Talk:Abortion law/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I have removed the text on Russia from the history section. It made a huge part of that section, and it's not clear why there was so much WP:UNDUE given to one single country. Some of it was speculative ("Abortion has remained legal on demand with these restrictions in Russia up to the present day, although that may change." - if/when this happens, it will be addressed), other was somewhat misleading (the 2011 law is not that different from the previous one). This article is a general overview of abortion laws and policies, for more details there is Abortion in Russia, and similar articles by country. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4234 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit concerning the addition of subject information caught my eye. I had to look up the word vicinal. The dictionary I looked at defined that word as

adjective RARE

neighboring; adjacent.

CHEMISTRY

relating to or denoting substituents attached to adjacent atoms in a ring or chain.

The edit was the initial edit by Mister Butterbur. I have reverted the edit as it does not appear to bear very directly on the topic of this article. The content of the edit might fit better in one of the sections of the Abortion article, or into some other article in Category:Abortion or one of the subcategories there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

~~I was called away while writing this. I'll get it written in the next hour or so. Apologies for the delay. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~~

This is a WP:BRD discussion re my revert of edit 937080006 to this article. It took me a couple of edits to do the reversion because I somehow missed seeing the edit summary before making my first edit. That edit summary read: Specification. E.g. in Germany, de jure, abortions are illegal but not subject to prosecution within the first 12 weeks. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1957/, and the reverted edit would have changed the colorbox label to read: "Legal on request or not subject to prosecution within specific time limits".

~~I note that the source cited in the edit summary is the German criminal code, but Germany is not colored in the image with the colorbox color impacted by the reverted edit.~~ I got that wrong by being in too much of a hurry.

As I understand Section 218(1) in the source cited in the edit summary, terminations of pregnancy prior to nidation (embryo implantation) are not considered to be acts of abortion.

Paragraph 3 of section 218a(1) mentions a specific time period of 12 weeks but, as I understand that section, if that time limit comes into effect the termination is not considered to be an act of abortion (as opposed to being considered an act of abortion which is not subject to prosecution).

I'm not a lawyer, and it is possible that I misunderstand the source. If my understanding is correct, though, it seems that my revert ought to stand and, perhaps, abortion law in Germany ought to be clarified elsewhere in the article and/or in the in the Abortion in Germany article. Please discuss further here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After a night's sleep, I took another look at the situation re Germany. The table and the map image say that abortion is legal on request in Germany, which agrees with the 2013 source generally supporting table entries. There is a clarification in the History section which says that in Germany most abortions are deemed legal in the first trimester. The Abortion in Germany article and the source cited re the edit I reverted generally agree with that. It looks to me as if the article is OK in this regard except that it could possibly use a note to clarify the table entry for Germany. If such a note is added, it probably ought to wikilink to the Abortion in Germany article for more detail and cite the source mentioned above in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no specific mention of rape or incest in the UK's Abortion Act 1967. Nevertheless an abortion will always be permitted to preserve the mental health of the pregnant woman if she became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Therefore I see no reason for the table at Abortion_law#National_laws to suggest abortion is not permissible for rape or incest, and I move that Great Britain be changed to category 7E, to match the map. Jdee4 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstoff, the topic of this article is Abortion law. There is some info about specific real-world situations, but the thrust is about what is provided re abortion by law in various countries.

Secondly, re the relationship between article prose and images, that's not the way it works. Per WP policy on verifiability, article content needs to be verifiable in reliable sources, cited as needed (that's a rough characterization). That policy is followed pretty well in article prose such as that table entry here, but isn't followed very well at all when it comes to images -- particularly when it comes to images which are created and maintained by Wikipedia editors (such as this map image). Some image pages have References sections on the image page where supporting sources are cited, but this one does not. Image pages, like articles, have discussion pages. However, discussion pages for images tend not to be followed very closely by editors. Changes to images often grow out of discussions on article talk pages. This particular map has been revised and updated several times and is used in a number of articles on several wikis, but there is no formal process for correcting problems with it and keeping it in sync with real world developments. That situation is addressed in this article by a disclaimer in the image caption which says, " In some cases, this map may not accurately depict the content of this article."

Are there any WP image editors reading this who can help address this issue? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is a discrepancy between the prose and image, but in this case I believe the map is correct. There is no specific mention of rape or incest in UK abortion law, not because it is forbidden, but because that circumstance is covered by existing legislation. On a similar note, where in UK abortion law are "socioeconomic factors" mentioned? Jdee4 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. That is an essay, not a statement of policy, but it makes a good point when it says: "The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."

This is the source cited in support of the table entry for Great Britain. That table entry used to read United Kingdom. That was changed here, and the geolocation for Great Britain was changed back to Northern Europe here. Yes, that source is dated 2013. If there is a later, better and/or more reliable source to be found, perhaps that needs to be changed and the table redone. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(added) You say above, "There is no specific mention of rape or incest in UK abortion law, not because it is forbidden, but because that circumstance is covered by existing legislation." I don't follow that. If specific legislation exists which contradicts or updates info in the cited 2013 source, the info in the table can be changed and that change supported by citing that legislation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As I've already explained, there will never be specific legislation mentioning abortion for rape/incest in GB because abortion is already permissible if the pregnant woman seeks an abortion on the grounds that having a baby in such circumstances will affect her mental health. Despite what the wiki table and the UN document indicate, abortion is in no way forbidden for rape/incest in GB and no victim of rape/incest has ever been denied an abortion since 1967. Jdee4 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And the article asserts that the UN document indicates what it indicates (including a cite-supported variation re Northern Ireland), supported by a cite of the UN document. It treats that document as a verifiable relaible source. If you believe that your explanation ought to trump that, argue that at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, not here. Alternatively, if strong sources disagree with the view presented by the UN table and support the view you espouse here, cite those sources here and make an argument based on WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC) (added) See Revised text of s 1 of the Abortion Act 1967. Legislation.gov.uk. (as of 09 February 2020) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC) (added) And the table does indicate that abortion to preserve a woman's mental health is permissible in Great Britain. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Abortions in the case of rape/incest are always granted under (1)(b) of s 1 of the Abortion Act 1967. I cannot give you any references to back up what I say since there has never been any question that 1(1)(b) is inapplicable in relation to abortions sought as a cause of rape/incest, so no-one has ever bothered to discuss it. Jdee4 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Abortion justified by rape and incest is not covered by that section. Abortion "if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith [...] that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnanc were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". In other words, the legal reason for termination of pregnancy in this situation is risk to mental health, not the factor causing the risk to mental health. If you believe otherwise, supply a verifiable reliable source supporting that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The only three cases allowed to abortion in Brazil are:

1. Rape 2. Risk for the mother life. 3. anencephalic fetus Any other case is crime. Source: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/periodicos/ccs_artigos/legislacao_aborto.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.185.114 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@186.204.185.114: If you believe that the map image is wrong, discuss it at commons:File:Abortion Laws.svg. --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no explanation for the "category code" column in the chart. Why is it included in this chart. If it's a useful and important fact to include then there should be a legend or other explanation of what the otherwise opaque descriptions like "category 7c" means. There are many other columns that have not been reproduced in the transposition of this chart to the Wikipedia version, and many of them have more useful and easy-to-understand data that general readers might find useful. As is no one can find the information contained in column 1 useful.

Seeing as the chart is "by region/country" it would make more sense to move the 9th and 10th columns that contains the region/country information to columns 1 and 2, where people would expect to find that data.

I'm not sure why "regions" is sortable and given precedence. It does keep the chart smaller, but assuming one is looking for a particular country, like Poland, it's not as easy as a unique country column would be. (Who decides that Poland is in "Eastern Europe"? Most Poles consider themselves part of Western Europe (Roman Catholic, not Orthodox). I supposed people in Africa may have similar views about the categories here too.

The editors have changed the more useful way this was shown in the original, which maintained individual rows per country, while still grouping them in these "regions".

The article would also benefit by a chart which showed at what week abortions are permitted in various nations. Previous versions of this article had this information in them, but it has been removed. I'm not sure why, but this is a topic of interest to many people, and it should be re-included in the article.

ZeroXero (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm the editor who created the table in its present format (in this October 6, 2016 edit -- and see the #Revised table section on this talk page). I'm not asserting ownership, but I can give some input on formatting choices made.

The "category code" column looks cryptic, but it is useful in maintaining the table. If you sort by that column, the individual "category" columns to the right of that column will (or should) have matching content and colors; if they don't, something is wrong and needs to be fixed. That "category code" column contains the representation those individual "category" columns taken together as a hexidecimal value. If someone changes one of those "category" columns in a particular row from a yes to a no or vice-versa (that usually happens on rows which represent just one single country), some table housekeeping is needed. Usually, a source supporting the change needs to be cited and a note needs to be added explaining why the content there differs from the general source supporting the content of the table as a whole (see ), and the content of the "category code" cell on that row needs to ba changed to reflect the change made in one "category" cell. Perhaps "category code" is not a good name for that column, but it's the best I could come up with.

Your second point re the order of the table columns is a stylistic issue and I have no strong opinion one way or another. Your third point re "regions" and who decides them relates to that source I mentioned and linked in an earlier sentence -- a 2013 table from the U.N. which supports the table as a whole.

The reason that a source as old as 2013 is used as a general supporting source for the table is that this is the latest and most authoritative source which has appeared and which an editor has gone to the effort of building an article around. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Re your point about adding info about the latest week abortions are permitted in individual countries, I'm guessing that this information may not be unambiguously determinable or well supported for many countries. Where available, it ought to be covered in the Abortion in ... article for particular countries. That article, if it exists, should be wikilinked from the mention of individual countries in this article. If it is useful to collect that information here (and to maintain it so that it stays in sync with the information in those individual Abortion in ... articles) my initial reaction is that this would be better done by adding a separate table to this article for this information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

New legislation has been signed into law in NZ that fully legalises abortion^[1]. Both the table and the SVG image need to be edited accordingly. Gorillainacoupe (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_89814/abortion-legislation-bill

By way of introduction, I'm the editor who created the table in (more or less) its present form. The category columns in the table originally agreed with the category columns in the source cited in support of the table (), and I think that they still do. The supporting source is from 2013. changes to the law in various countries since 2013 reflected in edits to the table have caused some disconnects between that source and the table; those disconnects are (or should be) supported by specific cites of more recent supporting sources and, where necessary, are (or should be) clarified in notes to the table. I don't think any of those changes have required changing the makeup of the category columns.

