Abortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.
very short on graphics
why so few photos?
there are plenty of public domain photos that can be obtained to provide actual abortion photos. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In it, it says: "No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed."
But if the actual abortion photos are described as "shock images" then why is abortion called a standard medical procedure?
I agree that either more photos or cartoons/drawings would make a lot of sense, as that is the norm in articles such as this, and I think it would help people understand what an abortion is. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: inform well about the topic at hand. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safest procedures in medicine
This statement should be removed. It is obviously incorrect as there are safer procedures like palpation, auscultation, blood pressure, etc.. The reference that supports the claim is a 2006 study that has a bit of biased/opinionated wording in some parts and this is one example. A superlative statement should need to be quantified/supported with data and whilst there is data that it is safe, there is none that show it as being the safest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misquoting the article. It says "one of the safest" and "among the safest", which is indisputably correct, and does not say "THE safest". NightHeron (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palpitation and blood pressure measurements aren't surgical procedures. That's an important distinction. 108.65.79.31 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surgical abortion is very safe compared to other surgical procedures, as is non-surgical abortion compared to other non-surgical procedures. So "one of the safest" and "amopg the safest" is correct. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of room for disputing it. The idea that surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures is extremely questionable. We could start with sebaceous cyst incision, punch biopsy, toenail wedge resection and easily find another thirty safer surgical procedures. We could do the same for non-surgical abortion and other non-surgical medical procedures. Non-surgical abortion certainly has its complications (please see the article Medical Abortion) and is not 'one of the safest' when compared to many diagnostic and rehabilitative procedures. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your estimate of thirty surgical procedures is correct and you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for it, that wouldn't refute the statement "one of the safest" about surgical abortion, since there must be hundreds of surgical procedures that doctors perform. In addition to being correct, the strong wording in the section on safety is necessary to set the record straight, in view of the disinformation by the anti-abortion movement claiming that abortion is unsafe and that abortion bans protect women --- despite the massive evidence since the reversal of Roe v. Wade that women suffer mightily from such bans, and despite the high maternal mortality in parts of the world that ban or severely restrict abortion. NightHeron (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording 'one of the safest procedures in medicine' is not 'necessary' as it is wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting wart removal, ear syringing and nail splinting on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients (for both surgical and non-surgical). I'm not going to attempt to edit the wording but perhaps you might see sense to. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] wildly incorrect, bordering on ridiculous. It undermines the quality of the article by essentially putting [...] ear syringing [...] on par with a procedure that UK National Health Service lists as having serious complications for 1 in 1000 recipients [...] ." From Earwax: "...complications included otitis externa (swimmer's ear), which involves inflammation or bacterial infection of the external acoustic meatus, as well as pain, vertigo, tinnitus, and perforation of the ear drum. Based on this study, a rate of major complications in 1/1000 ears syringed was suggested," followed by a citation to the BMJ. I'm not the one who's being "ridiculous" here. The stable version of the wording appears to be supported both by sources and by a consensus of editors. NightHeron (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, have I accused someone of being ridiculous? I have labelled the current wording as ridiculous. It is. By definition diagnostic tests such as measuring blood pressure, performing mammograms, ophthalmoscopy and reflex tests are all medical procedures, as are applying a plaster cast or administering a vaccine. Abortion is simply not one of the safest procedures in medicine.
