be defined in the text. Currently the article switches between both professional and everyday understandings when discussing issues of safety, safe, risk, and correlation. Having articles using terms inconsistently within an article is not a surprising issue when articles are written by multiple editors, so this is the sort of thing that should be consciously looked for and corrected, not just on this article, but in general.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - I will (like MastCell) note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS CANNOT be used to override Wikipedia's policy of following Reliable Sources. In this article, we say: "one of the safest procedures in medicine" and the sources say: One source says: "legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice," another source says: "The safety of induced abortion as practiced in the United States for the past decade met or exceeded expectations for outpatient surgical procedures and compared favorably to that of two common nonmedical voluntary activities."---Avatar317^(talk) 23:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Some folks who have raised questions here in the last few months don't like the current wording as taken directly from the highest quality medical sources, so they are trying to convince everybody else that Wikipedia should make up its own mind about what is considered "safe". That's not Wikipedia's job. Let's WP:STICKTOSOURCE material, as we always should. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GI and CDC based data are lower in quality than studies relying on European single-payer systems. If quality is what you are looking for, use European data based studies in the article instead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• yes per Binksternet--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• yes per Avatar317's arguments. The terms reflect the available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Current version of the article have a dedicated subsection for the safety concerns and the safetly is often mentioned in the context of medical procedures. Given a short discussion above (#"Safe"_is_subjective) I don't think there are any serious issues. The subsection requires some refurbishing though. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, at least as framed in the lead. The "safety" is interpreted incorrectly on the page. This is not just about death, but about any harm due to the procedure, such as infertility, injury, etc. In other words, I think that an ordinary person just wants an answer to a simple question "Is it safe?" And the answer is no, this is not safe. None of major surgical procedures is safe. Is it clearly articulated on the page? Yes, it does provides the statistics for "unsafe abortions" in the lead: 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year. But what are the numbers for "safe abortions"? The footnote provides the statistics of deaths in the USA. But this is not the major concern here. What are the numbers for various complications, leading to the infertility, for example? Such data need to be included to the lead, and not only for the USA, but worldwide. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Early abortions (which comprise over 90% of legal abortions) are not major surgical procedures, and they're safer than normal childbirth, according to sources that are cited in the article. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, what are the numbers of complications in such cases, such as infertility, etc.? It needs to be included to the lead. Those can be small numbers, whatever. Sure, the abortion can be safer than childbirth, but perhaps giving birth to a child worth the risk? This is a comparison of apples and oranges, classic. That should not be in the lead, but only in the body of text. We do not want to misled people on the risk of their surgical procedures, right? My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

" perhaps giving birth to a child worth the risk" I doubt that giving birth to a brat is worth risking your life. But what are your sources for this idea? Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I only said that giving birth and abortion are two different things (and the comparison is therefore misleading, just as for apples and oranges). This is plainly obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Abortion and childbirth are obviously not unrelated, since a woman who's dissuaded from getting an abortion because of the misinformation about the safety of abortion that is spread by the anti-abortion movement then runs a greater risk of injury or death by continuing the pregnancy to childbirth (or natural miscarriage), especially if there are health reasons for terminating the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, related, but different. I could not care less about any politics here. The actual issue is not to misinform a potential patient about the risks to her health. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a request for the source of all these talking points: is it some academic literature, a social media site, a closed user group, or thinking out loud? ~ cygnis insignis 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Cygnis insignis:The main source of the data and talking points in the article is the Guttmacher Institute. They both rehash data from the CDC and also collect voluntary response surveys from abortion providers. There are scholarly articles from respected sources which rely on Guttmacher. There are concerns in the academic literature about the reliability of the data Guttmacher uses in the medical literature; some published articles rely on European data from countries with single-payer systems. Another alternative source is that Medicaid data in the relatively few states which fund elective abortions. One reason to question the reliability of the CDC data is that there is a large spread in pregnancy's safety by state; the spread is equivalent to the safety ratio between birth and abortion. The large spread is suggestive of incomplete reporting in some areas.

In a textbook-like review publication where best practices for many medical aspects are evaluated, confidence in surgical abortion's safety is low, but the assertion that abortion is safe is still stated. It seems that the major problem is that the Guttmacher Institute is not an unbiased source and that there are good reasons to believe that its data and the CDC's data are not as complete as the data for European countries which have single-payer systems and a concomitant single source of data. Confidence is low because the data quality is low. One difference between the medical review approach and and the approach used in this article is that the medical reviewers state both the generic safety of abortion (in terms of mortality) and also state the risk of various permanent complications of abortions. This article inadequately discusses the forms of lasting physical harm which anyone undergoing a surgical abortion procedure risks.

Some years back I (& I wasn't alone) questioned the more limited description of abortion's safety; shortly afterwards, the article was edited to make the assertion more bold and prominent. On this talk page, I related that development to the saying, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Another editor took issue with this. I have attempted to get more detailed information about safety added to the article. The current mention of pre-term births was added by another editor with my support after about a year's worth of discussion. There appears to be resistance to elaborating about the different aspects of safety.

There is a movement by some in the medical community to change how some abortions are done so they become safer, but generally the proposed practices have not been implemented. Doing so would require more physician time and patient care, making the process less efficient and cost-effective. So it is not purely an anti-abortion phenomenon to be concerned about abortion's safety. Likewise, literature (for a popular audience, not published studies) from Asherman's syndrome support groups emphasizes the risk of uterine surgeries independently from political abortion related perspectives. They advocate making surgeries less common, or to carry out the surgeries in ways less likely to cause Asherman's.

One difficulty with comparing abortion's safety to birth's safety, is that a previous abortion makes subsequent birth less safe, but the reverse has not been demonstrated. A second issue is the sociological factor: in US Medicaid statistics, the outcome of a woman's first pregnancy is predictive of subsequent pregnancies: Women who start with an abortion tend to have subsequent abortions; women who start with birth tend to have subsequent births. The speculation from the 1960s or early 1970s that women would use abortion for birth spacing appears to be incorrect. Because the term of an abortion tends to be much shorter than 9 months, it is possible to accumulate more abortions than births; some academic literature indicates the physical impacts of abortion are cumulative: a second abortion is medically riskier than the first. So abortion may be safer than birth in a raw-statistics type sense, but the ratio of safety may be flipped for particular cases. Another factor is that surgical abortions are geographically clustered near abortion clinics, while births are more spread out and include many who live in rural areas far from the nearest maternity ward.

