Talk:Abortion

Opening sentence

The word "human" is quite important in there, as both the embryo and foetus refererences talk about animals in general. It is crucial to note that abortion means destroying HUMAN enbryo/foetus, so I insist that the sentence should sound like this.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of a human embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion"; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of all pregnancies TruthseekerW (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, please self-revert. Per WP:BRD the earlier stable version must remain without the proposed edit until/unless a consensus for the change is arrived at on the talk page.

The addition of human is unnecessary (because anyone reading the article knows that, with the exception of a small section at the end, it is about termination of a human woman's pregnancy) and undue. Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human and that destroying it should be considered murdering a human. According to WP:NPOV, this political-spin use of the word human does not belong in the article. So we do not gratuitously add the word human to the lead of this article. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Merck veterinarians manual has a chapter on "Overview of Abortion in Large Animals" specifying that abortions can be given to animals. The Farm Health Online website says about farm animals, "All cases where the pregnancy terminates early and the foetus is expelled are called abortions." Many, many more veterinarian publications support these ideas. Regarding wild animals, the National Geographic published a story about how pregnant monkeys can abort their own pregnancies.[1] It's not just a human topic. What's human is all the fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point to make, and yes, veterinarians perform abortions on animals, but we all know that the article is specifically written in relation to women.

I insist that the addition is very necessary. One thing is that 95 % of the article talk about humans, and there is only small segment concerning animals. As you have said, not everybody know that and it is important to clear thing for those who don't. "Moreover, it's a claim of the anti-abortion movement that a fetus, embryo, or zygote should be considered a human" - there are many scientific claims (do I really have to cite these?) that human are human after conception and not after birth or a specific point in pregnancy, so where is the pro-life aspect you claim there to be? Of course it can be used by pro-life, but it does not mean that it is not allowed. One single reason I can see is censorship. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You expect us to believe that the reason for your edit-warring to get the word human into the first sentence and your repeated insistence that "the addition is very necessary" was that you're worried that people will read the first paragraph and think that "The most common reason women give for having an abortion..." is referring to animals? And that your reason was not a desire to advance the anti-abortion POV?

In reality, there's no agreement about when a fetus is truly human. Several religious traditions, for example, have held that this occurs at "quickening" or "ensoulment", usually set at between 40 days and several months into the pregnancy. NightHeron (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to prolong a discussion with someone who denies that foetus is human. Foetus is always human. Human is human from the moment of conception. Scientists agree. Did I even say I'm going to present anti-abortionist point of view? The page is all pro-abortionist. 100%.

Yes, there are people who yell: FOETUS IS NOT HUMAN! Then what it is? An animal? They claim: a blob of tissues. For those people and for the sake of clarity, and because animal examples are listed separately at the bottom, I insist on keeping the word "human" in the opening sentence and I will wait for others to say their opinions. By others, I mean those who may share other point of view than claiming that "we don't know when exactly foetuses are human"... and without delving into religions. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of human in the first sentence. Considering the focus of this article, it almost exclusively covers human abortions rather than abortions on other animals. I would also contest the idea that there is no scientific consensus on when human life begins.

I'm not coming at this from a religious or philosophical approach. I am not an evangelical or anything like that, so I don't use religion in these types of discussions. Religion has nothing to do with when human life biologically begins.

• Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.
• University of Chicago, Department of Comparative Human Development: Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
• Princeton University: At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.

So, I concur with @TruthseekerW. I do believe this article has a bias in favor of the pro-abortion rights viewpoint, but it is impossible for me to edit it without a consensus. Nevertheless, I agree with adding human to the lead sentence. DocZach (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello all, I will withhold any judgement about the question of including 'human' in the first sentence, but I just wanted to reply to DocZach with my perspective as a professional reproductive biologist: the question of 'when does life begin' is a poorly defined one, since reproduction relates to life cycles, and people can and do choose many points in the circular life cycle process to call the 'beginning'. Because this question is actually more of a political/philosophical one relating to rights, it is not being actively researched in the reproductive biology field, and therefore, there can be no 'consensus' on the matter, and any opinions expressed by biologists on the matter are likely to be personal opinions that are outside the realm of facts provable or disprovable by data. The citations DocZach offers above seem to be in this category of personal opinions offered by biologists, not data-proven facts. The 'Princeton University' citation is misleadingly a personal page of pro-life quotations assembled by someone with some sort of affiliation with the university. The Bosnian Journal paper is an opinion article filled with quotations from literature and theater and frequent use of ALL CAPS, and I am unable to track down the middle citation to check the methodology of their survey. Besides, as a personal anecdote, I conducted an informal poll of a large group of reproductive biologists at a recent gathering, and we were unable to come to consensus even on the definition of the word 'fertilization' - it is an outdated, nonscientific word that we now know encompasses many intricate molecular steps. I hope this perspective is helpful! Best, Willmskinner (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a biological fact that human life does begin at conception. When sperm fertilizes an egg, a human individual organism is formed. This is something you can read about in numerous fifth grade biology textbooks. The human at that point is an early-staged embryo (sometimes called a zygote or blastocyst). He or she has the full genetic composition and identity of a human being, and is distinct from his or her mother and father in that he or she has their own personal genetics inherited from them both. The human's sex, eye color, and other genetic components are determined at that precise moment. That is the line that the overwhelming amount of scientists agree human life begins at, and the personal opinion of religious institutions or a minority of biologists is irrelevant to the fact of the beginning of human life. An embryo is simply a human in the early stages of development. Just as a toddler is a human in a different stage of development as well.

