Talk:Self-induced abortion

message: "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)
thread_title: Developed countries?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gabriela Flores case? 

message: ?? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: coat-hanger?

message: 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)
replies: text: Four+ years after the fact, but in case anyone is reading,  was published earlier that year. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical coat-hanger abortions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I disagree. The article, titled "self-induced abortion" should include the horrors of the coat hanger. 
Jim1138 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of the "Fielding" letter 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the following text from the article:
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)
thread_title:  "Clandestine abortion" section removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  wow, learning so much already. self-induced abortion it is. thanks --Obgynhistory (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Always bring evidence. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-managed v. self-induced?