It is impossible to say (with confidence from the existing data) that a woman considering her fourth surgical abortion in two years faces more or less risk than a woman considering her fourth birth in 7 years (with no prior C-sections). Aren't most patients apples and oranges? The raw-figures approach looking at mortality has some use for policy makers, but by itself the safety ratio is useless for most individual patients or prospective patients. So it is reasonable to have a serious concern that the article is giving inadequate medical type information.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. MVBW, what's gotten into you? We should keep the conclusions of professional medical bodies out of the article because "perhaps giving birth is worth the risk"? Why is this even a discussion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, I suggested to include the conclusions by professional medical bodies on the side effects other than deaths because safety of medical procedures would include any harm to the health of a patient as a result of such procedure.My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and all safety-related information should be placed together in the article to give the reader perspective.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)_{Striking this; I am not sure that placing everything together would be the best; this does not affect when the discussion should be closed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)}

Yes - MastCell expressed it well, if a MEDRS currently in use gets retracted then it's a reason to get concerned and review. —PaleoNeonate – 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The wording of this RfC makes presenting an argument difficult - what exactly is the reverse viewpoint? Is the opposite to not say its safe? "Safe" is the wording used by the MEDRS, so safe is the appropriate word for us to use. Is the opposite viewpoint that we need to make the scope of who it is "safe" for more clear? Because its inherently really obvious that the safety is in reference to the pregnant woman. It cannot feasibly be safe for the embryo/foetus. It cannot feasibly be unsafe for anyone else. People aren't requesting that be changed because they don't understand. They're requesting it because they disagree with the obvious scope, so a redundant clarification of scope will change nothing. Finally, is the reverse viewpoint that we need to give more detail about what "safe" looks like (i.e. more info on what the risks are either way)? Because the point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise consensus, not to list it out in detail. We'd also have to list out every conceivable benefit in order to maintain due weight. Can you imagine? The article would become monstrous (as would all other medical articles, because that would disrupt sitewide consensus). So, yes, the article is talking about safety correctly. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In October an editor started a thread on this talk-page (see [1]) saying that they thought that the use of the word safe in reference to abortion violated WP:NPOV. The purpose of this RfC is to resolve this issue, so that it doesn't have to be continually debated. Presumably the alternative to using the word safe would be to remove or rewrite the parts of the article where the word is used. NightHeron (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question: Would anyone object to closing this RfC soon? On Monday it will have been open for 1 month, and so far 2 editors are arguing for "No" and 12 for "Yes". NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I support closing the discussion right away under fifteen conditions from you personally. Each of these requests pertains to specific items that need to be changed in the article. Discussions about other factors, such as the phenomenon of a subset of patients with repeated abortions and the risk of placenta previa, are separate from this list and can be discussed alone. It is reasonable to ask you personally for this given your past efforts. I think if I just went ahead and fixed the article right now, you would revert it, but you might agree to the changes on the talk page. For this to work, I'll also need Avatar317 to tolerate it, but not necessarily actively support it on the talk page.

The list:

1. Clarify the meaning of safety or risk in the article text according to the meaning intended in the peer-reviewed source. This means about two sentences once in the article and likely also in the lead along with shorter phrases referring to the medical sense of risk in other parts of the article where the topic of risk comes up. It could be cited to a medical text discussing what "risk" means.

2. Either remove discussion of maternal mortality from the lead or mention the the risk of preterm birth next to it.

3. Change the sentence "The risk of death from abortion approaches roughly half the risk of death from childbirth the farther along a woman is in pregnancy" to "...risk of death from the combined total of C-sections and vaginal childbirths the farther along..."

4. Change "It appears that having had a prior surgical..." to "Having had a prior surgical..." Discuss one type of risk with the same type of language that you discuss another. Or alternatively, add "It appears that" to every assertion of abortion's safety.

5. Change "Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups,[109][110] but lack scientific support.[109] For example, the question of a link between" to "The question of a link between..." The rationale for this is that the sources are only about the breast cancer link anyway, and it is unwise for the article to overstate the sources to the effect that a plurality of risks lacks scientific support.

6. Allow me or others to add reliable sources opposing the views of Linda Gordon, Jerome Bates, and Edward Zawadzki. The current portion asserting the safety of illegal, pre-legalization abortions in the US takes up 1,599 characters. I am aware of reliable sources indicating the opposite of this view. Equal space for the opposing views would be fair. Alternatively, this part of the section could be removed.

7. Remove the line, "sometimes including "risks" not supported by the medical literature" This line appears to have no source. Also, the article should not be second-guessing informed patient laws in a broad, indeterminate sense. Medical literature indicates varying degrees of support for varying degrees of risks. Is Wikipedia in a place to tell a state health department or state legislature that they are not interpreting the sources correctly? Maybe they aren't, but language directed directly in favor of or against a health authority is better suited for a controversies or criticisms section for individual health departments or public officials. It is not realistic to be able to evaluate them all in a helpful way in a broad topic article like this one, and a generalizing aside like this is unfair to health departments in general.

8. I am okay listing the teratogenic effects of chemotherapy and also with the mention of thalidomide. However, the teratogenic effects of the two drugs used together for medication abortions should also be described. This is a meaningful risk in the event a drug regime is not completed and the baby is born, or if a woman becomes pregnant soon after having a medication abortion. This could go either under the Medical section or under the Safety section.

9. Source [85] states "The legality or illegality of the services, however, may not be the defining factor of their safety." on page 5 of the pdf. This should be reflected in the article. Legal does not equal safe.

10. Change "In the UK, guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that" to "In the UK, guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which discuss maternal mortality state that"

11. Change "Outpatient abortion is as safe from..." to "Outpatient abortion has a similar maternal mortality from"

12. Change "The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth." to "The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than the combined figure for C-sections and vaginal childbirths".

13. Change "Unlike D&E, labor-induced abortions after 18 weeks may be complicated by the occurrence of brief fetal survival, which may be legally characterized as live birth. For this reason, labor-induced abortion is legally risky in the United States" to "Unlike dilation and evacuation, labor-induced abortions after 18 weeks may be result in the fetus being born alive. In the United Sates, once born the fetus is considered an infant and may not be killed under the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act."

14. Remove "When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems" from the lead. This is contradicted by the material already in the article discussing the increased risk for preterm birth.

15. Change "It is safer than childbirth, which has..." to "It has a lower risk of maternal mortality than the combined figures for C-sections and vaginal childbirths, which have...". Making a blanket statement in the lead which contradicts content in the article is a problem.-Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So you'll allow us to end this RfC—where your proposals have been soundly and nearly unanimously rejected—as long as we agree to a list of 15 of your demands? This is either comically tendentious or performance art; the latter possibility is at least interesting. MastCell ^Talk 01:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I second MastCell's comment, and compliment MastCell on saying that so nicely. @Epiphyllumlover: if you continue responding this way, CLEARLY showing WP:IDONTHEARYOU than I'm going to have to push for an Abortion-wide topic ban, this type of editing is genuinely tendentious.