I didn't do the map, but I believe that the map colors were originally intended to correspond with the category columns in the table. That correspondence is no longer there, and I think that is a problem. I may or may not have had some input into causing this lack of correspondence -- I haven't analysed the article history closely enough to figure that out. In any case, I think that this lack of correspondence is presently a problem.

The current situation, as I interpret the correspondence (this is still being worked on), is:

More information Table Code & Categories, Map ...

Correspondence, v 2.6 14:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Table Code & Categories	Map	Map caption
Mentioned in the article table
00 wl ph mh ri fi es or Holy See, Malta, Dominican Republicm El Salvador, Nicaragua	Prohibited in any circumstances	Illegal with no exceptions
40 wl ph mh ri fi es or Djibouti, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe, Egypt, Libya, Lesotho, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Brunei Darussalam, East Timor, Myanmar, Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Andorra, San Marino, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Suriname, Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Palau, Tonga, Tuvalu	Prohibited with exceptions for maternal life	Restricted to cases of maternal life
44 wl ph mh ri fi es or Oman, Palestinian territories
48 wl ph mh ri fi es or Brazil
4C wl ph mh ri fi es or Sudan, Indonesia, Monaco, Panama, Chile
60 wl ph mh ri fi es or Bhutan
68 wl ph mh ri fi es or Argentina
6A wl ph mh ri fi es or Japan
6C wl ph mh ri fi es or Zimbabwe, Togo
70 wl ph mh ri fi es or	Prohibited with exceptions for maternal life and health (mental and physical).	Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health and/or physical health
74 wl ph mh ri fi es or	Prohibited with exceptions for maternal life and health (mental and physical), and fetal defects.	Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, physical health and/or fetal defects
76 wl ph mh ri fi es or
78 wl ph mh ri fi es or
7C wl ph mh ri fi es or Eritria, Ethiopia, Seychelles, Angola, Chad, Morocco, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Sputh Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Israel, Poland, Bahamas, Poland, Fiji
7E wl ph mh ri fi es or India, Finland, Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
7F wl ph mh ri fi es or Mozambique, Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde, China, North Korea, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Turkey, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Cuba, Mexico, Guyana, Uruguay, Canada, United States, Australia (Varies state by state), New Zealand	Allowed on request	Legal on request
Not mentioned in the article table
7Cx wl ph mh ri fi es or except incest	Prohibited with exceptions for maternal life and health, rape, and fetal defects. Incest is not mentioned	Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, physical health, rape and/or fetal defects
78x wl ph mh ri fi es or except incest	Prohibited with exceptions for maternal life and health, and rape Incest is not mentioned	Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health and/or physical health and/or rape
7Ex wl ph mh ri fi es or except incest	Allowed for maternal life and health, rape, fetal defects, and socioeconomic factors.	Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, physical health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors
	No information	No information

Close

That is for the English language map legend; other languages seem to no longer correspond as closely
If it emerges that I've made errors in the table above, I'll be happy to try to fix them (I've fixed a couple and version-numbered the table).
If it emerges that the table in the article needs changes, I'll be happy to (well..., if nobody else wants to undertake it, I will) try to update that table per consensus.

click the box at the right to show/hide the map

Aside from that, there's another matter which I see as a problem -- that is depiction of subnational entities on the map. Currently, subnational entities are depicted in Australia but not elsewhere (notably not in the United States, which would probably be complicated). I think that subnational entities ought not to be depicted on the map and, where applicable, it should be explained in a note that such differences are covered in the relevant Abortion in ... article.

I propose that the map and the map caption be brought into strict correspondence with the table. I don't support the map, so I'm proposing that someone else do the work involved after the details are resolved in discussion here. If it emerges that changes in the column makeup of the table are needed, I'll be interested in participating in discussion of that.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No discussion so far -- probably because the table above (now at version 0.3) is confused. I'm thinking out loud here, and I hope that other editors will excuse me doing that in public for a little while.

What I think I'll do is a major revision of the table above with the revised table having Category code and corresponding categories from the article table in the Table column here and with the version number jumped to 2.0. I haven't done that yet above but I expect to do it in the next day or so. When I get that done, the disconnects between the columns should be clearer. If that description is not clear, give me a day or so to get to that and it'll (hopefully) become clear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the table above to v2.0, and this should make my intent clear. The Table column there shows to the categorization in the article table (only those which presently do appear in the article table are shown); the other two columns show the categorization in the map and its caption. v2.0 shows complete disconnects between the table and the map categorizations, and this needs to be updated by moving map categorizations which match table categorizations up to the matching table row; I plan to do this according to my imterpretation as to what the matches are in versions 2.x of the table above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the table above to version 2.0, showing disconnects between the article table and the map&caption as I see them; This involved some minor changes in the textual descriptions for map and caption categories. I ended up with more disconnects than I expected and an indication that the article table needs an additional category column to separate rape from incest (presuming that the map indications of this separation are verifiably supportable).

I want to emphasize here that, as I see it, the assertions in the article table are supported in accordance with WP:V (or should be), and the assertions made by the map cite no support (Wikipedia provides no generally recognized mechanism for citing support for assertions made by inclusion of images in articles, but that needs a separate discussion). As I see it, in order to be verifiably supported, assertions made in the map would need to precisely mirror verifiably supported assertions made in the table.

insert wtm 10:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) I noticed that category codes 40, 70, and 78 were indicated in the table above as not mentioned in the article table but they are mentioned there, so I moved them and updated the table version to v2.1. That leaves only category code 5e in the table above as not mentioned in the article table. There are some categories which are listed in the article table which are not listed in the table above. I'll be adding them there soon.

insert wtm 11:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC) I've redone the categories with rape separated from incest as 78x and 7Cx and not mentioned in the current article table, indicated that categories 78 and 7C without that separation are mentioned, and updated the table version to v2.2.

insert wtm 11:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC) I've added categories 4C, 74, and 76, which are mentioned in the article table, to the table above and updated the table version to 2.3

insert wtm 11:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) On re-examination, reclassified the category marked with green on the map as 7Ex instead of 5E and updated the table version to v2.4.

insert wtm 11:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Saw that the category marked purple had had its descriptions copied incorrectly from the map and captions. Fixed this, reclassified that category from 7Cx to 74, and updated the table version to 2.5

insert wtm 14:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Restored category 7Cx marked with yellow, which got lost in the last update; updated table version to v2.6.

insert wtm 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Edited table cell for map caption marked with brown to add "and/or rape" -- previously omitted. That ought to be the end of these inserted corrections.

I'm requesting other editors to look over the table above and join in a discussion to identify what needs to be done to eliminate the disconnects identified in the table above. That, of course, includes pointing out any errors I've made in the table above so that I can fix them. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of rape and incest

The table above shows differences in the map captions re rape and incest. I did a quick review of the article content, and all mentions of either rape or incest there seemed coupled with the other.

I'm not sure where this separation in categorization on the map came from. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've updated the table above to add country names from the table in the article. This involved the addition of several rows in the table here. I think I got this right, but I've amply demonstrated above that I'm not good at transcription and even worse at proofreading. If anyone points out errors or makes comments and I see this article on my watchlist, I'll look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

[1]
This map has been updated a number of times. For past versions and information regarding revisions, see the file history here.

Are you all sure that Israel and Palestine should be the same color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit caught my eye. The change was unsupported, so I searched the article for mentions of Great Britain, looking for a cited source. I was surprised to come up empty. Next, I looked at this -- the supporting source for the overall table, and found no mention of Great Britain there either. Next, I looked for the introduction of Great Britain into this article. That appears to have been in this unsupported 2008 edit.

Next, I searched the article for United Kingdom. I found some mentions in the text, but no mention in the body. Looking back at the the supporting source for the overall table (here, for ease of reference), I saw an entry there. I inserted a corresponding entry into the table in the article, replacing the Great Britain entry I had removed.

There are a couple of source-supported mentions of United Kingdom in the body of the article which may or may not impact the details and category code of this table entry. Please update it as needed, citing applicable supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "unsupported"? I gave a link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1 . Also "United Kingdom" is incorrect due to https://www.amnesty.org.uk/abortion-rights-northern-ireland-timeline Jdee4 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I see that link in your edit summary. Pease refresh your understanding of WP:V. Looking at that source, I see that the source is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/, so I presume that it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, not just to Great Britain. It is a primary source, and I have not attempted to interpret it (in passing, I admit that I am, or ought to be, known as being fairly notorious for citing primary sources myself). Whatever changes this implies in the table would be better supported by an interpretation by a reliable secondary source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the legislation is hard to understand. The UN secondary source cites "social and economic" factors as a valid reason for abortion but the primary source does not support this assertion. The edits I made to the table accurately reflect the legislation I cited. As for "United Kingdom" please visit this link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1?view=extent , "E+W+S" means it applies to England, Wales and Scotland but not Northern Ireland, which I cited in my Amnesty link. England, Wales and Scotland are collectively known as Great Britain. Jdee4 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: your edits are becoming abusive. I have already proven to you that the law in Northern Ireland differs from that in Great Britain. Are you aware what constitutes the United Kingdom or not? Jdee4 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Here, I have reverted your undoing of my change described above. Please read the edit summary of that edit. Please do not WP:edit war.

Since the UK is treated as an entity by the source supporting the table, I think that it either needs to be listed in the table or its absence needs to be explained in a note. My reversion of your change restores the UK to the table. Perhaps Great Britain (GB) is sufficiently notable on its own and relevant legalitieand/s there differ sufficiently from the rest of the UK that it should be treated similarly to sub-national entities of e.g., the U.S. and Australia, where the variation is noted in the table or in a footnote and the details are expounded upon in the article body and/or in a footnote. In any case, please re-read WP:V and note that it says in the second paragraph about inline citations; mentioning a source in an edit summary does not get the job of supporting an edit done. See examples in the article wikitext and/or see Help:Footnotes for more on that.

