This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Abortion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellazzhq. Peer reviewers: HHuang8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following phrase appears, whether intentionally or unintentionally, more ideological than factual: "in addition to easy access to contraception, abortion remains imperative to China realising its goals of population stability through its One-child policy." The line would read better as "abortion remains one of the several practices through which China hopes to meet the general goals (e.g., population control) of its One-child policy." As it stands, the original statement seems to imply that the practice of abortion, as state policy, necessarily leads to "population stability." (i.e., "abortion remains imperative to China realising its goals of population stability.") In other words, abortion may meet the goals of the policy (the One-child policy), but whether abortion as policy promotes "population stability" remains unsubstantiated.

Herr Klotz (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Herr Klotz[reply]

Yes, the version you saw certainly needed re-wording. I've revised that sentence with close reference to the cited source, which only mentions contraception and abortion as the two ways the one-child policy is implemented. Please feel free to suggest any further improvements, ideally with reference to a source. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be adding some information regarding the history of abortion in China. The rest of the article will be left untouched. If there are any questions, please let me know! Scb3 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article avoids open description of the forced abortions in China, originally for the 1 child policy, now for the two child policy. This needs to be included to more accurately show how the communist China government rules the people.^[1]

China respects peoples choices to start a family they don’t force abortion Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same article used to justify that abortion is a "common way" is not substantiated by the article posted. Instead I've included lines about how access to contraceptive has kept abortion rates low, when compared to other nations like the U.S., which was available in the originally posted article. 4.35.206.186 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion in china is in fact not available only for health reasons as of now. The current redaction of the page state incorrect informations by saying that abortion is available ONLY for health reasons. Access to abortions for non-medical reasons has been restricted, but not prohibited. The informations on the page need to be precised. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarcky1996 is correct. Abortion is not limited to health reasons. The import of the more recent guidelines is also confusingly worded, as it suggests there are guidelines *restricting* non-medical abortions. In fact, it is a *policy goal to reduce* non-medical abortions. But they are not prohibited. I'll take a crack at correcting this. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, by all means, please do.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of making uncited/or ideological edits and have received warnings for engaging in edit wars.

You want us to ignore reliable cited sources. We simply can’t do that here at Wikipedia. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"ideological edits"? where does that come from?? As for the "reliable cited sources", the news articles, read them, and you will find that actually, beyond their click-bait title, they explicitly say what I'm precising: Abortion for non-health reasons is not prohibited, its availability has been reduced and discouraged. An important distinction to make when talking about legal status and availability.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarcky1996 and @Solidarityandfreedom - Snarcky is correct. I have made revisions. I have probably cited more sources than necessary because I wish to avoid controversy. For this reason, it might be good to leave the over-citations in the article.

The sole source for the women must show a medical reason assertion, is a bullet point from a publication called Insider, and which does not appear in the main article. I can find no other source making this claim, and the claim is quite simply wrong and contradicted by more recent publications from more reliable outlets, as well as a comprehensive UN publication on abortion law globally.

Snarcky is also correct about the guidelines. For sure, China has a policy goal and policy guidance aimed to reduce non-medical abortion. But there are not "rules" that impose "restrictions." Quite honestly, I blame the click-bait style headlines, as many of those articles make it clear in the body of the text that there is no "restriction" imposed. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I think you actually deleted some useful informations about the new government guidelines, the edit just before yours, go see it in the history section, did a good job at presenting all the known facts, here some excerpts that i think are needed in the article:

"While there is no nationwide ban on all abortions, China's State Council as well as the non-governmental organization responsible for family planning have issued policy guidance and new rules with the aim of restricting abortions that are not medically necessary."

And:

"In the past, virtually universal access to contraception and abortion was a common way for China to contain its population in accordance with its now-defunct one-child policy, which was removed in 2015 in favor of a two-child policy, which in turn was replaced in 2021 by a three-child policy. In 2021, a Communist Party-backed NGO issued guidelines to reduce non-medically necessary abortions, without specifying an enforcement mechanism.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snarcky1996: I suggest deleting that first passage because it felt repetitious given how short the article is and how soon it gets into the fact of the guidelines. But my position there isn't the only reasonable one, you won't get pushback from me if you want to add it again. Regardless, I do recommend we leave off: "While there is no nationwide ban on all abortions" as confusing. The way I read that phrase, it suggests there was some sort of partial ban, which is not the case (other than sex selective).

