Talk:Self-induced abortion

Developed countries?

"fairly common where abortion is illegal or unavailable, but it does occur in developed countries as well." This phrase seems to suggest that abortion is illegal only in undeveloped countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtanti (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

VfD

Resolved: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Self-induced abortion

Redirect

I'm creating a redirect from "coat hanger abortion", because that's a very notable term, I've heard it discussed at length and Google hits confirm it, so anyone who comes searching for "coat hanger abortion" would greatly benefit from this redirect. My only regret about this article was that I didn't get an opportunity to vote Keep on it. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

• Thanks - good redirect! -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Gabriela Flores case?

Does anyone know what happened to the Gabriela Flores case? All sources on the web seem to be rehashings: she spent 4 months in jail and could face 2 more years in prison. By now it should be clear whether she was indeed convicted. AxelBoldt 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been able to find nothing new. this article says that she was released on her own recognizance, and that there were five similar cases in the state from 2000 to 2004. bd2412 T 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

coat-hanger?

?? srlsy LOL, i'm still laughing x]. i hope girls who are thinking of abortion (in any country) don't get ideas from this article150.140.227.137 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hope people contemplating murder don't get ideas from reading the article on murder, but that doesn't mean we fail to disclose the information. bd2412 T 03:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

not a good analogy, considering murder needs motives (psychopathy, hate, jealousy etc) but in these girls I'm referring to they already have. the murder article doesn't report alternative ways of committing murder plus the ways of killing someone are pretty much known. (ways of getting away with it is another more complicated section of it though)150.140.227.137 (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-induced abortion is a well-reported scientific fact, and so it is reported here. Perhaps a better analogy is the heroin article, which describes the various ways the drug is taken. bd2412 T 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical coat-hanger abortions

I just read a rather startling thing while doing some partisan research for an abortion debate I'm having with a friend. This is from a highly POV source, so here goes:

But what about coat hanger abortions?

Your authors have lectured nationwide on abortion on an average of one city a week for almost three decades. We frequently ask the audience to provide documented proof of a self-induced coat hanger abortion. In all this time no one has given us a single case. It may well be — there never were any coat hanger abortions. source

Now. This is anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence says nothing useful for WP. But our article claims that "the historical use of this method [speaking of coat-hanger abortions] has led to the use of coathangers as a symbol of the abortion rights movement," so I really feel that we should make certain that coat-hangers were actually at some point by someone getting an abortion. I did a (very) quick Google and came up blank; can anyone do me a favor, find a documented example of a coat-hanger abortion, add the citation to the article, and prove these AbortionFacts people wrong? Much obliged. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Four+ years after the fact, but in case anyone is reading, [1] was published earlier that year. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

New source

Ada Calhoun, An Idaho woman could change the course of American abortion law, The New Republic (December 21, 2012). On self-induced abortion these days. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm not sure if this would be considered relevant to this article but here's another recent bit of news: Jane Sutton, "Florida man admits he tricked girlfriend into taking abortion drug" Reuters (September 10, 2013).

Deletion of the "Fielding" letter

This Wikipedia article is about self-induced abortion and should therefore focus on safe and medically effective methods - while reviewing numerous unsafe and ineffective practices. The Fielding letter, which I deleted, is both extremely dated in that regard, and digresses from the article's intent. My updates include new scientific information and research, new and updated sources, and advances in medicine. /Lakshmi Singh LPSingh (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The article, titled "self-induced abortion" should include the horrors of the coat hanger.

Jim1138 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@LPSingh: You need to discuss your intent to remove large amounts of content. Please get wp:consensus before removing. Jim1138 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We do agree! Women must know that sharp-object and bleach abortions will kill them, and this is the place to be sure to impart this knowledge. /Lakshmi Singh

LPSingh (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Who's the "we" ? Do you claim to speak on behalf of all women, or aborted women, or self induced abortees etc.. ? Wikipedia has policies. Please study them before removing large chunks of referenced materials which you disagree with. Wikipedia operates through consensus, and you don't have it. I'm reverting back to an earlier stable version (apologies to Jim1138) so we can discuss this properly. MalluMalleus (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Self-induced Abortion and the horrors of failed attempts at self-induction

I believe that the heading of this article page, "Self-induced Abortion" should primarily focus on just that: how women can self-induce, without the potential and risk that women have been facing for countless millennia. But I see @Jim1138's point about the mentions of those methods that have resulted in failure or worse. I'll submit a draft that organizes and itemizes these medically unsafe and ineffective methods, including the history of some (if/where/when appropriate), but has the primary focus of updating and strengthening this article's focus on Self-induced Abortion, as well as providing the latest medical information. Thanks for your input. /Lakshmi Singh LPSingh (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your approach may turn out to be a waste of time and also criminal incitement in many jurisdictions where self induced abortions are illegal. If you don't get why the Fielding letter is important for retention in this article, you ought not to be editing in this area. MalluMalleus (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no potential criminal liability for providing accurately sourced information describing how other people have engaged in a medical act, just as there is no threat of an indictment for practicing medicine without a license for including such information in the article Appendectomy. bd2412 T 17:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the request for comments at WT:MED. I believe that an article that primarily focuses on methods is going to be incomplete and unencyclopedic. In addition to "how", there should be substantial information on "who" (e.g., mostly poor women), "where" (e.g., is it a rural phenomenon?), "when" (e.g., is it less common now than in previous centuries?), and "why" (e.g., what alternatives are realistically available?). Outcomes are also important: "You can stick a knitting needle up there" should always be followed by "but you might bleed to death afterwards". There should be a link to septic abortion, and the history section should note that when legal access to abortion became available, that the number of septic "miscarriages" dropped.