----

I see that while I was writing the above you have undone the reversion I described above. I could WP:block your editing privileges for WP:edit warring, but doing that while I am involved in a content discussion about this with you would not be proper. I will not edit war over this, and have instead placed a notice in the impacted table row that this is under discussion here. Please read or re-read WP:V, paying particular attention to the mention of inline citation in the second paragraph; see examples in the article wikitext and/or read help:footnotes. Please discuss this below in regard to the issues I have raised here rather than in regard to the details of abortion law in Great Britain. I encourage other editors to join this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have provided ample evidence of the situation in Northern Ireland which you have apparently chosen to ignore. Your reverts are either abusive, or you do not understand that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The UN information from 2013 is clearly out of date in this respect yet you refuse to accept that this has changed, despite my proof to you. Jdee4 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful here to get bogged down in discussing the details of differences in abortion law between sub-national units of the UK on this talk page of an article which addresses a wider topic. Those differences are better left in summary-style to the Abortion in the United Kingdom detail article.

There is a more general issue with this article related to this, though, which I believe does need discussion. That issue is how this article handles situations where there are differences in abortion law between sub-national entities. I am no expert on this but, as far as I know, there are four such situations here, and they are handled in four different ways in the article table. Those are:

United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; see Abortion in the United Kingdom). The table currently does not mention the UK, but lumps three of the four sub-national units together, naming them in a way which distinguishes them geographically but not governmentally from the fourth; the detail article is not mentioned.
United States of America (50 states; see Abortion in the United States). The table provides a footnote with the information that laws vary state by state and links the detail article.
Australia (seven states, the table provides inline information saying that laws vary by state and an inline link to the detail article.
Denmark (Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland; see Abortion in Denmark)). The table does not note the existence of differences or provide a way to link to the detail article which contains information about them.

I suggest that this be regularized, and I solicit input from other editors suggesting how this regularization should be done. My own preference would be via footnotes to the table as is currently done for the United States. Discussion? Disagreements? Comments? Is anyone interested? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sub-nations, they are nations. In football tournaments they compete separately. Therefore there is a greater justification to categorise these nations separately than, for instance, states in USA or Australia. Jdee4 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The details of that are pretty far off topic for this article, I think. In particular, I don't know about football tournaments but the United Kingdom article says that the UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, three of which have devolved governments with power delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing that devolution. You yourself cited this from legislation.gov.uk earlier in this discussion. According to the Abortion in the United Kingdom article, abortion policy is devolved in UK law in Scotland and Northern Ireland but not in Wales, but I think that is too much detail to get into in the table here and is probably too much detail to get into in this article at all. The designation you seem to want to use here, Great Britain, as I understand it, refers to an island in the North Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe in which three of the four sub-national components of the UK are located. That island, as I understand it, has no government and no abortion laws. I think that that island having no abortion laws argues against its name being used as a designation for an entity for which details abortion laws are summarized in a row of the Legal grounds on which abortion is permitted table in this article on Abortion law. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The four nations of the UK are countries in their own right with their own law making ability (including abortion). For brevity, we in the UK often refer to England, Scotland and Wales as "Great Britain", which appears suitable in this case where the laws in those countries are the same. If you prefer, and believe the term "Great Britain" causes confusion to non-British readers, we can specify those countries separately in the table, especially as it is likely the four nations will decriminalise abortion at different points in time in the future (as has already happened in Northern Ireland). Jdee4 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not argue country vs. sub-national unit/entity vs. sovereign state here. I got my info about the UK and its subcomponents from the United Kingdom article; if you think that article needs work, please take it up on the talk page there. I think that we are close enough to agreement here to get back to the problem of sub-national entities being handled in four different ways in the article table. Your suggestion that all four subnational entities of the UK be handled as separate designations in the table (with, hopefully, a note in the table explaining why that was done) would replace the way things re subcomponents of the UK (presently unmentioned in the table) currently appear in the article. That seems messy to me, but handling subnational entities four different ways in the table seems to me to be a larger and messier problem. Again I say that I would prefer that table entries not go into detail below the sovereign state level and that I would prefer that.situations re subnational states be handled with footnotes to the table as is currently done for the United States, call for discussion of that, and ask whether anyone is interested. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with grouping sub-national entities such as American and Australian states together in one entry, but England, Scotland and Wales are not sub-national entities. If you have no further objections I shall go ahead and split Great Britain up into three nations in the table. Jdee4 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections as long as there is an explanation for each (I suggest this be a table note linked in a superscript for each UK component, and I'll add it that way if needed) referring to the Abortion in the United Kingdom article for details. I also note that if wider discussion re the messy situation with four different ways of handling sovereign states having sub-national components leads anywhere, this is subject to change in order to conform with whatever consensus is reached on that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest linking England and Wales rather than separately linking England and Wales. Abortion law is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly; for these purposes "England and Wales" is a single legal jurisdiction. - htonl (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, in this instance treating them as an entity makes sense. Jdee4 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just made a big update using a more recent UN source, which includes data up to 2019, with some additional updates with individual sources such as New Zealand in 2020. I also made the following changes:

Listed one country per line, for easier search;
Added many notes clarifying various details, as explained in the UN source;
Removed the code and region columns, as they don't seem to be useful;
Combined the physical and mental health columns into one, as very few countries specify a difference (if needed, I suggest clarifying them with notes instead of a new column);
Added a table of autonomous territories, whose abortion laws can be very different from their parent country, with individual sources.

Comments are welcome. I also plan to update the map accordingly using this template, which has a smaller file size and is easier to update manually. I'll add subdivisions of Australia and Mexico as in the current map.

@Manabimasu: You recently changed the map but I don't agree with it. The laws of Germany and Japan prohibit abortion in principle but they do allow it in the conditions shown, de jure. It's a matter of laws superseding each other as exceptions, not unenforced laws, and this is actually the case in most countries as very few have fully removed abortion from their criminal code. In any case, I find it overly complicated and not very useful to show this detail on the map. I prefer to keep the classification as listed in the UN source. Heitordp (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm the editor who put the table you've replaced together based on the earlier 2013 UN source, which was getting pretty outdated. Re Regions, I carried that into the article from the source, but it turned out to be a distraction here; I agree that regional organizations (which change over time independently of anything concerning this article) are better ignored here. Re the Code column, I found that useful in maintenance of the article -- the code cell on a row was the Hex-encoded representation of the yes/no info for the cells indicating restrictions represented in the table -- I would sort the table by Code and look into any discrepancies between the Code cell in a row and the cells which should be encoded there. It was useful in maintaining the table, but it's not necessary.

I noticed difficulty in navigating to {{efn}} notes caused by the table which would display them being hidden. I thought the best way to resolve this was to display those notes in the table where they are referenced, and I have WP:BOLDly made that change.I've also added a couple of subheads which I thought were useful. I need to do something else now, and will get back to this later. 12:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

@Wtmitchell: I usually read the notes in their pop-ups when the mouse is over them, so I hid the note section because I thought that it occupied too much space in the middle of the article. But the way that you displayed the notes is not bad. Thanks for explaining the category codes, and feel free to add them back if you find them useful. Heitordp (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: You can revert. I understand that it may be hard for some to read. Do you know where else in the article I can put the detailed map? However, I’m not a fan on relying on one source. We need to verify.Manabimasu (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the stripey & solid colours on the map either, overly complicated. Can someone explain the difference to me? Jdee4 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Me too re the map; it contributes more complication than it clarifies. Also, like most such maps, there is no sourcing, even confined to the map description page, to show where the assertions made pictorially on the map are supported. Assertions made pictorially on such maps have a tendency to loose syncronization with assertions made textually in the articles where they appear. I wish I could suggest workable approaches to fixing some of that, but I cannot. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Thanks, I'll change the map to match the current table. If you want to add your more detailed map as well, I suggest putting it in the section of national laws, but with a collapsed legend as it takes a lot of space. In this case, I suggest marking with stripes or a different color all the countries that have notes in the table, which allow abortion only by legal principle, judicial decision or regulation, such as the Northern Mariana Islands that you already marked. But I still don't agree with your conclusion regarding Germany and Japan, as their laws explicitly allow abortion in certain cases. The way that their laws are written (first prohibiting in general and then allowing exceptions) is actually done by many other countries as well, see for example the UK. Germany and Japan are not really different in this aspect so I find it misleading to show them differently on the map. Heitordp (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: That is also intentionally included in the map. The irregularities in abortion law which you mentioned. As an editor, you may know the exception, but it is to inform the reader.Manabimasu (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I was thinking on adding wikilinks to the each country, so tapping on the country linked you to English Wikipedia article of that country. But the maps are on wikimedia, so other wikis may have issues linking to English wiki. What are your suggestions? @Jdee4: I’m guessing the solids are de facto and the stripes are de jure.Manabimasu (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC);Manabimasu (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO, unsupported assertions made pictorially in images (e.g., maps such as this) flout WP:V. A similar concern/problem exists re assertions transcluded into articles from templates. I think that is a problem, but I see no currently workable solution and no interest in finding a solution. I made some half-baked proposals a few months back here, but couldn't get a constructive discussion going and I've given up on it for now. Unrelated to those half-baked proposals, this exchange caused me to think of this image, which I see that I put on Commons back in 2013. There's a References section there with whatever sourcing I had for that back then; that's not a solution to the problem but, IMO, it's probably better than nothing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree sources are missing on maps;I placed references for the irregular countries.Manabimasu (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: To justify the assertions on the map, I prefer to just mention the article where the references are found. I find it more likely that someone will update the map to match the article than update references on both pages. Another alternative would be to use a blank SVG map and generate the colors in the article. I've seen that approach in this article but I haven't figured out how to do it. Heitordp (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The first there really ought to be discussed elsewhere but, WP articles being WP:TERTIARY sources, that's not reliable and does not satisfy WP:V.