Were I so inclined I might respond to your lack of civility in kind and accuse you of being ridiculous for attempting to draw equivalence between those 1/1000 major complications of ear syringing and the 1/1000 of abortion - sepsis, damage to or infection of the womb, injury to the cervix, very heavy bleeding and pelvic inflammatory disease. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We get it, you think the sources are wrong on this. But since this is Wikipedia, we're going to keep following what the sources say regardless. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, trying to maintain my ability to admin here, so I'm going to try to thread this needle with a simple explanation of policy. @Traumnovelle, I'm not sure how much you've worked on articles subject to WP:MEDRS, but MEDRS has extremely high sourcing requirements which this article must follow. Even a single MEDRS-level source is likely to be seen by those at that project as good enough for such a statement unless another MEDRS-level source disputes it. If you have a MEDRS-level article that disputes this assertion, you can bring it here to talk. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If 1 source makes a claim and 100 sources don't make the claim why do we use the source that is in the minority? Most sources will state things like 'relatively safe' for example instead of using superlatives and other emotionally charged language. It is source cherrypicking to use this one Lancet article whilst the majority of sources do not state that. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that that source disagrees with that point. Being in the minority means that the majority of sources are in dispute, not silent. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all how it works, or else any fringe theory is fair game. If the majority of sources state 'the sky is blue' but one states 'the sky is red' we won't write 'the sky is red'. Calling abortion 'relatively safe' is directly contradicting the idea that it is the 'safest'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Relatively safe' does not contradict 'one of the safest', so your comparison is not apt. If you want to undercut the cited source, you'll need sources in real, direct contradiction. Something like 'Abortion is not safe'. That a fact is not often reported does not equate to it being fringe. Maza, North Dakota was for many years the least populated city in the US. Most sources about the US or cities did not mention that. But nonetheless, it is true and saying so is not fringe. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you forgot to mention the fact that in some cases it may cause inability to bear or carry a child later on. perhaps there should be a page on the mental and physical consequences of abortion; since our American society seems to put the ability to do what we want above safety and humane treatment.@Effects of abortion on mental healthDarlingYeti (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its common knowledge. I'm just stating the obvious. its in the forms they hand you before you get an abortion in a clinic, I mean lets be honest. I'm not going to post it here because no matter how reliable the source, someone will take it down. its a waste of my time when you can find it on any legitimate medical site. DarlingYeti (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's common knowledge, you should be able to readily find a source and bring it here. This is an article that is subject to WP:MEDRS. We can't use "common knowledge".
@DarlingYeti, I do very strongly recommend you read that link so that you understand what MEDRS requires. This is a contentious topic, which is really a terrible place for a new editor to learn. This is not the place to be making your newbie mistakes. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply thought this was a talk space, I haven't done any edits on the article itself and was just making a suggestion. I would do it myself, but don't quite have the time. of course I'd hate to make any "newbie mistakes", next time I'll come with a source. DarlingYeti (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also be aware that this issue has been discussed before, and the consensus of editors has been that the current text is correct, and that WP:NPOV requires that we don't give a WP:FALSEBALANCE with the disinformation spread by the anti-abortion movement about safety. NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a false balance to provide non-emotional neutral language in favour of an extreme superlative used by a single journal article. I'd suggest you don't imply everyone opposing your view as anti-abortion. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarlingYeti, the contentious topics policy covers article talk pages and discussion in other spaces as well as articles themselves.
Don't worry about making newbie mistakes. Everyone does when they're newbies. The point is that it's best not to make them at contentious topics. There are 6 million articles (and their associated talk pages) where newbie mistakes get much, much more leeway, where people will be actively happy to help a new editor learn. At contentious topics, many editors won't have the time, patience, or energy to help you learn. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence/definition update
I tried to change it to: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus, but different from a C-section or labor induction because in an abortion there is no intention for the embryo or fetus to remain alive." or similar. With these changes I've heard it's not constructive or no one is confused about this. It's constructive because it helps make this Wikipedia article encyclopedic... This is not about confusion, it's about making Wikipedia encyclopedic. Our goal is not to assume that people already understand a topic. Kids could be coming to Wikipedia for the first time to understand what abortion or anything else is: if we don't make it clear and differentiate abortion from other procedures, we are failing at our encyclopedic mission. Someone who does not know what abortion is would be confused by how it was defined in the Wikipedia article before the edit I made, because based on the definition that was given a c-section would be considered an abortion. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We write articles WP:ONEDOWN, meaning a level of understanding below that at which the subject is usually studied. For articles about medical procedures, we should be writing for a college-level audience. Incidentally, both induction and c-sections have been used in abortions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be called a c-section abortion, not a c-section. Even at college level, we cannot assume that someone understands what happens in an abortion even at a basic level. It's not very well known, perhaps because of the taboo nature of the subject, which is why clear, simple language that does differentiate it from other procedures is needed. If I could get a source at the college or high school level that differentiates it, I think that would be useful in framing the language in a NPOV. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The writing should be at the level of an average college student, not one who's so out of touch with the world as to confuse "abortion" with C-section or live birth. Note that at the end of the sentence a handy reference is given to other definitions, in case the reader wants that. NightHeron (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But like I said about this topic being taboo, I wonder where the in-touch high schooler would have learned that the given definition here is not accurate? What's the source? Without a source I'm afraid there's nothing verifiable that differentiates the procedure for people. It seems to flow in this sentence "When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage"." ... that we could, after "end a pregnancy" add words like "and to terminate the embryo or fetus". So that people understand what an abortion is and differentiate from many other things that end a pregnancy. I think a lot of people here are assuming that "end a pregnancy" is a well-known euphemism for terminating a fetus, so that it differentiates from things like a normal c-section and labor induction, but to base an encyclopedia on a euphemism does not seem encyclopedic or helpful to me. I can't think of a more watched or edited article where we're basing it on a euphemism and assumption of understanding in this way. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is not a euphemism; the purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy. And the topic is not taboo; there are many discussions in the news media and elsewhere of the abortion controversy (e.g., in coverage of the US presidential election), the increasing use of abortive pills in early pregnancy, and other such matters. NightHeron (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you can end a pregnancy with c-section or induction of labor for live birth, so how are we differentiating this from that? Also, what about girls and woman who are pre-teen or teen considering an abortion? Should we make it clear to one step below them (elementary schoolers) what an abortion is? I think this article should. ... meaning in needs to clearly differentiate between and abortion and the many other ways to end a pregnancy, including natural labor and birth as well. Am I missing something? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just described a ton of problems that simply do exist and there was a famous one in the news lately. But I can only try to help so much! I highly recommend that we make the abortion article encyclopedic and not assume that people know what it is. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you're arguing that this should be written for 10-year-olds because they can be raped and impregnated and might not understand what abortion means? OMG. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, yes, you're right. I wish it weren't true, but young people need to know what abortion is not just because of rape, but also because young people have sex, and that can cause pregnancy. Also, sadly, some young people do not have parents or do not want to confide in parents when trying to learn about abortion or when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. So we need to make sure this article is understandable to those young people, particularly the beginning of the article which may be helping to define abortion for them for the first time (if even through Google's AI or a Google Snippet). U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to gain consensus for that, but first if I were you I'd go through the archives, starting with the most recent first, and look to see what consensus was formed for the current language and when. This is a WP:CTOP with 52 archives, which is unusual even at a CTOP, and administrators are quite likely to find it disruptive if editors new-to-the-topic come in to start relitigating points that have already been decided multiple times and/or recently. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I notice this in the FAQ above: 'Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.' As mentioned previously, we need to differentiate this not from a transplant, but rather from normal delivery and birth, delivery by induction, and delivery by c-section. This is not clear in the current article and I think we can make it clear without using the word "death". Scientifically something does die, on that scientists agree, but we of course would not say it's a person because that's not NPOV, but to not say "death" is perhaps in itself taking a POV. Separately but related to the personhood debate, I'm surprised that there isn't a specific morality section in this article, since there are multiple commonly held views. Not sure what it should be titled, though, to remain NPOV. Perhaps "Ethical Perspectives"? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, I doubt there is no confusion, because the CDC works hard to make it very clear. I would consider them authoritative, and I recommend we try to get our definition of abortion in line with theirs particularly in the first sentence or two: : 'a legal induced abortion is defined as "an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth."' From: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-system.html#cdc_generic_section_2-how-does-cdc-define-abortionU9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that Wikipedia align with the CDC. For one thing, that's US-centric, which right off the bat is going to probably be a nonstarter. Valereee (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how Wikipedia defines "miscarriage": "Miscarriage, also known in medical terms as a spontaneous abortion, is the death and expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive independently." Notice how they use the word death when defining it. You could say the exact same, thing: "No one is confused." But of course it is part of the definition. This isn't just the CDC, this is Wikipedia itself being extremely consistent (except in the case of the abortion article as far as I can tell) in defining things clearly and succinctly, while leaving little room for ambiguity. A definition in line with the CDC's or even Wikipedia's miscarriage article would get us to the clearness goal, I believe. If the word "death" is too non-NPOV for this article, I suggest we lean more toward the language that the CDC uses. But I stand by my logic that the definition at the top of the article, as it stands for "Abortion", is indefensibly ambiguous. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really care what other articles say; they may be incorrect and in need of work. But again, you can see if you can gain consensus for what you want. Valereee (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, here's what I'm thinking, not based on another article but mostly based on the abortion Wikipedia article. A first sentence change should be in order to avoid ambiguity with so many other procedures, but also to get in line with what I believe is a sound definition and as NPOV as this article is looking to achieve. Also avoiding the word "death". Please let me know if this is good to go: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus that does not result in a live birth." Update: see here for a source for this new language: https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-024-01745-w/tables/4 ... this language is used in many sources, but I tried to find one that was sufficiently neutral. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC) U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not good to go. You can certainly try to make that edit, but if anyone reverts, it means you need to come back here and get consensus for it. Here at this CT, that likely is going to require an RfC. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to differentiate our current definition from regular live delivery, live induction, and live c-section. hoping not to make it sound negative. Or how about: Abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy to prevent a live birth. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the literature to come up with something less ambiguous and hopefully not negative. I worked with ChatGPT to create this one: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy with the intent to end the life of the embryo or fetus." Please let me know what you think! U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One consequence of WP:V and WP:NOR is that consistency between articles is considered a poor argument here - sourcing and context on one topic may differ from sourcing and context on another, and we don't use Wikipedia as a source for itself. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency in encyclopedicness is what I'm espousing for among all articles. But that specific article in this case does make some enlightening parallels, in my opinion. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest then that the article needs some vigorous pruning in order to conform with WP:ONEDOWN. 'An induced abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy', 'Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions', 'there remains debate with regard to moral, religious, ethical, and legal issues'. 'The rate of legal, induced abortion varies extensively worldwide'. The average college student will be aware of these things. The article could be quite a bit leaner. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before publishing I noticed the current first sentences uses an embryo instead of the embryo, so I made my edit consistent with that, here it is as published: "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus." U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z, your edits to the lead sentence of this article have been reverted three times over the past three days by three different editors. Please don't edit it again without gaining consensus first. Valereee (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did what I could. I definitely think we need to change the first sentence definition so that it defines itself away from live birth c-section, live birth inductions, live birth just generally. I see people don't want to use the word life or death. That's fine, it just needs to be conveyed somehow as seen in various literature. Without an update this article fails at being encyclopedic. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit the first sentence to conform to a NPOV.
The not neutral sentence, as it is:
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that ends the life of an embryo or fetus.
The neutral sentence that good encyclopedias strive to include is:
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in its embryonic stage.
(In other words, the American "Right to Life" PAC's political platform needs some other outlet than this encyclopedia.) 116.66.195.178 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Wikipedia policy, consensus is complicated. It's more about policy arguments and discussion than it is about a pure vote, but it's also not an attempt to gain unanimity, and depending on the question and whether or not it's a policy question, the fact there's a majority in favor on one thing vs another, the fact there's a majority may be considered very important, although there are discussions that are closed in favor of a compelling minority opinion. In the end, if needed, a closer assesses the strengths of arguments and may discount those that aren't policy-based. Valereee (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In here, the discussions all rely on the number on people in favour of not changing the biased parts of this pseudoarticle. That's what I witnessed, and that is what is still happening. 91.189.141.116 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safety and gestational age
under safety and gestational age, it says that complications are rare... speaking from a educated standpoint that's wrong, and I believe that it should be replaced with a simple "complications can include... but usually only occur in blank% of abortions using this method." DarlingYeti (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