Also, speaking of "miscarriages", that word is significantly overused in this article at the moment. These methods to not ever produce miscarriages. They may produce "the death of the embryo/fetus/baby", and they may "end" or "terminate" the pregnancy, but the term miscarriage is reserved for unintentional pregnancy losses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Self-induced abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217025152/http://big.berkeley.edu/ifplp.history.pdf to http://big.berkeley.edu/ifplp.history.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Clandestine abortion" section removed

I have removed the following text from the article:

Clandestine abortion

Specifically, clandestine abortion is that which is usually practiced out in countries were is penalized or illegal. The purpose is to hide its realization as well as the identity of the woman in order to avoid the penalties that may be imposed by the authorities. Clandestine abortion can be performed in the country where it is illegal or in others where its practice is legal or less punishable (abortive tourism). Clandestine abortion, when carried out in countries where it is illegal, is usually practiced in conditions of sanitary or legal insecurity; when it is carried out in other countries it can be carried out in conditions of sanitary and legal security.

The clandestine abortion not only causes the death of the fetus, but also causes serious organic injuries to the woman that often leaves her disabled to procreate in the future, and in other cases causes her death.

I have removed this for two reasons, first because it is unsourced, and second because it does not seem to be specific to abortions that are self-induced. bd2412 T 02:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Methods

I rewrote the methods section to delete details of dangerous methods and anecdotal stories from doctors, instead replacing it with the World Health Organization protocols and a review of the current literature on self-induced abortion methods globally. DataNerdMPH (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of sourced content. If you want to add content to the article, that's fine, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We do not hide the fact that people use dangerous methods merely because they are dangerous. bd2412 T 19:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: It looks like in restoring sourced content you actually removed far more sourced content than you restored. Could you elaborate on what was wrong with the other material, or can DataNerdMPH presume that there was no problem with the material added and focus discussion only on what they had originally removed? DataNerdMPH identified some problems with the material, both in factual content and in connection with MEDRS (it looks like you've restored primary research, for example), which is unrelated to NOTCENSORED. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see discussion is ongoing at User_talk:DataNerdMPH#Self-induced_abortion -- it may be good to migrate that here FWIW. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I merely returned the page to the status quo ante, which is appropriate when there is a content dispute. It is unfortunate when an editor deletes sourced content in order to replace it with other sourced content, because the reversion to the status quo necessitates the deletion of the new content, but that is the nature of content disputes. MEDRS, of course, does not apply to disclosing factual historical beliefs in the effectiveness of methods, and it is frankly absurd to delete, for example, all references to coathangers, where these are themselves a symbol of the legal abortion movement. With respect to censorship, the removing editor said himself above that he rewrote the section "to delete details of dangerous methods", which appears to be intended to hide the fact that dangerous methods were used. bd2412 T 21:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412:, you read malice in my edits where there is none. Instead, just a newer editor's mistakes. I don't want to censor the content at all, but instead to update it based on the most recent and rigorous science. I agree that it would be historically inaccurate not to include dangerous methods, and as I've mentioned, I think those details belong in the history section. The most common self-induced abortion methods in 2019 are abortion pills. Of course, more "dangerous" methods are still used today, which is why I mention methods like "injury to the uterus" and "physical harm to the body" in my edits. I agree that it would be inaccurate to leave these out, but I do not think it is accurate to detail methods from one specific country (India, per previous content) and call it accurate or thorough. Per the comment you have on my page, yes, we have lots of global evidence that the most common documented self-induced abortion methods are abortion pills, and also that women continue to use other methods (such as herbs, mixtures, alcohol, inflicting violence on themselves) when pills aren't available or known about. DataNerdMPH (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that sharp objects, abdominal blows, douches, and other methods are no longer being used at all? It is hardly the case that everyone in the world has access to abortion pills. As for the appearance of malice, your edits were followed by your accidental deletion of my talk page comment, which did lend to an unfortunate appearance of misbehavior. bd2412 T 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412:, I'm not suggesting that at all. Of course those methods are still used, just not as frequently as in past decades. At least that's what the science documents. A recent scoping review (here) reviewed self-induced (they refer to it as "self-managed") abortion studies over the last 30+ years and found that abortion pills are most common method used. Other methods they cite include herbs, physical trauma of all kinds (like those you name), actions like jumping from a high place or excessive exercise, etc. This review specifically says that before 2000, 14 includes studies reported on the use of plants/herbs, physical trauma, intrauterine trauma, and alcohol use, and only two studies mentioned misoprostol. Out of a total of 93 included studies that were published during or after the year 2000, the majority documented use of misoprostol alone or mifepristone/misoprostol in combination, followed up plants and herbs as the next most common. DataNerdMPH (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say, then, that it is inaccurate to describe methods still in use as merely historical. bd2412 T 21:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I start the sentence in the methods section with: "The most commonly recorded are ingestion of plants or herbs, ingesting toxic substances, causing trauma to the uterus, causing physical trauma to the body..." DataNerdMPH (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is so important to distinguish between approved regimens to self-induce or self-manage an abortion (misoprostol/mifepristone) and unsafe, unapproved methods in this section. I was thinking of adding a sentence after "Self-induced abortion methods vary around the world" along the lines of: There are approved methods including induction of abortion with medication, described below, as well as unapproved and unsafe methods which can be broadly categorized as either consuming toxic substances, putting substances into the vagina and/or uterus, and traumatizing the cervix and/or uterus with instruments or foreign bodies (e.g. stick, hanger). Then the methods section could have a sub-section for "Approved Regimens for self-managed abortion" containing most of the info already there and another for. "Unsafe self-managed abortion" focusing on management of unsafe abortion complications, as there is literature on that. This distinction between the two types of self managed abortion is so important. Thanks for your thoughts. --Obgynhistory (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Approved by whom? Where the practice is illegal, all methods are unapproved. BD2412 T 01:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of distinguishing between methods. Rather than assigning value to them (such as "approved', under the "Methods attempted" section, I was thinking of one subheading of "Mifepristone and/or misoprostol" and another of "Physical trauma, herbs, and other substances". This differentiates the types currently in use, whether they be legal or not. --Cervix service (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