I also agree with MastCell's earlier comment here about your "...pushing a personal agenda here rather than identifying and following the best sources,", which is why I have had problems with your Original Research additions at the Roe_v_Wade article, where you try to bring in every source relating to Abortion or Population Control that supports what you want to say, when that article is about a court decision.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You all thought I wanted to keep the RfC open indefinitely if NightHeron rejects it? No, I don't think that. I'm sorry for not being more clear. I think there is a benefit to keeping the RfC open because more ideas might bring more discussion or new voters. But if nobody cares, by all means close it. Given the size/volume so far, and that there isn't much else at hand currently on this talk page, it would be reasonable to wait a week after the last comment or vote.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I support closing the discussion right away under fifteen conditions from you personally would be a good opening to a satirical parody of Wikipedia discussions. As for NightHeron, you needn't have asked the question, really, just waited for a close at the one month period or requested one if it reached a few days after. Yes, this discussion can be closed soon. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, since Epiphyllumlover wants more opinions to make the consensus clear. The arguments for are consistent with our actions at other articles, while the arguments against are appeals to special pleading: discussing whether anything can hypothetically be safe, whether a child's life outweighs the risk of death of a person who has not consented to giving birth to the child etc. is simply off-topic. No general rule has been presented that would enforce omission of "safe", nor any reason for exception in this one medical topic only. There is no reason not to describe abortion as "safe", unless the topic is specifically the small subset of unsafe abortion conditions. — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Unreverting Baller McGee's comment

I am unreverting this comment:

*No, abortion is lethal to the unborn, developing human being, and to call it safe is to ignore half of the individuals involved. Baller McGee (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My rationale for unreverting is that the RfC was closed by the opener. In order to account for this unorthodox procedure, belated comments should not be penalized by reverting, but should instead be discussed separately from the RfC. In particular, this comment raises an issue not addressed during the RfC, since it discussed maternal safety, and this comment raises the question of fetal safety. Fetal safety in a broader sense does not only address the risk to the aborted fetus, but also the safety for sibling fetuses not targeted by the abortion. Another question which sometimes comes up is exactly when fetuses begin to feel pain, and if the current laws intended to protect fetuses from pain during abortion really do that, given uncertainties in determining gestational pain. It is possible that the RfC needed to be closed by the opener because third parties otherwise thinking about closing it may have had concerns about the wording of the RfC and the involvement by a minority of those involved who used accounts apparently created for use on controversial edits or topics. Not getting involved in this may have been a less energy intensive choice for third parties should someone try to appeal it; concerns from potential third-party closers may have involved the medical content guidelines or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

Response to Baller McGee:

I agree that there should be acknowledgement in the article that abortion kills the fetus. Wikipedia is used by people of many education levels. Norma McCorvey in an autobiography discussed looking "Abort" up the dictionary, and even then not really understanding what went on during an abortion until years later. I doubt she is the only one. So while it may seem too obvious for most readers, it could still help some to understand.

There are really two separate questions discussed in the literature types already used to source the article: one is that of the abortion advocates. They say that abortion is safe, period. The other issue is within the medical profession; a review characterized abortion as being safe but with low confidence. Also, in discussions by medical professionals for other professionals about abortion, safety is often defined only in terms of maternal mortality. Professional, judgements about safety in terms of mortality occur separately from questions about long-lasting effects on fertility, subsequent preterm birth, birth defects caused by lingering medications during a subsequent pregnancy, or any other pregnancy complications. The closed RfC discussed "safety", but not "risk". Do you support any of the 15 changes I advocated on 20:56, 4 February 2022 which concerned risk?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the literature specifically about maternal safety or risk, and so, respectfully, I have no opinion about it or your 15 changes, but that wasn't the point I was making. I agree with you that the article should acknowledge that abortion kills the fetus. This is obvious to many. It's also obvious that a horse is a mammal, but the article on Horse says this anyway. Baller McGee (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Baller McGee I think one could work in a reference to abortion killing the fetus in a line about the risk to sibling fetuses. Something like, "Besides causing the death of the fetus or fetuses targeted by surgical abortion procedures, abortion also causes an increased risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by selective reduction.[ref]" Assuming I can find a suitable reference, would you support me adding this line to the article? (I am also open to revision ideas.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Baller McGee, Your concern, which I support, is extremely similar to TWM03's 19:15, 16 July 2021 comment, Zfish118's 16:43, 11 August 2021 comment, and 24.228.128.119's 21:58, 5 May 2021 comment in Talk:Abortion/Archive_51#Problematic lead sentence and more loosely similar to DeaconShotFire's broader comment which was archived on April 9th as Talk:Abortion/Archive_51#"Safe"_is_subjective. Closer to your original comment, I suggest adding "Some find it inconsistent to consider abortion to be safe, given that it kills the fetus.[ref]" This reference could work: Chris Rock Emerges Victorious at Chaotic Atlantic City Performance, although there are other possibilities. This change or something similar would help make the article consistent with its existing ranking as one of the "Mid-importance Death articles"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect it seems like you’re not really interested in improving the page and more interested in finding the least controversial way to sneak in WP:POV language about abortion killing “the unborn” (pretty sure that’s not a medical term). Of course “safety” only refers to maternal safety. While covering the risks of abortion in this area are important, nobody is arguing that abortion is unsafe to a fetus since the literal point of the operation is killing the fetus. Dronebogus (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sneaking anything; this is a straightforward talk page discussion. There is a decent amount of academic literature dealing with the risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by abortion; it is reasonable to ask the article to mention it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Epiphyllumlover: I am available if there is a particular item you would like my comment on, however I am uncertain what the issue is here. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am uncertain as well. Seems to be a mishmash of “should we say abortion kills the fetus” (consensus is no due to being considered obvious through inference; I don’t really care as long as it isn’t put in a nonsensical and unintentionally (darkly) comical section like “safety risks” and doesn’t use unscientific POV terminology like “the unborn”) and discussion about including miscellaneous health risks to the mother that I have no opinion on due to lack of expertise. Dronebogus (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Zfish118, I'm wondering if you support adding either "Some find it inconsistent to consider abortion to be safe, given that it kills the fetus.[ref]" or "Besides causing the death of the fetus or fetuses targeted by surgical abortion procedures, abortion also causes an increased risk of miscarriage for sibling fetuses not targeted by selective reduction.[ref]". As for me, I don't support adding both lines, but favor adding only one, either one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t support any lines of this sort at all, since it goes against the established omission rationale of “it’s obvious” AND comes across as a clear attempt to play the hypocrisy/dishonesty card, which is extremely POV. Sort of like saying “when operated responsibly, the AKR-4715 is safe to use”— even though the purpose is killing people/things, it’s understood it’s low-risk to a sensible user. Adding “however, some say this is inconsistent because it’s a killing tool” is obviously gratuitous POV. Dronebogus (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Abortion rates are similar between countries that ban abortion and countries that allow it."

This is implying that banning abortion doesn't stop it but when you look at the study you see this: The unintended pregnancy rate in countries where abortion is broadly legal is 58. The abortion rate in countries where abortion is broadly legal is 40. The unintended pregnancy rate in countries where abortion is restricted is 73. The abortion rate in countries where abortion is restricted is 36.