The second, in that article, is neat. It's explained in WP:Lua; I've been procrastinating re learning to use Lua -- I'll probably need to do that at some point, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@AppleBsTime: Thanks for correcting the typo in the note for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The source is cited at the title of the table, and it indeed has the correct spelling "foreseeable". I must have misspelled the word when I copied it. Do you think that it's necessary to cite the source again for every note that mentions it? Heitordp (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: The problem is that I have no idea at all what "The source" means in the footnote, and I assumed that others would also struggle with this in this case. It might be made better by saying "The United Nations table of abortion laws and policies (2017) cited above..." - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been providing ongoing editorial support for this article for a long time. I'm just noting here that I am bailing out of editorial support of this article after seeing this edit (one of several edits since my last look at this article). I applaud the switch to a more recent supporting source and the reformatting of the chart which went with that switch. However, I often found it necessary to recheck assertions on a table row against the supporting source in the past and, when I tried to do that as a preliminary step in taking a look at that edit, I found it more difficult it was in my support of the pre-update version, and more difficult that I am willing to cope with. I will put the time I would have otherwise spent here towards other things. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I added notes and more sources to clarify that recent edit. Thank you for all your support. Heitordp (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The world map incorrectly depicts Germany in blue, should be yellow. The legal status in germany is incorrectly summarized. "After Germany's reunification, despite the legal status of abortion in former East Germany, a compromise was reached which deemed most abortions up to 12 weeks legal." This compromise was reached but was struck down by the constitutional court. The legal situation is more complicated but the German page gives a correct account at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwangerschaftsabbruch#Geltendes_Recht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.233.240 (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It is legal under Section 218a of the German criminal code:

Section 218a

Exemption from punishment for abortion

(1) The elements of the offence under section 218 are not deemed fulfilled if

1. the pregnant woman requests the termination of pregnancy and demonstrates to the physician by producing the certificate referred to in section 219 (2) sentence 2 that she obtained counselling at least three days prior to the procedure,

2. the termination is performed by a physician and

3. no more than 12 weeks have elapsed since conception.

(2) A termination which is performed by a physician with the consent of the pregnant woman is not unlawful if, considering the pregnant woman’s present and future circumstances, the termination is medically necessary to avert a danger to the life of or the danger of grave impairment to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health and if the danger cannot be averted in another manner which is reasonable for her to accept.

(3) The conditions of subsection (2) are also deemed fulfilled with regard to a termination performed by a physician with the consent of the pregnant woman if, according to medical opinion, an unlawful act under sections 176 to 178 has been committed against the pregnant woman, there are cogent reasons to support the assumption that the pregnancy was caused by the act and no more than 12 weeks have elapsed since conception.

(4) The pregnant woman does not incur the penalty specified in section 218 if the termination was performed by a physician after counselling (section 219) and no more than 22 weeks have elapsed since conception. The court may dispense with imposing a penalty pursuant to section 218 if the pregnant woman was in exceptional distress at the time of the procedure. 62.231.113.50 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

When has Angola legalized Abortion? Nlivataye (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. The Angolan parliament had proposed a new penal code that would allow abortion on request in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and the UN source that is the basis for most of this article apparently assumed that this proposal was already law. However, the proposal was modified later, and the final version of the penal code that the parliament actually passed in 2019 would allow abortion only in certain cases (life, health, rape and fetal impairment). In addition, the president vetoed the whole bill in 2020 (for reasons unrelated to abortion), and it never came into force at all. So the current abortion law is still the previous penal code, which doesn't explicitly allow abortion in any circumstance but contains a general legal principle allowing it to save the woman's life. I corrected the table and maps. Heitordp (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: There are many countries where the legal grounds for abortion are determined by regulations or judicial decisions superseding or clarifying the main law. I marked the grounds in all such countries as only green or red, based on the combined legal effect as stated by the sources. I used yellow only where the legal grounds vary by subdivision within the country. If you think that it's better to use a different color to denote superseding regulations such as in Laos, for consistency we'd have to do so for other countries as well. In this case I propose using another color, such as blue, and keeping yellow only when it varies by subdivision. In the case of Laos all grounds would be blue, including the first two columns, because its law doesn't explicitly list any exception. What do you think?

In addition, I'm not sure if the principle of necessity or legitimate defense in Laos allows abortion to preserve health as well or only to save life. Do you have a source to clarify it? Heitordp (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Look under Lao PDR Abortion under communism Fenetrejones (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

here: https://www.genderindex.org/wp-content/uploads/files/datasheets/2019/LA.pdf https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/4879/abortion-law-laos Fenetrejones (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Both of these sources mention only the exception to save a woman's life. The first source cites the article of law before the penal code renumbered it in 2017, and it briefly mentions the abortion guidelines of 2016 but doesn't say what they allow or whether they supersede the law. The second source doesn't mention the guidelines at all and cites the previous law with a dead link. So both of these sources seem incomplete or outdated. However, the two sources that I put in the article claim that the guidelines supersede the law, and they provide a lot more detail so they seem more reliable to me. I also agree with their conclusion because the actual law only prohibits "unlawful abortion" without defining what it is, so it's up to the guidelines to clarify the details. Anyway, whether considering the guidelines or not, we should either mark all columns in the same color or mark only the first column (save life) differently. I don't see a justification to mark the second column (preserve health) differently. And do you have any thoughts about adding more colors as I suggested? Heitordp (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That color scheme is used when things are mirky like in Mexico. It means it can work but with many caveats.Fenetrejones (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Please do not remove the notes completely, as the situation in Laos is complex due to conflicting regulations. Also, the source that you added doesn't mention any legal ground for abortion, and I haven't found any source to justify marking the second column differently from the last four. Since you prefer to emphasize the law over the regulations, I marked the first column as light green and the others as light red, restored the notes, and changed the maps. Is this acceptable to you? Heitordp (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) That works perfectly Fenetrejones (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

In various publications[1] saving mother's life was not named as "abortion" therefore that case may be legal in Vatican City. If there is no publication that contradicts that point of view, it should be marked in the table as legal.

[1] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/exception-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother-12052 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorKaza (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I added a note in the table, with two sources, and updated the maps. Heitordp (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Maybe add Indirect abortion to the note because your sources are not referring to direct abortion which readers may assume the article is about. The two are different as explained in the sources you cited. Not all save life can be an indirect abortion. So the label may be misleading. I am not in favor of adding for save life because that’s hasn’t been practiced in the jurisdiction of Vatican City and the sources don’t mention the city. Because Vatican City is associated with a religion, I suggest starting an rfc on illegal in all cases or save life for better consensus as other editors may have thoughts on it and mention it in main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism.Manabimasu (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Vatican City law formally says that canon law is the primary source of law for the city, and it establishes the leaders of the Catholic Church as its government officials. The sources that I added contain statements from Vatican officials explaining canon law, so I think that they we can rely on them even though they don't explicitly say that it's the law applicable in the city. I'll add a longer explanation to the note, mentioning indirect abortion and the principle of double effect. I'll also start an RfC below to discuss which color to use in the table, but I don't know exactly where to post the RfC in the wiki projects that you mentioned. Can you do that? Heitordp (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Sure.Manabimasu (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about legality of abortion to save woman's life in Vatican City

More information Option, Save life ...

Option	Save life	First map	Second map
1
2
3
4

Close

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to use option 3 (light red in table, black on first map, striped black/red on second map). Heitordp (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The official interpretation of canon law of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is to allow only indirect abortion in case it's necessary to save the woman's life. Canon law is the primary source of law of Vatican City, but it's unclear whether any abortion has been performed there, perhaps due to lack of cases or medical facilities. What colors should be used for Vatican City in the column for "save life" in the table and in the maps? Heitordp (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Heitordp (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

~~2, like other countries whose abortion law doesn't explicitly mention an exception to save the woman's life but allow it by general legal principle. Heitordp (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)~~
3. Firstly, Vatican City law is based on Italian Law of 1889, amended in 2013. Secondly, direct abortion is never permissible. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the correct procedure is to remove the diseased fallopian tube, which indirectly kills the child. This is the principle of double effect. Elizium23 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, Vatican City uses both Catholic canon law and the Italian penal code of 1889 with amendements. That Italian code prohibits abortion without any specific exception, but it lists the general principle of necessity to save one's life, which removes punishment for any crime. Many other countries have their abortion laws written in a similar way. However, due to the addition of canon law, which is more restrictive, I agree to mark Vatican City with option 3. Heitordp (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment nobody has explained "strong/light" "green/red" or the yellow check-marks in the table, could we please explain those, here and in the article so that the key is clear? Elizium23 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Green means legally permitted, red means not legally permitted. The light shades are used whenever a note is needed for clarification, for example due to a general legal principle, judicial decision, or conflicting regulations. Yellow means legally permitted in parts of the country, which can be detailed by clicking on the subdivisions link. Most of the notes are from the UN source that is the basis for most of the table. I added a key to the article. Heitordp (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Can you also show what the colors would be on commons:File:Abortion Laws.svg or commons:File:Abortion Laws-Irregular.svg for each option? Template:Color box and Template:Color box striped could be used to show this.Manabimasu (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I updated the options above to explain how the maps would be. Heitordp (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

I recently made an edit to the article's main graphic specifying that New South Wales, Australia (and possibly others — I only speak English and French, which limits greatly what I can find global information on) regulates abortion access for "people," not "women." In fact, the state's abortion act (Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019) doesn't contain gendered terms like woman, women, man, or men at all.

NSW is coloured blue on the map, which indicates "Legal on woman's request." I'm not disputing that this is technically true — it certainly is legal for women to obtain abortions on request in NSW — but it's misleading, as it's legal for any pregnant person as well. This was not some oversight on the part of legislators; the words used were debated at length in parliament. Having an article saying abortion is legal for women in New South Wales is akin to having an article about saying murder is "illegal for men" in Victoria — yes, it certainly is illegal for men to kill other people in Victoria, but in the context of an encyclopedia, such mischaracterisation is tantamount to misinformation. This is the place people come to be relieved of misinformation.

If a reasonable person were to read the Abortion Law graphic to find out whether abortion is legal for men in NSW, they would leave with the impression that it is not. They would leave misinformed. The IP user who undid my revision cited WP:UNDUE as the reason for reversion. This is a misinterpretation of the policy. WP:UNDUE is primarily concerned with viewpoints (i.e. debated information); there is no basis upon which to dispute whether NSW law grants the right of abortion to "people." It is a policy designed so that people or groups of people who hold fringe viewpoints, such as flat-Earthers, are not given unwarranted consideration. WP:UNDUE is not meant for instances where (a) objective information is (b) contradicted (explicitly or implicitly) by information already included in the article.