Now, whether you consider that human a person who is deserving of equal rights is a philosophical and ethical question, not a scientific one. And I don't see anyone here trying to argue that we should be necessarily referring to an embryo as a person. However, it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human. No amount of propaganda, emotional appeal, or distortion of reality can change that. DocZach (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that fertilization is an outdated term. It is a widely used term to describe conception. When a sperm penetrates an egg, forming a human organism, that is what fertilization is. DocZach (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many fifth-grade textbooks are so simplified as to be inaccurate. If the creation of a single cell with a genetic makeup different than its parents is the definition of the beginning of life, arguably the creation of gametes through the process of meiosis fulfills that definition. Yes, they are haploid and are not able to grow into a full human organism without coming into contact with the complementary cell type (sperm and eggs) but the same could be said for the fertilized egg (it is not able to become a full human organism without coming in contact with the maternal endometrium). This is of course an academic argument, but my point is that the biology is so complex that it consistently resists peoples efforts to draw sharp lines and clear categories. My example about fertilization was meant to make the same point. From a zoomed-out perspective, the common definition of fertilization (sperm meets egg) is still useful, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that this process includes dozens of steps that collectively take hours to complete, so it becomes very hard to draw a clear black and white line about what exactly is the moment that 'fertilization' occurs. When I polled my reproductive biology colleagues about this, people proposed many different ideas for the best molecular definition of fertilization. Some said it was as early as zona pellucida or Juno-Izumo binding, others felt it was membrane fusion (which is still very poorly understood), others felt it was the formation of two pronuclei, others felt it was the demethylation cascade, and some felt fertilization was only complete once the two pronuclei fuse into a single nucleus, which may occur hours after the initial contact of sperm and egg. This is all neither here nor there, but just meant to illustrate that debates like these are difficult because many words have both a scientific and common definition, which often differ.

This brings me back to the main question of this topic. The word human is divisive because it has both a scientific meaning and a common meaning, with very different implications. Scientifically, any cells that were derived from human tissues are called human cells, even if they have not been part of a human organism for many decades (like HeLa cells or many other cultured cell lines). In that sense, a fertilized egg is human, but so is every other cell in the body and so are many cells that have been cultured in petri dishes for decades and bear significant genetic differences to native "primary" human cells. On the other hand, the common definition of the word human suggests a full organism, and is synonymous with 'a person', and thus in the context of an abortion article it comes with exactly the connotations of rights that you mention in your second paragraph. If someone scrapes a cell off of their forearm and points to it and says "it is human" that is true in the scientific usage of the word, but would be very odd and inaccurate in the common usage of the word. Therefore I would argue against the inclusion of the word 'human' in this place and context, due to the ambiguity and connotations involved. Willmskinner (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A cell from you forearm does not have the potential to become a new human being, but both an embryo and foetus have this potential right from the start. There is no logic in that sentence. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the age of Induced pluripotent stem cells the concept of potential has become rather muddy and hard to define. Believe it or not, there are currently quite a few startup biotechnology companies working to create viable, fertilizable human egg cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Anyway, we have gotten away from the initial question of this thread, and I have already expressed my opinion on the original post's question, so I won't be responding to this thread anymore. Best wishes to all of you! Willmskinner (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have a ton of respect towards your knowledge regarding the beginnings of human life, but I consider your arguments weak, and opt for including human in the opening sentences, for two reasons.

1. All the talk about the beginnings of human life and the exact moment when a new life forms does not really realate to the article. All the abortions are performed after the point that we can most certainly state that we do have an embryo or a foetus that is already past the stage that you described extensively above. I do mean it, and am fully aware of it, when I claim all.