Despite the unintended pregnancy rates being vastly different, the abortion rates are similar, this implies legal restrictions are cutting down on the number of abortions and the main issue is a lack of sexual education and birth control access in these countries.

I think the line "Abortion rates are similar between countries that ban abortion and countries that allow it." should be removed for how misleading it is.

141.165.225.162 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to find WP:Reliable sources discussing the aspects you describe here. Armed with such references, you will have leverage to change the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my source, it's from the paper "Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019", Table 2:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S2214-109X%2820%2930315-6 141.165.224.194 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bare table with stats. Wikipedia allows simple arithmetic calculations per WP:CALC, but what you are proposing involves deeper analysis. You need to cite an author who analyzes the situation in prose. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement "abortion rates are similar..." in the article has a citation already. That source contains prose about the rates being similar but it includes additional context that is left out in the article. The full context is:

Abortion is sought and needed even in settings where it is restricted—that is, in countries where it is prohibited altogether or is allowed only to save the women’s life or to preserve her physical or mental health.

Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal.

As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socioeconomic grounds).

In analyses that exclude China and India, whose large populations skew the data, the abortion rate is actually higher in countries that restrict abortion access than in those that do not.

In countries that restrict abortion, the percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion has increased during the past 30 years, from 36% in 1990–1994 to 50% in 2015–2019.

It is clear if you read the source's full context—including the key words 'as a result'—that the similar rates are in large part a result of the higher unintended pregnancy rate, which the Wikipedia article omits—in a misleading way, I would agree. In my opinion, the same source cited in the statement itself provides justification for its removal. Baller McGee (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My point does not rely on a conclusion not stated by the source and so it is not original research. See below. Baller McGee (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote from the source doesn't give any analysis one way or another of the reason for the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics between the two types of countries or for the similarity between the abortion statistics. The similarity of the abortion statistics is striking and deserves inclusion in the article. The OP writes that the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics is due to a lack of sexual education and birth control access in these countries. This is a reasonable hypothesis, since the same countries that have liberal laws about women's reproductive rights also generally have birth control and sexual education much more available than in the countries that ban abortion. That is, liberal abortion laws go hand-in-hand with liberal policies and practices on birth control and sexual education. If the OP's explanation for the discrepancy in unwanted pregnancy rates is correct, that would mean that if countries that ban abortions were to legalize abortion and at the same time promote safe sex, then the number of abortions would remain about the same. And of course women would get their rights restored. So the similarity of abortion statistics between countries that ban abortion and those that don't is not a misleading statistic to include. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

One does not need to draw an original conclusion about the "reason for the discrepancy between unwanted pregnancy statistics." The source plainly says that the similar overall incidence is due to the fact that abortion is sought even where restricted, and the fact that unintended pregnancy rates are higher—for whatever reason—in those countries which restrict the practice of abortion. Baller McGee (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I certainly wasn't suggesting that what I commented here on the talk page belongs in the article. I was just commenting that the statement as it stands is not misleading. Without going into details or giving a clear analysis, the source suggests that many women feel a great need for abortion in the countries where it's prohibited as well as in the countries where it's legal, and that those countries also have a high rate of unintended pregnancy. But without RS giving a clear analysis of the statistics, we can't speculate about the reasons in the article. NightHeron (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

141.165.225.162, I agree it should be removed, but my rationale is that worldwide a large portion of abortions are done in China, where statistics are considered a state secret and not widely available to the public or foreign scientists. So any generalization about abortion rates worldwide is amiss without at least discussing this hole in the data. Since the article doesn't do that, it shouldn't make this sort of sweeping generalization. Also, some countries which have legalized abortion have legal mechanisms to reduce the rate; such as with waiting periods and mandatory counseling. To generalize based on a premise that the rate of abortions is a function of legal vs. illegal is misleading, because some countries legalize it, but require counseling first against the abortion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

False claim in "History and Religion" section

The section "History and Religion" of this articles falsely claims that "In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope before 1869 to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;". This is simply wrong; it is known that Pope Stephen V, in his letter Consuluisti de infantibus, stated that committing an abortion was an homicide (DZ 670). The original latin text can be even consulted HERE. I suggest that this statement in the article be corrected as soon as possible, if they can.--Potatín5 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that discusses what Pope Sixtus V stated and what the context and the effect of his statement were? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There is reference to Stephen's V letter in page 16 (7 of de PDF) of this essay [1]. There it is said that in the letter "it is presumed that the crime of abortion is murder". The original latin text, stating that "quia si conceptum in utero qui per aborsus (abortum) deleverit, homicida est", can be consulted in the website I had already put in my previous commentary. Potatín5 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

An essay is not the same thing as a reliable secondary source, and the essay makes only a passing reference to Stephen V's letter without describing the significance at the time or the effect of the letter. If Stephen V's letter in the 9th century (rather than Sixtus V's Effraenatam in the 16th century) were the Church's first clear adoption of a strict anti-abortion policy that included early abortions, there would be commentary about this in reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

1) I have been checking and the only reliable secondary source, at least in my opinion, may be this: [1]