I don't think I'm understanding the second point, Snarck? Isn't it just a question of style? I tried to streamline that to: "In the past, virtually universal access to contraception and abortion was a common way for China to contain its population in accordance with its now-defunct one-child policy, which was removed in 2015 in favor of a two-child policy and in turn was replaced by a three-child policy." No trouble to me if you or someone else wants to edit that more though. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second point was mostly about precising the timeline. I think we can leave it as it is for now, it will need refining though.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see! No worries from my perspective if you or someone else want to circle back to those, the only part of these two issues I feel strongly about is leaving off "While there is no nationwide ban on all abortions" removed, because it made me do a double-take and so I figure other people could be confused too. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Solidarityandfreedom take a closer look. Your revisions of a couple minutes ago now make it incorrect again. Also see my notes above here on the talk page. I cited three sources establishing the correct general rule (abortion is available without regard to reason), and this directly refutes the erroneous insider article. You deleted them when you made your change. You can also take a look at my post above on the talk page in case you missed it.

You can review:

"World Population Policies | Population Division". www.un.org. Retrieved 2022-06-24.

"The World's Abortion Laws". Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved 2022-06-24.

"On Abortion Law, the U.S. Is Unusual. Without Roe, It Would Be, Too". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-06-24.

That NY Times article is as clear and recent as it gets. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky looking at your history you have been warned before on other countries in Asia. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, you'll need real arguments. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read the full discussion in order to participate in it, debate, and make your point of view heard. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion legality varies in different regions:

Here is excerpt from Guardian article:

China: new rules to prevent sex-selective abortions raise fears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/china-new-rules-jiangxi-province-prevent-sex-selective-abortions

> “Jiangxi province issued guidelines last week stipulating that women more than 14 weeks pregnant must have signed approval from three medical professionals confirming an abortion is medically necessary before any procedure.”

- Jiangxi province only allows non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

> “In 2004, Guizhou was the first province to enact such a ban. Other Chinese provinces such as Jiangsu, Hunan, Qinghai, Anhui, Henan, and the city of Shanghai have followed suit with varying restrictions on abortions after 14 weeks.”

Guizhou province enacted a ban on non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Less clear: Jiangsu province, Hunan province, Qinghai province, Anhui province, Henan province, and the city of Shanghai which have all enacted some form of restriction on abortion after 14 weeks.

Excerpt from New York Times article:

China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/world/asia/china-abortion-limits.html

> “Obtaining an abortion can already be a somewhat cumbersome process in China. Because of many families’ longstanding preference for boys over girls, sex-selective abortions are illegal, and many regions require women to produce certificates of medical necessity. In Jiangxi Province, for example, women who are more than 14 weeks pregnant must obtain three signatures from medical personnel.”

From the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion (SAWR) [www.safeabortionwomensright.org]:

CHINA – Jiangxi province has restricted abortion after the 14th week of pregnancy because of the sex ratio imbalance https://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/news/china-jiangxi-province-has-restricted-abortion-after-the-14th-week-of-pregnancy-because-of-the-sex-ratio-imbalance/

> “Jiangxi province’s Health and Family Planning Commission recently issued a notice saying that women who are over 14 weeks pregnant who seek an abortion must have the signed approval of three medical professionals to confirm the abortion is medically necessary, according to the provincial government’s news site jxnews.com. The provincial authorities say this is to help to balance the sex ratio.”

(The Chinese gov’t site they mentioned: jxnews.com)

Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I think that these informations can be added to the article then, although they are already mentionned briefly in the current redaction of the article, these restrictions in several provinces after the 14th week of pregnancy need to be talked about in more length. Also, the phrase "generally without restriction for purpose or gestational limits" need to be deleted or reformulated to reflect that. The rest of the article is not affected by these changes. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree? Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added that while there are different rules on abortion in provinces and cities in most regions of China abortion is legal on demand. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a crucial context. The ccp intends to reduce abortions that are not medically necessary by increasing women's access to prenatal care. It is stated in the cited aljazeera and muyingjie articles. It's also stated in the reuters and other sources like cnn.

"The State Council said action would also be taken to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to encourage men to "share responsibility" in preventing them. Authorities aim to improve sex education and strengthen post-abortion and post-childbirth family planning services, the ruling body added."