I'm not arguing that we have to include every minutiæ of abortion legislation for all jurisdictions involved. WP:UNDUE is the perfect policy to refute such an argument. But WP:UNDUE is not a licence under which to mislead. If we had the luxury to not make a special note for NSW before specifying "woman's request," we no longer do.

I'll note that this year's major article overhaul was sparked by a single edit of mine back in late April, when I created a new colour for South Australia, which had been listed incorrectly as allowing abortion in the case of rape. It was, at that point, the only jurisdiction on the entire map with its specific set of exemptions. With the work of other Wikipedians, it was soon realised that so many other countries would have their own colours as to make the map unusably unwieldy. It was decided that the map needed, above all else, to be (a) factually correct, and (b) simple. To that end, it was developed to its current state with footnoted exemptions. It's not perfect — for example, is rape valid cause for abortion in India? such is ungleanable from the graphic alone — but in order to provide simple, entirely accurate information, it provides less information.

We ought to do the similarly with this latest map issue. I see two options: - We can create a new colour for NSW (and any other jurisdictions with "pregnant person" legislation). This solves the problem of giving the misimpression that NSW doesn't allow for men or non-binary people to get abortions, but it introduces unnecessary complexity, especially if and when other such jurisdictions come to light. - We can remove all references to "woman" from the graphic. This solves the problem of giving the misimpression that NSW doesn't allow for men or non-binary people to get abortions, but it introduces the problem of giving the impression that all other jurisdictions do as well. This, of course, is clearly not the case. NSW is an exception to a very common rule. Thus, I lean in favour of… - Reverting to the note that I had inserted into the graphic, indicating that some blue jurisdictions allow abortion on "person's" request. No, it's not ideal to have to include a note on a world map just for one Australian state, but (a) it's less unideal than misleading people with the text already within the graphic, and (b) it's entirely possible (if not likely) that there are other such jurisdictions, simply ones I haven't been able to locate reliable sources for.

On these bases, if there are no explicit objections to my reverting back to a version with the note, I will do so in 3 days' time.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavechelseaalone (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The legend of the map uses the generally accepted, simplified language, adopted in almost all jurisdictions and almost all sources, which is "legal on a woman's request", legal to preserve "woman's health" etc. The legend of the map is not the place for technicalities, neither is it the place to deal with gender identity/gender neutral terminology issues (controversies regarding terminology do not belong in the map legend or in the lede, and to introduce them here is to slant the article towards a debate prevalent mainly in a few Western jurisdictions - which is wrong because we have to reflect global realities, not give WP:UNDUE to a few places). The legend should remain the way it is now: "legal on woman's request" (clarity for readers is very important, and not everybody understands why "woman" is to be replaced with "person"). Perhaps such issues should be discussed in the article, but they do not belong in the legend of the map or in the lede (just like the map does not address the "woman" vs "girl" issue - for abortion of underage minors (ie. parental consent/notification), but this is discussed in the article - as I said, the map uses a generalized simplification). 62.231.113.134 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support changing it to "mother's request" which would neatly cover the aforementioned woman/girl issue. Elizium23 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

> The legend of the map uses the generally accepted, simplified language, adopted in almost all jurisdictions and almost all sources, which is "legal on a woman's request", legal to preserve "woman's health" etc.

There is a difference between simplification/standardisation and misrepresentation. Suppose one country referred to a pregnant person’s “mental health,” and another their “wellbeing.” The difference between the two is trivial, merely a matter of word choice, and making a distinction between the two would confuse the reader more than inform them. “Woman” versus “person” is not trivial in the context of abortion legislation, any more than “woman” versus “person” is trivial in right-to-vote legislation. Would we support a map that referred to every “person” having the right to vote in a country when, say, every “man” did instead? Of course not. This is not just a matter of word choice. It is a matter of who has access to legal abortion. Which is, y’know, the whole point of the article.

> The legend of the map is not the place for technicalities

You make my argument for me. On technicality — and only on technicality — the current legend is correct: Women do indeed have access to abortion in NSW. However, so do men and non-binary people. To say that we should keep NSW labelled “Legal upon woman’s request” is to say that the legend of the map is the place for technicalities.

> neither is it the place to deal with gender identity/gender neutral terminology issues

There is a distinction between, say, a paragraphs-length section about the debate over gender-inclusive language in abortion legislation, and a brief note to clarify what is otherwise be a misleading or mischaracterising legend. The intent of such a note is not to inform the reader that such issues exist, much less to “deal” with it. Rather, it is to prevent a reasonable reader who looks at NSW’s blue colour from walking away from the article with the misimpression that they are currently given.

> controversies regarding terminology do not belong in the map legend or in the lede

You seem to be conflating the process through which “person” came to be in NSW’s abortion legislation, with its now being in there. Yes, the inclusion of it in the law was absolutely controversial; very few could dispute that. However, you’re failing to grasp that such a controversial inclusion doesn’t make the fact that it is now in the bill controversial. That it is now law is not controversial. Not in the slightest. To give an imperfect analogy, let’s suppose that there was a country that passed a referendum allowing abortion based solely on the non-pregnant partner’s request (i.e. the pregnant person need not consent). Such legislation might be extremely rare, and it might have passed by the slimmest, most controversial of margins, but once it becomes law, it’s law. Unless someone is alleging some sort of voter fraud in the referendum, its nature of having been passed is not controversial. The spirit of WP:UNDUE is to prevent fringe viewpoints from being given legitimacy simply by virtue of being disproportionately discussed in articles. It was not created in a spirit to permit mischaracterisation of law because the law was passed contentiously.

> and to introduce them here is to slant the article towards a debate prevalent mainly in a few Western jurisdictions - which is wrong because we have to reflect global realities, not give WP:UNDUE to a few places

Again, this seems like a clear misapplication of WP:UNDUE. In the spirit of WP:UNDUE (and WP:WORLDVIEW), we should not, for example, seek to end a misleading legend in cases where western countries’ laws are misrepresented whilst ignoring similar problems for eastern countries. However, WP:UNDUE is not a chain (nor was it intended to be) which prevents us from devoting space to western countries in articles when there is no eastern corollary to be discussed. Let us not punish the reader with misinformation about western countries simply because eastern countries are not adopting similar or correlate abortion legislations.

> which is wrong because we have to reflect global realities

This phrase in particular makes no sense given the context of a map with not just countries coloured in separately based on their laws, but even subdivisions of countries coloured in separately. We have to reflect global realities? Well then let’s just get rid of the country-specific graphic and replace it with a text sentence along the lines of, “As a general, global trend, access is generally increasing with time.” But of course, that’s ridiculous — this article is intentionally more country-specific than that. There is absolutely a place for “global realities” to be prioritised; a map or list of countries with individualised labels is not one such place.

> clarity for readers is very important, and not everybody understands why "woman" is to be replaced with "person"

This is an argument in favour of changing the misleading text for NSW to something like “Legal on person’s request, including transgender men.” It is not an argument in favour of leaving the misleading text.

> Perhaps such issues should be discussed in the article, but they do not belong in the legend of the map or in the lede (just like the map does not address the "woman" vs "girl" issue - for abortion of underage minors (ie. parental consent/notification), but this is discussed in the article - as I said, the map uses a generalized simplification)

For a second time, this seems an instance of you making my argument for me. In the graphic’s legend, the following is noted: “In some countries, abortion laws are modified by other laws, regulations, legal principles or judicial decisions. This map shows their combined effect as implemented by the authorities.” The reason that the “woman”/“girl” distinction is not addressed in the graphic’s legend is because it is addressed in the graphic’s legend — indirectly, through this very note. There is an almost universal legal principle that the parents of minors have legal authority over the decisions made by those minors. That is the “legal principle” (or perhaps, one of them) that the note serves to clarify, because otherwise — starting to sound familiar? — the reader would leave misinformed. If you are presenting the “woman”/“girl” distinction’s supposedly insufficient importance to warrant its own note in the legend as evidence that the “woman” vs “person” is insufficient as well, then — especially considering that several of our very own sister project’s definitions of “woman” are not exclusive of underage girls — you are arguing against yourself as it is noted in the legend.

There are no other “laws, regulations, legal principles, [nor] judicial decisions” in New South Wales that change their abortion act to apply to non-women. It is the act itself which makes that application, and it is the act itself which is currently mischaracterised by the legend for itself blue colour. Your above arguments against appropriate redress are not sound. Leavechelseaalone (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not just say "legal on request" and avoid the whole issue? - htonl (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a stopgap solution considering that virtually all of the other labels are not fixable in such a way (e.g. "Risk to woman's life"). It doesn't resolve the debate, it simply pushes it to such time as the first jurisdiction without on-request abortion adopts gender-neutral language. That said, for the blue-coloured countries, I'm not at all opposed to the "legal on request" wording. Leavechelseaalone (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor's points. "Legal on request" would be OK with me. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with "legal on request". We can also change the others to "risk to life" and "risk to health". Heitordp (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

India allows abortion at the request of the woman upto 20 weeks after conception. BORAZINE (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. It may be so in practice (like in the UK or Finland), but the law states that the opinion of one or two practitioners (depending on the term) is needed. Therefore, since a practitioner could turn down a woman's request, India is still not providing unrestricted on-demand abortion, not even in the first term (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_India ).Finedelledanze (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian law allows abortions to prevent "injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman", which is interpreted broadly to include various circumstances. However, the woman must still provide a reason for the abortion, and the medical practitioner must agree that it's legally valid. For example, abortion based on the sex of the fetus is not allowed. Accordingly, the UN, which is the main source for the table in the article, classifies India as allowing abortion for social or economic reasons, like the UK, but not merely by request, like countries that don't require the woman to provide a reason. Heitordp (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that references to women are being deleted to make them gender-neutral. When we talk of 'risk to life' and 'risk to health' now is not clear if we are talking about the carrier or the fetus. We should be obviously aware of the fact that FtM people can be pregnant as well, but still it should be peaceful to talk about 'women' in biological sex terms. Sex can be inclusive of different genders and gender identities. Having clarified this, I see no obstacle in talking about women. Removing them from the picture is a bit nonsense, since worldwide abortion is known as a women's right... excessive political correctness? Finedelledanze (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I made that change, but I also find it nonsense, and I think that I gave in too much to another user's demand for political correctness. As you wrote, "risk to life" is unclear, and the word "woman" is still commonly understood as referring to biological sex regardless of gender identity, especially in a biological subject like abortion. Anyway, since the few countries that have written their abortion laws with gender-neutral language allow it on request, I suggest a compromise using "legal on request" but also "risk to woman's" in the other categories. Heitordp (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the gender-neutral language here adds confusion: Right now, the FtM pregnancies are what? 0.00000001% (if that) of all pregnancies? A graph like this is NOT the place to start pushing gender-neutral pronouns, (which I do support in the long run) and the better thing to do is to make this as easily understandable as possible. I support both using the term "woman" and "risk to a woman's".