2. All the implications of the word "human" suit in the sentence. We do talk about another human that is not yet formed, but has a different DNA and (as mentioned earlier) is past the stage that you claim to be disputable. Since embryo becomes foetus and foetus becomes a born person it is natural that the word "human" "comes with exactly the connotations of rights" that @DocZach mentioned above.

As he said, "it is a biological and scientific fact that an embryo is a human", and nobody can dispute.

For these two reason, I strongly stand with the word human.

Any discussion it may cause is strictly philosophical one (and much desirable!), but the addition of the word is only natural. And I also wish you the best for the Easter season! TruthseekerW (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

It is not an edit request yet, but a suggestion of how to improve the page. First, I suggest (as I intend to) basing edits on the book by Karin Struck: "ich sehe mein Kind im Traum". I do not know if English translation is available, but I have Polish one at my disposal. Another book on the topic, which I could not find yet, was written by Susan Stanford. She also conducted research on post-abortion syndrome, which opposes the debatable one that is present on this page. There is also Marion Poensgen, who, in her book, presented research on post-abortion syndrome (which stated that 40% of women researched "would like to bring life back to their children"). She also talked about Niobe syndrome, which is not discussed on this page. Another book which could turn out immensely helpful is "Aborted Women silent no more", by David C. Reardon, published in 1987. It contains interviews with women after abortion. There is research which I could not locate myself which suggests that in some women after abortion, who got sick with cancer, the sickness was the outcome of abortion. One more book which should be studied for this case was written by Wolfgang Furch, and is called (my own translation) "Abortion - a way of fixing the problem". That is all I could find for now. I consider the book written by Struck to be a reliable source.

As I stated in my edit request (which was rightly closed), I could spot a high degree of misinformation which requires debunking.

Any source used on the page to talk about medical and/or psychological dimensions of abortion would need to meet the standards at WP:MEDRS, with the highest quality sources (like review studies in high-quality medical journals) taking priority. I haven't looked into all of these, but I suspect the quality is not up to that standard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of these sources are not medical literature that simply cannot be up to the standard you mentioned, but I suggest looking into them before making assupmtions. Karin Struck was also mentioned on a different page relating to abortion written in different language, therefore it could be mentioned as an opinion, could it not be?

Also, regarding the latest edit, I have found no evidence that the authors of the study have indeed taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population. The selection of candidates remains largely unclear. Naturally, I will read the study once more if I can prove to be mistaken as I believe in the good will of other editors. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference no. 135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704

One person reverted my edit, and the second claimed it it disputed. That's two people. I claim that my edit adds value and clarification to the article. My edit is visible in the latest history. The source material is not clear on this respect as it generalises the research (135: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2019.112704), and the research itself, as I said in the initial edit, does not make abundantly clear the criteria of selection of candidates. Thus, I added a small clarification that NightHeron now claims to be disputable. ("in this case your addition was unnecessary and didn't add anything of value") It appears to be a bit arbitrary. The person who reverted the edit did not seek a conversation, and thus I reverted it back. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust and peer-reviewed and vetted. That's called WP:OR and not allowed. If you have issues with the research, take that up with the researchers or the journal that published their work. If the paper gets retracted, than we won't use it as a source on Wikipedia anymore. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Naturally I don't.

All I seek here is to clarify the results of the research, and I am really surprised by the negative conducts towards this minor edit. This really is silly, as the case of semi-protecting the entire article - should be obvious to add. Relate to the edit, as I insist that it adds value to the entirety.

It is no surprise that the article was delisted from good articles list as any positive contribution is immideately reverted. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why you reverted does not go on par with what you said earlier. I do not yet challenge the results nor the method of the disputed research.

I think my edit fits exactly where you said "summarizes". Did I challenge anything with the sentence I added?

It is part of the summary, a short presentation of data that does not litter the passage in any way.

If you or @NightHeron claim that it is a pointless edit, then please justify. If not, please do not make arbitrary reverts. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

Does it make a consensus? TruthseekerW (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A disputed edit that changes the stable version of an article does need a consensus before it's reinserted into the article. That's explained in WP:BRD. NightHeron (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only what NightHeron said above, but if there is a new consensus, it is that your edit adding the sample size of the study does not belong in the article, because editors: myself, NightHeron,

Mathglot [2] "Revert editorializing. The source supports the content." and

Generalrelative [3] "That's just how opinion surveys work. If the source is reliable, they will have taken steps to ensure that their sample is representative of the larger population."

have all reverted your addition, with essentially the same reasoning as that which I've stated above: "You don't get to challenge whether YOU think published research is sufficiently robust." - If the sample size was insufficient, that would have come up in peer-review, or as critiques from other researchers; you don't get to add your own IMPLICATION that this sample size is too small: per WP:NOR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 This does not apply to my edit at all. My edit only expands on the summary of the study, and does not add any implications, other than the obvious statement that the study was conducted on such a number of women. Can you read what I wrote above again and with understanding? Everything I wrote is a conclustion boldly stated by the source

I have to yet again repeat that and kindly ask to relate to what I wrote and not attempt to twist the conversation in undesirable course.