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-will-reduce-number-abortions-non-medical-purposes-2021-09-27/

And I would suggest removing aljazeera and replacing it with this reuters source, as the title is significantly less misleading and click-baity. And the three of you already agree that this policy is not "restricting" non-medical abortions

DemisJohnson (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the context on the policy goals and pre natal care.

That's a great point on the Al Jazeera articles. That's a confusing headline that gives a wrong impression, so it makes sense to switch to the Reuters article. I see you added Reuters where appropriate already, so I just deleted the A-J references. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is excerpt from Guardian article:

China: new rules to prevent sex-selective abortions raise fears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/china-new-rules-jiangxi-province-prevent-sex-selective-abortions

> “Jiangxi province issued guidelines last week stipulating that women more than 14 weeks pregnant must have signed approval from three medical professionals confirming an abortion is medically necessary before any procedure.”

- Jiangxi province only allows non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

> “In 2004, Guizhou was the first province to enact such a ban. Other Chinese provinces such as Jiangsu, Hunan, Qinghai, Anhui, Henan, and the city of Shanghai have followed suit with varying restrictions on abortions after 14 weeks.”

Guizhou province enacted a ban on non-medically necessary abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Less clear: Jiangsu province, Hunan province, Qinghai province, Anhui province, Henan province, and the city of Shanghai which have all enacted some form of restriction on abortion after 14 weeks.

Excerpt from New York Times article:

China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/world/asia/china-abortion-limits.html

> “Obtaining an abortion can already be a somewhat cumbersome process in China. Because of many families’ longstanding preference for boys over girls, sex-selective abortions are illegal, and many regions require women to produce certificates of medical necessity. In Jiangxi Province, for example, women who are more than 14 weeks pregnant must obtain three signatures from medical personnel.”

From the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion (SAWR) [www.safeabortionwomensright.org]:

CHINA – Jiangxi province has restricted abortion after the 14th week of pregnancy because of the sex ratio imbalance https://www.safeabortionwomensright.org/news/china-jiangxi-province-has-restricted-abortion-after-the-14th-week-of-pregnancy-because-of-the-sex-ratio-imbalance/

> “Jiangxi province’s Health and Family Planning Commission recently issued a notice saying that women who are over 14 weeks pregnant who seek an abortion must have the signed approval of three medical professionals to confirm the abortion is medically necessary, according to the provincial government’s news site jxnews.com. The provincial authorities say this is to help to balance the sex ratio.”

(The Chinese gov’t site they mentioned: jxnews.com) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the way to square that is to reference the general rule as I have done, and then add a reference right after the way I put the sex selective prohibition. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that these restrictions in several provinces after the 14th week of pregnancy need to be talked about in more length. Also, the phrase "generally without restriction for purpose or gestational limits" need to be deleted or reformulated to reflect that. The rest of the article is not affected by these changes. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree? Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will be away from the computer but made an edit to the introduction with two of the citations Solidarity has provided (didn't have time to investigate the safeabortionwomensright.org source, so have left that one off). I think the regional variations are worthy of discussion in the body (Possibly a subheading after history for regional differences?) but don't have the time to address these further at the moment. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your time. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree? Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added that abortion is legal on demand in most regions (provinces+cities) of China. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: My bad, it seems like jiangxi policy is a little bit different, you do need a medical certificate after 14 weeks. But it seems like this only applies to jiangxi.DemisJohnson (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is more accurate to state that only *Jiangxi requires a medical certificate after fourteen weeks. Because no sources (including those cited) indicate that other provinces have the same policy. DemisJohnson (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solidarityandfreedom One sentence from a Guardian article is not enough to prove that other provinces have outlawed non-medical abortion after 14 weeks; there are no credible and not enough sources to support this claim. Furthermore, it doesn't even appear that the Guardian is saying that these provinces prohibit non-medical abortions after 14 weeks.

DemisJohnson (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found after doing a bit of research.

Harbin:"The Regulations of Henan Province on Prohibiting Non-Medical Need for Fetal Gender Identification and Gender-Selective Artificial Termination of Pregnancy"(google-translated). This policy is similar to jiangxi on the surface, it only applies to gender-selective abortion.

http://news.sohu.com/20061228/n247318153.shtml

Jiangxu: "Jiangsu's draft "prohibition of abortion for more than 14 weeks of pregnancy" was suspended by the National People's Congress"(google translated)

https://www.chinanews.com.cn/news/2005/2005-05-25/26/578134.shtml

Anhui: "The website of the Provincial Health and Family Planning Commission announced yesterday the "Prohibition of Non-Medical Needs to Identify Fetal Sex and Select Sex to Terminate Pregnancy (Revised Draft for Comments)"(Google translated)

https://china.huanqiu.com/article/9CaKrnJL4qq

As we can see,these regulations differ from those of Jiangxi because they do not prohibit non-medical abortions after 14 weeks.