With three of us (four if you include the IP editor) we can say we have a consensus to use wording referring to "women" with the goal of using language that most people understand. (Not with a goal of discrimination/sexism.) ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

fully agree.Finedelledanze (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh is reported on the map as having legalised abortion on request. However, the wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Bangladesh) states that abortion is illegal under all circumstances but save the woman's life. What is legal is the so-called 'menstrual regulation' which does not require to test for pregnancy. Shall we still consider Bangladesh as a country on a par with abortion on request countries? Can we treat menstrual regulation as abortion? I'm not so sure.. abortion is de facto permitted but the criterior should remain its de jure regulation. I'd recommand to move Bangladesh to 'red' and update the summary chart and the timeline accordingly. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The procedure of "menstrual regulation" in Bangladesh is essentially the same as abortion, with the same drugs, methods, and similar time limit as in other countries that allow abortion on request. To me it sounds like they just wanted to use a different name for sensitive reasons. In any case, the table already has a note explaining this, with a light green color, but I wouldn't mind using a light red color instead, or maybe even another color.

I also don't mind making Bangladesh red on the map, but this is why we had the second map with stripes. Abortion law can be quite complex, and there are several countries where a ground for abortion can't be simply described as "legal" or "illegal". A common example is when the law prohibits abortion without any explicit exception but it is still allowed to save the woman's life due to the general legal principle of "necessity" or right of self-defense, which permits any action that would normally be illegal. Heitordp (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you Heitordp for your comments. I think Bangladesh is helping us get clear on what we want to represent here. Shall we focus on abortion as 'getting a miscarriage' or as a piece of legislation, a civil right? In the latter case abortion is more than a medical procedure to achieve a miscarriage. It is a set of laws that without hypocrysy help women self-determine their pregnancies, establish boundaries and responsibilities, often provide medical and psychological counsel and so on. In this regard Bangladesh fails all these conditions. De facto abortion may be present in Bangladesh, but then it is even more widely and freely available in UK and Finland where basically no practitioner denies an abortion procedure, even if law restricts it to socio-economic factors. Bangladesh law restricts abortion to cases where the woman's life is at risk (source: Wikipedia 'abortion in bangladesh'). If we stick to legislation, menstrual regulation is not abortion. According to law (and common sense) a practitioner should test whether a woman is pregnant before carrying out such procedure. We cannot treat a de factio violation of the law as the law itself. If all agree, I'll remove Bangladesh from the timeline. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In that case we should also change the last 5 columns of Bangladesh in the main table to light red, but keep the note, and change it to red on the map. Heitordp (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How about adding a timeline by country showing the years when full decriminalization of abortion on request was achieved (the blue countries on the map)? I wouldn't add further milestones or the timeline will get confusing. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The timeline is good information but I see too many problems with the current table:

It doesn't cite any source. :: agree, we should work on it. I retrieved most years from wiki pages 'article in country' but I had to search some from public external sources. I'm not so good with wiki-editing. One simple idea could be link the country's name to its corresponding wiki article 'abortion in..' (is it possible?) and provide a link to external sources where it is absent. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Counting countries that didn't exist at the time is misleading and is not done in similar lists in other articles. For example, the Soviet Union should be counted as one country in 1955, and then in 1991 it should be subtracted and the other 15 countries added. :: i think that now it makes clear that some countries have had abortion rights for a longer time than their independence because they were part of former entities. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It is also misleading to count some countries only after unification. For example, abortion on request was allowed in both East and West Germany by 1976; the law in 1992 was merely a harmonization. :: not so. West Germany's 1974 abortion law was struck down by the constitutional court and restated in way that wouldn't qualify as abortion on request (it required 2 practitioners' opinions). It's only in 1992 that women in former West Germany gained the right not to require a practitioner's opinion at all. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
For some countries it's not easy to determine exactly in which year they allowed abortion on request, or even if they did. For example, in Argentina the law was passed in 2020 but it will only take effect in 2021; Bangladesh allows "menstrual regulation" but not "abortion"; Bahrain and Laos are also complex cases. :: we talked about it later on.
The table only considers the last time when abortion on request became legal. It disregards not only some former communist countries that changed the legality more than once but also those with no explicit abortion law in the 19th century such as the UK and US. :: yes, the criterion is explained in the foreword. It follows the approach used on Wikipedia's capital punishment page. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The table doesn't list subdivisions of countries that allow abortion on request (such as most Australian states), or that allowed it before the entire country (such as some US states). :: Yes, it is about UN independent states (and observer status states - but none of these has abortion on request). Again, in line with other wikipedia pages for the sake of coinciseness, clarity and international comparability. Criterion explained in the foreword. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The table doesn't list autonomous jurisdictions, some of which legalized abortion on request in different years from their parent country. :: for example? i thought there were not any. But again, there is no 'one-size-fits-all' criterion, we should choose one. Here I chose 'UN countries' as per wikipedia 'capital punishment abolition chronology', which explains that countries are listed as abolitionists only when the latest of their jurisdictions under national control has achieved abolition. It's like when you say that Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1992. Some cantons did it much earlier but it's only in 1992 that this discrimination completely disappeared from the legal framework of the country (the supreme court forced some municipalities to allow women to vote, affirming it was a constitutional right). As long as a federal government or court does not establish a principle valid for all jurisdictions, you can only count the country as granting a right, when the latest of its jurisdictions gets there (eg. South Australia likely in 2021, last state to do so). Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Due to all the previous points, it's difficult to calculate an exact number of countries per year or cumulative, so these numbers are quite imprecise. We can still list the years and countries and add notes for complex cases, but I suggest removing the last two columns. :: why imprecise once you clarify the methodology? the usefulness of counting states is in terms of UN seats. Looking at the count, you can easily see that out of 193, today in the world abortion on request is only legal in 64 countries. Again, this is the same criterion used on Wikipedia with death penalty abolition, where you show countries and not subnational jurisdictions. These information can be provided in country articles or other timelines with a focus on legislation history. This table is meant to provide a quick update for journalists, students and scholars on the number of countries that are colored blue in the map. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Flags are good in aligned lists, but I find it disorganized to put flags between words. In addition, some countries had different flags in the years listed. :: let me say this is highly subjective :) it is common practice elsewhere on Wikipedia, again I haven't invented anything new. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a better option, which would also take less space, is to add a column with the year to the other tables, which could then be sorted by year if desired. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC) i thought about it and i'm not against it, but maybe you should then add a year for each piece of legislation (from risk to life to on request) and allow the possibility of reordering the table by year so that you don't lose the benefit of listing the countries by chronological order. I don't know how to do both technically. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Heitordp (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To simplify adding sources, I think that it's acceptable to just link the country name to its abortion article, as long as that article has the sources.
Thanks for explaining about Germany. I agree to leave the countries and numbers as they are, as the notes above the table explain the criteria.
France legalized abortion on request in the main part of the country in 1975, but only extended it to its Oceanian territories in 2001. Denmark legalized it in the main part in 1973 but Greenland only did it in 1975, and the Faroe Islands still don't legally allow it on request. Neither do Hong Kong, Macau, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and American Samoa (see the table of territories in the article), even though China, Netherlands, New Zealand and the US do. It seems that Norway is the only country that has autonomous territories (Svalbard) and legalized abortion on request at the same time in all inhabited parts of the country. Anyway, since these territories are autonomous and not treated as part of the country for many legal purposes (unlike federal subvidisions that are always included and have less autonomy, such as states and cantons), I think that we should disregard them for the timeline. It would be undue to list France only in 2001 because of French Polynesia or not to list the US at all only because of American Samoa.
I don't mind the flags.
The tables are already sortable, so if we add columns with years they can be sorted by just cliking on the year header. But I think that adding years for all columns would be too much. In that case it's better to keep the separate timeline that you made. Heitordp (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

do you know how to code the link to another page while showing the flag at once? if you can explain it, I'll edit myself. thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Ignore it, I've just found a way to do it..

From 1 January 2021 the Court has effectively decriminalised abortion. However, can we say that this is equal to abortion on request being available? This medical procedure was not offered by South Korean hospitals. Lacking a new law (still being discussed by parliament), I interpret the court's verdict as just saying that seeking or providing an abortion is not a crime, but this doesn't make it automatically available to women in hospitals. As long as new procedures are established by law, I'd recommend not to add South Korea to the list of 'abortion on request' countries. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should show what is legal, regardless of availability. For example, abortion on request is still not available in Argentina, and it seems that neither in Guam due to a lack of providers, but they are shown in blue on the map. Meanwhile, in Curaçao and Sint Maarten it's available and the government even inspects the facilities for medical standards, but it's still illegal so they are shown in red on the map. Again, this is why we had the second map, I would have shown South Korea with blue and yellow stripes. The table shows such cases with a lighter color. Heitordp (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

well, as long as the timeline was about decriminalisation, I'd agree with you. But now the title has been changed to 'abortion on request'. As a result of the Court, abortion on request is not available nor regulated by law. Up to now if you have an abortion at home you don't go to jail, that's just what the law says. I agree that Argentina should be shifted to 2021. The law has not been enacted yet and keeping in line with other wikipedia standards (e.g. capital punishment abolition, same-sex marriage pages) we should consider the day when laws enter into force, as stated in their publication on national official gazettes. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed the description because it said "fully decriminalised" and "when abortion provisions were removed from the criminal code". Very few of the countries listed have done that. In almost all of these countries, abortion is still a crime in general, for example if done by someone who is not a medical professional, or without the woman's consent, or in the later part of the pregnancy (with few exceptions). But to include cases like South Korea, we could add at the end of the first sentence "or that have fully decriminalised abortion". The title of the section could also use the word "decriminalisation" if you prefer. Does that work?