2) You seen to be missing what I was trying to correct. I did never say that Stephen V's letter was "the Church's first clear adoption of a strict anti-abortion policy". What I wanted was to indicate that Stephen V, and not Sixtus V, was the first pope to declare that abortion (at any state of pregnancy) is homicide in a magisterial document, independently on whether he ever passed or not a law to enforce that declaration. Potatín5 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That source is a primary source, since all it has is a quote from Stephen V. That quote would have to be interpreted by a secondary source. For example, the term "abortion" was often used to refer only to what happens after "quickening" or "ensoulment", and many commentators who condemned abortion as murder were not including abortion in the modern sense, which includes pre-ensoulment abortion. Also, it's not clear what authority that statement conveyed, and the extent to which Stephen V was committed to implementing any policy on the subject. A 9th century statement, translated into modern English, has to be interpreted by a historian in a scholarly secondary source. It's not for a Wikipedia editor to make a decision about the significance of the quoted words of Stephen V. NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need a reliable secondary source to remove something that is incorrect; you need a reliable source for replacing the mistaken history with what really happened.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Potatín5, if you have access to an academic library, you might consult Joseph Dellapenna's works to see if he says anything about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that some of the disagreement stems from unclarity in the text due to the word "declare", which can just mean "express an opinion" or (in the case when the opinion is expressed by the Pope) can mean much more. So I edited that sentence to make it clearer. NightHeron (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Another complication is that legal designations involving pregnancy were intended to guide what was feasible to prosecute. In the case of a pope that would mean in an ecclesiastical court. They couldn't implement specific policies prosecuting abortions at the earlier stages of pregnancy because hundreds of years ago it wasn't possible to consistently prove that the defendant was pregnant in the first place. This aspect in a general sense has been researched and published in scholarly journals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I suppose there are many things that the Church has condemned in harsh terms that would not be feasible to prosecute. I believe that Sixtus V's Effraenatam was reversed right after his papacy in part because it was unenforceable (and also because of the widespread disagreement within the Church about pre-ensoulment abortion), NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest removing the line going from Pope Sixtus V... Pope Gregory XIV until more sources can be examined and a consensus about what should be stated is formed. This might just be between you and Potatín5, although you never know who might join in. Do you agree?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, what's there now is the stable version, except that I changed the wording to meet the complaints in this thread. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to change the stable version. You need a consensus in order to omit the sentence. If you think that more sources are needed, that's another matter, and I can supply them. NightHeron (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The statement is overly broad and vague as-is to merit removal even without more or better sources. What defines an official "policy" vs. a practice? Moreover, throughout much of Roman Catholicism's history, ecclesiastical authorities left as much of the "dirty work" of enforcement as possible to secular authorities. This blurs the lines between what was official for the Roman Catholic Church versus what ecclesiastical authorities did in unofficial ways through lobbying various states or nobles. And even if "policy" was definable and used in a way that is not ambiguous to the reader, it would be extraordinary to prove the absence of a policy this during first millennium or so A.D. when records are incomplete. Proving the existence of a practice in this context is a much more simple manner than proving the absence of a practice. That is why it is extraordinary to claim the absence of a policy, and even more so in Wikipedia voice.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I added two scholarly sources, with page numbers. The statement is a clear and accurate paraphrase of what the sources say. I see no purpose in continuing this thread. A Wikipedia editor's own opinion and rationale for that opinion are not what belongs in the article, per WP:OR and WP:V. NightHeron (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In the last decade especially there has been extensive scholarship detailing the origins of revisionist history regarding abortion's legality and ecclesiastical sanction. Will you let me add an equal number of scholarly sources on the opposing side?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

First, let me explain why I reverted the very recent edit by Zfish118, which greatly changed the sentence on Pope Sixtus V. The edit summary for the replacement sentence on Sixtus V wrongly claimed that his being the first was not in the sources. Here are the words of Riddle: "Pope Sixtus V issued a bull that was radically different from previous Church positions on the use of birth control. The bull, known as Effraenatam, began with a traditional embrace of Augustine, but moved rapidly from Augustinian moderation to absolute condemnation of contraception and abortion... This is the strongest statement made heretofore by an official, to my knowledge."

To answer Zfish118's request for clarification on pre-ensoulment abortion, from Riddle: "The succeeding Pope countered it [Effraenatam] and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime but that abortion could not occur until after the 40th day when the fetus was ensouled."

The Noonan source essentially says the same, but I don't have the exact text available at the moment.

One problem with removing the statement about the unprecedented nature of Pope Sixtus V's bull on contraception and abortion is that the replacement sentence mentions Pope Sixtus V as if he's just an example of an anti-abortion policy pre-1869, whereas in reality he's the unique example, as per the sources.

Any major change needs to reach consensus first, perhaps through an RfC or just through a well-publicized discussion. Sources have to be reliable. Writings by Church theologians are questionable on the abortion issue. Since 1869, and especially since 1930, the Church position on abortion has been extreme, and the Church has viewed it as centrally important, so that Church theologians have the duty to support the Church's position. Part of that official view holds that the extreme anti-abortion stance has been consistent throughout the Church's history. So regardless of what disinterested historians say, that has to be the view of Catholic theologians. NightHeron (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• The first quote specifically address a "radically different" approach to birth control, not necessarily to abortion. Even then, it is Riddle's opinion that it is the "strongest" (not "first") statement of condemnation. A revision to the article text to the effect: "Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) institutes a Church policy labeling abortion as homicide and condemning abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy; according to [scholar Riddle] this was a "radically different" approach from prior policy" rather than claim that it is the "first" would be an improvement. I would also strongly prefer that the prior policy/early Christian views be discussed first, rather than jumping a 1580's pope who allegedly made radical changes to early Christian policy. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The second quote clarifies the intent of the cited line. However, further clarification is still needed in the line. The church's traditional position was that abortion before the purported date the soul ensoulment was considered an act of contraception rather than an act of murder (ie, illicit abortion). As Riddle states, contraception was considered a sin, even if not the particular sin of murder. Since the modern definition of abortion is literally the termination of a pregnancy, it is confusing to say that early Christians did not believe the termination of the pregnancy was an "abortion" without noting the different definition used by Christians at the time. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron's assessment is reasonable, and well-sourced. The salient point is the Church was not vigorous about opposing abortion until the 1800s (coincidentally the time when doctors developed a safer method.) Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron, asking again if you will let me cite an equal number of sources with the opposing view. To resolve your question about sources I will propose terms and you can accept them or negotiate if you reject them. If they are Catholic theologians, their writings will be in peer-reviewed articles or books published by respectable secular scholarly publishers or secular academic bodies; if they are Catholic law or history scholars or non-Catholics, the sources can be from any reliable source which would typically be respected on less controversial articles. (You might remember from the past than I am a non-Catholic and I agree that at times the Catholic Church has varied in its practices regarding pregnancy and fetuses. So I read Catholic history scholars with a critical mind. There are three cases of pregnant women being executed for heresy during the Counter-Reformation; this was typically not allowed. In the most notorious of these cases, the mother gave birth to a live boy while being burned at the stake. The boy was brought before a judge, who ordered that he be burned too due to his inherited sin (both parents were Protestant); priests were present and approved of this.)

You stated "perhaps through an RfC" I should respond to it: I am concerned about taking it to RfC given the circumstances of the last one: an overly broad and vague question, respondents who appear to come to the RfC from a single noticeboard, and you both opened and closed the RfC instead of waiting for an independent closer. Going through the talk pages archives I got a closer picture of what is going on: this article is the worst example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS out of all the medical content articles I am aware of, and the RfC dynamics seem to be part of it. Over the years, a certain percentage of people who vote at RfCs appear through their comments to not understand the question, not care what the medical content guidelines say, or both. If issues had to find consensus between all of the people who randomly float into the talk page and the "regulars" the local consensus issue might never have developed, or at least would not be as severe; the RfCs seem to exacerbate it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

First, an informal warning. Although I personally almost never bring misconduct charges against another editor, even if their conduct is very problematic, others are far less tolerant than I am of violations of policies such as WP:BLUDGEONING. You have insisted on either reopening matters that have recently been decided by consensus or else strongly encouraging other editors who do that, and then adding long posts that turn the thread into a time sink.