And Searching on Google/Baidu yields no results for the prohibition of abortion(14 weeks) in Shanghai, Hunan, Guizhou, or Qinghai, whether or not it is sex-selective. DemisJohnson (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many provinces ban after 14 weeks in non medically necessary cases to crack down on sex-selective since there is no way of telling if someone is doing it for that reason. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recently added sentence asserts that China was the first country to legalize medical abortion. I do not think this is correct as written. It's not what I remember and at least one specific, readily accessible source that makes me doubt the assertion as written is this scholarly paper:

"The first country to reform its abortion law was the Soviet Union, spurred by feminist Alexandra Kollantai, through a decree on women’s health care in October 1920.2 Since then, progressive abortion law reform (the kind that benefits women) has been justified on public health and human rights grounds, to promote smaller families for population and environmental reasons, and because women’s education and improved socioeconomic status have created alternatives to childbearing. Perhaps most importantly, controlling fertility has become both technically feasible and acceptable in almost all cultures today. Yet despite 100 years of campaigning for safe abortion, the use of contraception has been completely decriminalized while abortion has not."

Could someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the incorrect and unsourced statement from the article today. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China in the 20th century has periodically switched between more restrictive abortion policies to more liberal abortion policies and reversals. China is noted as one of the first developing nations to liberalize their abortion laws, although abortion policy shifted back and forth.^[1] Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this up to date? The sentence saying it is banned cites a 2001 Baptist article. Another editor removed it saying mephipristone is available. It's been pu back in again. I would not be surprised if information from 2001 is out of date, but does anyone have a source demonstrating so? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Solidarityandfreedom, if this concerns a specific edit, you should ask the editor. In general, please take this to WP:RSN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember noticing something which cited that website was deleted by someone from the page but I don't remember what the issue was. Do you remember what you want to cite from "Thinking Chinese"? While the talk page is active, it's probably a good time to look again at whatever you the issue was. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites the SCMP for the statement "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." This should be a non-controversial statement. It is entirely supported by the source, which states, "They have been legal for more than half a century since 1953, making China one of the first developing countries in the world to make abortion legal and easily accessible."

@Solidarityandfreedom, you have objected to this and deleted it multiple times. It is important that this accurate and correctly sourced material stays in the article. Your edits have cited a podcast, but nothing you have identified from the podcast runs contrary to the statement we have in the article, "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." Remember that on Wikipedia, we are not synthesizing (see WP:SYNTH) our own evaluations of the facts, we are writing based on the assertions in reliable sources, giving them their due weight.

So if there is something you believe should be added from the podcast on this point, let's have that be the focus. Even disagreement among sources is not grounds for deletion of one that an editor does not like.

In that spirit, I'm starting a talk page section in case you want to discuss as I do not want to bog down in a revert cycle regarding "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." JArthur1984 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a separate discussion that’s why I didn’t talk here

China in the 20th century has periodically switched between more restrictive abortion policies to more liberal abortion policies and reversals. China is noted as one of the first developing nations to liberalize their abortion laws, although abortion policy shifted back and forth.^[1] Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under your standards you would be including England as one of the First Nations to legalize abortion.

England legalized abortion (before ~20 weeks of pregnancy) by the end of the 16th century and ruled that it was a misdemeanor after ~20 weeks of pregnancy in 1765. It was recriminalized in England in 1803 when the United Kingdom enacted Lord Ellenborough's Act, making abortion after ~20 weeks of pregnancy a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before ~ 20 weeks of pregnancy. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That could be part of a very interesting intellectual or policy argument, but that is why I call your attention to WP:SYNTH policy. You have formed your own analysis and want to remove a source you view as inconsistent with your analysis. But, that is not how we edit Wikipedia.

The sentence you removed previously simply says, "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." What you are citing from this podcast doesn't contradict the fact that "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." Your citation makes no comparison to other developing countries whatsoever.