self-managed v. self-induced?

Hi all, new to wikipedia and this page - hoping to help update this article, as this topic is being searched more and more. In the current literature and conversations, it's more often referred to as a self-managed abortion. What do others think about including that term throughout the article and/or actually changing the title? I realize that may be quite bold for a new wikipedia editor but want to keep this article relevant. Thanks for your thoughts. --Obgynhistory (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ngrams show no hits for "self-managed abortion", and a Google search returns about three times as many hits for "self-induced abortion" as for "self-managed abortion". Google Scholar returns about nine times as many hits for "self-induced abortion" as for "self-managed abortion". BD2412 T 01:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

wow, learning so much already. self-induced abortion it is. thanks --Obgynhistory (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Always bring evidence. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reduction of diyya

"As a result, a diyya of approximately 1000 dinar is issued for the abortion of male fetuses and dinar for female ones, though the diyya is lowered to 60 dinar." This seems strange. Under what circumstances lowered, and why? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8D7A:EB85:4078:96DB (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Came here because of the same sentence. The sentence seems to be missing some crucial information. For one, the number of dinar for abortion of female fetuses. For the other, through which act the diyya was lowered and for what reason and under which circumstances this change is valid. The linked source from 2017 says (according to Google Translate):

• Q: "How much is the dowry for a two-and-a-half-month-old fetus, if it is intentionally aborted, and who is responsible for paying it?"
• A: "If it is Alaqah, it is 40 dinars, if it is a bone, it is 60 dinars, and if it is a bone without meat, it is 80 dinars, and it is paid to the heir of the fetus according to the inheritance classes. But the heir who was in charge of the abortion does not have a share of it."

Google Translate is not doing a good job here.

This Harvard source says that this might be rather about miscarriages than abortions. However, as far as I know, in medical language, the term "abortion" includes both, medically/externally induced abortions and "natural" abortions, i.e. miscarriages. But the text here doesn't speak of "abortions" but (the more narrow concept?) of miscarriage. Does that mean, the reduced rate is for "natural" abortion, i.e. miscarriage, only, and depends on stage of development of the fetus? The text from the link:

Book Four: Compensation (diye)
Section Twelve: Compensation (diye) for miscarriage
Article 487. Compensation (diye) for miscarriage is according to the classification below:
1) compensation (diye) for semen which was established in the uterus: 20 dinars;
2) compensation (diye) for an embryo which is coagulated blood: 40 dinars;
3) compensation for a foetus which has attained the shape of flesh: 60 dinars;
4) compensation (diye) for an embryo at a phase when it has attained the shape of bone but the flesh has not yet grown: 80 dinars;
5) compensation for an embryo in which the connected flesh and bones are complete but life is not yet present: 100 dinars;
Note: In the above stages there is no difference between a male and a female child.
6) Compensation (diye) for a miscarried infant in which life is present. If it is a male, full compensation (diye) is paid, and if it is a female half of full compensation (diye); if its sex is indeterminate, three-quarters of full compensation (diye) is to be paid.
Article 488. If the foetus dies or is aborted as a result of the death of the mother, the compensation (diye) for a foetus at whatever stage of development it may be is increased by the compensation (diye) for the mother.
Article 489. If a woman aborts her own child, the compensation (diye) for it at whatever stage of development it may be is to be paid; but she herself shall not receive any part of the compensation (diye).

Based on this, I at least can add the info on the fee for female fetuses. But for the rest, it's not clear whether this is about abortions or miscarriages only. And it is not clear, why the Wiki article mentions the 60 dinar, but not all the other reductions and the conditions of the reduction. Nakonana (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)