@NightHeron my edit is not disputed. It was only challenged by @Generalrelative, and what that user stated was highly hypothetical language' which I don't see how it justifies his revert at all.

And finally, please relate to the sentence that I added and which does not imply anything else over than what was already written in the research. TruthseekerW (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

TS, you clearly have been ignoring my request that you carefully read WP:BRD and adhere to it. Any edit that changes the content of the stable version of an article becomes a disputed edit if it's reverted by another editor. Then it's the obligation of the person who made the edit (not the person who reverted it) to seek a consensus supporting their edit and not to reinsert it until most of the editors participating in the discussion agree that the edit (or some modified version of it) belongs in the article. You've not done that. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And I got the feeling that some people did not adhere to the rules as well, by simply disliking my edit.

I promise to adhere to the imposed rules and seek the consensus, but the issue is silly, and your reasoning weak (statement that my edit does not add anything - it just proves what I said).

Coming back to the topic, I cannot see any problem with presenting the number of people involved in an opinion poll. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Selection bias

More important than the number of women included in the longitudinal study is the method for their inclusion. Read [4] 2. Methods and you will see an obvious problem with selection bias. Stated simply, doesn't it make sense that women with some doubts about their decision to have an abortion will be less willing to subject themselves to years of follow-up questions about it? Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That it why it is crucial to note the number, and you made a good point that I have not been aware of yet. TruthseekerW (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Figures like "99 percent" tend to raise red flags. That's why I looked over the section on 2.Methods (the "methods" section that comes after the shorter "methods" section in the Abstract) to see if there was something off base about the selection of the subjects. Later I googled "abortion studies selection bias" and found this article: [5]. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That opinion piece full of speculation by an anti-abortion person is not what's meant by a reliable secondary source. You may agree with him, but putting that POV concerning the study in the article violates WP:NOR. Someone can almost always support their opinion by googling for an article that agrees. That's called cherry-picking, and it doesn't comply with WP:RS. NightHeron (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That way, the whole earlier stady violates it too, for the reason that the study was done by pro-abortion people, so it is extremely hard to call it a neutral article. It is easy, checking the profiles of people who made the research from the reference no. 135. TruthseekerW (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The source in the article that gives the results of the study is not an opinion piece, and it's not full of speculation, so it's not analogous to your source. A scientific or scholarly work can be RS even if the authors have a strong viewpoint on the topic. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As editors we select among the "reliable sources" that are used in Wikipedia articles. Because a source is eligible to be used does not, of course, mean that it must be used. The longitudinal study in question here does not have to be used as the key source article for the subsection as it is now. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"When done legally..."

The problem with User:Avatar317's preferred version is that the moral issue is already insinuated but not clearly stated in the current second paragraph. If the paragraph is strictly about the science of abortion why bring up the issue of legality? Legality would not be an issue except for the dispute over the morality of abortion. So if legality is raised as an issue it should be done so with a PRIOR mention of the dispute over the procedure's morality. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not true that illegality implies a moral issue. A drug or medical procedure might be illegal because it's unsafe. For example, if the falsehood propagated by the anti-abortion movement that abortion is unsafe for the woman were correct, then that alone could be a reason for legal restrictions or prohibitions. NightHeron (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in previous talks about the safery of abortion, the process is quite safe, if there is access to well-trained medical personnel and sanitary conditions. The risk is considerably highter, when these conditions do not exist. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding these points: Except, of course, in reality neither of those hypotheticals is the case here. Illegal abortions exist because abortion is either broadly illegal or significantly restricted in some places; and the anti-abortion movement exists, and would exist, regardless of the safety of legally done procedures. No, "done legally", rather than simply "done properly" is used here because of the moral/political dispute over abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Safety section

The safety section seems disproportionately about "mortality rate", perhaps to paint abortion in a more positive lens?

I do not see much description about the downsides of abortion from health perspective, especially with the ability of the woman to have kids in the future, or other long term health issues that may arise (even if the operation itself does not end in death).

All it mentions is "scientifcally unsupported" issues such as a link to breast cancer.