Simply adding the material you want form the podcast is the correct approach. What you want to add is unobjectionable. It's just that there's no ground for the deletion you want to make as well.

I see that you have now tried to reach a compromise by revising the reference to "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible" so that it talks about liberalization. But the problem here is now that you have altered the meaning of the SCMP. This is also a form of WP:SYNTH. The SCMP source was not cabined in terms of liberalization, but rather "legalization" and "accessibility." So this is also not an appropriate way to address your analysis of the sources.

The better approach is to simply leave the sentences next to each other -- "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible" and your comment about policies changing over time. That way the reader can form their own judgment. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984 I didn’t mean to remove your book source I will add back Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthyr1984

Other journals and articles don’t describe it as legalization but rather abortion laws being “relaxed”.

For example:

Rigdon SM: Abortion law and practice in China: an overview with comparisons to the United States. Social Science & Medicine. 1996, 42: 543-560. 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00173-5.

https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-2-5

Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two scholarly articles right there Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response suggests to me that the points I intend to make are not being understood. So I'd like to summarize to see if that helps:

1. The article previously said, "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." This is supported by a reliable source (SCMP is the newspaper of record for Hong Kong), which states, "They have been legal for more than half a century since 1953, making China one of the first developing countries in the world to make abortion legal and easily accessible."

2. You disagree with "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." Your position is that the article is wrong because while abortion was legal in some instances in China in 1953, Chinese abortion law continued to change over time. Initially, you wanted to delete it based on your analysis, because you evidently believe there is some certain amount an abortion policy must be liberalized before you can describe it as legal, even if it is available in some circumstances.

3. This raises a problem with WP:SYNTH. Please note in particular that the policy says, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." A cited source must "directly support" the claim for which it is cited. "A source 'directly support' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research."

4. Attempting to delete the well-sourced sentence "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible," also raises a problem with WP:UNDUE. You may disagree with a conclusion reached by an RS, but you aren't entitled to delete it.

5. You have shown a number of sources showing that China's policy has relaxed or tightened over time. But this is a straw man or a non-sequitur. The statement to be included in the article is simply, "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." Nothing you have shown negates that claim. In fact, you have not cited anything that compares China's legalization speed to other developing countries legalization speed. There is not an actual inconsistency between "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible" and what you cite. Even if there is an inconsistency among reliable sources, we do not pick and choose which we favor.

6. To your credit, you have attempted to compromise, but you have done so in a way that continues to violate our policies. You have created a synthesized sentence relying on your source and the SCMP source. But this continues to be a problem with WP:SYNTH -- you have combined sources based on your own inference to say something which neither source says. You have, for example, watered down the SCMP's point which was not limited to "liberalization" but instead spoke about "accessibility" and "legalization." Likewise, your source does not compare China's pace of legalization to the pace of other developing countries.

In other words, the material you want to cite regarding changes over time should stay. But the meaning of the SCMP cannot be ignored or changed. The article should continue to state, "China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible." JArthur1984 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984, it wasn’t legalization though, it was merely a relaxation of abortion law. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the interesting intellectual argument I referred to -- how much relaxation is necessary before one can say abortion is legalized -- but that's the form of WP:SYNTH I reference. I am removing the synth and including the statement supported by the source. If you still disagree, let's use the Wikipedia Third Opinion procedure and see if that helps us resolve, as it probably won't be productive editing for just us two to dwell on this point after this. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984 trying your hardest to make this article inaccurate I see ehh. Scholarly journals use the term relaxation of abortion laws. NOT, legalization.^[2][3]

Another journal as well: https://www.jstor.org/stable/189264

“The 1953 act still restricted the procedure (abortion) to couples with from four to six children.” Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They allowed it under a very specific set of conditions this is liberalization not legalization since it remains illegal under most conditions. This is like saying England legalized abortion in the 18th century, this argument: “England legalized abortion (before ~20 weeks of pregnancy) by the end of the 16th century and ruled that it was a misdemeanor after ~20 weeks of pregnancy in 1765. It was recriminalized in England in 1803 when the United Kingdom enacted Lord Ellenborough's Act, making abortion after ~20 weeks of pregnancy a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before ~ 20 weeks of pregnancy.” Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China in the 20th century has periodically switched between more restrictive abortion policies to more liberal abortion policies and reversals. China is noted as one of the first developing nations to liberalize their abortion laws, although abortion policy shifted back and forth.^[1] Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]