Anyway, I'm not sure if South Korea really needs to explicitly write an abortion law to make it available on request. Abortion was already allowed in some circumstances before, so doctors already have the medications and equipment, now they can just do it in more circumstances. The government did propose an abortion law (not yet approved) but from what I understand the purpose is to make some limitations, such as the period of the pregnancy when abortion can be requested, as without any law it is permitted at any time.

Thanks for changing Argentina to 2021 in the table. The year should also be changed in other places where Argentina is mentioned in the article. Similarly, I also found that the law in Norway allowing abortion on request was passed in 1978 but took effect in 1979. Heitordp (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand article 15 of the law in Norwegian. The page 'Abortion in Norway' apparently links to a government website in English that refers to a law passed in 1975 and effective since 1978 Finedelledanze (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In 1975 the Norwegian parliament passed a law allowing abortion for social reasons, and in 1978 it amended the law to allow it on request. That's what the page is English means. However, section 15 of the law in Norwegian says that the law would take effect at a time set by the king. The footnote says that the effective date was set as 1 January 1976 for the initial law and 1 January 1979 for the amendment. Heitordp (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I found source saying that abortion is illegal in Akbkhazia without medical exceptions since 2016. "Deciding to ban abortion altogether, even in the event of serious medical complications." - other source. The only exception seems when fetus died before birth. Since Taiwan and Kosovo are included I see no problem adding other unrecognized countries. If noone objects I'm gonna add it to table and to map. Borysk5 (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Thanks, I added it to the table. Also thanks for updating the map, but note that all unrecognized countries are already drawn, they just need to be enabled with the options in the beginning of the file. Next time, please edit it as a text file to preserve its structure and size. Heitordp (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. I will do it this way if I edit it in the future. Borysk5 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In several countries, abortion laws are modified by other laws, regulations, legal principles or judicial decisions, or the situation in practice differs due to absence of prosecution or of abortion providers. Manabimasu had added a map showing such countries with stripes, but other users removed it several times, claiming that it was unsourced. However, this map does have sources, listed in the tables just like for the first map in the article, or listed in the file's description page. Some users also said that they find the second map misleading. Should this map be added back to the article? If not, what about a map simply showing which countries have conflicting laws, all in the same color? Heitordp (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you just add a statement/comment/footnote that the info in the map is sourced from the tables in this article?

The most recent removal: removed what appears to me to be an ALMOST but not quite identical copy of a same/similar map....maybe we could have only one map, or state more explicitly what the differences between the two maps are? Looking more closely at both maps, I would prefer the one with stripes (now removed) in the lead. (It wasn't me who removed the map.)

I also support having both maps, as long as the differences are more clearly spelled out, and I would prefer the striped (defacto) one in the lead. Thanks for making these maps!! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally find striped maps difficult to read, especially in this case where you have a large colour palette and lots of variations... I think it doesn't add much to the previous map which is very clear and modelled on information already present in the article. I agree with Heitordp that maybe a new color can be used for 'conflicting laws' countries (grey?). But what would conflicts mean? Countries like Mexico, UK and Australia where legislation varies by state? De jure/de facto differences are an issue that can be tackled in the talk page. Since the page is about abortion LAW, I would stick with de jure definition of abortion. In addition, I don't see why split the US into subdivisions, since Roe v Wade has made abortion legal across the nation, although local restrictions have been enforced to limit the accessibility. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I also find stripes difficult to see unless zoomed in, and I suppose that it's enough to cover these details in the notes in the table to avoid overcomplicating the map. My suggestion was not to add a new color to the existing map, but to make an additional map just coloring countries that have conflicting laws, all in the same color, just to illustrate that these countries have a complex legality. By "conflicting laws" I mean where the main abortion law says one thing but it's superseded by a more general legal principle or a judicial decision. For example, in some countries the criminal code has a section prohibiting abortion without explicitly mentioning any exception, but in a general section it says that any action done to save one's life is not a crime. The UN source mentions these cases. Other examples are Brazil, South Korea and some US states, where a court has invalidated or restricted the application of a law, but the text of the law has not been explicitly changed by the legislature. All of this is still de jure, it just requires multiple texts and some legal interpretation to conclude it. Variations by geographic subdivision are not conflicts, they apply to different places and are already easily shown on the map. Heitordp (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

fine to me. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: I agree the striped map is being removed even though the sources are from the table, and I think the new map could be a solution as well as fit in the section Abortion law#National Law.Manabimasu (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I do think maybe both new maps if a topic could have a wider rfc as even the new map may have issues. I think an rfc on whether one of the new maps, both, or none could be made to reach solid consensus.Manabimasu (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that having a map is a good addition to the article, but as ya'll are discussing, it is hard to be precisely correct on each country...but that's ok...maybe we just add a statement explaining the dejure/defacto differences/difficulties...I'm also OK with two maps, as long as we clearly explain what the differences between the two maps are. (Otherwise readers will be confused thinking that two people added maps which are basically the same and un-understandably different - clarity is good, just like the woman/person discussion) Thanks again!! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a map showing jurisdictions with complex legality. Should we add this map to the article? Would it be better to mark all of these jurisdictions with the same color for simplicity? Heitordp (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe make a map with "de iure" abortion laws (as written in legislation)? Just a thought. Borysk5 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Thanks for updating East Timor. The light colors and notes are supposed to be used when the law is complex, for example when it's unclear, not in effect, or depends on other factors like legal principles or judicial decisions. But in the case of East Timor the law was clearly changed and the UN source is just outdated, so I think that we should mark it with regular colors and just add one reference next to the name of the country, like it's done for Angola and Thailand. Do you agree? Heitordp (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Borysk5 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Article says that abortion is legal on demand in North Korea, as UN source says. However:

Table cites womenonwaves article which says: "The Criminal Code of March 1950 states that abortion is allowed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “for important reasons”. The particulars of these reasons are not specified in the Code. Although information on the application of the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is difficult to obtain, reports suggest that abortion is permitted virtually on request, up to the seventh month of pregnancy, owing to the broad interpretation of the phrase “important reasons”." This would suggest that abortion is allowed on demand only de facto, not de iure.
According to report published by North Korean government in 2016 for UN: "Abortion service is provided upon request by the woman concerned for reasons of risks to her life, physical and mental health and fetal malformation".

Borysk5 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The North Korean Criminal Code has been amended several times since 1950. I can't find any mention of abortion in the 2009 version of the code, so it seems that the Women on Waves article refers to an earlier version no longer in force. However, while abortion is no longer covered in the criminal code, the government might still restrict it under other laws or regulations. In 2015, a source reported that the North Korean government issued a directive prohibiting abortions but didn't provide details. Based on the report to CEDAW from 2016, I suspect that the directive allowed abortion only in case of risk to life, health and fetal malformation. Heitordp (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Effective today Poland's ban has entered into force and should now be colored brown on the map. On the other hand, Thailand is turning into blue. Finedelledanze (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And Angola should be colored too as yellow (new law in force from 9 February 2021) Finedelledanze (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The map has been updated. Heitordp (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

thank you! Chaco ruling is not effective, apparently.. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Judge-Bans-Safe-Abortion-Law-in-Chaco-Province-Argentina-20210129-0009.html Finedelledanze (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That article seems incorrect in this aspect, and Wikipedia considers Telesur an unreliable source. From what I understand, the ruling takes effect when the relevant person (in this case the government of Chaco) is formally notified by the court about it. This notification happened on the day after the ruling. The vast majority of sources say that the ruling is effective, one even mentions that some women have already been denied an abortion because of it. The government appealed the ruling, but it appears to remain in effect until revoked by the court of appeals. Heitordp (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Effective today South Australia has decriminalised abortion and should now be coloured dark blue on the map. T of the G of the W (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@T of the G of the W: It's not effective today. The parliament approved the bill but it still needs the governor's assent and a proclamation to establish the commencement date. After the law takes effect, I intend to make Australia entirely blue on the map. Heitordp (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Sorry, didn't realise that. Thanks though! T of the G of the W (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The law received assent on 11 March 2021. It still needs the proclamation but I agree to change the map now. Heitordp (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objections to shortening the section on Europe in this article and moving most of the content there to a new page, likely Abortion in Europe, similar to Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe? Hentheden (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Heitordp (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Argentina has separate federal and provincial court systems. The injunction that suspended the law legalizing abortion in Chaco was issued by a provincial court, and it was appealed to the respective provincial court of appeals, which has still not decided the case. The article that you cited describes a separate case filed in a federal court in Chaco, which was rejected, but the two cases do not affect each other. This article clarifies that the cases are separate and that the earlier injunction is still in effect. It is expected that it will take several months until the court of appeals rules on the injunction. Heitordp (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Borysk5 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The court of appeals revoked the injunction on 18 March 2021. The revocation took effect after its notification on the following day. Meanwhile, a provincial court in San Luis declared the abortion law unconstitutional. I'll update the table and map. Heitordp (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. It seems that the ruling in San Luis did not suspend the law there. As the law remains valid in all provinces, I'll remove them from the table and map. Heitordp (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: I think the map you made could be added to the article. It's much simpler and easier on eyes than the striped one. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Manabimasu (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The parliament of South Australia has passed a bill decriminalising abortion, but it still needs the governor's assent and a proclamation to take effect. In the table, I agree to mark South Australia as allowing abortion on request but a note should be added to clarify that it's not yet in effect. Heitordp (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It has been assented to by the governor if you check the No. 16 - Thursday, 11 March 2021 (pp. 889–938) SA Gazette. However I cannot find when the act comes into force. I can only see "to be fixed by proclamation". But if I check the previous Gazettes I dont see a proclamation. Nonetheless we can probably replace the map of Australia divided along state lines into simply a solid blue map without lines now like in the US. It is now only a matter of time before the law comes into effect. Gorillainacoupe (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The proclamation should appear in this link. Since the law has received all approvals and now it's just a matter of time, I agree to change the map of Australia removing the internal borders. But the note in the table should be kept until the law comes into effect. Heitordp (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the australia I'm concerned that Asutralia should be divided into states in abortion law map. Every state has been abortion on request since february this year however i think that those steate sholud by still divided on map cause each other has a diffrent law in this matterThe Wolak (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)The Wolak