Next, I reject the charge that there's anything improper about RfCs that I've started or participated in. My closure of the earlier one on safety was per WP:SNOWCLOSE, except that that particular RfC went on longer than is typical for an RfC where the opinions are overwhelmingly on one side. The statement was not overly broad and vague. It was in direct response to the objections that were made to the statement on safety of abortion. The editors who objected tried in various ways to argue against that statement, claiming that it needs to be qualified by saying that the embryo or fetus dies, or that late abortions carry risks of future unsuccessful pregnancies, etc. But we didn't need a separate RfC on each one of those suggestions of ways to undermine the statement about safety.

Any RfC on this talk page is normally announced on relevant wikiprojects, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You're not going to get anywhere trying to undermine the legitimacy of the many RfCs that have rejected attempts to insert an anti-abortion POV into this article.

No, a source cannot be judged to be reliable because it was published by a mainstream publishing house. Some very respectable presses sometimes publish books and article collections that are full of nonsense, ranging from homeopathy to white supremacist pseudoscience.

I did not at all mean to suggest that an author's Catholic faith would be disqualifying. Let me make an analogy. An article about the 2020 U.S. presidential election written by an author who's a Republican wouldn't necessarily be unreliable. But an article by a Republican politician arguing in support of the claim that the election was stolen from Trump would be unreliable. An article about the Russian invasion of Ukraine written by a Russian would not necessarily be unreliable. But if it's by a Russian official claiming that Ukraine's to blame for the war, then it would be. Certain political or religious entities try to dispute well-established facts. Wikipedia does not give such claims equal time, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As an alternative condition to the above, instead of "mainstream", will you accept sources which are "academic-oriented, and are not generally in disrepute for misinformation"? In response to your other comments, where "local consensus" and the overall site-wide consensus for medical content have been at odds I have backed the latter. And often enough I've weighed in on things others have started, including every content thread which is not currently archived, so I am not guilty of bludgeoning. This sort of article will naturally have different kinds of people coming in and making comments because it is both higher in traffic and a controversial topic. It is not surprising that others would reopen things you consider settled; and if they do you can't blame me for supporting them. If you do another RfC, will you agree to a third party closer? And also, will you accept it if I post to other boards or talk pages besides the ones currently utilized, or will that be considered canvassing?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that on my user talk-page you suggested that I back off and wait for others to comment. I'm happy to do that. In particular, it makes no sense for me to "negotiate" with you, since I don't represent anyone but myself, and I'm only one of over 1000 editors who have this article and talk-page watchlisted. If you propose a specific source or specific edit that I object to, I might still comment here (or revert something on the article page), but in that case I'll keep my comments very brief. NightHeron (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I intended but not all the way off either; I thought about completely staying off for a period of time. How about 30 days and we check back later on your or my talk page about continuing to completely mutually refrain or extending it? This would include the "thanks" button, any conversations about the article, and any use of drafts or sandboxes related to new article sections.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does "completely staying off" mean? Staying off what? Whatever you have in mind, why are you proposing it? NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Just this article & talk page; I brought it up because I thought you might spring for it after your recent comment; it seems fair enough to me but if you aren't interested I understand and won't try to persuade you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's sufficient if we both informally agree to be as brief as possible in our comments on this talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you don't accept my proposal and I won't consider either of us bound by it. I can't commit to being brief, but at the least I can understand your wish for brevity and try to be good to you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not a question of brevity being good to me; rather, its good for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing

The line "When performed legally and safely on a woman who desires it, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems" reads very awkwardly to me.

It seems to just be saying that a procedure performed "safely" is "safe" which seems redundant. It also seems to be caveated with "a woman who desires it" which could use further explanation. Also the way it's phrased referring only to "long term" problems seems to imply short term problems? 2A02:8084:4040:1480:ADC3:1181:D1D9:C57D (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence seems clear to me, and not redundant. Here "safely" means under safe conditions, that is, by a qualified person using a medically accepted technique. What wording would you prefer? NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Here "safely" means under safe conditions" Which by implication would include an up-to-standards healthcare facility, proper sanitation, and access to medication for any after-effect. I am not certain about the availability of such conditions in certain regions. Is there a source which covers the standards of safety in more detail? Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What's needed depends very much on the circumstances, especially the stage of pregnancy. Most early medical abortions do not require an up-to-standards healthcare facility or any healthcare facility at all, and can occur safely at home under the guidance of a qualified person. Late abortions or abortions as a result of medical complications during pregnancy are another matter. I don't know if there's a single source (perhaps the W.H.O.?) that covers this issue in a comprehensive way that would apply internationally. NightHeron (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is overly vague and should be removed. Even with a qualified person using a medically accepted technique, abortion as is generally practiced is dependent on the availability of developed-country quality health care should complications arise. And sometimes they do arise, and not just in the case of late term pregnancies either. Abortion is more risky without "backup" by the overall health care infrastructure. Also, if taken broadly enough the sentence contradicts what is already known about abortion's effects on subsequent preterm birth.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not just “when performed under proper conditions”? We don’t need to cover every detail in one sentence! Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The difficulty with saying, "proper conditions" is that it wades in on an ongoing medical issue. The professional medical community has been in disagreement in recent years over the correct protocol for a D&C; there are concerns about the most commonly used first-trimester method. The general, textbook-like general medical reviews which are typically the best source for medical content articles state that cervical priming is not necessary prior to a first trimester D&C abortion. So to say "proper conditions" means the article makes an assertion that cervical priming is not necessary for a first trimester abortion; the alternative method is to first do cervical priming to prevent damage to the cervix. An earlier post from the talk page archive has references about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues in medicine that are like that. I stand by my assertion that we don’t need meticulous coverage of every possible issue lest we get into WP:COATRACK WP:UNDUE territory. Dronebogus (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern is the phrasing. It is a bit confusing in my opinion. What exactly is meant by the caveat of "a woman who desires it". Why does it refer to only long term issues? Is there a relevant citation to include here? Acasualobservation (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

How much do Abortions cost the taxpayer? It would be nice to have this information included.

Please cite Facts and figures in years where Abortions where done or paid for by governments, and about the Labor & part costs to do abortions with tax dollars. It would also be nice to see a chart of this, with inflation. 2600:8800:1F03:FC0D:84DA:C4A1:ACA:96B4 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And where do you suggest this information will come from? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A Google search brings up The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication on the first page, but I've come across this topic before in respectable sources. Abortions have complications which require modern, first world inpatient care so they don't become more serious. Developing countries may struggle to provide this even in the areas which are best served with health care; in other areas hospital beds may not be available. This tends to tilt attitudes against abortion in developing countries. This overall topic is worth including in the article because it is not generally known, yet appears to be a significant factor in policy choices.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

How about a section about how much unwanted children and children with extreme birth defects cost the taxpayer?