As someone who is pro choice, I find this article unreliable - I do not believe the authors are seriously trying to balance both viewpoints, but rather trying to defend the right to choose. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "unreliable" at all. It's widely asserted in the medical literature that modern abortion procedures are very safe for the woman, even with respect to future pregnancy and long-term health. When we balance viewpoints it's not exactly 50 percent of this view compared to 50 percent of that view. Instead, WP:BALANCE is achieved by summarizing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it balanced though?

According to this article, which analyzes many studies on abortion, the results were rather mixed, and largely inconclusive, especially when there are multiple abortions on the same woman:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507237/

This wikipedia article is certainly much more emphatic that abortions are healthy than that paper is, which to me is concerning. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part of the linked study which said "there is no association between abortion and secondary infertility," meaning that abortion is no more likely than childbirth to cause problems with future pregnancies.

I'm concerned that you are participating on Wikipedia for the purpose of trolling everybody here. Your comment at the Flat Earth page is worrisome. Wikipedia will never give flat earth nonsense a "balanced" perspective if that means ignoring obvious science. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? No, I did not miss that part. The article listed about a dozen potential issues with abortion, and around half of them it said the existing literature was not up to snuff, and therefore inconclusive. There were some cases (a minority) in which sufficient data was present, which did show - only for those minority of issues - that there wasn't a correlation. For women with more than one abortion, however, it showed some negative health effects, which is certainly concerning.

I did not post that article in an attempt to show abortion is dangerous (again, I am pro-choice, and I believe abortion is mostly healthy), but I am concerned that this Wikipedia article reads like a speech by Nancy Pelosi and less like the balanced viewpoint in the article I shared.

As for my comment on the flat earth page, I stand by that completely. If you read what I actually said, it was not that I think flat earth should have a balanced perspective, but that Wikipedia as an entity should not take a stance, and should just stick to the facts. Which is correct. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please make a concrete proposal to improve the article based on a reliable source. Otherwise, this discussion is finished and you should find another website to exchange opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem with opening sentence

The current definition of abortion in the opening sentence seems too broad: 'Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.' This could misleadingly encompass any end of pregnancy, including live births. To improve accuracy, it could for instance specify that abortion refers to termination before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. LennCali (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not have to give a dictionary definition. But even for a dictionary definition one can assume that the reader knows that a live birth is not an abortion. For example, in dictionary.com definition #1 of abortion is "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy". NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead amounts to a preemptive argument for legal abortion

After the first few sentences of its opening paragraph until its last paragraph, the lead is largely a defense of legal abortion. This starts with generally sympathetic listing of reasons why women seek abortions. The second paragraph goes on to note that when done legally. abortion is " one of the safest procedures" in the medical profession. How many other Wikipedia articles describe relatively routine medical procedures in like terms? It also notes that self-managed medication abortions are safe. Again, why the emphasis on safety without specifically raising the issue of safety in the first place? The third paragraph includes the World Health Organization's seal of approval for "access to legal, safe, and comprehensive abortion care... for the attainment of the highest possible level of sexual and reproductive health." This endorsement, however, has little to do with the science of the procedure and more to do with its place in society. It is sociological rather than medical and presented without any challenge. By the time a reader reaches the lead's last paragraph, a good case for legal abortion has already been made without the merest mention of anyone opposing it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The notional "argument" you describe is the result of multiple editors following proper WP:BALANCE found in sources. The safety of the procedure is listed by a great many sources, I'm sure as a response to opponents of legal abortion. I don't agree that we have any problem to solve. If you wish to provide a counterpoint to modern safety, you could elevate the mention of unsafe abortion, highlighting how illegal abortions are bad, flowing into how legal abortions are safe. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the editorial arguments on this Talk page for not introducing the moral/political debate over abortion earlier in the lead has been that the article should focus on the science of the procedure before delving into that debate. But, as you say, the safety of the procedure is listed as a response to opponents of legal abortion. If the safety of abortion is stressed in the lead because of that, and it undoubtedly is stressed, then the fact that there's a big debate about legal abortion should at least be mentioned first. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the abortion debate, which is of course explained in more detail in the main body. It's reasonable to assume that the reader already knows about the abortion debate, but does not necessarily know the medical background that comes earlier in the lead. So I don't see any reason why the paragraph summarizing the abortion debate has to come first. Note that in the main body the sections on medical issues (methods, safety, incidence) come first, and the sections that relate to the debate (history, religion, society, culture) come later. The organization of the lead is consistent with the main body. NightHeron (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, we have a SEPARATE ARTICLE for that subject: Abortion debate. THIS article is primarily for information about the procedure. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)