@Manabimasu: Although the Guttmacher Institute shows an X in Arkansas without a note, the law in Arkansas explicitly allows abortion for risk to life: Heitordp (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

An abortion law in Gibraltar was approved in a referendum as is expected to take effect soon. The law explicitly allows abortion due to risk to the woman's life or health, or fetal impairment. The risk to health includes mental health, and up to 12 weeks of pregnancy it only requires that the risk due to continuing the pregnancy be greater than due to the abortion. It also says that "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment". The whole text is almost identical to the law in the UK and some other current or former British territories, which is interpreted to allow abortion also in cases of rape and social reasons. Several sources repeat that it will include cases of rape and incest, and the referendum campaign spoke about a "broad range of grounds before 12 weeks". Therefore, after the law takes effect, I propose marking Gibraltar in the table as green for risk to life, health and fetal impairment, and light green for rape and social reasons, with notes, and green on the map. Any thoughts? Heitordp (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed to proposed changes but unsure when to edit. When does the law come into effect? If already effective, WP:Bold and make changes.Manabimasu (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The law will come into effect on a day specified in a notice in the official gazette, which must be at most 28 days after the referendum (up to 22 July 2021). Another user already updated the table. Heitordp (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

* Okay. Btw I was not pinged by this template, I just found it on talk page. Lul Borysk5 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The law came into effect today, 15 July 2021. Heitordp (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey! here's some recent info. about abortion in Guam.--JulioW4rrior00 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Brazil allows abortion in case of anencephaly, but not in other cases of fetal impairment. A user recently changed its column in the table from light green to light red, and I find it more appropriate. In this case, I also think that in the map Brazil should be shown in brown instead of yellow. Any thoughts? Heitordp (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dunno man, this yellow colors has been on map for quite a long a time. Changing it now would seem arbitrary. Borysk5 (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I found out that although the decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2012 only concerned anencephaly, other judges have generalized that decision to any cases where the fetal impairment is fatal, and in these cases it's possible to obtain a court order for a legal abortion. In fact, such court orders were already used before the Supreme Court decision. This allowance doesn't apply to fetal impairment that is not fatal, but I think that it's broad enough to mark it in light green in the table and keep yellow in the map. This situation is also similar to some other countries such as the UAE. Heitordp (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Éamon Ortega: The light red and light green colors should only be used when the legality is complex, with a note explaining the issue. You changed the columns of Brazil for risk to life and rape to light green but didn't add notes there. Was there a reason for this change? The Brazilian penal code explicitly allows abortion in these cases, see article 128: Heitordp (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: I changed the "fetal impairment" one (light green to light red) because the Supreme Court decision is only about anencephaly. I changed in risk of life and rape (normal green to light green) because article 128 says that abortion on the cases mentioned in art. 128 I and II won't be penalizated, it doesn't explicited mentioned that of abortion on these cases is legal. Éamon Ortega (talk)

the taliban banned it

Where are the sources? Manabimasu (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The Afghan penal code already prohibited abortion except for risk to the woman's life. According to some news articles, abortion was also allowed in Afghanistan for fetal impairment, and in some cases even for economic reasons, including in areas controlled by the Taliban. There has been no indication that the Taliban plans to change these rules. Abortion for risk to life is allowed in all Muslim countries, including those that implement Sharia. Heitordp (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: The note for Vatican City was referring to article 49 of the Italian penal code of 1889, which fully removes any punishment for what is done under the "necessity to save oneself or others from a grave and imminent danger", known as the right of self-defense. The source that you added cites article 385 of penal code, which reduces the penalty for abortion if it was done to save the woman's honor. This is a different issue. The column in the table here is about risk to life, not honor. Heitordp (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Heitordp: Unless you have secondary sources stating right to self-defense did apply to abortions in the 1889 penal code law. I would remove and only state what is explicitly mentioned in the primary source. See WP:Primary. I see secondary sources which state reducement in punishment for abortion and elimination in capital punishment here and here says that there was no distinction but save mother’s life was seen in 1930’s penal code by court only. Here it says abortion is decriminalized, not specifying on what condition so more broadly not just mother’s life but illegal, so maybe unenforced law. Also, English sources are preferred over non-English source if they do exist, WP:RSUE. Manabimasu (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: In his report to the king of Italy about the penal code of 1889, minister Zanardelli explained that the bill originally had a provision in article 384 explicitly declaring that an abortion done to save the woman's life was not punishable, and that this provision was removed from the final version of the code because this concept was already covered by article 49. I also found this explanation in a legal journal from 1902. These sources are in Italian so I translated the relevant paragraphs to English in the references. Heitordp (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

With the new decision by the Mexican SC, abortion doesn't become automatically legal everywhere, unconstitutional bans statutorily remain on books unenforceable, however the decision sets a legal guiding precedent for all other lower-jurisdiction Mexican courts. So as I understand, a woman who gets sentenced for her abortion can sue a state (I think they call it amparo?) to get freed for violation of her right.

Question: Does that mean that all Mexican red boxes must be greened out like in the US section, or maybe for some reason red boxes must be made yellow? Fixmaster (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fixmaster: I agree. The sources say that the Supreme Court decision only invalidated the abortion law in Coahuila, and that in other states people can still be prosecuted but not imprisoned, and that they may individually request a judicial relief (amparo). It seems similar to the situation of same-sex marriage in Mexico, and how Costa Rica allows requesting a judicial pardon for abortion in case of rape. So I suggest changing only the previously red boxes of Coahuila into light green, and all other Mexican red boxes into light red, with notes. Yellow means a variation by subdivision, so it should be used for the row of Mexico but not for each state. Heitordp (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware, the person posting this item has vision problems, and may accidentally make errors. While I do try very hard not to, mistakes may occur and these are not errors of ignorance, laziness, or stupidity, but are a consequence of my disability. Thank you for your understanding.

This article's accessibility is in question. Colored background in some of the tables are the only method used to communicate important information. Screen readers can not read colors → and . Screen readers can not read these symbols → and . Please see the legend in summary tables. Screen readers can only read the text, they can not read the color boxes with symbols in them. And then look at the corresponding table below, see Abkhazia (for example), the only method used to communicate important information is a colored background with a symbol in it, screen readers can not read that, the row contains no text. Visually impaired readers must have equal access to Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed the symbols to text, so it should be accessible now. Heitordp (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've updated some countries such as Bhutan, Myanmar, San Marino, East Timor, Laos... please if any expert can check it out...

Thank you for all the updates and sources. I made a few changes:

If the source mentions a limit in days, such as 180 days, I stated it that way in the table. It's not necessary to convert all limits to weeks. In addition, the conversion of 180 days to weeks was wrong (24 weeks and 2 days = 170 days).
In Bhutan, I removed the note about the WHO source claiming no gestational limit for risk to life, because that sentence also seems to be wrong about Maldives (see below). I also marked risk to health as only mentioned in guidelines, not law.
The source that you added for Laos mentioned abortion for rape, not fetal impairment. In any case, that source cited guidelines for health workers, which seem to permit abortion for all grounds, while the law still prohibits it for all grounds except risk to life. So we should either mark all grounds as permitted, or all except the first one as prohibited. I previously discussed this situation with another user, who insisted on marking Laos as prohibited (see archive 2 of this talk page).
I removed the sources for Maldives that seemed incorrect or less accurate. According to the translation of the fatwa, Maldives allows abortion for risk to life without gestational limit, and for rape and fetal impairment up to 120 days. This source seems the most reliable as it contains the full text. The Sun article says that all grounds are only up to 120 days, and the WHO source seems to have an error in the figure showing economic/social reasons as permitted instead of fetal impairment. Heitordp (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

More information Law, risk to life ...

Law	risk to life	risk to health	rape	fetal impairment	economic or social	on request
Penal code	no limit	120 days	no limit	120 days	120 days	120 days
Fatwa	no limit	prohibited	120 days	120 days	prohibited	prohibited
Combined	no limit	prohibited	120 days	120 days	prohibited	prohibited

Close

Let me try to clarify Maldives:

The fatwa permits less than the penal code. I think that we should explain each law in the note, and show the combined effect in the table. Heitordp (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

[1] [1]
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_89814/abortion-legislation-bill

[2] [1]
This map has been updated a number of times. For past versions and information regarding revisions, see the file history here.

[1]

[1]

Categorization of rape and incest

RfC about legality of abortion to save woman's life in Vatican City

Categorization of rape and incest

RfC about legality of abortion to save woman's life in Vatican City

Russia

Reversion of addition of vicinal information concerning abortions in countries with restrictive abortion laws

BRD revert: Image colorbox label re Legal on request

Great Britain: Rape or incest

MAP of the introduction is wrong for Brazil

Improving the chart.

Abortion now legal in New Zealand.

Table categories and map colors

Israel

United Kingdom, Great Britain, and this article

Big update to 2019

Editorial support for this article

Legal situation in Germany incorrectly summarized, map incorrect

Angola

Color scheme and Laos

Vatican City - source needed

Jurisdictions with gender-neutral abortion legislation

India and color scheme in map

Women wording

Bangladesh

Timeline

South Korea

Abkhazia

Map showing conflicting laws

East Timor

North Korea

Map updates

Moving some content to an Abortion in Europe page

Chaco

Map followup

South Australia

Arkansas

Gibraltar

Guam

Brazil

Afghanistan banned abortion

Vatican City

Mexico's Supreme Court decision

Accessibility issue

Update