Your source from Iran is affiliated with a Shi'ite institution Vali-e-Asr, and in general Shi'ite Islam is anti-abortion, so it's not surprising that your source has an anti-abortion POV. NightHeron (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We can’t cover every country’s tax stuff in a general overview. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron, respectfully consider that the metaphorical sword you mention cuts both ways; one of the medications used in chemical abortions has been documented in the medical literature as causing severe, Thalidomide-like limb deformities when present in a woman's body at concentrations not sufficient to kill the fetus; this should be mentioned in the article under safety. Dronebogus, I agree with you about not covering individual tax info.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but Epiphyllum, "chemical abortion" isn't a term that Wikipedia or ACOG use. Mife hasn't been shown to cause birth defects, and the evidence for Möbius syndrome after misoprostol exposure is weak. Maybe you mean methotrexate? Which is very rarely used for that in the US. (Your sentence also is jarring to me, since when I read "a woman" I don't assume that the woman in question is pregnant. Also "the fetus" is an odd choice for discussions about medication abortion, since up to 10 weeks we're talking embryos, not fetuses.) I don't want to quibble over these, but I think good language probably starts at the talk page. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this is getting off-topic and seems to be a WP:COATRACK continuation of Talk:Abortion#Unreverting Baller McGee's comment, a thread where EL shows POV/topic ignorance issues. I’m assuming general good faith but this seems like a topic outside of EL’s skill zone. Dronebogus (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This subject is appropriately covered at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_financing. Don't see any reason to add anything on Abortion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how an article about just the US can cover an obviously global issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The economic considerations of abortion, particularly in developing countries, are surely a fascinating topic; however this is a general overview so the details are moot. I’d recommend possibly starting a new article if there’s enough interest. Dronebogus (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The inevitable has happened here, and some editors have begun to discuss this issue from a purely US perspective, whereas the question did not specify that at all. This a global encyclopaedia. My initial response here (the second comment in the thread) was driven by the fact that I know the figures being sought would not be available for my country. They simply are not recorded for abortions separately from other related and overlapping procedures. I am certain similar problems would exist for other countries. If someone wants to tackle this for a single country with less than 5% of the world's population, they are welcome, but they need to clarify that is what they are doing. And I shall (probably) withdraw. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Table 3 gives specific dollar values for the societal cost of abortion for a large number of countries. This could be summarized as a general range and combined with a summary of the "Introduction" section. If summarized as four sentences, it could fit under "Safety". If summarized to two paragraphs, it could be a subsection under "Society and culture". I could go either way, and am willing to write it, but am looking to gauge support before doing the work. Triacylglyceride; do you want to start a separate discussion topic on the teratological risks of the medications, and how they could fit into the safety section?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Table 3 doesn't give that -- I'm not sure what you or they mean by "societal cost." This table seems to have a wild mix of fees for abortion, costs of treating complications of unsafe abortions... sometimes it appears to be costs per abortion or complication treated, and in other cases it seems to be the total cost per year... I really don't see how this is to be summarized to a general range.

The original question here was "how much do abortions cost the taxpayer?" a question that is almost absurd outside of conservative understanding of it, in which the taxpayer pays and some other mooching entity benefits. Now it seems to be morphing into "how much does an abortion cost?" -- which is a very different question.

EL, I think that would be more appropriate for the medication abortion page. You're welcome to write up a draft on the talk page there, but please don't cite the Linacre quarterly in it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate for that page. But dealing with this page for now: Table 3 is a review of cost of illness studies. For more about cost of illness studies, see this link. The overall dollar range in the chart, from low to high could be included for this article. The range would serve support the general statement that the costs may strain developing countries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel your reply has really addressed the concerns I raised about table 3. You write "the overall dollar range in the chart" -- do you mean "from $15.25 to $67 million"? You write "the general statement that the costs may strain developing countries." But these costs include both costs of abortions and costs of treating complications from unsafe abortions. So is this the general statement that developing countries may be strained by the cost of ensuring safe access to abortion, or the cost of not doing so?

I have a theory: this is a low-quality review with a disorganized apples-and-oranges chart that you just found on Google two hours ago, it isn't actually a sound basis for adding a section to this article, and we should stop acting like it is. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just the per-abortion costs would be enough; the overall budget figures could be omitted. One could either include all of the places listed, or only the developing countries listed. If you want a second source, The cost of post-abortion care in developing countries: a comparative analysis of four studies could work. The issues you cite are not severe enough to keep the articles from being useful to the reader.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Responding to: "So is this the general statement that developing countries may be strained by the cost of ensuring safe access to abortion, or the cost of not doing so?" Clearly both have a cost, but the issue is a trilemma instead of a dilemma. The cheapest option for a country with a minimal hospital healthcare system is to not have either safe or unsafe abortions. In particular think of areas where births are handled by midwives; while the hospital system will have a maternity ward, it will typically be used by (maybe just some) mothers in the cities where they are located due to lack of transportation and maybe cost. The next cheapest option is safe abortions and not any unsafe abortions. The most expensive option are unsafe abortions. Yet as seen from the authorities' view, and also within the (local) medical profession, both safe and unsafe abortions are at fault, and they may not separate the two that much.

A way to think of it is how in developed countries, elective plastic surgery is seen as a Veblen good; in developing countries elective abortion gets lumped in that category too along with elective plastic surgery. So government officials and professional stakeholders may see the costs of abortion and its complications in a different light than in the US. They may see it as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Please strike that last paragraph comparing abortion to cosmetic surgery as a "lifestyle/status symbol" in developing countries. It is deeply offensive to women who need an abortion, and to anyone who empathizes with them. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll reword it as a curtesy since it could be interpreted wrongly. Yet there is enough that is helpful about it in contextualizing the two review studies linked to earlier that I ought to restate it. Yet please understand that it will be less brief the second time around: In developing countries, things which are not seen as status symbols in the US may instead be seen as Veblen goods. This includes things perceived as necessities in the US, such as an inexpensive watch or other timepiece which in an urban area in the US is necessary to tell time for catching the bus and getting to work. Likewise some non-necessities in the US which are still not seen as luxuries, such as a no-frills digital camera, may be seen as a status symbol in a developed country where the cost of buying it would take many months of saving.

Probably most people in the US would perceive getting an unsafe abortion in a developing country to not be the greatest thing, an act of desperation rather than as a status symbol. But the government officials and professional stakeholders in developing countries may see the costs of abortion and its complications in a different light than in the US. They may have concerns about either just unsafe abortion, or both safe and unsafe abortion together. They may see it as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol. Such officials or professionals feel the same way about treating complications for elective plastic surgery, something which people in the US could understand more easily because elective plastic surgery is generally regarded as a Veblen good or status symbol in the US. This perspective, although it may be offensive, partly explains why so many individual studies have been done in developing countries pertaining to the costs of abortion and/or its complications.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What you're proposing now is bordering on original research: doing your own synthesis of the numbers to allege that countries should pick "no abortion" over "safe abortion" over "unsafe abortion" -- as though countries that have high rates of unsafe abortions have a way of preventing them other than ensuring access to safe abortions.

You've put forward a theory now that abortion in the developing world is seen as a status symbol, like plastic surgery. Like NightHeron, I find that laughable and offensive. Your arguments also ignore the truth that abortion is of significant benefit to the person having the abortion (see: the Turnaway Study) and, more worryingly, that caring for people who have had complicated unsafe abortions is of significant benefit to them. You seem on the verge of advocating for policies that developing countries should simply allow people with complications of abortion (and, possibly, plastic surgery) to die.

This has been a frustrating conversation for a variety of reasons, even before I realized that you were recently claiming that the Linacre's use of the pejorative "abortionist" constitutes academic use adequate to rationalize its use on Wikipedia. It's frustrating because some IP user says "what's the cost to the taxpayer?" a wording that has obvious context in American political discourse, and now you've morphed that into a thesis on developing countries that is, I think, quite absurd... even before you started calling abortion a Veblen good.

There's no clear edit that you're proposing here. I'm going to stop engaging until there is one. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Asked earlier to add a "summary of the "Introduction" section. If summarized as four sentences". Will you accept a four sentence summary of the "Introduction" section without a cost range, cited to the two review articles linked above?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Initially when I saw you had struck that last offensive paragraph, I had some hope that you'd come to your senses on this issue. But then you repeated the same absurd and offensive claim that "the government officials and professional stakeholders in developing countries may see the costs of abortion and its complications ... as straining national resources for a lifestyle/status symbol." Why would you think that officials and professionals in developing countries are so ignorant and misogynist as to think that women get abortions as a "lifestyle/status symbol"?

I very much doubt that sentences that you're likely to write on this subject will get a consensus of editors for inclusion in the article, but of course you're welcome to try. NightHeron (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reread the introduction section and I find its content reasonable. I still don't think that this is a very high-quality source, and I don't think it actually addresses the question "what is the cost of abortion to the taxpayer?" so much as the question "what is the cost of *not* ensuring safe access to abortion?"

However, that's an important question, too. Please go ahead and summarize the intro of "The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication Treatment Cares: A Systematic Review" in four sentences, so we can make sure we're reading the same document. Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you support adding this under the "safety" section?

Both safe and unsafe abortions can cause complications, which pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries. Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and the health care system in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref][ref]

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. I feel that it puts "safe" and "unsafe" abortions on equal footing here, which the source doesn't support. From that paper:

"...18 million induced abortions annually are performed by persons without the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards and are therefore unsafe. In addition to the risk of death because of unsafe abortion (around 350 per 100,000 cases of abortion), the non-fatal complications contribute significantly to the global burden of abortion. Women pay heavily for unsafe abortions and post-abortion complications, not only with their health and their lives but also financially."

To get from there to your summary of "both safe and unsafe abortions can cause complications... this poses a substantial burden on society" is a gobsmacking "both sides" take on this, that I can only make sense of if YOUR thesis is "abortion poses a burden on society" and you're looking for a way to shoehorn that in.

If I don't reply further, please don't mistake my fatigue for acquiescence.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've now read through that paper and several of the papers it cites... all of them emphasize the risks of unsafe abortions but then go on to characterize the cost of all abortion complications. There's the unspoken assumption there that, because safe abortions (that is, done with adequate training in a professional medical environment) have a very, very, very, very low complication rate, the overwhelming majority of complications are derived from abortions done in unsafe environments. (The language here starts to get almost tautological, I recognize.) Even if these papers don't break those down, we can see those in relative complication rates in countries with good access to safe abortion vs. complication rates in countries without.

Just heading off an argument I'm afraid you might make here. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The suggested text is completely misleading. The vast majority of legal abortions performed safely do not result in complications. Such abortions are among the least risky procedures in medicine. On the other hand, illegal abortions performed by unqualified people are a major cause of maternal mortality, especially in developing countries. All of this is documented in MEDRS sources. In addition, there are huge human and financial costs to society of forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term -- for example, if the embryo or fetus has severe defects that require round-the-clock care after birth for the few years that it lives, or if the birth of an unwanted child forces the woman to leave her job and go on welfare, or if her partner is abusive toward her and toward the child. These costs -- both human and financial -- are likely to be much greater than the cost of a rare complication in a safely performed legal abortion. NightHeron (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The paper discussed both safe and unsafe abortions in the introduction and described the impact of their costs in a general manner. The introduction doesn't say that unsafe abortions tend to be performed in developing countries, but this is generally understood, so maybe that is why the authors didn't say that. The breakdown is mentioned in the second linked paper. How about including the 98% figure described in the second linked paper? Do you accept this instead?

Complications following an abortion are more common for unsafe abortions; the complications pose a risk of death and require treatment. Medical guidelines for treating the complications are similar in developed and developing countries. The costs of treatment can be significant in developing countries, where 98% of unsafe abortions occur.[ref1][ref2] Overall this poses a substantial burden on society and health care systems in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[ref1]

::--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere here, but we've also diverged dramatically from the core question of this section, which was "how much do abortions cost the taxpayer?"

Now we seem to be more in a... "how much does the cost of unsafe abortion complications burden developing countries?"

This seems more appropriate for section 3.2, Abortion#Unsafe Abortion, or Unsafe abortion#Treatment of Complications -- a subsection that could use a lot of love, frankly.

Even so, I don't feel familiar enough with the economies of the countries we're talking about to say what a substantial burden it is for these healthcare systems. What constitutes a substantial burden? Are appendectomies a 'substantial burden' to the US healthcare system? Is anybody looking at these developing economies and saying "yeesh, you know, Bangladesh would really have taken off, but they have to pay for all of the unsafe abortion complication management..."

You seem really committed to this phrasing and it's feeling a bit pushy. It really feels like you started your approach here with a statement you wanted to make and have been searching for articles to back it up.

But you've gotten me to do a lot of reading on this subject, and now that I've discovered how much work Unsafe abortion needs I'm going to head on over there next week and start making some bold edits. If you want to meet me on the talk page there we could hash out something.

(This is a smaller matter, but I'm not a fan of "Africa, Latin America, and Asia." If we mean developing economies, let's say so. But if we don't mean to include Argentina, Japan, and Singapore...)

Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in section 3.2, Abortion#Unsafe Abortion. Now that you mention it, "Africa, Latin America, and Asia" should be changed to "developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia". The second review covering four countries quantifies the substantial burden in terms of the cost of care per case of complications as a percentage of the per capita annual income. The percentage varies considerably by country, but the burden was demonstrated for all four countries. A hospital could not be expected to recoup much of its expenses by billing their patients. If you want to check the broader impact combined with the general lack of health care; see Google for economic impact of bad health care in developing countries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of saying "developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia" compared to just saying "developing countries."

I feel like if we're going with section 3.2 it really just needs one additional sentence to cover the material that you seem to be advocating for at this point. Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)